Feminism Makes the Church Apostate
Masculist
Adam, eat that apple that Eve is offerring you". It goes to the
essence and purpose of the Church and makes the present day Church the
instrument of the evil.
Feminism is the belief that there are no sex differences which in turn
gives legal support for the "mandating of sexual equality".
Thomas The Twin
Hyerdahl
Masculist wrote:
> The Amerikan Church's support of feminism is like God saying, "Go ahead
> Adam, eat that apple that Eve is offerring you". It goes to the
> essence and purpose of the Church and makes the present day Church the
> instrument of the evil.
Actually, you have a point, since Lilith heard what the male only god
and Adam had to say and responded by saying "fuck you both; I'm going
to worship the Goddess". :-)
>
> Feminism is the belief that there are no sex differences which in turn
> gives legal support for the "mandating of sexual equality".
Feminism in the west has already won that position by implementing
equal rights by law. However, that doesn't mean there are no
differences. In fact, where there are "dissimilar circumstances"
feminism supports the notion that women need not BE men in order to
have equal rights. For example, we need not have equal numbers of
urinals in all bathrooms to give human beings equal peeing rights.
>
rand...@googlemail.com
Hyerdahl wrote:
> Feminism in the west has already won that position by implementing
> equal rights by law.
Rubbish. When it comes to the law women are privileged throughout.
PK Smith
Masculist wrote:
> The Amerikan Church's support of feminism is like God saying, "Go ahead
> Adam, eat that apple that Eve is offerring you". It goes to the
> essence and purpose of the Church and makes the present day Church the
> instrument of the evil.
The Christian church has always been pro-female. One only has to sit in
any Sunday congregation to witness that 80% of church-goers are women.
They donate 90% of the Sunday collection. The Christian church is
popular among women because it:
- highlights the role of motherhood, even elevating Mary to virgin
status.
- posts males in leadership roles (priests) thereby sanctifying the
alpha male role in society
to look after the females.
Indeed, after years of study and reflection upon feminist trickery and
feminst bullshit, one eventually realizes that masculism can only
sustain if Christianity is defeated.
Never, ever, discount how far feminism has spread its tenacles. They
have had a 2000 year head start.
The Curmudgeon
wrote:
The Catholic Church has come out clearly against feminism and its
destructive effects on society, the relationship between men and
women, and the family.
http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM
Papal Encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" - JohnPaul II
Certain rogue elements of the American Church may support feminism,
but they are out of communion with the Church's teaching
the Curmudgeon
conn...@hotmail.com
Yep, like not being slaughtered in war and work for those easily won
rights.
Stephen Morgan
Masculist wrote:
> The Amerikan Church's support of feminism is like God saying, "Go ahead
> Adam, eat that apple that Eve is offerring you". It goes to the
> essence and purpose of the Church and makes the present day Church the
> instrument of the evil.
Yes. Women dancing naked on pews. See the web-book Twist of Faith and
the feminism articles on the jeremiah project website.
> Feminism is the belief that there are no sex differences which in turn
> gives legal support for the "mandating of sexual equality".
Partly. Partly the belief that there are differences, such as the finer
fibre of the female mind, all of which are advantageous for women.
> Thomas The Twin
Is this some sort of philosophical statement?
PK Smith
The Curmudgeon wrote:
> The Catholic Church has come out clearly against feminism and its
> destructive effects on society, the relationship between men and
> women, and the family.
Of course the Catholic Church formally states that they are against
feminism, because feminism stands to disrupt the Sunday collection
revenue stream. Feminists don't attend church, and don't put money in
the basket. Middle-aged beta females put most money into the church
coffers and this is why the salesmen (aka priests) will never support
feminism.
The Catholic church will never support masculism either. The salesmen
(priests) know that true masculism is about equality for all. A society
that has equality has little need for a church full of alpha-wanna-be
males preaching promises-of-life-ever-after to middle aged females.
Hyerdahl
What "law" do women enjoy that men don't also have? :-)
Hyerdahl
PK Smith wrote:
> Masculist wrote:
> > The Amerikan Church's support of feminism is like God saying, "Go ahead
> > Adam, eat that apple that Eve is offerring you". It goes to the
> > essence and purpose of the Church and makes the present day Church the
> > instrument of the evil.
>
> The Christian church has always been pro-female. One only has to sit in
> any Sunday congregation to witness that 80% of church-goers are women.
> They donate 90% of the Sunday collection. The Christian church is
> popular among women because it:
> - highlights the role of motherhood, even elevating Mary to virgin
> status.
> - posts males in leadership roles (priests) thereby sanctifying the
> alpha male role in society
> to look after the females.
> Indeed, after years of study and reflection upon feminist trickery and
> feminst bullshit, one eventually realizes that masculism can only
> sustain if Christianity is defeated.
I'm A-ok with ending all patriarchal religions. :-)
>
> Never, ever, discount how far feminism has spread its tenacles. They
> have had a 2000 year head start.
Feminism gives women the tools they need to fight patriarchy and you
and yours.
The Curmudgeon
wrote:
>
>The Curmudgeon wrote:
>> The Catholic Church has come out clearly against feminism and its
>> destructive effects on society, the relationship between men and
>> women, and the family.
>
>Of course the Catholic Church formally states that they are against
>feminism, because feminism stands to disrupt the Sunday collection
>revenue stream. Feminists don't attend church, and don't put money in
>the basket.
Have to disagree with you there. As a regular churchgoer myself, I see
women who are feminists in church all the time, and presumably give
every Sunday. These women don't call themselves feminists of course,
but the ones I've spoken with clearly are, even though they are loath
to admit it. Actually, a majority of women who are feminist won't
admit to it, as overall feminism has finally gotten a bad name over
the past decade or so. Most of these women work quietly within the
system to try and undermine what the Church actually teaches about
feminism and modernism.
>Middle-aged beta females put most money into the church
>coffers and this is why the salesmen (aka priests) will never support
>feminism.
>
>The Catholic church will never support masculism either.
The Catholic church probably wouldn't support masculism (I'm not sure
if they're even aware that such a movement exists actually) because
masculism appears to be a totally secular humanist approach to men's
rights and issues without involving God.
> The salesmen
>(priests) know that true masculism is about equality for all. A society
>that has equality has little need for a church full of alpha-wanna-be
>males preaching promises-of-life-ever-after to middle aged females.
True equality is actually a secular humanist lie. It will never be
achieved. It's actually the same lie that feminists try to push on
everyone. Men and women are different, fundamentally different, not
just socially, but genetically, psychologically, just about every way
you can imagine. They both have different spheres where they excel and
are best at. Put them together in cooperation with one another and you
have a complete picture.
What feminism has done is attempt to take away what are traditionally
men's roles and natural place in all of this and replace them with
ersatz women who are basically wanna-be men. These ersatz women are
supporters of a socialistic secular/humanist nanny welfare state that
provides a sort of safety net for women who want to raise children
without fathers, no men being involved. Some women are exceptions to
this, but they are in the minority. The Catholic church supports the
family, as is traditionally construed, as being still the best unit,
with a strong patriarchal father who is spiritual head of the
household, the protector and provider of the family.
the Curmudgeon
Masculist
PK Smith wrote:
> Masculist wrote:
> > The Amerikan Church's support of feminism is like God saying, "Go ahead
> > Adam, eat that apple that Eve is offerring you". It goes to the
> > essence and purpose of the Church and makes the present day Church the
> > instrument of the evil.
>
> The Christian church has always been pro-female. One only has to sit in
> any Sunday congregation to witness that 80% of church-goers are women.
> They donate 90% of the Sunday collection. The Christian church is
> popular among women because it:
> - highlights the role of motherhood, even elevating Mary to virgin
> status.
> - posts males in leadership roles (priests) thereby sanctifying the
> alpha male role in society
> to look after the females.
> Indeed, after years of study and reflection upon feminist trickery and
> feminst bullshit, one eventually realizes that masculism can only
> sustain if Christianity is defeated.
I agree with all you said here except that masculism can't do it alone.
No way. God is on board, and being a Christian living in an
apostasized Christian nation, I suspect and hope the renewal coicnides
with a Christian renewal. It's time. I feel and know it.
> Never, ever, discount how far feminism has spread its tenacles. They
> have had a 2000 year head start.
They (the feminists) are only women and their eunuch rich men. The
subterfuge of women in the Church is hard to hide in this age. We'll
flush them out, and with God's help, roll them over. It's an
appropriate and joyous challenge for men and some good women of this
age.
Thomas The Twin
Masculist
I'm sorry to burst your bubble PK, but masculism is NOT about equality
for all. we're dropping that civil rights bullshit. It is about
equality however if you are talking about the Bill of Rights. That's
all the sexual equality we need or that conforms to the spirit of the
constitution.
