It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay
Jeanne de`Arc
Equal pay has been the law since 1963. But today, 40 years later, women are
still paid less than men-even when we have similar education, skills and
experience.
In 2003, women were paid 79 cents for every dollar men received. That's $23
less to spend on groceries, housing, child care and other expenses for every
$100 worth of work we do. Nationwide, working families lose $200 billion of
income annually to the wage gap.
State by state fact sheets on equal pay (PDF).
It's not like we get charged less for rent or food or utilities. In fact, we
pay more for things like haircuts and dry cleaning.
Over a lifetime of work, the 23 cents-on-the-dollar we're losing adds up.
The average 25-year-old working woman will lose more than $523,000 to
unequal pay during her working life.
And because we're paid less now, we have less to save for our futures and
we'll earn smaller pensions than men. Half of all women with income from a
pension in 2002 received less than $5,600 per year, compared with $10,340
per year for men.
These figures are even worse for women of color. African American women earn
only 70 cents and Latinas 58 cents for every dollar that men earn. Asian
Pacific American women earn less, too. Their pay inequality is less severe
than for women as a whole, but they still earned only 83.5 cents for every
dollar that men earned in 2000, the most recent year for which data is
available.
Equal pay isn't just a women's issue. When women get equal pay, their family
incomes rise and the whole family benefits. Equal pay helps men, too.
Men in jobs usually or predominately held by women-sales, service and
clerical positions, for example-are also victims of pay bias. The 4 million
men who work in predominately female occupations lose an average of $6,259
each year, according to the 1999 report on Equal Pay for Working Families:
National and State Data on the Pay Gap and Its Costs.
The 25.6 million women in these jobs lose an average of $3,446 a year.
/\,,/\
Jd`A (*-*)__,
```
Tochieeba
"Jeanne de`Arc" <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AVH8c.2982$px6....@news2.e.nsc.no...
> It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay
That's a load of Crap, women do better and fair better, this feminazi myth
of 72 cents on the dollars is the biggest feminist con and hoax to every hit
the media.....tgive it a rest you moron....
The rest of this garabe has been snipped due to misandry and nothing but the
biggest falsehood of crap going.
Jeanne de`Arc
"Tochieeba" <Toch...@nospam7858483.gov,gbg,haha> skrev i melding
news:N_H8c.13862$Ct5.11305@edtnps89...
Face it, you live in a mans dream world idiot.
:)~
>
>
Tochieeba
piss off you feminazi whore, you bullshit and fraud is what bald headed,
nose peicing dykes spout when confronted with the truth. Don't like the
truth in your face, too fucking bad bitch, get over it...As long as I keep
pointing out the truth, you feminazi freaks will keep on being less and less
in the real world..and then people can live a peaceful life, and women can
get on with their families..
> :)~
> >
> >
>
>
Tochieeba
"Zachariah" <zxt...@xxvx.ork> wrote in message
news:c3vimg$41$4...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> "Tochieeba" <Toch...@nospam7858483.gov,gbg,haha> whined :
Is that what you want so you can get lots of nude photo's for your prevert
websites, don't suprpise me in the least.
Go get a real life you freak...and stay away from children..
OffLine
just a shame this man's dream world you accuse other's of living in is just
that...a dream.
every single job i've ever had has no difference in pay between men and
women..not once have i actually encountered a woman who claimed AND proved
she was earning less for identical work than a male colleague.
> :)~
> >
> >
>
>
Tochieeba
"Zachariah" <zxt...@xxvx.ork> wrote in message
> "Tochieeba" <Toch...@nospam7858483.gov,gbg,haha> whined :
> of you?
Women don't and never kick the shit out of me, they make boastful love to
me, unlike you, staring in porno movies for your feminazi group of manly
studs with strap on's... chap lips
>Fucking sissy freak wierdo.
WAhhhhhhhh, still crying a river of stupidity over how your not getting your
feminazi funding, bitch....
CHICAGO, Dec. 22 (UPI) -- For the first time since tracking began 20 years
ago, U.S. women outnumber men in higher paying, white collar managerial and
professional occupations. The gap will continue because of a
self-perpetuating cycle of workplace gains for women, according to
international outplacement firm Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
"As a growing number move into upper management roles, those further down
the ladder will reap the benefits by increasingly being targeted for
advancement," said John A. Challenger, chief executive officer of
Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Bureau of Labor Statistics data indicates
that, as of Nov. 30, women represent 50.6 percent of the 48 million
employees in management, professional and related occupations.
In 1983, the first year the government began recording gender data for its
occupational statistics, women accounted for 40.9 percent of managers and
professionals. "At the computer, women are just as productive as men," said
Challenger. "This fact alone has opened up a world of opportunity for women
and is bringing an end to outdated concepts like the glass ceiling."
Women are now making more money then men are and those same men are more so
taking the place of women in being stay at home dads while women are making
huge amounts of money in their jobs
Note Feminiazi Warning: Something is going very wrong in Canada. We males
are fast becoming an endangered species. Endangered in terms of both our
chances of success or, even worse, making it to a ripe old age. Let's look
at the facts. Within our education system it is very clear that our boys and
young men are not succeeding nearly as well as girls and young women.
Tochieeba
"Zachariah" <zxt...@xxvx.ork> wrote in message
> "Tochieeba" aka ShitForBrainz <Toch...@nospam7858483.gov,gbg,haha>
> whined :
LOL's, you clowns are porno queen's of the internet....
> Seems like your subliminal fantasies are leaking out in your moronic
> rantings. Go put a rubber on the penis sticking out of your low
> forehead before you transmit an std. Fucking perv.
You feminiazi clown's put rubbers on your foreheads, no wonder your anal
dwelling butt monkeys, spread your diseases on the world, you should see a
doctor for that....I'm sure they will teach you the facts of life...
J Fowler
In there is the rub, Jeanne, you gotta do equal work!!
"Everyone seems normal until you get to know them."
Tochieeba
"Zachariah" <zxt...@xxvx.ork> wrote in message
> "Tochieeba" <Toch...@nospam7858483.gov,gbg,haha> whined :
So you just give yourself a good licking on your buttocks, good, that might
smarten you up...
>
> Canadian hookers take plastic now eh MooseFucker?
I wouldn't know, but I guess you do,.is that how you make you money pimping
your sorry ass on the street..
> >me, unlike you, staring in porno movies for your feminazi group of manly
> >studs with strap on's... chap lips
>
> You've made numerous mentions of strap ons. Is that the only way you
> can satisfy your canaduhian bar flys MooseFucker?
LOL's I was only pointing out your feminist side of stupidity, but I'm sure,
if you give up your stupidity, and stop blowing the government, you might
even have a life.
>
> >
> > >Fucking sissy freak wierdo.
> >
> >WAhhhhhhhh, still crying a river of stupidity over how your not getting
your
> >feminazi funding, bitch....
>
> Oh MooseFucker, I'm against feminazi funding. Apparantly you are a
> staunch supporter. Try posting sober ShitForBrainz.
LOL's, you goofy shit, Pretending to posts feminist bullshit, isn't going to
get you laid.. I'm sure if you give up sticking with your socialist
government stupidity, you might end up getting off the street and stop
selling your ass so cheap and you'll get your funding, she-man.
>
> Newbie
Yes you are, moron...
xlzt
"I'm a man bashing slut"
spammy
> In 2003, women were paid 79 cents for every dollar men received. That's $23
> less to spend on groceries, housing, child care and other expenses for every
> $100 worth of work we do.
100 - 79 = 21, not 23. Math is hard!
connor_a
> It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay
> The 25.6 million women in these jobs lose an average of $3,446 a year.
>
> /\,,/\
> Jd`A (*-*)__,
> ```
If women are being paid less for doing the same work, that means they
owe society BILLIONS, TRILLIONS in taxes;
Tochieeba
"connor_a" <conn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6688b088.04032...@posting.google.com...
Gee maybe women's groups who also misuse tax payers money funded to them by
government thugs and terrorist should pay back the BILLIONS, TRILLIONS in
tax money then. Otherwise they are no better then common thieves and
criminals...just like the Liberal government
deepblue
laziness is contemptible.
As has been known for years, when women and men come to a position
with the exact same qualifications, experience, tenure, education,
etc. and put in the same hours, relocate when required, and etc. their
pay is virtually identical. Working Women magazine published articles
on this many years ago. That 76 cents, or 72 cents, or etc number is
published by the US Bureau of Labbor Statistics, and it compares the
income of _all_ full-time working men to _all_ full-time working
women, regardless of the work they do.
The fact that females lag so far beyond is due to their choices. Art
classes are routinely 85% female, engineering classes, 90% male.
Females not only look for easier jobs, they work fewer hours, won't
relocate as often as men will, leave more often, and so forth. They
choose secondary, "fun" jobs, they write feature stories for
newspapers at $100/week wil their husbands have to be out there
earning the family bread. Etc., etc. All these are because women have
choices. Men don't.
The wage gap is an indication of women's laziness, and it's sickening.
Females should work as hard as men do, and contribute as much. Why
should they get a free ride? As the OP says, "It's Time for Working
Women to Earn Equal Pay"--something I agree with completely. Come on,
women, pull your own weight for cripes sake. Look at that wage
gap--and feel ashamed.
Tochieeba
playing the same broken record for so long that in their weird and warped
minds, women are oppressed because of boys now, when their too bloody lazy
to work for a living, instead these same women whinny their blues, figure
men have to give them money on every level, and it is men's duty to fund
their feminiazi cause with their tax money...
They should all be round up and place in some kind of camp
"deepblue" <y...@wish.com> wrote in message
news:reo8609u00h73nkip...@4ax.com...
Tochieeba
"Zachariah" <zxt...@xxvx.ork> wrote in message
> "Tochieeba" <Toch...@nospam7858483.gov,gbg,haha> whined :
>
> >The biggest problem is the radical feminists in Canada
>
Wow your right white nig, how long have you neo nazi skin heads been
spouting your feminist stupidity
Ipacawwop
"Zachariah" <zxt...@xxvx.ork> wrote in message
> "Tochieeba" <Toch...@nospam7858483.gov,gbg,haha> whined :
> N.O.W. meetings Mary?
Ya right you american commie puke, you moron's believe your free but your
not.
Lenin called you pukes "useful idiots," : Those people living in liberal
democracies who by giving moral and material support to a totalitarian
ideology in effect were braiding the rope that would hang them. Why people
who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked passionately to destroy both is a
fascinating question, one still with us today.
"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each
other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." -
George W. Bush, Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003
volantus4
Sophistical Refutations Aristotle
Scr 6: 101
---------------------------------------------------------
First we must grasp the number of aims entertained by those who
argue as competitors and rivals to the death. These are five in
number, refutation, fallacy, paradox, solecism, and fifthly to reduce
the opponent in the discussion to babbling- i.e. to constrain him to
repeat himself a number of times: or it is to produce the appearance
of each of these things without the reality. For they choose if
possible plainly to refute the other party, or as the second best to
show that he is committing some fallacy, or as a third best to lead
him into paradox, or fourthly to reduce him to solecism, i.e. to make
the answerer, in consequence of the argument, to use an ungrammatical
expression; or, as a last resort, to make him repeat himself.
4
-
There are two styles of refutation: for some depend on the language
used, while some are independent of language. Those ways of producing
the false appearance of an argument which depend on language are six
in number: they are ambiguity, amphiboly, combination, division of
words, accent, form of expression. Of this we may assure ourselves
both by induction, and by syllogistic proof based on this- and it may
be on other assumptions as well- that this is the number of ways in
which we might fail to mean the same thing by the same names or
expressions. Arguments such as the following depend upon ambiguity.
'Those learn who know: for it is those who know their letters who
learn the letters dictated to them'. For to 'learn' is ambiguous; it
signifies both 'to understand' by the use of knowledge, and also 'to
acquire knowledge'. Again, 'Evils are good: for what needs to be is
good, and evils must needs be'. For 'what needs to be' has a double
meaning: it means what is inevitable, as often is the case with evils,
too (for evil of some kind is inevitable), while on the other hand we
say of good things as well that they 'need to be'. Moreover, 'The same
man is both seated and standing and he is both sick and in health: for
it is he who stood up who is standing, and he who is recovering who is
in health: but it is the seated man who stood up, and the sick man who
was recovering'. For 'The sick man does so and so', or 'has so and so
done to him' is not single in meaning: sometimes it means 'the man who
is sick or is seated now', sometimes 'the man who was sick formerly'.
Of course, the man who was recovering was the sick man, who really was
sick at the time: but the man who is in health is not sick at the same
time: he is 'the sick man' in the sense not that he is sick now, but
that he was sick formerly. Examples such as the following depend upon
amphiboly: 'I wish that you the enemy may capture'. Also the thesis,
'There must be knowledge of what one knows': for it is possible by
this phrase to mean that knowledge belongs to both the knower and the
known. Also, 'There must be sight of what one sees: one sees the
pillar: (r)ergo the pillar has sight'. Also, 'What you profess to-be,
that you profess-to-be: you profess a stone to-be: (r)ergo you
profess-to-be a stone'. Also, 'Speaking of the silent is possible':
for 'speaking of the silent' also has a double meaning: it may mean
that the speaker is silent or that the things of which he speaks are
so. There are three varieties of these ambiguities and amphibolies:
(1) When either the expression or the name has strictly more than one
meaning, e.g. (r)aetos and the 'dog'; (2) when by custom we use them
so; (3) when words that have a simple sense taken alone have more than
one meaning in combination; e.g. 'knowing letters'. For each word,
both 'knowing' and 'letters', possibly has a single meaning: but both
together have more than one- either that the letters themselves have
knowledge or that someone else has it of them.
Amphiboly and ambiguity, then, depend on these modes of speech. Upon
the combination of words there depend instances such as the following:
'A man can walk while sitting, and can write while not writing'. For
the meaning is not the same if one divides the words and if one
combines them in saying that 'it is possible to walk-while-sitting'
[and write while not writing]. The same applies to the latter phrase,
too, if one combines the words 'to write-while-not-writing': for then
it means that he has the power to write and not to write at once;
whereas if one does not combine them, it means that when he is not
writing he has the power to write. Also, 'He knows now if he has
learnt his letters'. Moreover, there is the saying that 'One single
thing if you can carry a crowd you can carry too'.
Upon division depend the propositions that 5 is 2 and 3, and even
and odd, and that the greater is equal: for it is that amount and more
besides. For the same phrase would not be thought always to have the
same meaning when divided and when combined, e.g. 'I made thee a slave
once a free man', and 'God-like Achilles left fifty a hundred men'.
An argument depending upon accent it is not easy to construct in
unwritten discussion; in written discussions and in poetry it is
easier. Thus (e.g.) some people emend Homer against those who
criticize as unnatural his expression (r)to men ou kataputhetai ombro.
For they solve the difficulty by a change of accent, pronouncing the
(r)ou with an acuter accent. Also, in the passage about Agamemnon's
dream, they say that Zeus did not himself say 'We grant him the
fulfilment of his prayer', but that he bade the dream grant it.
Instances such as these, then, turn upon the accentuation.
Others come about owing to the form of expression used, when what is
really different is expressed in the same form, e.g. a masculine thing
by a feminine termination, or a feminine thing by a masculine, or a
neuter by either a masculine or a feminine; or, again, when a quality
is expressed by a termination proper to quantity or vice versa, or
what is active by a passive word, or a state by an active word, and so
forth with the other divisions previously laid down. For it is
possible to use an expression to denote what does not belong to the
class of actions at all as though it did so belong. Thus (e.g.)
'flourishing' is a word which in the form of its expression is like
'cutting' or 'building': yet the one denotes a certain quality- i.e.
a certain condition- while the other denotes a certain action. In the
same manner also in the other instances.
Refutations, then, that depend upon language are drawn from these
common-place rules. Of fallacies, on the other hand, that are
independent of language there are seven kinds:
(1) that which depends upon Accident:
(2) the use of an expression absolutely or not absolutely but with
some qualification of respect or place, or time, or relation:
(3) that which depends upon ignorance of what 'refutation' is:
(4) that which depends upon the consequent:
(5) that which depends upon assuming the original conclusion:
(6) stating as cause what is not the cause:
(7) the making of more than one question into one.
5
-
Fallacies, then, that depend on Accident occur whenever any
attribute is claimed to belong in like manner to a thing and to its
accident. For since the same thing has many accidents there is no
necessity that all the same attributes should belong to all of a
thing's predicates and to their subject as well. Thus (e.g.), 'If
Coriscus be different from "man", he is different from himself: for he
is a man': or 'If he be different from Socrates, and Socrates be a
man, then', they say, 'he has admitted that Coriscus is different from
a man, because it so happens (r)(accidit) that the person from whom he
said that he (Coriscus) is different is a man'.
Those that depend on whether an expression is used absolutely or in
---------------------------------------------------------
Electronically Enhanced Text (c) Copyright World Library Inc. 1991-1999
avenger
>
> Equal pay has been the law since 1963. But today, 40 years later, women
are
> still paid less than men-even when we have similar education, skills and
> experience.
