American women and pragmatism
ilya_sha...@yahoo.com
apparent shrewishness of American women. I hear the same story from
many men, especially ones from lower classes.
When I suggested the problem was feminism, my contention was rebuffed
by someone who said that his mother, though by no means a feminist, was
a complete shrew. His suggestion - that the reason was American women's
lack of power - was simply ridiculous in light of the condition of
women around the world. So I have done a fair amount of thinking upon
the subject, and the answer that came to me was: The problem is
American way of thinking: Namely the soul-killing practicality that
cannot find a use for anything nuanced or tender or exquisite - and
that therefore destroys such qualities in American women and men.
And the answer is indeed quite fit. Let's face it: Pragmatism does not
look good on a woman. And this, I conclude after having dealt with many
American women - after having heard the treatment that American women
who are dissidents from that mentality (who cultivate tenderness,
softness, delicacy and emotional richness) undergo at the hands of
their husbands, communities and other women - and after having seen
women (some bearing more than slight acquaintance with me) turn for the
worse - I mean far, far worse - after coming to America from other
countries.
Indeed I am of the belief that the same situation would replicate, in
any other country, if given the same conditions of thinking. When,
while riding a subway in DC, I ran into a business delegation from
Russia, I simply could not stand them - especially the women. I would
not have touched one of those broads with a 10-foot pole. These are the
people who, for the sake of their country's economic development,
wanted to partake of American mindset - while absolutely destroying the
good in their own Russian mindset (and, needless to say, also setting
out to destroy such good in anyone at their mercy, especially their
children).
What am I talking about? I am saying, once again, that pragmatism does
not look good on a woman. What does? Tenderness, softness, delicacy,
beauty and the artistic perspective. All things whose value is not
easily quantifiable (and thus whose value is difficult to explain to
those who think in terms of utility) - but which provides incalculable
improvement in the quality of life of those who would appreciate such
qualities.
Let's examine which women the world considers the most attractive. The
answers are always: Eastern European (especially Russian and
Ukrainian), French, Brazilian, Scandinavian, Latin, Filipino and the
more liberated Middle Easterners. What do they all have in common?
Now some may say that these women all come from traditional cultures.
Well, so do the women in Oklahoma and Mississippi; but we hardly see
the world rushing to snap them up. Same is of course the case with
Palestinian terrorist gals (one of whom, believe it or not, befriended
an Internet acquaintance of mine, earning him an FBI visit - and
another group of whom I encountered at Dupont Circle and read them a
poem). Furthermore, the traditionality argument applies only partially
in case of the Eastern European and Latin women and not at all in cases
of women from Western Europe (especially Scandinavia, of all places).
So I pose this question. Why is it that women from cultures - some
traditional, some not - are regarded as more attractive than American
women, while American women are detested around the world?
I do not say the latter from personal experience, but rather from
statements made by women from other places than America. A gorgeous,
successful Russian-born lawyer named Yanna (again at Dupont Circle)
told me that the product of American feminism was a woman utterly
devoid of all feminine tenderness, warmth, beauty, emotional richness
and sensuality. A Salvadorean employee of a big international
organization, when told that the woman for whom I'd written my poetry
book was American, sneered. She changed her mind when I told her that
the woman in question had far more in common with French women than she
did with women from America - and, although she was a fierce American
patriot, her ideas were closer to Russian and French than they were to
American, and people kept thinking that she was from Russia.
And indeed by far the most attractive women in America I have known
were artists, or at least developed in that respect. I found very
little to like in women who don't have that as part of them - and still
less in those who, having developed it partly and turned against it
after having failed to make it work for them, go on to attack the
artistic and the poetic, whether the aforementioned be women or men.
The silly girls with attitude, the women who are athletic but not
artistic, the women who look good but have no inner beauty (defined in
this case as the artistic perspective that develops affinity for beauty
in all its forms, whether it be physical or literary or musical or
natural or of heart and soul) - I have no use for, no matter how
attractive or successful. The only truly beautiful women I've known are
ones who are true artists - or at least have affinity for that and have
that as part of their emotional makeup.
What I've found is that those women, in America, tend to have a hard
time. It appears in many cases that the tribal consciousness seeks to
essentially snuff them out - as it does indeed to young men who have it
within themselves to appreciate and rightly reward such qualities. In
many cases, those young men are essentially starved - starved of the
feminine tenderness and softness that is an essential element in any
society worth inhabiting - and treated like garbage. A female poster on
the Internet - apparently a beautiful and educated woman with some
spiritual qualities - kept complaining about "a certain species of men"
developing fixations on her. People like her regard these men as scum;
I regard them as starved. My advice to such people: Forget these women
and check out the scene in Moscow, Paris, Rio, Beirut or Bogota. You
will find many more women who have what you are looking for - and are
not, like their American peers (of my generation especially),
brainwashed into cruelty, paranoia and emotional coldness.
The preceding is a topic for a big essay in its own right; but allow me
to explicate one example. A man from Texas, who has undergone extensive
therapy and adopted the psychoanalytic perspective, conducted
correspondence with a woman with whom I was corresponding likewise. His
idea was that the woman had mental problems that needed to be fixed; my
idea was that she had a poetic soul and tremendous inner beauty. She
was a poetic, philosophical introvert who sought to apply to the world
the liberal perspective. Now there are many people who claim that a
woman such as that could only exist in America; that is a big lie. In
Russia, Europe, or Latin America - and indeed in some parts of America,
that value the literary and the artistic - such a woman would never
have developed mental problems to begin with. Indeed she would fit
right in and be quite respected. And while people whose perspective
includes only that of Middle America would see in such a woman only the
deviance from "how normal people act", I saw her from the more profound
perspective - of what she was essentially and inherently, and not as a
function of one or another adaptation (or adaptive flaw) to one or
another social con. Which is ultimately a far more wise and more
compassionate way to look at people.
I elaborate what I've just said. To look at the person from the
perspective of personality, is shallow. The true perspective is to look
at the soul. And of course in a society that denies the existence of
soul (while in many cases inexplicably claiming existence of God and
"Christian principles" which, in many cases, have nothing at all in
common with teachings of Jesus), it is the personality - the adaptation
- that becomes first and foremost; while the essential and the profound
is overlooked - and, whenever it seeks to come to the fore, brutally
demolished.
So is it a matter of feminism? Or is it a matter of practicality? I
believe that the problem is both. A soulless, vicious, hypocritical
"feminism" that claims all women to have equal rights (except for women
who have inner and outer beauty) - and a soulless, ignorant, degenerate
"practicality" that robs the woman of all qualities that women can have
more easily than can men - and at which they are far, far better than
men ever could be. Qualities that are not easily quantifiable in
statistics that soothe the pragmatic mind, but that create incalculable
improvement in people's experience of existence - both of the woman
(when rightly appreciated and values) and of the people around her.
The qualities of gentleness, tenderness, soulfulness, sensuality,
emotional richness and inner and outer beauty.
All the qualities that everyone with any affinity for the divine -
every true poet, every true artist, every true visionary in the history
of the world - has sought to convey - and anyone with any affinity for
the universe seeks and values. And whose suppression, instead of
empowering women, instead turned the women who believed this
suppression - whether they come from the left or the right - into
malicious, hideous monsters who likewise destroy it within their
children - and viciously attack whenever they see them in women in
their country.
Which of course makes them a bane to America and a bane to whatever
other societies that they might inhabit. And which calls upon me a
social service - of undoing the damage that they have done and
continued to do (especially in the last decade) - and making it
possible for women in America and elsewhere to have the aforementioned
qualities - and for those women who do have such qualities to have good
lives.
A service of standing up to coldness, malice and swinishness by any
other name - once again, whether it come from the left or from the
right, from "feminism" or "pragmatism" or toxic psychology - and making
it possible for people who have qualities that are not easily
quantifiable, but that greatly enhance human experience - the qualities
I mentioned above - to have them, rejoice in them, bring them to make
life on earth beautiful, and be rewarded for such qualities with lives
worth living.
And finally, in response to inevitable claims that I am writing this in
order to attract some poor soul and prey on her, my response is: You
are the predators, equating inner beauty with mental illness and
feeding on it.
I don't care if I stay celibate for the rest of my life. I am not
writing to attract women. I am writing to speak for the kind of women I
love.
I am writing to change society, so that they can have a beautiful
existence.
And that the men who have it within themselves to appreciate and
rightly reward such qualities can likewise be able to have such beauty
within them - and through its sharing with women who have the truly
beautiful, truly feminine qualities - the qualities of gentleness,
tenderness, soulfulness, sensuality, emotional richness and inner and
outer beauty - to have lives that are worthy of being lived.
Ilya Shambat.
Cujo DeSockpuppet
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> A question that has bothered many minds in America and elsewhere is the
> apparent
lack of morals of people who invade private libraries to masturbate in
front of unwilling coeds.
What's up with that, Wankboi?
--
Cujo - The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in
dfw.*, alt.paranormal, alt.astrology and alt.astrology.metapsych.
Winner of the 8/2000 & 2/2003 HL&S award. Hail Petitmorte!
Colonel of the Fanatic Legion. FL# 555-PLNTY Motto: ABUNDANCE!.
Charter Member - Digital Brownshirts and Library Gestapo.
"Ed Wollmann is a man of substance! Unfortunately, that substance is
shit." - Mr. Doobie just before having to apologize to shit worldwide.
Dolores
> "Dolores" <weasel...@sinmonkey.com> wrote in message
> news:-pydnZRXbst...@comcast.com...
>
>>darth_s...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>ilya_shambat2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>A question that has bothered many minds in America and elsewhere is the
>>>>apparent shrewishness of American women. I hear the same story from
>>>>many men, especially ones from lower classes.
>>>>
>>>>When I suggested the problem was feminism, my contention was rebuffed
>>>>by someone who said that his mother, though by no means a feminist, was
>>>>a complete shrew.
>>>
>>>
>>>being an American, I can honestly say that American Women, born on
>>>American soil today are shrewed. They can also be bitchy and high
>>>maintenance.
>>
>>They can be, but they don't have to be. Not all of them are, and I
>>certainly am an advocate of men holding out for a woman they can truly be
>>friends and partners with, as well as lovers. If society rewards the
>>shrewish behavior through marriage and propagation, how can the non-shrew
>>women compete and propagate?
>
>
> Sucking up to men isn't going to get you anthing but a life as a doormat.
I'm not sucking up to men, and no one who knows me would ever consider
me anything like a doormat.
Do you honestly think that the majority of American women and men have
emotionally healthy behavior patterns? What other Utopian notions do you
carry about the state of the US?
>>--
>>-=Lola
>>----------------
>>You're living in your own private Idaho
>>Living in your own private Idaho
>>Underground like a wild potato.
>>--B52s.
>
>
>
--
-=Lola
----------------
You're living in your own private Idaho
Living in your own private Idaho
Underground like a wild potato.
--B52s.
darth_s...@yahoo.com
hardly. There are very few American Women who work that are not bitches
to the people that work for them or
the people around them.
darth_s...@yahoo.com
yourself.
Nobody is asking you to be a doormat. I guess you feel that the women
WHO CHOOSES to stay at home
to raise the kids while the husband works is a door mat?
darth_s...@yahoo.com
ilya_sha...@yahoo.com
> herothatdied wrote:
> > Paul Ilechko:
> >
> > You really shouldn't expect anything better from a dickweed like Shambat.
> > He's not worth responding to.
> >
> > htd:
> >
> > If you were a woman, that would be either "whiny," "bitter" or "shrill."
> > You're male, so I'll just call it good sense, and leave it at that.
>
> Eh, Ilya's cute. It's not as if he were the voice of the patriarchy, ya?
I'm about as far from the patriarchy as you can find among the straight
guys.
The Paul Ilechko types who claim to embody the ideal of the
civilization actually end up being very abusive and malignant in their
relationships.
The first thing you want to check for is sincerity.
The second thing you want to check for is emotional richness.
Lefty
American women are more disagreeable than women elsewhere in the world,
and b) that being disagreeable isn't natural or normal, and c) that one
cannot be both disagreeable at certain times and tender and sweet at
others. You have not given your reasoning as to why this is so.
"Let's examine which women the world considers the most attractive. The
answers are always: Eastern European (especially Russian and
Ukrainian), French, Brazilian, Scandinavian, Latin, Filipino and the
more liberated Middle Easterners. What do they all have in common?"
Nonsense. Where did you cull this from? You made it up, of course. Why
do you think American women visiting Europe get hit on so much by men?
Because they are considered unattractive?
"Why is it that women from cultures - some
traditional, some not - are regarded as more attractive than American
women, while American women are detested around the world? "
Support this claim with something factual or admit it's only ~your~
POV.
"What am I talking about? I am saying, once again, that pragmatism does
not look good on a woman. What does? Tenderness, softness, delicacy,
beauty and the artistic perspective."
Is it your contention that one cannot be pragmatic ~and~ tender? How
foolish. Further, please explain what exactly is so unattractive about
pragmatism.
There are plenty of men who have no use for delicate women, but are
turned on by aggression and drive in a woman. Why do you think Angelina
Jolie is repeatedly judged the sexiest woman alive? She's not in the
least delicate or soft. She has bigger balls than most men.
"In Russia, Europe, or Latin America - and indeed in some parts of
America,
that value the literary and the artistic - such a woman would never
have developed mental problems to begin with"
Ludicrous. Mental illness is now understood to be mostly biochemical.