Masculists who spout sexual equality are not masculists, they are
feminist counter insurgents. I thought I knocked you masculist
"equality" counter insurgents off this list years ago. That was my
first priority when I got here.
Smitty
Masculist
The Curmudgeon wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2006 03:40:31 -0700, "PK Smith" <PSmit...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >The Curmudgeon wrote:
> >> The Catholic Church has come out clearly against feminism and its
> >> destructive effects on society, the relationship between men and
> >> women, and the family.
> >
> >Of course the Catholic Church formally states that they are against
> >feminism, because feminism stands to disrupt the Sunday collection
> >revenue stream. Feminists don't attend church, and don't put money in
> >the basket.
>
> Have to disagree with you there. As a regular churchgoer myself, I see
> women who are feminists in church all the time, and presumably give
> every Sunday.
I forgot to say the same thing in my last post Curdge. You're a 100%
right. PK's masculism is actually feminism and I argued that down
years ago. Now it sticks it's ugly head up again to do the feminist
counter insurgent number again. God I hate those tricky and lieing
damn feminists.
Masculism is totally in line with orthodox Christianity. The Catholics
will feel at home with it. But God leads the way as always.
Tom
Daedalus
wrote:
>The Amerikan Church's support of feminism is like God saying, "Go ahead
>Adam, eat that apple that Eve is offerring you".
Well isn't that a good thing? I mean he got in big trouble for eating
the apple before. If god gives him permission, that's just following
the rules, right? Aren't you supposed to think whatever god decides is
right?
> It goes to the
>essence and purpose of the Church and makes the present day Church the
>instrument of the evil.
Feminism is the tool of the devil. Hmm. Have you won any kook awards
yet, Tom?
>
>Feminism is the belief that there are no sex differences which in turn
>gives legal support for the "mandating of sexual equality".
Do you drink? If not, you should.
Jade
Masculist
Stephen Morgan wrote:
> Masculist wrote:
> > The Amerikan Church's support of feminism is like God saying, "Go ahead
> > Adam, eat that apple that Eve is offerring you". It goes to the
> > essence and purpose of the Church and makes the present day Church the
> > instrument of the evil.
>
> Yes. Women dancing naked on pews. See the web-book Twist of Faith and
> the feminism articles on the jeremiah project website.
Also read Donna Stiechen's "Ungodly Rage" about the feminists in the
Catholic Church. Excellent and well documented.
> > Feminism is the belief that there are no sex differences which in turn
> > gives legal support for the "mandating of sexual equality".
>
> Partly. Partly the belief that there are differences, such as the finer
> fibre of the female mind, all of which are advantageous for women.
True...in some respects.
> > Thomas The Twin
>
> Is this some sort of philosophical statement?
No. It's a religious statement totally unconnected with the political,
though running parallel in a "fullness of time" respect. God is with
us.
Thomas The Twin
Turin
> Stephen Morgan wrote:
>> Masculisp wrote:
>>> The Amerikan Church's support of feminism is like God saying, "Go ahead
>>> Adam, eat that apple that Eve is offerring you". It goes to the
>>> essence and purpose of the Church and makes the present day Church the
>>> instrument of the evil.
>> Yes. Women dancing naked on pews. See the web-book Twist of Faith and
>> the feminism articles on the jeremiah project website.
>
> Also read Donna Stiechen's "Ungodly Rage" about the feminists in the
> Catholic Church. Excellent and well documented.
You know Tom hasn't read it, then.
>>> Feminism is the belief that there are no sex differences which in turn
>>> gives legal support for the "mandating of sexual equality".
>> Partly. Partly the belief that there are differences, such as the finer
>> fibre of the female mind, all of which are advantageous for women.
>
> True...in some respects.
IOW, Tom doesn't have a clue what to say next.
>>> Thomas The Twink
>> Is this some sort of philosophical statement?
>
> No. It's a religious statement totally unconnected with the political,
> though running parallel in a "fullness of time" respect. God is with
> us.
IOW, Trolling Thomas is throwing out phrases he doesn't
understand, again.
Won't someone do his homework for him? Even bullshitters
need to be told which words to type into the Google search
engine.
> Thomas The Twerp
>
- - -
Few can dispute him. Even fewer dare...
Turin
I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups.google.com/group/Men_First
http://mail2world.com/Blog/Tu...@mail2zeus.com
------------------------
"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with,
deleteth, or maketh a lie about these words or causeth them
to not be known shall burn in hell forever and ever...."
-----
Rob
On Oct 11, 4:13 pm, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
I take it the inverted commas and smiley are there in recognition of
the crass absurdity of that question, but just in case not:
- Protection from childhood genital mutilation.
- Exemption from conscription.
- Protection from paternity fraud or false accusation.
- Default child custody.
- Laws such as VAWA.
- Protection from being named in court.
- The right to assume a spouse's higher standard of living.
- The right to a substantial proportion of a richer ex-spouse's future
income.
- Protection from any sort of sexual harassment.
- Lower sentences for the same crime.
- The right to have and raise a child on their own.
..... the list goes on and on
---
Rob
There's no equality without paternal certainty and 50/50 physical
child custody.
MCP
"Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1160579705.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
money,children,house and anything else worthwhile he has and then to murder
him if he should get uppity about all this abuse and get off scot free!
conn...@hotmail.com
Hyerdahl wrote:
> Masculist wrote:
>
> > The Amerikan Church's support of feminism is like God saying, "Go ahead
> > Adam, eat that apple that Eve is offerring you". It goes to the
> > essence and purpose of the Church and makes the present day Church the
> > instrument of the evil.
>
> Actually, you have a point, since Lilith heard what the male only god
> and Adam had to say and responded by saying "fuck you both; I'm going
> to worship the Goddess". :-)
And what is the goddess hyerdahl? Where is the dog's daughter?
> >
> > Feminism is the belief that there are no sex differences which in turn
> > gives legal support for the "mandating of sexual equality".
>
> Feminism in the west has already won that position by implementing
> equal rights by law.
Cheated not won.
> However, that doesn't mean there are no
> differences. In fact, where there are "dissimilar circumstances"
> feminism supports the notion that women need not BE men in order to
> have equal rights. For example, we need not have equal numbers of
> urinals in all bathrooms to give human beings equal peeing rights.
Nor do we in our boadrooms, science labs, computer clubs etc.
Hyerdahl
Rob wrote:
> On Oct 11, 4:13 pm, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> > randyw...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > > Feminism in the west has already won that position by implementing
> > > > equal rights by law.
> >
> > > Rubbish. When it comes to the law women are privileged throughout.
> >
> >What "law" do women enjoy that men don't also have? :-)
>
> I take it the inverted commas and smiley are there in recognition of
> the crass absurdity of that question, but just in case not:
> - Protection from childhood genital mutilation. I'm all for the end of Jewish patriarchal tradition it is Jewish patriarchs who enforce that, not feminists.
> - Exemption from conscription. I'm all for giving women equal military rights and duties.
> - Protection from paternity fraud or false accusation. That would be a SPECIAL RIGHT, no?
> - Default child custody. There is none...you too can be the primary caregiver.
> - Laws such as VAWA. VAWA applies to all people like the Brady Bill applies to more than the Brady bunch.
> - Protection from being named in court. Female rapists get no protection either.
> - The right to assume a spouse's higher standard of living. Same for any CP male or female
> - The right to a substantial proportion of a richer ex-spouse's future Sex doesn't matter here.
> income.
>
- Protection from any sort of sexual harassment. Sex doesn't matter
here either. Men have also filed SH claims.
> - Lower sentences for the same crime. Different standards apply to those less invested in violence. IOW, men have the same RIGHTS women have in all of these areas. So, you have failed to provide any LAWs that don't apply to men the same way they apply to women. You lose.>
Hyerdahl
conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> > Masculist wrote:
> >
> > > The Amerikan Church's support of feminism is like God saying, "Go ahead
> > > Adam, eat that apple that Eve is offerring you". It goes to the
> > > essence and purpose of the Church and makes the present day Church the
> > > instrument of the evil.
> >
> > Actually, you have a point, since Lilith heard what the male only god
> > and Adam had to say and responded by saying "fuck you both; I'm going
> > to worship the Goddess". :-)
>
> And what is the goddess hyerdahl? Where is the dog's daughter?
>
> > >
> > > Feminism is the belief that there are no sex differences which in turn
> > > gives legal support for the "mandating of sexual equality".
> >
> > Feminism in the west has already won that position by implementing
> > equal rights by law.
>
> Cheated not won.