>
> In 2003, women were paid 79 cents for every dollar men received. That's
$23
> less to spend on groceries, housing, child care and other expenses for
every
> $100 worth of work we do. Nationwide, working families lose $200 billion
of
> income annually to the wage gap.
>
> State by state fact sheets on equal pay (PDF).
>
> It's not like we get charged less for rent or food or utilities. In fact,
we
> pay more for things like haircuts and dry cleaning.
A woman takes 5x as long to get a haircut haha
>
> Over a lifetime of work, the 23 cents-on-the-dollar we're losing adds up.
> The average 25-year-old working woman will lose more than $523,000 to
> unequal pay during her working life.
>
> And because we're paid less now, we have less to save for our futures and
> we'll earn smaller pensions than men. Half of all women with income from a
> pension in 2002 received less than $5,600 per year, compared with $10,340
> per year for men.
But you'll receive social security 8 years longer!
>
> These figures are even worse for women of color. African American women
earn
> only 70 cents and Latinas 58 cents for every dollar that men earn. Asian
> Pacific American women earn less, too. Their pay inequality is less severe
> than for women as a whole, but they still earned only 83.5 cents for every
> dollar that men earned in 2000, the most recent year for which data is
> available.
>
> Equal pay isn't just a women's issue. When women get equal pay, their
family
> incomes rise and the whole family benefits. Equal pay helps men, too.
>
> Men in jobs usually or predominately held by women-sales, service and
> clerical positions, for example-are also victims of pay bias. The 4
million
> men who work in predominately female occupations lose an average of $6,259
> each year, according to the 1999 report on Equal Pay for Working Families:
> National and State Data on the Pay Gap and Its Costs.
You get paid what you're worth in the open market.
Hyerdahl1
>From: Zachariah zxt...@xxvx.ork
>Date: 3/25/2004 2:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <c3vimg$41$4...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>
>
>"Tochieeba" <Toch...@nospam7858483.gov,gbg,haha> whined :
>
>>
>>"Jeanne de`Arc" <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>news:AVH8c.2982$px6....@news2.e.nsc.no...
>>> It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay
>>
>>of 72 cents on the dollars is the biggest feminist con and hoax to every hit
>>the media.....tgive it a rest you moron....
>>
>>The rest of this garabe has been snipped due to misandry and nothing but the
>>biggest falsehood of crap going.
>>
>
bad things can happen near fire. :-) As to voting, it's a right. Get used to
it.
>
>
>
>
Each colony is a family unit, comprising a single egg-laying female ...The
workers cooperate in the food gathering, nest building and rearing offspring.
Males are reared only at times of year when their presence is required.
(Secret Life of Bees)
Mark Sobolewski
"Jeanne de`Arc" <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay
>
> Equal pay has been the law since 1963. But today, 40 years later, women are
> still paid less than men-even when we have similar education, skills and
> experience.
>
> In 2003, women were paid 79 cents for every dollar men received. That's $23
> less to spend on groceries, housing, child care and other expenses for every
> $100 worth of work we do. Nationwide, working families lose $200 billion of
> income annually to the wage gap.
Until you factor in the billions of dollars more that women
take in from welfare, mommy-support, alimony, and marriage.
Mark Sobolewski
hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: It's Time for Working feminist Women quit bullshitting people
> >From: Zachariah zxt...@xxvx.ork
> >Date: 3/25/2004 2:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <c3vimg$41$4...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>
> >
> >"Tochieeba" <Toch...@nospam7858483.gov,gbg,haha> whined :
> >
> >>
> >>"Jeanne de`Arc" <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >>news:AVH8c.2982$px6....@news2.e.nsc.no...
> >>> It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay
> >>
> >>That's a load of Crap, women do better and fair better, this feminazi myth
> >>of 72 cents on the dollars is the biggest feminist con and hoax to every
> >>hit
> >>the media.....tgive it a rest you moron....
> >>
> >>The rest of this garabe has been snipped due to misandry and nothing but
> >>the
> >>biggest falsehood of crap going.
> >>
> >I agree. Keem em naked and in the kitchen with no voting privilages.
> >
> >You have to be careful to keep those inflatable dolls away from the kitchen;
> bad things can happen near fire. :-) As to voting, it's a right. Get used
> to
> it.
Indeed. Voting is one of the few times that anyone (even indirectly)
has to listen to what you think. Some of us have adult relationships
all year round.
regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Sylvester & Tweety
>
> Equal pay has been the law since 1963. But today, 40 years later, women are
> still paid less than men-even when we have similar education, skills and
> experience.
Bzzzzzzzt!
Wrong.
When controlling for education, skills, and experience, women are paid
2%-5% MORE than men with IDENTICAL qualifications.
By your logic, if women are so UNDERpaid for the value of their work, then
companies which employ more women should be beating the pants off of companies
which employ fewer women.
But, in fact, companies with high percentages of women employees tend
to do WORSE than average.
It couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the number of days that women come in
late, leave early, or don't even show up at all, while the MEN in the office
will show up EVERY day, not just on time, but even come in early if needed,
and will stay all day, or even stay late, if needed.
In other words, you sexist sack of shit...WOMEN ARE ***OVER***PAID for what
little piddling work they accidentally happen to perform...
Jeanne de`Arc
"Sylvester & Tweety" <sylveste...@toughguy.net> skrev i melding
news:c655f12c.04032...@posting.google.com...
> "Jeanne de`Arc" <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:<AVH8c.2982$px6....@news2.e.nsc.no>...
> > It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay
> >
> > Equal pay has been the law since 1963. But today, 40 years later, women
are
> > still paid less than men-even when we have similar education, skills and
> > experience.
>
> Bzzzzzzzt!
> Wrong.
>
> When controlling for education, skills, and experience, women are paid
> 2%-5% MORE than men with IDENTICAL qualifications.
>
>
>
> By your logic, if women are so UNDERpaid for the value of their work, then
> companies which employ more women should be beating the pants off of
companies
> which employ fewer women.
Right :)
Or pay them more.
> It couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the number of days that women come in
> late, leave early, or don't even show up at all, while the MEN in the
office
> will show up EVERY day,
What kind of work are you talking about ?
I have never experienced that women are more sick than men.I have not been
sick for years and the men at my work is as sick as the women. If the
children is sick its another case.
But as I have said before: women should stop having children if their father
refuse to step in when his child is sick. Its one of the problemes in
relationships between a man and the woman.
>not just on time, but even come in early if needed,
> and will stay all day, or even stay late, if needed.
At my work the women come in earlyer and live before if they are needed.
I have been working like that for years. If I refuse another person will
step in. I can`t risk to loose my job.
> In other words, you sexist sack of shit...WOMEN ARE ***OVER***PAID for
what
> little piddling work they accidentally happen to perform...
Ohh another little women hater. If you compare a womens trade and mens trade
the women get so little paid that they hardly can live of it. Women do
little or nothing to get more paid in some trades, wich you say are less
valueed.
The question is: Are these trades less valued ?
If all the women stop as nurse, cleaner, saleswoman, trained nurse, some
teachers my country will STOP.
I`m not saying its the mens fault its mostly the womens faults because they
don`t fight for more, and they know it. Women are too thoughtful and
understanding.
I have been working in mens trade or in trades were there are mostly men or
equal men and women. In my country thet get of course equel paid. Thanks to
the men. So I am not a man hater.
/\,,/\
Jd`a (*-*)__,
```
Jeanne de`Arc
news:mark_sobolewski-CE...@news.central.cox.net...
> In article <AVH8c.2982$px6....@news2.e.nsc.no>,
> "Jeanne de`Arc" <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay
> >
> > Equal pay has been the law since 1963. But today, 40 years later, women
are
> > still paid less than men-even when we have similar education, skills and
> > experience.
> >
$23
> > less to spend on groceries, housing, child care and other expenses for
every
> > $100 worth of work we do. Nationwide, working families lose $200 billion
of
> > income annually to the wage gap.
> Until you factor in the billions of dollars more that women
> take in from welfare, mommy-support, alimony,
Women take in????
Are you sick ?
What kind of welfare ?
I am talking about working women without any kind of welfare.
Mommy support ?? Remember not all women are mothers.
A man is needed to make children so "mommy support" is a kind of help to
both the father and the mother I guess.
But do they call it "mommy -support "in your country ?
Its totaly discrimination against women. OVER and OVER again.No I am getting
pissed.
I will rather call it child- support or family -support.
If they call it mommy- support it must be something wrong with the
government and the laws.
IT IS A TOTALLY DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN.
>and marriage.
Women take money from marriage ????
If women divorce there are rules for that too.
So they don`t take anything , the government and the laws in your country
is the one to blame.
NOT THE WOMEN.
If a man marry a woman he should absolutely learn the rules and the laws
before
getting involved or married so should the woman.
No wonder men hate women and women hate men.
Jeanne de`Arc
Jeanne de`Arc
"Bra Inspector No. 39" <big...@hoot.erz> skrev i melding
news:g9od609a53q9c1mna...@my.fart...
> "Jeanne de`Arc" <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >I have been working in mens trade or in trades were there are mostly men
or
> >equal men and women. In my country thet get of course equel paid. Thanks
to
> >the men. So I am not a man hater.
>
Dear little Zack. what do you mean ?
:)
Mark Sobolewski
> "Mark Sobolewski" <mark_so...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
> news:mark_sobolewski-CE...@news.central.cox.net...
> > In article <AVH8c.2982$px6....@news2.e.nsc.no>,
> > >
> > > Equal pay has been the law since 1963. But today, 40 years later, women
> are
> > > still paid less than men-even when we have similar education, skills and
> > > experience.
> > >
> $23
> > > less to spend on groceries, housing, child care and other expenses for
> every
> > > $100 worth of work we do. Nationwide, working families lose $200 billion
> of
> > > income annually to the wage gap.
>
>
> > Until you factor in the billions of dollars more that women
> > take in from welfare, mommy-support, alimony,
>
> Women take in????
> Are you sick ?
I have had a cold for almost a month I can't shake off now. :-)
> What kind of welfare ?
> I am talking about working women without any kind of welfare.
> Mommy support ?? Remember not all women are mothers.
By the same token, not all men are wealthy millionaires either.
We're talking about averages here, no? If you examine only
men's gross wages and count that as income, it's only
telling half of the story. We have to add up all the rest
of the goodies too.
> A man is needed to make children so "mommy support" is a kind of help to
> both the father and the mother I guess.
Non-sequitor. The point is that women do take in money
from mommy-support so they aren't going broke because
they make a few less dollars in the workplace.
In fact, if you add up all the money women aquire from various
sources it's clear that they "earn" far more than men do. This
might help to explain why there are so many stores
geared to women in the ol' shopping mall.
And I'm sure that the "child" support check is often used at
these stores. After all, when women such as girlfriends
of sports athletes cash their $6000 per month "child"
support checks, it can't ALL go to the kids, yes?
> But do they call it "mommy -support "in your country ?
> Its totaly discrimination against women. OVER and OVER again.No I am getting
> pissed.
My oh my! The HORRORS of women cashing "child" support
checks and living entirely off of the state or men. Yes,
women suffer so badly...
I love children. I think everyone ought to exploit one.
Better than raising chickens I guess.
> I will rather call it child- support or family -support.
Yeah, just make sure the checks are made out to "mommy".
> If they call it mommy- support it must be something wrong with the
> government and the laws.
> IT IS A TOTALLY DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN.
Listen, if men REALLY wanted to (upper case here) DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST WOMEN then you'd be in a burqa and cleaning
vegetables now. It's as simple as that.
> >and marriage.
>
> Women take money from marriage ????
> If women divorce there are rules for that too.
Indeed. So many ways women can gain income. "child"
support, divorce, welfare. Yep, women really have
it tough. Let's play a violin for the crack mothers and
the hardships they go through...
> So they don`t take anything , the government and the laws in your country
> is the one to blame.
> NOT THE WOMEN.
> If a man marry a woman he should absolutely learn the rules and the laws
> before
> getting involved or married so should the woman.
And this changes the fact that women are cleaning up from
these laws, how?
You tooted a victim horn and I called you and it and now you're
weaseling. You fight like a girl.
> No wonder men hate women and women hate men.
Actually, most men love women. At least they did before
crybaby feminists thought the world owed them a living.
Maybe if you EARNED half of what you demanded to be handed
to you, you wouldn't have men hate you so much.
Or maybe that's what you really want. Being a victim makes
you important moreso than just admitting you're a housewife
of the state, yes?
regards,
Mark Sobolewski
xlzt
you need anew line bitchy, you've used this one only two days and it's old
already
Ipacawwop
"Jeanne de`Arc" <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:tmB9c.3433$px6....@news2.e.nsc.no...
Get off your kneee's and stop stealing the tax payers money to fund your
criminal propaganda, feminiazi and get a job you moron...so you can use your
own money to pay for your hate groups that are sexist pigs
> :)
>
>
geminii2
She did say women with "similar" skills, education and
experience...she never said they should be able to perform simple
subtraction as well as a man. After all, 21 and 23 are "similar".
Grizzlie Antagonist
<Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>No wonder men hate women and women hate men.
Unfortunately, you are only half right.
Men love women and women hate men - that's why we live in such a
matriarchal society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grizzliea...@yahoo.com
"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause
for tonight's player of the game - AL-BERT-O CAS-S-S-
S-S-S--S-S-TILLO!"
- P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium, July 4, 2003
"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).
- Horace, the Roman poet
MY DEAR ROBINSON: It was your account of a west
country legend which first suggested the idea of
this little tale to my mind. For this, and for
the help which you gave me in its evolution,
all thanks.
Yours most truly, A. CONAN DOYLE.
- Author's dedication of "Hound of the
Baskervilles" to Bertram Fletcher Robinson
geminii2
Well stated. When women become willing to devote as much time
and energy to their careers as men do, they will reap the rewards of
their labor. Until then, why should they expect to earn the same
amount when they will quit as soon as they get a ring or blithely go
"part-time" until their children are old enough to move out. Equal
means equal and I'd like to see an instance in the US today where a
man is making more money than a woman with an equivalent educational
background, years of experience and abilities. It ain't happenin'.
Hyerdahl1
>From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
>Date: 3/28/2004 8:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <f741bce1.04032...@posting.google.com>
>
>"Jeanne de`Arc" <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:<Oqx9c.3394$px6....@news2.e.nsc.no>...
>> "Mark Sobolewski" <mark_so...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
>> news:mark_sobolewski-CE...@news.central.cox.net...
>> > In article <AVH8c.2982$px6....@news2.e.nsc.no>,
>> > "Jeanne de`Arc" <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
>> A man is needed to make children so "mommy support" is a kind of help to>
both the father and the mother I guess.
>
>Non-sequitor.
No it isn't Mark. Her point is made that all children have two biological
co-contributers and that fathers are just as responsible unless they are
legitimate sperm donors and, thus, excused.
The point is that women do take in money
>from mommy-support so they aren't going broke because>they make a few less
dollars in the workplace.
>
Child support is to support the children of TWO biological co-contributors
Mark; you just like to call it "mommy support" to enable you to feel better
about being short.
Cock-a-doodle-doo. :-)
>In fact, if you add up all the money women aquire from various>sources it's
clear that they "earn" far more than men do.
Child support isn't earned; it's owed, to the child, even when another parent,
or grandparent, or foster parent is raising said child. Poor Mark has trouble
with specifics.
This>might help to explain why there are so many stores>geared to women in the
ol' shopping mall.
>
Women who have children to tend often find a dry comfortable place to walk
those children and bring strollers, etc. Malls are good for that in the
winter; parks in the summer. I suppose Mark would much rather see these women
at home taking care of other people's children, and tied to home and hearth,
which is what he seems to intend for his new non-English speaking mail order
alleged bride.
And I'm sure that the "child" support check is often used at these stores.
Could be; children need food and clothing and they can be had at these places.
:-)
Mark just wants women to have to depend on men to TELL them what to buy.
Clearly, women with custody can buy what they feel is in the interests of their
kids, just like they did before the divorce.
After all, when women such as girlfriends
>of sports athletes cash their $6000 per month "child">support checks, it can't
ALL go to the kids, yes?
>
Sure. The kids can have the same lifestyle they had prior to the divorce, and
that may easily include swimming pools and family vacations. No problem Mark.
What Mark wants is mommy in a hovel having to beg for money. He gets high on
that thought alone. Of course, our court system isn't geared to put mothers in
poverty just because daddy gets his jollies that way.
>> But do they call it "mommy -support "in your country ?>> Its totaly
discrimination against women. OVER and OVER again.No I am>getting pissed.
>
No need to fret Jeanne; the only people who call it mommy support is a small
group of disgruntled sexists on this NG, and a few pissed off men who don't
want to support their kids.
