Not quite a Pro-Choice as she thought
Ranting
have a baby. Now she has never been married, rarely has a steady boyfriend
and is totally concentrated on her career.
So she decides to go the IVF route and after numerous treatments, still
isn't pregnant. She gets some tests done and finds out she can't have a kid
of her own because her uterus won't conceive a child.
She decides to ask a close friend to carry the baby for her and the woman
agrees. She goes to a sperm bank, gets some sperm and has the embryo
implanted in her friend.
Everything is going fine until just before the end of the of the first
trimester the friend decides that she has changed her mind and doesn't want
to have the baby. My understanding is that the woman and her friend had a
fight over something. Now the friend is seeking to have an abortion. The
woman I know is currently before the courts to seek an order preventing the
friend from having the abortion.
The woman I work with is a staunch supporter of PRO CHOICE , or so she says.
It turns out though that now that the abortion effects her directly , she
isn't so Pro Choice. I wonder how many women would force another woman to
have a baby she doesn't want to have if they were put in this exact same
position. OR how many woman would be PRO CHOICE if suddenly men were the
ones having the babies.
A few years ago I heard someone say "If men suddenly were having the babies,
abortion would'nt just be a right but a sacrament". I told her, "I wonder
how long before it would be illegal to have an abortion if suddenly men were
the ones having babies".
Society
"Ranting" <ra...@rant.com> wrote in message
news:4a34fd58$0$14656$956...@news.usenetserver.com...
>
> I work with a woman who is 47 years old and about
> 2 years ago decided to have a baby. Now she has never
> been married, rarely has a steady boyfriend and is
> totally concentrated on her career.
Diagnosis: baby rabies.
> So she decides to go the IVF route and after numerous
> treatments, still isn't pregnant. She gets some tests done
> and finds out she can't have a kid of her own because
> her uterus won't conceive a child.
>
> She decides to ask a close friend to carry the baby for her
> and the woman agrees. She goes to a sperm bank,
> gets some sperm and has the embryo implanted in her friend.
>
> Everything is going fine until just before the end of the first trimester
> the friend decides that she has changed her mind
> and doesn't want to have the baby. My understanding is
> that the woman and her friend had a fight over something.
> Now the friend is seeking to have an abortion. The woman
> I know is currently before the courts to seek an order
> preventing the friend from having the abortion.
The (former) friend's excuse for aborting the baby is
that she doesn't want to have the baby, eh? Well, she _isn't_
going to have a baby; she already agreed to pass the baby
on to Ms. Baby-Rabies. The (former) friend _doesn't_
want to _deliver_ a baby for Ms. Baby-Rabies to have.
(Let's get the cattiness straight here.)
> The woman I work with is a staunch supporter of
> PRO CHOICE , or so she says. It turns out though
> that now that the abortion effects her directly , she isn't so Pro Choice.
> I wonder how many women would
> force another woman to have a baby she doesn't want to
> have if they were put in this exact same position.
> OR how many woman would be PRO CHOICE
> if suddenly men were the ones having the babies.
Most of 'em, as long as women are prone to baby rabies.
> A few years ago I heard someone say "If men suddenly
> were having the babies, abortion wouldn't just be a right
> but a sacrament".
I heard that one too. Such a remark tells me two things
about the person who makes it, (1) that they haven't a clue
about what a sacrament is and (2) that they are announcing
their own ugly thoughts and desires by way of projecting
them onto men. (Men get a lot of that kind of sh*t. Few
women have any idea of how thankful they should be that
men don't dish out even a thousandth of what they take in
from women.)
> I told her, "I wonder how long before it would be illegal
> to have an abortion if suddenly men were the ones
> having babies".
That's a good one. In such a case, the large majority
of feminist women would turn anti-abortion in a flash.
Still, I prefer Ann Coulter's sarcastic comeback to such
feminist snot; "Apparently it isn't a sacrament now
only because of the overwhelming hatred men have
for women." Miss Coulter tweaks feminists sooo many
ways with that remark.
--
Then there's the canard about a united front of women
supporting abortion, while mysogynist men try to keep it
from us. Feminists have a charming slogan memorialized
on buttons sold by the national Organization for Women,
and the title of a book: "If men got pregnant, abortion
would be a sacrament." Apparently it isn't a sacrament
now only because of the overwhelming hatred men have
for women. How about this slogan: "If women had to pay
for dates, rape would be a sacrament."
Ann Coulter, _Godless : the church of liberalism_,
Crown Forum; New York (2006) p83
Masculist
> "Ranting" <r...@rant.com> wrote in message
I get it but it's kind of obtuse...the Coulter thing.
I wouldn't be so sure that men wouldn't welcome kids without the mom.
Men's reluctance on that issue is primarily being due to the
likelyhood of mom betraying them and taking the kid, their money and
ultimately their manhood. Men see what happens to non custodial
fathers.
They also don't know the absolute joy of having kids but would know it
once they got that "perk". Women, ie feminists, keep that all a
secret in order to promote their victimhod over what is really their
saving grace. Also men wouldn't be confronted with this issue very
often if they automatically got custody because women would then be
more careful about getting pregnant.
The important point here is that ultimately men would love having
children if it were without the nasty and betraying mom controlling
things. New idea...
Tom
Andrew Usher
> I wouldn't be so sure that men wouldn't welcome kids without the mom.
I would be pretty sure.
> Men's reluctance on that issue is primarily being due to the
> likelyhood of mom betraying them and taking the kid, their money and
> ultimately their manhood. Men see what happens to non custodial
> fathers.
This is more why men don't want to get married than why they wouldn't
want to have children once they are.
> They also don't know the absolute joy of having kids but would know it
> once they got that "perk".
I think you're somewhat abnormal here. History tells us otherwise.
> Women, ie feminists, keep that all a
> secret in order to promote their victimhod over what is really their
> saving grace.
There's no secret, for God's sake, about child-rearing.
> Also men wouldn't be confronted with this issue very
> often if they automatically got custody because women would then be
> more careful about getting pregnant.
This is doubtful, knowing women. Are you seriously suggesting a world
where the man takes away his children from women all the time? I can
hardly imagine it.
Andrew Usher
Society
Tom as "Masculist" <MASC...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2647a25b-6a2f-4c86...@x31g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Society wrote:
> >
> > "Ranting wrote...
> > >
> > > I told her, "I wonder how long before it would be
> > > illegal to have an abortion if suddenly men
> > > were the ones having babies".
> >
> > That's a good one. In such a case, the large majority
>
> [...] I wouldn't be so sure that men wouldn't welcome kids
> without the mom.
I'm glad you bring this up Tom. I reflected on that consideration
myself while I was making my earlier post.
> Men's reluctance on that issue is primarily due to the
> likelihood of mom betraying them and taking the kid,
> their money and ultimately their manhood. Men see
> what happens to noncustodial fathers.
I do not think that is "primarily" the reason for widespread
reluctance among men to "welcome kids without the mom"
tho' what you say does have a lot to do with why men are
increasingly reluctant to be fathers in the first place.
I believe your following remarks are closer to the primary
cause of men's usual reluctance to pursue becoming
a single dad.
> They also don't know the absolute joy of having kids
> but would know it once they got that "perk". Women,
> i.e. feminists, keep that all a secret in order to promote
> their victimhod over what is really their saving grace.
> Also men wouldn't be confronted with this issue very
> often if they automatically got custody because women
> would then be more careful about getting pregnant.
>
> The important point here is that ultimately men would
> love having children if it were without the nasty
> and betraying mom controlling things. New idea...
Jack Kammer has made some similar points about
the "perk" that women insist on withholding from men.
(By the way, it's not just feminist women who do that.
Traditionalist women also consider a child to be a
woman's property.)
Women, too, wanted to keep their domain to themselves.
Being mothers and queens of single-family domains
gave them their sense of femininity. ... They affixed
ribbons and lace to its most desirable attributes.
Rather than proclaiming their lot in life to be chock
full of magnificent privileges of which men were unworthy,
they played down its desirability. ... "You want to take
care of stinky diapers?" women shrewdly asked. "What big
strong, smart, aggressive, powerful, potentially well-paid
man like you would want to be stuck here taking care of
snot-nosed little kids and stinky diapers?"
"Male-Bashing: Why Now?" by Jack Kammer (� 1994)
See the Internet Archive Wayback Machine
for an archived copy dated April 13, 2000 on
the page titled "Getting Over the Pink" at:
<http://web.archive.org/web/20000413183851/http://users.erols.com/jkammer/bashing.html>
If father-custody were to become the social norm
the big, ancient bluff of women that child raising
is some huge, horrible "sacrifice" would be called.
And, as you also noted, Tom, women would be a lot more
sober about chancing a pregnancy.
So father-only custody would improve the level of honesty
we could expect from women on the whole _and_ the
maturity of some of their behavior too! What's not to like
about that? ;-)
--
Most women genuinely feel they value a man's
feelings -- if she could have those feelings without
making herself less secure (either emotionally
or financially).
Warren Farrell, _Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say_
Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, publishers (1999) p 17
Andrew Usher
> If father-custody were to become the social norm
> the big, ancient bluff of women that child raising
> is some huge, horrible "sacrifice" would be called.
Father custody (physical) has not been the norm in any
society, ever. What makes you sure it would work now?
I don't think it's unreasonable to call it a 'sacrifice', even though
women may not be honest about it (after all, they voluntarily
choose it).
> And, as you also noted, Tom, women would be a lot more
> sober about chancing a pregnancy.
Yeah, I bet.
> So father-only custody would improve the level of honesty
> we could expect from women on the whole _and_ the
> maturity of some of their behavior too! What's not to like
> about that? ;-)
Maybe that it's not realistic. I think it's a biological difference
that women are supposed to be the 'primary caregivers'. I'm
not saying men can't be, but expecting human nature to
change is not reasonable.
Andrew Usher
Society
"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e88181ab-783b-4a7c...@q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Society wrote:
>>
>> If father-custody were to become the social norm
>> the big, ancient bluff of women that child raising
>> is some huge, horrible "sacrifice" would be called.
>
> Father custody (physical) has not been the norm in any
> society, ever.
Really? You may now explain why in their 1848 Declaration
of Sentiments, the Seneca Falls feminists demanded an end
to the practice of leaving children in the custody of their father
after a divorce.
> What makes you sure it would work now?
Father-only custody worked then and the feminist replacement
we have today isn't working, rather it is fecund with social
pathologies.
--
To think on your feet you need to master the fundamentals.
alpha_ovid
Masculist
>
> If father-custody were to become the social norm
> the big, ancient bluff of women that child raising
> is some huge, horrible "sacrifice" would be called.
>
> And, as you also noted, Tom, women would be a lot more
> sober about chancing a pregnancy.