Women need not be the "same as men" in order to have equal treatment,
'contard', and women don't seem to be standing in line to give up their
equal rights. Since the female population, as well as those eligible
to vote are just over 51%....it would seem to be that you're up shit
creek without a paddle.
> > However, that doesn't mean there are no
> > differences. In fact, where there are "dissimilar circumstances"
> > feminism supports the notion that women need not BE men in order to
> > have equal rights. For example, we need not have equal numbers of
> > urinals in all bathrooms to give human beings equal peeing rights.
>
> Nor do we in our boadrooms, science labs, computer clubs etc.
Ah, but we are. The mere FACT that more women than men are now
entering college will simply make more women men's bosses.
Masculist
The Curmudgeon wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2006 03:40:31 -0700, "PK Smith" <PSmit...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >The Curmudgeon wrote:
> >> The Catholic Church has come out clearly against feminism and its
> >> destructive effects on society, the relationship between men and
> >> women, and the family.
> >
> >Of course the Catholic Church formally states that they are against
> >feminism, because feminism stands to disrupt the Sunday collection
> >revenue stream. Feminists don't attend church, and don't put money in
> >the basket.
>
> Have to disagree with you there. As a regular churchgoer myself, I see
> women who are feminists in church all the time, and presumably give
> every Sunday. These women don't call themselves feminists of course,
> but the ones I've spoken with clearly are, even though they are loath
> to admit it. Actually, a majority of women who are feminist won't
> admit to it, as overall feminism has finally gotten a bad name over
> the past decade or so. Most of these women work quietly within the
> system to try and undermine what the Church actually teaches about
> feminism and modernism.
Feminists are Masters of the Lie. That combined with time tested
marxist rabble rousing techniques of language control (PC) and
intimidation that women excel at has made them the most powerful
special interest group in the country. Plus they have the support of
both the Left and Right. It has resulted in most of the corruption in
government and disenfranchisement of almost everyone else in the
Society, except of course their rich male sponsors.
This is why we need an ideological approach like masculism to combat
feminism. It's simply a rational approach that the feminists now have
exclusively while we have none. Like feminism, it's a tool in taking
control of the academy AND the Church. Feminists have infiltrated all
denominations and have taken over most. I submit it covered
politically for the sexual abuse by Priests and I have plenty of
evidence to support my claim. Now you're saying the Church wouldn't
give us the time of day? I know what the heirarchy has been doing and
it's time for them to repent and pay some dues...NOW! Thanks to the
Lord for what He did in my life, I can stand righteously before the
heirarchy like few can and make some demands.
> >Middle-aged beta females put most money into the church
> >coffers and this is why the salesmen (aka priests) will never support
> >feminism.
> >
> >The Catholic church will never support masculism either.
>
> The Catholic church probably wouldn't support masculism (I'm not sure
> if they're even aware that such a movement exists actually) because
> masculism appears to be a totally secular humanist approach to men's
> rights and issues without involving God.
True masculism is not "secular humanist", but counter insurgent
masculism is. Fortuneately the counter insurgents are a small minority
and usually Leftist operatives working for Big Mamma on both Left and
Right. Almost all of the men's activists on the net are more untied on
the main issues than their counter part femiinists are. They are all
essentially masculists. There's no conflict between those who are
religious and those who are not. Even the atheists amongst us
recognize Feminism has achieved the stature of a religion and as a
result are comfortable with religious advocacy as long as it is not
APOSTATE. The heirarchy needs to find an appropriate place for us
while preserving an ecumenical function. We love religion and most of
us are orthodox Christians. All ahteist's amongst us ask is that they
not have to go to Church. In us, the Church has it's most powerful
evangelizing potential. Feminism has disenfranchised men politically
and turned millions of men worldwide away from even considering God.
How do you think God feels about that while the Catholic and other
Church's use feminists to cover for their sins while ignoring men and
children?
> > The salesmen
> >(priests) know that true masculism is about equality for all. A society
> >that has equality has little need for a church full of alpha-wanna-be
> >males preaching promises-of-life-ever-after to middle aged females.
>
> True equality is actually a secular humanist lie. It will never be
> achieved. It's actually the same lie that feminists try to push on
> everyone. Men and women are different, fundamentally different, not
> just socially, but genetically, psychologically, just about every way
> you can imagine. They both have different spheres where they excel and
> are best at. Put them together in cooperation with one another and you
> have a complete picture.
>
> What feminism has done is attempt to take away what are traditionally
> men's roles and natural place in all of this and replace them with
> ersatz women who are basically wanna-be men. These ersatz women are
> supporters of a socialistic secular/humanist nanny welfare state that
> provides a sort of safety net for women who want to raise children
> without fathers, no men being involved. Some women are exceptions to
> this, but they are in the minority. The Catholic church supports the
> family, as is traditionally construed, as being still the best unit,
> with a strong patriarchal father who is spiritual head of the
> household, the protector and provider of the family.
You're preaching to the choir here but I'd add feminism has done much
worse. It's the most destructive ideology of the 19th and 20th
century. Naziiism was a reaction to feminism and communism was it's
evil promoter. We defeated communism but adopted it's most evil
component.
Thomas The Twin
> the Curmudgeon
pandora
"Daedalus" <ja...@netk00ks.org> wrote in message
news:tfkqi2ls34nd227lt...@4ax.com...
> On 10 Oct 2006 11:41:03 -0700, "Masculist" <MASC...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The Amerikan Church's support of feminism is like God saying, "Go ahead
> >Adam, eat that apple that Eve is offerring you".
>
> Well isn't that a good thing? I mean he got in big trouble for eating
> the apple before. If god gives him permission, that's just following
> the rules, right? Aren't you supposed to think whatever god decides is
> right?
According to Tom, it is. Only recently though. He's found the *light*.
:-)
> > It goes to the
> >essence and purpose of the Church and makes the present day Church the
> >instrument of the evil.
>
> Feminism is the tool of the devil. Hmm. Have you won any kook awards
> yet, Tom?
Nope, but he should, IMO.
> >
> >Feminism is the belief that there are no sex differences which in turn
> >gives legal support for the "mandating of sexual equality".
>
> Do you drink? If not, you should.
Yeah, he drinks. It's what screwed up his 3 marriages.
CWQ
> Jade
conn...@hotmail.com
Hyerdahl wrote:
>
>
> Women need not be the "same as men" in order to have equal treatment,
> 'contard', and women don't seem to be standing in line to give up their
> equal rights. Since the female population, as well as those eligible
> to vote are just over 51%....it would seem to be that you're up shit
> creek without a paddle.
Hyerdahl fails to see that many men yesteryear reached the top even
without a basic education yet todays women cant do likewise despite
having the best education and opportunities in the land of the free, in
fact, in the entire world.
>
>
> Ah, but we are. The mere FACT that more women than men are now
> entering college will simply make more women men's bosses.
We have feminist groups dedicated to getting more women into power but
have failed ... maybe patriarchy should merely give women "a few seats
on the bus" just like we gave women equal rights, voting eh?
Asking a woman to start with nothing just like a man and earning their
way to the top based on merit clearly is too much hard yakka for women,
much like physical work eh hyerdahl. ;-)
Hyerdahl
conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> >
> >
> > Women need not be the "same as men" in order to have equal treatment,
> > 'contard', and women don't seem to be standing in line to give up their
> > equal rights. Since the female population, as well as those eligible
> > to vote are just over 51%....it would seem to be that you're up shit
> > creek without a paddle.
>
> Hyerdahl fails to see that many men yesteryear reached the top even
> without a basic education yet todays women cant do likewise despite
> having the best education and opportunities in the land of the free, in
> fact, in the entire world.
The "men" of "yesteryear" had perks women didn't have; they were not
forbidden the vote based on them being men; they were not excluded
from anything; they did not have the added requirement of birthing a
nation. Gee....those guys were LIGHTWEIGHTS. :-)
And today:
> > Ah, but we are. The mere FACT that more women than men are now
> > entering college will simply make more women men's bosses.
>
> We have feminist groups dedicated to getting more women into power but
> have failed ... maybe patriarchy should merely give women "a few seats
> on the bus" just like we gave women equal rights, voting eh?
You can't give what you don't own, dear....and you don't own women, a
woman, or the rights of women. Shit up creek....no paddle.
>
> Asking a woman to start with nothing just like a man and earning their
> way to the top based on merit clearly is too much hard yakka for women,
> much like physical work eh hyerdahl. ;-)
Women don't need to reinvent what they've already paid for, nutter.
