Men's socialization into risk and expendability
dd...@bellsouth.net
August 17, 2006
Vox Populi
By Denise Noe
Few movies have been made that are more touching and thoroughly
wholesome than The Bells of St. Mary's starring Bing Crosby as Roman
Catholic priest Father O'Malley and Ingrid Bergman as Sister
Benedict. If anyone has missed this beautiful 1945 classic, you've
got to treat yourself and soon.
In this movie, a little boy comes up with a black eye because the
Sister advises him to "turn the other cheek." Fr. O'Malley tells
her "it's a man's world" and that he ought to learn to duke it
out to some extent. The Sister fears she may be turning him into a
"sissy" and teaches the lad some basic rules of fighting.
"It's a man's world" really means that it's a world in which
men are expected to take physical risks, a world in which men must
learn to suppress fears and to ignore feelings of pain, both their own
and those of other men, in order to protect women. "It's a man's
world" really means the opposite: that it's a world unforgiving of
men who don't want to take risks while permitting women the privilege
of remaining as far outside the fray as possible.
Saying that men are socialized to violence is not quite accurate. What
they are really socialized into is taking physical risks. Boys who are
reluctant to risk their skins are often taunted as "sissies." They
have traditionally been razzed as "you girl" or "what a woman"
by other boys. The implication is that boys must "prove" that they
are "better" than girls - yet the ultimate purpose is to make
them into men who will rush into danger, treating themselves as
expendable, so women will not have to.
The same society that demands men be willing to accept violence against
themselves and perpetrate it against other men in military combat has
no patience for men whose violence spills over onto women. The famously
flamboyant General George S. Patton, a traditionally masculine man if
ever there was one, wrote in War As I Knew It, "I told him that in
spite of my best efforts to keep it to a minimum, there would
unquestionably be some raping and that he should let me know the
details of all such incidents as soon as possible so that I could have
the offenders properly hanged." This statement is truly remarkable,
especially coming from the General who went into a fury when soldiers
said they were in the infirmary because of "nerves," slapping them,
deriding them as "cowards" and demanding they be "sent to the
front lines." Unbeknownst to Patton, one of the men he slapped was,
at the time of incident, suffering from both dysentery and malaria and
running a temperature of over 101. However extreme Patton's actions,
he reflected his society's demand that men be violent and equally
strong demand that they not turn their violence against women.
Japan is often thought of a far more solidly patriarchal country that
just about any nation in the West. This is not without reason as women
have historically been expected to walk behind men and make displays of
deference and subservience to them. However, a Japanese man aboard the
Titanic disobeyed the rule that he was supposed to stay on the ship to
allow women and children first dibs on the lifeboats. He forced his way
onto a lifeboat, perhaps taking a seat that would have otherwise gone
to a woman. For refusing to get his lungs filled with water so a woman
could survive, this man received hate mail from his fellow Japanese and
was shunned by them.
The very idea of the "patriarchy" and it's more prosaic
formulation of the "man's world" should be retired. No group that
was truly dominant would demand that its members die so their
subordinates could live.
PK Smith
dd...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Saying that men are socialized to violence is not quite accurate. What
> they are really socialized into is taking physical risks.
All kinds of risks: physical, social, financial....
The reason women socialize men to take risks is that they know that the
man who risks, will maybe become an alpha male thus they could mate
with him. An alpha male increases chances of a child's survival.
Women do not, and cannot, love a man. The say they are in love only as
a genetic reponse to the man's ability to protect her and *her*
children. When masculists finally realize this, they will unite against
women.
Jayne Kulikauskas
> dd...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> Saying that men are socialized to violence is not quite accurate. What
>> they are really socialized into is taking physical risks.
>
> All kinds of risks: physical, social, financial....
>
> The reason women socialize men to take risks is that they know that the
> man who risks, will maybe become an alpha male thus they could mate
> with him. An alpha male increases chances of a child's survival.
Denise makes a good point about the way that men are socialized and I think
your implication of genetic factors is plausible.
> Women do not, and cannot, love a man. The say they are in love only as
> a genetic reponse to the man's ability to protect her and *her*
> children. When masculists finally realize this, they will unite against
> women.