>
> So father-only custody would improve the level of honesty
> we could expect from women on the whole _and_ the
> maturity of some of their behavior too! What's not to like
> about that? ;-)
<smile> Exactly! It was a no brainer to me as a political anti-
feminist, but many in our ranks don't know what we are confronting and
think they can gloss over this issue to avoid upsetting the girls more
than necessary. This is NECESSARY if you are to confront feminism
effectively.
But beyond that there is a major problem in convincing men like Andrew
on the joys of fatherhood. I didn't "get it" either until I went
through 20 years as a child care worker, 3 years of half time
parenting of my own kids and then the custody battle. But I tell men
loud and clear now that there is no greater joy in life than being
with and raising your own kids. Even with the hard times, which in my
case were considerable, every minute with my kids were the best
minutes in my life. Somehow men need to know this and take it to
heart. Women know it and intentionally hide the fact because that is
a large part how they control us while playing victim with the
greatest thing in life...one's own children. They consistently use
our children like this...for power and money. It's horrible and they
need to be called on it no matter what.
You're a very wise fellow Society. I would love to read your
biography.
Tom
Masculist
> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e88181ab-783b-4a7c...@q16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Society wrote:
>
> >> If father-custody were to become the social norm
> >> the big, ancient bluff of women that child raising
> >> is some huge, horrible "sacrifice" would be called.
>
> > Father custody (physical) has not been the norm in any
> > society, ever.
>
> Really? You may now explain why in their 1848 Declaration
> of Sentiments, the Seneca Falls feminists demanded an end
> to the practice of leaving children in the custody of their father
> after a divorce.
Father custody was the norm in most societies until the 19th century
when feminism emerged.
My favorite psychological portrait of father's custody at a time when
it was being challenged in Russia in the late 19th century is
Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina". It's also the best novel I ever read with
Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables" coming in second. Both were heavily
about fatherhood. Coincidence? I think not.
> > What makes you sure it would work now?
>
> Father-only custody worked then and the feminist replacement
> we have today isn't working, rather it is fecund with social
> pathologies.
Exactly. If one puts his or her sex bias aside on this issue, it's a
no brainer to return to father's custody. But many truly don't know
what is happening to our chlidren under mommy's control. The
feminists have managed to suppress the worse of the news but if people
knew they'd turn chlidren over to their fathers in a second.
The "social pathologies" are becoming increasingly evident and if
there were major stressors in society like a depression or whatever,
it would be in your face.
Tom
Lisa Lisa
. Women know it and intentionally hide the fact because that is
> a large part how they control us while playing victim with the
> greatest thing in life...one's own children.
Late on your child support payments again, druggie?
Masculist
The truth hurts doesn't it Ms Harry The Selfish. The sisterhood can't
hide the truth forever about their child abusing sisters.
Yes, I'm a weeee bit late on those feminist extortion payments. The
kids are grown up and doing great thanks in large part to ME. How's
your slutty daughter and imprisoned son?
I get high on yoga. Man it feels good. Want a hit? <smile>
Tom
Society
>
>Lisa Lisa, the selfish hairy sow squealed...
>>
>> Masculist patiently explained...
>> >
>> > Women know it and intentionally hide the fact
>> > because that is a large part how they control us
>> > while playing victim with the greatest thing in life...
>> > one's own children.
>>
>>Late on your child support payments again, druggie?
>
> The truth hurts doesn't it Ms Harry The Selfish.
> The sisterhood can't hide the truth forever
> about their child abusing sisters.
Yeah, the very fact that Ms. Hairy-Sow squealed after being
jabbed with the truth of your earlier remark, Masculist, is more
evidence for what you've been saying. She's trying to derail
this topic.
The real question, though, would be to ask
how compliant with a court order would women
be if that order said, "Custody of the children
will go to the father. You may visit from time
to time. Yet, you will continue to fulfill the
traditional female role by going over to your
ex-husband and children's house three times
a week and cooking, cleaning and shopping for
them. And you must leave before the kids
come home and you will see the kids only when
the husband says it is okay. You owe it
to your children."
Jack Kammer, _Good Will Toward Men_
St. Martin's Press (1994)
http://www.menweb.org/kammer.htm
Why bother responding to her, Masculist? The people
whose opinions are worth respecting don't respect hers
at all - she's soooo transparent. She can't even figure out
that her very existence is reason enough to put the custody
of children into the hands of the parent who supports the
children: fathers!
--
They don't call what mothers do "child support" because
even little girls know it's just "playing dollies."
Andrew Usher
> > Father custody (physical) has not been the norm in any
> > society, ever.
>
> Really? You may now explain why in their 1848 Declaration
> of Sentiments, the Seneca Falls feminists demanded an end
> to the practice of leaving children in the custody of their father
> after a divorce.
As I stated, I am referring to physical, not legal, custody.
If you can give evidence to show that _physical_ custody of
young children by fathers was at all common, then I'm a liar. I am
quite certain that in the majority of cases where the mothers lost
physical custody of young children (under 12 let's say, if we need
to be precise) that the primary child-rearing tasks went to a nanny
or a female relative rather than to the father.
Andrew Usher
Masculist
> "Masculist" <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I responded to her so that you could point out why she "squealed".
What threatens feminists the most is taking their kids away through
father's custody. It's the one issue that unites all feminists, first
wavers and second wavers. Why? Surely not the kids or their love for
them, it's all about the social benes and protections they get from
controlling their kids and denying their fathers. Our chivalrous
society has taken over the fathers role and feels obligated to protect
and elevate women as the raisers of the next generation. It's really
the basis of our primary injustice to men and children and the
cornerstone of the matriarchy. While traditionalist men impotently
demand other men to be "head of the family" the idiots than turn
around and make that impossible by making women "the head of the
family" by supporting mother's cusotdy.
You know all this but who knows, maybe someone reading this doesn't.
> The people
> whose opinions are worth respecting don't respect hers
> at all - she's soooo transparent. She can't even figure out
> that her very existence is reason enough to put the custody
> of children into the hands of the parent who supports the
> children: fathers!
She's a woman. What's to "figure out"? She only "follows" <smile>
Tom
Masculist
If they were 5 or over the physical custody back then would be on the
farm doing chores for crissakes. Under 5 a female relative or
neighbor would have cared for them.
Things have changed dramatically. At the turn of the century (19th)
the rationale they (judges) used to give custody to women was based on
the new industrial society which was that since most women went into
the "nurturing" professions they were therefore the nurturers. I was
a child care worker most of my life and was the primary preferred
caretaker of my own children from birth to 5 years old. My son
preferred me over mom for crissakes when he was under 2. Mom would
express her milk and I fed him. Most men are taking care of their
children to some degree these days, actually a great degree. So now
that 19th century rationale is totally gone.
It's our turn with the kids. One thing that feminism and advanced
technology has been successful at, and in the long run will make
things MUCH better, is changing conditions so that men can be the
primary caretaker of their children if they want to or have to.
Ending mandated sexual equality is the first step in restoring men to
their rightful place in society and father's custody is the last
step. All other grievances of men will be satisfied with each step.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
PolishKnight
"Society" <Soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
> "Ranting" <ra...@rant.com> wrote in message
> news:4a34fd58$0$14656$956...@news.usenetserver.com...
> >
> > I work with a woman who is 47 years old and about
> > 2 years ago decided to have a baby. Now she has never
> > been married, rarely has a steady boyfriend and is
> > totally concentrated on her career.
>
> Diagnosis: baby rabies.
Society, I'm reminded of a situation back in the 80's when lonely career
women tried to make it cool to buy their own diamond rings. Back then,
their demands were outrageous by today's standards (they insisted upon
marrying up, period, rather than getting a nobel prize for daring to
marry a man who works in their social class but for slightly less.)
This is when I coined the term "shopping masturbation": Buying stuff for
oneself that's usually purchased by someone else as a gift. It quickly
fell out of popularity and now the diamond ads once again are primarily
targeted towards men or, indirectly, towards women about what men should
"want" to buy them.
The notion of a woman spending her mad money on child that men had
traditionally paid for either directly or as taxpayers is maybe going
through a similar phase. Desperate women are buying children (in the
case of many female celebraties, literally) as status symbols but like
with mobile phones, they stopped being cool once everybody had one.
We go back to the age old paradigm, that truly traditional women such as
my wife never forgot, that children are joys but also burdens that only
a madwoman would plan to bear alone.
Oh, wait, I forgot one of the more hilarious "I am independant woman,
hear me roar" fads: Housing.
"For those buyers who had dreamed of quick riches, the change in the
market has come as a sobering lesson. A little over a year ago, Shabana
Qureshi, a 26-year-old engineer, put deposits down on two condos in
Arlington. "My friends were making hundreds of thousands of dollars off
of properties," Ms. Qureshi said. "I just thought I'll take this risk
now and not think about it too much, and once the time comes I can
either sell it or use it depending on my needs."
She moved into a one-bedroom condo at Clarendon 1021 with hardwood
floors, granite kitchen countertops and a heated pool on the roof. But
having taken a pay cut with a new job, she can no longer afford the
mortgage and maintenance fees, which are almost $3,000 a month."
Do you remember Parg sneering that loser bachelors were putting their
money into strippers' G-strings? As it turns out, that was probably a
superior investment! :-)
> > I told her, "I wonder how long before it would be illegal
> > to have an abortion if suddenly men were the ones
> > having babies".
>
> That's a good one. In such a case, the large majority
> of feminist women would turn anti-abortion in a flash.
> Still, I prefer Ann Coulter's sarcastic comeback to such
> feminist snot; "Apparently it isn't a sacrament now
> only because of the overwhelming hatred men have
> for women." Miss Coulter tweaks feminists sooo many
> ways with that remark.
In a way, this has already happened with IMBRA and men dating foreign
women. Feminists used to argue that they wanted unwanted men to leave
them alone and that sexual harassment was such a burden. Now that too
many men took them up on that offer, they want to criminalize men
leaving the plantation...
regards,
PolishKnight
Society
"PolishKnight" <mar...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:marek1-73A0F9....@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com...
>
> Society wrote:
>>
>> Ranting wrote...
>> >
>> > I work with a woman who is 47 years old and about
>> > 2 years ago decided to have a baby. Now she has never
>> > been married, rarely has a steady boyfriend and is
>> > totally concentrated on her career.
>>
>> Diagnosis: baby rabies.
>
> Society, I'm reminded of a situation back in the 80's
> when lonely career women tried to make it cool
> to buy their own diamond rings.
Yeah, I remember that.
> Back then, their demands were outrageous by today's
> standards (they insisted upon marrying up, period,
> rather than getting a Nobel prize for daring to
> marry a man who works in their social class but for
> slightly less.)
"Outrageous by today's standards" - surely you must be
joking, PolishKnight. AFAICS today's typical young
college-schooled woman has those _same_ Marry Up
At All Costs standards.
> This is when I coined the term "shopping masturbation":
> Buying stuff for oneself that's usually purchased by someone
> else as a gift. It quickly fell out of popularity and now the
> diamond ads once again are primarily targeted towards men
> or, indirectly, towards women about what men should
> "want" to buy them.