"I elaborate what I've just said. To look at the person from the
perspective of personality, is shallow. The true perspective is to look
at the soul"
You are a massive hypocrite who judges a woman "soul" only by how much
her outward behaviour conforms with your inane notions of femininity.
You are a thousand times more shallow.
David
[...]
> I'm about as far from the patriarchy as you can find among the straight
> guys.
That's only because you keep whining you're not gay.
> The Paul Ilechko types who claim to embody the ideal of the civilization
> actually end up being very abusive and malignant in their relationships.
Oh please. I've had a few small flamefests with Ilechko and know a very
little about him -- I suspect more than you do though -- and I have no
idea how he is in his "relationships" (assuming he has any). I'm not here
to defend Ilechko, I gather he'd need to be defended from you even less
than I do, I just want to note that you're talking out your ass again.
> The first thing you want to check for is sincerity.
You're not in touch with reality enough to be insincere, or sincere.
> The second thing you want to check for is emotional richness.
The third thing you want to check for is whether he's been arrested for
tresspassing to wank in front of an involuntary spectator. Quarterwit.
D.
--
"Old whores don't giggle much."
...................................................................
(C) 2005 TheDavid^TM | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
St-Jennifer-of-the-Knife
opinionated. I think I may be a genuine agnostic now. And this
agnosticism of mine is often tempered by curiosity and generosity. Ilya
could use a heathy, gentle doubt, but I know (from experience) that
gentle doubt is hard to achieve. It's so much easier to fall into
bitterness. If belief is the only trick you know to avoid despair...
well, I can understand why so many people use it. It's hard to be happy
with one's doubts. If I knew how to teach it, I would.
I'm using the word "happy" loosely. I almost said "serene" but that
fits even less, it smacks of complacency -- people we like are serene,
people we don't like are complacent. Compassionate fury, gentle
headlong vertigo -- it's hard to describe: people misuse words so badly.
Paul Ilechko
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 ilya_sha...@yahoo.com wrote:
> [...]
>
>
>>I'm about as far from the patriarchy as you can find among the straight
>>guys.
>
>
> That's only because you keep whining you're not gay.
>
>
>>The Paul Ilechko types who claim to embody the ideal of the civilization
>>actually end up being very abusive and malignant in their relationships.
>
>
> Oh please. I've had a few small flamefests with Ilechko and know a very
> little about him -- I suspect more than you do though -- and I have no
> idea how he is in his "relationships" (assuming he has any). I'm not here
> to defend Ilechko, I gather he'd need to be defended from you even less
> than I do, I just want to note that you're talking out your ass again.
Oh, I killfiled Shambat a long time ago, I don't even see his peurile
crap except when someone quotes it.
Hyerdahl
ilya_sha...@yahoo.com wrote:
> A question that has bothered many minds in America and elsewhere is the
> apparent shrewishness of American women. I hear the same story from
> many men, especially ones from lower classes.
[Well, Ilya...American women can CHOOSE to be as they are, whether or
not you find them "shrewish". IOW, if you (or other American men)
don't like American women, they don't need to date, befriend or marry
them. It's just that simple.]
> When I suggested the problem was feminism, my contention was rebuffed
> by someone who said that his mother, though by no means a feminist, was
> a complete shrew. His suggestion - that the reason was American women's
> lack of power - was simply ridiculous in light of the condition of
> women around the world.
[Sexism is found in all countries and at many levels; that American
women have more power than Afghani women does not mean that American
women don't experience sexism, however. And, keep in mind that the
more education women have, the less likely they are to tolerate sexism.
Today, American women outnumber American men as new college entrants.]
So I have done a fair amount of thinking upon the subject, and the
answer that came to me was: The problem is American way of thinking:
Namely the soul-killing practicality that cannot find a use for
anything nuanced or tender or exquisite - and that therefore destroys
such qualities in American women and men.
[I totally don't agree with you. America has produced more artists,
song writers, musicians etc. than just about any other nation. Even
the Indian theater, as much as they would like, cannot compete with
love stories and things that are "nuanced, tender and exquisite". ]
>
> And the answer is indeed quite fit. Let's face it: Pragmatism does not
> look good on a woman.
[But who really cares what some few sexists think women should do or
be, and who cares if you find pratical women unappealing? Women have
always been pragmatic when it comes to their families; they will do
whatever it takes to feed a hungry child, for example. And, women who
have no equal rights have a vested interest in being VERY pragmatic
about who they marry. After all, a kept woman needs a good meal
ticket. I suggest to you that women who can feed themselves and their
families can afford to be less practical when it comes to love.]
(edit)
>
> Indeed I am of the belief that the same situation would replicate, in
> any other country, if given the same conditions of thinking. When,
> while riding a subway in DC, I ran into a business delegation from
> Russia, I simply could not stand them - especially the women. I would
> not have touched one of those broads with a 10-foot pole. These are the
> people who, for the sake of their country's economic development,
> wanted to partake of American mindset - while absolutely destroying the
> good in their own Russian mindset (and, needless to say, also setting
> out to destroy such good in anyone at their mercy, especially their
> children).
[Ilya, did any of those women offer to let you touch them? No. Of
course not. They don't want a sexist like you to partner with. And
it's good to let poor Mark know what's in store for him with his own
little Irina. It's hard to keep Babushka down on the farm...eh?]
>> What am I talking about? I am saying, once again, that pragmatism does
> not look good on a woman. What does? Tenderness, softness, delicacy,
> beauty and the artistic perspective. All things whose value is not
> easily quantifiable (and thus whose value is difficult to explain to
> those who think in terms of utility) - but which provides incalculable
> improvement in the quality of life of those who would appreciate such
> qualities.
>
[Women like getting PAID, Ilya; THAT value is most quantifiable. If
you want to PAY women for pretending to be made of glass, be my guest;
there must be a hooker somewhere willing to oblige. ]
(edit)
>
> I don't care if I stay celibate for the rest of my life. I am not
> writing to attract women. I am writing to speak for the kind of women I
> love.
[I also don't care if you stay celibate, nor does anyone else, most
likely.]
>
> I am writing to change society, so that they can have a beautiful
> existence.
>
[If you want a doll go to a doll store Ilya...]
>From "Annie Get Your Gun"
The girl that I marry will have to be
As soft and as pink as a nursery
The girl I call my own
Will wear satin and laces and smell of cologne
Her nails will be polished
And in her hair she'll wear a gardenia
And I'll be there
Instead of flittin', I'll be sittin'
Next to her I'm cheerful like a kitten
A doll I can carry,
The girl that I marry must be.
Instead of flittin', I'll be sittin'
Next to her I'm cheerful like a kitten
A doll I can carry,
The girl that I marry must be
Society
"Lefty" <Rude_D...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1117646612....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> This whole long-winded manifesto is predicated
> on the notion that
You've made an unsupported assertion, Lefty.
No, you don't have to put your aaa-cup brain
in a bra -- simply quote an appropriate bit of
this "manifesto" you're whining about before
laying into it. (Sheesh.)
> a) American women are more disagreeable
> than women elsewhere in the world,
Hmmm. There's evidence for that, for example
all the whining by American women about
American men who seek "women elsewhere
in the world". (You're easy to debunk, Lefty.)
> and b) that being disagreeable isn't natural
> or normal,
An uncontroversial conjecture, but if you want
to claim that "being disagreeable" IS "natural or
normal" for American women, Lefty, you've
only undermined your complaint about (a) above.
<giggle>
> and c) that one cannot be both disagreeable
> at certain times and tender and sweet at others.
You've whelped out a false dilemma there, Lefty.
Among many American women, the former is
one of her basic character traits and the latter
an aberration. (Duh.)
Strike three, Lefty. You're out.
Stop being a massive hypocrite. Lose weight.
<giggle>
--
So the major feminist debate--and this fact
is increasingly becoming unignorable--is not
between men who want women to be a certain
way and women asserting their right to be
otherwise, but between two competing groups
of women over the proper role of their own
sex, and to a great extent of the other sex
as well--with men, for the most part, just
waiting for the dust to settle...
John Gordon, _The Myth of the Monstrous Male
and Other Feminist Fables_; Playboy Press (1982)
p.163
Mr. Happy
"Susan Cohen" <flav...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:KI0oe.23$Kj3.12@trnddc03...
>
> "Bulba!" <bu...@bulba.com> wrote in message
> news:sog0a1lij5lb674lj...@4ax.com...
>>
>> That's because of tacit feminist assumption that is about only
>> thing constant in various mutations of the mentality: that somehow
>> the world or culture is relatively more unfair/oppressive towards
>> women than towards men.
>
> No, that's because the more intelligent and creative people become, the
> more they realize that women can do things some men like to pretend they
> can't.
>
I am woman, hear me roar (bellow).
>>
>>>The reality, is often, the men have to go to 'extra' lengths to make up
>>>the
>>>gaps women do not cover. The job still gets done usually, and at least
>>>on
>>>paper, it all appears just like social elites want us to think. But
>>>anyone
>>>actually doing the work and dealing with the realties know better.
>>
>> I have done some quick calculations comparing various countries re
>> numbers of hours worked once: interestingly, independent of
>> differences in economic system, the ratio of no of hours worked by
>> men to hrs worked by women is similar - men work about 40%
>> more hrs than women do. In Canada, USA and many European
>> countries. That's today, not in the long gone past.
>
> Which is not the entire picture, since most women also have to work at
> home, too.
>
>>
>> One has to be careful with many comparisons, though - e.g. Japan and
>> Turkey do not include women in unemployment stats.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible
>> exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws. The
>> Hingefreel people of Arkintoofle Minor did try to build spaceships
>> that were powered by bad news but they didn't work particularly well
>> and were so extremely unwelcome whenever they arrived anywhere
>> that there wasn't really any point in being there.
>
>
tooly
>
> "tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:vgUne.74406$J25....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> There is a 'myth' being promulgated in society as to the viability and
>> efficacy of women working in what was once male roles. If you watch the
>> movies, television, read the newspapers...it will depict women as
>> perfectly melded into these positions, often providing superior
>> leadership and impacting the workplace environment in a positive way.
>> So, we watch on as 'Xena, Warrior Princess' expunges her world of 'evil'
>> male villians, all the while conveniently overlooking how completely
>> 'unreal' such storyline would be in real life.
>>
>> The reality, is often, the men have to go to 'extra' lengths to make up
>> the gaps women do not cover.
>
> shows how little you really know about it.
>
You've got to admit that such a show plays to a 'fantasy world' that many
feminist leaning minds would like to pretend is the truer potential of women
(but laughable to the sober mind). Cop shows, firemen, lawyers...you name
it; when characterized on today's tv programs, they simply show women
personified by writers to meet what is the prevailing 'social attitude', but
hardly 'real'. Many of these women, in real life, can be adequate...but few
really impact their arenas as to be the profound leaders the entertainment
media presents [on average]. Strong women are often presented in the media
as simply those who are rebellous, angry, anti-social on the grander scale.
Too bad [as new world role models for young kids growing up].
There's also another dynamic at work, alluding to the original post. Men
are not afforded 'failure' in the workplace. Women however, can fail...and
it does not affect how they are percieved as viable mating partners. This
allows a kind of artifice, where women can actually 'play' at work, gaining
all the positives, rarely ever understanding the deeper risks of the
negatives, ultimately the devastation of failure (of the sort that can push
some men to bowery row, crime, or other anti-social behavior). Yet, what
feminist argument goes by without some reference to the observation that
such 'elements' of society are almost entirely male.
Finally, and I think I asked this question in another thread, what is the
trade off to femininity when women take on the competitive roles of the
workplace?
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
> "Bulba!" <bu...@bulba.com> wrote in message
> news:sog0a1lij5lb674lj...@4ax.com...
>
>>That's because of tacit feminist assumption that is about only
>>thing constant in various mutations of the mentality: that somehow
>>the world or culture is relatively more unfair/oppressive towards
>>women than towards men.
>
>
> No, that's because the more intelligent and creative people become, the more
> they realize that women can do things some men like to pretend they can't.
>
Obviously, like housework, changing diapers ... :) :-p
Bulba!
wrote:
>> That's because of tacit feminist assumption that is about only
>> thing constant in various mutations of the mentality: that somehow
>> the world or culture is relatively more unfair/oppressive towards
>> women than towards men.
>
>No, that's because the more intelligent and creative people become, the more
>they realize that women can do things some men like to pretend they can't.
That's just politically correct wishful thinking on your part. It's
probably motivated by what Warren Farrell calls "the instinct
to protect the female". Pop culture uses it then to push for
sort of princess syndrome "I'm just as good as you are and
could do whatever you do, but just do not bother (because allt
those convenient privleges and the victim status are so pleasant
and I simpy like other people to be so attentive to my needs)".
The arguments you put forward are typically shielded
by junk science:
---
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/goldberg-feminism-science
Feminism against science.(feminism in everything from anthropology to
physics)
Brief Summary: Feminist scholars have attempted in past years to use
Margaret Mead's work to justify sex-role reversibility. Even Mead
stated repeatedly that men have dominated societies as 'leaders in
public affairs and the final authorities at home.' Feminism seeks to
impose its own ideological interpretation.
Steven Goldberg
National Review, Nov 18, 1991 v43 n21 p30(3)
IN 1935, when Margaret Mead published her Sex and Temperament in Three
Primitive Societies, the prevailing view was that the basic
differences between masculine and feminine behavior was owing to
physiological differences. In attempting to correct a view that was
nearly as exaggerated as the absurdly environmental explanation of sex
differences that infuses the social sciences today, Miss Mead
exaggerated the degree to which one of the societies she studied (the
Tchambuli) associated what we would call the masculine with women and
the feminine with men.