>My oh my! The HORRORS of women cashing "child" supportchecks and living
entirely off of the state or men. Yes,
>women suffer so badly...
That's the thing that makes Mark sweat, Jeanne, the FACT that women don't have
to suffer per se just because disgruntled men would rather support a new hobby
or new family than their first family.
The courts, and the press call child support, child support, and just let
bitter boys like Mark stew in their own juices.
>I love children. I think everyone ought to exploit one. >Better than raising
chickens I guess.
Of course, Mark knows that one need not risk having kids if one doesn't want to
pay child support. It actually works quite nicely.
>
>> I will rather call it child- support or family -support.
>
>Yeah, just make sure the checks are made out to "mommy".
>
Poor Mark; he's so linear in his thought process that he cannot adjust for the
fact that many kids are raised by grandparents, step parents, foster parents,
etc. He just enjoys the kinds of labels that help him sleep better at night.
>> If they call it mommy- support it must be something wrong with the>>
government and the laws.
>> IT IS A TOTALLY DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN.
No, Jeanne; it's just a label bitter boys give to the mothers who stay because
the fathers who leave don't want to pay. AND, Mark is perfectly free to vent
his spleen here. The courts and govt. don't seem to follow Mark's grand plan.
:-)
>>Listen, if men REALLY wanted to (upper case here) DISCRIMINAT>AGAINST WOMEN
then you'd be in a burqa and cleaning>vegetables now. It's as simple as that.
Poor Mark envisions a west where women don't have rights AND GUNS, and a world
where all men hate women. Of course, the world isn't that way; women do have
rights and guns and men who love free and equal women don't need to put women
down in order to get their dicks up. :-) Mark wants to write a new "LORD OF
THE DICKS" where men have all the rights and women darn all the socks.
>
>>
L.S.Lamey
<Ipac...@statewogowanga.us.uk> wrote:
>
>"Jeanne de`Arc" <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:tmB9c.3433$px6....@news2.e.nsc.no...
>>
>> "Bra Inspector No. 39" <big...@hoot.erz> skrev i melding
>> news:g9od609a53q9c1mna...@my.fart...
>> > "Jeanne de`Arc" <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >I have been working in mens trade or in trades were there are mostly
>men
>> or
>> > >equal men and women. In my country thet get of course equel paid.
>Thanks
>> to
>> > >the men. So I am not a man hater.
>> >
>> > Do they throw in the knee pads or do you have to purchase your own?
>>
>> Dear little Zack. what do you mean ?
>
>Get off your kneee's and stop
< SLAP>
Shut the fuck up!
>
Jeanne de`Arc
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <grizzliea...@earthlink.net> skrev i melding
news:rl5e60lpu1tmql7m5...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:02:20 +0200, "Jeanne de`Arc"
> <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
> >No wonder men hate women and women hate men.
>
>
> Unfortunately, you are only half right.
>
> Men love women and women hate men - that's why we live in such a
> matriarchal society.
What awfully bitch did you dump into ?
If you want to talk about it its ok.
:)~
Grizzlie Antagonist
<Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>"Grizzlie Antagonist" <grizzliea...@earthlink.net> skrev i melding
>news:rl5e60lpu1tmql7m5...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:02:20 +0200, "Jeanne de`Arc"
>> <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >No wonder men hate women and women hate men.
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, you are only half right.
>>
>> Men love women and women hate men - that's why we live in such a
>> matriarchal society.
>
>What awfully bitch did you dump into ?
You, Chive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grizzliea...@yahoo.com
Here's a clue for those alive.
Jeanne d'Arc is Chive.
Jeanne de`Arc
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:02:00 +0200, "Jeanne de`Arc"
> <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Grizzlie Antagonist" <grizzliea...@earthlink.net> skrev i melding
> >news:rl5e60lpu1tmql7m5...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:02:20 +0200, "Jeanne de`Arc"
> >> <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >No wonder men hate women and women hate men.
> >>
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, you are only half right.
> >>
> >> Men love women and women hate men - that's why we live in such a
> >> matriarchal society.
> >
> >What awfully bitch did you dump into ?
>
>
> You, Chive.
Lol..you don`t know me.
Jeanne de`Arc
"geminii2" <gemi...@sbcglobal.net> skrev i melding
news:a07b18e4.04032...@posting.google.com...
I were just testing you head.
well it seem to me that you managed 100-79.
What about:
Ø Find out if your IQ is between 30 and 60 and solve these:
62six=, 101six=, 343six=
113twelve=, 52twelve=,10110two=
3331four=, 23five=, 2B8twelve=
Nice to have you here..(I will give you the fasit later if you try.)
:)~~,``
xlzt
make me, punk
Ipacawwop
"L.S.Lamey" < tean...@netzero.net > wrote in message
news:93b756944767d8a1...@news.teranews.com...
Get off your kneee's and stop stealing the tax payers money to fund your
Jeanne de`Arc
"Ipacawwop" <Ipac...@statewogowanga.us.uk> skrev i melding
news:ZaE9c.27448$Ct5.20913@edtnps89...
UUUps your nose is growing lier.
I pay to much tax in my society.
I am not a sexist, I am normal.
:)
Ipacawwop
I never lie about feminazi stupidity.
> I pay to much tax in my society.
you steal tax payers funding for women's groups
> I am not a sexist, I am normal.
you an idiot..
> :)
>
>
L.S.Lamey
>
>Get off your kneee's and stop stea < SLAP >
Seven Nation Amy
Mark, you'll need to dumb down the next troll. You'll never hook Jon De
Arse with all those big words.
Grizzlie Antagonist
<Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>"Grizzlie Antagonist" <grizzliea...@earthlink.net> skrev i melding
>news:fl9e609fubb69bvav...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:02:00 +0200, "Jeanne de`Arc"
>> <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Grizzlie Antagonist" <grizzliea...@earthlink.net> skrev i melding
>> >news:rl5e60lpu1tmql7m5...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:02:20 +0200, "Jeanne de`Arc"
>> >> <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >No wonder men hate women and women hate men.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately, you are only half right.
>> >>
>> >> Men love women and women hate men - that's why we live in such a
>> >> matriarchal society.
>> >
>> >What awfully bitch did you dump into ?
>>
>>
>> You, Chive.
>
>Lol..you don`t know me.
I think that I do, as do most in the soc.men newsgroup, but I'll try
to keep an open mind on the issue.
I'm not CERTAIN yet.
Ipacawwop
>
> >
> >Get off your kneee's and stop stea < SLAP >
Still hoping to get luckey hay, are you chimp troll..
Ipacawwop
>
> Your value doesn't even amount to the appalling squandering of oxygen
> and water required to keep you from being maggot meat, you
> dungaree-sporting dufus. Do the world a favor: jump into a snake pit
> and play Twister with the rattlesnakes, you cum-spitting bobblehead on
> a special needs tricycle.
Hay lumpy, check your pants, you stink..
Seven Nation Amy
> "L.S.Lamey" < tean...@netzero.net > wrote in message
> news:a4087946c2b3f9f8...@news.teranews.com...
>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 23:55:17 GMT, "Ipacawwop"
>> <Ipac...@statewogowanga.us.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"L.S.Lamey" < tean...@netzero.net > wrote in message
>> >news:dde64cd7f17aabf2...@news.teranews.com...
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Get off your kneee's and stop stea < SLAP >
>> >
>> >Still hoping to get luckey hay, are you chimp troll..
>> >
>> I got you dancing.
>>
>> Your value doesn't even amount to the appalling squandering of oxygen
>> and water required to keep you from being maggot meat, you
>> dungaree-sporting dufus. Do the world a favor: jump into a snake pit
>> and play Twister with the rattlesnakes, you cum-spitting bobblehead on
>> a special needs tricycle.
>
> Hay lumpy, check your pants, you stink..
*chuckle*
Hyerdahl1
>From: "Tochieeba" Toch...@nospam7858483.gov,gbg,haha
>Date: 3/25/2004 2:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <wiI8c.14103$Ct5.11118@edtnps89>
>
>
>"Jeanne de`Arc" <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:C1I8c.2986$px6....@news2.e.nsc.no...
>>
>> "Tochieeba" <Toch...@nospam7858483.gov,gbg,haha> skrev i melding
>> news:N_H8c.13862$Ct5.11305@edtnps89...
>> >
>> > "Jeanne de`Arc" <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> > news:AVH8c.2982$px6....@news2.e.nsc.no...
>> > > It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay
>> >
>myth of 72 cents on the dollars is the biggest feminist con and hoax to every
hit the media.....tgive it a rest you moron....
Since no one died and made you god, you can give it a rest, dear. No one will
pay you any mind.
>> >
>> > The rest of this garabe has been snipped due to misandry and nothing but
>> the>> > biggest falsehood of crap going.
>>
Women will continue to point out any inequity that exists in society, whether
or not you want to hear it, 'touchie' :-) You see, we don't really care about
how you 'feel' about that.
>> Face it, you live in a mans dream world idiot.
You live in an alternate universe if you vainly imagine women are going to put
up with your crap, dear. Go get thee a blow up doll and sit in your cabin in
the woods.
Oh, wait; it probably won't have an air compressor. Ok go sit in your
mother's apartment. :-)
>
>piss off you feminazi whore, you bullshit and fraud is what bald headed,
>nose peicing dykes spout when confronted with the truth. Don't like the
>truth in your face, too fucking bad bitch, get over it...
There's nothing TO "get over" dickdork; women have equal rights, and now
they're enforcing them. Better look over your shoulder, hon, before some woman
gets your job. :-)
As long as I keep>pointing out the truth, you feminazi freaks will keep on
being less and less>in the real world..and then people can live a peaceful
life, and women can
>get on with their families..
>
Women ARE getting on quite nicely dear. They're doing everything you are doing
PLUS gestating.
>
Each colony is a family unit, comprising a single egg-laying female ...The
workers cooperate in the food gathering, nest building and rearing offspring.
Males are reared only at times of year when their presence is required.
(Secret Life of Bees)
Macaroni Acid Rush
> "Sylvester & Tweety" <sylveste...@toughguy.net> skrev i melding
> news:c655f12c.04032...@posting.google.com...
>>> It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay
>>>
>>> women are still paid less than men-even when we have similar
>>> education, skills and experience.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> When controlling for education, skills, and experience, women are
>> paid 2%-5% MORE than men with IDENTICAL qualifications.
>>
>>
>>
>> By your logic, if women are so UNDERpaid for the value of their
>> work, then companies which employ more women should be beating the
>> pants off of companies which employ fewer women.
>
> Right :)
> Or pay them more.
Typical woman, always after more cash.
Seven Nation Amy
>>>> and water required to keep you from being maggot meat, you
>>>> dungaree-sporting dufus. Do the world a favor: jump into a snake pit
>>>> and play Twister with the rattlesnakes, you cum-spitting bobblehead on
>>>> a special needs tricycle.
>>>
>>> Hay lumpy, check your pants, you stink..
>>
>>*chuckle*
>
I'll fucking slurp if I like, wotchyoo gonna do about it, fat boy?
> The twit is obsessed with my pants? Typical brit.
Ipacawwop
"Seven Nation Amy" <7...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns94BB7FEE2DCFCmizcheef@avin-a-larf...
(L.S.Lamey) I guess the L.S. part means (Lumpy Sissyboy) well everyone can
call you lumpy, "do to the fact", your girly-men freinds have to clean your
bum everytime you get excited. (What's that smell again, oh it's Lumpy doing
it again....can someone clean it up)
Seven Nation Amy
Dood, word of advice. Keep 'em short. Short was funny.
Ipacawwop
Short is fun, but lumpy the chimp, isn't doing any more tricks...Someone
give him a banana
Jeanne de`Arc
"Seven Nation Amy" <7...@privacy.net> skrev i melding
news:Xns94BBBCE441E8Cmizcheef@avin-a-larf...
He is good, and Lumpy Sissyboy is the right name for Zack aka Lamey
Society
news:20040328134331...@mb-m25.aol.com...
>
> Mark Sobolewski noted for the record...
> >
> > Jeanne de`Arc wrote...
> >>
> >> A man is needed to make children so "mommy
> >> support" is a kind of help to both the father
> >> and the mother I guess.
> >
> >Non-sequitor.
>
> No it isn't Mark.
<laugh>
> Her point is made that all children have two biological
> co-contributers and that fathers are just as responsible
> unless they are legitimate sperm donors and, thus,
> excused.
Lessee, Carol Ann buzzes "fathers are just as responsible"
one post and in numerous other posts she has claimed that baby-making is
solely a woman's "choice". Clearly,
consistency is not a virtue among feminists. Ha ha.
> The point is that women do take in money from
> mommy-support so they aren't going broke because
> they make a few less dollars in the workplace.
So you say. However the reality is that women who
"make a few less (sic) dollars in the workplace" can
make more dollars by showing more commitment
to making "a few" more "dollars in the workplace".
Around junior year of high school, boys begin to repress
their interest in foreign languages, literature, art history,
sociology, and anthropology because they know an art history
major will make less than an engineer. Partially as a result
of his different spending expectation (the possibility he
might have to support a woman but cannot expect a woman
to support him), more than 85 percent of students who take
engineering as a college major are men; more than 80 percent
of the art history majors are women.
The difference in the earnings of the female art historian
vs. the male engineer appears to be a measure of discrimination,
when in fact both sexes knew ahead of time engineering
would pay more. In fact, the woman who enters engineering
with the same lack of experience as the man averages $571
per year _more_ than her male counterpart.
Warren Farrell, _The Myth of Male Power_;
New York: Berkley Books, 1996
page 11. [emphasis Farrell's]
> Child support is to support the children of TWO biological
> co-contributors Mark;
Mark and I know better, Carol Ann. Here's a clue for you:
You aren't fooling any of the adults around here.
As has been explained to you (and others who have repeated
the same lie you're moaning now) in past posts, if mommy-
support isn't for mommy then mommy would be expected
to pay back everything she has spent on mommy's whims
by the Establishment that enforces that which you object
to calling "mommy-support". The Establishment doesn't.
Therefore, it is mommy-support.
> you just like to call it "mommy support" to enable you
> to feel better about being short. Cock-a-doodle-doo. :-)
You'd like to believe that, Carol Ann, but the adults here
can see at a glance that Mark is realistic and you are
living a fantasy life that you fear losing.
Yes, rather than women like you expecting a handout
equal to the pay men EARN, Carol Ann, it is time
you learned that laying on your backside is not "working",
'cept for "working girls".
--
Men are generous to women, often foolishly so.
Ipacawwop
> on. < if it was still the 70s >
I sure your flaming gay ass is already well used, as it is lumpy
>
> < snicker >
Hyerdahl1
>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>Date: 3/28/2004 11:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <rl5e60lpu1tmql7m5...@4ax.com>
>
>On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:02:20 +0200, "Jeanne de`Arc"
><Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
>>No wonder men hate women and women hate men.
>
>
>Unfortunately, you are only half right.
>
>Men love women and women hate men - that's why we live in such a
>matriarchal society.
A slave never will love a master, Dave; and since the word, misogyny has been
around a bit longer than any word indicating the hatred of men by women I
suggest you are quite wrong.
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
>grizzliea...@yahoo.com
>
>"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause
> for tonight's player of the game - AL-BERT-O CAS-S-S-
> S-S-S--S-S-TILLO!"
>
> - P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium, July 4, 2003
>
>"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
> hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).
>
> - Horace, the Roman poet
>
>MY DEAR ROBINSON: It was your account of a west
>country legend which first suggested the idea of
>this little tale to my mind. For this, and for
>the help which you gave me in its evolution,
>all thanks.
>
>Yours most truly, A. CONAN DOYLE.
>
> - Author's dedication of "Hound of the
>Baskervilles" to Bertram Fletcher Robinson
>
>
>
>
>
>
Heidi Graw
"Jeanne de`Arc" <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:tmB9c.3433$px6....@news2.e.nsc.no...
>
> "Bra Inspector No. 39" <big...@hoot.erz> skrev i melding
> news:g9od609a53q9c1mna...@my.fart...
men
>> or
> > >equal men and women. In my country thet get of course equel paid.
Thanks
>> to
> > >the men. So I am not a man hater.
> >bra inspector wrote:
> > Do they throw in the knee pads or do you have to purchase your own?
> Jeanne wrote:
> Dear little Zack. what do you mean ?
> :)
It's like this, Jeanne de'Arc:
On bended knees man submits to god.
On bended knees man begs the lady's hand.
On bended knees man f*cks her.
It's natural for a man to be on his knees! In many instances it's his
prefered position! It's man who needs the kneepads. And if women want to
do men's work, they hafta get their own pads, too.
But, you know what? I find this crawling around on the knees a bit too
degrading. I won't do it myself. And I prefer to raise up my man from off
his knees to walk alongside me as an equal, rather than have him be that
sniveling nithing.
Take care,
Heidi
>
>
Jeanne de`Arc
"Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> skrev i melding
news:2zcac.46674$R27.46033@pd7tw2no...
