"The Empathy Belly"
femi...@are.pigs
>
> In article <3f5a0831....@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
> elco...@netzero.net says...
> > Why would Pro-Lifers object to teaching males somewhat of what it is
> > to be pregnant?
Because the boys involved are being forced to pretend that they're
pregnant?
> > Could it be because they are afraid it will prove the
> > lie of "inconvenience" wrt a full term pregnancy?
Because they don't want thousands of pounds of taxpayer money enriching
some ripoff artist who's invented the "Empathy Belly"?
> >
>
> There were some reports on this particular experiment on local/national
> TV and radio a few days ago, including film of and comments by some of
> the young lads trying the 'belly' out in the classroom.
>
> One comment that I noticed from a 13 yr old lad after he had tried it
> was on the lines of... 'I'm glad I won't ever have to be pregnant - it
> must be horrible for the women to feel like that all the time [they are
> pregnant].'
And no doubt the 13 year old boy thinks it would be awful to have to work
for a living.
>
> These lads had apparently also had some experience of looking after
> those 'dummy' babies - active models that respond like real babies to
> simulated hunger etc.
But I'm sure it would be worth it for them if it was a real child, and not
a fake plastic one. These lads have also apparently had no experience of
life. And being annoyed by plastic ones or wearing empathy bellies (as
misogynistic as it is) doesn't teach them anything about that other than
perhaps there's something abnormal and undesireable about becoming a
parent.
IOW, the typical anti-family feminist bullcrap...
Full article quoted below:
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
Britain
September 05, 2003
Empathy Belly means boys are left holding the baby
By Alexandra Frean, Social Affairs Correspondent
TEENAGE boys are to find out what it means to get a girl pregnant — by
using a water-filled fat suit that allows them to experience the physical
discomforts of carrying a baby. Secondary school children in Manchester
will be the first to try on the Empathy Belly, which simulates 20 physical
symptoms of carrying a baby.
These include shortness of breath, increased blood pressure and lower back
ache, not to mention the waddling gait and change in sexual self image that
can result from a 30lb weight gain. Its American makers also boast that it
will also induce “fatigue, irritability, and much, much more!” Erica
Powell, a youth worker with Barnardo’s in Manchester, said that she hoped
that its use would help shatter some romantic illusions youngsters can
associate with pregnancy.
She intends to use the £940 pregnancy simulator with schoolchildren aged
between 11 and 14 in the deprived Benchill area of the city, where the rate
of teenage conception is 49.8 per 1,000 teenage girls; the national average
is 43.8.
“We have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in the country. I
hope that it will help the young people realise that when you are pregnant,
or wearing an Empathy Belly. it’s not always that easy,” she said.
“It’s not a very glamorous feeling. Bending down, for example, can be
quite hard.”
Ms Powell said that she hoped that boys would get a feel for how much extra
weight women had to carry when pregnant. The girls, she added, would have a
chance to see what they looked like when they were carrying extra weight.
“Most girls don’t realise what it would be like to be fat,” she said.
Ms Powell plans to start using the Empathy Belly this term with Year Eight
pupils, aged 13, during teenage pregnancy prevention sessions she holds in
local secondary schools. She already uses “virtual babies”, life-sized
models that emit a loud, prolonged and realistic cry if they are not fed
and changed regularly.
“With the virtual babies some of them can’t cope with being woken up in
the middle of the night and others can’t cope with supporting the
baby’s head and holding it properly, but others cope really well. Whether
they can cope or not, none of them really like it,” she said.
“Using simulators allows you to say to them: ‘How to do think a mother
feels when she has to go to the shops with her baby? How do you think a
pregnant woman feels?’ The idea is to show them exactly how it feels and
then to use this as a basis for discussion and information.”
The Empathy Belly simulates the effect of pregnancy through the use of a
rib belt and positioning of weighted components: lead balls are inserted to
produce the feeling of the baby’s limbs sticking into the mother’s rib
cage and a sandbag attached under the belly presses on the bladder.
It was originally developed to help men increase their sense of involvement
with their pregnant partner. The user manual says: “Realising first-hand
that her discomforts are genuine and that pregnancy requires significant
effort and adjustment on the women’s part, expectant fathers invariably
increase their appreciation, communication and supportive behaviour.”
It is widely in use in teenage pregnancy prevention programmes in America,
where paediatricians say that one session with the Empathy Belly can be
worth more than an entire lecture on the subject.
Michael Snyder
> Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
>>In article <3f5a0831....@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
>>elco...@netzero.net says...
>>
>>>Why would Pro-Lifers object to teaching males somewhat of what it is
>>>to be pregnant?
>
>
> Because the boys involved are being forced to pretend that they're
> pregnant?
Can't answer for pro-lifers, but a pro-equality person might object
on the grounds that the girls are not being forced to do anything
that might help them better empathize with boys.
Pat Winstanley
Who said the boys in the simulation were *forced* to wear the weighted
apron?
And what, exactly, would you suggest as an equivalent physical problem
that most males face and all females don't, that could be simulated for
the females in a similar manner to the way the weighted apron simulates
for the lads *some* of the problems pregnancy presents?
And for whatever you suggest, what makes you think it isn't being
presented to the girls like the weighted apron is for the boys?
Hyerdahl1
>From: Michael Snyder msn...@redhat.com
>Date: 9/9/03 12:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <bjl9dl$ni8$3...@stan.redhat.com>
But girls already DO everything boys do Plus gestate.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Paul Anderson
How about a headophone arrangement that says "Have Sex" every 17
seconds.
( My feminazi wife claims that men think of sex every 17 seconds.
While I am not sure if that is true, I do know that while I was in
partial cardiac arrest with enough morphine in my body to keep the
neighborhood happy I was asked if I exercised. I came out of my fog
and leered at my wife; who said thru tightly clenched teeth, "They
don't mean THAT!" So I can vouch that men think of sex while dying
in a drug induced haze. )
Michael Snyder
> In article <bjl9dl$ni8$3...@stan.redhat.com>, msn...@redhat.com says...
>
>>femi...@are.pigs wrote:
>>
>>>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <3f5a0831....@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
>>>>elco...@netzero.net says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Why would Pro-Lifers object to teaching males somewhat of what it is
>>>>>to be pregnant?
>>>
>>>
>>>Because the boys involved are being forced to pretend that they're
>>>pregnant?
>>
>>Can't answer for pro-lifers, but a pro-equality person might object
>>on the grounds that the girls are not being forced to do anything
>>that might help them better empathize with boys.
>>
>>
>
>
> Who said the boys in the simulation were *forced* to wear the weighted
> apron?
The original article; didn't you read it?
> And what, exactly, would you suggest as an equivalent physical problem
> that most males face and all females don't, that could be simulated for
> the females in a similar manner to the way the weighted apron simulates
> for the lads *some* of the problems pregnancy presents?
You arbitrarily added the constraint "physical". Strike that, and
use your own imagination to come up with problems that boys face
that girls do not. If you can't do that, I have no interest in
talking to you anyway.
Michael Snyder
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 12:09:48 -0700, Michael Snyder
> <msn...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>>femi...@are.pigs wrote:
>>
>>>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <3f5a0831....@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
>>>>elco...@netzero.net says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Why would Pro-Lifers object to teaching males somewhat of what it is
>>>>>to be pregnant?
>>>
>>>
>>>Because the boys involved are being forced to pretend that they're
>>>pregnant?
>>
>>Can't answer for pro-lifers, but a pro-equality person might object
>>on the grounds that the girls are not being forced to do anything
>>that might help them better empathize with boys.
>
>
> How about a headophone arrangement that says "Have Sex" every 17
> seconds.
See Pat? Paul came up with one without having to think too long or hard...
Andre Lieven
" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'... "
Now, lets compare that claimed " every 17 seconds ", with how
often women think of *being sexy* ( As defined by such actions and
wishes as fashion, body modification via surgery, exercise, dieting,
etc.... )....
Betcha that that number will be around " every 17 seconds " too...
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Ken&Laura Chaddock
I suspect you're right Andre, on top of which, the "study" (if I can
grace it with such a grandiose title) which noted the "every 17 seconds"
databite ALSO noted that women think about sex every 21 seconds
If we add how often women think about fashion, makeup, dieting etc, I
suspect women spend considerably more time thinking about sex and
sexuality than men...
...Ken
Andre Lieven
Indeed. The tactic/practive of only noting one's group behavior, then
dissing it, while being deliberately blind to the same/very similar
behavior of the other group, smacks of, well, sexism...
> If we add how often women think about fashion, makeup, dieting etc,
> I suspect women spend considerably more time thinking about sex and
> sexuality than men...
Indeed. Lets not forget that excellent and accurate quote from Frasier
" Men don't use sex to get what we want. Sex *is* what we want ! ".
Where many people, granted, mostly women, go wrong with this view, is
that they then ASSume that sex is what men *always want*, while wanting
*nothing else* from any romantic relationships.
This is a view that not only dehumanises men, but it also makes the
holder of said view look at human relationships and sexuality in a
very one dimensional and childish manner.
Humans and relationships are far more complex than that, and motives
for various actions within them, are equally of more then one type.
M is for Malapert
"Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bjli0t$dhk$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Paul Anderson (elco...@netzero.net) writes:
> > I came out of my fog
> > and leered at my wife; who said thru tightly clenched teeth, "They
> > don't mean THAT!" So I can vouch that men think of sex while dying
> > in a drug induced haze. )
>
> " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'... "
At least get the saying right: The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
What you wrote doesn't even make sense; "citation" isn't plural.
Andre Lieven
> "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:bjli0t$dhk$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> Paul Anderson (elco...@netzero.net) writes:
>
>> > I came out of my fog
>> > and leered at my wife; who said thru tightly clenched teeth, "They
>> > don't mean THAT!" So I can vouch that men think of sex while dying
>> > in a drug induced haze. )
>>
>> " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'... "
>
> At least get the saying right: The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
<yawn> I'll use my quote as it is, as it not only *is* a quote,
but it states what I wish to state, clearer then your version.
Free Clue: You can make choices for *yourself*. I make choices
for *myself*.
Deal with it.
> What you wrote doesn't even make sense; "citation" isn't plural.
A citation can easily ( And, most often, *should* ) contain plurals
of data points.
Just as an aircraft carrier is a singular, but the multiple
aircraft that it *carries* are plural...