Just bend over and grab your ankles 'connut'; it will only hurt for a
minute.
conn...@hotmail.com
Hyerdahl wrote:
>
> The "men" of "yesteryear" had perks women didn't have; they were not
> forbidden the vote based on them being men; they were not excluded
> from anything; they did not have the added requirement of birthing a
> nation. Gee....those guys were LIGHTWEIGHTS. :-)
The majority of Australian men were not enfranchised with the vote
until federation of the states. Only those few men in power (with their
wives pulling the strings) had such privlege.
> You can't give what you don't own, dear....and you don't own women, a
> woman, or the rights of women. Shit up creek....no paddle.
>
Its not about 'ownership' its about being educated about women choosing
not to engage in risking their health, social life and family that is
the root cause for them not to reach their peak.
Sacrifice like a man hyerdahl... no perks for fannies pleaze.
>
> Women don't need to reinvent what they've already paid for, nutter.
> Just bend over and grab your ankles 'connut'; it will only hurt for a
> minute.
Women are the gender with a silver spoon in their mouths 'cause thanks
to men they don't have to do any hard yakka. No wonder women are so few
in number at the top and bottom for that matter hehe.
PK Smith
Hyerdahl wrote:
> Feminism gives women the tools they need to fight patriarchy and you
> and yours.
Hyerdahl, you dumb slut.
Feminism gave women only the moral justification to act in unison to
apply their power against men. Men are slowly figuring this out and the
rebellion is simmering.
No doubt you and other feminists will be pleased to know that when your
grand-daughters are marching into the sex farm, they will mutter "gee,
grandma, thank you for ensuring the hitherto fair-minded men have
banded together against women".
Hyerdahl
conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> >
> > The "men" of "yesteryear" had perks women didn't have; they were not
> > forbidden the vote based on them being men; they were not excluded
> > from anything; they did not have the added requirement of birthing a
> > nation. Gee....those guys were LIGHTWEIGHTS. :-)
>
> The majority of Australian men were not enfranchised with the vote
> until federation of the states. Only those few men in power (with their
> wives pulling the strings) had such privlege.
Again, either women have some powerful equal voice or they don't.
Pulling the dick....I mean strings doesn't really count, legally. So,
again women today have a lot more going for them, i.e. the right to own
property, the vote, equal bodily rights, the right to work for equal
pay, etc.
>
> > You can't give what you don't own, dear....and you don't own women, a
> > woman, or the rights of women. Shit up creek....no paddle.
>>
> Its not about 'ownership' its about being educated about women choosing
> not to engage in risking their health, social life and family that is
> the root cause for them not to reach their peak.
But they have, dear. Today, in America more women than men are
entering college.
>
Hyerdahl
PK Smith wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> > Feminism gives women the tools they need to fight patriarchy and you
> > and yours.
>
> Hyerdahl, you dumb slut.
PK you dumb prick kipper.
>
> Feminism gave women only the moral justification to act in unison to
> apply their power against men. Men are slowly figuring this out and the
> rebellion is simmering.
>
Simmer away dear. I don't see even one woman standing in line to give
up her rights, and you and yours have no hand and no third leg to stand
on. You're flaccid, dear. Powerless.
> No doubt you and other feminists will be pleased to know that when your
> grand-daughters are marching into the sex farm, they will mutter "gee,
> grandma, thank you for ensuring the hitherto fair-minded men have
> banded together against women".
If there's to be a sex farm it's because you and yours have to fuck
sheep because no women will have you. Oh....gee....it's that way
already.
conn...@hotmail.com
Hyerdahl wrote:
>
>
> Again, either women have some powerful equal voice or they don't.
For the first 100 years of settlement here in Australia, men from all
classes had no equal voice even today men in power do not speak for or
put the interests of their on gender first, rather womens and
childrens.
> Pulling the dick....I mean strings doesn't really count, legally.
Women pulling men's dicks to achieve longevity and health is nothing
new. The draft afterall wasn't aimed at yur mooma's or yurself afterall
huh.
>So,
> again women today have a lot more going for them, i.e. the right to own
> property, the vote, equal bodily rights, the right to work for equal
> pay, etc.
likewise all classes of men in the first 100 years of australian
settlement were denied those same rights because the country was still
in its infancy.
So to encourage land ownership state Governments gave grants to farmers
to settle the wheat belts in western australia for example.
>
> But they have, dear. Today, in America more women than men are
> entering college.
And female doctors above the age of 30 are as rare as the tasman tiger
thingie hyerdahl, since the education was pushed out for a bub and pram
career change.
Smart women not getting involved in the rat race, eh!
conn...@hotmail.com
Hyerdahl wrote:
>
>
> If there's to be a sex farm it's because you and yours have to fuck
> sheep because no women will have you. Oh....gee....it's that way
> already.
Hyeradhl, honestly... some women I've fucked ya could've mistaken for
sheep... they put out naught and expected ME to do all the work, much
like in real life really eh
You bet I was fucking exhausted but sasified after 40 minutes of
getting female vaginal juices spurting over my stiff hard cock and
still they demanded I put out cleaning the dishes, making the bed!!!!!
Rob
On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 4:13 pm, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > randyw...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > > > Feminism in the west has already won that position by implementing
> > > > > equal rights by law.
>
> > > > Rubbish. When it comes to the law women are privileged throughout.
>
> > >What "law" do women enjoy that men don't also have? :-)
>
> > I take it the inverted commas and smiley are there in recognition of
> > the crass absurdity of that question, but just in case not:
> > - Protection from childhood genital mutilation.
> I'm all for the end of Jewish patriarchal tradition it is Jewish patriarchs
> who enforce that, not feminists.
It is a law women enjoy that men do not.
> > - Exemption from conscription.
> I'm all for giving women equal military rights and duties.
It is a law women enjoy that men do not.
> > - Protection from paternity fraud or false accusation.
> That would be a SPECIAL RIGHT, no?
No. There are strict laws to protect mothers from maternity mistakes.
> > - Default child custody.
> There is none...you too can be the primary caregiver.
The laws prefers women and the outcomes prove that.
> > - Laws such as VAWA.
> VAWA applies to all people like the Brady Bill applies to more than the Brady bunch.
Wrong. There are virtually no sanctuaries for men.
> > - The right to assume a spouse's higher standard of living.
> Same for any CP male or female
Women are much more likely to benefit.
> > - The right to a substantial proportion of a richer ex-spouse's future income.
> Sex doesn't matter here.
Ditto.
> > - Protection from any sort of sexual harassment.
> Sex doesn't matter here either. Men have also filed SH claims.
In massively smaller numbers.
> > - Lower sentences for the same crime.
> Different standards apply to those less invested in violence.
Different standards apply, yes.
> IOW, men have the same RIGHTS women have in all of these areas.
> So, you have failed to provide any LAWs that don't apply to men the
> same way they apply to women. You lose
You still don't have the hang of this process.
Start at the top... Prevention of forced genital mutilation. A law that
protects women but not men. Then move on to the next item.
Conscription. A law that protects women from being forced to fight but
not men...
Then, when you've worked thorugh all the items - and this seems to be a
particularly tricky bit for you - when you get to the end try to
remember the list so that you can come to a conclusion that is
consistent with the whole list of items.
Get the idea? ...No?
Well, I'm afraid some people never manage to pick it up.
Hyerdahl
Rob wrote:
> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Rob wrote:
> > > On Oct 11, 4:13 pm, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > randyw...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > > > > Feminism in the west has already won that position by implementing
> > > > > > equal rights by law.
> >
> > > > > Rubbish. When it comes to the law women are privileged throughout.
> >
> > > >What "law" do women enjoy that men don't also have? :-)
> >
> > > I take it the inverted commas and smiley are there in recognition of
> > > the crass absurdity of that question, but just in case not:
> > > - Protection from childhood genital mutilation.
>
> > I'm all for the end of Jewish patriarchal tradition it is Jewish patriarchs
> > who enforce that, not feminists.
>
> It is a law women enjoy that men do not.
Not so. It's a religious action. FGM and circ are not the same thing.
>
> > > - Exemption from conscription.
>
> > I'm all for giving women equal military rights and duties.
>
> It is a law women enjoy that men do not.
It is not; women cannot serve equally until they have equal rights.
The law is based on that.
>
> > > - Protection from paternity fraud or false accusation.
>
> > That would be a SPECIAL RIGHT, no?
>
> No. There are strict laws to protect mothers from maternity mistakes.
Mothers don't make mistakes :-). They get burdens and must choose
from that burden.
>
> > > - Default child custody.
>
> > There is none...you too can be the primary caregiver.
>
> The laws prefers women and the outcomes prove that.
Bulldroppings to all.
>
> > > - Laws such as VAWA.
>
> > VAWA applies to all people like the Brady Bill applies to more than the Brady bunch.
>
> Wrong. There are virtually no sanctuaries for men.