Well said.
Hope you learned something Zack ;)~
>
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
Jeanne de`Arc
"L.S.Lamey" < tean...@netzero.net > skrev i melding
news:fba2dc2fb2b02108...@news.teranews.com...
No, you take every creeping creature.
Ipacawwop
"Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:2zcac.46674$R27.46033@pd7tw2no...
>
> It's like this, Jeanne de'Arc:
>
> On bended knees man submits to god.
> On bended knees man begs the lady's hand.
> On bended knees man f*cks her.
>
> It's natural for a man to be on his knees! In many instances it's his
> prefered position! It's man who needs the kneepads. And if women want to
> do men's work, they hafta get their own pads, too.
>
> But, you know what? I find this crawling around on the knees a bit too
> degrading.
Now Heidi, you know if your man waved some cash at you, and said, "crawl
women", you take the money and Crawl. :-0
>I won't do it myself.
yes you would, for $$$$$$$$$$$$$
And I prefer to raise up my man from off
> his knees to walk alongside me as an equal, rather than have him be that
> sniveling nithing.
Good for you Heidi, but how much would it cost him...:-)
>
> Take care,
> Heidi
>
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
Jeanne de`Arc
>
> "Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:2zcac.46674$R27.46033@pd7tw2no...
>
> >
> > It's like this, Jeanne de'Arc:
> >
> > On bended knees man submits to god.
> > On bended knees man begs the lady's hand.
> > On bended knees man f*cks her.
> >
> > It's natural for a man to be on his knees! In many instances it's his
> > prefered position! It's man who needs the kneepads. And if women want
to
> > do men's work, they hafta get their own pads, too.
> >
> > But, you know what? I find this crawling around on the knees a bit too
> > degrading.
>
> Now Heidi, you know if your man waved some cash at you, and said, "crawl
> women", you take the money and Crawl. :-0
Men with money do not interest me. I have said no a thousend time to rich
men..
I don`t depends on the money, but their a mans head and heart.
>
> >I won't do it myself.
>
> yes you would, for $$$$$$$$$$$$$
You dont know all women.
Some women don`t take a man for the money.
Like me and Heidi for example.
:)
Ipacawwopp.
>
> "Ipacawwop" <Ipac...@statewogowanga.us.uk> skrev i melding
> news:0Xhac.5144$%w2.3674@clgrps13...
> >
> > "Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:2zcac.46674$R27.46033@pd7tw2no...
> >
> > >
> > > It's like this, Jeanne de'Arc:
> > >
> > > On bended knees man submits to god.
> > > On bended knees man begs the lady's hand.
> > > On bended knees man f*cks her.
> > >
> > > It's natural for a man to be on his knees! In many instances it's his
> > > prefered position! It's man who needs the kneepads. And if women
want
> to
> > > do men's work, they hafta get their own pads, too.
> > >
> > > But, you know what? I find this crawling around on the knees a bit
too
> > > degrading.
> >
> > Now Heidi, you know if your man waved some cash at you, and said, "crawl
> > women", you take the money and Crawl. :-0
>
> Men with money do not interest me. I have said no a thousend time to rich
> men..
> I don`t depends on the money, but their a mans head and heart.
Bullshit, you can't live on a mans head and heart, honey who the fuck do you
think your kidding, I can see your kidding yourself.
> >
> > >I won't do it myself.
> >
> > yes you would, for $$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> You dont know all women.
You do not know MRS. H. as if you did you would have known as she claimed
she charges her husband money to do things.
> Some women don`t take a man for the money.
> Like me and Heidi for example.
Heidi does, I don't know about you but you might rape men for money as far
as anyone knows. :-)
>
> :)
>
>
Ipacawwopp.
"Jeânne de`Arç" <Jeânne@micrôsôft.côm> wrote in message
news:ccc7b12a31ada671...@news.1usenet.com...> <0Xhac.5144$%w2.3674@clgrps13>
> >
> >"Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> >news:2zcac.46674$R27.46033@pd7tw2no...
> >
> >>
> >> It's like this, Jeanne de'Arc:
> >>
> >> On bended knees man submits to god.
> >> On bended knees man begs the lady's hand.
> >> On bended knees man f*cks her.
> >>
> >> It's natural for a man to be on his knees! In many instances it's his
> >> prefered position! It's man who needs the kneepads. And if women want
to
> >> do men's work, they hafta get their own pads, too.
> >>
> >> But, you know what? I find this crawling around on the knees a bit too
> >> degrading.
> >
> >Now Heidi, you know if your man waved some cash at you, and said, "crawl
> >women", you take the money and Crawl. :-0
>
Yes you are a male idiot, who is the female in your family.
Jeanne de`Arc
"Jeânne de`Arç" <Jeânne@micrôsôft.côm> skrev i melding
news:4ed571727931f3a5...@news.1usenet.com...
> "Ipacawwopp." <Ipacawwopp.@statewogo.wanga.us...uk> skrev i melding
> <Fxiac.5153$%w2.2087@clgrps13>
Well, thank you so far.
Stop using my name obsesso.
:|~
Jeanne de`Arc
"Ipacawwopp." <Ipacawwopp.@statewogo.wanga.us...uk> skrev i melding
I`m working, and I want a man with a job,
but I don`t care if he is a carpenter or a stock-broker.
I want a man with a heart and brain.
> > >
> > > >I won't do it myself.
> > >
> > > yes you would, for $$$$$$$$$$$$$
> >
> > You dont know all women.
>
> You do not know MRS. H. as if you did you would have known as she claimed
> she charges her husband money to do things.
Well, some women is just like that, and I am not.
>
> > Some women don`t take a man for the money.
> > Like me and Heidi for example.
You sound like a wanne be troll.
Ipacawwopp.
"Jeânne de`Arç" <Jeânne@micrôsôft.côm> wrote in message
> "Ipacawwopp." <Ipacawwopp.@statewogo.wanga.us...uk> skrev i melding
Ipacawwopp.
In other words "money matters honey", just like I said, as you stated, ("Men
with money do not interest me. I have said no a thousend time to rich men..
I don`t depends on the money, but their a mans head and heart.")
So you can't have it both ways....So you contract yourself out for money but
only if men have money, double play honey.....
> > > >
> > > > >I won't do it myself.
> > > >
> > > > yes you would, for $$$$$$$$$$$$$
> > >
> > > You dont know all women.
> >
> > You do not know MRS. H. as if you did you would have known as she
claimed
> > she charges her husband money to do things.
>
> Well, some women is just like that, and I am not.
> >
> > > Some women don`t take a man for the money.
> > > Like me and Heidi for example.
>
> You sound like a wanne be troll.
Oh no, no troll, missy, I'm as real as they come....Honey.
>
>
Ipacawwopp.
"Jeânne de`Arç" <Jeânne@micrôsôft.côm> wrote in message
> "Ipacawwopp." <Ipacawwopp.@statewogo.wanga.us...uk> skrev i melding
I AM WOMEN
Jeanne de`Arc
"Ipacawwopp." <Ipacawwopp.@statewogo.wanga.us...uk> skrev i melding
YOU are THE TROLL !!
The conversation is over.
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
Jeanne de`Arc
"Jeânne de`Arç" <Jeânne@micrôsôft.côm> skrev i melding
> "Ipacawwopp." <Ipacawwopp.@statewogo.wanga.us...uk> skrev i melding
Apart fromthe first it sound like me.
I am not his honey ;)
Jeanne de`Arc
"Jeânne de`Arç" <Jeânne@micrôsôft.côm> skrev i melding
> "Ipacawwopp." <Ipacawwopp.@statewogo.wanga.us...uk> skrev i melding
My god you are funny.
Am I so funny for the readers ?
:)
Mark Sobolewski
> Carol Ann, a frightened hyerdahl, buzzed nervously in message
> news:20040328134331...@mb-m25.aol.com...
> >
> > Mark Sobolewski noted for the record...
> > >
> > > Jeanne de`Arc wrote...
> > >>
> > >> A man is needed to make children so "mommy
> > >> support" is a kind of help to both the father
> > >> and the mother I guess.
> > >
> > >Non-sequitor.
> >
> > No it isn't Mark.
>
> <laugh>
>
> > Her point is made that all children have two biological
> > co-contributers and that fathers are just as responsible
> > unless they are legitimate sperm donors and, thus,
> > excused.
>
> Lessee, Carol Ann buzzes "fathers are just as responsible"
> one post and in numerous other posts she has claimed that baby-making is
> solely a woman's "choice". Clearly,
> consistency is not a virtue among feminists. Ha ha.
Hello society,
Actually, I'm rather, how shall I put this, busy lately :-) and
sometimes just don't have time (as much as I would like)
to pick her posts apart but when I see another buzzard at a carcass
I just feel this need to join in. :-)
Her inconsistency is especially amusing as she tries to pre-weasle
by excusing "legitimate" sperm donors (as compared to non-legitimate
sperm donors?) Here's how it works: if the mommy allows the man
to give her sperm to gestate the child into poverty and it's ok
with her, then to hell with the kid. But if the man doesn't
first get the permission from the mother to do this, then
the kids interests suddenly matter. (This is similar to her
thinking that women deserve a medal for the sacrifice of
gestating a child for 9 months and pre-mothering it
unless she decides it's just a piece of tissue and kills it.)
I think that was my point? Doesn't matter. I was pointing out
that even when women do slack off they still get money
from child exploitation or pity handouts.
> > Child support is to support the children of TWO biological
> > co-contributors Mark;
>
> Mark and I know better, Carol Ann. Here's a clue for you:
> You aren't fooling any of the adults around here.
>
> As has been explained to you (and others who have repeated
> the same lie you're moaning now) in past posts, if mommy-
> support isn't for mommy then mommy would be expected
> to pay back everything she has spent on mommy's whims
> by the Establishment that enforces that which you object
> to calling "mommy-support". The Establishment doesn't.
> Therefore, it is mommy-support.
Parg would argue that mommy "supports" the child by
exploiting it for cash and not killing it that week.
(Ok, but not in those words :-)
The irony of this (pardon me for copying Jet :-) is that
this road she's on was set up by Reagan long ago:
Eliminate (or seemingly) the tax problem of socialist
motherhood by going after the father. And because it was
man hating, the feminists sucked it up like a hoover
deluxe.
Her MISTAKE is that men are learning and it's mostly
minority men (who would have voted democrat in Florida)
who wind up with prison records and unable to vote.
At the same time, public sentiment is that no new
social programs are needed because those rich
deadbeat dads have so much money. Most awards,
as you know, are in the $300 a month range. Good luck
to 'em.
> > you just like to call it "mommy support" to enable you
> > to feel better about being short. Cock-a-doodle-doo. :-)
I was going to reply to her and say that was a low blow
but I'll do it here. :-)
Since she cares to ask about my personal life... :-),
I honestly (repeat, honestly) never gave being short
a second thought until I was probably 21 years old or
so. Seriously. The polish-irish working class neighborhood
I grew up in had a lot of short men and also normal women.
Looking back, I realize what a different world it was.
Ironically, when I got to college, I did come across
some jerks but surprisingly it was from a select minority.
Maybe a few jocks here or there and some bimbos.
Revenge of the nerds stuff. Most of these people were
hardly Mother Theresas so I didn't give it much
of a second thought.
After I graduated, I then experienced a lot of hassle for
being short but mostly from aging single professional women or from
insecure men. I looked at the source and put it into
perspective.
Later on, I met some people from my high school and college
who had been jerks and I was surprised to discover that many
of them turned out ok (one even apologized for making rude
remarks. I told him to not worry about it.) The jerks who
were still jerks tended to be quiet because they had gained
weight or lost hair (match the gender with the problem :-)
So in answer to Parg's question: I feel GREAT about being short!
I can ride in an airport economy seat so comfortably that I
reject business class because I want the extra miles. :-)
I also zip around in a compact car and get to fit in those
tight spaces.
Life turned out ok by me so I'm not going to fret.
Sorry, Parg, but you asked!
> You'd like to believe that, Carol Ann, but the adults here
> can see at a glance that Mark is realistic and you are
> living a fantasy life that you fear losing.
Well, no.
Carol Ann doesn't even have that life. That's why she
hates men so much. She never got to double dip.
She had to live through the glories of other women who
stop through her pizza shop and order a coke from her
and act superior.
Women are VERY cruel!
> Yes, rather than women like you expecting a handout
> equal to the pay men EARN, Carol Ann, it is time
> you learned that laying on your backside is not "working",
> 'cept for "working girls".
She gets to beg the courts for a share of power that
then go to corporate welfare and the good ol' boys. :-)
The men who are hurt most by her policies generally tend
to be men who were "non sexist" all along. It's the good
ol' boys and the sexists who are too smart to be trapped.
regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Jeanne de`Arc
"pizzaboi" <nope_gi...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:m8oj60prgaufqqinm...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:41:58 GMT, Jeânne de`Arç <Jeânne@micrôsôft.côm>
> wrote:
>
> >pizzaboi <nope_gi...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
> ><p5lj609o8i70g928o...@4ax.com>
> >>On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:17:13 GMT, "Ipacawwopp."
> >><Ipacawwopp.@statewogo.wanga.us...uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>I AM WOMEN
> >>>
> >>>HEAR ME BORE
> >
> >Im not boring! You watches your steps Mister!!!
>
>
>
> rigth, i might step into some feminist "logic and rationale".
Its not me. It is THE troll.
:))
>
>
Sylvester & Tweety
> "Sylvester & Tweety" <sylveste...@toughguy.net> skrev i melding
> news:c655f12c.04032...@posting.google.com...> news:<AVH8c.2982$px6....@news2.e.nsc.no>...
> > > It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay
> > >
> are
> > > still paid less than men-even when we have similar education, skills and
> > > experience.
> >
> > Bzzzzzzzt!
> > Wrong.
> >
> > When controlling for education, skills, and experience, women are paid
> > 2%-5% MORE than men with IDENTICAL qualifications.
> >
> >
> >
> > By your logic, if women are so UNDERpaid for the value of their work, then
> > companies which employ more women should be beating the pants off of
> companies
> > which employ fewer women.
>
> Right :)
> Or pay them more.
Please identify the companies which are staffed by mostly women and are
beating the pants off of their mostly-male competitors.
>
> > It couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the number of days that women come in
> > late, leave early, or don't even show up at all, while the MEN in the
> office
> > will show up EVERY day,
>
> What kind of work are you talking about ?
Any work.
> I have never experienced that women are more sick than men.I have not been
Oh yes, EVERY woman claims that SHE is the exception...and that because
SHE is the exception, that the rules covering all of the other women
who are NOT the exception should be changed.
> sick for years and the men at my work is as sick as the women. If the
> children is sick its another case.
No it's not. A day absent from work is a day absent from work, REGARDLESS
of what the reason is.
> But as I have said before: women should stop having children if their father
> refuse to step in when his child is sick. Its one of the problemes in
> relationships between a man and the woman.
Women like you who cannot accept biological preferences should not have
children. Considering that childbirth ALWAYS obligates the woman to take
off work, then how does it benefit the family if BOTH parents develop a
record of absenteeism???
>
> >not just on time, but even come in early if needed,
> > and will stay all day, or even stay late, if needed.
>
> At my work the women come in earlyer and live before if they are needed.
And at most companies, many men come in early whether they need to or not.
> I have been working like that for years. If I refuse another person will
> step in. I can`t risk to loose my job.
>
> > In other words, you sexist sack of shit...WOMEN ARE ***OVER***PAID for
> what
> > little piddling work they accidentally happen to perform...
>
> Ohh another little women hater.
Wrong. I love most of the women in the world, just not GREEDY SEXIST CUNTS
like yourself.
> If you compare a womens trade and mens trade
> the women get so little paid that they hardly can live of it. Women do
Then women should stop majoring in art-appreciation and start studying
high-value professions such as Engineering.
> little or nothing to get more paid in some trades, wich you say are less
> valueed.
> The question is: Are these trades less valued ?
They require less education, so yes, of course, they are less valued,
because finding a replacement is easier.
>
> If all the women stop as nurse, cleaner, saleswoman, trained nurse, some
> teachers my country will STOP.
And the education provided in the public schools would improve by many
orders of magnitude.
>
> I`m not saying its the mens fault its mostly the womens faults because they
> don`t fight for more, and they know it. Women are too thoughtful and
> understanding.
>
No..it's mostly women's fault because once they get power, they ABUSE IT.
There are no exceptions to this rule.
> I have been working in mens trade or in trades were there are mostly men or
> equal men and women. In my country thet get of course equel paid. Thanks to
> the men. So I am not a man hater.
>
> /\,,/\
> Jd`a (*-*)__,
> ```
Sylvester & Tweety
> news:tmB9c.3433$px6....@news2.e.nsc.no...
> >
> > "Bra Inspector No. 39" <big...@hoot.erz> skrev i melding
> > news:g9od609a53q9c1mna...@my.fart...