Do learn not to overstretch your pedantry...
Correction concluded.
Michael Snyder
Andre Lieven wrote in message ...
You mis-spelled "feminism".
Andre Lieven
Well, its worth remembering that feminism isn't the only *possible*
form of that, its merely the overwhelmingly prevalent present
cultural form.
But, as you point out, feminism is never about anything other
than that form of divisiveness and bigotry.
Pat Winstanley
> Pat Winstanley wrote:
> > In article <bjl9dl$ni8$3...@stan.redhat.com>, msn...@redhat.com says...
> >
> >>femi...@are.pigs wrote:
> >>
> >>>Pat Winstanley wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>In article <3f5a0831....@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
> >>>>elco...@netzero.net says...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Why would Pro-Lifers object to teaching males somewhat of what it is
> >>>>>to be pregnant?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Because the boys involved are being forced to pretend that they're
> >>>pregnant?
> >>
> >>Can't answer for pro-lifers, but a pro-equality person might object
> >>on the grounds that the girls are not being forced to do anything
> >>that might help them better empathize with boys.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Who said the boys in the simulation were *forced* to wear the weighted
> > apron?
>
> The original article; didn't you read it?
No boy would have been FORCED to wear it.
>
> > And what, exactly, would you suggest as an equivalent physical problem
> > that most males face and all females don't, that could be simulated for
> > the females in a similar manner to the way the weighted apron simulates
> > for the lads *some* of the problems pregnancy presents?
>
> You arbitrarily added the constraint "physical".
Not arbitrary at all - that's that the weighted apron is... a simulation
of a physical situation that women face when pregnant.
Pat Winstanley
Whatever makes you think girls don't think about sex on regular basis?
How about something physical that happens to boys but does NOT happen to
girls...
Jesus Marley
"Pat Winstanley" <wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.19c84131c...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
How about the Spontaneous Erection belt? A widely known fact is that early
pubescent boys start to esperience spontaneous (and sometimes very painful)
erections. They have a tendecy to appear at the most inopportune times, such
as being called to the head of the class among other things. Having to deal
with this phenomenon with no way to remedy the situation can be quite
traumatizing to a young boy. Not only does he have to endure the taunts at
the time of occurance, but then he has to endure the "talk" that follows him
through school. Of course combine that with the fact that an erection needs
room to grow and pants can be restrictive, it can cause alot of pain.
So, with that in mind, I propose the Belt. this device will simulate in
extreme detail the physical problems associated with a spontaneous erection.
and in so doing help the female to experience some of the psycho;ogical
trauma associated with the phenomenon.
--
-=Jesus Marley=-
Here's to the Sun God!
He's a real fun God!
Ra! Ra! Ra!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Pat Winstanley
jesus...@hotmailnospam.com says...
I take it you aren't aware that girls also have to cope with a
corresponding problem (including visibility of arousal).
Mr. F. Le Mur
->Pat Winstanley wrote:
->> And what, exactly, would you suggest as an equivalent physical problem
->> that most males face and all females don't, that could be simulated for
->> the females in a similar manner to the way the weighted apron simulates
->> for the lads *some* of the problems pregnancy presents?
->
->You arbitrarily added the constraint "physical". Strike that, and
->use your own imagination to come up with problems that boys face
->that girls do not. If you can't do that, I have no interest in
->talking to you anyway.
As far as that goes, it's just goofy feminism (along with too much
spare time and other people's money) is why they're forcing the kids
to "know" what it feels like to be pregnant while not forcing them
to know what it feels like to be old, crippled, fat, skinny,
nearsighted, stupid, wear dentures or a cast, etc.
Bob
Why not just empty their purses and give all their money to the boys?
You could follow up by forcing them to sign a binding contract awarding
the boys 50% of their gross income for the next 20 years.
Bob
Bob
> In article <bjlh73$npt$4...@stan.redhat.com>, msn...@redhat.com says...
>
>>Paul Anderson wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 12:09:48 -0700, Michael Snyder
>>><msn...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>femi...@are.pigs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <3f5a0831....@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
>>>>>>elco...@netzero.net says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why would Pro-Lifers object to teaching males somewhat of what it is
>>>>>>>to be pregnant?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Because the boys involved are being forced to pretend that they're
>>>>>pregnant?
>>>>
>>>>Can't answer for pro-lifers, but a pro-equality person might object
>>>>on the grounds that the girls are not being forced to do anything
>>>>that might help them better empathize with boys.
>>>
>>>
>>>How about a headophone arrangement that says "Have Sex" every 17
>>>seconds.
>>
>>See Pat? Paul came up with one without having to think too long or hard...
>>
>>
>
>
> Whatever makes you think girls don't think about sex on regular basis?
>
> How about something physical that happens to boys but does NOT happen to
> girls...
Empty their purses and give their money to the boys. Let them
experience the feeling of being broke and robbed. An empty purse feels
very different.
Bob
Pat Winstanley
> > Whatever makes you think girls don't think about sex on regular basis?
> >
> > How about something physical that happens to boys but does NOT happen to
> > girls...
>
> Empty their purses and give their money to the boys. Let them
> experience the feeling of being broke and robbed. An empty purse feels
> very different.
>
Women already get to feel that broke and robbed feeling because when
they have to provide the dad's share of the child support for them (as
well as the mum's share which they are already providing anway) after
dad has done a runner (physically or financially) following a marriage
breakdown.
What's new?
In any case, the question was to come up with something that physically
happens to boys/men but does not happen to girls/women.
Bob
You, Pat, obviously have no clue what it feels like to be a man. Some
of this exercise would do you a world of good.
What physically happens to men and not to women is being robbed of his
money which is given to women, and being tossed into debtor's prison
when he has not enough to give.
Let the young bitches have their money taken and given to the boys, and
then let them spend a few days in debtor's prisons unless they can pay
more than they have.
Bob
Michael Snyder
Also feminists have raised the technique you mentioned
(xxx women per hour are assaulted by their partners, but
don't lets mention how many men are assaulted by theirs)
to a high art.
Michael Snyder
> In article <bjlh53$npt$3...@stan.redhat.com>, msn...@redhat.com says...
>
>>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>>
>>>In article <bjl9dl$ni8$3...@stan.redhat.com>, msn...@redhat.com says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>femi...@are.pigs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <3f5a0831....@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
>>>>>>elco...@netzero.net says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why would Pro-Lifers object to teaching males somewhat of what it is
>>>>>>>to be pregnant?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Because the boys involved are being forced to pretend that they're
>>>>>pregnant?
>>>>
>>>>Can't answer for pro-lifers, but a pro-equality person might object
>>>>on the grounds that the girls are not being forced to do anything
>>>>that might help them better empathize with boys.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Who said the boys in the simulation were *forced* to wear the weighted
>>>apron?
>>
>>The original article; didn't you read it?
>
>
> No boy would have been FORCED to wear it.
Explain how the difference between "forced" and "required"
is relevant.
>>>And what, exactly, would you suggest as an equivalent physical problem
>>>that most males face and all females don't, that could be simulated for
>>>the females in a similar manner to the way the weighted apron simulates
>>>for the lads *some* of the problems pregnancy presents?
>>
>>You arbitrarily added the constraint "physical".
>
>
> Not arbitrary at all - that's that the weighted apron is... a simulation
> of a physical situation that women face when pregnant.
Which means that it is a simulation of a SITUATION that women face.
So why don't they require the girls to simulate a SITUATION that
men face? Why is the fact that it is a PHYSICAL situation relevant?
Michael Snyder
> In article <bjlh73$npt$4...@stan.redhat.com>, msn...@redhat.com says...
>
>>Paul Anderson wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 12:09:48 -0700, Michael Snyder
>>><msn...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>femi...@are.pigs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <3f5a0831....@news.la.sbcglobal.net>,
>>>>>>elco...@netzero.net says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why would Pro-Lifers object to teaching males somewhat of what it is
>>>>>>>to be pregnant?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Because the boys involved are being forced to pretend that they're
>>>>>pregnant?
>>>>
>>>>Can't answer for pro-lifers, but a pro-equality person might object
>>>>on the grounds that the girls are not being forced to do anything
>>>>that might help them better empathize with boys.
>>>
>>>
>>>How about a headophone arrangement that says "Have Sex" every 17
>>>seconds.
>>
>>See Pat? Paul came up with one without having to think too long or hard...
>>
>>
>
>
> Whatever makes you think girls don't think about sex on regular basis?
>
> How about something physical that happens to boys but does NOT happen to
> girls...
Fuck you Pat. You are only interested in diversion.
Michael Snyder
I take it you are unwilling to admit that boys face relevant
problems that are as relevant as those faced by girls. You
obviously know that sexual arousal is more frequently and more
prominantly visible in boys than in girls, yet you insist on
quibbling, refuse to acknowledge that boys have "stuff" too
that girls might benefit from learning to empathize with.
Sir Jessy of Anti
They can wear a strap-on and be made to do problems on the chalkboard?
This would enable them to empathize with the unwanted, constant erections
and subsequent embarrassment male adolescents have to deal with.
Sir Jessy of Anti
A woman does not have a penis, and cannot get an erection. Therefore, it is
an apt comparison that satisfies your 'physical' requirement.
HTH
Andre Lieven
Indeed. Its just worth remembering that many other groups do
such things, too. See " Election advertising "...
And... " do it for the children ! ". <g>
Ken&Laura Chaddock
> Ken&Laura Chaddock (chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca) writes:
>> I suspect you're right Andre, on top of which, the "study" (if I can
>>grace it with such a grandiose title) which noted the "every 17 seconds"
>>databite ALSO noted that women think about sex every 21 seconds
>
> Indeed. The tactic/practive of only noting one's group behavior, then
> dissing it, while being deliberately blind to the same/very similar
> behavior of the other group, smacks of, well, sexism...
In this context it smacks of sexism but it could as easily be racism or
almost any other "ism"...
>> If we add how often women think about fashion, makeup, dieting etc,
>>I suspect women spend considerably more time thinking about sex and
>>sexuality than men...
>
> Indeed. Lets not forget that excellent and accurate quote from Frasier
> " Men don't use sex to get what we want. Sex *is* what we want ! ".
>
> Where many people, granted, mostly women, go wrong with this view, is
> that they then ASSume that sex is what men *always want*, while wanting
> *nothing else* from any romantic relationships.
A very good point...