Few social scientists bought this view. For example, Jesse Bernard,
who would have very much liked to be able to accept Miss Mead's
conclusions, pointed out that, if the reader ignored the adjectives,
the Tchambuli did not seem very different from other societies.
"Effete" headhunters and "comradely" women feeding their children are
still male headhunters and women feeding their children, and it is
only the adjectives provided by Margaret Mead that even begin to
suggest otherwise.
In response to such criticism, Miss Mead wrote a famous letter to The
American Anthropologist in which she pointed out that
Nowhere do I suggest that I have found any material which disproves
the existence of sex differences. . . . This study was not concerned
with whether there are or are not actual and universal differences
between the sexes, either quantitative or qualitative.
Over the course of fifty years Miss Mead repeated her denial a hundred
times, in response to one or another claim that she had found a
society that reversed sex roles; in a review of my The Inevitability
of Patriarchy, she wrote:
It is true, as Professor Goldberg points out, that all the claims so
glibly made about societies ruled by women are non-sense. We have no
reason to believe that they ever existed. . . . Men have always been
the leaders in public affairs and the final authorities at home.
Finally, eight years ago I published--in the American Sociological
Association's journal of book reviews, perhaps the most-read journal
in sociology--a letter making all of the above points.
Now, one would think that all this would be sufficient to preclude
even the most ardent environmentalist's invoking Margaret Mead's study
as evidence of sex-role reversibility. And yet, a couple of years ago
I went to Barnes and Noble and located 38 introductory sociology books
published in the few preceding years. Of these 38, 36 began their
sex-roles chapters with a discussion of Miss Mead's work on the
Tchambuli and how it demonstrates the environmental nature of male and
female behavior.
It is not clear how many of these 36 knowingly misrepresented the
facts and how many were incompetent as much as dishonest (uninformed
cribbing from other textbooks is near-standard procedure in
introductory-textbook writing). But it is clear why the textbooks
misrepresent the evidence. They, like the discipline whose work they
represent, have an ideological commitment to denying that masculine
and feminine behaviors and emotions are rooted in male and female
physiologies and that all social systems conform to the limits imposed
by this reality.
My point here is merely that no case can be made for Miss Mead's
having even claimed to have demonstrated that the Tchambuli refute
that explanation. Yet 36 of 38 introductory sociology textbooks state
it as truth.
Ideology for Truth
ONE MIGHT think that this sort of substitution of ideology for truth,
while rampant in the social sciences, could not possibly threaten the
physical sciences. One would, as Margarita Levin demonstrates so
stunningly in a recent American Scholar, be wrong.
Mrs. Levin gives examples of accepted scientific findings whose
putative male biases are seen by feminists as requiring
"re-conceptualization":
["Feminist scientists"] see male dominance at work in, for instance,
the "master molecule" theory of DNA functioning; in the notion of
forces "acting on" objects; in the description of evolution as the
result of a "struggle" to survive; in the view that scarcity of
resources results in "competition" between animals--in short in any
theory positing what they deem destructive, violent, uni-directional,
or hierarchical. . . . The idea of dominance is directly linked to the
notion of scientific objectivity, which . . . is understood as
"distancing oneself" from nature.
Let us ignore the fact that, as Mrs. Levin points out, there is an
equal number of scientific models that can be viewed as feminine:
symbiosis, feedback, catalysis, mutual attraction, and the like. Much
more destructive to the feminist objection is the fact that these,
like all successful scientific conceptions, are held because they
accurately explain nature; they demonstrate their correctness by
making correct predictions. In other words, they work.
Because it is their success that validates accepted scientific
explanations, it would not matter even if it were true that (as one
feminist claims) our acceptance of the concept of inertial motion is
rooted in capitalism's need for the movement of money, or if it were
true (as another claims) that the replacement of a Ptolemaic system by
a Copernican system was a victory of the masculine over the feminine
(because the Ptolemaic earth-centered system is "feminine"). Mrs.
Levin asks the question that in one sentence trumps all the volumes of
the feminist critics: "Do they think we have a choice?"
We don't, of course. We believe in inertial motion because we find
that, ceteris paribus, objects in space keep moving along at an
unchanging speed and that inertial motion is our best explanation of
why. We believe that the earth goes around the sun not because this is
the macho way of seeing things, but because the earth does (speaking a
bit loosely) go around the sun.
Moreover, motives for and functions of a claim are irrelevant to the
truthfulness of the claim. Thus, the failure of "feminist science"
(and "feminist models") is not that it serves psychological,
political, and social impulses and purposes. The failure of "feminist
science" is that it does nothing more than this; it does not explain
anything. If it did, or if it demonstrated a logical flaw or failure
of prediction in models invoking inertial motion or heliocentrism or
anything else--if it were capable of doing anything that cast doubt on
any scientific conclusion--then it would be worth taking seriously.
Failing utterly to achieve this, "feminist scientists" attempt to cast
doubt on accepted scientific explanations through endless discussions
of "male paradigms." Such discussions tend to be potpourris of
irrelevant facts and misconceptions that have nothing to do with any
empirical question; they fool only the nonscientist, who sees
impressive-looking scientific references and incorrectly assumes that
these necessarily indicate that the person invoking them knows what he
or she is talking about.
It is not merely wish and ideology, however, that lead feminist
science to such muddled thought; there is a tradition, embodied in
semiotics, hermeneutics, and certain forms of phenomenology that
feminist science is reflecting (or perverting, depending on one's
assessment of the tradition). This tradition tends to deny that there
is such a thing as truth and to see perceived truths as merely shared
cultural meanings that could, with proper redefinition, be converted
to their opposites. It tends to deny underlying realities that set
limits on what may be perceived as truth.
Whatever the virtues of this tradition in the humanities, its
fallaciousness in the sciences is, or should be, too obvious to
mention. Science leaves far less room for differing views of truth:
someone who believes that gravity is such that when he lets go of a
bowling ball it will float gently upward is simply incorrect, and
someone who believes it will fall to earth is correct. This is
validated by correct prediction and by the painful, swollen foot that
accompanies the incorrect prediction.
If Wishes Were Horses
ALL OF THIS is as true of social science as of the physical and
natural sciences. But it is that former that first, most completely,
and most nakedly exhibited the contemporary tendency for ideological
wish to replace scientific curiosity. In a few major areas of the
social sciences this tendency has gone so far that there is but the
barest pretense of scientific objectivity. Truth is measured not by
concordance of explanation and reality, but of one social scientist's
ideology and that of another. Unlike the blind leading the blind, who
are at least trying to follow the right path, the majority of
practitioners in some of the subdisciplines of the social sciences do
not in the slightest care about truth when wish is to be served. If
the majority agree on nonsense, then nonsense is truth.
Consider, for example, the fact that, among all the thousands of
societies on which we have any sort of evidence, there have never been
any Amazonian or matriarchal societies. The hierarchies of all
societies have always been dominated by males. Virtually anyone with a
scintilla of scientific curiosity responds to this empirical fact by
asking, "Why?"
An answer that can be powerfully defended sees psycho-physiological
differences between the sexes as determinative to male and female
behavior and to the unvarying social realities that reflect this
behavior. Feminist attempts to explain the universality of patriarchy,
unwilling to entertain the possibility that psycho-physiological
factors are determinative, invariably display certain features.
1. They are unparsimonious, claiming, for example, that patriarchy
is a result of capitalism, an "explanation" that requires different
causal factors to explain patriarchy in the thousands of
societies--primitive, socialist, and the like--that are not
capitalist.
2. They beg the question by giving causal primacy to the
socialization of boys and girls. This "explanation" fails to ask the
central question: Why does every society's socialization associate
dominance behavior with males? To give socialization causal primacy is
like saying that men grow facial hair because we tell little boys and
girls that facial hair is unfeminine.
3. They attempt to deny the universality of the male dominance
tendency and patriarchy by demonstrating that some other behavior or
institution is not universally differentiated. This is akin to denying
that males are taller on average by demonstrating that the sexes do
not differ in knowledge of history.
4. They confuse economic cause with economic function. To see
economic factors as the cause of male dominance behavior is like
seeing McDonald's need for profits as the cause of the human need to
eat.
5. They spend much of their time attacking straw-man arguments that
play no role in the explanation we are discussing--for example,
sociological explanations of why males and females evolved the way
they did. The issue is no how male and female physiologies evolved,
but the role of the male and female physiologies that did evolve in
determining the differentiated psychologies and behaviors of males and
females and the institutions that reflect these.
6. They make the mistake of treating the social environment as an
independent variable, thereby failing to explain why the social
environment always conforms to limits set by, and takes a direction
concordant with, the physiological (i.e., never does environment act
as sufficient counterpose to enable a society to avoid male domination
of hierarchies). This is easy to explain if one sees the environment
as given its limits and direction by the psycho-physiological natures
of males and females.
Much Talk, No Science
MUCH feminist social science is not even bad reasoning about empirical
questions, but empty or confused discussion that substitutes
terminology for explanation. One would be hard put to find another
group that talked so much about science without ever doing any
science. There are, of course, many women scientists who do science:
but these women never make the arguments made by the "feminist
scientists" and acknowledge, in private, to being more than a little
embarrassed by them.
The strongest impulse of the serious scientist is to eradicate the
ignorance that the unanswered question represents. The models that the
scientist uses serve this impulse. Because "feminist scientists" feel
more strongly the need for a picture of reality concordant with their
wishes than a need for a picture concordant with reality, they are
incapable of understanding the serious scientist. The history of
science is replete with examples of scientists who were impelled by
emotional impulse to find one thing, but who were forced by logic and
evidence to find another. Where the ideologue is content with the
inappropriate model or false explanation as long as it satisfies
psychological and political desire, the serious scientist cannot live
with the awful gnawing of the explanation that doesn't work.
But it is the success of the answers to specific empirical questions,
and not the difference of motivation between the scientist and the
ideologue, that is crucial to science. For science recognizes that
even the most serious of scientists is, like everyone else, vulnerable
to nonscientific impulses. This is why science has at its core the
mechanism for exposing the relevant manifestations of such impulses.
Moreover, it might be the case that, if the majority of scientists
were women, the selection of empirical realities to be studied would
be different. But even if this is true, it has nothing to do with the
corrections of analyses of that which is selected for study.
If "feminist science" develops a "feminist model" that helps us to
answer some empirical question, or demonstrates the scientific
inadequacy of accepted explanations, then it will be, as it should be,
taken seriously. It will not need the adjective; it will be science.
But as long as "feminist science" is nothing more than a failure to
explanations--explanations that make successful predictions, the test
that separates the adults from the children in science--it will be,
correctly, dismissed from serious discussion.
To this point, "feminist science" has provided nothing more than
endless, embarrassingly self-congratulatory discussion of
terminology--discussion that neither can explain why traditional
terminology permits explanations capable of making accurate
predictions nor can itself make accurate predictions. When its
explanations manage to avoid refutation by a cursory logical glance,
they invoke bogus empirical evidence whose misrepresentation can be
exposed by spending ninety seconds with the source invoked. (I have
checked well over a hundred claims--never made by the ethnographer who
actually studied the society in question--that a specific ethnography
describes a non-patriarchal society; it has never taken over ninety
seconds with the invoked ethnography to demonstrate the ludicrousness
of the claim. I have never found anyone willing to attempt to back up
such a claim once it became clear that I had checked the ethnography
that had been invoked.)
In any case, no one possessed by even the shadow of a scientific
impulse cares in the slightest whether an interesting hypothesis is
provided by a man or a woman or a goldfish. What matters is not who
makes the claim, but the claim itself and its accord with nature; for
the explanation of nature is the only justification for the existence
of the claim.
Those who follow another imperative while pretending to care about
discovering nature's secrets--those whose dishonesty and incompetence
have muddled the process that has proved infinitely the best for
discovering those secrets--subordinate truth to an a priori image of
how they would like truth to be. This is indefensible for the
scientist, or, indeed, for anyone who cares about finding out what is
true. It replaces curiosity with narcissism and rationalizes the
narcissism with a claim of humane purpose.
All this is obvious. Nonetheless, there is an astonishing number of
scientists who publicly acquiesce in a position that they know should
have long ago been laughed out of the university, while telling you in
private that they know what they support is jejune nonsense, but that
they do so in the service of the good. We used to call this lying.
Mr. Goldberg, author of The Inevitability of Patriarchy and numerous
scientific and academic articles, is chairman of the sociology
department at City College in New York.
---
>>>The reality, is often, the men have to go to 'extra' lengths to make up
>>>the
>>>gaps women do not cover. The job still gets done usually, and at least on
>>>paper, it all appears just like social elites want us to think. But
>>>anyone
>>>actually doing the work and dealing with the realties know better.
>>
>> I have done some quick calculations comparing various countries re
>> numbers of hours worked once: interestingly, independent of
>> differences in economic system, the ratio of no of hours worked by
>> men to hrs worked by women is similar - men work about 40%
>> more hrs than women do. In Canada, USA and many European
>> countries. That's today, not in the long gone past.
>Which is not the entire picture, since most women also have to work at home,
>too.
If you bothered to do some research, you'd find that e.g. Statistics
Canada includes work at home and travel in "labor". Assuming
such definition, several years ago they found that men devote to the
household about 4 hrs more total weekly than women do.