> > > "Jeanne de`Arc" <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I have been working in mens trade or in trades were there are mostly
> men
> or
> > > >equal men and women. In my country thet get of course equel paid.
> Thanks
> to
> > > >the men. So I am not a man hater.
>
> > >bra inspector wrote:
> > > Do they throw in the knee pads or do you have to purchase your own?
>
> > Jeanne wrote:
> > Dear little Zack. what do you mean ?
> > :)
>
> It's like this, Jeanne de'Arc:
>
> On bended knees man submits to god.
> On bended knees man begs the lady's hand.
> On bended knees man f*cks her.
>
> It's natural for a man to be on his knees! In many instances it's his
> prefered position! It's man who needs the kneepads. And if women want to
> do men's work, they hafta get their own pads, too.
Spot the sexist cunt.
Ipacawwopp.
"Jeânne de`Arç" <Jeânne@micrôsôft.côm> wrote in message
> "Ipacawwopp." <Ipacawwopp.@statewogo.wanga.us...uk> skrev i melding
>
> You didn't change my words you moron!!!!!! You can do that!!!
Ipacawwopp.
> The conversation is over I have to pee
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Ipacawwopp.
"pizzaboi" <nope_gi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p5lj609o8i70g928o...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 19:17:13 GMT, "Ipacawwopp."
> <Ipacawwopp.@statewogo.wanga.us...uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >
> >I AM WOMEN
> >
> >HEAR ME BORE
>
Hyerdahl1
>From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
>Date: 3/30/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <f741bce1.04033...@posting.google.com>
>
>> Lessee, Carol Ann buzzes "fathers are just as responsible"> one post and in
numerous other posts she has claimed that baby-making is>> solely a woman's
"choice".
Not so. Gestation is certainly a woman's choice but unless cloning has been
perfected, 'baby making' is a two person process.
(edit)
>Her inconsistency is especially amusing as she tries to pre-weasle>by excusing
"legitimate" sperm donors (as compared to non-legitimate>sperm donors?)
It isn't me who creates an exception, Mark; it's the LAW. I know you don't
like like the law that excludes sperm donors from paying support, but such is
life. And, 'yes' Mark, you can't just claim to be a sperm donor when you have
an ooopsie.
Here's how it works: if the mommy allows the man to give her sperm to gestate
the child into poverty and it's ok with her, then to hell with the kid.
Actually, the children born to single women have the same rights as children
born to married parents, Mark. (All children, even the girls. :-) There has
already been a study, btw, showing that children from single mothers do better
in some things than two parent families with asshole fathers:
Teens who have problems with fathers use drugs more
War on drugs
August 30, 1999
Web posted at: 1:30 p.m. EDT (1730 GMT)
WASHINGTON -- Teen-agers who relate poorly with their fathers in two-parent
families are more likely to use cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs than those
raised by single mothers, according to a report issued Monday.
Those living with two parents but who have bad relationships with their fathers
have a 68 percent greater risk, according to the private National Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
"The fact that so many dads are AWOL (absent) in their teens' lives increases
the teens' risk of substance abuse," CASA Chairman Joseph Califano said.
"Parent power is a potent force in getting kids to stay away from drugs and
alcohol and cigarettes, and it's greatly underutilized."
Teens prefer to talk to mothers
In the survey of 2,000 youths ages 12 to 17, twice as many said they could talk
more easily to their mothers than to their fathers. Four times as many said
they discuss issues like substance abuse with their mothers.
More than 70 percent said they had very good or excellent relationships with
their mothers, but only 58 percent said they related as well with their
fathers...
.But if the man doesn't>first get the permission from the mother to do this,
then>the kids interests suddenly matter.
Women tend to do what they think is best for their kids whether or not that
means a father is included, Mark. Perhaps the father would be a negative
influence like the study indicated above.
(This is similar to her>thinking that women deserve a medal for the sacrifice
of>gestating a child for 9 months and pre-mothering it>unless she decides it's
just a piece of tissue and kills it.)
Mark, if you and I were to each bring together some ingredients to make ...say,
a bomb or some other destructive device, and if one of us aborted the process,
there would be no bomb, eh?
If there is no child, there is no child.
Poor Mark thinks he can control women's bodies, simply by pretending that body
cells equals a child.
>
>> > The point is that women do take in money from mommy-support so they aren't
going broke because> they make a few less dollars in the workplace.
>>
Women are in demand these days, Mark. Some of them even have to buy wives.
You can blame the market economy. :-)
>(edit)
Society
news:mark_sobolewski-CE...@news.central.cox.net...
>
> Devin McAndrews as "Jeanne de`Arc" cut-and-pasted...
> >
> > It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay
> >
False. The 1963 law mandated equal pay for EQUAL WORK.
You feminists leave out the "equal work" part 'cause you seek
more pay for less work.
> > But today, 40 years later, women are still paid less
> > than men-even when we have similar education,
> > skills and experience.
Wow, Devin. In 40 years you feminists have gone
from the Labor Theory of Value to the theory of value
cherished by government bureaucrats who avoid
the discipline of the marketplace: the Inputs Theory
of Value. Both, Devin, are bogus -- like everything
else you feminists embrace!
You feminists just don't get it. Every 4-year college
degree may be "similar", a bachelor's degree, but
they aren't as "similar" as your feminist Utopia
builders wish.
Around junior year of high school, boys begin to repress
their interest in foreign languages, literature, art history,
sociology, and anthropology because they know an art history
major will make less than an engineer. Partially as a result
of his different spending expectation (the possibility he
might have to support a woman but cannot expect a woman
to support him), more than 85 percent of students who take
engineering as a college major are men; more than 80 percent
of the art history majors are women.
The difference in the earnings of the female art historian
vs. the male engineer appears to be a measure of discrimination,
when in fact both sexes knew ahead of time engineering
would pay more.
Warren Farrell, _The Myth of Male Power_;
New York: Berkley Books, 1996
page 11.
All those degrees in Women's Studies that are
almost exclusively pursued by women have virtually
zero cash value. Many more women pursue
degrees in Early Childhood Education -- a very
useful addition to an MRS degree for the woman
who intends to be a stay-at-home (SAH) mother
who raises her man's children. In the big world
of what people will pay for tho', Devin, an ECE
degree is an easy ticket to a minimum wage
hobby job. (A child-minding job is popular
among women because the workplace is air
conditioned and full of people to belittle and
boss around.)
As for the woman who does the work to get
an _equal_ education, Farrell notes that she
gets EXTRA pay:
In fact, the woman who enters engineering with the
same lack of experience as the man averages $571
per year _more_ than her male counterpart.
ibid. [emphasis Farrell's]
> > In 2003, women were paid 79 cents for every dollar
> > men received.
...while working fewer hours and at cushier jobs, all
documented by D. Furchtgott-Roth in the book
_Women's Figures_.
> > That's $23 less to spend on groceries, housing,
> > child care and other expenses for every $100 worth
> > of work we do. Nationwide, working families lose
> > $200 billion of income annually to the wage gap.
>
> Until you factor in the billions of dollars more
> that women take in from welfare, mommy-support,
> alimony, and marriage.
Good point, Mark. (Hi there!)
I also notice that Devin's latest incarnation is silent about
how for every dollar women spent, men only got to
spend 16 cents. Despite all the feminist barking about
their "wage gap" Big Lie, the real fun is in spending
the dough. Slaving for it just doesn't have the same
appeal -- especially to women! Clearly, because men
do most of the work that puts the spending money
in women's pockets, the oppressed group is men
and the beneficiaries of the oppression of men are
the women.
--
If homes were furnished for men's tastes,
doilies would have never been invented.
> > State by state fact sheets on equal pay (PDF).
> >
> > It's not like we get charged less for rent or food or utilities. In
fact, we
> > pay more for things like haircuts and dry cleaning.
> >
> > Over a lifetime of work, the 23 cents-on-the-dollar we're losing adds
up.
> > The average 25-year-old working woman will lose more than $523,000 to
> > unequal pay during her working life.
> >
> > And because we're paid less now, we have less to save for our futures
and
> > we'll earn smaller pensions than men. Half of all women with income from
a
> > pension in 2002 received less than $5,600 per year, compared with
$10,340
> > per year for men.
> >
> > These figures are even worse for women of color. African American women
earn
> > only 70 cents and Latinas 58 cents for every dollar that men earn. Asian
> > Pacific American women earn less, too. Their pay inequality is less
severe
> > than for women as a whole, but they still earned only 83.5 cents for
every
> > dollar that men earned in 2000, the most recent year for which data is
> > available.
> >
> > Equal pay isn't just a women's issue. When women get equal pay, their
family
> > incomes rise and the whole family benefits. Equal pay helps men, too.
> >
> > Men in jobs usually or predominately held by women-sales, service and
> > clerical positions, for example-are also victims of pay bias. The 4
million
> > men who work in predominately female occupations lose an average of
$6,259
> > each year, according to the 1999 report on Equal Pay for Working
Families:
> > National and State Data on the Pay Gap and Its Costs.
> >
> > The 25.6 million women in these jobs lose an average of $3,446 a year.
> >
> > /\,,/\
> > Jd`A (*-*)__,
> > ```
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Mark Sobolewski
> >Subject: Re: It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay
> >From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
> >Date: 3/30/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <f741bce1.04033...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >> Lessee, Carol Ann buzzes "fathers are just as responsible"> one post and in
> numerous other posts she has claimed that baby-making is>> solely a woman's
> "choice".
>
> Not so. Gestation is certainly a woman's choice but unless cloning has been
> perfected, 'baby making' is a two person process.
>
> (edit)
Indeed. This may be why women don't get medals for gestating children. :-)
> >Her inconsistency is especially amusing as she tries to pre-weasle>by excusing
> "legitimate" sperm donors (as compared to non-legitimate>sperm donors?)
>
> It isn't me who creates an exception, Mark; it's the LAW. I know you don't
> like like the law that excludes sperm donors from paying support, but such is
> life. And, 'yes' Mark, you can't just claim to be a sperm donor when you have
> an ooopsie.
Of course I don't like a law. This is a free country defended
by men, no? :-) Just because I don't like a law, doesn't mean
I'm a SoreLoser about it though. I'm not a hypocritical crybaby
like some...
Of course, that said, the interests of the child aren't important
to the law as much as the choices or desires of the mother. But
this is reflected in the higher rates of abuse that mothers
as "primary caregivers" have towards their children.
Here's the cite:
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/ncands97/s7.htm
and
Children are 88% more likely to be seriously injured from abuse or
neglect by their mothers than by their fathers.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
on Children, Youth, and Families, Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports
from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System
(Washington DC, :GPO, 1999).
> Here's how it works: if the mommy allows the man to give her sperm to gestate
> the child into poverty and it's ok with her, then to hell with the kid.
>
> Actually, the children born to single women have the same rights as children
> born to married parents, Mark. (All children, even the girls. :-)
Yeah, unless mommy abandons them (let's just hope they're adoptable.)
And in china, young feminists drown their little girls in river beds.
> There has
> already been a study, btw, showing that children from single mothers do better
> in some things than two parent families with asshole fathers:
And fresh oranges taste better than rotten apples.
Not only that, but it failed to define "asshole" father.
Here's the original link:
http://robots.cnn.com/US/9908/30/teen.drugs.02/
> Teens who have problems with fathers use drugs more
>
> War on drugs
>
> August 30, 1999
> Web posted at: 1:30 p.m. EDT (1730 GMT)
>
>
> WASHINGTON -- Teen-agers who relate poorly with their fathers in two-parent
> families are more likely to use cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs than those
> raised by single mothers, according to a report issued Monday.
>
> Those living with two parents but who have bad relationships with their fathers
> have a 68 percent greater risk, according to the private National Center on
> Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
>
> "The fact that so many dads are AWOL (absent) in their teens' lives increases
> the teens' risk of substance abuse," CASA Chairman Joseph Califano said.
Er... wait a minute here... How can the dads be absent if they're
supposedly around to be assholes? :-) I thought they were out
at the golf course. :-)
Maybe if HE could get cash daddy-support checks and exploit children,
he wouldn't be AWOL so often.
> "Parent power is a potent force in getting kids to stay away from drugs and
> alcohol and cigarettes, and it's greatly underutilized."
>
> Teens prefer to talk to mothers
> In the survey of 2,000 youths ages 12 to 17, twice as many said they could talk
> more easily to their mothers than to their fathers. Four times as many said
> they discuss issues like substance abuse with their mothers.
>
> More than 70 percent said they had very good or excellent relationships with
> their mothers, but only 58 percent said they related as well with their
> fathers...
This is largely true even in two parent homes because the father
usually is "absent" (earning a living) much of the time.
Hmmm, sounds similar to studies comparing, say, working career women
and how their children turn out to SAH moms who put their children's
happiness over their careers. :-)
> .But if the man doesn't>first get the permission from the mother to do this,
> then>the kids interests suddenly matter.
>
> Women tend to do what they think is best for their kids whether or not that
> means a father is included, Mark. Perhaps the father would be a negative
> influence like the study indicated above.
Lessee:
Most of the child abuse is perpetuated by the primary abuser, er, caregiver.
The women choose to gestate children with these supposedly
"bad" fathers. They gestate the children into poverty or
hardship and it's largely undisputed that single mother households
are worse for children than two parent households (hence, the need
to compare "bad" fathers to single mothers.)
On the contrary, Parg, all evidence shows that overall, two parent
or even SINGLE FATHER households are better for children than
single mommies and their check cashing schemes. I disagree with
the state creating this situation but, as I said, I'm at
least not a SoreLoser about it.
> (This is similar to her>thinking that women deserve a medal for the sacrifice
> of>gestating a child for 9 months and pre-mothering it>unless she decides it's
> just a piece of tissue and kills it.)
>
> Mark, if you and I were to each bring together some ingredients to make ...say,
> a bomb or some other destructive device, and if one of us aborted the process,
> there would be no bomb, eh?
So are you saying that children are bombs?
Also, do you suggest that the makers of fertilizer be held
half accountable for providing the essential ingredient to
McVeigh to blow up the Federal Building in Oklahoma?
Or should the store owners who sold the ingredients be
held half accountable for "bringing" the ingredients to McVeigh?
Before you try to make legal secretary arguments of
direct causation, note that many shooting victims tried
to bring legal action against gun manufacturers using
similar logic.
> If there is no child, there is no child.
> Poor Mark thinks he can control women's bodies, simply by pretending that body
> cells equals a child.
If the mother chooses to "build" a bomb and then wants society
to come to her rescue (and support) for her to exploit the bomb
for a living, then society always will have a say about how she
leads her life.
Single mother households are largely not wonderful places to live.
One additional comment about the study comparing drug use between
"bad" fathers and ALL single mother households: Drug use isn't
necessarily a bad thing. Many middle class households use
marijuana without any negative consequences. Many former
users of drugs go on to become president and sexually harass women! :-)
I am personally against the drug war overall.
> >> > The point is that women do take in money from mommy-support so they aren't
> going broke because> they make a few less dollars in the workplace.
> >>
> Women are in demand these days, Mark. Some of them even have to buy wives.
> You can blame the market economy. :-)
Some of the women buy wives? :-) Sorry, but I don't think such a trend
yet exists in same sex marriage. :-)
Regarding demand for wives: Yeah, Bridgett Jones appealed to all
those women in demand. I'm sure the DVD sells great on Valentines day.
If anyone is "buying" anything, it's women buying each other's
eggs. Cluck cluck!
regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Ian
<snip>
>
> All those degrees in Women's Studies that are
> almost exclusively pursued by women have virtually
> zero cash value. Many more women pursue
> degrees in Early Childhood Education -- a very
> useful addition to an MRS degree for the woman
> who intends to be a stay-at-home (SAH) mother
> who raises her man's children. In the big world
> of what people will pay for tho', Devin, an ECE
> degree is an easy ticket to a minimum wage
> hobby job. (A child-minding job is popular
> among women because the workplace is air
> conditioned and full of people to belittle and
> boss around.)
>
> As for the woman who does the work to get
> an _equal_ education, Farrell notes that she
> gets EXTRA pay:
>
Cudn't've put't bta meslf.
Hyerdahl1
>From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
>Message-id: <f741bce1.0403...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20040331000408...@mb-m04.aol.com>...
>> >Subject: Re: It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay
>> >From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
>> >Date: 3/30/2004 1:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <f741bce1.04033...@posting.google.com>
>> >
>> >> Lessee, Carol Ann buzzes "fathers are just as responsible"> one post and
>in
>> numerous other posts she has claimed that baby-making is>> solely a woman's
>> "choice".
>>
>> Not so. Gestation is certainly a woman's choice but unless cloning has
>been>> perfected, 'baby making' is a two person process.
>>
>> (edit)
>
>Indeed. This may be why women don't get medals for gestating children. :-)
>
as nine mos. of labor plus delivery, plus all the physical risks involved in
that Mark. You can, if you choose, pretend your wife, if you have one, to be
an incubator. Why not tell her that is all she is, and that squirting is equal
to gestation and delivery.