By the same reasoning, men do not and cannot love a woman and when they say
they are in love it is only a genetic response. It would then follow that
women should unite against men.
What if nobody unites against anybody? Men and women could learn to
recognize the genetic forces that influence us and attempt to overcome
those that cause us to hurt each other.
It does not have to be a war. Men and women are capable of loving each
other, of cooperating and of being better people because they are together.
One of my major criticisms of feminism is that it has encouraged an
adversarial attitude between men and women. You are doing the same thing.
You have become what you hate and are promoting one of the worst aspects of
feminism.
Jayne
conn...@hotmail.com
dd...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Men's socialization into risk and expendability
> August 17, 2006
> Vox Populi
> By Denise Noe
>
>
> formulation of the "man's world" should be retired. No group that
> was truly dominant would demand that its members die so their
> subordinates could live.
Great article Denise, with a killer punch at the end!
In the "bad old days" of male privilege, funny how rapists were hung or
sentenced to life in prison here in Australia.
Feminists and their "patriarchy" dogma are sooo of the mark its
laughable, I mean why would mothers nurture their sons to oppress their
own gender?
Mothers are doing exactly as you say: socializing men into risk and
expendability, and protecting and limiting girls roles in the process.
siskiy...@yahoo.com
PK Smith wrote:
> dd...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > Saying that men are socialized to violence is not quite accurate. What
> > they are really socialized into is taking physical risks.
>
> All kinds of risks: physical, social, financial....
>
> The reason women socialize men to take risks is
You are painfully stupid. Women don't socialize men to take risks -
evolution does! It's the first division of labor and it started
millions of years ago.
Now, of course, the weaker sort of males feel 'oh so put upon' by all
of this.
but >real< men love to take risks. No guts - no glory!
Wounds heal
Chicks dig scars
And glory lasts forever.
What gets me about this so-called "mens" newsgroup is how so few of you
act like men. Instead of celebrating your man-ness, you fucking whine
incessantly about 'how hard it is to be a man'.
Wah, wah, fucking wah!
Maybe your problem - and theirs, is that you're the guys that never
took any physical risks? You never stood up to the bully and bloodied
his nose, and got your's busted too, you didn't ride the big waves, you
didn't shoot the Class V rapid, you didn't sack the quarterback, and
you didn't join up when the call went out - how can anyone explain an
adrenaline high to someone who sits on his ass all day at a computer
screen whining about being such a victim?
You don't deserve to speak for men.
Sam
siskiy...@yahoo.com
dd...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> The very idea of the "patriarchy" and it's more prosaic
> formulation of the "man's world" should be retired. No group that
> was truly dominant would demand that its members die so their
> subordinates could live.
Sorry - but you don't get to take that away from us. You and these
other sissy enablers -
Men define themselves and by our own rules. They are good rules. Taking
risks in life builds character and strength. It teaches us to overcome
fear and find ourselves and our man-heart. And real men love that shit!
Sam
siskiy...@yahoo.com
conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
> dd...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > Men's socialization into risk and expendability
> > August 17, 2006
> > Vox Populi
> > By Denise Noe
> >
> >
> > The very idea of the "patriarchy" and it's more prosaic
> > formulation of the "man's world" should be retired. No group that
> > was truly dominant would demand that its members die so their
> > subordinates could live.
>
> Great article Denise, with a killer punch at the end!
>
> In the "bad old days" of male privilege, funny how rapists were hung or
> sentenced to life in prison here in Australia.
Rapist should be hung! Quite often by the male family members of the
family of the woman who was raped. Not a bad system at all. Let men
cull the degenerates among their own gender.
> Feminists and their "patriarchy" dogma are sooo of the mark its
> laughable, I mean why would mothers nurture their sons to oppress their
> own gender?
When are you going to grow a fucking brain? At an early age, men were
raising their sons and mothers were placed in a kind of secondary roll.
Wisely, women realized that in order to BE A MAN, a boy had to spend
time with grown men. And he had to learn our rules.
> Mothers are doing exactly as you say: socializing men into risk and
> expendability, and protecting and limiting girls roles in the process.
Bullshit!