Anyway, go ahead and please become liberated of whatever
shackles the culture supposedly puts on you. I'll be more than
happy to take advantage of whatever hard work you take. This
used to be the "privilege" of men.
Just don't be surprised when as the result of it all people
in general and women in particular will be more and more
lonely. I don't care really, not anymore.
Bulba!
[...]
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard.
"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" <urj...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:817oe.51092$lQ3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
I was watching Animal Planet (no, not SCR, silly) on TV the other night.
There were two animal control officers, one man, one woman, going to catch a
malnourished dog behind a chain link fence. The guy climbed over the fence
to catch the dog while the female officer stayed behind and offered moral
support. Why didn't the female officer climb over the fence and help her
co-worker?
It is not uncommon at all, when there's a man and a woman doing a job, the
woman somehow forgets about equality when it comes to doing the hard stuff.
So the guy ends ups doing more than 50% of the work.
When's the last time a woman opened a door for you? Occasionally a woman
will actually wait at the door expecting a man to open it for them. I am
always the nice guy about it but at the same time I am thinking "what's
wrong with your arm, honey". Then there's always the complaint that men
don't put the toilet seat back down. Why is it up to the man? Maybe the
woman should be responsible for lifting the toilet seat for the man?
Most guys will just put the seat back down cuz they get tired of havin' to
pull their wife from the toilet when she sits down and gets her big fat butt
wedged in the bowl.
Why are there women's only health clubs but women get all bent out of shape
if there's a men's only club?
Why are woman excused from military combat and the draft? Why should only
50% of the population be required to die for one's country while the other
50% is excused?
Any discrimination based on sex, religion, race or age is still
discrimination....and when you come down to it, illegal.
People who talk about wanting equality don't really want equality. It's all
a smoke screen. What they are really saying is that somebody else got mo'
than they got.
Adults are simply children with excess packaging. Here, we give them
driver's licenses so they are easier to identify. But the whole equality
thing reminds me of when two little kids are fighting over who got a bigger
piece of pie.
McDonald
wrote:
>
>"Susan Cohen" <flav...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:KI0oe.23$Kj3.12@trnddc03...
>>
>> "Bulba!" <bu...@bulba.com> wrote in message
>> news:sog0a1lij5lb674lj...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> That's because of tacit feminist assumption that is about only
>>> thing constant in various mutations of the mentality: that somehow
>>> the world or culture is relatively more unfair/oppressive towards
>>> women than towards men.
>>
>> No, that's because the more intelligent and creative people become, the
>> more they realize that women can do things some men like to pretend they
>> can't.
>>
>
Probably wrong, but:
A contributing factor to gender behavor.
Both men and women seem to respond more to the negative stimulation
girls/women put out when compared to boys/men.
Overgeneralizing the above, it's safe to assume that society has a
bias against correcting women when she's wrong (or that the right
answer is the one to pursue).
School policy shifted in response to perceived inequity which in trun
makes even women more stupid, in greater numbers and in more powerful
positions.
While on the subject of penis size:
Is it fair to say?
(assumes a *strength rate* of a persons' height/weight and does
something with weight(lifted)/endurance)
The average manual laborer will have 200%-300% the strength of the
average office worker.
That men who either pursue some type of strength training or heavy
manual labor will average 150% to 350% of women doing the same?
That the gap narrows to 10% to 40% for office workers who do no/very
little physical work? (taking into account current physical activity
and activity between the ages 5-18 (which seems to have a heavy
influence adulthood health))
Do statistically physically weaker men demonstrate some stereotypical
female behaviors? What about men with slightly higher voices or
untypical shortness?
McDonald
wrote:
>School policy shifted in response to perceived inequity which in trun
>makes even women more stupid, in greater numbers and in more powerful
>positions.
School policy shifted in response to perceived inequity which in trun
makes women even more stupid, in greater numbers and in more powerful
positions.
McDonald
wrote:
>That men who either pursue some type of strength training or heavy
>manual labor will average 150% to 350% of women doing the same?
>
That men who either pursue some type of strength training or heavy
manual labor will average 150% to 250% of women doing the same?
Captain!
"Me and Julio down by the schoolyard." <M...@andJuliotoo.org> wrote in message
news:%Ufoe.1350$S62....@fe11.lga...
>
> "Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" <urj...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:817oe.51092$lQ3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> Susan Cohen wrote:
>>
>>> "Bulba!" <bu...@bulba.com> wrote in message
>>> news:sog0a1lij5lb674lj...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>That's because of tacit feminist assumption that is about only
>>>>thing constant in various mutations of the mentality: that somehow
>>>>the world or culture is relatively more unfair/oppressive towards
>>>>women than towards men.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, that's because the more intelligent and creative people become, the
>>> more they realize that women can do things some men like to pretend they
>>> can't.
>>>
>>
>> Obviously, like housework, changing diapers ... :) :-p
>>
>>
>
> I was watching Animal Planet (no, not SCR, silly) on TV the other night.
> There were two animal control officers, one man, one woman, going to catch
> a malnourished dog behind a chain link fence. The guy climbed over the
> fence to catch the dog while the female officer stayed behind and offered
> moral support. Why didn't the female officer climb over the fence and help
> her co-worker?
good point there. women firefighters and beatcops.
a firefighter needs to be physically very strong. they need to be able to
move some fat-assed people out of burning structures.
beatcops need to be strong enough to restrain unruly suspects. i saw a tall,
skinny guy on the news wrestle his way out of the grasp of two female cops
and take off running.
>
<snip>
>
> Why are there women's only health clubs but women get all bent out of
> shape if there's a men's only club?
> Why are woman excused from military combat and the draft? Why should only
> 50% of the population be required to die for one's country while the other
> 50% is excused?
oh c'moh! do you really think women deserve to be put in the trenches?
there's no place for them there. war production and administration needs
workers. women can contribute a whole lot to the effort by working there.
also, if many women die in trench warfare, the whole country could suffer
much more, even if it wins. birthrate could plummet and a population crises
could result.
>
> Any discrimination based on sex, religion, race or age is still
> discrimination....and when you come down to it, illegal.
>
> People who talk about wanting equality don't really want equality. It's
> all a smoke screen. What they are really saying is that somebody else got
> mo' than they got.
>
> Adults are simply children with excess packaging.
yes, in your case just a little bit of packaging.
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard.
"Captain!" <Spammer...@now.net> wrote in message
news:whqoe.41959$9A2.33949@edtnps89...
We are talking equality, socially dictated norms. If you want true equality,
then both men and women should be subjected to a military draft (if one
existed) and there should be no exclusions based on sex.
I am a realist. I know there are people, such as yourself, who for them
these concepts are simply out of the boundaries formed during your
upbringing and life experiences.
Take away two points...
1. People who talk equality, do not neccesarily want it. What is their real
agenda?
2. Even societies that preach equality are full of ironies, paradoxes and
contradictions.
For instance, in the USA, many women are offered maternity leave while men
are not offered the option of a similiar paternity leave. Does this mean
that men have less interest in being there for their wife and newborn child?
Why is there a "black history week"? Favoring one race over another is
discrimination. In a place of true equality, there would be separate history
weeks for everybody or none at all. Now if somebody tried to have "white
history week", they'd be labeled a racist. Similiar situation with
Affirmitive Action, hiring quotas based on race or sex. By favoring one
particuliar race or sex in hiring for jobs you then discriminate against
others. Often this includes the more qualified candidate being excluded.
It's called reverse discrimination but it's still discrimination, and by the
Bill Of Rights, illegal.
Why is Christmas a federal holiday when it's based on religion and the
constitution requires separation of church and state? Shouldn't Muslim and
Jewish holidays also be federal holidays? Hispanics now make up more of the
USA's population than African-Americans. Should Cinco de Mayo be a federal
holiday? Should Spanish be a legal second language? By not legally
sanctioning Spanish, is that discrimination? BTW...Slavic languages are
dead. Don't waste your time on them.
Why does US money say "In God We Trust" on it? Should that same separation
apply?
I do not support one view over another. I am simply making a few
observations. But many women who talk about equality only want the desirable
things they see others as having and don't want the undesireable
aspects...such as combat roles in the military. But if you want *equality*
and you're just not spouting off about how somebody else has something you
don't, then there's some bad that goes along with the good.
Women have the right to vote, pay taxes, own businesses, own homes, etc,
etc, etc. Why should they have one set of laws while men are subjected to
another?
You see, if you put your social preconceptions aside and think logically,
there are many things that don't quite fit.
Hyerdahl
(edit)
> We are talking equality, socially dictated norms. If you want true equality,
> then both men and women should be subjected to a military draft (if one
> existed) and there should be no exclusions based on sex.
If that is so, then men should have no exclusion of gestation and
delivery in order to be parents. :-) Women today are indeed doing
everything men are doing PLUS gestating, and I don't mind the notion of
women being drafted, but ONLY if women also have equal military rights.
>
Susan Cohen
"Me and Julio down by the schoolyard." <M...@andJuliotoo.org> wrote in message
news:%Ufoe.1350$S62....@fe11.lga...
>
> I was watching Animal Planet (no, not SCR, silly) on TV the other night.
> There were two animal control officers, one man, one woman, going to catch
> a malnourished dog behind a chain link fence. The guy climbed over the
> fence to catch the dog while the female officer stayed behind and offered
> moral support. Why didn't the female officer climb over the fence and help
> her co-worker?
Why didn't you ask her?
Why do you think one instance proves that feminism is a sham?
Did you never stop to think there might have been good reasons for it? WHo
was more experienced? DIi he tell her to stay behind? What are you editing
out?
>
> It is not uncommon at all, when there's a man and a woman doing a job, the
> woman somehow forgets about equality when it comes to doing the hard
> stuff.
Oh, never mind - you're just making it all up to suit yourself.
Oh, and equality means being treated the same in law, not pretending
everyone is exactly the same.
What a moron you are.
Susan Cohen
> move some fat-assed people out of burning structures.
> beatcops need to be strong enough to restrain unruly suspects. i saw a
> tall, skinny guy on the news wrestle his way out of the grasp of two
> female cops and take off running.
And I know, personally - not just from stupid TV show - a 6 foot plus cop
who got his gun taken away from him & he was killed. So maybe we should only
let women be cops, huh?
Susan
Mad Mambo Master of Macedonia
@trnddc09:
>> Just don't be surprised when as the result of it all people
>> in general and women in particular will be more and more
>> lonely.
>
> Then how come I'm married with children & you;re not?
>
> Susan
Can we graph a loneliness function approaching infinity, wiping out all
life on the planet?
--
"You were the chosen one!"
"I'm Rick James, bitch!"
--Revenge of the Sith, New & Improved.
Susan Cohen
"Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117935565....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Women should be drafted when men stop raping them. :->
Susan
>
>>
>
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
hold doors for women, offer them my seat on a crowded bus (within
reason) etc.
But I an not a big muscular man.
So there have been many occasions when I have let bulkier
women do physical things on my behalf. More so lately,
when they are young and vigorous.
Your attitude however is definitely whiney.
Except for some things of custom or politeness (manners)
each should really do what they can.
Of course a part of the game is to take advantage of sex
stereotyping and roles. So I would gladly pretend, to be
incapable of handling housework, etc. , and ask for a letter
to be typed, or let the secretary make copies etc.
--
Rostyk
Bock
> > shape if there's a men's only club?
> > Why are woman excused from military combat and the draft? Why should only
> > 50% of the population be required to die for one's country while the other
> > 50% is excused?
>
> oh c'moh! do you really think women deserve to be put in the trenches?
> there's no place for them there.
You know what they have done to captured women throughout history. Men
for the
most part just kill the enemy.
But make no mistake, women can do the job and have done including
fighting, but women are
a distraction. Think age of the oldest soldiers in combat, what 35
possibly 40. It is
bad enough that they have women on their mind 24/7/365, it is even worse
that they can smell
them and see them during combat.
Bock
> are not offered the option of a similiar paternity leave.
Well, in Canada, men can and do take paternity leave.
> Does this mean
> that men have less interest in being there for their wife and newborn child?
Not at all. In many cases women want to stay home and in other cases
women want
to return to work and the husband stays home.
> Why is there a "black history week"? Favoring one race over another is
> discrimination.
Well, growing up most people in America only learned about the white
people and by the way
on the subject of colour. Black and white are not a colour. White
people are not
white. White people are shades beige and brown.
> In a place of true equality, there would be separate history
> weeks for everybody or none at all.
Well, in North America we don't speak or read about people being white.
If you are
white you don't say I went to visit my white aunt. Whites are not a
minority yet.
When we become a minority then there will be a white history week.
Well, what you don't realzie is that a very long time ago women were
considered
possessions and as such couldn't really leave a man no matter how bad he
was.
The old laws were written in favour of men so men could hold on to their
wives.
As, you say today things are different and men are having trouble
holding on to
their wives.
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
>>>Why are there women's only health clubs but women get all bent out of
>>>shape if there's a men's only club?
>
> Well, it depends on what women. Single women
>
>
>>>Why are woman excused from military combat and the draft? Why should only
>>>50% of the population be required to die for one's country while the other
>>>50% is excused?
>>
>>oh c'moh! do you really think women deserve to be put in the trenches?
>>there's no place for them there.
>
>
> You know what they have done to captured women throughout history.
> Men for the most part just kill the enemy.
while women will ... ?
>
> But make no mistake, women can do the job and have done including
> fighting, but women are a distraction.