Uh huh. A woman who buys an expensive rock for herself
generally is as disappointed as someone who tries to laugh
by tickling oneself. Doesn't matter how much effort goes
into the self-tickling and it doesn't matter how expensive
is the rock one buys oneself - the result of both kinds of
self-stimulation is... nothing.
I figure that the 1990s boom in cubic zirconium on the TV
shopping channels was born from the fakery of that 1980s
shopping masterbation phenomenon.
> The notion of a woman spending her mad money on a child
> that men had traditionally paid for either directly or as
> taxpayers is maybe going through a similar phase.
> Desperate women are buying children (in the case of
> many female celebraties, literally) as status symbols
> but like with mobile phones, they stopped being cool
> once everybody had one.
>
> We go back to the age old paradigm, that truly traditional
> women such as my wife never forgot, that children are joys
> but also burdens that only a madwoman would plan to bear
> alone.
I figure that in the not-too-distant future, the married, SAH mother
will be trumpeted as the New Cool Thing by the Oprah/industrial
media complex. It's already sort'a counterculture so it's only a
step away from being made into the chic thing to do.
> Oh, wait, I forgot one of the more hilarious "I am independant
> woman, hear me roar" fads: Housing.
> http://tinyurl.com/mm5hu
>
> "For those buyers who had dreamed of quick riches,
> the change in the market has come as a sobering lesson.
> A little over a year ago, Shabana Qureshi, a 26-year-old
> engineer, put deposits down on two condos in Arlington.
> "My friends were making hundreds of thousands of dollars
> off of properties," Ms. Qureshi said. "I just thought I'll
> take this risk now and not think about it too much,
> and once the time comes I can either sell it or use it
> depending on my needs."
>
> She moved into a one-bedroom condo at Clarendon 1021
> with hardwood floors, granite kitchen countertops and a
> heated pool on the roof.
What was that place, a make-out pad for snaring a rich boyfriend?
> But having taken a pay cut with a new job, she can no longer
> afford the mortgage and maintenance fees, which are almost
> $3,000 a month."
>
> Do you remember Parg sneering that loser bachelors were
> putting their money into strippers' G-strings? As it turns out,
> that was probably a superior investment! :-)
Uh huh, it probably was. No recurring payments nor any losses
to bear after the party ended.
Just about the time I read "sobering lesson," I remembered that
sneering whiner's smug childish neener-neener style bragging
that as the housing market soared higher and higher, more women
than men were buying homes. Heh heh, who's laughing now?
By the way, how long do you suppose it took for the reporter
to dig up a female engineer that could be mentioned in this
tale of woe?
>> > I told her, "I wonder how long before it would be illegal
>> > to have an abortion if suddenly men were the ones
>> > having babies".
>
> In a way, this has already happened with IMBRA and men
> dating foreign women. Feminists used to argue that they
> wanted unwanted men to leave them alone and that sexual
> harassment was such a burden. Now that too many men
> took them up on that offer, they want to criminalize men
> leaving the plantation...
Wow. That's very perceptive of you to link IMBRA up
with that sex-role reversal regarding abortion, PolishKnight.
[T]here is no greater pain in the ass
on God's green Earth than someone
who follows you around demanding
that you _master_ her.
John Gordon, _The Myth of the Monstrous Male
and Other Feminist Fables_; Playboy Press (1982)
p.149 (italics in original)
As for that sexual harassment stuff that feminists made so
much noise about beginning in the Reagan years and right up
until their boy bill clinton was busted by Paula Jones,
I've come to the conclusion that feminist females were
really just upping the stakes in the many millennia-old game
of testing the persistence and willingness to take risks
of their suitors. And it may be that in that respect, today's
women have overplayed their hand.
Plus, the unisexism in feminist ideology has led to a
situation in which calling a young female's feminist bluff
is easier than ever for the 10% or so of young men that
90% of young females have always pursued. Hence, the
culture of easy, sleazy one-night-stand sex that Tom Wolfe
so presciently described in _I Am Charlotte Simmons_.
Oh no, that's not what college kids are doing bawled the
Establishment Media in their book reviews as they panned
Wolfe's novel; then a year or so later came the screaming
stories in the same big-time media outlets of hook-ups
and binge drinking among kids at elite colleges.
The more a young woman has bought into feminist
notions of equality (i.e., the sexes are essentially
the same and there is no such thing as a woman's role),
the more she is likely to flaunt her sexual power.
It is the only power left to her. This helps explain
why female students at Harvard -- among the highest
achieving young women in the country -- have just
launched a magazine featuring Harvard women
posing nude.
"Why young women are exposing themselves: Part two"
by Dennis Prager; February 24, 2004
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0204/prager01.asp
Women's clothing has progressively grown trashier since
the shoulder pad fad of the 1980s. There's more exposed
female chest-flesh and cleavage than since before the French
Revolution. The fashion statement made by a lot of women,
even young women, is aggressively "look at me, dammit!"
--
Women invent rules, manipulate men to obey them,
and in this way dominate men -- but in no way
apply the rules to themselves. The `weaker' sex
is not bound by honor, justice, or fairness.
A woman's right to change her mind means her right
to change the rules of the game while you're
running between second and third base. They don't
play boy-rules. Honor and etiquette have no place
in women's lives, they live by subterfuge, deceit,
and innuendo.
Esther Vilar, _The Manipulated Man_
(original title, _Der dressierte Mann_,
English translation by Eva Borneman
and Ursula Bender)
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, publishers (1972)
PolishKnight
> "PolishKnight" <mar...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:marek1-73A0F9....@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com...
> > Society wrote:
>
> >> Ranting wrote...
>
> >> > I work with a woman who is 47 years old and about
> >> > 2 years ago decided to have a baby. Now she has never
> >> > been married, rarely has a steady boyfriend and is
> >> > totally concentrated on her career.
>
> >> Diagnosis: baby rabies.
>
> > Society, I'm reminded of a situation back in the 80's
> > when lonely career women tried to make it cool
> > to buy their own diamond rings.
>
> Yeah, I remember that.
>
> > Back then, their demands were outrageous by today's
> > standards (they insisted upon marrying up, period,
> > rather than getting a Nobel prize for daring to
> > marry a man who works in their social class but for
> > slightly less.)
>
> "Outrageous by today's standards" - surely you must be
> joking, PolishKnight. AFAICS today's typical young
> college-schooled woman has those _same_ Marry Up
> At All Costs standards.
Surely, I'm not Mr. Feynman. :-)
I give credit where it's due (even backhandedly) and it appears that
the rate of working women outearning their husbands went up from 24
percent to 32 percent during the 1987 to 2003. Granted, that's not a
great increase considering the massive change in the number of high
paid college educated women that have entered the market. It's kind
of like a woman putting on 50 lbs and drinking a diet coke. (Of
course, most of that statistic is probably due to their men being
short term unemployed, disabled, retired. etc.) Men outearned their
wives during this period by a factor of 60% by comparison.
What's more interesting is this divorcemag statistic of how many women
in 2002 outearned their husbands by 5K. This is significant because
this isn't about a few small grand that can be easily ignored: 14.9%
That shows you're probably correct, Society: Little appears to have
changed since the 1950's in terms of women's demands of men and
probably won't even if a thousand years pass.
Let's go back to my favorite topic, the housing bubble (partly because
I'm so proud of having called it, and also because it has a personal
impact on my life as a renter waiting for the market to come down.)
The behavior during the bubble was astounding. People were getting 30
year interest only loans that, by definition, they couldn't pay back
because they believed, and I'm not making this up, that as prices
continued to rise that nobody would be able to buy a home. Of course,
if nobody could afford to buy a home, who would buy them to continue
to drive prices up? And my favorite (hello MarkB) "My home and area
is SPECIAL so it can never go down! NO PLACE is as nice as mine!" It
reminds me of people who take their kid to American Idol and they
think they're stars because their parents love to hear them sing!
This tulipmania thinking is tied into the madness of crowds and good
ol' selfishness. People want to believe that they're buying before
some other sucker and then they'll be in the herd to trample the
latecomers. This thinking dies hard (since the herd has grown so
large) and, with women, it's also tied into clear biological urges.
Bubbles can grow to amazing sizes as human doubt and resistance can be
monumental. House prices inflated from a factor of double
fundamentals to 4 times! And when they popped, economists and other
talking heads didn't see it coming. So, hey, I know it seems like
drooling madness to say that this double dipper culture is going to
blow up when it appears that hyperchivalry dominates, but historically
it appears to be on track.
> > This is when I coined the term "shopping masturbation":
> > Buying stuff for oneself that's usually purchased by someone
> > else as a gift. It quickly fell out of popularity and now the
> > diamond ads once again are primarily targeted towards men
> > or, indirectly, towards women about what men should
> > "want" to buy them.
>
> Uh huh. A woman who buys an expensive rock for herself
> generally is as disappointed as someone who tries to laugh
> by tickling oneself. Doesn't matter how much effort goes
> into the self-tickling and it doesn't matter how expensive
> is the rock one buys oneself - the result of both kinds of
> self-stimulation is... nothing.
Allow me to take it further: A woman showing off a rock she bought for
herself is like a man showing off his playboys to other men (I know,
who reads playboy anymore?)
> I figure that the 1990s boom in cubic zirconium on the TV
> shopping channels was born from the fakery of that 1980s
> shopping masterbation phenomenon.
As a married man, I think I can say I have insight you don't. These
programs seem to cater to working class and older married women
looking to save money. I bought a few of these for my wife (not from
that venue, of course) and she balked at first and now finds she loves
the fact that she can own several sets of fake diamonds to match her
outfits and, in addition, not worry about losing them if she goes
swimming. It also helps, she concedes, that the fake stuff actually
looks nicer than the real thing. Real diamond jewelry is horrifically
expensive so most of the stuff I'm willing to buy her looks cheap by
comparison. (Yeah yeah, I know the can of worms I opened up with that
phrasing.)
> > The notion of a woman spending her mad money on a child
> > that men had traditionally paid for either directly or as
> > taxpayers is maybe going through a similar phase.
> > Desperate women are buying children (in the case of
> > many female celebraties, literally) as status symbols
> > but like with mobile phones, they stopped being cool
> > once everybody had one.
>
> > We go back to the age old paradigm, that truly traditional
> > women such as my wife never forgot, that children are joys
> > but also burdens that only a madwoman would plan to bear
> > alone.
>
> I figure that in the not-too-distant future, the married, SAH mother
> will be trumpeted as the New Cool Thing by the Oprah/industrial
> media complex. It's already sort'a counterculture so it's only a
> step away from being made into the chic thing to do.
I refer to HGTV and Food Channel as pornography for women. It already
has been cool for some time for women to do stuff that was reviled by
feminists during the 1950's as degrading. Martha Stewart made
billions teaching women stuff that their grandmothers learned as
girls.