>
There aren't enough men coming forward to BUILD shelters for them.
They get vouchers.
And men have the same right to GRANT FUNDING that women have, but first
they have to prove up need.
> > > - The right to assume a spouse's higher standard of living.
>
> > Same for any CP male or female
>
> Women are much more likely to benefit.
So what....if men want to benefit they should take on the domestic
duties.
>
> > > - The right to a substantial proportion of a richer ex-spouse's future income.
>
> > Sex doesn't matter here.
>
> Ditto.
Ditto....again.
>
> > > - Protection from any sort of sexual harassment.
>
> > Sex doesn't matter here either. Men have also filed SH claims.
>
> In massively smaller numbers.
So what. It's not my fault men enjoy being harassed. :-)
>
> > > - Lower sentences for the same crime.
>
> > Different standards apply to those less invested in violence.
>
> Different standards apply, yes.
To those less invested in violence, yes. If men want easier sentencing
they will have to BE less violent.
>
> > IOW, men have the same RIGHTS women have in all of these areas.
> > So, you have failed to provide any LAWs that don't apply to men the
> > same way they apply to women. You lose
>
> You still don't have the hang of this process.
Sure I did; I creamed your crop as usual.
>
Hyerdahl
> Start at the top... Prevention of forced genital mutilation. A law that
> protects women but not men. Then move on to the next item.
> Conscription. A law that protects women from being forced to fight but
> not men...
FGM is not the same thing as the Jewish ritual of circumcision.
Pretending that it is the same just makes you look foolish.
Conscription can only occur to people who have equal military rights.
Just ask black Americans. No longer are we able to draft blacks unless
they HAVE equal miltiary rights.
> Then, when you've worked thorugh all the items - and this seems to be a
> particularly tricky bit for you - when you get to the end try to
> remember the list so that you can come to a conclusion that is
> consistent with the whole list of items.
My conclusion is the same; the same laws that apply to men apply to
women. Let me know when men do not have equal military rights,
compared to other men, and when and when men's sexual enjoyment is cut
off by their religious surgeries.
Rob
On Oct 14, 2:01 am, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> (edit)
>
> > Start at the top... Prevention of forced genital mutilation. A law that
> > protects women but not men. Then move on to the next item.
> > Conscription. A law that protects women from being forced to fight but
> > not men...
>
> FGM is not the same thing as the Jewish ritual of circumcision.
> Pretending that it is the same just makes you look foolish.
Of course the female version is different, they don't have a penis, but
chopping off parts of a person's genitals without their consent is
genital mutilation however you try to excuse it. I understand that you
can't admit that to yourself because it would undermine your whole
distorted worldview. Hopefully most other people are not so blinded by
vile ideology.
> Conscription can only occur to people who have equal military rights.
> Just ask black Americans. No longer are we able to draft blacks unless
> they HAVE equal miltiary rights.
What nonsense! A front line soldier doesn't even have the right to
life, an essential prerequisite for all other rights.
> > Then, when you've worked thorugh all the items - and this seems to be a
> > particularly tricky bit for you - when you get to the end try to
> > remember the list so that you can come to a conclusion that is
> > consistent with the whole list of items.
> My conclusion is the same;
> the same laws that apply to men apply to
> women. Let me know when men do not have equal military rights,
> compared to other men,
The only equal military rights private soldiers have is death, which is
the denial of all rights. A status imposed on men by laws which do not
impose the same deprivation of rights on women.
> and when and when men's sexual enjoyment is cut
> off by their religious surgeries.
How low will you stoop? Its about consent, not religion or anything
else.
Hyerdahl
Rob wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2:01 am, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> > (edit)
> >
> > > Start at the top... Prevention of forced genital mutilation. A law that
> > > protects women but not men. Then move on to the next item.
> > > Conscription. A law that protects women from being forced to fight but
> > > not men...
> >
> > FGM is not the same thing as the Jewish ritual of circumcision.
> > Pretending that it is the same just makes you look foolish.
>
> Of course the female version is different, they don't have a penis, but
> chopping off parts of a person's genitals without their consent is
> genital mutilation however you try to excuse it. I understand that you
> can't admit that to yourself because it would undermine your whole
> distorted worldview. Hopefully most other people are not so blinded by
> vile ideology.
FGM prevents women from enjoyment of sex, in the way that women enjoy
sex. Insecure men like this idea. There are a lot of insecure men.
:-) Circ has been argued back and forth between religious leaders and
doctors. Women have little to do with it. IN fact, some doctors
believe that Circ prevents disease. I don't know all the answers
here, and admit that, but there is some controversy here. However,
comparing FGM to Circ is simply stupid.
Masculist
Grand Moff Robert Buchanan wrote:
> I will now respond to a post accessible as news:ZamdnQU1q6-
> TTLPYnZ2dn...@scnresearch.com by "pandora" <pan...@peak.org>:
>
> >
> > "Daedalus" <ja...@netk00ks.org> wrote in message
> > news:tfkqi2ls34nd227lt...@4ax.com...
> >> On 10 Oct 2006 11:41:03 -0700, "Masculist" <MASC...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The Amerikan Church's support of feminism is like God saying, "Go
> ahead
> >> >Adam, eat that apple that Eve is offerring you".
> >>
> >> Well isn't that a good thing? I mean he got in big trouble for eating
> >> the apple before. If god gives him permission, that's just following
> >> the rules, right? Aren't you supposed to think whatever god decides is
> >> right?
> >
> > According to Tom, it is. Only recently though. He's found the
> *light*.
> >:-)
>
>
> >> > It goes to the
> >> >essence and purpose of the Church and makes the present day Church
> the
> >> >instrument of the evil.
> >>
> >> Feminism is the tool of the devil. Hmm. Have you won any kook awards
> >> yet, Tom?
> >
> > Nope, but he should, IMO.
>
>
> >> >Feminism is the belief that there are no sex differences which in
> turn
> >> >gives legal support for the "mandating of sexual equality".
> >>
> >> Do you drink? If not, you should.
> >
> > Yeah, he drinks. It's what screwed up his 3 marriages.
>
>
> Truth be told, I thought Tom might be a socked-up Bob until PJR directed
> me to Bob's Blaaargh and informed me that he'd escaped USENET.
Ahem, alt.usenet.kooks Grand Moff, Hyerwhore, Turin, Paradox and Jaded,
you were not invited here for you usual disruption, lies, character
assassination (libel) and general feminist way of responding. So
please shuffle back to Grand Moff's "Death Star IV" where you belong.
I note in this thread that when Hyerwhore injected herself into the
discussion she was ignored like the obnoxious child that feminism makes
women like her. Then the other feminist kooks came in with their usual
assortment of feminist hate fillled feminist lies and rhetoric. Shame
on you. Shame on Amerika for encouraging you.
Smitty
> --
> Grand Moff Robert Buchanan
> Grand Moff of Quelii Oversector
> Administrator of Death Star VI
> Former Planetary Governor of Selus
> Master of Mindy (arf)
>
> <http://www.robertbuchanan.name/>
> <http://www.simpy.com/user/rbuchanan>
>
> Economic Left/Right: -0.50
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.18
Hyerdahl
Rob wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2:01 am, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> > (edit)
> >
> > > Start at the top... Prevention of forced genital mutilation. A law that
> > > protects women but not men. Then move on to the next item.
> > > Conscription. A law that protects women from being forced to fight but
> > > not men...
> >
> > FGM is not the same thing as the Jewish ritual of circumcision.
> > Pretending that it is the same just makes you look foolish.
>
> Of course the female version is different, they don't have a penis, but
> chopping off parts of a person's genitals without their consent is
> genital mutilation however you try to excuse it. I understand that you
> can't admit that to yourself because it would undermine your whole
> distorted worldview. Hopefully most other people are not so blinded by
> vile ideology.
Let's try again. I'm not Jewish. I have no patriarchal rationale for
chopping off men's privates. The point is this, FGM is about
preventing women from enjoying sex the way women enjoy sex. Circ is
just about removal of the foreskin which does not eliminate male
enjoyment of sex. Secondly, I don't really care whether or not men
want their foreskins removed; that's up to each individual. I have no
objection at all to postponing that decision until the man in question
is old enough to make that choice. HOwever, many penis-bearing parents
want to make the choice for their sons, so you will have to battle
them, I suppose, since so many doctors and scientists claim that a
circed penis is healthier and more attractive to women.
> > Conscription can only occur to people who have equal military rights.
> > Just ask black Americans. No longer are we able to draft blacks unless
> > they HAVE equal miltiary rights.
>
> What nonsense! A front line soldier doesn't even have the right to
> life, an essential prerequisite for all other rights.