>Her inconsistency is especially amusing as she tries to pre-weasle>by
>excusing>> "legitimate" sperm donors (as compared to non-legitimate>sperm
donors?)
>>
>> It isn't me who creates an exception, Mark; it's the LAW. I know you
>don't> like like the law that excludes sperm donors from paying support, but
such>is> life. And, 'yes' Mark, you can't just claim to be a sperm donor when
you
>have> an ooopsie.
>
>Of course I don't like a law. This is a free country defended by men, no? :-)
By men and women, last time I checked, Mark. In fact, my best friend's sister
is a COP. Surely you've not so far down in your swamp that you have never met
a female cop?
Just because I don't like a law, doesn't mean>I'm a SoreLoser about it
though. I'm not a hypocritical crybaby>like some...
>
Sorry, Mark; I'm too busy these days to cry over spilt milk, but not too busy
to help find ways to make sure elections are not stealable. There's a huge
difference between crying and working. :-)
>Of course, that said, the interests of the child aren't important>to the law
as much as the choices or desires of the mother.
The standard FOR family law regarding children is "the best interests of the
child", Mark. Have you never heard of that or are you more interested in
presenting things wearing penis coated glasses?
But>this is reflected in the higher rates of abuse that mothers>as "primary
caregivers" have towards their children.
>
Actually, fathers abuse children more than mothers, and fathers abuse their own
children in equal numbers (albeit, different ages). Did you forget those DOJ
stats or are you just hoping I did?
http://www.oip.usdoj.govbjs/pub/pdf/wo.pdf
"Between 1976 and 1997 parents and step parents murdered nearly 11,000
children. Mothers and step mothers committed about half ." AND, it also
mentioned that fathers killed the half that was 8 or older. Hmmmmm
>Here's the cite:
>http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/ncands97/s7.htm
>
>and
>
>Children are 88% more likely to be seriously injured from abuse or
>neglect by their mothers than by their fathers.
Mothers tend children more than fathers who abandon them. I suppose it stands
up to reason that you can't abuse from the golf course. :-)
>
>Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
>on Children, Youth, and Families, Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports
>from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System
>(Washington DC, :GPO, 1999).
>
>> Here's how it works: if the mommy allows the man to give her sperm to
>gestate>> the child into poverty and it's ok with her, then to hell with the
kid.
>>
>> Actually, the children born to single women have the same rights as
>children> born to married parents, Mark. (All children, even the girls. :-)
>
>Yeah, unless mommy abandons them (let's just hope they're adoptable.)
I think you're confused, Mark. Fathers abandon children far more than mothers
do. Most people acknowledge that. AND even when newly delivered moms take
neonates to safe houses almost all newborns are adoptable.
>>And in china, young feminists drown their little girls in river beds.
>
Most girls in China aren't educated enough to be feminists, Mark, much like
uneducated girls from the Ukraine. AND, where girls are devalued, there is not
much incentive to put them thru all that.
>> There has>> already been a study, btw, showing that children from single
mothers do>better> in some things than two parent families with asshole
fathers:
>
>And fresh oranges taste better than rotten apples.
>
Indeed they do, Mark. :-) I know if I had to pick between a fresh orange and
a rotten apple I'd leave the apple where it belongs, at the bottom of the
barrel.
>Not only that, but it failed to define "asshole" father. >Here's the original
link:
>http://robots.cnn.com/US/9908/30/teen.drugs.02/
>
>> Teens who have problems with fathers use drugs more
>>
>> War on drugs
>>
>> August 30, 1999
>> Web posted at: 1:30 p.m. EDT (1730 GMT)
>>
>>
>> WASHINGTON -- Teen-agers who relate poorly with their fathers in two-parent
> families are more likely to use cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs than
>those>> raised by single mothers, according to a report issued Monday.
>>
>> Those living with two parents but who have bad relationships with their
>fathers>> have a 68 percent greater risk, according to the private National
Center on
>> Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
>>
>> "The fact that so many dads are AWOL (absent) in their teens' lives
>increases>> the teens' risk of substance abuse," CASA Chairman Joseph Califano
said.
>
>Er... wait a minute here... How can the dads be absent if they're>supposedly
around to be assholes? :-) I thought they were out at the golf course. :-)
>
Assholes can often be found on the golf course or in stadiums or strip joints
rather than at children's playgrounds, schools, etc.
>Maybe if HE could get cash daddy-support checks and exploit children,
>he wouldn't be AWOL so often.
Nah; he'd just spend it on more golf time, Mark. An asshole is still an
asshole.
How do I know that? Mothers tend to stay with kids regardless of the level of
poverty, even in places like Africa where children are starving.
>> "Parent power is a potent force in getting kids to stay away from drugs and
>> alcohol and cigarettes, and it's greatly underutilized."
>>
>> Teens prefer to talk to mothers
>> In the survey of 2,000 youths ages 12 to 17, twice as many said they could
>talk>> more easily to their mothers than to their fathers. Four times as many
said
>> they discuss issues like substance abuse with their mothers.
>>
>> More than 70 percent said they had very good or excellent relationships
>with> their mothers, but only 58 percent said they related as well with their
>> fathers...
>
>This is largely true even in two parent homes because the father
>usually is "absent" (earning a living) much of the time.
>
Could be, Mark. It's a shame more men don't marry feminists who are willing to
work outside the home more, I suppose .
>Hmmm, sounds similar to studies comparing, say, working career women
>and how their children turn out to SAH moms who put their children's
>happiness over their careers. :-)
What study? From my own observations, women can have two out of the three big
life events, one's life's work, and children.
Marriage to a sexist is the one thing free and equal women can afford to lose.
>> .But if the man doesn't>first get the permission from the mother to do
>this,>> then>the kids interests suddenly matter.
>>
>> Women tend to do what they think is best for their kids whether or not that
means a father is included, Mark. Perhaps the father would be a negative
influence like the study indicated above.
>
>Lessee:
>
>Most of the child abuse is perpetuated by the primary abuser, er, caregiver.
Not according to the DOJ stat I provided, Mark. Half of parental child abuse
was committed by men who spend so little time with kids. AND, your study
talked about neglect as well, did it not?
>The women choose to gestate children with these supposedly>"bad" fathers.
Normal thinking people don't blame mothers for the negative actions of fathers,
Mark. That's just something bitter boys like you do.
They gestate the children into poverty or
>hardship and it's largely undisputed that single mother households>are worse
for children than two parent households (hence, the need>to compare "bad"
fathers to single mothers.)
>
Again, children born to single mothers BY CHOICE has never been studied. Any
time a child loses a parent, there is a loss.
AND, I just provided another study showing that no father at all is better for
teens than teens who have PROBLEMATIC relationships with their fathers.
>On the contrary, Parg, all evidence shows that overall, two parent>or even
SINGLE FATHER households are better for children than>single mommies and their
check cashing schemes.
Not according to the study I just provided, Mark. :-)
I disagree with>the state creating this situation but, as I said, I'm at
>least not a SoreLoser about it.
Good to know. Mothers will continue to do as they have done and raise their
kids and fathers will be able to fudge less and less about single mothers
...according to new studies, eh? That works for me.
>
>> (This is similar to her>thinking that women deserve a medal for the
>sacrifice>> of>gestating a child for 9 months and pre-mothering it>unless she
decides>it's>> just a piece of tissue and kills it.)
>>
>> Mark, if you and I were to each bring together some ingredients to make
>...say,>> a bomb or some other destructive device, and if one of us aborted
the>process,> there would be no bomb, eh?
>
>So are you saying that children are bombs?
>
I am saying that the HARM caused by parents refusing to support children is
indeed like a bomb. Of course, if there is no bomb, no harm has been created.
>Also, do you suggest that the makers of fertilizer be held>half accountable
for providing the essential ingredient to
>McVeigh to blow up the Federal Building in Oklahoma?
No, but when they both mix it up with the intended natural results of their
actions, well, I think you know the rest of the story.
:-) Let's say they both mix the necessary ingredients and the one who is
housing the mixed ingredients aborts. Look ma! No bomb!
>Or should the store owners who sold the ingredients be>held half accountable
for "bringing" the ingredients to McVeigh?
>
Those who make babies already are aware of the potential consequences of their
actions, Mark. No store owners are needed for that. As to the bombmakers, if
you want to file a conspiracy charge, be my guest, if you can prove it.
>Before you try to make legal secretary arguments of >direct causation, note
that many shooting victims tried
>to bring legal action against gun manufacturers using
>similar logic.
>
I have no need to broaden my list of defendants in the case at hand, Mark. As
to being a legal secretary, you wouldn't even make the grade for that.
>> If there is no child, there is no child.
>> Poor Mark thinks he can control women's bodies, simply by pretending that
>body>> cells equals a child.
>
>If the mother chooses to "build" a bomb and then wants society>to come to her
rescue (and support) for her to exploit the bomb for a living, then society
always will have a say about how she>leads her life.
>
You can certainly TRY to paint a scarlet letter "A" on her chest, but today,
that doesn't hold much sway in the real world.
AND, a bomb co-created by two will not likely be attributed to one, no matter
how many other defendants you'd like to bring in on the bomb example.
Single mother households are largely not wonderful places to live.
So what? Sometimes arguing with a negative and hostile father may not be a
wonderful place to live either. Teens seem to do better without one of those.
>One additional comment about the study comparing drug use between "bad"
fathers and ALL single mother households: Drug use isn't>necessarily a bad
thing.
Hahahahahahaha. Mark, you really had to stretch to come up with that little
nugget! Perhaps you could use that as a campaign slogan. "More funding for
Single Fathers: Drug Use Isn't all that Bad! " :-)
Many middle class households use
>marijuana without any negative consequences. Many former
>users of drugs go on to become president and sexually harass women! :-)>I am
personally against the drug war overall.
>
Well, finally...there's one subject we can agree upon. However, drug use for
ADULTS is a bit different than drug use for kids. :-) Even I'm not THAT
liberal.
>> >> > The point is that women do take in money from mommy-support so they
>aren't>> going broke because> they make a few less dollars in the workplace.
>> >>
>> Women are in demand these days, Mark. Some of them even have to buy wives.>
You can blame the market economy. :-)
>
>Some of the women buy wives? :-) Sorry, but I don't think such a trend
>yet exists in same sex marriage. :-)
>
Hahaha....I meant men. Sorry.
>Regarding demand for wives: Yeah, Bridgett Jones appealed to all
>those women in demand. I'm sure the DVD sells great on Valentines day.
>If anyone is "buying" anything, it's women buying each other's>eggs. Cluck
cluck!
>
I'm ok with that. Of course, you did read about that new technology I posted,
did you not? HEre's part of the article:
Updated: 12:54 PM EST
Putting the Future on Ice
Clinics Aimed at 30-Somethings Hoping to Freeze Eggs, Extend Fertility
(March 22) - For 30-something career women who are single, but want to have
families, an entrepreneur hopes new technology could help them hit the snooze
button on their biological clocks...
After hearing fertility concerns of single 30-something friends, Christy Jones,
then 32, decided to do something about it. Two years later the computer
software executive has founded Extend Fertility, a potentially revolutionary
business that would let women take control of their fertility by freezing their
eggs. The procedure was not really viable until about five years ago, and until
now, this practice was mainly limited to cancer patients. Jones wants to make
this available to any woman...Jones' first two clinics open this May in
California, partnering with existing fertility clinics near Los Angeles and
Stanford, Calif. Jones, who is single, plans on being the first patient.
S.."This would let women be proactive to safeguard their fertility," Jones
said. "This gives people the opportunity to have children later in life."
...Dr. Lynn Westphal, the director of Stanford Medical Center's egg donor
program, says woman who undergoe the procedure can depend on the frozen eggs
for years to come...However, Jones says she thinks women who are just not ready
to conceive due to their career or the absence of a partner will also ready for
the procedure.
Jay Kaner
"Jeanne de`Arc" <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote
> > > It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay
Don't be fucking daft. Wimmin don't get paid for doing housework.
Michael Snyder
> It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay
They do -- when they do equal work.
>
> Equal pay has been the law since 1963. But today, 40 years later, women are
> still paid less than men-even when we have similar education, skills and
> experience.
Not if they're doing THE SAME WORK...
Sure, a waitress with an MBA is probably paid less than an
executive with an MBA.
> In 2003, women were paid 79 cents for every dollar men received.
Sure -- ON AVERAGE. Not when comparing THE SAME JOBS...
> It's not like we get charged less for rent or food or utilities.
It's not like you get paid less either, sugar.
Mark Sobolewski
> >From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
> >> >> Lessee, Carol Ann buzzes "fathers are just as responsible"> one
post and
> in
> >> numerous other posts she has claimed that baby-making is>> solely a
woman's
> >> "choice".
> >>
> >> Not so. Gestation is certainly a woman's choice but unless
cloning has
> been>> perfected, 'baby making' is a two person process.
> >>
> >> (edit)
> >
> >Indeed. This may be why women don't get medals for gestating
children. :-)
> >
> Those who have common sense know that a mere squirt is not as labour
intensive
> as nine mos. of labor plus delivery, plus all the physical risks
involved in
> that Mark.
[violin playing]
We don't punish fish if a bird drowns, do we? :-)
Gestation is a personal choice. We don't get medals for the risks
involved in going to work or taking a bath.
Tell you what, ask "those with common sense" to pay women to
gestate and look after their own children out of their own
pockets. See what they say.
> You can, if you choose, pretend your wife, if you have one, to be
> an incubator.
Well if you want me to talk about my personal life... :-)
> Why not tell her that is all she is, and that squirting is equal
> to gestation and delivery.
Since we're married and share in things, "her" burden is
my burden. Her concern about having a lot of kids has
little to do with gestation. She's mainly concerned
with the work for both of us in giving them a good home.
I can't speak for her, of course, but she's quite practical
and would probably say that if a woman doesn't want to deal
with childbirth issues, she can just not have them.
Personal choices aren't the same as civil rights or
national duties you know.
> >Her inconsistency is especially amusing as she tries to pre-weasle>by
> >excusing>> "legitimate" sperm donors (as compared to
non-legitimate>sperm
> donors?)
> >>
> >> It isn't me who creates an exception, Mark; it's the LAW. I know
you
> >don't> like like the law that excludes sperm donors from paying
support, but
> such>is> life. And, 'yes' Mark, you can't just claim to be a sperm
donor when
> you
> >have> an ooopsie.
> >
> >Of course I don't like a law. This is a free country defended by
men,
no? :-)>
> By men and women, last time I checked, Mark. In fact, my best
friend's
sister
> is a COP. Surely you've not so far down in your swamp that you have
never met
> a female cop?
Yes, the enemy quakes in their boots over supply clerks...
And cops: Yeah, I've had a woman cop write me a parking ticket
once or twice...
> Just because I don't like a law, doesn't mean>I'm a SoreLoser about
it
> though. I'm not a hypocritical crybaby>like some...
> >
> Sorry, Mark; I'm too busy these days to cry over spilt milk, but not
too busy
> to help find ways to make sure elections are not stealable.
And that would be what? Exactly what changed in Florida?
They fixed the ballots (that the democrats themselves
designed.) The courts? Well, you can't exactly
appoint new S.C. justices, can you. :-)
Oh, wait, you can VOTE! Good luck! Tee hee. That
reminds me. Are you in for the 10 bucks? (I think it's
a rather small amount compared to the 270 mil that
Bush is throwing around. It sure did eliminate
Kerry's small lead pretty quickly... :-)
> There's a huge
> difference between crying and working. :-)
See above. Hmmm, didn't you VOTE before and have
the election stolen? What's changed?
> >Of course, that said, the interests of the child aren't important>to
the law
> as much as the choices or desires of the mother.
> The standard FOR family law regarding children is "the best interests
of the
> child", Mark. Have you never heard of that or are you more
interested in
> presenting things wearing penis coated glasses?
>
> But>this is reflected in the higher rates of abuse that mothers>as
"primary
> caregivers" have towards their children.
> >
> Actually, fathers abuse children more than mothers, and fathers abuse
their own
> children in equal numbers (albeit, different ages). Did you forget
those DOJ
> stats or are you just hoping I did?
>
> http://www.oip.usdoj.govbjs/pub/pdf/wo.pdf
>
> "Between 1976 and 1997 parents and step parents murdered nearly 11,000
> children. Mothers and step mothers committed about half ." AND, it
also
> mentioned that fathers killed the half that was 8 or older. Hmmmmm
There is no "govbjs" top domain. I tried a number of combinations
of gov/bjs and they failed to produce a page.
> >Here's the cite:
> >http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/ncands97/s7.htm
> >
> >and
> >
> >Children are 88% more likely to be seriously injured from abuse or
> >neglect by their mothers than by their fathers.