But... what isn't taught on these programs is that these skills didn't
exist to impress other women but rather as an extension of frugality.
Home cooked meals were meant to save money over going out to
restaurants, not to blow thousands on stainless steel appliances and
granite countertops. My wife asks:"What's the point? Why not just
order out for that money?" There's a joke by Polish migrant workers
in Germany that Germans have the easiest homes to clean: They have
nice, modern kitchens that the well-to-do women never cook in!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29619137/
> > Oh, wait, I forgot one of the more hilarious "I am independant
> > woman, hear me roar" fads: Housing.
> >http://tinyurl.com/mm5hu
>
> > "For those buyers who had dreamed of quick riches,
> > the change in the market has come as a sobering lesson.
> > A little over a year ago, Shabana Qureshi, a 26-year-old
> > engineer, put deposits down on two condos in Arlington.
> > "My friends were making hundreds of thousands of dollars
> > off of properties," Ms. Qureshi said. "I just thought I'll
> > take this risk now and not think about it too much,
> > and once the time comes I can either sell it or use it
> > depending on my needs."
>
> > She moved into a one-bedroom condo at Clarendon 1021
> > with hardwood floors, granite kitchen countertops and a
> > heated pool on the roof.
>
> What was that place, a make-out pad for snaring a rich boyfriend?
I think it was more like a bachelorette pad to impress her friends and
to flip later to make a huge profit. I also think she was nesting.
> > But having taken a pay cut with a new job, she can no longer
> > afford the mortgage and maintenance fees, which are almost
> > $3,000 a month."
>
> > Do you remember Parg sneering that loser bachelors were
> > putting their money into strippers' G-strings? As it turns out,
> > that was probably a superior investment! :-)
>
> Uh huh, it probably was. No recurring payments nor any losses
> to bear after the party ended.
>
> Just about the time I read "sobering lesson," I remembered that
> sneering whiner's smug childish neener-neener style bragging
> that as the housing market soared higher and higher, more women
> than men were buying homes. Heh heh, who's laughing now?
A young career woman I know bought a townhouse a year ago during the
first wave of foreclosers and was proud of herself that she was one of
the first to qualify for the $8K tax credit. She bought her place in
a far off suburb the banks let loose off the books first so she has a
45 minute commute to work.
Just last month, congress voted to double that tax credit to $15K.
All good things to those who wait... AND in addition, millions more
foreclosers will hit near to my work at lower prices meaning I can
bike a few blocks instead of paying for overpriced Obamagas.
> By the way, how long do you suppose it took for the reporter
> to dig up a female engineer that could be mentioned in this
> tale of woe?
Not terribly long I would guess. :-)
Society, consider the additional pressure this adds to the
hyperchivalry bubble in that millions of these women are essentially
pariahs for the next decade or so. They're credit rating is shot,
they're in debt, and they're not getting any younger. A worse hell I
cannot imagine.
> >> > I told her, "I wonder how long before it would be illegal
> >> > to have an abortion if suddenly men were the ones
> >> > having babies".
>
> > In a way, this has already happened with IMBRA and men
> > dating foreign women. Feminists used to argue that they
> > wanted unwanted men to leave them alone and that sexual
> > harassment was such a burden. Now that too many men
> > took them up on that offer, they want to criminalize men
> > leaving the plantation...
>
> Wow. That's very perceptive of you to link IMBRA up
> with that sex-role reversal regarding abortion, PolishKnight.
>
> [T]here is no greater pain in the ass
> on God's green Earth than someone
> who follows you around demanding
> that you _master_ her.
>
> John Gordon, _The Myth of the Monstrous Male
> and Other Feminist Fables_; Playboy Press (1982)
> p.149 (italics in original)
I got lucky. :-) The whole abortion paradigm is one big bluff from
what I can see. Women have always wanted kids more than men so
threatening to not marry a breadwinner and go childless is about as
scary to men as women threatening to not take us shoe shopping! "No,
please honey! I NEED to go buy new shoes for the spring season!"
There's something rather cruel about the whole chivalrous patronage
game, like sub-prime loans to buy overpriced real estate, and
affirmative action for sub-par judges, that it sets them up to fail
eventually.
> As for that sexual harassment stuff that feminists made so
> much noise about beginning in the Reagan years and right up
> until their boy bill clinton was busted by Paula Jones,
> I've come to the conclusion that feminist females were
> really just upping the stakes in the many millennia-old game
> of testing the persistence and willingness to take risks
> of their suitors. And it may be that in that respect, today's
> women have overplayed their hand.
I remember you saying it back then. Their assumption seems to have
been that men were so desperate for sex that they would jump through
any hoops the women set for them. More on this in a bit:
> Women's clothing has progressively grown trashier since
> the shoulder pad fad of the 1980s. There's more exposed
> female chest-flesh and cleavage than since before the French
> Revolution. The fashion statement made by a lot of women,
> even young women, is aggressively "look at me, dammit!"
Yeah, but the problem with this, Society, is that MEN would call such
women out as inappropriate if they tried this at work. It's not just
about the men playing a reverse victorian game of fainting due to our
sensibilities, but rather that such women's behavior put men into a
precarious position even if he does nothing wrong. If she walks by a
man's cubicle with her breasts hanging out, it's possible another
woman might accuse him of leering at her even if he wasn't.
Companies are increasingly aware of this and telling women to cover
up. In addition, the trashy tattoos and face studs come across as
unprofessional and don't help her career either.
So it's ironic that the image portrayed in the film 9 to 5 of a
sterile workplace built by an evil patriarchy was actually created by
women and the left and the right as relaxed allowing people to put up
"holiday" decorations and customize their cubicles....
> --
> Women invent rules, manipulate men to obey them,
> and in this way dominate men -- but in no way
> apply the rules to themselves. The `weaker' sex
> is not bound by honor, justice, or fairness.
> A woman's right to change her mind means her right
> to change the rules of the game while you're
> running between second and third base. They don't
> play boy-rules. Honor and etiquette have no place
> in women's lives, they live by subterfuge, deceit,
> and innuendo.
>
> Esther Vilar, _The Manipulated Man_
> (original title, _Der dressierte Mann_,
> English translation by Eva Borneman
> and Ursula Bender)
> Farrar, Straus and Giroux, publishers (1972)
Actually, this quote is funny because women in our culture apply the
rules to each other in the form of housing associations, "the Rules"
of dating, and dress codes. (I see your and Esther's point, however.)
regards,
PolishKnight
Andrew Usher
> > If you can give evidence to show that _physical_ custody of
> > young children by fathers was at all common, then I'm a liar. I am
> > quite certain that in the majority of cases where the mothers lost
> > physical custody of young children (under 12 let's say, if we need
> > to be precise) that the primary child-rearing tasks went to a nanny
> > or a female relative rather than to the father.
>
> If they were 5 or over the physical custody back then would be on the
> farm doing chores for crissakes. Under 5 a female relative or
> neighbor would have cared for them.
OK, so you admit I'm mostly right. Yes, child labor was common once,
but no longer, so that justification (regardless of its truth) is now
irrelevant.
> Things have changed dramatically. At the turn of the century (19th)
> the rationale they (judges) used to give custody to women was based on
> the new industrial society which was that since most women went into
> the "nurturing" professions they were therefore the nurturers.
I think you mean '20th', in 'turn of the century' - 1900 is the turn
of the
20th century. Anyway, you're quite right here, this argument was and
is
used and has some justice to it.
> I was
> a child care worker most of my life and was the primary preferred
> caretaker of my own children from birth to 5 years old.
Yes, but you clearly are not typical of all men! Most men would not
want to go into child-care work even apart from any discrimination.
> My son
> preferred me over mom for crissakes when he was under 2. Mom would
> express her milk and I fed him.
Wow, you actually mentioned breastfeeding, something that men will
never do and is not usually possible if the man has custody alone.
> Most men are taking care of their
> children to some degree these days, actually a great degree. So now
> that 19th century rationale is totally gone.
The rationale is, fundamentally, that women are biologically more
suited
to it. That women evolved for the task is hardly debatable, only
whether
men can and will do it equally well.
> Ending mandated sexual equality is the first step in restoring men to
> their rightful place in society and father's custody is the last
> step. All other grievances of men will be satisfied with each step.
Well if it's the last step we best not get ahead of ourselves.
Andrew Usher
Masculist
> On Jun 18, 12:47 pm, Masculist <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If you can give evidence to show that _physical_ custody of
> > > young children by fathers was at all common, then I'm a liar. I am
> > > quite certain that in the majority of cases where the mothers lost
> > > physical custody of young children (under 12 let's say, if we need
> > > to be precise) that the primary child-rearing tasks went to a nanny
> > > or a female relative rather than to the father.
>
> > If they were 5 or over the physical custody back then would be on the
> > farm doing chores for crissakes. Under 5 a female relative or
> > neighbor would have cared for them.
>
> OK, so you admit I'm mostly right. Yes, child labor was common once,
> but no longer, so that justification (regardless of its truth) is now
> irrelevant.
Ever heard of "day care"? [Tom rolling his eyes]
> > Things have changed dramatically. At the turn of the century (19th)
> > the rationale they (judges) used to give custody to women was based on
> > the new industrial society which was that since most women went into
> > the "nurturing" professions they were therefore the nurturers.
>
> I think you mean '20th', in 'turn of the century' - 1900 is the turn
> of the
> 20th century. Anyway, you're quite right here, this argument was and
> is
> used and has some justice to it.
>
> > I was
> > a child care worker most of my life and was the primary preferred
> > caretaker of my own children from birth to 5 years old.
>
> Yes, but you clearly are not typical of all men! Most men would not
> want to go into child-care work even apart from any discrimination.
Speak for yourself Andrew. I know many men who wanted to do it and
did do it! Most of my work was in the most challenging of child care
work, like with autistics, but I did do Head Start for a year, but
even those kids were the most challenging of early childhood ed work.
> > My son
> > preferred me over mom for crissakes when he was under 2. Mom would
> > express her milk and I fed him.
>
> Wow, you actually mentioned breastfeeding, something that men will
> never do and is not usually possible if the man has custody alone.
Ever hear of "formula"?
> > Most men are taking care of their
> > children to some degree these days, actually a great degree. So now
> > that 19th century rationale is totally gone.
>
> The rationale is, fundamentally, that women are biologically more
> suited
> to it. That women evolved for the task is hardly debatable, only
> whether
> men can and will do it equally well.
Yeah, using the same rationale you should be out hunting.
> > Ending mandated sexual equality is the first step in restoring men to
> > their rightful place in society and father's custody is the last
> > step. All other grievances of men will be satisfied with each step.
>
> Well if it's the last step we best not get ahead of ourselves.
Oh yeah, let's stay back here in the prehistroic swamps with you.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
<snip>
I think you're now arguing that because conditions have changed so
much since the industrial revolution, that now father's custody is
a good idea. That's a defensible position, it just contradicts that
you
seemed to be taking before.