> Think age of the oldest soldiers in combat, what 35 possibly 40.
> It is bad enough that they have women on their mind 24/7/365,
> it is even worse that they can smell them and see them during combat.
>
>
The Russians in WW2, and the Israelis now, have no problems with having
women on the front lines.
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard.
"Bock" <electronicm...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:42A29CD9...@telus.net...
>> For instance, in the USA, many women are offered maternity leave while
>> men
>> are not offered the option of a similiar paternity leave.
>
> Well, in Canada, men can and do take paternity leave.
>
>> Does this mean
>> that men have less interest in being there for their wife and newborn
>> child?
> Not at all. In many cases women want to stay home and in other cases
> women want
> to return to work and the husband stays home.
>
Everyone is different.
For those guys, there are countries like Saudi Arabia. Go to India,
Japan...basically anywhere outside of Europe and the USA and women are
second class citizens. It would be a good learning experience for some
American women to go live in such places for a year or so.
> As, you say today things are different and men are having trouble
> holding on to
> their wives.
I don't remember saying that.
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard.
>> > Why are there women's only health clubs but women get all bent out of
>> > shape if there's a men's only club?
> Well, it depends on what women. Single women
>
>> > Why are woman excused from military combat and the draft? Why should
>> > only
>> > 50% of the population be required to die for one's country while the
>> > other
>> > 50% is excused?
>>
>> oh c'moh! do you really think women deserve to be put in the trenches?
>> there's no place for them there.
>
> You know what they have done to captured women throughout history. Men
> for the
> most part just kill the enemy.
>
That's irrelevant to a discussion about solely about equality. True there
are some things that can't really be equal because of physical differences.
Do you know what they do to men in war?
They drop bombs on them and shoot at them. Is that fun? Maybe the answer is
that no one will be allowed to go to war?
What is more inhuman...raping a woman or blowing a man's limbs off with a
500 pound bomb?
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard.
> Bock wrote:
>
>>>>Why are there women's only health clubs but women get all bent out of
>>>>shape if there's a men's only club?
>>
>> Well, it depends on what women. Single women
>>>>Why are woman excused from military combat and the draft? Why should
>>>>only
>>>>50% of the population be required to die for one's country while the
>>>>other
>>>>50% is excused?
>>>
>>>oh c'moh! do you really think women deserve to be put in the trenches?
>>>there's no place for them there.
>>
>>
>> You know what they have done to captured women throughout history.
>> Men for the most part just kill the enemy.
>
> while women will ... ?
>
Sit around and do their nails and tell each other how fabulous they look in
their new camos.
>>
>> But make no mistake, women can do the job and have done including
>> fighting, but women are a distraction.
>> Think age of the oldest soldiers in combat, what 35 possibly 40.
>> It is bad enough that they have women on their mind 24/7/365,
>> it is even worse that they can smell them and see them during combat.
> The Russians in WW2, and the Israelis now, have no problems with having
> women on the front lines.
>
Most of the top Russian snipers were women.
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard.
Your social upbringing causes you to be discriminatory. The correct answer
would be that you try to do polite things, such as opening doors, for
people, not just women.
> But I an not a big muscular man.
> So there have been many occasions when I have let bulkier
> women do physical things on my behalf.
You also give up your seat when big ugly evil-looking guys get on the bus.
More so lately,
> when they are young and vigorous.
> Your attitude however is definitely whiney.
>
> Except for some things of custom or politeness (manners)
> each should really do what they can.
>
> Of course a part of the game is to take advantage of sex
> stereotyping and roles.
Obviously, you have the same ideas about equality as many others. The notion
of "equality" is a tool to get something.
>So I would gladly pretend, to be
> incapable of handling housework, etc. , and ask for a letter
> to be typed, or let the secretary make copies etc.
Of course a truely liberated woman like SC would tell ya ta go type yer damn
letter yerself ya lazy bastard. Perhaps she is not as polite as the Martha
Stewart version of Rostyk?
> --
> Rostyk
>
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard.
"Susan Cohen" <flav...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3pwoe.694$xI2.456@trnddc09...
So after all your pontificating about how women are just as good or better
than men at everything, now you claim they need protection.
By your logic, societies that protect their women by making them wear
burkas, not go out in public without a male relative or not allowing them to
attend schools are absolutely correct.
I am sure that the Taliban and others will be happy to know you are fully
supportive of their repressive customs.
>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard.
Re: "the game"...you've reminded me of another curious trait of the female
of the species.
Women are generally insecure about thie looks their whole lives. It's
unusual to find a woman that really comfortable in her own skin. They always
have that question in the backs of their minds, am I pretty?
So many women will dress up in their favorite suggestive attire. If the men
do not look at them, then they think there must be gay or there's something
else wrong with them. Then they think there must be something wrong with
themselves...am I pretty. The opposite side of the coin is that when men do
look at them, then they are pigs.
If women are beautiful inside, they will not have problems. Of course, the
cosmetics industry does not want this idea to get around.
Bulba!
wrote:
>>>No, that's because the more intelligent and creative people become, the
>>>more
>>>they realize that women can do things some men like to pretend they can't.
>> That's just politically correct wishful thinking on your part.
>Nah, it's just loser whining on yours
>[snip more of same]
No matter how much you stomp your feet, the scientific
evidence pointed to by Steven Goldberg is not going to
go away:
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/goldberg-feminism-science
Now you're perfectly free to try proving his 6 points wrong.
But you're not doing that. Essentially, you're just
evading the evidence and resorting to ad hominem
attacks.
>> Just don't be surprised when as the result of it all people
>> in general and women in particular will be more and more
>> lonely.
>
>Then how come I'm married with children & you;re not?
You found a desparate man? Or he let's you blow hot
air that you do, because that's all that it is, hot air?
You being married and having kids - let's assume that it
is true - in no way proves that what you say is correct
and/or relevant to reality. There are plenty of crazy
women (and men) still married and having various
stupid ideas. E.g. the ones like yours.
Furthermore, why are you so sure you know my personal
situation?
---
"The French always place a school of thought, a formula, convention, a
priori arguments, abstraction, and artificiality above reality; they
prefer clarity to truth, words to things, rhetoric to science. ...
They emerge from description only to hurl themselves into precipitate
generalizations. They imagine they understand man in his entirety,
whereas they cannot break the hard shell of their personalities,
and they do not understand a single nation apart from themselves."
- H. F. Amiel
Bulba!
wrote:
>> "Bulba!" <bu...@bulba.com> wrote in message
>>> Teaching used to be respected profession. Not anymore.
>>
>> i respect the profession of teaching. so do many others.
>
>While it is correct that once women get into a profession it becomes less
>respected, this is not the fault of women. Anything women do is instantly
>denigrated as "women's work" & men/boys are thus trained away from it.
That's just more wishful thinking and cheap conspiracy theories,
propped up by unspoken emotional blackmail - "if you dare to
speak about it and break our harmonious agreement that
society is oppressive towards women, we will ostracize you
and no more sex for you! hahaha".
Now, the evidence:
----
Be a man
Jun 26th 2003
From The Economist print edition
Men compete harder than women. That is why they do better at work
HOW to get more women to the corporate summit? After years of equal
opportunity, female bosses such as Hewlett-Packard's Carly Fiorina and
Xerox's Anne Mulcahy remain rarities. Women, according to a survey by
Catalyst, a lobbying group, now hold nearly twice as many senior
management positions in big American firms as they did in 1995—but the
percentage is still only 15.7%.
In Britain, things are no better. A recent report by Laura Tyson, head
of the London Business School and a former chairman of America's
Council of Economic Advisers, notes that 30% of British managers are
female. But many are in the “marzipan” layer just below the
top-executive icing, from which non-executive directors are rarely
picked; or else in such unfashionable areas as human resources. Women
account for only 11% of non-executive directors of the largest, FTSE
100, firms; 8% at FTSE 250 firms; and fewer than 4% at small quoted
firms.
Ms Tyson suggests casting the recruitment net wider, and also drawing
more non-executives from professional services, where women do better
than in corporate management. But why do women so rarely reach the
boardroom? The Catalyst survey, published in the latest Harvard
Business Review, finds that senior managers agree that the big problem
is women's lack of line-management experience. In Fortune 500
companies, 90% of senior line managers are men.
Why don't women get such jobs? One reason may be that they view work
differently to men. New research* by Catherine Hakim of the London
School of Economics finds that men are three times as likely as women
to regard themselves as “work-centred”. Women want opportunities, but
not a life dominated by work.
But research by economists at two American universities suggests that,
even in the job market, women behave in ways that disadvantage them.
At the University of Chicago's business school, Uri Gneezy and a group
of colleagues have used novel techniques to show that women and men
have different attitudes to competing. In one study that is about to
appear in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, groups of students were
paid to solve simple maze problems on a computer. In some groups,
everybody was paid 50 cents per problem solved; in others, a payment
of $3 per problem went only to the individual who solved most mazes.
Female performance was much the same in both groups; but in the second
lot, the average man did about 50% better than in the first.
A second study, of physical tasks, showed similar results. When nine-
and ten-year-old children ran a race alone, boys and girls clocked
similar speeds. When children raced in pairs, girls' speed hardly
altered. But boys ran faster when paired with a boy, and faster still
when racing against a girl. Mr Gneezy points out that, if men try
harder when competing, they will disproportionately win the top jobs,
even when to do the job well does not require an ability to compete.
Job selection is itself highly competitive.
Linda Babcock of Carnegie Mellon University finds that women may do
worse than men even when they win a job, because they take a different
approach to negotiation. Ms Babcock, who recounts her studies in a
forthcoming book†, noticed that male graduates with a master's degree
from her university earned starting salaries almost $4,000, or 7.6%,
higher than female students. But when she asked who had simply
accepted the initial pay offer and who had asked for more, only 7% of
women, compared with 57% of men, turned out to have negotiated. On
average, those who negotiated raised the initial offer by
$4,053—almost exactly the difference between men's and women's
starting pay. Ms Babcock felt some exasperation because, “I teach
negotiation here, and I'm always telling students to negotiate.”
A laboratory study confirmed her findings. With her colleagues Michele
Gelfand and Deborah Small, she advertised a payment of between $3 and
$10 for students who would play four rounds of Boggle, a parlour game.
At the end, hired actors posing as experimenters said to each student,
“Here's $3. Is that okay?” Astonishingly, nine times as many men as
women tried to negotiate for more.
Most studies of negotiation, Ms Babcock points out, miss such findings
because they do not consider why it is that people start to haggle.
She suspects that women feel uncomfortable with negotiating because
they think it inappropriate, or do not feel that they are entitled to
ask for more money, or think it may damage a relationship with an
employer. Instead, they feel unhappy and resentful when they see men
ask for and receive better treatment. But “this is a lightbulb issue,”
she says: when she tells women what men achieve by negotiating, they
are more likely to ask too.
---
Andre Lieven
"Susan Cohen" (flav...@verizon.net) insanely screeches:
It takes a major loon to ignore:
" The plural ( Or, singular ) of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
> So maybe we should only let women be cops, huh?
Based on *your claim*, no. Ask the female guard who let the killer in
Atlanta get away from her, with her gun. So, you contradict yourself,
as misandrous bigots often do.
Man hating loons need to be smacked with the insane bigotry of their
views, so that sense might have a shot.
Consider yourself, once again, smacked by logic, a topic you clearly
have AbZero acquaintentce with.
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Andre Lieven
"Susan Cohen" (flav...@verizon.net) spouts hate:
> "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> oozed in message
Men should be drafted, when women stop using them for money.
Few men ever rape anyone. Rape has the highest provable rate of *false
accusations*. Many more women use men for money, from daying to
marriage and divorce. Women cause over 70% of all divorces and most
are for trivial reasons ( See Sanford Braver, " Divorced Dads;
Shattering The Myths " ). Women are treated far more leniently by
courts. Note that that " discrimination " is NOT protested by the
likes of the man hating loons Cohen and Hemmingway.
Meanwhile, rabid man hating loons like Cohen and Hemmingway should be
treated to real equality; Let them stand in Saudi Arabia spouting their
man hating crap, without any man to defend their bony asses, and we'd
see just how " independent " they *really are*.
Hemmingway ( FYI: Hyerdahl is a troll whose real name is Carole Ann
Hemmingway, who divorced Davey H. for no reason, and who trolls under
different nyms ) was once offered that opportunity, pre paid. She
passed.
She also claimed that Manitoba is in Africa.
HTH.
Andre Lieven
"Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj" (urj...@bellsouth.net) writes:
> Bock wrote:
>
>>>>Why are there women's only health clubs but women get all bent out of
>>>>shape if there's a men's only club?
>>
>> Well, it depends on what women. Single women
>>
>>>>Why are woman excused from military combat and the draft? Why should only
>>>>50% of the population be required to die for one's country while the other
>>>>50% is excused?
>>>
>>>oh c'moh! do you really think women deserve to be put in the trenches?
>>>there's no place for them there.
>>
>> You know what they have done to captured women throughout history.
>> Men for the most part just kill the enemy.
Wrong. Since in most battles, there are more enemy wounded than killed,
what men do is *defeat* the enemy.
> while women will ... ?
Do nothing useful at all. See " Jessica Lynch ".
>> But make no mistake, women can do the job and have done including
>> fighting, but women are a distraction.
>> Think age of the oldest soldiers in combat, what 35 possibly 40.