>
> Mothers tend children more than fathers who abandon them. I suppose
it
stands
> up to reason that you can't abuse from the golf course. :-)
Non-sequitur.
You had argued above that men were more likely to abuse children.
Now you're shooting yourself in the foot by justifying a stat
you claim is wrong to begin with.
> >Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
> >on Children, Youth, and Families, Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports
> >from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System
> >(Washington DC, :GPO, 1999).
> >
> >> Here's how it works: if the mommy allows the man to give her
sperm to
> >gestate>> the child into poverty and it's ok with her, then to hell
with the
> kid.
> >>
> >> Actually, the children born to single women have the same rights as
> >children> born to married parents, Mark. (All children, even the
girls. :-)
> >
> >Yeah, unless mommy abandons them (let's just hope they're adoptable.)
>
> I think you're confused, Mark. Fathers abandon children far more than
mothers
> do.
If a father leaves before a child is born, how could he
have abandoned it? Are you implying that unborn children
are murdered by an abortion? :-)
Besides, many fathers are denied custody of the children.
If they "abandon" a child, it's because the court ordered them
to. Are you saying fathers should disobey the law?
> Most people acknowledge that.
Have you taken a poll? Study? Are you talking about "most people"
as in most Americans? Most of the people in the world?
And as I said, which "children" are you talking about? A man
who walks away from a pregnant woman, for example, isn't
abandoning a child is he? :-) I guess we should include
pro-lifers in the "most people" who regard such
as "child" abandonment.
> AND even when newly delivered moms take
> neonates to safe houses almost all newborns are adoptable.
Any study on this? :-)
Besides, I could easily then argue that if a woman doesn't
like being stuck with a newborn child without mommy-support,
then she could put it up for adoption. So using your
argument, C4M is perfectly reasonable, no? :-)
The state (we'll call it the "Newt" program :-) could just
take away all babies born to poor single moms where a father
refuses to pay mommy-support and put those children instead
in loving, two parent adoptive homes.
Now, you wouldn't want a CHILD to suffer just to appease
the mother, yes? :-)
> >>And in china, young feminists drown their little girls in river
beds.
> >
> Most girls in China aren't educated enough to be feminists, Mark,
much like
> uneducated girls from the Ukraine.
Ooooh! Low shot! You fight like a girl! (But at least you
learned she isn't from Russia. :-)
> AND, where girls are devalued, there is not
> much incentive to put them thru all that.
But... didn't you argue that China was so great because
they have socialism and capitalism working together?
> >> There has>> already been a study, btw, showing that children from
single
> mothers do>better> in some things than two parent families with
asshole
> fathers:
> >
> >And fresh oranges taste better than rotten apples.
> >
> Indeed they do, Mark. :-) I know if I had to pick between a fresh
orange and
> a rotten apple I'd leave the apple where it belongs, at the bottom of
the
> barrel.
So not all apples are rotten.
Or maybe, in your view, they are. Even if the guy does work
60 hours a week (all without a handout quota), comes home
and then changes diapers, he's still to blame for all the
other "bad" men out there.
So ultimately, women who think as you do wind up alone.
Instead of a "bad apple" husband, your only time someone
remotely seriously listens to you is when you vote and then,
they largely are just taking most of your taxes and
giving them to corporations run by rich white men
anyway. :-)
Perhaps. But at least he's not at home "primary caregiving" by
beating the kid up...
Seriously: If an asshole KNOWS he (or she's) an asshole and stays away,
that's far better than a "mommy dearest" who just feels a need
to do the job themselves and beat the kid up. Even a career
woman who dumps off her kids in daycare is better than an abusive
SAH mom of any stripe.
> How do I know that? Mothers tend to stay with kids regardless of the
level of
> poverty, even in places like Africa where children are starving.
I personally chose to have children under circumstances where
I can care properly for them. My wife agrees with me.
Family planning is a good idea. But if you think
raising kids in poverty is superior...
> >> "Parent power is a potent force in getting kids to stay away from
drugs and
> >> alcohol and cigarettes, and it's greatly underutilized."
> >>
> >> Teens prefer to talk to mothers
> >> In the survey of 2,000 youths ages 12 to 17, twice as many said
they could
> >talk>> more easily to their mothers than to their fathers. Four times
as many
> said
> >> they discuss issues like substance abuse with their mothers.
> >>
> >> More than 70 percent said they had very good or excellent
relationships
> with> their mothers, but only 58 percent said they related as well
with their
> >> fathers...
> >
> >This is largely true even in two parent homes because the father
> >usually is "absent" (earning a living) much of the time.
> >
> Could be, Mark. It's a shame more men don't marry feminists who are
willing to
> work outside the home more, I suppose .
Probably because, as I said, all he'll get is dirty diapers
added on top of his 60 hour work week and a frumpy wife
who complains about how oppressed she is. :-)
> >Hmmm, sounds similar to studies comparing, say, working career women
> >and how their children turn out to SAH moms who put their children's
> >happiness over their careers. :-)
>
> What study?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/31/health/main327039.shtml
Study: Children Attending Daycare More Likely To Show Aggressive
Behaviour
According to a new study, young children who spend an extended period
of time each week in daycare may be more likely to misbehave when they
are in kindergarten. Researchers found that children who spent 30 hours
or more per week in daycare had the most severe behavior problems
later on in kindergarten.
"Mommy? When can I be a client?" -- AT&T commercial
> From my own observations, women can have two out of the three big
> life events, one's life's work, and children.
> Marriage to a sexist is the one thing free and equal women can afford
to lose.
HAHAHA!
If, repeat, if feminism's success was based upon your success
and observations, it would be in a very sorry state indeed! :-)
In reply to your point, as I said above, most women
including the "free and equal" ones don't want a non-sexist
man if that means her having to give up some of her
precious money. Such women would need a non-sexist man
who lives up to sexist expectations in a society that
does nothing to support or encourage him.
> >> .But if the man doesn't>first get the permission from the mother
to do
> this,>> then>the kids interests suddenly matter.
> >>
> >> Women tend to do what they think is best for their kids whether or
not that
> means a father is included, Mark. Perhaps the father would be a
negative
> influence like the study indicated above.
> >
> >Lessee:
> >
> >Most of the child abuse is perpetuated by the primary abuser, er,
caregiver.
>
> Not according to the DOJ stat I provided, Mark.
The broken one?
> Half of parental child abuse
> was committed by men who spend so little time with kids. AND, your
study
> talked about neglect as well, did it not?
Er, supposedly the primary caregiver is supposed to be taking
care of them, no?
Your studies (the drug one and this) supposedly claim the man is
neglecting them, yet, you argue that the primary caregiver
is doing that. (Or is cashing checks so she doesn't have to
earn a living "primary caregiving?)
> >The women choose to gestate children with these supposedly>"bad"
fathers.
>
> Normal thinking people don't blame mothers for the negative actions of
fathers,
> Mark. That's just something bitter boys like you do.
Have you taken a poll? Study?
Regardless, some of us are confident enough in our views to
actually use our own heads and logic. I guess this is the same
confidence that allows some to EARN what they have rather
than cry for handouts and protection.
Look at me: I've earned everything I have and I have "it all"
so to speak. And all without special handout programs.
Even with a "headstart" (pardon the pun), you and your
bittersisters STILL wound up alone and often poor.
As Jet would say: The irony.
> They gestate the children into poverty or
> >hardship and it's largely undisputed that single mother
households>are worse
> for children than two parent households (hence, the need>to compare
"bad"
> fathers to single mothers.)
> >
> Again, children born to single mothers BY CHOICE has never been
studied.
HAHAHAHA!
So you're saying American women don't have a choice? :-)
That they don't have abortion rights, birth control, or if all
else fails, not have sex? :-)
Like I said, even with all the so-called abilities you claim to
have, you still are a helpless, well, woman (pardon the
redundancy.)
> Any
> time a child loses a parent, there is a loss.
HAHAHA!
Not if the "primary caregiver" and the courts wants the other
man out of the picture. Or if the mother dumps the child
at the firestation in leau of killing it. etc.
> AND, I just provided another study showing that no father at all is
better for
> teens than teens who have PROBLEMATIC relationships with their
fathers.
And eating raw sewage is better than eating poison. If such
an argument is the ONLY one you have to defend the single
mum household, then you've indirectly admitted that even
you underhandedly acknowledge that single mother households
are horrid.
> >On the contrary, Parg, all evidence shows that overall, two
parent>or even
> SINGLE FATHER households are better for children than>single mommies
and their
> check cashing schemes.
>
> Not according to the study I just provided, Mark. :-)
>
> I disagree with>the state creating this situation but, as I said,
I'm at
> >least not a SoreLoser about it.
>
> Good to know. Mothers will continue to do as they have done and
raise their
> kids and fathers will be able to fudge less and less about single
mothers
> ...according to new studies, eh? That works for me.
The so-called study you provided was citing statistics from 1976 to
1999. Hardly new. And "fudging"? That's the pot calling
the kettle African-American! You cite a study making a totally
dissimilar comparison as if it proves anything.
Sure, the mothers can raise their children and then
say "Well, at least I'm better than an abusive father!"
Yeah, that really works. Of course, this is assuming
the single moms are able to have kids (wink. :-)
> >> (This is similar to her>thinking that women deserve a medal for the
> >sacrifice>> of>gestating a child for 9 months and pre-mothering
it>unless she
> decides>it's>> just a piece of tissue and kills it.)
> >>
> >> Mark, if you and I were to each bring together some ingredients to
make
> >...say,>> a bomb or some other destructive device, and if one of us
aborted
> the>process,> there would be no bomb, eh?
> >
> >So are you saying that children are bombs?
> >
> I am saying that the HARM caused by parents refusing to support
children is
> indeed like a bomb. Of course, if there is no bomb, no harm has been
created.
So, what you're saying is that the "bomb" can be defused by
the unwilling parent giving the other parent information
about where the infant can be dropped off for adoption
at the firestation!
Win win! :-)
> >Also, do you suggest that the makers of fertilizer be held>half
accountable
> for providing the essential ingredient to
> >McVeigh to blow up the Federal Building in Oklahoma?
>
> No, but when they both mix it up with the intended natural results of
their
> actions, well, I think you know the rest of the story.
Actually, no.
Certainly, if the man didn't want a child then he certainly
didn't "intend" to have a child by having sex anymore
than a fertilizer company intended for it's product to be
used to bomb a federal building.
> :-) Let's say they both mix the necessary ingredients and the one
who is
> housing the mixed ingredients aborts. Look ma! No bomb!
And by the same token, the person who took the ingredients
and mixed them up and then dropped them off shouldn't argue:
"I'm a victim of someone else giving me all these ingredients!
Pay me bomber-support!"
> >Or should the store owners who sold the ingredients be>held half
accountable
> for "bringing" the ingredients to McVeigh?
> >
> Those who make babies already are aware of the potential consequences
of their
> actions, Mark.
So men make babies? This would mean that abortion is murder, no? :-)
> No store owners are needed for that. As to the
bombmakers, if
> you want to file a conspiracy charge, be my guest, if you can prove
it.
Sometimes the courts can be mistaken as some bittergirls complained
about in Florida. :-)
> >Before you try to make legal secretary arguments of >direct
causation, note
> that many shooting victims tried
> >to bring legal action against gun manufacturers using
> >similar logic.
> >
> I have no need to broaden my list of defendants in the case at hand,
Mark. As
> to being a legal secretary, you wouldn't even make the grade for that.
Nope. I get paid too much to take a demotion. :-)
> >> If there is no child, there is no child.
> >> Poor Mark thinks he can control women's bodies, simply by
pretending that
> >body>> cells equals a child.
> >
> >If the mother chooses to "build" a bomb and then wants society>to
come
to her
> rescue (and support) for her to exploit the bomb for a living, then
society
> always will have a say about how she>leads her life.
> >
> You can certainly TRY to paint a scarlet letter "A" on her chest, but
today,
> that doesn't hold much sway in the real world.
Sure it does!
You took the bait faster than a rat by accepting the conservative
argument that mommy-support could substitute for full-scale
socialist programs.
Hillary was unable to sell healthcare and daycare because the public
now is sold on the notion of limited government (in a sense).
Even most leftists now (including yourself) now
say the UNTHINKABLE phrase "I can't stand to see MY tax
dollars go to someone else!!!" :-)
So yes, really, it's unfair (IMO) but men do have the choice
to not have kids with such women and from what _I_ can see,
many of them are doing so. It's now largely minority men
being locked up (and unable to vote) and the senior citizens
screeching for more benefits at the expense of the
poor single mum block. The seniors are better funded
and organized and guess what?: G.W. just gave them
a bunch of drugs!
THAT, repeat, THAT alone almost ensures I'll get my 10 bucks
from you. Let's sum up:
1) Minority men off to jail for failing to pay mommy support.
2) Seniors leaning towards Bush for their drug fix.
3) Less money and support even from democrats for their traditional groups.
Yep, I'll be enjoying this November! In the meantime, I just
LOVE all those Republican ads!
> AND, a bomb co-created by two will not likely be attributed to one,
no matter
> how many other defendants you'd like to bring in on the bomb example.
We're on our way there. I look at the big picture. All this sabre
rattling against the deadbeats will ultimately result in
the voter sighing with the exasperation: "The problem
is STILL not solved AND we can't raise taxes to pay for programs!"
You've painted yourself into a corner. Good going. And
Ronald Reagan was the one who provided the paint...
> Single mother households are largely not wonderful places to live.
>
> So what? Sometimes arguing with a negative and hostile father may
not be a
> wonderful place to live either. Teens seem to do better without one
of
those.
You mean the one out "playing golf?" :-)
Seriously, most fathers problems are that they are emotionally
distant, not negative and hostile. Such shrewlike behaviour
is mostly with the "primary caregiver". On the contrary,
often the father is the one who helps to provide an alternate
avenue for a teen to turn to.
And as you know, plenty of statistics are available (that I published)
that show that single mom households are, in general, worse
off than two parent households. Period.
> >One additional comment about the study comparing drug use between
"bad"
> fathers and ALL single mother households: Drug use isn't>necessarily
a bad
> thing.
>
> Hahahahahahaha. Mark, you really had to stretch to come up with that
little
> nugget! Perhaps you could use that as a campaign slogan. "More
funding for
> Single Fathers: Drug Use Isn't all that Bad! " :-)
Seriously, I'm sure the stats are out there that college students
probably do more drugs and drinking than working people even
of the same age.
> Many middle class households use
> >marijuana without any negative consequences. Many former
> >users of drugs go on to become president and sexually harass women!
:-)>I am
> personally against the drug war overall.
> >
> Well, finally...there's one subject we can agree upon. However, drug
use for
> ADULTS is a bit different than drug use for kids. :-) Even I'm not
THAT
> liberal.
Maybe I'm a bit European in the sense that teenagers having a glass
of wine (or even whiskey) under adult supervision isn't a horrible
thing. (16 years or so.) In fact, it helps them to have a more
healthy attitude towards it than binge drinking that's common
on college campuses in the states. Seriously, during the 80's
as they cracked down on drinking, binge drinking shot up on
college campuses.
Yes, teens probably shouldn't use drugs or have sex, but why
not be realistic? Schools hand out condoms, no?
> >> >> > The point is that women do take in money from mommy-support
so they
> aren't>> going broke because> they make a few less dollars in the
workplace.
> >> >>
> >> Women are in demand these days, Mark. Some of them even have to
buy
wives.>
> You can blame the market economy. :-)
> >
> >Some of the women buy wives? :-) Sorry, but I don't think such a
trend
> >yet exists in same sex marriage. :-)
> >
> Hahaha....I meant men. Sorry.
>
> >Regarding demand for wives: Yeah, Bridgett Jones appealed to all
> >those women in demand. I'm sure the DVD sells great on Valentines
day.
> >If anyone is "buying" anything, it's women buying each other's>eggs.
Cluck
> cluck!
> >
> I'm ok with that. Of course, you did read about that new technology I
posted,
> did you not? HEre's part of the article:
>
> Updated: 12:54 PM EST
> Putting the Future on Ice
> Clinics Aimed at 30-Somethings Hoping to Freeze Eggs, Extend Fertility
HOPING! Yep, MAYBE new technology in a decade or two.
Dreams can come true,
they can happen to you,
if you're old and barren! :-)
regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Hyerdahl1
>From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
>Message-id: <f741bce1.04040...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20040331163155...@mb-m21.aol.com>...
> > >From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
>
> > >
incubator.
>
>Well if you want me to talk about my personal life... :-)
>
could relate to any sexist who wanted to call his wife's sacrifice of
gestation/delivery equivalent to squirting.
> >
>(edit of the presonal)
Hyerdahl1
>From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
>Date: 4/2/04 10:39 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <f741bce1.04040...@posting.google.com>
>If a father leaves before a child is born, how could he have abandoned it?
Are you implying that unborn children>are murdered by an abortion? :-)
Not at all, Mark; issues of abandonment are not ajudicated by WHEN the father
leaves, but rather, THAT he has.