Personally, I don't want to have to make a decision on the matter, so
long as it's not used to further put more responsibility on men,
there's
nothing wrong with expanding father custody.
Andrew Usher
Masculist
> On Jun 23, 2:52 pm, Masculist <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I think you're now arguing that because conditions have changed so
> much since the industrial revolution, that now father's custody is
> a good idea. That's a defensible position, it just contradicts that
> you
> seemed to be taking before.
That argument that I used for father's custody is not my primary
argument for it but is used to counter the feminist argument for
mother's custody in an historical context.
> Personally, I don't want to have to make a decision on the matter, so
> long as it's not used to further put more responsibility on men,
> there's
> nothing wrong with expanding father custody.
Father's custody would give responsibility to men who want and deserve
it. The ones who don't want or deserve it lose under any system
whether the government is involved or not.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Andre Lieven
> Tom as "Masculist" <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:2647a25b-6a2f-4c86...@x31g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Society wrote:
>
> > > "Ranting wrote...
>
> > > > I told her, "I wonder how long before it would be
> > > > illegal to have an abortion if suddenly men
> > > > were the ones having babies".
>
> > > That's a good one. In such a case, the large majority
> > > of feminist women would turn anti-abortion in a flash. [...]
>
> > [...] I wouldn't be so sure that men wouldn't welcome kids
> > without the mom.
>
> I'm glad you bring this up Tom. I reflected on that consideration
> myself while I was making my earlier post.
Let me weigh in on this, as a guy who had a step-son from a now
long ago past marriage.
I would suggest that, while most men who had made a choice to
be an involved father to a child/children would wish to stay such,
no matter what the mother later wished, I would also suggest
that most men have a better innate understanding that parenting
is a two person job, to be done best, so I doubt that most men
would embrace them becoming a single parent *by choice*.
IOW, while many men are doing the single father job, they are
doing it not to "fulfill" them, but because their previous first
choice (Marriage with the mother) crashed and burned, usually
not due to their choice on that matter (CF: Braver).
So, if men had an equal situational ability to have babies produced
for them to be a single dad *by choice* of, I rather doubt that most
men would consider that to be a good choice, either for themselves,
or for the child(ren).
> > Men's reluctance on that issue is primarily due to the
> > likelihood of mom betraying them and taking the kid,
> > their money and ultimately their manhood. Men see
> > what happens to noncustodial fathers.
>
> I do not think that is "primarily" the reason for widespread
> reluctance among men to "welcome kids without the mom"
> tho' what you say does have a lot to do with why men are
> increasingly reluctant to be fathers in the first place.
Indeed. These are two very different things.
> <http://web.archive.org/web/20000413183851/http://users.erols.com/jkam...>
>
> If father-custody were to become the social norm
> the big, ancient bluff of women that child raising
> is some huge, horrible "sacrifice" would be called.
Indeed. That would be a Good Thing, especially for society and for
the children...
> And, as you also noted, Tom, women would be a lot more
> sober about chancing a pregnancy.
Indeed. But, a change to a simple societal rule of "Her body,
her Choice, Her *Responsibility*" would suffice there. Making
Free Money For Whelping a thing of the past would accomplish
that.
> So father-only custody would improve the level of honesty
> we could expect from women on the whole _and_ the
> maturity of some of their behavior too! What's not to like
> about that? ;-)
Nothing, it's all good. <g>
> --
> Most women genuinely feel they value a man's
> feelings -- if she could have those feelings without
> making herself less secure (either emotionally
> or financially).
>
> Warren Farrell, _Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say_
> Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, publishers (1999) p 17
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Jun 18, 12:47 pm, Masculist <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > If you can give evidence to show that _physical_ custody of
> > > young children by fathers was at all common, then I'm a liar. I am
> > > quite certain that in the majority of cases where the mothers lost
> > > physical custody of young children (under 12 let's say, if we need
> > > to be precise) that the primary child-rearing tasks went to a nanny
> > > or a female relative rather than to the father.
>
> > If they were 5 or over the physical custody back then would be on
> > the farm doing chores for crissakes. Under 5 a female relative or
> > neighbor would have cared for them.
>
> OK, so you admit I'm mostly right.
Not really, because you ignore that millions of single mothers today
do the same thing, it is just that today's version of "a female
relative
or neighbor" is now called "a paid for child care worker.".
> Yes, child labor was common once,
> but no longer, so that justification (regardless of its truth) is now
> irrelevant.
Ibid.
> > Things have changed dramatically. At the turn of the century (19th)
> > the rationale they (judges) used to give custody to women was based
> > on the new industrial society which was that since most women went
> > into the "nurturing" professions they were therefore the nurturers.
>
> I think you mean '20th', in 'turn of the century' - 1900 is the turn
> of the 20th century. Anyway, you're quite right here, this argument
> was and is used and has some justice to it.
>
> > I was
> > a child care worker most of my life and was the primary preferred
> > caretaker of my own children from birth to 5 years old.
>
> Yes, but you clearly are not typical of all men! Most men would not
> want to go into child-care work even apart from any discrimination.
Yet, most men would prefer to care for their own children:
"In the past few years, I (Warren Farrell) have asked more than 10,000
American and Canadian men from all walks of life if they would
*prefer*
(All emphasis in original) to take off work for six months to a year
after
each child was born to be involved with the child *full* time. *More
than
80 percent of the men said that full-time involvement with their
children
would be their preference* -- but only if their wives approved and
they
weren't hurting their families economically. (About 17 percent of the
men
prefer part-time involvement; about 3 percent prefer to remain
working
full-time.)"
The Myth Of Male Power, pg. 20.
> > My son
> > preferred me over mom for crissakes when he was under 2. Mom would
> > express her milk and I fed him.
>
> Wow, you actually mentioned breastfeeding, something that men will
> never do and is not usually possible if the man has custody alone.
So, you have never heard of breast pumps, bottles, and
refrigerators ?
> > Most men are taking care of their
> > children to some degree these days, actually a great degree. So now
> > that 19th century rationale is totally gone.
>
> The rationale is, fundamentally, that women are biologically more
> suited to it.
That is the claim. As with all Women Firster claims, evidence in
support
of it fails to turn up...
> That women evolved for the task is hardly debatable, only
> whether men can and will do it equally well.
That men who do it, do it with at least as good results, if not better
than similarly placed women, leaves this a well settled issue, and not
one that favours women.
> > Ending mandated sexual equality is the first step in restoring men
> > to their rightful place in society and father's custody is the last
> > step. All other grievances of men will be satisfied with each step.
>
> Well if it's the last step we best not get ahead of ourselves.
I do not agree that men cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.
Please leave your demeaning misandry elsewhere.
Andre
Andrew Usher
> > That women evolved for the task is hardly debatable, only
> > whether men can and will do it equally well.
>
> That men who do it, do it with at least as good results, if not better
> than similarly placed women, leaves this a well settled issue, and not
> one that favours women.
I don't think there's ever been an adequately controlled study of it.
> > > Ending mandated sexual equality is the first step in restoring men
> > > to their rightful place in society and father's custody is the last
> > > step. All other grievances of men will be satisfied with each step.
>
> > Well if it's the last step we best not get ahead of ourselves.
>
> I do not agree that men cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.
> Please leave your demeaning misandry elsewhere.
You seem to have an awfully low threshold of accusing people of
misandry.
Andrew Usher
Andre Lieven
> On Jul 5, 1:15 pm, Andre Lieven
>
> > > That women evolved for the task is hardly debatable, only
> > > whether men can and will do it equally well.
>
> > That men who do it, do it with at least as good results, if not better
> > than similarly placed women, leaves this a well settled issue, and not
> > one that favours women.
>
> I don't think there's ever been an adequately controlled study of it.
Then, YOUR claim was pure *unsupported* Bullshit. Deal with it.
In any case, the information I provided comes from Dr. Farrell
having asked 10,000 men. That's a far larger sample than anything
that you could pull out of your ass...
> > > > Ending mandated sexual equality is the first step in restoring men
> > > > to their rightful place in society and father's custody is the last
> > > > step. All other grievances of men will be satisfied with each step.
>
> > > Well if it's the last step we best not get ahead of ourselves.
>
> > I do not agree that men cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.
> > Please leave your demeaning misandry elsewhere.
>
> You seem to have an awfully low threshold of accusing people of
> misandry.
Once again, pure Bullshit. YOUR claim was pregnant with the misandrous
notion that men don't love their children.
For that misandry of yours, piss off.
Andre
Andrew Usher
Andre Lieven wrote:
> > I don't think there's ever been an adequately controlled study of it.
>
> Then, YOUR claim was pure *unsupported* Bullshit. Deal with it.
>
> In any case, the information I provided comes from Dr. Farrell
> having asked 10,000 men. That's a far larger sample than anything
> that you could pull out of your ass...
How the hell is that a reliable method of studying the question? Of
course
men are going to say they're good parents, women would do, that proves
nothing.
> > You seem to have an awfully low threshold of accusing people of
> > misandry.
>
> Once again, pure Bullshit. YOUR claim was pregnant with the misandrous
> notion that men don't love their children.
I never said that 'men don't love their children'. Even if I did imply
that
men don't love their children _as much as_ women, that wouldn't
justify
your assertion of 'misandry'.
> For that misandry of yours, piss off.
Here's my advice. Stop picking fights just for the hell of it. It's
why
no one likes you.
Andrew Usher
Andre Lieven
other foot:
>
>[...]
>
> Andre Lieven accurately point out:
> > > I don't think there's ever been an adequately controlled study of it.
>
> > Then, YOUR claim was pure *unsupported* Bullshit. Deal with it.
>
> > In any case, the information I provided comes from Dr. Farrell
> > having asked 10,000 men. That's a far larger sample than anything
> > that you could pull out of your ass...
>
> How the hell is that a reliable method of studying the question?
Not my problem, since I *wasn't* the one making the claim that YOU
made: Your claim, YOUR Burden Of Proof.
> Of course
> men are going to say they're good parents, women would do, that proves
> nothing.
This statement of yours further displays your misandry; Because you
believe that men *need a study* to show that fathers love their
children, too.
I need no such study, I have seen many fathers, not the least being my
own father, to know that fathers do love their kids.
The ONLY reason that over 96% of stay at home parents are women,
is that they grabbed the job, and their husbands were too generous to
stop their wive's easiest-gig grabbing.
> > > You seem to have an awfully low threshold of accusing people of
> > > misandry.
>
> > Once again, pure Bullshit. YOUR claim was pregnant with the misandrous
> > notion that men don't love their children.
>
> I never said that 'men don't love their children'. Even if I did imply
> that men don't love their children _as much as_ women, that wouldn't
> justify your assertion of 'misandry'.
Actually, it would exactly merit a claim of misandry. And, since you
DID make that suggestion, that proved that you ARE a misandrist.