...Ken
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>> Ken&Laura Chaddock (chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca) writes:
>>> I suspect you're right Andre, on top of which, the "study" (if I can
>>>grace it with such a grandiose title) which noted the "every 17 seconds"
>>>databite ALSO noted that women think about sex every 21 seconds
>>
>> Indeed. The tactic/practive of only noting one's group behavior, then
>> dissing it, while being deliberately blind to the same/very similar
>> behavior of the other group, smacks of, well, sexism...
>
> In this context it smacks of sexism but it could as easily be racism
> or almost any other "ism"...
Indeed. I've made this point, when speaking of the tactics of Feminism,
that they are often used, to varying degrees, by other lobby groups.
>>> If we add how often women think about fashion, makeup, dieting etc,
>>>I suspect women spend considerably more time thinking about sex and
>>>sexuality than men...
>>
>> Indeed. Lets not forget that excellent and accurate quote from Frasier
>> " Men don't use sex to get what we want. Sex *is* what we want ! ".
>>
>> Where many people, granted, mostly women, go wrong with this view, is
>> that they then ASSume that sex is what men *always want*, while wanting
>> *nothing else* from any romantic relationships.
>
> A very good point...
Thank you. The thing there is the all too often one dimensional view
of men, men's issues, interests, and desires, that modern society
promulgates.
Men want lots of different things, and not all in the sme ways, or
at the sme times. Sex is great, but most men who have thought about it
tend to be clear within themselves, that sex isn't all that we want.
Take a listen to Lonestar's " My Front Porch Lookin' In " for one
view of this.
Pat Winstanley
> >>>Who said the boys in the simulation were *forced* to wear the weighted
> >>>apron?
> >>
> >>The original article; didn't you read it?
> >
> >
> > No boy would have been FORCED to wear it.
>
> Explain how the difference between "forced" and "required"
> is relevant.
>
There was nothing about boys being required to wear it either.
Pat Winstanley
> >
> > Whatever makes you think girls don't think about sex on regular basis?
> >
> > How about something physical that happens to boys but does NOT happen to
> > girls...
>
> Fuck you Pat. You are only interested in diversion.
>
No, you just get irritated and start to swear when women don't bow down
and worship your (self judged) 'superiority' as a male.
Well tough! ;-))
Pat Winstanley
> >>So, with that in mind, I propose the Belt. this device will simulate in
> >>extreme detail the physical problems associated with a spontaneous erection.
> >>and in so doing help the female to experience some of the psycho;ogical
> >>trauma associated with the phenomenon.
> >
> >
> > I take it you aren't aware that girls also have to cope with a
> > corresponding problem (including visibility of arousal).
>
> I take it you are unwilling to admit that boys face relevant
> problems that are as relevant as those faced by girls.
They both have somewhat visible and embarrassing sexual arousal. Who is
denying that?
> You
> obviously know that sexual arousal is more frequently and more
> prominantly visible in boys than in girls,
Wanna bet! ;-)))
> yet you insist on
> quibbling,
No quibbling from me... just pointing out that various ideas that have
been presented that males physically have also have a counterpart in
females).
> refuse to acknowledge that boys have "stuff" too
I have not refused to so acknowledge.
> that girls might benefit from learning to empathize with.
>
Precisely where have I denied that males may have physical problems for
which there is no counterpart in females (just as vice versa)?
I am asking WHAT do males go through, but females do not, that creates a
similar physical disability as pregnancy. (ie something females could do
with learning about).
If I were denying there was such a counterpart I wouldn't be asking what
the counterpart is! ;-))
Pat Winstanley
evilinco...@yahoo.com says...
> > Whatever makes you think girls don't think about sex on regular basis?
> >
> > How about something physical that happens to boys but does NOT happen to
> > girls...
>
> They can wear a strap-on and be made to do problems on the chalkboard?
> This would enable them to empathize with the unwanted, constant erections
> and subsequent embarrassment male adolescents have to deal with.
>
>
Girls also have physically visible problems on those lines.
Never noticed them?
Perhaps they are more obvious to the person with the problem (male or
female) than to the observers (male or female).
Pat Winstanley
evilinco...@yahoo.com says...
> > I take it you aren't aware that girls also have to cope with a
> > corresponding problem (including visibility of arousal).
>
> A woman does not have a penis, and cannot get an erection.
>
No, but women have sticky out bits that men don't have (which also can
and do become erectile on sexual arousal)!
Perhaps you weren't aware of that little factoid.
Mr. F. Le Mur
[Article]
->Empathy Belly means boys are left holding the baby
->She intends to use the Ł940 pregnancy simulator with schoolchildren
Here's their homepage, where you can see what they're getting
for a thousand bucks: http://www.empathybelly.org/home.html
They even have a section on how to get someone else to pay for it.
Jesus Marley
Men have boobies too... just smaller (mostly). and men's nips can stand up
too.
And if by chance you are refering to a clitoris.... DAMN!
Lawrence E. McKnight
<wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <TqL7b.2158$Gr.1...@read1.cgocable.net>,
>evilinco...@yahoo.com says...
>> > Whatever makes you think girls don't think about sex on regular basis?
>> >
>> > How about something physical that happens to boys but does NOT happen to
>> > girls...
>>
>> They can wear a strap-on and be made to do problems on the chalkboard?
>> This would enable them to empathize with the unwanted, constant erections
>> and subsequent embarrassment male adolescents have to deal with.
>>
>>
>
>Girls also have physically visible problems on those lines.
>
>Never noticed them?
Come on, Pat, perky nipples are not the same as having a woody in
front of the class. And those can just come from the temperature.
>
>Perhaps they are more obvious to the person with the problem (male or
>female) than to the observers (male or female).
Larry
(this space unintentially left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
Lawrence E. McKnight
<wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <ixL7b.2161$Gr.1...@read1.cgocable.net>,
>evilinco...@yahoo.com says...
>> > I take it you aren't aware that girls also have to cope with a
>> > corresponding problem (including visibility of arousal).
>>
>> A woman does not have a penis, and cannot get an erection.
>>
>
>No, but women have sticky out bits that men don't have (which also can
>and do become erectile on sexual arousal)!
Yeah, but if they were modest young ladies, they would be wearing bras
and clothing that prevented to young boys from seeing it.
This conversation is certainly more interesting that playing
Whack-a-mole with Chris.
>
>Perhaps you weren't aware of that little factoid.
>
Larry
Michael Snyder
Pat is not interested in reason, only in minimizing anything that
looks like a disadvantage for men/boys, and maximizing anything
that looks like a disadvantage for women/girls.
Ray Fischer
>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>> How about something physical that happens to boys but does NOT happen to
>> girls...
>
>Empty their purses and give their money to the boys. Let them
>experience the feeling of being broke and robbed. An empty purse feels
>very different.
Make them work a 12 hour day and then give all the money they earn to
somebody else.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Bob
A few months in debtor's prison because the money they made during the
12 hrs per day hard labor would help women to sympathize with men.
Bob
Sir Jessy of Anti
> In article <bjnrjd$ql6$7...@stan.redhat.com>, msn...@redhat.com says...
> > >>So, with that in mind, I propose the Belt. this device will simulate
in
> > >>extreme detail the physical problems associated with a spontaneous
erection.
> > >>and in so doing help the female to experience some of the
psycho;ogical
> > >>trauma associated with the phenomenon.
> > >
> > >
> > > I take it you aren't aware that girls also have to cope with a
> > > corresponding problem (including visibility of arousal).
> >
> > I take it you are unwilling to admit that boys face relevant
> > problems that are as relevant as those faced by girls.
>
> They both have somewhat visible and embarrassing sexual arousal. Who is
> denying that?
>
> > You
> > obviously know that sexual arousal is more frequently and more
> > prominantly visible in boys than in girls,
>
> Wanna bet! ;-)))
>
> > yet you insist on
> > quibbling,
>
> No quibbling from me... just pointing out that various ideas that have
> been presented that males physically have also have a counterpart in
> females).
Nipples are not a counterpart for a penis. Both sexes have nipples.
Please test this with field methodology before continuing this conversation.
Yours,
Sir J.
Sir Jessy of Anti
"Mr. F. Le Mur" <lemu...@comxcast.net> wrote in message
news:nufvlv41c014ufffm...@4ax.com...
> On 05 Sep 2003 16:31:57 GMT, deni...@aol.com (Denise noe) wrote:
>
> [Article]
> ->Empathy Belly means boys are left holding the baby
>
>
> Here's their homepage, where you can see what they're getting
> for a thousand bucks: http://www.empathybelly.org/home.html
>
> They even have a section on how to get someone else to pay for it.
LOL@!!!!! Did you see that frikin' pick! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh god, I gotta calm down. That shit is just too funny.
God save us all!
Pat Winstanley
evilinco...@yahoo.com says...
> > No quibbling from me... just pointing out that various ideas that have
> > been presented that males physically have also have a counterpart in
> > females).
>
> Nipples are not a counterpart for a penis. Both sexes have nipples.
>
I didn't mention nipples! ;-)))
Pat Winstanley
lawrence.del...@sbcglobal.net says...
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 23:14:28 +0100, Pat Winstanley
> <wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <TqL7b.2158$Gr.1...@read1.cgocable.net>,
> >evilinco...@yahoo.com says...
> >> > Whatever makes you think girls don't think about sex on regular basis?
> >> >
> >> > How about something physical that happens to boys but does NOT happen to
> >> > girls...
> >>
> >> They can wear a strap-on and be made to do problems on the chalkboard?
> >> This would enable them to empathize with the unwanted, constant erections
> >> and subsequent embarrassment male adolescents have to deal with.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Girls also have physically visible problems on those lines.
> >
> >Never noticed them?
>
> Come on, Pat, perky nipples are not the same as having a woody in
> front of the class. And those can just come from the temperature.
>
Again, I didn't mention nipples! ;-))
Pat Winstanley
lawrence.del...@sbcglobal.net says...
> Subject: Re: "The Empathy Belly"
> From: Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.del...@sbcglobal.net>
> Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.feminism, soc.men
>
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 23:15:48 +0100, Pat Winstanley
> <wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <ixL7b.2161$Gr.1...@read1.cgocable.net>,
> >evilinco...@yahoo.com says...
> >> > I take it you aren't aware that girls also have to cope with a
> >> > corresponding problem (including visibility of arousal).
> >>
> >> A woman does not have a penis, and cannot get an erection.