>
A black soldier has the same rights that a white soldier has, dear, but
women do not. Women cannot benefit from all military benefits and
thus, are not vested in either military rights OR duties.
> > > Then, when you've worked thorugh all the items - and this seems to be a
> > > particularly tricky bit for you - when you get to the end try to
> > > remember the list so that you can come to a conclusion that is
> > > consistent with the whole list of items.
>
> > My conclusion is the same;
> > the same laws that apply to men apply to
> > women. Let me know when men do not have equal military rights,
> > compared to other men,
>
> The only equal military rights private soldiers have is death, which is
> the denial of all rights. A status imposed on men by laws which do not
> impose the same deprivation of rights on women.
Not so, pilgrim. There are many, many military options open to men
that are not open to women, like certain submarine duty, listed combat
duty, etc.
>
> > and when and when men's sexual enjoyment is cut
> > off by their religious surgeries.
>
> How low will you stoop? Its about consent, not religion or anything
> else.
Like I said, I'm A-ok with having men wait until they are of age to
make that choice, but apparently the parents of these boys think
otherwise. And no matter how you slice it, FGM is NOT the same as
circ.
>
> ---
Hyerdahl
Masculist wrote:
>(edit)
> Ahem, alt.usenet.kooks Grand Moff, Hyerwhore, Turin, Paradox and Jaded,
> you were not invited here for you usual disruption, lies, character
> assassination (libel) and general feminist way of responding. So
> please shuffle back to Grand Moff's "Death Star IV" where you belong.
Here's the rub, Masc....an invitation is not required to post on this
NG. Funny that you thought it was. And you have about as much "hand"
as your third leg will allow, which is simply not any at all. You
can't force any of those folks to stop posting; you can't silence
them. You are flaccid.
> I note in this thread that when Hyerwhore injected herself into the
> discussion she was ignored like the obnoxious child that feminism makes
> women like her.
It has been my observation that people who post here generally respond
to what moves them; those of us who are less intimidated by that have
little need to comment on "injections" into converations. Those of us
who have few worthy points to make, seem to concentrate on non-issues
like that one.
Then the other feminist kooks came in with their usual
> assortment of feminist hate fillled feminist lies and rhetoric. Shame
> on you. Shame on Amerika for encouraging you.
America is made of so many people, and some of them will not think the
way you think, bigot. And that's ok. They have the same right to post
here that you have. America should be ashamed of people like you,
dear, people who have the need to silence what they don't understand
and can't comprehend, freedom and equality for ALL.
Masculist
Did someone here hear a greedy little tweety bird? Never mind, it was
probably one of those obnoxious little feminist tweety birds. Ignore
it and it will go away.
Smitty
Rob
On Oct 14, 7:34 pm, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 2:01 am, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > (edit)
>
> > > > Start at the top... Prevention of forced genital mutilation. A law that
> > > > protects women but not men. Then move on to the next item.
> > > > Conscription. A law that protects women from being forced to fight but
> > > > not men...
>
> > > FGM is not the same thing as the Jewish ritual of circumcision.
> > > Pretending that it is the same just makes you look foolish.
>
> > Of course the female version is different, they don't have a penis, but
> > chopping off parts of a person's genitals without their consent is
> > genital mutilation however you try to excuse it. I understand that you
> > can't admit that to yourself because it would undermine your whole
> > distorted worldview. Hopefully most other people are not so blinded by
> > vile ideology.
> Let's try again. I'm not Jewish. I have no patriarchal rationale for
> chopping off men's privates.... <repeated ramblings snipped>
To summarise:
You stated there were no laws that protected women but not men.
When provided with some you tried to change your argument by stating
you don't agree with these laws; that, anyway, there are other
differences (like the differences between genitals and skin colours)
and that, anyway, nothing is ever women's fault.
Just stick to the last one of those. It's the only one that holds any
water and the more you post the more you prove it.
Hyerdahl
Rob wrote:
> On Oct 14, 7:34 pm, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Rob wrote:
> > > On Oct 14, 2:01 am, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > (edit)
> >
> > > > > Start at the top... Prevention of forced genital mutilation. A law that
> > > > > protects women but not men. Then move on to the next item.
> > > > > Conscription. A law that protects women from being forced to fight but
> > > > > not men...
> >
> > > > FGM is not the same thing as the Jewish ritual of circumcision.
> > > > Pretending that it is the same just makes you look foolish.
> >
> > > Of course the female version is different, they don't have a penis, but
> > > chopping off parts of a person's genitals without their consent is
> > > genital mutilation however you try to excuse it. I understand that you
> > > can't admit that to yourself because it would undermine your whole
> > > distorted worldview. Hopefully most other people are not so blinded by
> > > vile ideology.
> > Let's try again. I'm not Jewish. I have no patriarchal rationale for
> > chopping off men's privates.... <repeated ramblings snipped>
>
> To summarise:
>
> You stated there were no laws that protected women but not men.
>
There are not. FGM is not the same thing as circ. Men are also
protected from having their sexual enjoyment mutilated. :-)
> When provided with some you tried to change your argument by stating
> you don't agree with these laws; that, anyway, there are other
> differences (like the differences between genitals and skin colours)
> and that, anyway, nothing is ever women's fault.
??????? I don't understand your point, here. Sorry.
>
> Just stick to the last one of those. It's the only one that holds any
> water and the more you post the more you prove it.
My point is that FGM is not the same as Circ. Doctors and scientists
support circ. for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to,
cleanliness, avoidance of STds and AIDS,e tc. BTW, I have no objection
to men being able to wait until they are of age to decide for
themselves. The problem is that most of their parents want it for
their children. Don't shoot the messenger.
> ---
pandora
"Masculist" <MASC...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160855133.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
That's what you and your sort would like to think. Sorry, it ain't gonna
happen.
Suck it up, loser.
CWQ
Hyerdahl
INdeed.
Read Friendly Neibourhood Vote Ranger
"Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1160884043.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
What do you need?
Read Friendly Neibourhood Vote Ranger
"pandora" <pan...@peak.org> wrote in message
news:lLqdnayHzaeVC6zY...@scnresearch.com...
Admittedly, you are an annoying tweety bird that won't go away, except there
is nothing feminist about you.
Rob
On Oct 15, 1:46 am, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 7:34 pm, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Rob wrote:
> > > > On Oct 14, 2:01 am, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > (edit)
>
> > > > > > Start at the top... Prevention of forced genital mutilation. A law that
> > > > > > protects women but not men. Then move on to the next item.
> > > > > > Conscription. A law that protects women from being forced to fight but
> > > > > > not men...
>
> > > > > FGM is not the same thing as the Jewish ritual of circumcision.
> > > > > Pretending that it is the same just makes you look foolish.
>
> > > > Of course the female version is different, they don't have a penis, but
> > > > chopping off parts of a person's genitals without their consent is
> > > > genital mutilation however you try to excuse it. I understand that you
> > > > can't admit that to yourself because it would undermine your whole
> > > > distorted worldview. Hopefully most other people are not so blinded by
> > > > vile ideology.
> > > Let's try again. I'm not Jewish. I have no patriarchal rationale for
> > > chopping off men's privates.... <repeated ramblings snipped>
>
> > To summarise:
>
> > You stated there were no laws that protected women but not men.There are not. FGM is not the same thing as circ. Men are also
> protected from having their sexual enjoyment mutilated. :-)
>
> > When provided with some you tried to change your argument by stating
> > you don't agree with these laws; that, anyway, there are other
> > differences (like the differences between genitals and skin colours)
> > and that, anyway, nothing is ever women's fault.??????? I don't understand your point, here. Sorry.
>
>
>
> > Just stick to the last one of those. It's the only one that holds any
> > water and the more you post the more you prove it.
> My point is that FGM is not the same as Circ. Doctors and scientists
> support circ. for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to,
> cleanliness, avoidance of STds and AIDS,e tc. BTW, I have no objection
> to men being able to wait until they are of age to decide for
> themselves. ...
Whether you agree with the law is not the point. The point is that
women have protection in law which men don't. That was your original
question.
[Incidentally, although it is nothing to do with this point, your posts
indicate that you don't appreciate the variety of different forms of
FGM. You can begin your education at:
www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/]
The Demon Prince of Absurdity
screamed:
> Grand Moff Robert Buchanan wrote:
>> I will now respond to a post accessible as news:ZamdnQU1q6-
>> > "Daedalus" wrote...
Turin??? <dies laughing> <regenerates>
> Paradox and Jaded, you were not invited here for you usual disruption,
> lies, character assassination (libel) and general feminist way of
> responding. So please shuffle back to Grand Moff's "Death Star IV" where
> you belong.