Sam
Hyerdahl
dd...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Men's socialization into risk and expendability
> August 17, 2006
> Vox Populi
> By Denise Noe
>
> Few movies have been made that are more touching and thoroughly
> wholesome than The Bells of St. Mary's starring Bing Crosby as Roman
> Catholic priest Father O'Malley and Ingrid Bergman as Sister
> Benedict. If anyone has missed this beautiful 1945 classic, you've
> got to treat yourself and soon.
>
> In this movie, a little boy comes up with a black eye because the
> Sister advises him to "turn the other cheek." Fr. O'Malley tells
> her "it's a man's world" and that he ought to learn to duke it
> out to some extent. The Sister fears she may be turning him into a
> "sissy" and teaches the lad some basic rules of fighting.
>
> "It's a man's world" really means that it's a world in which
> men are expected to take physical risks, a world in which men must
> learn to suppress fears and to ignore feelings of pain, both their own
> and those of other men, in order to protect women. "It's a man's
> world" really means the opposite: that it's a world unforgiving of
> men who don't want to take risks while permitting women the privilege
> of remaining as far outside the fray as possible.
[That's not true, Denise. "It's a man's world" means that men weild
more power to make life altering decisions like going to war and that
men have more wealth within their control. It also means that women
have less 'say' in how things go and that, because of that, it makes
men more responsible for the choices they do make. A world in which
women have less say, obviously relieves them of that degree of
responsibility. That's just common sense.
However, women do enter "the fray" as they still have to live in
situations created by men and so, in some way, become victims of men's
decisions. AND, as women gain more and more of a voice, both in wealth
and politics, they have more of a say, becoming less of a victim.]
>
> Saying that men are socialized to violence is not quite accurate. What
> they are really socialized into is taking physical risks.
[Well, both seem to be true, that men are socialized into being more
violent than women and also, that risk taking is part of that.
Testosterone plays a role as well. And it's not just risks; it's
choices. For example, my father would never see a doctor unless my
mother forced the issue. ]
Boys who are reluctant to risk their skins are often taunted as
"sissies."
[That's very true. Of course, the ones doing the majority of the
taunting are other boys. ]
They have traditionally been razzed as "you girl" or "what a woman"
> by other boys. The implication is that boys must "prove" that they
> are "better" than girls - yet the ultimate purpose is to make
> them into men who will rush into danger, treating themselves as
> expendable, so women will not have to.
[I agree with the first part of your paragraph, but not the last. The
REASON to use being a 'girl' as a put-down is, first of all, showing us
that girls are considered to be less than boys. IOW, society is
anti-girl. Secondly, the reason that men and boys are socialized to
put down girls and women is certainly not done in order to protect
girls and women. It's done, much the same way that mideastern prayer
is uttered, "thank god I'm not a woman".
:-) In that regard, the reason boys are socialized not to be girls is
becasue being a girl comes with less rights. Does that place boys in
riskier places? Possibly. But blaming those who are not in power
(women) doesn't help your cause. The world would simply be a better
place all around if women shared power.]
> The same society that demands men be willing to accept violence against
> themselves and perpetrate it against other men in military combat has
> no patience for men whose violence spills over onto women.
[Women are not demanding wars. It is men who demand them. Men have
wanted invasion instead of planting. They have wanted to take the oil
of other nations instead of investing in wind and solar power, etc.
Trying to claim some right of abuse because men resort to
violence.....well that's old snake oil. There is no reason to "have
patience" with men who beat up women or anyone else. Throw them in
jail .]
The famously flamboyant General George S. Patton, a traditionally
masculine man if
> ever there was one, wrote in War As I Knew It, "I told him that in
> spite of my best efforts to keep it to a minimum, there would
> unquestionably be some raping and that he should let me know the
> details of all such incidents as soon as possible so that I could have
> the offenders properly hanged." This statement is truly remarkable,
> especially coming from the General who went into a fury when soldiers
> said they were in the infirmary because of "nerves," slapping them,
> deriding them as "cowards" and demanding they be "sent to the
> front lines." Unbeknownst to Patton, one of the men he slapped was,
> at the time of incident, suffering from both dysentery and malaria and
> running a temperature of over 101. However extreme Patton's actions,
> he reflected his society's demand that men be violent and equally
> strong demand that they not turn their violence against women.