>Besides, many fathers are denied custody of the children.>If they "abandon" a
child, it's because the court ordered them>to. Are you saying fathers should
disobey the law?
>
Fathers who are not abusive or neglectful have every right to parent their own
child, and as long as they are trying to participate those fathers will not be
seen as abandoning.
Mark Sobolewski
> >From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
> >If a father leaves before a child is born, how could he have abandoned it?
> Are you implying that unborn children>are murdered by an abortion? :-)
>
> Not at all, Mark; issues of abandonment are not ajudicated by WHEN the father
> leaves, but rather, THAT he has.
So shouldn't the same be said of the mommies who abandon
their child at the firestation lest they murder them?
Heck, why not allow them to drop it off even if it's 18 if
time isn't an issue?
Logic is so fun! :-)
Of course, time not being a factor, how can a father
walk away from a child that doesn't exist? You haven't
shown me how in this case...
> >Besides, many fathers are denied custody of the children.>If they "abandon" a
> child, it's because the court ordered them>to. Are you saying fathers should
> disobey the law?
> >
> Fathers who are not abusive or neglectful have every right to parent their own
> child, and as long as they are trying to participate those fathers will not be
> seen as abandoning.
You mean sending checks?
So, if parenthood is defined by a parent dropping off checks, why
not have the state take away children from single moms (who
are demonstrated to be poor parents statistically) and have
them put up for adoption?
regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Society
"Jeanne de`Arc" <Jea...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AVH8c.2982$px6....@news2.e.nsc.no...
> It's Time for Working Women to Earn Equal Pay
>
women are
> still paid less than men-even when we have similar education, skills
and
> experience.
>
> less to spend on groceries, housing, child care and other expenses
for every
> $100 worth of work we do. Nationwide, working families lose $200
billion of
> income annually to the wage gap.
>
Jeanne, thanks for setting soc.men straight on this issue.
--
At the age the average man has his first
heart attack, the average woman has been raped,
beaten, attacked, underpaid, and overworked for
most of her adult life.
source: _The Myth of Male Power_
by Dr. Sheila Green
neptune3
<Soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
> At the age the average man has his first
> heart attack, the average woman has been raped,
> beaten, attacked, underpaid, and overworked for
> most of her adult life.
http://vortxweb.net/gorgias/mens_issues/pay_gap.html
"The issue of unequal pay for equal work between men and women is
probably the issue that most women find easy to
rally behind that gender feminists have kept alive. While a
disparity stemming from discrimination may well have
existed up through the 1960's, in recent times this gap is
practically nonexistent. But the "(insert number here)
cents on the dollar" statistics are still frequently cited. Let's
see if this disparity can hold up under close (or
not so close) scrutiny.
If you don't want to bother reading on, here's a summary of this
material: When maternal leave, education, job
choice and experience are accounted for, there is no wage gap to be
found. When the often cited "75 cents on the
dollar" and similar numbers are calculated, they are typically a
ratio of the average wages of women divided by the
average wages of men. They do not focus on comparing wages in
specific work environments, and therefore the concept
of "equal pay for equal work" plays no part in creating these
numbers. None. None at all.
The fact of the matter is, it is next to impossible to compare
people of equal abilities and job roles, and so the
studies often cited rely heavily on data irrelevant to the question
of discrimination. Of course there are
male-dominated jobs (such as electrical engineering) that pay more
than female-dominated jobs (such as hairdresser
or secretary), but it is also true that it takes a lot more work
and education to be an engineer than to be an
office assistant. Women are now graduating from college in greater
numbers than men, but they're still not choosing
to go into fields that are abstractly challenging and pay the most.
There is also the fact that men simply work more hours than women
do, and most men don't take 'maternity leave',
giving them an earned advantage in getting promotions and raises.
Of course, a woman shouldn't be discriminated
against for the possibility of taking maternity leave, but the fact
is that many women choose to do so and are also
choosing to forfeit the financial gains they could have made had
they chosen not to have a child.
Sex roles have a lot to do with the pay gap, in more ways that you
might think. Despite all of the advances that
women have made in the workplace, society hasn't lessened the male
role to be a financial provider and breadwinner
for his family. Thus many men simply take jobs they like less (or
are more dangerous) because they pay more, due to
this social pressure. Women entered the workforce as an additional
choice they had (the other being to stay at
home), and in doing so they were more free to choose the less
demanding or dangerous jobs because they don't have
this traditional social pressure.
Also consider this: 24 of the 25 worst jobs rated according to the
Jobs Related Almanac are composed of over 95%
men. These are high-risk, hazardous jobs (often called the "death
professions"), which pay more than most
working-class jobs because they're so undesirable. But men will
work in them to be better providers for their
families.
If men didn't have this continual pressure to make money and
support their families, or if men didn't need money to
attract the attention of women, the average amount that men make
would certainly decrease. But instead we have a
social system that tells men to practically kill themselves to try
and make as much money as possible, and
feminists to complain as if men made this money on the basis of
discrimination. This is not what is really going
on. If anything, the fact that men make more than women on average
is because men basically don't have the choice
not to.
You want the stats? These articles speak for themselves, and if
they won't convince you, nothing will..."
[See web page]
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nsm88.com
http://www.nationalism.org/rnsp/display_ENG.htm
Hyerdahl1
>From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
>Message-id: <f741bce1.0404...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20040402145448...@mb-m04.aol.com>...
>> >From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
>
>> >If a father leaves before a child is born, how could he have abandoned it?
>
>> Are you implying that unborn children>are murdered by an abortion? :-)
>>
Not at all, Mark; issues of abandonment are not ajudicated by WHEN the>father
>> leaves, but rather, THAT he has.
>
>So shouldn't the same be said of the mommies who abandon their child at the
firestation lest they murder them?
Programs to help newborns are optional, Mark. We can vote them in or vote them
out. Most people want to help newborns; you seem opposed to that.
>>Heck, why not allow them to drop it off even if it's 18 if >time isn't an
issue?
>
:-) If you want that implemented, go for it, Mark. I'm a-ok with limiting the
protection to newly delivered mothers and their neonates.
>Logic is so fun! :-)
Indeed. Showing the flaws in linear thinking like yours is always a kick.
Poor Mark must believe there are laws without exceptions. :-)
>>Of course, time not being a factor, how can a father>walk away from a child
that doesn't exist? You haven't shown me how in this case...
>
>> >Besides, many fathers are denied custody of the children.>If they
>"abandon" a> child, it's because the court ordered them>to. Are you saying
fathers>should> disobey the law?
>> >
>> Fathers who are not abusive or neglectful have every right to parent their
>own> child, and as long as they are trying to participate those fathers will
not
>be>> seen as abandoning.
>
>You mean sending checks?
That is certainly one way to not abandon a child. There are others.
>>So, if parenthood is defined by a parent dropping off checks, why>not have
the state take away children from single moms (who are demonstrated to be poor
parents statistically) and have>them put up for adoption?
The best interests of a child is determined on a case by case basis, Mark.
Surely, you understand that? We don't take children away from people based on
statistics. :-)
>
>regards,
>Mark Sobolewski
Mark Sobolewski
> >From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
> >> >If a father leaves before a child is born, how could he have abandoned it?
>
> >> Are you implying that unborn children>are murdered by an abortion? :-)
> >>
> Not at all, Mark; issues of abandonment are not ajudicated by WHEN the>father
> >> leaves, but rather, THAT he has.
> >
> >So shouldn't the same be said of the mommies who abandon their child at the
> firestation lest they murder them?
>
> Programs to help newborns are optional, Mark. We can vote them in or vote them
> out. Most people want to help newborns; you seem opposed to that.
Ok. Let's continue:
> >>Heck, why not allow them to drop it off even if it's 18 if >time isn't an
> issue?
> >
> :-) If you want that implemented, go for it, Mark. I'm a-ok with limiting the
> protection to newly delivered mothers and their neonates.
So some kids aren't all that impotant, ok. And time is irrelevent
except when it means mostly women doing the abandoning.
> >Logic is so fun! :-)
>
> Indeed. Showing the flaws in linear thinking like yours is always a kick.
> Poor Mark must believe there are laws without exceptions. :-)
>
> >>Of course, time not being a factor, how can a father>walk away from a child
> that doesn't exist? You haven't shown me how in this case...
>
> >> >Besides, many fathers are denied custody of the children.>If they
> >"abandon" a> child, it's because the court ordered them>to. Are you saying
> fathers>should> disobey the law?
> >> >
> >> Fathers who are not abusive or neglectful have every right to parent their
> >own> child, and as long as they are trying to participate those fathers will
> not
> >be>> seen as abandoning.
> >
> >You mean sending checks?
>
> That is certainly one way to not abandon a child. There are others.
>
> >>So, if parenthood is defined by a parent dropping off checks, why>not have
> the state take away children from single moms (who are demonstrated to be poor
> parents statistically) and have>them put up for adoption?
>
> The best interests of a child is determined on a case by case basis, Mark.
> Surely, you understand that? We don't take children away from people based on
> statistics. :-)
At this point, your logic is so non-existant that calling it
inconsistent and contradictory
would be a compliment. I can't really say anything more than that at
this point
other than that my life has moved on. You get to be smug and happy
that
some woman abandoned her child legally or cashed a mommy support
check. Good for you. Where does this get you however? In the
meantime,
I have people who respect me and I'm with someone. That's precious to
me.
Really.
regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Hyerdahl1
>From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
>Message-id: <f741bce1.04041...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20040416121348...@mb-m10.aol.com>...
>> >From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
>> >> >If a father leaves before a child is born, how could he have abandoned
>it?
>>
>> >> Are you implying that unborn children>are murdered by an abortion? :-)
>> >>
>> Not at all, Mark; issues of abandonment are not ajudicated by
WHEN>the>father> leaves, but rather, THAT he has.
>> >
So shouldn't the same be said of the mommies who abandon their child at
>the firestation lest they murder them?
>>
>> Programs to help newborns are optional, Mark. We can vote them in or
vote>them>> out. Most people want to help newborns; you seem opposed to that.
>
>Ok. Let's continue:
>
Heck, why not allow them to drop it off even if it's 18 if >time isn't an
issue?
>> >
>> :-) If you want that implemented, go for it, Mark. I'm a-ok with limiting
>the> protection to newly delivered mothers and their neonates.
>
>So some kids aren't all that impotant, ok.
Kids are not as vulnerable as neonates, Mark, and by the time a neonate becomes
a "kid" homes have been established. For kids in trouble there are other
sources of help, i.e. welfare, foster care, etc.
And time is irrelevent>except when it means mostly women doing the abandoning.
Since men do not gestate and deliver neonates into the world, they don't face
the same burdens as those who do. It's just that simple.
>
>> >Logic is so fun! :-)
>>
>> Indeed. Showing the flaws in linear thinking like yours is always a kick.
Poor Mark must believe there are laws without exceptions. :-)
>>
(edit)
>>
>> >> >Besides, many fathers are denied custody of the children.>If
they>"abandon" a> child, it's because the court ordered them>to. Are
you>saying fathers>should> disobey the law?
>> >> >
>> >> Fathers who are not abusive or neglectful have every right to parent
>their>> >own> child, and as long as they are trying to participate those
fathers
>will> not> >be>> seen as abandoning.
>> >
>> >You mean sending checks?
>>
>> That is certainly one way to not abandon a child. There are others.
>>
So, if parenthood is defined by a parent dropping off checks, why>not>have
the state take away children from single moms (who are demonstrated to be
>poor>> parents statistically) and have>them put up for adoption?
>>
>> The best interests of a child is determined on a case by case basis, Mark. >
Surely, you understand that? We don't take children away from people based>on>
statistics. :-)
>
>At this point, your logic is so non-existant that calling it
>inconsistent and contradictory
>would be a compliment.
Well, I just showed you that sending a check is one way to show you have not
abandoned your child. There are also other ways like raising your child. My
logic remains intact, Mark. You are the one who has problems with linear
thinking. You still think a right is the same as a choice, and that
abandonment must be expressed in the same way to BE abandonment.
I can't really say anything more than that at>this point>other than that my
life has moved on.
If it had, you'd be elsewhere, no? :-)
You get to be smug and happy
>that>some woman abandoned her child legally or cashed a mommy support
>check. Good for you. Where does this get you however?
Thanks for conceding Mark.
(edit of the personal)
Mark Sobolewski
Vulnerable from what? You keep talking about the "neonate" vulnerability
and the need for a safe place. Safe from whom? I thought
the "primary caregiver" took care of it? :-)
> And time is irrelevent>except when it means mostly women doing the abandoning.
>
> Since men do not gestate and deliver neonates into the world, they don't face
> the same burdens as those who do. It's just that simple.
I thought you claimed gestation was an ability?
Regardless, you continue to argue that "two play, two pay".
We don't punish fish if birds drown, do we? Regardless,
men are held responsible for the burdens they create due to
their choices. Maybe if women made better choices, they wouldn't
need so much rescuing, er, "equal rights" lest they harm
their own babies, er, "neonates".
Here's the problem: If the "primary caregiver" abandons the child
in leau of murdering it, she can't cash the checks anymore or
abuse it. Choices choices..
In the meantime, the ACLU is having a big march here in Washington
to protest (gasp!) that women can't partial deliver "neonates"
and kill them halfway out. I may just go and hold up a counter
protest sign "How many of these women would FIGHT in Afghanistan
for their rights?"
>. You are the one who has problems with linear
> thinking. You still think a right is the same as a choice, and that
> abandonment must be expressed in the same way to BE abandonment.
Lessee: I don't require the state or sugar daddies to constantly
bail me out. I'm not a SoreLoser when my side loses.
That's the difference between abilities and needs.
> I can't really say anything more than that at>this point>other than that my
> life has moved on.
>
> If it had, you'd be elsewhere, no? :-)
>
> You get to be smug and happy
> >that>some woman abandoned her child legally or cashed a mommy support
> >check. Good for you. Where does this get you however?
>
> Thanks for conceding Mark.
> (edit of the personal)
As I said, you have a lot of this agenda for now but I fail to see
how this is going to be much of a legacy for women in general
much less yourself.
In the end, you're just a small person on a losing, nasty side.
Enjoy.
regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Hyerdahl1
>From: mark_so...@yahoo.com (Mark Sobolewski)
"Vulnerable" from the elements, if a newly delivered mother has no place to go.
"Safe" from not having a place to go. It gives the newly delivered mother a
chance to get help and/or make better choices.
>
>> And time is irrelevent>except when it means mostly women doing
the>abandoning.
>>
>> Since men do not gestate and deliver neonates into the world, they don't
>face> the same burdens as those who do. It's just that simple.
>
>I thought you claimed gestation was an ability?
>
Indeed. And, it's an ability men don't have that comes with burdens for the
one having the ability. Think of it this way, the captain of a ship has the
ability to navigate that ship and the burden of the general safety of the crew
and guests.
>Regardless, you continue to argue that "two play, two pay". >We don't punish
fish if birds drown, do we?
Making sure fathers contribute their share to the upkeep of their children is
hardly viewed as a punishment, Mark. It's just viewed as a legal
responsibility so that society need not do what fathers should do.
Regardless,>men are held responsible for the burdens they create due to
>their choices. Maybe if women made better choices, they wouldn't
>need so much rescuing, er, "equal rights" lest they harm>their own babies, er,
"neonates".
I have no problem at all with social programs geared to help newly delivered
parents and their neonates. Programs like WIC give those newborns a better
start in life, and the newborns who use that program can come from single
parent homes or two parent homes.
???? A newly delivered mother and neonate are not receiving checks from
welfare, Mark. That's why the program exists to give the new parent a chance
to regroup. A parent of a dead newborn is also not receiving welfare checks.
So what are you on about?
In the meantime, the ACLU is having a big march here in Washington to protest
(gasp!) that women can't partial deliver "neonates" and kill them halfway out.
I may just go and hold up a counter
>protest sign "How many of these women would FIGHT in Afghanistan for their
rights?"
Limiting women only to unsafe late term abortion would be the result of the
legislation you are supporting. I don't see how it matters that women opposed
to something that could threaten their health should sign up for a tour of duty
in Afghanistan, when they also don't have equal military rights. Are you that
confused?
> You are the one who has problems with linear> thinking. You still think a
right is the same as a choice, and that> abandonment must be expressed in the
same way to BE abandonment.
>
>Lessee: I don't require the state or sugar daddies to constantly>bail me out.
I'm not a SoreLoser when my side loses.
Mark, you are a third rate net hack who is unable to debate the actual issues,
ending all his posts in either personal agrandizement or a reference to an
election long since gone. I find your vulnerability...amusing.
>That's the difference between abilities and needs.
Well, Mark, you go on ahead and puff out your chest and pretend that your
little squirt equals the same degree of sacrifice as nine mos. of labor and
delivery. You have to have _something_ to make yourself feel better. :-)