> >>
> >
> >No, but women have sticky out bits that men don't have (which also can
> >and do become erectile on sexual arousal)!
>
> Yeah, but if they were modest young ladies, they would be wearing bras
> and clothing that prevented to young boys from seeing it.
>
Just like young gentlemen (if they wish to be modest) would routinely
wear a similarly uncomfortable garment to support/conceal/constrain what
they don't want girls to see?
Sauce for the goose... :-)
Pat Winstanley
says...
Most women do that already.
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@bolt.sonic.net
>> >Pat Winstanley wrote:
>> >> How about something physical that happens to boys but does NOT happen to
>> >> girls...
>> >
>> >Empty their purses and give their money to the boys. Let them
>> >experience the feeling of being broke and robbed. An empty purse feels
>> >very different.
>>
>> Make them work a 12 hour day and then give all the money they earn to
>> somebody else.
>
>Most women do that already.
You're full of shit, pro-liar. The vast majority of the workforce
the world over is MEN.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Bob
Yep, and virtually all the hard, dirty, and dangerous jobs are done by
men. Women believe that sitting around watching soaps is "work" because
women do it.
Bob
junegill
"Bob" <boby...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F609145...@hotmail.com...
All the dirty jobs, Bob? How many soiled nappies (diapers to you) have you
changed? How many men are employed as geriatric nurses, cleaning up after
the incontinent? It may be different in the US, but in the UK, the latter
job devolves mostly on women. As to watching soaps, I would certainly find
it hard work because of the boredom factor, but to each her own. Looking
after babies/children, cleaning the house, doing the laundry and cooking are
not work, of course, right?
--
June G
# 364
http://www.jgdodworth.demon.co.uk
Bob
That lie don't fly Toots. Over 90% of industrial deaths and injuries
happen to men. Even in geriatric care places they often employ men to
do the hard work while women do the easier work.
> As to watching soaps, I would certainly find
> it hard work because of the boredom factor, but to each her own.
LOL. Millions and millions of women while away their afternoon watching
TV or reading romance novels (female pornography).
> Looking
> after babies/children, cleaning the house, doing the laundry and cooking are
> not work, of course, right?
Housework, at least the women's traditional kind of housework, is no
longer hard, dirty, or dangerous. Men have provided women with machines
that do most of the labor of washing and scrubbing. Meanwhile the
traditional men's housework, shoveling snow, repairing the home, etc.,
is still hard, dirty, and dangerous and results in far more injuries and
deaths.
Sorry Toots, those feminist misandrist lies don't fly here.
Bob
Andre Lieven
> "Bob" <boby...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3F609145...@hotmail.com...
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> > Pat Winstanley <wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >>rfis...@bolt.sonic.net
>> >>
>> >>>Bob <boby...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>>How about something physical that happens to boys but does NOT happen
>> >>>>>to girls...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Empty their purses and give their money to the boys. Let them
>> >>>>experience the feeling of being broke and robbed. An empty purse
>> >>>>feels very different.
>> >>>
>> >>>Make them work a 12 hour day and then give all the money they earn to
>> >>>somebody else.
>> >>
>> >>Most women do that already.
>> >
>> > You're full of shit, pro-liar. The vast majority of the workforce
>> > the world over is MEN.
>>
>> Yep, and virtually all the hard, dirty, and dangerous jobs are done by
>> men. Women believe that sitting around watching soaps is "work" because
>> women do it.
>
> All the dirty jobs, Bob?
Your illiteracy renders you *unable* to *read* the word " virtually " ?
> How many soiled nappies (diapers to you) have you changed?
Interesting that your female supremecist view goes right to that, as
an example of " dirty jobs "...
Now, try mine working, lineman, firefighting.... You know, *really
tough and almost solely manned jobs*...
> How many men are employed as geriatric nurses, cleaning up after
> the incontinent?
Who are most of those elderly incontinent ? Right, *women*...
Clean up your own messes....
> It may be different in the US, but in the UK, the latter
> job devolves mostly on women.
So, who builds buildings, fixes broken power lines, rescues
trapped by fire victims, and does all of those dirty jobs in the
UK, eh ?
> As to watching soaps, I would certainly find
> it hard work because of the boredom factor, but to each her own.
Non sequitur. You don't speak for women, as a group, and the stats
on this issue do show that daytime teevee is watched by *mostly
women*...
Men, OTOH, tend to be *on the job at those times*...
> Looking after babies/children, cleaning the house, doing the laundry and
> cooking are not work, of course, right?
The injury/fatality rates for that position are very low. 24 out of
the top 25 most dangerous jobs ( In terms of death, and injuries ),
are held by over 90% men.
Let us know when as many women volunteer to do *those tough jobs,
and can actually do them*....
Michael Snyder
Andre Lieven wrote in message ...
Not to mention garbage collector. Dirty diapers last at most a year
or so, and a woman has what? One, two babies? Garbage collection
goes on day after day, month after month, year after year...
junegill
Toots? Hmm. I wasn't arguing about the more dangerous jobs - just the
dirty ones. However, the following url suggests that more non-fatal
injuries happen to nurses than to people in other occupations:
http://www.nursingworld.org/pressrel/1999/ma0622.htm
Even in geriatric care places they often employ men to
> do the hard work while women do the easier work.
Hard work? Don't you mean heavy work? What's easy about cleaning up
faeces?
> > As to watching soaps, I would certainly find
> > it hard work because of the boredom factor, but to each her own.
>
> LOL. Millions and millions of women while away their afternoon watching
> TV or reading romance novels (female pornography).
As I said, to each her own. How many millions of men while away their
evenings watching sports, or drinking with their buddies down at the pub,
whilst women are bathing the children and putting them to bed, then clearing
up the aftermath of dinner?
> > Looking
> > after babies/children, cleaning the house, doing the laundry and cooking
are
> > not work, of course, right?
>
> Housework, at least the women's traditional kind of housework, is no
> longer hard, dirty, or dangerous.
It is still hard and dirty - we maintain far higher standards of hygiene
than formerly. Housework is also never-ending: it's like threading beads
without a knot in your cotton.
Men have provided women with machines
> that do most of the labor of washing and scrubbing.
Gosh, you men are so noble doing that for us - and you never made machines
to make your jobs easier and less dangerous, did you? Note also that before
the advent of washing machines, people tended to wear the same clothes for a
week, not just for a day or less - you want to go back to that?
Meanwhile the
> traditional men's housework, shoveling snow, repairing the home, etc.,
> is still hard, dirty, and dangerous and results in far more injuries and
> deaths.
Women in the US never shovel snow? Wow. Home repairs? Such as?
> Sorry Toots, those feminist misandrist lies don't fly here.
I'm no misandrist: I like men and admire some of them, but I'm not too keen
on misogynists.
Mr. F. Le Mur
<evilinco...@yahoo.com> wrote:
->
->"Mr. F. Le Mur" <lemu...@comxcast.net> wrote in message
->news:nufvlv41c014ufffm...@4ax.com...
->> On 05 Sep 2003 16:31:57 GMT, deni...@aol.com (Denise noe) wrote:
->>
->> [Article]
->> ->Empathy Belly means boys are left holding the baby
->>
->> ->She intends to use the £940 pregnancy simulator with schoolchildren
->>
->> Here's their homepage, where you can see what they're getting
->> for a thousand bucks: http://www.empathybelly.org/home.html
->>
->> They even have a section on how to get someone else to pay for it.
->
->LOL@!!!!! Did you see that frikin' pick! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
->
->Oh god, I gotta calm down. That shit is just too funny.
->
->God save us all!
->
->
No shit! Waddling around wearing something like that won't
make anyone feel empathy...except maybe empathy with other
people who were coerced into wearing silly contraptions.
When I see crap like this, I ask: would a half-sensible parent
be willing to spend their own time and money on it, or is it
just some nonsense being inflicted by a social engineer with
nothing better to do?
Sir Jessy of Anti
You didn't mention anything of value at all actually.
Sir Jessy of Anti
LOL.
> When I see crap like this, I ask: would a half-sensible parent
> be willing to spend their own time and money on it, or is it
> just some nonsense being inflicted by a social engineer with
> nothing better to do?
Clearly the latter.
junegill
news:bjq5sv$r1q$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "junegill" (june...@btinternet.com) writes:
> > "Bob" <boby...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F609145...@hotmail.com...
[snip]
> >> Yep, and virtually all the hard, dirty, and dangerous jobs are done by
> >> men. Women believe that sitting around watching soaps is "work"
because
> >> women do it.
> >
> > All the dirty jobs, Bob?
>
> Your illiteracy renders you *unable* to *read* the word " virtually " ?
Then I must ask your pardon for my lack of literacy skills. Even with the
qualifier 'virtually', it seems to me that the poster was claiming that more
men do the work that is dirty than do women, and when one takes into account
the number of men in white-collar occupations who never soil their hands,
that leaves the vast majority of people doing such work as being of the
female persuasion, since, even if they're employed in similar occupations,
they're still the ones who wash out the garbage cans and change nappies.
> > How many soiled nappies (diapers to you) have you changed?
>
> Interesting that your female supremecist view goes right to that, as
> an example of " dirty jobs "...
You don't think it is dirty? Are you a scatophile? (Yes, I know there's no
such word - I'm just exhibiting my illiteracy again.) I chose that example
because I've known so many men who just can't cope with it - amusingly
enough (to me, anyway), one of those men is my brother-in-law, who was a
farmer: he regularly 'mucked-out' the pigsties, but thought his children's
soiled nappies disgusting.
> Now, try mine working, lineman, firefighting.... You know, *really
> tough and almost solely manned jobs*...
I'm sure some women do those jobs, but in general they are jobs which
require physical strength to which men are more adapted. Have you ever
wondered why men have become stronger than women? Ancestral competition for
females, that's why - doesn't that make you sick considering that you
apparently despise females?
> > How many men are employed as geriatric nurses, cleaning up after
> > the incontinent?
>
> Who are most of those elderly incontinent ? Right, *women*...
>
> Clean up your own messes....
LOL. Separate the sinful sexes, eh? Leave the poor old guys in their
messes, getting bedsores, until some heroic young man comes along. Right.
> > It may be different in the US, but in the UK, the latter
> > job devolves mostly on women.
>
> So, who builds buildings, fixes broken power lines, rescues
> trapped by fire victims, and does all of those dirty jobs in the
> UK, eh ?