[Were Pattons soldiers unable to determine the enemy from those who
were not fighting, i.e. women and children? Or do you, Denise, like
many anti-women folks here, believe that women are the spoils of war?
Some have said that the very reason men like war is so they can rape
the women of their enemy. Perhaps that adds some colour...a bit of
flavor to their distasteful other tasks of blowing things up and
killing. ]
> Japan is often thought of a far more solidly patriarchal country that
> just about any nation in the West. This is not without reason as women
> have historically been expected to walk behind men and make displays of
> deference and subservience to them. However, a Japanese man aboard the
> Titanic disobeyed the rule that he was supposed to stay on the ship to
> allow women and children first dibs on the lifeboats. He forced his way
> onto a lifeboat, perhaps taking a seat that would have otherwise gone
> to a woman. For refusing to get his lungs filled with water so a woman
> could survive, this man received hate mail from his fellow Japanese and
> was shunned by them.
[There is nothing new in the notion that patriarchy is about protecting
women...right out of their civil rights. :-) And lets think about
Titanic; when the T. sank, American women did not vote. There was no
American woman who helped design the ship; certainly no American woman
decided to put so many life boats on the ship. Hmmmmmmmm Perhaps
patriarchy was still protecting her right out of her rights. Of
course, there were other women (other than American) on the boat,
perhaps we should also consider the rights of British women at that
time, etc. How many had equal rights compared to their male peers?
How many men vs. women of that time knew how to swim? How many men
could have lasted longer swimming in that frigid water? Is it, in
society, a better ideal that those strongest amongst us should try to
help those weakest? And were there no female heroes on the Titanic? ]
> The very idea of the "patriarchy" and it's more prosaic
> formulation of the "man's world" should be retired. No group that
> was truly dominant would demand that its members die so their
> subordinates could live.
Nonsense! Patriarchal societies have historically demanded cultural
roles for their participants. In China, young girls had their feet
bound by their mothers so that they would make suitable marriage
partners, hobbled for life. That was a cultural role for women in
patriarchy. Chinese men were the warriers and held to the standards of
other men....sometimes that meant assuming a cultural role for which
they were ill-equipt.
So, while I do agree with you that patriarchy is a very bad thing, I do
not agree with your one-sided interpretation of the cultural results of
patriarchy, which have had far more negative impact on women than on
men who have choices and rights. And today, we find ourselves in yet
another war ....fueled by patrarichal conquests of Little Lord
Fontleroy Bush. And today, we are protecting women and men here in
America by giving away some of our rights and killing masses of others,
for whom we have nothing but contempt. Shame on us.]
S_MacCloud
siskiy...@yahoo.com wrote:
You have zero evidence. You're just a nut job. And you are ultimately in bed
with the western right.
Stephen Morgan
MEN CAN BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED
Sandy Hill Pittman got to the top of Mount Everest by way of MTV.
Along the way, the lives of a few men were placed at risk.
But apparently not so that Ms. Pittman would notice them much.
Ms. Pittman is an avid, but amateur, mountaineer. She married and
divorced Bob Pittman, who created MTV. The divorce has left her with
enough
money to pursue her dreams, which include being the third woman in
history
to scale the highest mountains on all seven continents.
Those dreams also include promoting herself shamelessly on the society
pages and gossip columns. "She's a show-off," one friend told Vanity
Fair
magazine. "She is a beautiful California girl, but she has a lot of
chutzpah." ("Blind Ambition," Vanity Fair, August 1996, page 81.)
In one failed effort to scale Everest, Pittman hired four of the
world's top climbers to help her. Though her guides did most of the
work,
fixing the ropes for her to follow, she portrayed herself as their
equal.
In lectures, she called them her "climbing team." She managed to get a
Vaseline commercial out of the deal, where she got herself referred to
as a
"world-class climber." It drew hoots of derision from seasoned
mountaineers.
It's a pattern that's not unique to Pittman. Increasingly we have
seen female soldiers who *accidentally* come under enemy fire being
hailed
as heroes who did "equal work" or took "equal risks." Feminists and
the
news media love to find female soldiers who participate on the
sidelines of
action and then claim that they are "standing alongside the men." And
many
corporations today will hire female "show" executives to take prominent
positions on boards or in executive suites -- and to collect the nice
paychecks -- and then quietly hire men to do the real work.