>> It is bad enough that they have women on their mind 24/7/365,
>> it is even worse that they can smell them and see them during combat.
>>
> The Russians in WW2, and the Israelis now, have no problems with having
> women on the front lines.
Oh, not this old whore of a LIE again !
See " Women In The Military; Flirting With Disaster ", by Brian
Mitchell, and " The Kinder, Gentler Military ", by Stephanie
Guttman. Both amply explain that, while the Soviets tried that
in WW2, *in sheer desperation*, and Israel did, in 1948, as soon
as each conflict ended, they assessed ther results and found that
the experiments were *utter disasters*, and stopped doing such.
Women in the post 1945 Soviet/Russian forces, and post 1949
Israeli forces are prohibited from serving in any combat formations.
Period.
Next time, do some actual research, before you post utter crap.
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard.
"Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:d7v5qg$isl$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
Sounds like a gold digger / user.
Andre Lieven
Quite likely, yes. More to the point, their views are utterly at
opposition with actual personal responsibility and meritocracy.
Over here, we're well practised at hammering at their bigotry.
They... hate that. <g>
Hyerdahl
Andre Lieven wrote:
> "Me and Julio down by the schoolyard." (M...@andJuliotoo.org) writes:
> > "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > news:d7v5qg$isl$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> >>
> >> "Susan Cohen" (flav...@verizon.net) spouts hate:
> >>> "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> oozed in message
> >>> news:1117935565....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>
> >>>> (edit)
> >>>>
> >>>>> We are talking equality, socially dictated norms. If you want true
> >>>>> equality, then both men and women should be subjected to a military draft (if one>> existed) and there should be no exclusions based on sex.
> >>>>
> >>>> If that is so, then men should have no exclusion of gestation and
> >>>> delivery in order to be parents. :-) Women today are indeed doing
> >>>> everything men are doing PLUS gestating, and I don't mind the notion of
> >>>> women being drafted, but ONLY if women also have equal military rights.
> >>>
> >>> Women should be drafted when men stop raping them. :->
> >>
What are you talking about?
> >> Men should be drafted, when women stop using them for money.
> >>
Women and men use each other, dear. When men stop marrying women for
their youth and looks, women will stop marrying them for money. In the
meantime, women won't have equal military duties without equal military
rights.
> >> Few men ever rape anyone. Rape has the highest provable rate of *false
> >> accusations*.
If women change their mind about pressing charges, that doesn't speak
to lying; it speaks to what the women choose for themselves. AND women
witnesses get the same treatment as men who witness.
(edit)
Captain!
"Me and Julio down by the schoolyard." <M...@andJuliotoo.org> wrote in message
>
<snip>
>
> We are talking equality, socially dictated norms. If you want true
> equality, then both men and women should be subjected to a military draft
> (if one existed) and there should be no exclusions based on sex.
>
> I am a realist. I know there are people, such as yourself, who for them
> these concepts are simply out of the boundaries formed during your
> upbringing and life experiences.
yes, i am a simple man. that's why i see things so clearly.
well said, but you made one major error:
i never claimed that i *do* want equality.
Captain!
what's so great about gestation? all a woman has to do is have some guy dump
his sperm in there and voila: instant gestation.
Captain!
the soviet union drafted women during ww2 and they helped save the country.
Captain!
"Me and Julio down by the schoolyard." <M...@andJuliotoo.org> wrote in message
yup
Captain!
i have not yet read anything regarding the russians using women as shock
(trench) troops. they were on the field though, firing (and commanding)
artillery, providing support fire, etc...
i could be wrong/uninformed. i'm sure you'll let me know if i am :)
p.s. i did read one piece about "crazed" women soldiers rushing the german
lines but war is full of stories like this.
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard.
The Captain! M.D.
Thanks for the lesson in sex education!
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard.
>
> "Me and Julio down by the schoolyard." <M...@andJuliotoo.org> wrote in
> message news:nesoe.3003$hg....@fe12.lga...
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> We are talking equality, socially dictated norms. If you want true
>> equality, then both men and women should be subjected to a military draft
>> (if one existed) and there should be no exclusions based on sex.
>>
>> I am a realist. I know there are people, such as yourself, who for them
>> these concepts are simply out of the boundaries formed during your
>> upbringing and life experiences.
>
> yes, i am a simple man. that's why i see things so clearly.
>
no, you are a simple man (simpleton) that why you see things so simply.
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard.
you are misinformed, about everything
Andre Lieven
Wrong and wrong.
Try taking a course on Soviet/Russian history, and this time...
passing it.
Hyerdahl
Captain! wrote:
> "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1117935565....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > (edit)
> >
> >> We are talking equality, socially dictated norms. If you want true
> >> equality, then both men and women should be subjected to a military draft (if one existed) and there should be no exclusions based on sex.
> >
> > If that is so, then men should have no exclusion of gestation and
> > delivery in order to be parents. :-) Women today are indeed doing
> > everything men are doing PLUS gestating, and I don't mind the notion of
> > women being drafted, but ONLY if women also have equal military rights.
> >
> what's so great about gestation?
Well, women give nine months of their lives in the service of the next
generation and the fathers who don't put in that time. And, all women
...every single one of them subject themselves to bodily changes and
risks of harm and even death every time they take on gestation and
delivery.
all a woman has to do is have some guy dump > his sperm in there and
voila: instant gestation.
Well, a sexist would surely see it that way. I could say something
similar about men wearing a uniform, but...I won't.
conn...@hotmail.com
Hyerdahl wrote:
>
> Well, women give nine months of their lives in the service of the next
> generation and the fathers who don't put in that time.
Sure they do, just differently.
> And, all women
> ...every single one of them subject themselves to bodily changes and
> risks of harm and even death every time they take on gestation and
> delivery.
Men got special perks for sacrificing every day taking on risk of harm
in the workplace unfortunately women choose the comforts of a warm N
cozy gestation in a nice safe hospital with help always at hand.
>
> Well, a sexist would surely see it that way.
He tells it like it is: a biological reflex.
> I could say something
> similar about men wearing a uniform, but...I won't.
That men are forced rights down their throats in those uniforms, whilst
the SEXIST being women gets off scott free.
Susan Cohen
>
> "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1117935565....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> If that is so, then men should have no exclusion of gestation and
>> delivery in order to be parents. :-) Women today are indeed doing
>> everything men are doing PLUS gestating, and I don't mind the notion of
>> women being drafted, but ONLY if women also have equal military rights.
>>
>
> what's so great about gestation? all a woman has to do is have some guy
> dump his sperm in there and voila: instant gestation.
I see that you are bucking for Clueless Prat of the Year Award.
But your sarcasm is a little too heavy - you might want to work on al ighter
touch.
Susan
>
>
Susan Cohen
>>
>> "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> news:d7v5qg$isl$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>>>
>>> "Susan Cohen" (flav...@verizon.net) spouts hate:
>>>> "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> oozed in message
>>>> news:1117935565....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> (edit)
>>>>>
>>>>>> We are talking equality, socially dictated norms. If you want true
>>>>>> equality,
>>>>>> then both men and women should be subjected to a military draft (if
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> existed) and there should be no exclusions based on sex.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that is so, then men should have no exclusion of gestation and
>>>>> delivery in order to be parents. :-) Women today are indeed doing
>>>>> everything men are doing PLUS gestating, and I don't mind the notion
>>>>> of
>>>>> women being drafted, but ONLY if women also have equal military
>>>>> rights.
>>>>
>>>> Women should be drafted when men stop raping them. :->
>>>
>>> Men should be drafted, when women stop using them for money.
Poor thing.
>>>
>>> Few men ever rape anyone. Rape has the highest provable rate of *false
>>> accusations*. Many more women use men for money, from daying to
>>> marriage and divorce. Women cause over 70% of all divorces and most
>>> are for trivial reasons ( See Sanford Braver, " Divorced Dads;
>>> Shattering The Myths " ). Women are treated far more leniently by
>>> courts. Note that that " discrimination " is NOT protested by the
>>> likes of the man hating loons Cohen and Hemmingway.
What a sad specimen you;ve become.
I see that you;ve managed to ignore the Smiley (tm) at the end of my remark
so that you could spew another lie.
I'm sorry to see you deteriorate so badly.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, rabid man hating loons like Cohen and Hemmingway should be
>>> treated to real equality;
Do try to maintain *some* grip on reality.
Repeating lies doesn't make them true.
Let them stand in Saudi Arabia spouting their
>>> man hating crap, without any man to defend their bony asses,
Now that's not a sexist remark, now, is it?
and we'd
>>> see just how " independent " they *really are*.
I'm sure I can shoot better than you, and I'm sure I spent more time in the
military than you. Now for your next installment of spittle....?
Susan
conn...@hotmail.com
Susan Cohen wrote:
>
> I see that you are bucking for Clueless Prat of the Year Award.
> But your sarcasm is a little too heavy - you might want to work on al ighter
> touch.
>
Captain merely confessed the truth. What can't "strong gals" handle
truth?
Being immuned to the thing called woman is a blessing, the thing that
bleeds without being cut, the thing that expects equality of law yet
inequity under socialisation.
Woman is the sickness of humanity.
Susan Cohen
>
>> > "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> > news:d7v5qg$isl$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>> >>
>> >> "Susan Cohen" (flav...@verizon.net) spouts hate:
>> >>>
>> >>
> What are you talking about?
I was making a snide little joke that obviously didn't go over too well.
>
>> >> Men should be drafted, when women stop using them for money.
>> >>
> Women and men use each other, dear. When men stop marrying women for
> their youth and looks, women will stop marrying them for money.
Luckily, that's not a majority of the public.
In the
> meantime, women won't have equal military duties without equal military
> rights.
>
>> >> Few men ever rape anyone. Rape has the highest provable rate of *false
>> >> accusations*.
>
> If women change their mind about pressing charges, that doesn't speak
> to lying; it speaks to what the women choose for themselves.
Most women don't want to be put through *another* wronger.
Once again, tho', thank G-d we are discussing a minority, here.
Susan
Andre Lieven
"Susan Cohen" (flav...@verizon.net) flailed and failed:
>>>
>>> "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>>> news:d7v5qg$isl$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>>>>
>>>> "Susan Cohen" (flav...@verizon.net) spouts hate:
>>>>> "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> oozed in message
>>>>> news:1117935565....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (edit)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are talking equality, socially dictated norms. If you want true
>>>>>>> equality,
>>>>>>> then both men and women should be subjected to a military draft (if
>>>>>>> one existed) and there should be no exclusions based on sex.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that is so, then men should have no exclusion of gestation and
>>>>>> delivery in order to be parents. :-) Women today are indeed doing
>>>>>> everything men are doing PLUS gestating, and I don't mind the notion
>>>>>> of women being drafted, but ONLY if women also have equal military
>>>>>> rights.
>>>>>
>>>>> Women should be drafted when men stop raping them. :->
>>>>
>>>> Men should be drafted, when women stop using them for money.
>
> Poor thing.
Indeed you are, and my S/O flat out called you a raving nutbag.
I'd say that she was being kind...
For the reasons that rape and entry into the military are utterly
unconnected issues. The fallacy of women in the military is well
covered in Brian Mitchell's " Women In The Military; Flirting
With Disaster ", which simply put, proves that women cannot hack
the requirements of the military, which is why so many standards
have had to be *dumbed down* so that women didn't all wash right
out.
>>>> Few men ever rape anyone. Rape has the highest provable rate of *false
>>>> accusations*. Many more women use men for money, from daying to
>>>> marriage and divorce. Women cause over 70% of all divorces and most
>>>> are for trivial reasons ( See Sanford Braver, " Divorced Dads;
>>>> Shattering The Myths " ). Women are treated far more leniently by
>>>> courts. Note that that " discrimination " is NOT protested by the
>>>> likes of the man hating loons Cohen and Hemmingway.
>
> What a sad specimen you;ve become.
<Projection> Fact free, too. The usual hallmark of the raving misandrist.
> I see that you;ve managed to ignore the Smiley (tm) at the end of my
> remark so that you could spew another lie.
No proof offered ? Claim fails.
> I'm sorry to see you deteriorate so badly.
<Deep and Massive Projection>
>>>> Meanwhile, rabid man hating loons like Cohen and Hemmingway should be
>>>> treated to real equality;
>
> Do try to maintain *some* grip on reality.
<Projection>
Get professional mental health care for your control issues.
> Repeating lies doesn't make them true.
Then, stop doing that.
>>>> Let them stand in Saudi Arabia spouting their
>>>> man hating crap, without any man to defend their bony asses,
>
> Now that's not a sexist remark, now, is it?
It takes a Festering Femmeroid to inflate a call for an earned
consequence, into an unsupported and false claim of " sexism ".
>>>> and we'd see just how " independent " they *really are*.
>
> I'm sure I can shoot better than you,
So ? Free Clue, oh Generalissimo-wannabe: Armies fight with more
than one person on each side. Plus, civilians don't fight in modern
professional militaries.
Now, could a good pal of mine, a guy in our forces, well and truely
clean your clock on the best day you've ever had, and the worst he's
had ? Yep.
And, could your " trained " ass manage my Saudi challenge ? Of
course not, as you'd need loads of trained men to keep your ass
from being fried. As with any woman. " Equality " lasts no longer
than men not saying " get into a burqua ".
Two words: " Jessica Lynch ". Hey, two more: " Kelly Flynn ". And,
two more: " Kara Hultgren ".
> and I'm sure I spent more time in the military than you.