Mostly men.
> > As to watching soaps, I would certainly find
> > it hard work because of the boredom factor, but to each her own.
>
> Non sequitur. You don't speak for women, as a group, and the stats
> on this issue do show that daytime teevee is watched by *mostly
> women*...
>
> Men, OTOH, tend to be *on the job at those times*...
Right. I see that your post reached my newserver at 4.55 pm my time, which
would make it any hour between 8.55 am and 11.55 am your time if you're in
the US or Canada ... are you at work, 'on the job'?
> > Looking after babies/children, cleaning the house, doing the laundry and
> > cooking are not work, of course, right?
>
> The injury/fatality rates for that position are very low. 24 out of
> the top 25 most dangerous jobs ( In terms of death, and injuries ),
> are held by over 90% men.
>
> Let us know when as many women volunteer to do *those tough jobs,
> and can actually do them*....
I find it interesting that you criticise my literacy skills - though I think
you meant my comprehension skills - and yet you keep harking back to
dangerous jobs when I explicitly singled out dirty jobs. However, do you
only value jobs which have concomitant danger?
Bob
> "Bob" <boby...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3F609AA5...@hotmail.com...
>>junegill wrote:
>>>"Bob" <boby...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3F609145...@hotmail.com...
>>>>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>Pat Winstanley <wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Yep, and virtually all the hard, dirty, and dangerous jobs are done by
>>>>men. Women believe that sitting around watching soaps is "work" because
>>>>women do it.
>>>
>>>
>>>All the dirty jobs, Bob? How many soiled nappies (diapers to you) have
>>> you
>>>changed? How many men are employed as geriatric nurses, cleaning up
>>> after
>>>the incontinent? It may be different in the US, but in the UK, the
>>> latter
>>>job devolves mostly on women.
>>
>>
>>That lie don't fly Toots. Over 90% of industrial deaths and injuries
>>happen to men.
>
>
> Toots? Hmm. I wasn't arguing about the more dangerous jobs - just the
> dirty ones. However, the following url suggests that more non-fatal
> injuries happen to nurses than to people in other occupations:
>
> http://www.nursingworld.org/pressrel/1999/ma0622.htm
Whatever the fembot nurses claim, the DOL collects statistics and
nursing isn't anywhere on the radar screen for hard, dirty, dangerous
jobs. Try farming, logging, fishing, mining, construction, and many more.
>> Even in geriatric care places they often employ men to
>>do the hard work while women do the easier work.
>
>
> Hard work? Don't you mean heavy work? What's easy about cleaning up
> faeces?
Try farming, maybe after three or four hours shoveling cowshit you'll
remember that a few minutes now and then aint so bad, and it doesn't
break your back while you're at it.
>>>As to watching soaps, I would certainly find
>>>it hard work because of the boredom factor, but to each her own.
>>
>>LOL. Millions and millions of women while away their afternoon watching
>>TV or reading romance novels (female pornography).
>
> As I said, to each her own. How many millions of men while away their
> evenings watching sports, or drinking with their buddies down at the pub,
> whilst women are bathing the children and putting them to bed, then clearing
> up the aftermath of dinner?
Typical misandrist stereotypes. Overall men do more work around the
house than women in addition to doing far more employed work supporting
the family. Women watch far more TV than men despite your misandrist
stereotyping, and spend more time meeting with their girlfriends in
bars, pubs, coffeehouses, malls, etc., than men. Your feminist lies
don't fly any more toots.
>>>Looking
>>>after babies/children, cleaning the house, doing the laundry and cooking
>>> are
>>>not work, of course, right?
>>Housework, at least the women's traditional kind of housework, is no
>>longer hard, dirty, or dangerous.
>
>
> It is still hard and dirty - we maintain far higher standards of hygiene
> than formerly. Housework is also never-ending: it's like threading beads
> without a knot in your cotton.
LOL. Your wet dreams don't mean much toots. Try another one.
>> Men have provided women with machines
>>that do most of the labor of washing and scrubbing.
>
>
> Gosh, you men are so noble doing that for us - and you never made machines
> to make your jobs easier and less dangerous, did you? Note also that before
> the advent of washing machines, people tended to wear the same clothes for a
> week, not just for a day or less - you want to go back to that?
Diversion is a standard fembot rhetorical tactic. It doesn't negate the
fact that laundry is no longer a hard task, just toss the clothing in a
machine, watch TV for a couple hours, and put them away later.
>> Meanwhile the
>>traditional men's housework, shoveling snow, repairing the home, etc.,
>>is still hard, dirty, and dangerous and results in far more injuries and
>>deaths.
>
> Women in the US never shovel snow? Wow. Home repairs? Such as?
Men do far more of that kind of work than women. Single female headed
homes generally call a man in to do the repairs. Men do virtually all
the hard, dirty, and dangerous work.
>>Sorry Toots, those feminist misandrist lies don't fly here.
>
> I'm no misandrist:
Yet you constantly post misandrist dogma. You are what you believe and
say.
> I like men and admire some of them,
"Some of my best friends are black." That's another dusty old saw that
doesn't carry water.
> but I'm not too keen
> on misogynists.
You post little other than misandrist hate propaganda. You are known by
what you believe and say.
Bob
Bob
Garbage collecting is three times as dangerous as police work, one of
the more dangerous jobs.
Bob
Pat Winstanley
says...
Don't be silly, Ray. Most women work full time.
junegill
news:Ze18b.20719$dk4.6...@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> Andre Lieven wrote in message ...
> >"junegill" (june...@btinternet.com) writes:
> >> "Bob" <boby...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3F609145...@hotmail.com...
[snip]
> >>> Yep, and virtually all the hard, dirty, and dangerous jobs are done by
> >>> men. Women believe that sitting around watching soaps is "work"
because
> >>> women do it.
> >>
> >> All the dirty jobs, Bob?
> >
> >Your illiteracy renders you *unable* to *read* the word " virtually " ?
> >
> >> How many soiled nappies (diapers to you) have you changed?
> >
> >Interesting that your female supremecist view goes right to that, as
> >an example of " dirty jobs "...
> >
> >Now, try mine working, lineman, firefighting.... You know, *really
> >tough and almost solely manned jobs*...
>
> Not to mention garbage collector. Dirty diapers last at most a year
> or so,
... if you're lucky. See:
http://www.jgdodworth.demon.co.uk/autism/autism.html
and a woman has what? One, two babies? Garbage collection
> goes on day after day, month after month, year after year...
Garbage collection isn't what is was - in the UK we now have 'wheelie-bins',
which the garbage collector simply wheels onto a gadget at the back of the
collecting lorry, and the mechanism does the rest - the garbage collector
could wear his best suit to the job.
Pat Winstanley
evilinco...@yahoo.com says...
Ah... no... I forgot to mention minus value penises...
Andre Lieven
Indeed. The current crop of western women are the most *priviliged*
humans ever to have lived on planet Earth, and yet, as this "junegill"
chyk shows, all they do is *whine and bitch about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING*.
How... like a spoiled *child*...
TR
>> Not to mention garbage collector. Dirty diapers last at most a year
>> or so, and a woman has what? One, two babies? Garbage collection
>> goes on day after day, month after month, year after year...
>
> Indeed. The current crop of western women are the most *priviliged*
> humans ever to have lived on planet Earth,
Hence, feminism.
> and yet, as this "junegill" chyk shows, all they do is
> *whine and bitch about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING*.
>
> How... like a spoiled *child*...
Behold, feminism.
>
> Andre
TR II
Andre Lieven
> "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:bjq5sv$r1q$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> "junegill" (june...@btinternet.com) writes:
>> > "Bob" <boby...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:3F609145...@hotmail.com...
>
> [snip]
>
>> >> Yep, and virtually all the hard, dirty, and dangerous jobs are done by
>> >> men. Women believe that sitting around watching soaps is "work"
>> >> because women do it.
>> >
>> > All the dirty jobs, Bob?
>>
>> Your illiteracy renders you *unable* to *read* the word " virtually " ?
>
> Then I must ask your pardon for my lack of literacy skills.
Better than that, try to read for comprehension, and not to MS-state
another person's *stated views*...
> Even with the qualifier 'virtually', it seems to me that the poster was
> claiming that more men do the work that is dirty than do women,
He was, and hes... right.
> and when one takes into account
> the number of men in white-collar occupations who never soil their hands,
> that leaves the vast majority of people doing such work as being of the
> female persuasion, since, even if they're employed in similar occupations,
> they're still the ones who wash out the garbage cans and change nappies.
Non sequitur. Again, you MS-state the position, that of fixing power
lines in the rain being rather *dirtier* ( Not to mention *dangerous* )
work than changing nappies.
>> > How many soiled nappies (diapers to you) have you changed?
>>
>> Interesting that your female supremecist view goes right to that, as
>> an example of " dirty jobs "...
>
> You don't think it is dirty?
Not as dirty as mining, fighting fires, or working the WTC site
( Given that today is 9/11... ), no.
> Are you a scatophile?
Nope. I merely understand *degrees* of dirty.
> (Yes, I know there's no
> such word - I'm just exhibiting my illiteracy again.)
As you are, in passively aggrssively asserting that changing nappies
is the *dirtiest* work around...
> I chose that example
> because I've known so many men who just can't cope with it - amusingly
> enough (to me, anyway), one of those men is my brother-in-law, who was a
> farmer: he regularly 'mucked-out' the pigsties, but thought his children's
> soiled nappies disgusting.
" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
>> Now, try mine working, lineman, firefighting.... You know, *really
>> tough and almost solely manned jobs*...
>
> I'm sure some women do those jobs, but in general they are jobs which
> require physical strength to which men are more adapted.
Excellent. You admit that men do *most of those DIRTY jobs*...
> Have you ever wondered why men have become stronger than women?
No. Basic biology is clear enough about that simple fact.
Study some...
> Ancestral competition for females, that's why - doesn't that make you
> sick considering that you apparently despise females?
LOL ! There we have the siren call of the Baby Festering Femmeroid,
kiddies, if you don't kiss women's asses, you " hate " them.
I just happen to be clear on what women are, as a group, and what
their sexual politics ARE, based, well, *on what they DO*.
>> > How many men are employed as geriatric nurses, cleaning up after
>> > the incontinent?
>>
>> Who are most of those elderly incontinent ? Right, *women*...