Some women do carry their own weight and contribute equally. But then
there are those like Pittman, who seize on any participation at all and
magnify it into an "equal share."
Pittman signed up with another Everest expedition in May of 1996,
organized by professional Scott Fischer of the Seattle-based Mountain
Madness company. Pittman staged a sendoff party for herself, attended
by
such celebs as Bianca Jagger and Calvin Klein, and she promoted the
trip
with a Web site featuring her trip diary sent by satellite phone from
Everest. Pittman's publicity-seeking continued at Everest. Instead of
promoting herself as merely an equal on this expedition, she had friend
Tom
Brokaw and NBC focus on her, and co-opt all of Fischer's party as the
"NBC
Everest Assault" expedition. While the other climbers were resting at
camp
in preparation for the climb, she hiked five hours down the mountain to
promote herself before admirers, stopping for a "Today" show interview.
Perhaps she should have rested. She made it to the summit, though
some said a Sherpa guide had to pull her along. Then a surprise storm
struck. It soon turned deadly.
Pittman faltered and fatigued badly on the way down, and had to be
helped. She was disoriented, confused. She was given an injection of
dexamethasone to help her. She got shots of pure oxygen from someone
else's
supply.
One of the people who risked his life to help her was Neal Beidleman,
an elite climber from Aspen. He recalls her stumbling around, getting
tangled, making mistakes. He helped her cross a particularly
treacherous
stretch. She was begging to rest, but he made her go on. Otherwise,
she
would die.
The storm grew worse: whiteout conditions with winds of fifty miles an
hour. Night fell, and the windchill factor reached 100 degrees below
freezing. Pittman huddled with others.
In the morning, only Beidleman could go on. He got to one of the
camps and alerted a Russian guide, Anatoli Boukreev, that Pittman and
other
climbers were in danger. Boukreev went out into the deadly storm but
couldn't find them. He went out again and located Pittman and the
others.
It took several trips to get them back, at extensive risk to his own
life.
Boukreev had to half-drag, half carry Pittman back to camp.
Pittman was one of the survivors. Eight other climbers died on
Everest in that storm. They included Scott Fischer, her guide, who
died
trying to help other climbers.
But Pittman had other concerns: her reputation.
She had promoted herself as a world-class mountaineer. But she had
faltered badly, and she would have died if not for the selfless
dedication
of several men.
She was "worried about her image, her book," other climbers told
Vanity Fair. "She was worried about damage control."
When Pittman got down from the mountain, she began acting like a
feminist "herstorian" who does not wish to acknowledge the
contributions and
sacrifices men have made on her behalf: "There were those who felt that
she
tried to keep her distance from Beidleman and Boukreev, the men who had
risked their own necks to save hers. During an NBC interview and a
lengthy
background session with Newsweek the day before, Pittman never
mentioned
that she had been in serious jeopardy or that she would probably have
died
had she not been helped by Beidleman and Boukreev. In a subsequent
telephone conversation, when asked about her apparent lack of
appreciation
toward the two gentlemen who had saved her life, Pittman responded
tersely:
'Which two gentlemen is that?'"
"Which two gentlemen is that?" That could well be the battle cry of
feminists who do not wish to acknowledge the men who take risks, and
sometimes bleed, and sometimes die, to protect women like them.
We have seen reactions like Pittman's before. We have seen women who
cannot seem to see the sacrifices of men.
Pittman says there were no heroes, that the guides were just doing
their jobs.
Throughout history, it has been the job of men to protect women, or to
die trying. People like Pittman now take it for granted. The reality
of
these men's bravery, dedication, and sacrifice does not seem to enter
her
mind. She seems to expect male service and sacrifice as her
birthright. It
is men's proper gender role.
And men have played that role well. We have been willing to give up
our lives to protect the womenfolk. We have sent women a message --
our
lives are worth less than yours. And this message has become
established as
the natural order of things. It is so well established that there are
some
to whom the lives and sacrifices of men are almost too insignificant to
notice.