> > For that misandry of yours, piss off.
>
> Here's my advice. Stop picking fights just for the hell of it. It's
> why no one likes you.
<Massive Loon Projection>
Do let us know when you graduate Grade 8...
Andre
Mark Borgerson
32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, andre...@yahoo.ca says...
While that book is one of Farrel's more interesting books, it was
researched and written in the early 90's. I wonder how the current
economic climate would change things. Would as many men be willing
to take off for 6 months or a year now?
Mark Borgerson
Andrew Usher
> While that book is one of Farrel's more interesting books, it was
> researched and written in the early 90's. I wonder how the current
> economic climate would change things. Would as many men be willing
> to take off for 6 months or a year now?
It's easy for men to say that on a survey; they don't want to be
thought as not caring for their children. In the real world, men do
have to deal with the economic reality, and as you pointed out that's
harsher on average now than it was then.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > I think you're now arguing that because conditions have changed so
> > much since the industrial revolution, that now father's custody is
> > a good idea. That's a defensible position, it just contradicts that that
> > you seemed to be taking before.
>
> That argument that I used for father's custody is not my primary
> argument for it but is used to counter the feminist argument for
> mother's custody in an historical context.
Well, I guess we disagree here. It's not that bad, though, except for
your automatic father custody (which will never happen), our differene
here does not affect practical issues.
> > Personally, I don't want to have to make a decision on the matter, so
> > long as it's not used to further put more responsibility on men,
> > there's
> > nothing wrong with expanding father custody.
>
> Father's custody would give responsibility to men who want and deserve
> it. The ones who don't want or deserve it lose under any system
> whether the government is involved or not.
Fine, assuming 'lose' means 'lose the [alleged] joy of raising
children'.
Andrew Usher
Andre Lieven
> On Jul 5, 8:27 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > While that book is one of Farrel's more interesting books, it was
> > researched and written in the early 90's.
Considering that survey after survey shows that men have become MORE
willing and wanting to be involved with their children, the Farrell
numbers
can only have gone UP...
Of course, since women know that stay-at-home parenting is among the
EASIEST and most fulfilling gigs around, the idea that men would want
to
"horn in on women's easiest gig" is one that they, and their enablers
such
as the pair of you, cannot tolerate.
> > I wonder how the current
> > economic climate would change things. Would as many men be willing
> > to take off for 6 months or a year now?
>
> It's easy for men to say that on a survey; they don't want to be
> thought as not caring for their children.
Here's more proof of both of your misandry; You start from an
ASSumption
that when men say that they want to care for their children, that they
are
LYING.
Yet, you would NOT make that Equal ASSumption about women saying
that they want to care for their children.
That makes the pair of you proven misandristic sexist BIGOTS...
> In the real world, men do have to deal with the economic reality,
And, women don't ? Uh huh.
> and as you pointed out that's harsher on average now than it was then.
So, let the wives go out and EARN 50% of the household money.
Oh, I forgot, that's not the *fun* kind of "equality"...
Andre
Mark Borgerson
5cf3da...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, andre...@yahoo.ca says...
> On Jul 5, 10:30 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 8:27 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > While that book is one of Farrel's more interesting books, it was
> > > researched and written in the early 90's.
>
> Considering that survey after survey shows that men have become MORE
> willing and wanting to be involved with their children, the Farrell
> numbers
> can only have gone UP...
Got any cites that show that to be true in the last year?
>
> Of course, since women know that stay-at-home parenting is among the
> EASIEST and most fulfilling gigs around, the idea that men would want
> to
> "horn in on women's easiest gig" is one that they, and their enablers
> such
> as the pair of you, cannot tolerate.
I've been a 'work at home dad', while my wife has been a 'work away
from home' wife for the last 11 years. That hardly counts as
enabling in my book.
>
> > > I wonder how the current
> > > economic climate would change things. Would as many men be willing
> > > to take off for 6 months or a year now?
> >
> > It's easy for men to say that on a survey; they don't want to be
> > thought as not caring for their children.
>
> Here's more proof of both of your misandry; You start from an
> ASSumption
> that when men say that they want to care for their children, that they
> are
> LYING.
That's not my assumption. My question is whether as many men would
be willing to take off 6 months now as was the case in the
early 90's.
>
> Yet, you would NOT make that Equal ASSumption about women saying
> that they want to care for their children.
Why not. In my experience, some new mothers can hardly wait
to get back to work at the end of maternity leave.
>
> That makes the pair of you proven misandristic sexist BIGOTS...
>
> > In the real world, men do have to deal with the economic reality,
>
> And, women don't ? Uh huh.
They do---which is why the go back to work after having children.
>
> > and as you pointed out that's harsher on average now than it was then.
>
> So, let the wives go out and EARN 50% of the household money.
That's happening more often now that it was in the 90's.
>
> Oh, I forgot, that's not the *fun* kind of "equality"...
So, are you going out and EARNING 50% of your household money?
Is your wife doing so? Do you practice what you preach?
Mark Borgerson
Andre Lieven
> In article <c40400df-adfe-439f-bd8f-
> 5cf3daa5b...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, andrelie...@yahoo.ca says...
>
> > On Jul 5, 10:30 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 5, 8:27 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > While that book is one of Farrel's more interesting books, it was
> > > > researched and written in the early 90's.
>
> > Considering that survey after survey shows that men have become MORE
> > willing and wanting to be involved with their children, the Farrell
> > numbers can only have gone UP...
>
> Got any cites that show that to be true in the last year?
Got any cites that your and Andrew's misandrist ASSumptions were at
all true ?
I offered the Farrell material as a factual *rebuttal* to the pair of
your
*unsupported claims* that men didn't want to co-parent their kids,
which is pure anti father misandry.
Further, I note that you asked NO citations from Andrew for his
misandrist
claims. Hypocrite.
> > Of course, since women know that stay-at-home parenting is among the
> > EASIEST and most fulfilling gigs around, the idea that men would want
> > to "horn in on women's easiest gig" is one that they, and their enablers
> > such as the pair of you, cannot tolerate.
>
> I've been a 'work at home dad', while my wife has been a 'work away
> from home' wife for the last 11 years. That hardly counts as
> enabling in my book.
"The singular of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
One of these days, you may LEARN that truth, and, until you DO, your
prattlings all about yourself merely qualify you for the gossip page,
and
not for anything more substantial than that.
To quote Mark S., "you fight like a girl". And, not as a smart one.
> > > > I wonder how the current
> > > > economic climate would change things. Would as many men be
> > > > willing to take off for 6 months or a year now?
>
> > > It's easy for men to say that on a survey; they don't want to be
> > > thought as not caring for their children.
>
> > Here's more proof of both of your misandry; You start from an
> > ASSumption that when men say that they want to care for their children,
> > that they are LYING.
>
> That's not my assumption. My question is whether as many men
> would be willing to take off 6 months now as was the case in the
> early 90's.
Which is still a Bullshit answer, because, *if women stepped up to
the
same plate that so many of them demand that the man step up to*, then
more men would be in a position to both be as much a parent to their
children, while not costing their families any needed wages.
The men that Dr. Farrell asked this of, were all clear on the point
that
the First Burden of providing for their families was NOT being shared
equally, and that that *lack of wanted providing equality* on the part
of
women was a major reason why so few men had the SAH parenting
role available to them.
Choices are great; even when it is a choice for a man.
> > Yet, you would NOT make that Equal ASSumption about women saying
> > that they want to care for their children.
>
> Why not. In my experience, some new mothers can hardly wait
> to get back to work at the end of maternity leave.
Ibid "anecdote".
Meanwhile, in the Real World,
"Women aspire to be housewives - without any of the housework."
http://www.nomarriage.com/article_housewives.html
"And what we're seeing is a serious gender divide regarding women in
the
workplace. This time around, it is the women who want to stay at home
and
the men who want to keep them in the offices and factories."
Or: "Mummy, I want to be a housewife"
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=93431
26 April 1996 Catherine Hakim
Why is it that two decades after the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination
Acts many women are still turning their backs on careers and opting
to
stay at home? Catherine Hakim calls on feminists to get back in touch
with the needs of ordinary women and defends a woman's right to be a
housewife.
[...]
"One recurrent reaction was that my conclusions were self-evident -
so
why did feminists not know this? It was put to me that feminists,
academics and sociologists were out of touch with the real world,
out of touch with the lives of ordinary people."
He's talking about YOU, BDSG Borgerson...
Because you DON'T know that:
"Nine in ten working women want to quit to become housewives
by CHARLOTTE GILL Last updated at 00:01 24 October 2006
[...]
"Seventy per cent feel pressure to earn as much money as men."
Yet, who asks how many MEN 'feel pressure' to earn as much
money as (other) men ? You sure DON'T...
> > That makes the pair of you proven misandristic sexist BIGOTS...
>
> > > In the real world, men do have to deal with the economic reality,
>
> > And, women don't ? Uh huh.
>
> They do---which is why the go back to work after having children.
Unwillingly. Read the above cites, which show that you are flat out
WRONG.
> > > and as you pointed out that's harsher on average now than it was then.
>
> > So, let the wives go out and EARN 50% of the household money.
>
> That's happening more often now that it was in the 90's.
"What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
evidence."
Christopher Hitchens.
> > Oh, I forgot, that's not the *fun* kind of "equality"...
>
> So, are you going out and EARNING 50% of your household money?
> Is your wife doing so? Do you practice what you preach?
Once again, you confuse (Because you are willfully stupid, due to your
Women Firsterism -- More evidence that Feminism DOES cause brain
damage.) 'anecdotes' with 'evidence', when dealing with societal
trends.
My married life isn't any of your business. Deal with that, too.
Andre
Mark Borgerson
@g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, andre...@yahoo.ca says...
> On Jul 6, 2:58 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> Parg-ed:
> > In article <c40400df-adfe-439f-bd8f-
> > 5cf3daa5b...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, andrelie...@yahoo.ca says...
> >
> > > On Jul 5, 10:30 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 5, 8:27 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > While that book is one of Farrel's more interesting books, it was
> > > > > researched and written in the early 90's.
> >
> > > Considering that survey after survey shows that men have become MORE
> > > willing and wanting to be involved with their children, the Farrell
> > > numbers can only have gone UP...
> >
> > Got any cites that show that to be true in the last year?
>
> Got any cites that your and Andrew's misandrist ASSumptions were at
> all true ?
Not my assumptions at all? I just questioned your ASSumptions that
the data was as valid today as it was in the early 90s.
OTOH, I assume that most fathers want to be more involved in the raising
of their children. In my own case, I took steps to increase that
involvement.
>
> I offered the Farrell material as a factual *rebuttal* to the pair of
> your
> *unsupported claims* that men didn't want to co-parent their kids,
> which is pure anti father misandry.
>
> Further, I note that you asked NO citations from Andrew for his
> misandrist
> claims. Hypocrite.