>>
>> Clean up your own messes....
>
> LOL. Separate the sinful sexes, eh? Leave the poor old guys in their
> messes, getting bedsores, until some heroic young man comes along. Right.
Waffle. Until *men* provide the technology that makes up modern society,
the issue of who will clean up one small portion of the society so
created is, well, moot.
>> > It may be different in the US, but in the UK, the latter
>> > job devolves mostly on women.
>>
>> So, who builds buildings, fixes broken power lines, rescues
>> trapped by fire victims, and does all of those dirty jobs in the
>> UK, eh ?
>
> Mostly men.
Indeed. I'd call those jobs far dirtier, as well as far more
dangerous, than changing nappies, eh ?
>> > As to watching soaps, I would certainly find
>> > it hard work because of the boredom factor, but to each her own.
>>
>> Non sequitur. You don't speak for women, as a group, and the stats
>> on this issue do show that daytime teevee is watched by *mostly
>> women*...
>>
>> Men, OTOH, tend to be *on the job at those times*...
>
> Right. I see that your post reached my newserver at 4.55 pm my time, which
> would make it any hour between 8.55 am and 11.55 am your time if you're in
> the US or Canada ... are you at work, 'on the job'?
" The personal is not political. " IOW, whether I am, or am not, at
work, is quite *besides the actual point*, which you are clearly
*trying to evade via an AD HOM attack*.
BTW, why aren't YOU at work ? Don't you believe in equal standards ?
If you wish to use one such at me, why isn't it equally applicable
on you ?
Competant adults understand that this sort of behavior has a proper
term for it: hypocrite.
>> > Looking after babies/children, cleaning the house, doing the laundry and
>> > cooking are not work, of course, right?
>>
>> The injury/fatality rates for that position are very low. 24 out of
>> the top 25 most dangerous jobs ( In terms of death, and injuries ),
>> are held by over 90% men.
>>
>> Let us know when as many women volunteer to do *those tough jobs,
>> and can actually do them*....
>
> I find it interesting that you criticise my literacy skills - though I
> think you meant my comprehension skills - and yet you keep harking back to
> dangerous jobs when I explicitly singled out dirty jobs.
Further waffle. Many *dirty* jobs are ALSO dangerous. DO try to
keep up with this point. The one DOESN'T void the other.
And, your *inability* to answer the question makes the falsity
of your position all the clearer...
> However, do you only value jobs which have concomitant danger?
I do value them more then I do that of safely changing nappies...
Which YOU seem to be holding up as a high standard, a false one.
The next time your power goes out, try changing a nappie, and see
if that brings your power back....
Uh huh.
John Jones
And never has. Pat holds the Hall of Lame record I think. Even
other feminists kill-file her.
Pat Winstanley
trel...@hotmail.com says...
> > and yet, as this "junegill" chyk shows, all they do is
> > *whine and bitch about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING*.
> >
> > How... like a spoiled *child*...
>
> Behold
>
... the misogynists...
TR
> trel...@hotmail.com says...
>> > and yet, as this "junegill" chyk shows, all they do is
>> > *whine and bitch about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING*.
>> >
>> > How... like a spoiled *child*...
>>
>> Behold
>>
>
> ... the misogynists...
>
Indeed. Feminists have a much lower opinion of women's worth and
idividual capabilities than men in general ever would.
By the way ... why did you deliberately mangle the former post to make
your silly retort? Perhaps your own thinking skills are much too
inadequate?
TR II
Bob
>>
>
>
> ... the misogynists...
QED!
Bob
Michael Snyder
> "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:bjq5sv$r1q$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
>>"junegill" (june...@btinternet.com) writes:
>>
>>>"Bob" <boby...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3F609145...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>>>Yep, and virtually all the hard, dirty, and dangerous jobs are done by
>>>>men. Women believe that sitting around watching soaps is "work"
>
> because
>
>>>>women do it.
>>>
>>>All the dirty jobs, Bob?
>>
>>Your illiteracy renders you *unable* to *read* the word " virtually " ?
>
>
> Then I must ask your pardon for my lack of literacy skills. Even with the
> qualifier 'virtually', it seems to me that the poster was claiming that more
> men do the work that is dirty than do women, and when one takes into account
> the number of men in white-collar occupations who never soil their hands,
> that leaves the vast majority of people doing such work as being of the
> female persuasion
What utter nonsense!!! You think white collar work is the ONLY work
men do? Who builds the bridges? Who hauls the twinkies? Who guards
the city at night? Who puts out the fires? Who picks up the garbage?
Who unplugs your toilet? Who smelts the ore? Who digs the ore? And
the coal that they use to smelt the ore? Who built your fucking house,
and your car, and the computer you're abusing?
Michael Snyder
>
> Garbage collection isn't what is was - in the UK we now have 'wheelie-bins',
> which the garbage collector simply wheels onto a gadget at the back of the
> collecting lorry, and the mechanism does the rest - the garbage collector
> could wear his best suit to the job.
Garbage. I've seen what they wear, and I've seen how dirty it gets.
If it's as easy as you say, WHY AREN'T MORE WOMEN DOING IT?
Michael Snyder
Where? Oh... you mean Bob. Big deal. Come back when
there are as many Bobs as there are feminists.
Michael Snyder
With the *arg twins gone, she's top fem-wit around here.
junegill
I think you'll find that for non-fatal injuries, nursing is quite high on
the list:
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfar0020.pdf
> >> Even in geriatric care places they often employ men to
> >>do the hard work while women do the easier work.
> >
> >
> > Hard work? Don't you mean heavy work? What's easy about cleaning up
> > faeces?
>
> Try farming, maybe after three or four hours shoveling cowshit you'll
> remember that a few minutes now and then aint so bad, and it doesn't
> break your back while you're at it.
Lifting patients whilst trying to clean them is one of the major causes of
back injuries.
> >>>As to watching soaps, I would certainly find
> >>>it hard work because of the boredom factor, but to each her own.
> >>
> >>LOL. Millions and millions of women while away their afternoon watching
> >>TV or reading romance novels (female pornography).
> >
> > As I said, to each her own. How many millions of men while away their
> > evenings watching sports, or drinking with their buddies down at the
pub,
> > whilst women are bathing the children and putting them to bed, then
clearing
> > up the aftermath of dinner?
>
> Typical misandrist stereotypes. Overall men do more work around the
> house than women
You have a cite for that, of course?
in addition to doing far more employed work supporting
> the family. Women watch far more TV than men despite your misandrist
> stereotyping,
LOL, and you're not stereotyping women?
and spend more time meeting with their girlfriends in
> bars, pubs, coffeehouses, malls, etc., than men. Your feminist lies
> don't fly any more toots.
One tends to reflect what one sees in everyday life, and what I see is men
frequenting the pub on a very regular basis and women frequenting malls etc
less often.
> >>>Looking
> >>>after babies/children, cleaning the house, doing the laundry and
cooking
> >>> are
> >>>not work, of course, right?
>
>
> >>Housework, at least the women's traditional kind of housework, is no
> >>longer hard, dirty, or dangerous.
> >
> >
> > It is still hard and dirty - we maintain far higher standards of hygiene
> > than formerly. Housework is also never-ending: it's like threading
beads
> > without a knot in your cotton.
>
> LOL. Your wet dreams don't mean much toots. Try another one.
My wet dream is of some man having to tidy up after my husband.
> >> Men have provided women with machines
> >>that do most of the labor of washing and scrubbing.
> >
> >
> > Gosh, you men are so noble doing that for us - and you never made
machines
> > to make your jobs easier and less dangerous, did you? Note also that
before
> > the advent of washing machines, people tended to wear the same clothes
for a
> > week, not just for a day or less - you want to go back to that?
>
> Diversion is a standard fembot rhetorical tactic. It doesn't negate the
> fact that laundry is no longer a hard task, just toss the clothing in a
> machine, watch TV for a couple hours, and put them away later.
Don't forget hanging them out to dry, putting them in the airing cupboard
and ironing them before putting them away.
> >> Meanwhile the
> >>traditional men's housework, shoveling snow, repairing the home, etc.,
> >>is still hard, dirty, and dangerous and results in far more injuries and
> >>deaths.
> >
> > Women in the US never shovel snow? Wow. Home repairs? Such as?
>
> Men do far more of that kind of work than women. Single female headed
> homes generally call a man in to do the repairs. Men do virtually all
> the hard, dirty, and dangerous work.
You still haven't given me examples of home repairs which the average man
does - in my experience if these repairs are hard, dirty or dangerous, the
men call in someone else.
> >>Sorry Toots, those feminist misandrist lies don't fly here.
> >
> > I'm no misandrist:
>
> Yet you constantly post misandrist dogma. You are what you believe and
> say.
>
>
> > I like men and admire some of them,
>
> "Some of my best friends are black." That's another dusty old saw that
> doesn't carry water.
>
> > but I'm not too keen
> > on misogynists.
>
> You post little other than misandrist hate propaganda. You are known by
> what you believe and say.
Care to show me what 'misandrist hate propaganda' I've posted? Shouldn't be
difficult for you if I post little other than that.
junegill
> "Michael Snyder" (msn...@nospam.net) writes:
> > Andre Lieven wrote in message ...
> >>"junegill" (june...@btinternet.com) writes:
> >>> "Bob" <boby...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:3F609145...@hotmail.com...
[snip]
> >>>> Yep, and virtually all the hard, dirty, and dangerous jobs are done
by
> >>>> men. Women believe that sitting around watching soaps is "work"
because
> >>>> women do it.
> >>>
> >>> All the dirty jobs, Bob?
> >>
> >>Your illiteracy renders you *unable* to *read* the word " virtually " ?
> >>
> >>> How many soiled nappies (diapers to you) have you changed?
> >>
> >>Interesting that your female supremecist view goes right to that, as
> >>an example of " dirty jobs "...
> >>
> >>Now, try mine working, lineman, firefighting.... You know, *really
> >>tough and almost solely manned jobs*...
> >
> > Not to mention garbage collector. Dirty diapers last at most a year
> > or so, and a woman has what? One, two babies? Garbage collection
> > goes on day after day, month after month, year after year...
>
> Indeed. The current crop of western women are the most *priviliged*
> humans ever to have lived on planet Earth, and yet, as this "junegill"
> chyk shows, all they do is *whine and bitch about ANYTHING and
EVERYTHING*.