We know that women are perfectly willing to get into the lifeboats
while men stay on the sinking ship. We have seen societies willing to
sacrifice the lives of its boys to protect its women. We have seen
women
take that sacrifice for granted. It is so ingrained that some of them
seem
incapable of grasping the entirety of the fact that the lives of men
are
being put at risk, or destroyed.
We have seen feminists who don't seem to care if a man is innocent or
guilty, so long as punishing him will further their agenda or "send the
right message." Well, why *should* they care? For centuries we have
told
them that our lives are worth less than theirs. We have told them that
it
is acceptable to sacrifice men's lives to protect women's safety.
And in that atmosphere, we have seen girls send innocent men to prison
on false rape accusations because they were afraid their boyfriends
might
have gotten them pregnant. They are willing to sacrifice a man just to
avoid unpleasantness with their parents. That is the legacy of telling
women that they are the ones who deserve to be protected by sacrificing
men.
We have seen women falsely accuse men of rape in order to get sympathy
or attention from their husbands. We have seen feminist women -- who
live
an average seven years longer than men -- claim that they are
shortchanged
on health care and demand that we spend more money on them. We have
seen
feminists gloss over the fact that most victims of violence are men and
demand increased protection for women. We have seen feminists call a
man a
"monster" if he hits a woman, and call a woman a "victim" when she
kills her
two infant sons. We have seen feminists demand that women be allowed
into
the military, and then seen women get pregnant to avoid hazardous duty,
so
that men must face the dangers in their place. We have seen feminist
make
false accusations of racism against men they accused of sexism -- using
any tactic they can think of to extract their revenge and destroy a
man's
career, and at times even his life. We have seen feminist
administrators
who feel that it's a beneficial, sensitizing experience when men are
falsely
accused of rape or assault.
For these women, it's as if the damage done to men does not even
register in their conscious minds, or their conscience. Society has
always
told them that men should be sacrificed to protect them, that men's
lives
are less valuable.
And indeed, it's not their fault. It's the men who have established
the rule of "women and children first." Perhaps the women whispered in
our
ears, "You cannot let us suffer, you must do something." But we were
the
ones who made the rules, who decided our lives were worth less.
And modern feminism springs from that soil. Feminists have cultivated
that soil with generous doses of anti-male stereotypes and hatreds. It
has
always been acceptable to sacrifice men. Now it is downright moral to
do so
-- because men are evil, men are oppressors, men are violent, and so
on.
They have always found it acceptable to sacrifice men to preserve
themselves. Now, as they march toward their feminist paradise, they
need
not be concerned with such annoying details as whose dreams, or whose
lives,
they are destroying.
As for Pittman, she wants to include her Everest adventure in a book
with the narcissistic title, "Summits of My Soul." Perhaps there she
will
find enough room for a footnote to thank the men who risked their lives
so
that she could go on enjoying her Kieselstein-Cord jewelry, her Dean &
DeLuca espresso, her shopping sprees at Bergdorf's and her dinners in
this
season's fashionable restaurants.
As for the soul she is glorifying -- it is a bit less majestic than
the Himalayas. And the summits of her soul have deep and dark
crevasses,
where the lives of men can disappear, without a trace, without a sound.
==========
siskiy...@yahoo.com
Fuck you! I'm a democrat, from a family of Irish cop democrats. Cop
union democrats, and union steel workers.
You're the fucking oddball.
Most weekends I'm in bed with my girlfriend.
Sam
S_MacCloud
conn...@hotmail.com
siskiy...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> Fuck you! I'm a democrat, from a family of Irish cop democrats. Cop
> union democrats, and union steel workers.
Decoded: you are a left wing pacifist wimp!
> You're the fucking oddball.
> Most weekends I'm in bed with my girlfriend.
Democrats represent everything that is wrong with america, from
schooling to feminism.
Real men lick their wounds fighting criminal terrorists while lefty
latte sippin' Sam snoozes N abuses his screw.
MCP
<conn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156314853....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Rob
> The very idea of the "patriarchy" and it's more prosaic
> formulation of the "man's world" should be retired. No group that
> was truly dominant would demand that its members die so their
> subordinates could live.