He didn't provide any facts to start with---why should I expect
any more at this point. You, OTOH, provided a basis for factual
discussion. Why should I not ask you whether the data is still
relevant?
>
> > > Of course, since women know that stay-at-home parenting is among the
> > > EASIEST and most fulfilling gigs around, the idea that men would want
> > > to "horn in on women's easiest gig" is one that they, and their enablers
> > > such as the pair of you, cannot tolerate.
> >
> > I've been a 'work at home dad', while my wife has been a 'work away
> > from home' wife for the last 11 years. That hardly counts as
> > enabling in my book.
>
> "The singular of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
But the plural of 'anecdote' is 'statistics'---which is what you
cited in the case of Farrel! ;-)
>
> One of these days, you may LEARN that truth, and, until you DO, your
> prattlings all about yourself merely qualify you for the gossip page,
> and
> not for anything more substantial than that.
>
> To quote Mark S., "you fight like a girl". And, not as a smart one.
Wow! Thanks for that elevation of the quality of debate! Otoh,
that was an anecdote---not a citation!
>
> > > > > I wonder how the current
> > > > > economic climate would change things. Would as many men be
> > > > > willing to take off for 6 months or a year now?
> >
> > > > It's easy for men to say that on a survey; they don't want to be
> > > > thought as not caring for their children.
> >
> > > Here's more proof of both of your misandry; You start from an
> > > ASSumption that when men say that they want to care for their children,
> > > that they are LYING.
> >
> > That's not my assumption. My question is whether as many men
> > would be willing to take off 6 months now as was the case in the
> > early 90's.
>
> Which is still a Bullshit answer, because, *if women stepped up to
> the
> same plate that so many of them demand that the man step up to*, then
> more men would be in a position to both be as much a parent to their
> children, while not costing their families any needed wages.
Are you unable to tell the difference between questions and
answers? The economy has changed since the early 90's?
How do think the attitude of fathers toward spending time
with their children has changed? Do you think the economic
downturn has changed the balance between economic responsibility
and the desire to spend time with their children?
One thing that may have an effect: Men have lost their jobs in this
economy more often than women. Amongst the newly-unemployed are
a number of fathers who may now be spending a lot more time
with their children. Do you think that time spent the kids will affect
their choice their next job---with the goal of finding a job that
allows more family time?
>
> The men that Dr. Farrell asked this of, were all clear on the point
> that
> the First Burden of providing for their families was NOT being shared
> equally, and that that *lack of wanted providing equality* on the part
> of
> women was a major reason why so few men had the SAH parenting
> role available to them.
Wow----does that mean that, in the early 90's, Farrell was unable
to find a single man whose wife earned more than him?
In a truly random sample of 10,000, that would seem unlikely---
in that he never found an unemployed man whose wife was
supporting the family. Or have you once again, in
a fit of hyperbole, translated Farrell's "most of the
men I interviewed" into "all were clear". In any
case, if Farrell selected the men for interview, the
results may be statistically invalid.
You've got your converse question wrong. Shouldn't it be
" Yet, who asks how many MEN 'feel pressure' to earn as much
money as women ? " To that question, I think the answer
is 'quite a lot'.
> > > That makes the pair of you proven misandristic sexist BIGOTS...
> >
> > > > In the real world, men do have to deal with the economic reality,
> >
> > > And, women don't ? Uh huh.
> >
> > They do---which is why the go back to work after having children.
>
> Unwillingly. Read the above cites, which show that you are flat out
> WRONG.
Do you think men go to work willingly? Or, like women, do they
go to work out of economic necessity?
>
> > > > and as you pointed out that's harsher on average now than it was then.
> >
> > > So, let the wives go out and EARN 50% of the household money.
> >
> > That's happening more often now that it was in the 90's.
>
> "What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
> evidence."
> Christopher Hitchens.
>
> > > Oh, I forgot, that's not the *fun* kind of "equality"...
> >
> > So, are you going out and EARNING 50% of your household money?
> > Is your wife doing so? Do you practice what you preach?
>
> Once again, you confuse (Because you are willfully stupid, due to your
> Women Firsterism -- More evidence that Feminism DOES cause brain
> damage.) 'anecdotes' with 'evidence', when dealing with societal
> trends.
>
> My married life isn't any of your business. Deal with that, too.
OK. So you feel free to discuss the married life and working
roles of others, but not your own. That leads to the question
of whether your own experience would be simply a positive
anecdote or a statistical anomaly.
Nice to see I've climbed out of your killfile again, though! ;-)
There was getting to hardly anything but KRaP postings.
Mark Borgerson
Andre Lieven
> In article <0baccea8-7929-4cb8-9b21-3f3ad3e3c286
> @g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, andrelie...@yahoo.ca says...
>
> > On Jul 6, 2:58 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> Parg-ed:
> > > In article <c40400df-adfe-439f-bd8f-
> > > 5cf3daa5b...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, andrelie...@yahoo.ca says...
>
> > > > On Jul 5, 10:30 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 5, 8:27 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > While that book is one of Farrel's more interesting books, it was
> > > > > > researched and written in the early 90's.
>
> > > > Considering that survey after survey shows that men have become MORE
> > > > willing and wanting to be involved with their children, the Farrell
> > > > numbers can only have gone UP...
>
> > > Got any cites that show that to be true in the last year?
>
> > Got any cites that your and Andrew's misandrist ASSumptions were at
> > all true ?
>
> Not my assumptions at all? I just questioned your ASSumptions that
> the data was as valid today as it was in the early 90s.
Which, if you are UNable to provide any actual data otherwise, is just
you jerking off. Again.
> OTOH, I assume that most fathers want to be more involved in the raising
> of their children. In my own case, I took steps to increase that
> involvement.
"As Carly Simon wrote, this song ain't all about you." Jon Stewart.
> > I offered the Farrell material as a factual *rebuttal* to the pair of
> > your *unsupported claims* that men didn't want to co-parent their kids,
> > which is pure anti father misandry.
>
> > Further, I note that you asked NO citations from Andrew for his
> > misandrist claims. Hypocrite.
>
> He didn't provide any facts to start with
NEITHER DID YOU. Duh.
>---why should I expect
> any more at this point. You, OTOH, provided a basis for factual
> discussion. Why should I not ask you whether the data is still
> relevant?
If you wish to question it, then YOU need to provide data with which
to
try to refute it.
It is NOT my job to do YOUR homework, you lazy wanker.
> > > > Of course, since women know that stay-at-home parenting is among the
> > > > EASIEST and most fulfilling gigs around, the idea that men would want
> > > > to "horn in on women's easiest gig" is one that they, and their enablers
> > > > such as the pair of you, cannot tolerate.
>
> > > I've been a 'work at home dad', while my wife has been a 'work away
> > > from home' wife for the last 11 years. That hardly counts as
> > > enabling in my book.
>
> > "The singular of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
>
> But the plural of 'anecdote' is 'statistics'---which is what you
> cited in the case of Farrel! ;-)
So, you are congenitally UNable to differentiate between 10,000 and
you.
Seek professional mental health care for your gross narcissism.
> > One of these days, you may LEARN that truth, and, until you DO, your
> > prattlings all about yourself merely qualify you for the gossip page,
> > and not for anything more substantial than that.
>
> > To quote Mark S., "you fight like a girl". And, not as a smart one.
>
> Wow! Thanks for that elevation of the quality of debate! Otoh,
> that was an anecdote---not a citation!
More stupidity from BDSG Borgerson. Anecdotes are useful when dealing
with THE ONE person that they are about.
Fuck, but you ARE stoopid. And, that's just a statement of fact; DEal
with it.
> > > > > > I wonder how the current
> > > > > > economic climate would change things. Would as many men be
> > > > > > willing to take off for 6 months or a year now?
>
> > > > > It's easy for men to say that on a survey; they don't want to be
> > > > > thought as not caring for their children.
>
> > > > Here's more proof of both of your misandry; You start from an
> > > > ASSumption that when men say that they want to care for their children,
> > > > that they are LYING.
>
> > > That's not my assumption. My question is whether as many men
> > > would be willing to take off 6 months now as was the case in the
> > > early 90's.
>
> > Which is still a Bullshit answer, because, *if women stepped up to
> > the
> > same plate that so many of them demand that the man step up to*, then
> > more men would be in a position to both be as much a parent to their
> > children, while not costing their families any needed wages.
>
> Are you unable to tell the difference between questions and
> answers?
"80% of questions are statements in disguise." Dr. Phil.
> The economy has changed since the early 90's?
So, if YOU wish to claim that that change has affected, adversely,
the population of fathers who would want to care for their children,
THEN THAT IS YOUR CLAIM TO SUPPORT.
Yet, you offer NOTHING in support of it.
That's because you are a narcissistic sexist bigot lazy moron.
> How do think the attitude of fathers toward spending time
> with their children has changed? Do you think the economic
> downturn has changed the balance between economic responsibility
> and the desire to spend time with their children?
No.
> One thing that may have an effect: Men have lost their jobs in this
> economy more often than women. Amongst the newly-unemployed are
> a number of fathers who may now be spending a lot more time
> with their children. Do you think that time spent the kids will affect
> their choice their next job---with the goal of finding a job that
> allows more family time?
Not as much as it should, were women willing and ready to Step Up
to provide for their families Equally...
> > The men that Dr. Farrell asked this of, were all clear on the point
> > that
> > the First Burden of providing for their families was NOT being shared
> > equally, and that that *lack of wanted providing equality* on the part
> > of women was a major reason why so few men had the SAH parenting
> > role available to them.
>
> Wow----does that mean that, in the early 90's, Farrell was unable
> to find a single man whose wife earned more than him?
Irrelevent. Once again, you focus on anecdotal fantasies. The mark
of the true moron.
> In a truly random sample of 10,000, that would seem unlikely---
> in that he never found an unemployed man whose wife was
> supporting the family. Or have you once again, in
> a fit of hyperbole, translated Farrell's "most of the
> men I interviewed" into "all were clear". In any
> case, if Farrell selected the men for interview, the
> results may be statistically invalid.
"if", "may", all of which mean You Don't Know, And Can't Be Bothered
To Actually Find Out For Yourself.
You are a lazy sod. Do your own homework.
The MS-ing part of that question is, of course, how many men are under
that
pressure *due to the demands of women* ?
From "Asker Pays (aka "meal hos") onwards, most women make it more
than
clear that they are NOT up to covering 50% of the cash needs of their
families.
> > > > That makes the pair of you proven misandristic sexist BIGOTS...
>
> > > > > In the real world, men do have to deal with the economic reality,
>
> > > > And, women don't ? Uh huh.
>
> > > They do---which is why the go back to work after having children.
>
> > Unwillingly. Read the above cites, which show that you are flat out
> > WRONG.
>
> Do you think men go to work willingly?