Well then, if thats to be your standard, as I've been a guy all my
life, and you've never been a guy, we can then expect you to
PERMANENTLY SHUT UP about any and all topics about men ?
Yeah, I didn't think so: Standards aren't for Feminists, as that
would demand that they had any integrity, and thats surely a fictional
concept for them.
> Now for your next installment of spittle....?
You MS-spelled " facts ". Get thee to a remedial English course,
and, this time... *pass it*.
HTH.
greg...@yahoo.com
> >>
> >> "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> >> news:d7v5qg$isl$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> >>>
> >>> "Susan Cohen" (flav...@verizon.net) spouts hate:
> >>>> Women should be drafted when men stop raping them. :->
> >>>
> >>> Men should be drafted, when women stop using them for money.
>
> Poor thing.
Why do you write this, Susan Conan? Do you dislike the idea of men not
being drafted? Must someone else do the fighting while you cower in
the kitchen?
It never fails. A man argues against a men-only draft, and instead of
arguing that _no one_ should be drafted, the feminist argues that women
should not be drafted. The former argument is as easy as the latter,
and you'd use it if you weren't terrified of being left without someone
to protect your chapped hyde.
After decades of arguing (badly) with men, have you no newer form of
patronizing sarcasm than "poor thing"? If you haven't the creativity
to think of one, can't you browse usenet and crib an idea from some
other harpy?
[...]
> What a sad specimen you;ve become.
Interesting choice of words. Were you on the way to the bank to pick
up a few vials?
> I see that you;ve managed to ignore the Smiley (tm) at the end
You think a _smiley_ offsets a remark like that? Well, then, let's try
this:
You're a hardened old broad who should be put to sleep. :-)
Did the smiley take the edge off?
[...]
> so that you could spew another lie.
You accuse Andre of lying? On what basis?
[...]
> Do try to maintain *some* grip on reality.
> Repeating lies doesn't make them true.
Repeated accusations don't make them true. You say he has lied. Tell
us why, or be another dumb bitch.
[...]
> I'm sure I can shoot better than you,
Possibly, but it would take you so long to get within firing range of
the enemy that your shooting wouldn't make a difference. Btw, how's
your prowess with a bayonette? Better than his?
> and I'm sure I spent more time in the military than you.
No doubt your skill at potato peeling is unmatched.
> Now for your next installment of spittle....?
He needn't dehydrate himself just to overwhelm you.
Captain!
"Me and Julio down by the schoolyard." <M...@andJuliotoo.org> wrote in message
>
> "Captain!" <Spammer...@now.net> wrote in message
> news:WNLoe.35888$on1.320@clgrps13...
>>
>> "Me and Julio down by the schoolyard." <M...@andJuliotoo.org> wrote in
>> message news:nesoe.3003$hg....@fe12.lga...
>>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> We are talking equality, socially dictated norms. If you want true
>>> equality, then both men and women should be subjected to a military
>>> draft (if one existed) and there should be no exclusions based on sex.
>>>
>>> I am a realist. I know there are people, such as yourself, who for them
>>> these concepts are simply out of the boundaries formed during your
>>> upbringing and life experiences.
>>
>> yes, i am a simple man. that's why i see things so clearly.
>>
>
> no, you are a simple man (simpleton) that why you see things so simply.
>
ooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh........
hahahahahaha
obviously this one little statement completely dumbfounded you.
Captain!
"Me and Julio down by the schoolyard." <M...@andJuliotoo.org> wrote in message
you're welcome. just don't ask for advice on how to get a date because in
your case i don't think anything i could say would help. :)
Captain!
>
>
> Captain! wrote:
>> "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1117935565....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > (edit)
>> >
>> >> We are talking equality, socially dictated norms. If you want true
>> >> equality, then both men and women should be subjected to a military
>> >> draft (if one existed) and there should be no exclusions based on sex.
>> >
>> > If that is so, then men should have no exclusion of gestation and
>> > delivery in order to be parents. :-) Women today are indeed doing
>> > everything men are doing PLUS gestating, and I don't mind the notion of
>> > women being drafted, but ONLY if women also have equal military rights.
>> >
>
>> what's so great about gestation?
>
> Well, women give nine months of their lives in the service of the next
> generation and the fathers who don't put in that time. And, all women
> ...every single one of them subject themselves to bodily changes and
> risks of harm and even death every time they take on gestation and
> delivery.
getting pregnant and having babies is something that is so common, so
ordinary, that i don't feel any obligation to start praising and thanking
women for doing it. i think it would be harder to get a woman *not* to do it
because most women at some point in their lives become obsessed with it.
>
>
> all a woman has to do is have some guy dump > his sperm in there and
> voila: instant gestation.
>
> Well, a sexist would surely see it that way. I could say something
> similar about men wearing a uniform, but...I won't.
but i thought women loved a man in uniform???:)
besides, there is nothing sexist about stating a biological fact. perhaps my
bluntness could be considered manly but that's about it.
it's really quite a simple process. unfortunately, raising the child is the
complicated part and too many of you people do a rotten job of it.
Captain!
>
> "Captain!" <Spammer...@now.net> wrote in message
> news:RPLoe.35889$on1.4282@clgrps13...
>>
>> "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1117935565....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>
>>> If that is so, then men should have no exclusion of gestation and
>>> delivery in order to be parents. :-) Women today are indeed doing
>>> everything men are doing PLUS gestating, and I don't mind the notion of
>>> women being drafted, but ONLY if women also have equal military rights.
>>>
>>
>> what's so great about gestation? all a woman has to do is have some guy
>> dump his sperm in there and voila: instant gestation.
>
> I see that you are bucking for Clueless Prat of the Year Award.
this isn't womens' studies at the local university here susan. if you want
flowery wording surrounding the beauty of birth, then go buy a halmark card.
pregnancy is a straight forward thing and there is nothing "special" or
"wonderful" about it.
> But your sarcasm is a little too heavy - you might want to work on al
> ighter touch.
oh c;mon now. everyone here is more than capable of taking a little sarcasm.
you're tough people!
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard.
Your UPS uniform doesn't count.
Franceski
>
> > I see that you are bucking for Clueless Prat of the Year Award.
>
> this isn't womens' studies at the local university here susan. if you want
> flowery wording surrounding the beauty of birth, then go buy a halmark
card.
> pregnancy is a straight forward thing and there is nothing "special" or
> "wonderful" about it.
Very rational and down to earth. You are right, there is nothing special
there. Any normal mammal female can gestate. Susan probably wants to feel
that she has a little something special, but she doesn't. In fact, mices
females are way more efficient in producing babies, with a single load of
sperm, than human females. There is room for improvement, ladies! :o)
Susan Cohen
>
> "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1118034053.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> generation and the fathers who don't put in that time. And, all women
>> ...every single one of them subject themselves to bodily changes and
>> risks of harm and even death every time they take on gestation and
>> delivery.
>
> getting pregnant and having babies is something that is so common, so
> ordinary, that i don't feel any obligation to start praising and thanking
> women for doing it. i think it would be harder to get a woman *not* to do
> it because most women at some point in their lives become obsessed with
> it.
I see you've never lived with any woman who was pregnant.
Susan
Susan Cohen
>
> "Susan Cohen" <flav...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:O3Roe.7277$nr3.1674@trnddc02...
>>
>> "Captain!" <Spammer...@now.net> wrote in message
>> news:RPLoe.35889$on1.4282@clgrps13...
>>>
>>> "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1117935565....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>
>>>> If that is so, then men should have no exclusion of gestation and
>>>> delivery in order to be parents. :-) Women today are indeed doing
>>>> everything men are doing PLUS gestating, and I don't mind the notion of
>>>> women being drafted, but ONLY if women also have equal military rights.
>>>>
>>>
>>> what's so great about gestation? all a woman has to do is have some guy
>>> dump his sperm in there and voila: instant gestation.
>>
>> I see that you are bucking for Clueless Prat of the Year Award.
>
> this isn't womens' studies at the local university here susan. if you want
> flowery wording surrounding the beauty of birth,
Yep - totally clueless.
And about Women's Studies, too.
then go buy a halmark card.
> pregnancy is a straight forward thing and there is nothing "special" or
> "wonderful" about it.
Not only did you not get what I was saying, you ignored completely what
Heyrdahl was saying.
Susan
"MIDIcian" (tm)
> I see you've never lived with any woman who was pregnant.
>
> Susan
Or Jewish? What Jewish women want, is to be able to light the candles on
Friday evenings. :-)
Stan,
www.thesequencers.us
IMPEACH BUSH and CHENY (for failing to "defend the Constitution of The
United States of America)
conn...@hotmail.com
Susan Cohen wrote:
> it.
>
> I see you've never lived with any woman who was pregnant.
>
> Susan
Pregnoids are hardly the nicest with all those useless non civilisation
building estrogen hormones ruling their headnoids.
Luckily, gestation will soon be /dev/null thanks to sci/tech
And we all know what that means for equal wanna be gals, eh?
Care for exrement and rats in your equally infested trench, feminists?
Franceski
Susan, you are dumb. This is not sexist, this is simply a fact.
conn...@hotmail.com
Franceski wrote:
>
>
> Susan, you are dumb. This is not sexist, this is simply a fact.
PLUS the fact that female innovation is but a sand particle on a beach
of masculine risk taking innovation.
Women hardly "risk" gestation in a nice, warm, cozy hospital, I feel
female bitches who have huge litters are at greater risk than our
protect me pink sexists.
Captain!
"Franceski" <lu...@me.ca> wrote in message
news:iq6pe.66707$a76.8...@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> "Captain!" <Spammer...@now.net> wrote in message
> news:ls5pe.44786$9A2.39603@edtnps89...
>>
>
>> > I see that you are bucking for Clueless Prat of the Year Award.
>>
>> this isn't womens' studies at the local university here susan. if you
>> want
>> flowery wording surrounding the beauty of birth, then go buy a halmark
> card.
>> pregnancy is a straight forward thing and there is nothing "special" or
>> "wonderful" about it.
>
>
> Very rational and down to earth. You are right, there is nothing special
> there. Any normal mammal female can gestate. Susan probably wants to feel
> that she has a little something special, but she doesn't. In fact, mices
> females are way more efficient in producing babies, with a single load of
> sperm, than human females. There is room for improvement, ladies! :o)
>
>
lol. imagine...
what a nightmare the world would be!
Captain!
>
> "Captain!" <Spammer...@now.net> wrote in message
> news:ls5pe.44786$9A2.39603@edtnps89...
>>
>> "Susan Cohen" <flav...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:O3Roe.7277$nr3.1674@trnddc02...
>>>
>>> "Captain!" <Spammer...@now.net> wrote in message
>>> news:RPLoe.35889$on1.4282@clgrps13...
>>>>
>>>> "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1117935565....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> If that is so, then men should have no exclusion of gestation and
>>>>> delivery in order to be parents. :-) Women today are indeed doing
>>>>> everything men are doing PLUS gestating, and I don't mind the notion
>>>>> of
>>>>> women being drafted, but ONLY if women also have equal military
>>>>> rights.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> what's so great about gestation? all a woman has to do is have some guy
>>>> dump his sperm in there and voila: instant gestation.
>>>
>>> I see that you are bucking for Clueless Prat of the Year Award.
>>
>> this isn't womens' studies at the local university here susan. if you
>> want flowery wording surrounding the beauty of birth,
>
> Yep - totally clueless.
> And about Women's Studies, too.
you can call me names as much as you like
>
> then go buy a halmark card.
>> pregnancy is a straight forward thing and there is nothing "special" or
>> "wonderful" about it.
>
> Not only did you not get what I was saying, you ignored completely what
> Heyrdahl was saying.
>
> Susan
ok then, i guess the issue is closed :)
Captain!
why? because i have such an unbiased opinion on the subject?
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard.
He lived inside his momma's belly for nine months.
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard.
Imagine! A litter of 10 or 12 captains at one time, several times a year!
Bozhe Moi!
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard.
We all try to ignore what you're saying but you won't let us get away with
it.
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard.
>
> "Me and Julio down by the schoolyard." <M...@andJuliotoo.org> wrote in
> message
>
>
Please be patient. Sueka is just having a bad life. It's a temporary
inconvenience for all of us.
On the plus side she is biodegradeable so we don't expect any long term
damage to the land fill. I would boil your water before drinking though.
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard.
>
>
> conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Hyerdahl wrote:
>> >
>> > Well, women give nine months of their lives in the service of the next
>> > generation and the fathers who don't put in that time.
>>
>
> No, there is NOTHING fathers can do during the nine mos. of gestation
> and fathers don'e expose themselves to the harm of gestation or
> delivery.
>>
>> > And, all pregnant women ...every single one of them subject themselves
>> > on gestation and> delivery.
>>
>> in the workplace unfortunately women choose the comforts of a warm N
>> cozy gestation in a nice safe hospital with help always at hand.
>
> Men don't get special perks these days, 'conman', and women understand
> quite well that they need not honor what USED TO BE male only sacrifice
> if men don't honor female only sacrifice; it's just that simple.
>> >
>> That men are forced rights down their throats in those uniforms, whilst
>> the SEXIST being women gets off scott free.
>
> Women have their own unique sacrifice as well as the military option
> chosen by the women who volunteer. Remember, there is no draft.
Not true. Males (not females) still have to register. Legally speaking there
is a draft. It's just no one gets drafted because there are enough
volunteers.
Men
> today don't even have ANY sacrifice forced on them. They choose.