"I think she's got it!... By George, she's got it!"
[ARTIST: Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe
TITLE: The Rain in Spain]
Great stuff, Denise.
---
Rob
"Care about your fellow man: support paternal certainty and equalised
physical child custody."
PK Smith
Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
> What if nobody unites against anybody? Men and women could learn to
> recognize the genetic forces that influence us and attempt to overcome
> those that cause us to hurt each other.
> It does not have to be a war. Men and women are capable of loving each
Jayne you ignorant slut...
Women started the war. Men will finish it.
Hyerdahl
You didn't know 'Jayne' is a man? :-) However, what exactly _are_ men
fininishing? Last time I checked my neice still had her own job, her
own house, and had no intention of giving those up. So, just what is
it you have to finish....masturbation?
MCP
"Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1156393268....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
fembots winge about!
Hyerdahl
MCP wrote:
MCP also couldn't answer the question. Interesting. Saying that I
don't have a neice isn't quite as compelling as the fact that you also
couldn't answer the question. Let's say, for the purpose of argument,
that I have no neice. Let's say that some young woman, somewhere is
working at a six figure salary. Do you deny that is true? And what is
going to make such a young woman give up that salary? :-)
MCP
You can't have a neice when you live in a trailer and have a job as a bag lady!
:-)
Avenger
>
> MCP wrote:
>
>> "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1156393268....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > PK Smith wrote:
>> >> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
>> >
>> >> > What if nobody unites against anybody? Men and women could learn to
>> >> > recognize the genetic forces that influence us and attempt to
>> >> > overcome
>> >> > those that cause us to hurt each other.
>> >>
>> >> > It does not have to be a war. Men and women are capable of loving
>> >> > each
>> >> >
>> >> Jayne you ignorant slut...
>> >>
>> >> Women started the war. Men will finish it.
>> >
>> > You didn't know 'Jayne' is a man? :-) However, what exactly _are_ men
>> > fininishing? Last time I checked my neice still had her own job, her
>> > own house, and had no intention of giving those up. So, just what is
>> > it you have to finish....masturbation?
>> >
>> You don't have a neice Parg, just an imaginary one like everything else
>> you
>> fembots winge about!
>
> MCP also couldn't answer the question. Interesting. Saying that I
> don't have a neice isn't quite as compelling as the fact that you also
> couldn't answer the question. Let's say, for the purpose of argument,
> that I have no neice.
Let's also say that you have no brain.
Let's say that some young woman, somewhere is
> working at a six figure salary. Do you deny that is true? And what is
> going to make such a young woman give up that salary? :-)
The average female(who works) earns about $7000 a year. That's barely a 4
figure salary lol She pays no taxes and in fact gets money just for working
(earned income rebate) paid for by people who actually have real jobs (men)
lol
>
Hyerdahl
them give that up numbnuts? You don't have an answer for that.
Avenger
Harder to find than a needle in a haystack especially in Podunk where you
live poofy.
what is going to make
> them give that up numbnuts?
Can't give up what you don't have dickless. Besides, females are lazy and
prefer to stay at home playing with kids, watching Ooooprah, taking a nap
when they feel like it and doing easy housework. Housework is actually
relaxing and so easy that the most feeble minded in mental institutions are
given it to do.
>
pandora
"Avenger" <m...@avengers.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cktHg.18648$hP6.15032@trnddc04...
>
>
. Housework is actually
> relaxing and so easy that the most feeble minded in mental institutions
are
> given it to do.
>
Ah, is that what they give YOU to do? Figures.
marg
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
Hyerdahl
Translation: He has no answer. :-) He's waiting for that comet to
hit the earth just like the other bitter twitters.
> what is going to make > them give that up numbnuts?
>
> Can't give up what you don't have dickless.
I wasn't asking for a job, dear, just an answer you don't have. :-)
dd...@bellsouth.net
(Denise) Why don't you visit my blog and take a look at some of my
other essays? Warning: You won't applaud all of them. My views are
very much my own and don't fit into any particular political or social
slot.
Rob
What matters is whether your views are changing. Following an article
you posted a while ago some of us picked you up on your acceptance of
the feminist patriarchy fantasy. This article indicates you've moved
on. I hope so.