So solly, AUK does not answer to soc.fr00tz. Soc.fr00tz answer to AUK!
Specifically, to Her Imperial Majesty, the Hell Pope Empress Supreme
Dictator of soc.men, Sharon B. However, when HIM is unavailable, other
kookologists can stand in for her, in a pinch.
> I note in this thread that when Hyerwhore injected herself into the
> discussion she was ignored like the obnoxious child that feminism makes
> women like her. Then the other feminist kooks came in with their usual
> assortment of feminist hate fillled feminist lies and rhetoric. Shame on
> you. Shame on Amerika for encouraging you.
FOAM! FOAM! FOAM! FOAM! FOAM!
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! TM#5; COOSN-029-06-71069
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition
http://www6.kingdomofloathing.com/login.php
http://www.runescape.com/
No one expects the Fannish Inquisition!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cabal_of_the_Holy_Pretzel/join
"Q: How many Bush administration officials does it take to change a
light bulb?
A: None. There is no need to change anything. We made the right decision
to stick with that light bulb. People who say that it is burned out are
giving aid and encouragement to the Forces of Darkness." -- Anon.
"Etymology:
Argumentum ad Septicus : argument to putrefaction. Derived from Septicum
Argumentum : putrefaction of argument.
"Septic \Sep"tic\, Septical \Sep"tic*al\
a. [L. septicus to make putrid: cf. F. septique.]
Having power to promote putrefaction. Of or relating to or
caused by putrefaction." -- Kadaitcha Man, indirectly to
Donald "Skeptic"/"Septic" Alford, in MID: <a3svh.d...@news.alt.net>
"I never fail to be amazing" -- Looney Maroon for September 2006 nominee
William Barwell's ego knows no bounds. MID:
12ggt3q...@corp.supernews.com
"We are most nearly ourselves when we achieve the seriousness of the
child at play." -- Heraclitus
"And thats another mistake on your part. Your 'playing' games on usenet,
and I'm not playing...It has nothing to do with impressing you, it has
more to do with making sure you have the education you'll need to debate.
The debate is no fun for me if you are mentally incapable of it. I'm
giving you an opportunity to educate yourself. That's all." -- A trashy
former virus-writer turned Outer Filth doesn't know if he's playing or
working, in MID: <1159389579....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
"I am incapable of original thoughts" -- Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤ has an honest
moment, in MID: <0h59i25ejlthqeeit...@4ax.com>
"But now the end is near. Now Mark Foley comes along and is making
almost all liberal dreams come true and seriously, I'm sorry for it.
See, I believe in karma. I believe what comes around goes around and I
know full well that it's just bad juju to wish such a level of turmoil
and ill upon other humans, warmongering gay-hating maladroits or no, and
that the real path of enlightenment is paved with forgiveness and
progress and white-hot love and turning the other cheek and scotch.
"In fact, Jesus said something about that, I do believe. He said, "Knock
it off already with the warmongering and the hating of each other and
let's all get some wine and party like it's 2012." Then again, he never
saw Karl Rove stab the nation with the dull ice pick of bogus fear. He
never heard George W. Bush describe brutal war and the death of tens of
thousands as "just a comma" in world history.
"Check that. Maybe I'm not so sorry after all." -- Mark Morford,
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2006/10/11/
notes101106.DTL&nl=fix
http://tinyurl.com/kusmr
Free Speech
"The Demon Prince of Absurdity" <absurd_numb...@hell.corn> wrote in
message news:pan.2006.10.15....@hell.corn...
AUK answers to me and I answer to shim skirtman.
Hyerdahl
Rob wrote:
> On Oct 15, 1:46 am, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Rob wrote:
> > > On Oct 14, 7:34 pm, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > Rob wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 14, 2:01 am, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > (edit)
> >
> > > > > > > Start at the top... Prevention of forced genital mutilation. A law that
> > > > > > > protects women but not men. Then move on to the next item.
> > > > > > > Conscription. A law that protects women from being forced to fight but
> > > > > > > not men...
> >
> > > > > > FGM is not the same thing as the Jewish ritual of circumcision.
> > > > > > Pretending that it is the same just makes you look foolish.
> >
> > > > > Of course the female version is different, they don't have a penis, but
> > > > > chopping off parts of a person's genitals without their consent is
> > > > > genital mutilation however you try to excuse it. I understand that you
> > > > > can't admit that to yourself because it would undermine your whole
> > > > > distorted worldview. Hopefully most other people are not so blinded by
> > > > > vile ideology.
> > > > Let's try again. I'm not Jewish. I have no patriarchal rationale for
> > > > chopping off men's privates.... <repeated ramblings snipped>
I see you didn't like the part I provided where doctors and scientists
support circ for reasons of disease prevention, and cleanliness.
> >
> > > To summarise:
> >
> > > You stated there were no laws that protected women but not men.There are not. FGM is not the same thing as circ. Men are also protected from having their sexual enjoyment mutilated. :-)
> >
> > > When provided with some you tried to change your argument by stating
> > > you don't agree with these laws; that, anyway, there are other
> > > differences (like the differences between genitals and skin colours)
> > > and that, anyway, nothing is ever women's fault.???????
I don't understand your point, here. Sorry.
> >
> >
> > > Just stick to the last one of those. It's the only one that holds any
> > > water and the more you post the more you prove it.
I can only repeat what I have said here already, that FGM is about
limiting women's sexuality either completley or partially, and Circ is
not.
> > My point is that FGM is not the same as Circ. Doctors and scientists
> > support circ. for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to,
> > cleanliness, avoidance of STds and AIDS,e tc. BTW, I have no objection
> > to men being able to wait until they are of age to decide for
> > themselves. ...
>
> Whether you agree with the law is not the point. The point is that
> women have protection in law which men don't. That was your original
> question.
But they don't since FGM is not the same as CIRC.
>
> [Incidentally, although it is nothing to do with this point, your posts
> indicate that you don't appreciate the variety of different forms of
> FGM. You can begin your education at:
> www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/]
I already know about all the many ways insecure men have to limit
women's sexuality. Now tell me what woman is responsible for cutting
off men's foreskins? :-)
pandora
"Rob" <robw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1160862820....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Oct 14, 7:34 pm, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Rob wrote:
> > > On Oct 14, 2:01 am, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > (edit)
> >
> > > > > Start at the top... Prevention of forced genital mutilation. A law
that
> > > > > protects women but not men. Then move on to the next item.
> > > > > Conscription. A law that protects women from being forced to fight
but
> > > > > not men...
> >
> > > > FGM is not the same thing as the Jewish ritual of circumcision.
> > > > Pretending that it is the same just makes you look foolish.
> >
> > > Of course the female version is different, they don't have a penis,
but
> > > chopping off parts of a person's genitals without their consent is
> > > genital mutilation however you try to excuse it. I understand that you
> > > can't admit that to yourself because it would undermine your whole
> > > distorted worldview. Hopefully most other people are not so blinded by
> > > vile ideology.
> > Let's try again. I'm not Jewish. I have no patriarchal rationale for
> > chopping off men's privates.... <repeated ramblings snipped>
>
> To summarise:
>
> You stated there were no laws that protected women but not men.
There aren't.
Circumcision is a tradidion for a specific religious group. It is not a LAW
of the land.
CWQ
pandora
"Read Friendly Neibourhood Vote Ranger" <yyyyiiii...@yahoo.com> wrote
in message news:cp7mj.9...@news.alt.net...
I might ask what makes you think that but it is irrelevant. I'm just SO
hurt that you don't think I'm a feminist.
CWQ
pandora
>
> Grand Moff Robert Buchanan wrote:
> > I will now respond to a post accessible as news:ZamdnQU1q6-
> > TTLPYnZ2dn...@scnresearch.com by "pandora" <pan...@peak.org>:
> >
> > >
> > > "Daedalus" <ja...@netk00ks.org> wrote in message
> > > news:tfkqi2ls34nd227lt...@4ax.com...
> > >> On 10 Oct 2006 11:41:03 -0700, "Masculist" <MASC...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >The Amerikan Church's support of feminism is like God saying, "Go
> > ahead
> > >> >Adam, eat that apple that Eve is offerring you".
> > >>
> > >> Well isn't that a good thing? I mean he got in big trouble for eating
> > >> the apple before. If god gives him permission, that's just following
> > >> the rules, right? Aren't you supposed to think whatever god decides
is
> > >> right?
> > >
> > > According to Tom, it is. Only recently though. He's found the
> > *light*.
> > >:-)
> >
> > Just what the world needs: a soc.fr00t godboy.
Hilarious, isn't it? :-)
> > >> > It goes to the
> > >> >essence and purpose of the Church and makes the present day Church
> > the
> > >> >instrument of the evil.