>
> How... like a spoiled *child*...
Care to show me where I've whined and bitched about anything and everything?
Michael Snyder
For FATAL injuries, it isn't even on the list.
Bob
If NOW ever demands that more women apply for jobs as garbage
collectors, runs recruiting campaigns, and expects women to pick up the
garbage at NOW headquarters, then and only then will we be convinced
that they advocate anything close to equality.
Bob
Bob
From your cited OSHA page nurses don't show up on their lists of
fatalities or most dangerous occupations, but in non-fatal occupations
nurses seem to have "overexertion" as 59% of "injuries" far higher than
any other group.
>>>>Even in geriatric care places they often employ men to
>>>>do the hard work while women do the easier work.
>>>
>>>
>>>Hard work? Don't you mean heavy work? What's easy about cleaning up
>>>faeces?
>>
>>Try farming, maybe after three or four hours shoveling cowshit you'll
>>remember that a few minutes now and then aint so bad, and it doesn't
>>break your back while you're at it.
>
> Lifting patients whilst trying to clean them is one of the major causes of
> back injuries.
But broken backs are not the major cause of injuries to nurses. Average
recovery from "overexertion," 5 days.
> One tends to reflect what one sees in everyday life, and what I see is men
> frequenting the pub on a very regular basis and women frequenting malls etc
> less often.
Have you noticed the runaway success of Starbucks lately?
[Hint: It's not your local plumber buying $5 coffee.]
>>Diversion is a standard fembot rhetorical tactic. It doesn't negate the
>>fact that laundry is no longer a hard task, just toss the clothing in a
>>machine, watch TV for a couple hours, and put them away later.
>
> Don't forget hanging them out to dry, putting them in the airing cupboard
> and ironing them before putting them away.
LOL. Few women do any of those things any more. A few minutes in the
gas or electric dryer and hang them up wrinkle free. (More inventions by
men that save work for women.) Most homes no longer even have clothes
lines.
>>Men do far more of that kind of work than women. Single female headed
>>homes generally call a man in to do the repairs. Men do virtually all
>>the hard, dirty, and dangerous work.
>
> You still haven't given me examples of home repairs which the average man
> does - in my experience if these repairs are hard, dirty or dangerous, the
> men call in someone else.
Shoveling snow is in fact a common cause of death for men. As if you
didn't know, other average men's jobs usually include painting, cleaning
gutters, repairing or replacing the roof, replacing windows, fixing the
car, installing and taking care of the landscaping including the
sprinkler systems, fixing electric wiring, lighting, and appliances,
moving furniture, hanging doors, cleaning out the washer drain, or the
sink drain, or the backed up toilet, repairing the clothes washer leak,
replacing faucets and sinks, replacing flooring, tile, carpets, and
bathtubs, spraying insecticides, replacing broken concrete walks, steps,
and drives, installing the new patio and barbecue, installing or
repairing the fence, wiring the network for the PCs, and on and on.
>>You post little other than misandrist hate propaganda. You are known by
>>what you believe and say.
>
> Care to show me what 'misandrist hate propaganda' I've posted? Shouldn't be
> difficult for you if I post little other than that.
Read your last several posts on this thread toots.
Bob
Lawrence E. McKnight
<wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <pghvlv00gmt807ndb...@4ax.com>,
>lawrence.del...@sbcglobal.net says...
>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 23:14:28 +0100, Pat Winstanley
>> <wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <TqL7b.2158$Gr.1...@read1.cgocable.net>,
>> >evilinco...@yahoo.com says...
>> >> > Whatever makes you think girls don't think about sex on regular basis?
>> >> >
>> >> > How about something physical that happens to boys but does NOT happen to
>> >> > girls...
>> >>
>> >> They can wear a strap-on and be made to do problems on the chalkboard?
>> >> This would enable them to empathize with the unwanted, constant erections
>> >> and subsequent embarrassment male adolescents have to deal with.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Girls also have physically visible problems on those lines.
>> >
>> >Never noticed them?
>>
>> Come on, Pat, perky nipples are not the same as having a woody in
>> front of the class. And those can just come from the temperature.
>>
>
>Again, I didn't mention nipples! ;-))
What have I been missing? Do you mean that back in my younger days
there was some signal I didn't know about?
Larry
(this space unintentially left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
Lawrence E. McKnight
<wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <bshvlvg6l1elnd1li...@4ax.com>,
>lawrence.del...@sbcglobal.net says...
>> Subject: Re: "The Empathy Belly"
>> From: Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.del...@sbcglobal.net>
>> Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.feminism, soc.men
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 23:15:48 +0100, Pat Winstanley
>> <wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ixL7b.2161$Gr.1...@read1.cgocable.net>,
>> >evilinco...@yahoo.com says...
>> >> > I take it you aren't aware that girls also have to cope with a
>> >> > corresponding problem (including visibility of arousal).
>> >>
>> >> A woman does not have a penis, and cannot get an erection.
>> >>
>> >
>> >No, but women have sticky out bits that men don't have (which also can
>> >and do become erectile on sexual arousal)!
>>
>> Yeah, but if they were modest young ladies, they would be wearing bras
>> and clothing that prevented to young boys from seeing it.
>>
>
>Just like young gentlemen (if they wish to be modest) would routinely
>wear a similarly uncomfortable garment to support/conceal/constrain what
>they don't want girls to see?
>
>Sauce for the goose... :-)
Pat, I really didn't think that I needed to insert {sarcasm alert ON}
for you.
Andre Lieven
> dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
>
>>> Not to mention garbage collector. Dirty diapers last at most a year
>>> or so, and a woman has what? One, two babies? Garbage collection
>>> goes on day after day, month after month, year after year...
>>
>> Indeed. The current crop of western women are the most *priviliged*
>> humans ever to have lived on planet Earth,
>
> Hence, feminism.
Indeed. One might consider that so priviliged a group might offer
even a tiny bit of gratitude to what created their privilige.
>> and yet, as this "junegill" chyk shows, all they do is
>> *whine and bitch about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING*.
>>
>> How... like a spoiled *child*...
>
> Behold, feminism.
Indeed, and thats one more nail in the coffin of Feminism.
Its insatiable greed for more privilige, no matter what that
*takes* from all others.
Ray Fischer
Andre Lieven
Misogynist, n.: A man who is *winning* an argument with a
Feminist.
See also " Ad Feminum: To point out a flaw in Feminist
'logic'. "
Now, as Piggy Pat has NO answer to the actual topic, we
can return to it, and leave ad hommers as her behind.
HTH.
Andre Lieven
> Pat Winstanley <wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> trel...@hotmail.com says...
>>> > and yet, as this "junegill" chyk shows, all they do is
>>> > *whine and bitch about ANYTHING and EVERYTHING*.
>>> >
>>> > How... like a spoiled *child*...
>>>
>>> Behold
>>
>> ... the misogynists...
>
> Indeed. Feminists have a much lower opinion of women's worth and
> idividual capabilities than men in general ever would.
Quite. Quite tyranical of them to so try to label ( libel )
anyone who dares to disagree with their misandritic views.
> By the way ... why did you deliberately mangle the former post to make
> your silly retort? Perhaps your own thinking skills are much too
> inadequate?
<g> Rhetorical question, right ?
Andre Lieven
Indeed. Ignorant, narcissistic idiots such as " junegill " ( A good
thing for her, and any schools she may have attended, that shes
not revealing her actual name, when she spouts off such mind
bogglingly *ignorant* tripe ) simply *cannot* imagine anything
more important than them existing, never mind all the *evidence*
for there being many people and organisations greatly more
important to the societies around them.
Amazing. We used to flunk such loons right out of kindergarten...
With a report card reading " Far too stupid to live "...
Andre Lieven
To what end ? You know what you whined about, which is *why you
snipped it out, above*...
But, thanks for your *hypocritical* " request "...
<sarcasm mode off>
Ray Fischer
>> Yep, and virtually all the hard, dirty, and dangerous jobs are done by
>> men. Women believe that sitting around watching soaps is "work" because
>> women do it.
>
>All the dirty jobs, Bob? How many soiled nappies (diapers to you) have you
>changed?
A fair number. Doesn't compare to working the sewers or working as a
janitor.
Two years ago some 300+ rescue workers died at the World Trade Center.
All were men.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
junegill
> "junegill" (june...@btinternet.com) writes:
> > "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> > news:bjq5sv$r1q$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> >> "junegill" (june...@btinternet.com) writes:
> >> > "Bob" <boby...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:3F609145...@hotmail.com...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> >> Yep, and virtually all the hard, dirty, and dangerous jobs are done
by
> >> >> men. Women believe that sitting around watching soaps is "work"
> >> >> because women do it.
> >> >
> >> > All the dirty jobs, Bob?
> >>
> >> Your illiteracy renders you *unable* to *read* the word " virtually " ?
> >
> > Then I must ask your pardon for my lack of literacy skills.
>
> Better than that, try to read for comprehension, and not to MS-state
> another person's *stated views*...
>
> > Even with the qualifier 'virtually', it seems to me that the poster was
> > claiming that more men do the work that is dirty than do women,
>
> He was, and hes... right.
So I wasn't misstating his views then, eh?
> > and when one takes into account
> > the number of men in white-collar occupations who never soil their
hands,
> > that leaves the vast majority of people doing such work as being of the
> > female persuasion, since, even if they're employed in similar
occupations,
> > they're still the ones who wash out the garbage cans and change nappies.
>
> Non sequitur. Again, you MS-state the position, that of fixing power
> lines in the rain being rather *dirtier* ( Not to mention *dangerous* )
> work than changing nappies.
I guess there's dirt and dirt. Had you mentioned the men who worked in
sewers, you'd have made a better point.
> >> > How many soiled nappies (diapers to you) have you changed?
> >>
> >> Interesting that your female supremecist view goes right to that, as
> >> an example of " dirty jobs "...
> >
> > You don't think it is dirty?
>
> Not as dirty as mining, fighting fires, or working the WTC site
> ( Given that today is 9/11... ), no.
>
> > Are you a scatophile?
>
> Nope. I merely understand *degrees* of dirty.
>
> > (Yes, I know there's no
> > such word - I'm just exhibiting my illiteracy again.)
>
> As you are, in passively aggrssively asserting that changing nappies
> is the *dirtiest* work around...
No, I'm simply saying that it's dirty.