>
Hyerdahl
Indeed. It is their husbands who keep talking to the tummy. :-) AND,
sexist men have no desire to honor women in any regard. Nothing much
new about that.
I think the thing that's relatively new is that women are not paying
honor in what used to be male only sacrifices. It seems that women
have wised up and know the oldest con-game in history, i.e. that men
wage wars, investing in killing other people and THEN, want to be
honored for that.
> Susan
Hyerdahl
conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> >
> > Well, women give nine months of their lives in the service of the next
> > generation and the fathers who don't put in that time.
>
> Sure they do, just differently.
No, there is NOTHING fathers can do during the nine mos. of gestation
and fathers don'e expose themselves to the harm of gestation or
delivery.
>
> > And, all pregnant women ...every single one of them subject themselves to bodily changes and risks of harm and even death every time they take on gestation and> delivery.
>
> Men got special perks for sacrificing every day taking on risk of harm
> in the workplace unfortunately women choose the comforts of a warm N
> cozy gestation in a nice safe hospital with help always at hand.
Men don't get special perks these days, 'conman', and women understand
quite well that they need not honor what USED TO BE male only sacrifice
if men don't honor female only sacrifice; it's just that simple.
> >
> That men are forced rights down their throats in those uniforms, whilst
> the SEXIST being women gets off scott free.
Women have their own unique sacrifice as well as the military option
chosen by the women who volunteer. Remember, there is no draft. Men
Hyerdahl
Susan Cohen wrote:
> "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1118013235.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> > "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> >> > news:d7v5qg$isl$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Susan Cohen" (flav...@verizon.net) spouts hate:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Women should be drafted when men stop raping them. :->
> >> >>
> > What are you talking about?
>
> I was making a snide little joke that obviously didn't go over too well.
Oh, I see. :-)
> >
> >> >> Men should be drafted, when women stop using them for money.
> >> >>
> > Women and men use each other, dear. When men stop marrying women for
> > their youth and looks, women will stop marrying them for money.
>
> Luckily, that's not a majority of the public.
>
I tend to agree with you. Today, most people who marry or pair bond
seem to be seeking a partner, someone with whom they can share life's
good and bad, together. I think that's a good thing.
> In the meantime, women won't have equal military duties without equal military> rights.
> >
> Few men ever rape anyone. Rape has the highest provable rate of *false
> accusations*.
> >
> > If women change their mind about pressing charges, that doesn't speak
> > to lying; it speaks to what the women choose for themselves.
>
> Most women don't want to be put through *another* wronger.
> Once again, tho', thank G-d we are discussing a minority, here.
>
I agree. Some of the men here just want different standards for women
witnesses than for men, as in the fundy religious tradition, two women
to witness a rape, etc. That won't hold in a free country.
Franceski
"Me and Julio down by the schoolyard." <M...@andJuliotoo.org> wrote in message
news:fOepe.8970$hg....@fe12.lga...
>
LOL!
Susan Cohen
>
>
> conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Hyerdahl wrote:
>> >
>> > Well, women give nine months of their lives in the service of the next
>> > generation and the fathers who don't put in that time.
>>
>> Sure they do, just differently.
>
> No, there is NOTHING fathers can do during the nine mos. of gestation
> and fathers don'e expose themselves to the harm of gestation or
> delivery.
My husband suffered thru my pregnancies as well, but only mentally.
But the support he gave me was priceless - without it, I would have had to
get an abortion.
However, this does not negate the major point of what you have said.
>>
>> > And, all pregnant women ...every single one of them subject themselves
>> > to bodily changes and risks of harm and even death every time they take
>> > on gestation and> delivery.
>>
>> Men got special perks for sacrificing every day taking on risk of harm
>> in the workplace unfortunately women choose the comforts of a warm N
>> cozy gestation
Spoken like someone who has never known a pregnant woman.
>> in a nice safe hospital with help always at hand.
We only go to the hosital for labor & complications.
The bulk of gestation takes place outside the hospital.
>
> Men don't get special perks these days, 'conman',
And I know very few men who are subject to daily harm in the workplace!!
At this point in civilization, women are subject to the same "harm".
and women understand
> quite well that they need not honor what USED TO BE male only sacrifice
> if men don't honor female only sacrifice; it's just that simple.
>> >
>> That men are forced rights down their throats in those uniforms, whilst
>> the SEXIST being women gets off scott free.
>
> Women have their own unique sacrifice as well as the military option
> chosen by the women who volunteer. Remember, there is no draft. Men
> today don't even have ANY sacrifice forced on them. They choose.
And we honor them for it, as well.
But no more than we honor women who make the same choice.
Susan
>
Susan Cohen
>
>
> Susan Cohen wrote:
>> "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1118013235.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >> > "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>> >> > news:d7v5qg$isl$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Susan Cohen" (flav...@verizon.net) spouts hate:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Women should be drafted when men stop raping them. :->
>> >> >>
>> > What are you talking about?
>>
>> I was making a snide little joke that obviously didn't go over too well.
>
> Oh, I see. :-)
>> >
>> >> >> Men should be drafted, when women stop using them for money.
>> >> >>
>> > Women and men use each other, dear. When men stop marrying women for
>> > their youth and looks, women will stop marrying them for money.
>>
>> Luckily, that's not a majority of the public.
>>
> I tend to agree with you. Today, most people who marry or pair bond
> seem to be seeking a partner, someone with whom they can share life's
> good and bad, together. I think that's a good thing.
Even given the abysmal divorce rate, there's something touching about how
many people *try* to find happiness in marriage.
>
>
>> In the meantime, women won't have equal military duties without equal
>> military> rights.
>> >
>> Few men ever rape anyone. Rape has the highest provable rate of *false
>> accusations*.
>> >
>> > If women change their mind about pressing charges, that doesn't speak
>> > to lying; it speaks to what the women choose for themselves.
>>
>> Most women don't want to be put through *another* wringer.
>> Once again, tho', thank G-d we are discussing a minority, here.
>>
> I agree. Some of the men here just want different standards for women
> witnesses than for men, as in the fundy religious tradition, two women
> to witness a rape, etc. That won't hold in a free country.
Thank G-d (How's *that* for another joke?).
Susan
>
Susan Cohen
>
>
> Susan Cohen wrote:
>> "Captain!" <Spammer...@now.net> wrote in message
>> news:Pl5pe.44783$9A2.39072@edtnps89...
>> >
>> > "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1118034053.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >> Well, women give nine months of their lives in the service of the next
>> >> generation and the fathers who don't put in that time. And, all women
>> >> ...every single one of them subject themselves to bodily changes and
>> >> risks of harm and even death every time they take on gestation and
>> >> delivery.
>> >
>> > getting pregnant and having babies is something that is so common, so
>> > ordinary, that i don't feel any obligation to start praising and
>> > thanking
>> > women for doing it. i think it would be harder to get a woman *not* to
>> > do
>> > it because most women at some point in their lives become obsessed with
>> > it.
>>
>> I see you've never lived with any woman who was pregnant.
>>
> Indeed. It is their husbands who keep talking to the tummy. :-)
Well, so did I.
I sang to my children, too.
But the weird part was how my first child only calmed down when my *husband*
put his hand on wherever she (as it turned out) was kicking & carrying on. I
think it was because he hand was bigger, warmer & stronger!
AND,
> sexist men have no desire to honor women in any regard.
And vice versa!
Nothing much
> new about that.
> I think the thing that's relatively new is that women are not paying
> honor in what used to be male only sacrifices. It seems that women
> have wised up and know the oldest con-game in history, i.e. that men
> wage wars, investing in killing other people and THEN, want to be
> honored for that.
Let's be fair - men are also the pawns of the powers-that-be.
Just because those powers-that-be are also men doesn't make the sacrifice of
honest men who may be duped any less worthy.
Susan
>
>
>
>> Susan
>
Susan Cohen
>
> "Susan Cohen" <flav...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:nL9pe.20923$J73.14115@trnddc05...
>>
>> "Captain!" <Spammer...@now.net> wrote in message
>> news:ls5pe.44786$9A2.39603@edtnps89...
>>>
>>> "Susan Cohen" <flav...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:O3Roe.7277$nr3.1674@trnddc02...
>>>>
>>>> "Captain!" <Spammer...@now.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:RPLoe.35889$on1.4282@clgrps13...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1117935565....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> If that is so, then men should have no exclusion of gestation and
>>>>>> delivery in order to be parents. :-) Women today are indeed doing
>>>>>> everything men are doing PLUS gestating, and I don't mind the notion
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> women being drafted, but ONLY if women also have equal military
>>>>>> rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> what's so great about gestation? all a woman has to do is have some
>>>>> guy dump his sperm in there and voila: instant gestation.
>>>>
>>>> I see that you are bucking for Clueless Prat of the Year Award.
>>>
>>> this isn't womens' studies at the local university here susan. if you
>>> want flowery wording surrounding the beauty of birth,
>>
>> Yep - totally clueless.
>> And about Women's Studies, too.
>
> you can call me names as much as you like
I'm sorry, but you not only didn't get what anyone was saying, you totally
don't understand what Women's Studies are about. And since you;ve taken a
joking stance in this thread, I thought that if I got silly right back it
would be appropriate.
Susan
Susan Cohen
>
> "Franceski" <lu...@me.ca> wrote in message
> news:iq6pe.66707$a76.8...@wagner.videotron.net...
>>
>> "Captain!" <Spammer...@now.net> wrote in message
>> news:ls5pe.44786$9A2.39603@edtnps89...
>>>
>>
>>> > I see that you are bucking for Clueless Prat of the Year Award.
>>>
>>> this isn't womens' studies at the local university here susan. if you
>>> want
>>> flowery wording surrounding the beauty of birth, then go buy a halmark
>> card.
>>> pregnancy is a straight forward thing and there is nothing "special" or
>>> "wonderful" about it.
>>
>>
>> Very rational and down to earth. You are right, there is nothing special
>> there. Any normal mammal female can gestate. Susan probably wants to feel
>> that she has a little something special, but she doesn't.
And yet another idiot who doesn't know how to read.
In fact, mices
>> females are way more efficient in producing babies, with a single load of
>> sperm, than human females. There is room for improvement, ladies! :o)
>>
>>
>
> lol. imagine...
> what a nightmare the world would be!
Imagine if we could spontaneously abort like mice, too....
Susan
>
>
Susan Cohen
No, because you have a totally clueless opinion.
Do tell me - just for one "for instance" how you know that "most
women...become obsessed" with giving birth?
And tell me how "ordinary" auomatically equals
"effortless/painless/risk-free" etc.?
Susan
>
>
>
Franceski
<greg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118098427.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Susan Cohen wrote:
> > >>
>
> Why do you write this, Susan Conan? Do you dislike the idea of men not
> being drafted? Must someone else do the fighting while you cower in
> the kitchen?
>
> It never fails. A man argues against a men-only draft, and instead of
> arguing that _no one_ should be drafted, the feminist argues that women
> should not be drafted. The former argument is as easy as the latter,
> and you'd use it if you weren't terrified of being left without someone
> to protect your chapped hyde.
>
> After decades of arguing (badly) with men, have you no newer form of
> patronizing sarcasm than "poor thing"? If you haven't the creativity
> to think of one, can't you browse usenet and crib an idea from some
> other harpy?
>
Feminist movement is outdated in the western societies, at least in mine.
They got everything at level with men, but they want more. Systematic child
guard in case of separation, and they want men to do all the dirty job for
them. Equality means that you can get the advantages, but also
disadvantages. I cannot gestate, should I be ashamed of it?
Franceski
"Me and Julio down by the schoolyard." <M...@andJuliotoo.org> wrote in message
Don't worry about my water. It is one of the best in the world. If the US
don't mess with the great lakes' and St-Laurent's water, I'm ok for a long
while.
Franceski
That's it, I have a tear on my eye.
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard.
Yeah sure but we all know you are prone to sobbing uncontrollably.
Me and Julio down by the schoolyard.
If the water looks a little yellower and tastes warmer than usual, look to
see if I am upsteam.
Andre Lieven
"Franceski" (lu...@me.ca) writes:
> <greg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118098427.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Why do you write this, Susan Conan? Do you dislike the idea of men not
>> being drafted? Must someone else do the fighting while you cower in
>> the kitchen?
>>
>> It never fails. A man argues against a men-only draft, and instead of
>> arguing that _no one_ should be drafted, the feminist argues that women
>> should not be drafted. The former argument is as easy as the latter,
>> and you'd use it if you weren't terrified of being left without someone
>> to protect your chapped hyde.
>>
>> After decades of arguing (badly) with men, have you no newer form of
>> patronizing sarcasm than "poor thing"? If you haven't the creativity
>> to think of one, can't you browse usenet and crib an idea from some
>> other harpy?
>
> Feminist movement is outdated in the western societies, at least in mine.
It was never anything other. It was always a demand for superiority.
> They got everything at level with men, but they want more.
Just one example from this aftrenoon's news: New York signs into law
a " Potty Parity " law ( Quote from CNN Headline News ). Sounds good ?
Well, it mandates that there be TWO women's restroom spaces, for every
ONE of men's...
> Systematic child
> guard in case of separation, and they want men to do all the dirty job for
> them.
Indeed. See Warren Farrell's " Why Men Earn More ".
> Equality means that you can get the advantages, but also
> disadvantages. I cannot gestate, should I be ashamed of it?
According to Feminists... yes.
Thats why they're sexist sow bigots.
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.