> > >>
> > >> Feminism is the tool of the devil. Hmm. Have you won any kook awards
> > >> yet, Tom?
> > >
> > > Nope, but he should, IMO.
> >
> > Not just IYO!
Glad to hear it! It's always reassuring when others notice the same thing.
> > >> >Feminism is the belief that there are no sex differences which in
> > turn
> > >> >gives legal support for the "mandating of sexual equality".
> > >>
> > >> Do you drink? If not, you should.
> > >
> > > Yeah, he drinks. It's what screwed up his 3 marriages.
> >
> > Three?! Oh, he's full of potential.
Yep. He doesn't blame himself ro ANY of the divorces. It's all the fault
of those feminist bitches.
> > Truth be told, I thought Tom might be a socked-up Bob until PJR directed
> > me to Bob's Blaaargh and informed me that he'd escaped USENET.
No, Tom and I go a long way back. He's not quite as much of a misandrist as
Bob is, but close. Tom wants women to be the way he wants them to be. He
doesn't accept them (or ignore them) as they are.
> Ahem, alt.usenet.kooks Grand Moff, Hyerwhore, Turin, Paradox and Jaded,
> you were not invited here for you usual disruption, lies, character
> assassination (libel) and general feminist way of responding.
The only one throwing libelous comments around is you, hon.
So
> please shuffle back to Grand Moff's "Death Star IV" where you belong.
Sorry, I don't take well to commands from imbeciles.
> I note in this thread that when Hyerwhore injected herself into the
> discussion she was ignored like the obnoxious child that feminism makes
> women like her. Then the other feminist kooks came in with their usual
> assortment of feminist hate fillled feminist lies and rhetoric. Shame
> on you. Shame on Amerika for encouraging you.
Shame on America for tolerating religious wackos and allowing them to be
involved as a group in secular politics.
CWQ
Rob
On Oct 15, 8:03 pm, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 1:46 am, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Rob wrote:
> > > > On Oct 14, 7:34 pm, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > Rob wrote:
> > > > > > On Oct 14, 2:01 am, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > (edit)
>
> > > > > > > > Start at the top... Prevention of forced genital mutilation. A law that
> > > > > > > > protects women but not men. Then move on to the next item.
> > > > > > > > Conscription. A law that protects women from being forced to fight but
> > > > > > > > not men...
>
> > > > > > > FGM is not the same thing as the Jewish ritual of circumcision.
> > > > > > > Pretending that it is the same just makes you look foolish.
>
> > > > > > Of course the female version is different, they don't have a penis, but
> > > > > > chopping off parts of a person's genitals without their consent is
> > > > > > genital mutilation however you try to excuse it. I understand that you
> > > > > > can't admit that to yourself because it would undermine your whole
> > > > > > distorted worldview. Hopefully most other people are not so blinded by
> > > > > > vile ideology.
> > > > > Let's try again. I'm not Jewish. I have no patriarchal rationale for
> > > > > chopping off men's privates.... <repeated ramblings snipped
>
>I see you didn't like the part I provided where doctors and scientists
> support circ for reasons of disease prevention, and cleanliness.
You keep repeating this irrelevence as if doing so will make it valid.
It won't. The issue is about consent.
> > > > To summarise:
>
> > > > You stated there were no laws that protected women but not men.There are not. FGM is not the same thing as circ. Men are also protected from having their sexual enjoyment mutilated. :-)
>
> > > > When provided with some you tried to change your argument by stating
> > > > you don't agree with these laws; that, anyway, there are other
> > > > differences (like the differences between genitals and skin colours)
> > > > and that, anyway, nothing is ever women's fault.
> ??????? I don't understand your point, here. Sorry.
Obviously not as you repeat the same refrain further on.
> > > > Just stick to the last one of those. It's the only one that holds any
> > > > water and the more you post the more you prove it.
> I can only repeat what I have said here already, that FGM is about
> limiting women's sexuality either completley or partially, and Circ is
> not.
Read the reference. The WHO provides many reasons for FGM.
> > > My point is that FGM is not the same as Circ. Doctors and scientists
> > > support circ. for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to,
> > > cleanliness, avoidance of STds and AIDS,e tc. BTW, I have no objection
> > > to men being able to wait until they are of age to decide for
> > > themselves. ...
>
> > Whether you agree with the law is not the point. The point is that
> > women have protection in law which men don't. That was your original
> > question.
> But they don't since FGM is not the same as CIRC.
The repetiton of your misunderstanding continues to achieve nothing
except relieving you of the need to recognise it.
> > [Incidentally, although it is nothing to do with this point, your posts
> > indicate that you don't appreciate the variety of different forms of
> > FGM. You can begin your education at:
> >www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/]
> I already know about all the many ways insecure men have to limit
> women's sexuality. Now tell me what woman is responsible for cutting
> off men's foreskins? :-)
Nothing is ever a woman's fault.
pandora
"The Demon Prince of Absurdity" <absurd_numb...@hell.corn> wrote in
message news:pan.2006.10.15....@hell.corn...
Indeed. He's quite hilarious and also quite delusional.
> > Paradox and Jaded, you were not invited here for you usual disruption,
> > lies, character assassination (libel) and general feminist way of
> > responding. So please shuffle back to Grand Moff's "Death Star IV" where
> > you belong.
>
> So solly, AUK does not answer to soc.fr00tz. Soc.fr00tz answer to AUK!
> Specifically, to Her Imperial Majesty, the Hell Pope Empress Supreme
> Dictator of soc.men, Sharon B. However, when HIM is unavailable, other
> kookologists can stand in for her, in a pinch.
I do try to do my best even though I realize I could never attain the
stature of HIM.
> > I note in this thread that when Hyerwhore injected herself into the
> > discussion she was ignored like the obnoxious child that feminism makes
> > women like her. Then the other feminist kooks came in with their usual
> > assortment of feminist hate fillled feminist lies and rhetoric. Shame
on
> > you. Shame on Amerika for encouraging you.
>
> FOAM! FOAM! FOAM! FOAM! FOAM!
Yeah, I think it's time he was hosed down or off or something. He's getting
rather frothy.
CWQ
Hyerdahl
"The Who" is a musical group from the early seventies.
>
> > > > My point is that FGM is not the same as Circ. Doctors and scientists
> > > > support circ. for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to,
> > > > cleanliness, avoidance of STds and AIDS,e tc. BTW, I have no objection
> > > > to men being able to wait until they are of age to decide for
> > > > themselves. ...
> >
> > > Whether you agree with the law is not the point. The point is that
> > > women have protection in law which men don't. That was your original
> > > question.
>
> > But they don't since FGM is not the same as CIRC.
>
> The repetiton of your misunderstanding continues to achieve nothing
> except relieving you of the need to recognise it.
Well, to take away the same law for men, the law would have to be for
the same thing. Clearly, it is not since FGM is not the same as circ.
>
> > > [Incidentally, although it is nothing to do with this point, your posts
> > > indicate that you don't appreciate the variety of different forms of
> > > FGM. You can begin your education at:
> > >www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/]
>
> > I already know about all the many ways insecure men have to limit
> > women's sexuality. Now tell me what woman is responsible for cutting
> > off men's foreskins? :-)
>
> Nothing is ever a woman's fault.
This certainly isn't. If you want to look hitorically to see just
who's fault it is, and if it makes you feel better to be anti-semetic,
go join Mel Gibson, and blame the Jews.
>
Real Friendit Naybourhood Wote Monger
isn't your name max or something, box?
>
> CWQ
>
>
>
Rob
On Oct 16, 3:54 am, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
> FGM is not the same thing as circ. Men are also protected
> from having their sexual enjoyment mutilated. :-)
But they are not protected from having their genitals mutilated.
>> The WHO provides many reasons for FGM.
> "The Who" is a musical group from the early seventies.
I'm surprised you didn't add your inane little smiley.
www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
> If you want to look hitorically to see just
> who's fault it is, and if it makes you feel better to be anti-semetic,
> go join Mel Gibson, and blame the Jews.
The issue is that the the mutilation of men's genitals without their
consent is legal now, whereas the mutilation of women's genitals
without their consent is illegal now. All your who, why and whereto-for
excuses do not disguise that fact, they simply display callousness.
pandora
"Real Friendit Naybourhood Wote Monger" <yyyyiiii...@yahoo.com> wrote
in message news:crpni.3...@news.alt.net...
If you want it to be, sure, why not?
CWQ
> >
> > CWQ
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Real Friendit Naybourhood Wote Monger
How about Jack, since you are agreeable.
>
> CWQ
>
>> >
>> > CWQ
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>