> > I chose that example
> > because I've known so many men who just can't cope with it - amusingly
> > enough (to me, anyway), one of those men is my brother-in-law, who was a
> > farmer: he regularly 'mucked-out' the pigsties, but thought his
children's
> > soiled nappies disgusting.
>
> " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
I'll bet you're a real hit at parties. Lighten up for Dog's sake - we're
not discussing terms for a Middle East Peace Treaty, you know.
> >> Now, try mine working, lineman, firefighting.... You know, *really
> >> tough and almost solely manned jobs*...
> >
> > I'm sure some women do those jobs, but in general they are jobs which
> > require physical strength to which men are more adapted.
>
> Excellent. You admit that men do *most of those DIRTY jobs*...
>
> > Have you ever wondered why men have become stronger than women?
>
> No. Basic biology is clear enough about that simple fact.
>
> Study some...
I have.
> > Ancestral competition for females, that's why - doesn't that make you
> > sick considering that you apparently despise females?
>
> LOL ! There we have the siren call of the Baby Festering Femmeroid,
> kiddies, if you don't kiss women's asses, you " hate " them.
Well, you certainly seem to have some issues about women.
> I just happen to be clear on what women are, as a group, and what
> their sexual politics ARE, based, well, *on what they DO*.
Since I haven't seen any of your posts before this thread, I don't know your
agenda. What is that you want from society with regard to women?
> >> > How many men are employed as geriatric nurses, cleaning up after
> >> > the incontinent?
> >>
> >> Who are most of those elderly incontinent ? Right, *women*...
> >>
> >> Clean up your own messes....
> >
> > LOL. Separate the sinful sexes, eh? Leave the poor old guys in their
> > messes, getting bedsores, until some heroic young man comes along.
Right.
>
> Waffle. Until *men* provide the technology that makes up modern society,
> the issue of who will clean up one small portion of the society so
> created is, well, moot.
Until you're one of those old men sitting in his faeces.
> >> > It may be different in the US, but in the UK, the latter
> >> > job devolves mostly on women.
> >>
> >> So, who builds buildings, fixes broken power lines, rescues
> >> trapped by fire victims, and does all of those dirty jobs in the
> >> UK, eh ?
> >
> > Mostly men.
>
> Indeed. I'd call those jobs far dirtier, as well as far more
> dangerous, than changing nappies, eh ?
Certainly more dangerous - a point which I haven't argued - and dirty, yes,
albeit not the same kind of dirt.
> >> > As to watching soaps, I would certainly find
> >> > it hard work because of the boredom factor, but to each her own.
> >>
> >> Non sequitur. You don't speak for women, as a group, and the stats
> >> on this issue do show that daytime teevee is watched by *mostly
> >> women*...
> >>
> >> Men, OTOH, tend to be *on the job at those times*...
> >
> > Right. I see that your post reached my newserver at 4.55 pm my time,
which
> > would make it any hour between 8.55 am and 11.55 am your time if you're
in
> > the US or Canada ... are you at work, 'on the job'?
>
> " The personal is not political. " IOW, whether I am, or am not, at
> work, is quite *besides the actual point*, which you are clearly
> *trying to evade via an AD HOM attack*.
How is what I said an ad hominem? I haven't attacked you, I've addressed
your argument that men are 'on the job' during the day.
> BTW, why aren't YOU at work ? Don't you believe in equal standards ?
> If you wish to use one such at me, why isn't it equally applicable
> on you ?
>
> Competant adults understand that this sort of behavior has a proper
> term for it: hypocrite.
Tsk, and you accuse me of an ad hominem. I'm not at work because I've
retired. I've done my whack, and now it's my turn. When I was working,
however, I never had the time to read newsgroups either at work or at home,
so one has to wonder what kind of jobs people have that facilitate such
activities.
> >> > Looking after babies/children, cleaning the house, doing the laundry
and
> >> > cooking are not work, of course, right?
> >>
> >> The injury/fatality rates for that position are very low. 24 out of
> >> the top 25 most dangerous jobs ( In terms of death, and injuries ),
> >> are held by over 90% men.
> >>
> >> Let us know when as many women volunteer to do *those tough jobs,
> >> and can actually do them*....
> >
> > I find it interesting that you criticise my literacy skills - though I
> > think you meant my comprehension skills - and yet you keep harking back
to
> > dangerous jobs when I explicitly singled out dirty jobs.
>
> Further waffle. Many *dirty* jobs are ALSO dangerous. DO try to
> keep up with this point. The one DOESN'T void the other.
So? I haven't claimed that women do more dangerous jobs than men.
> And, your *inability* to answer the question makes the falsity
> of your position all the clearer...
Erm, which question was that?
> > However, do you only value jobs which have concomitant danger?
>
> I do value them more then I do that of safely changing nappies...
>
> Which YOU seem to be holding up as a high standard, a false one.
It is a high standard, actually - if you don't change a baby's soiled nappy,
it's called child neglect for which one can be prosecuted.
> The next time your power goes out, try changing a nappie, and see
> if that brings your power back....
>
> Uh huh.
No, I'll call on you to do it.
Bob
And Ms. junegill forgets that many men are also taking care of babies
these days. Women have no monopoly on processing dirty nappies.
Of course even that job is much easier since men invented disposable.
Bob
junegill
"Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
news:bjqv9j$uev$1...@stan.redhat.com...
No. Something was snipped out of the post. I meant that most women are
involved in keeping babies clean and doing other dirty, albeit menial, work,
even those who work in white-collar occupations themselves. Some of these
women are married to white-collar workers who don't do these things, so
there are more women who deal with dirt than men - not as prolonged as men
in some of the occupations such as you mention below - but an everyday
occurrence nonetheless.
Who builds the bridges? Who hauls the twinkies? Who guards
> the city at night? Who puts out the fires? Who picks up the garbage?
> Who unplugs your toilet? Who smelts the ore? Who digs the ore? And
> the coal that they use to smelt the ore? Who built your fucking house,
> and your car, and the computer you're abusing?
In what way am I abusing my computer? By daring to put a different point of
view from your own? And speaking of abuse - I do not answer posters who are
abusive, and you're getting pretty close to that point.
junegill
OK, Andre - conversation closed. I will not respond to abusive posters.
That you have to resort to such ad hominems shows that your arguments are
shaky.
junegill
I can only tell you what it's like in the UK. They certainly used to get
very dirty, but it was considered a safety hazard so our councils invested
in this new equipment. Obviously our council taxes rose to cover the cost,
but I think it's worth it. There may be women doing the job now for all I
know - they certainly could because there's now no heavy lifting.
junegill
I never claimed that it was.
Bob
They have most of the same equipment here. It helps with some of the
heavy lifting, but most of the fatal accidents are related to the
trucks, not the lifting. The death rates haven't changed much.
Bob
junegill
No, I can't say that I have. I believe there are some Starbucks in the UK
now, but I've been in a Starbucks when I visited the US and they can't make
a decent cup of tea, so I won't be going again.
> >>Diversion is a standard fembot rhetorical tactic. It doesn't negate the
> >>fact that laundry is no longer a hard task, just toss the clothing in a
> >>machine, watch TV for a couple hours, and put them away later.
> >
> > Don't forget hanging them out to dry, putting them in the airing
cupboard
> > and ironing them before putting them away.
>
> LOL. Few women do any of those things any more. A few minutes in the
> gas or electric dryer and hang them up wrinkle free. (More inventions by
> men that save work for women.) Most homes no longer even have clothes
> lines.
Yes, and those machines are not efficient. Those 'few' minutes, in fact,
are something like 45 minutes and the clothes aren't properly dried. I did
notice the smell of mildew quite a lot in the US, and it's the reliance on
those machines that is the cause of it.
> >>Men do far more of that kind of work than women. Single female headed
> >>homes generally call a man in to do the repairs. Men do virtually all
> >>the hard, dirty, and dangerous work.
> >
> > You still haven't given me examples of home repairs which the average
man
> > does - in my experience if these repairs are hard, dirty or dangerous,
the
> > men call in someone else.
>
> Shoveling snow is in fact a common cause of death for men.
Really? I didn't know that. Does it bring on a heart attack from the
exertion?
As if you
> didn't know, other average men's jobs usually include painting, cleaning
> gutters, repairing or replacing the roof, replacing windows, fixing the
> car, installing and taking care of the landscaping including the
> sprinkler systems, fixing electric wiring, lighting, and appliances,
> moving furniture, hanging doors, cleaning out the washer drain, or the
> sink drain, or the backed up toilet, repairing the clothes washer leak,
> replacing faucets and sinks, replacing flooring, tile, carpets, and
> bathtubs, spraying insecticides, replacing broken concrete walks, steps,
> and drives, installing the new patio and barbecue, installing or
> repairing the fence, wiring the network for the PCs, and on and on.
Well, I did ask. The majority of those jobs are done by professionals, or
ought to be, eg anything concerning electricity. Similarly with roofing,
replacing windows, plumbing, flooring, carpets, drives, walks and patios.
They're not the average men's jobs around the house. As for painting and
gardening, women do that just as much as men.
> >>You post little other than misandrist hate propaganda. You are known by
> >>what you believe and say.
> >
> > Care to show me what 'misandrist hate propaganda' I've posted?
Shouldn't be
> > difficult for you if I post little other than that.
>
> Read your last several posts on this thread toots.
So asking a question is misandrist hate propaganda?
junegill
I snipped only the exchange between Ray and Pat. Here it is ... and there's
no whining or bitching from me there.
"Bob" <boby...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F609AA5...@hotmail.com...
> junegill wrote:
> > "Bob" <boby...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F609145...@hotmail.com...
> >
> >>Ray Fischer wrote:
> >>
> >>>Pat Winstanley <wallopc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>rfis...@bolt.sonic.net
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Bob <boby...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Pat Winstanley wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>How about something physical that happens to boys but does NOT
happen
> >>>>>>
> > to
> >
> >>>>>>>girls...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Empty their purses and give their money to the boys. Let them
> >>>>>>experience the feeling of being broke and robbed. An empty purse
> >>>>>
> > feels
> >
> >>>>>>very different.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Make them work a 12 hour day and then give all the money they earn to
> >>>>>somebody else.
> >>>>
> >>>>Most women do that already.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You're full of shit, pro-liar. The vast majority of the workforce
> >>>the world over is MEN.
> >>>
> >>
--