<Laughs> If you really have to ask that question, then it is more than
clear that you Just Have No Clue At All...
Look up "white feather" sometime...
"In August 1914, at the start of the First World War, Admiral Charles
Fitzgerald founded the Order of the White Feather with support from
the prominent author Mrs Humphrey Ward. The organisation aimed to
coerce men to enlist in the British Army by persuading women to
present them with a white feather if they were not wearing a uniform.
[1]"
Are you honestly so willfully ignorant as to be UNable to consider
that
most men who work and support others, don't see that they have any
real choice about it at all ?
In all this femi-mania about "women's limited choices", morons such as
you spare not a second to the reality that 99% of men don't even have
as
much real life choice as women did 50 years ago, never mind as women
have NOW.
> Or, like women, do they go to work out of economic necessity?
ROTFLMAO ! Women work out of "economic necessity". That's hysterical,
though deeply ignorant and stoopid.
Borgerson, study after study shows that women CONTROL 85% of all
discretionary consumer spending. So, if women want to reduce their
"necessity" to work, they could SPEND LESS...
Man, you just can't put the pieces together even a little bit. Moron.
> > > > > and as you pointed out that's harsher on average now than it was then.
>
> > > > So, let the wives go out and EARN 50% of the household money.
>
> > > That's happening more often now that it was in the 90's.
>
> > "What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
> > evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
Thus, your claim 100% Epic Failed. Yet, you haven't got the moral
honesty to withdraw it. Hypocrite.
> > > > Oh, I forgot, that's not the *fun* kind of "equality"...
>
> > > So, are you going out and EARNING 50% of your household money?
> > > Is your wife doing so? Do you practice what you preach?
>
> > Once again, you confuse (Because you are willfully stupid, due to your
> > Women Firsterism -- More evidence that Feminism DOES cause brain
> > damage.) 'anecdotes' with 'evidence', when dealing with societal
> > trends.
>
> > My married life isn't any of your business. Deal with that, too.
>
> OK. So you feel free to discuss the married life and working
> roles of others, but not your own. That leads to the question
> of whether your own experience would be simply a positive
> anecdote or a statistical anomaly.
<yawn> Since the issues I am speaking of are wide such as to make
ANY single anecdotes 100% meaningless, your pitiful attempts to
focus on them, about me, and not about your totally factless
ASSumptions
that led you to total stupidity. Again.
I find the question of why are you such a pussywhipped ignorant sexist
wanker to be of more interest, and of more *relevance* to this NG...
Andre
Mark Borgerson
@h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, andre...@yahoo.ca says...
Aha. So in your world, nobody gets to ask a question unless they
already know the answer. Why bother discussing an issue if you
already know all the answers?
Once again you avoid answering any questions.
Well, of course that doesn't apply in the case where men or women cover
ALL the needs of their families.
Single women working full time might disagree with you.
>
> Borgerson, study after study shows that women CONTROL 85% of all
> discretionary consumer spending. So, if women want to reduce their
> "necessity" to work, they could SPEND LESS...
Study after study???? I've seen several references to one study--
from many years ago. Can you support that 'study after study' statement
or are blowing smoke? You made the 'study after study' claim. You
get to support it.
You ignore the fact that even an anecdote is a valid data point.
What was Farrell's study except a collection of anecdotes?
You make ASSumptions about me based on what you've read in this
NG. Why shouldn't I ask questions about you base on what I've
read here? After all, the answers might lead to a better understanding
of your position and attitude.
> I find the question of why are you such a pussywhipped ignorant sexist
> wanker to be of more interest, and of more *relevance* to this NG...
>
This newsgroup needs help, then.
Should we take a vote, then? How many people want to know
whether Andre contributes more than 50% of the earned income
in his family?
Results so far:
1 for (me)
1 disqualified (Andre already knows the answer)
unknown number of abstentions.
Andre Lieven
> In article <3fd7a4c1-4259-4607-8d10-f5689e221354
> @h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, andrelie...@yahoo.ca says...
No. But, clearly, in your world of misandrist loons, ONLY those who
don't kiss women's asses are "questioned".
> Why bother discussing an issue if you already know all the answers?
"Discussion" requires each participant to BRING SOME USEFUL
KNOWLEDGE TO THE TABLE.
You only bring pussy whipped wanking. QED.
> > It is NOT my job to do YOUR homework, you lazy wanker.
>
> > > > > > Of course, since women know that stay-at-home parenting is among the
> > > > > > EASIEST and most fulfilling gigs around, the idea that men would want
> > > > > > to "horn in on women's easiest gig" is one that they, and their enablers
> > > > > > such as the pair of you, cannot tolerate.
>
> > > > > I've been a 'work at home dad', while my wife has been a 'work away
> > > > > from home' wife for the last 11 years. That hardly counts as
> > > > > enabling in my book.
>
> > > > "The singular of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "
>
> > > But the plural of 'anecdote' is 'statistics'---which is what you
> > > cited in the case of Farrel! ;-)
>
> > So, you are congenitally UNable to differentiate between 10,000 and
> > you.
>
> > Seek professional mental health care for your gross narcissism.
Like yesterday...
> > > > One of these days, you may LEARN that truth, and, until you DO, your
> > > > prattlings all about yourself merely qualify you for the gossip page,
> > > > and not for anything more substantial than that.
>
> > > > To quote Mark S., "you fight like a girl". And, not as a smart one.
>
> > > Wow! Thanks for that elevation of the quality of debate! Otoh,
> > > that was an anecdote---not a citation!
>
> > More stupidity from BDSG Borgerson. Anecdotes are useful when dealing
> > with THE ONE person that they are about.
>
> > Fuck, but you ARE stoopid. And, that's just a statement of fact; Deal
Once again, you try to get others to DO YOUR work FOR you...
Sod that. If you wish to dispute my fact supported statements, then
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH first, and then PRESENT YOUR HOMEWORK.
Gads, you are thicker than a 2nd Grader...
<Laughs> No, it applies to ALL families where women either 1) Fail to
provide 50% of the needed resources, or 2), spend more than 50% of the
money.
Between both categories, I would say that that covers about 90% of
all NAm families.
> > > > > > That makes the pair of you proven misandristic sexist BIGOTS...
>
> > > > > > > In the real world, men do have to deal with the economic reality,
>
> > > > > > And, women don't ? Uh huh.
>
> > > > > They do---which is why the go back to work after having children.
>
> > > > Unwillingly. Read the above cites, which show that you are flat out
> > > > WRONG.
>
> > > Do you think men go to work willingly?
>
> > <Laughs> If you really have to ask that question, then it is more than
> > clear that you Just Have No Clue At All...
>
> > Look up "white feather" sometime...
>
> > "In August 1914, at the start of the First World War, Admiral Charles
> > Fitzgerald founded the Order of the White Feather with support from
> > the prominent author Mrs Humphrey Ward. The organisation aimed to
> > coerce men to enlist in the British Army by persuading women to
> > present them with a white feather if they were not wearing a uniform.
> > [1]"
>
> > Are you honestly so willfully ignorant as to be UNable to consider
> > that most men who work and support others, don't see that they
> > have any real choice about it at all ?
>
> > In all this femi-mania about "women's limited choices", morons such as
> > you spare not a second to the reality that 99% of men don't even have
> > as much real life choice as women did 50 years ago, never mind as
> > women have NOW.
Your total Inability to address this issue, shows that you ARE a
misandrist
bigot, who cares not one whit for any men at all.
> > > Or, like women, do they go to work out of economic necessity?
>
> > ROTFLMAO ! Women work out of "economic necessity". That's hysterical,
> > though deeply ignorant and stoopid.
>
> Single women working full time might disagree with you.
So ? Morons working for pin money, all the while freeloading off of
men, off of society, and off of their parents, are of no interest to
me
at all, and are beneath my contempt.
Tell us again, BDSG, about all the brave women who ran INTO the
WTC towers that day... All NONE of them...
> > Borgerson, study after study shows that women CONTROL 85% of all
> > discretionary consumer spending. So, if women want to reduce their
> > "necessity" to work, they could SPEND LESS...
>
> Study after study????
Yes.
> I've seen several references to one study-- from many years ago.
Then, you further cement your willful moron status.
Just Googling "women 85% consumer spending" gets 147,000
hits.
Women make over 85% of the consumer purchases in the United States.
The Six Costliest Mistakes You Can Make in Marketing to Women
by Andrea Learned
Published on May 21, 2002
1. Mistake: Thinking that women are a “niche.”
Reality: Women are the primary consumers in the US.
Women represent an economic powerhouse, making over 85% of the
consumer
purchases (in the US) and influencing over 95% of total goods and
services.1
Women’s consumer spending is $3.7 trillion and business spending is
$1.5
trillion.2 Women also purchase 50 percent or better in traditional
“male”
categories like automobiles, consumer electronics and PCs.
Over the next decade, women will control two thirds of consumer wealth
in the
United States and be the beneficiaries of the largest transference of
wealth in
our country’s history. Estimates range from $12 to $40 trillion. Many
Boomer
women will experience a double inheritance windfall, from both parents
and
husband.
There are myriads of books, available on amazon.com, that cover this.
http://www.amazon.com/85%25-Niche-Power-Women-Colors-Latina/dp/0980174554
Marketing to Women: How to Understand, Reach, and Increase Your Share
of
the World's Largest Market Segment (Hardcover) by Marti Barletta
One of her standout case studies is Lowe's Home Improvement Stores.
In the "men's world" of home improvement, women actually make most
purchases (over 60%) and drive 80% of them.
------------
The three dimensions of your willful IGNORANCE in this field are
immense.
> Can you support that 'study after study' statement
> or are blowing smoke? You made the 'study after study' claim. You
> get to support it.
Read above, oh hypocritical sexist moron.
> > Man, you just can't put the pieces together even a little bit. Moron.
>
> > > > > > > and as you pointed out that's harsher on average now than it was then.
>
> > > > > > So, let the wives go out and EARN 50% of the household money.
>
> > > > > That's happening more often now that it was in the 90's.
>
> > > > "What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
> > > > evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
>
> > Thus, your claim 100% Epic Failed. Yet, you haven't got the moral
> > honesty to withdraw it. Hypocrite.
Your further refusal to address, much less make amends for your
idiotic hypocrisy just marks your character as being lower than a
NOW President...
> > > > > > Oh, I forgot, that's not the *fun* kind of "equality"...
>
> > > > > So, are you going out and EARNING 50% of your household money?
> > > > > Is your wife doing so? Do you practice what you preach?
>
> > > > Once again, you confuse (Because you are willfully stupid, due to your
> > > > Women Firsterism -- More evidence that Feminism DOES cause brain
> > > > damage.) 'anecdotes' with 'evidence', when dealing with societal
> > > > trends.
>
> > > > My married life isn't any of your business. Deal with that, too.
>
> > > OK. So you feel free to discuss the married life and working
> > > roles of others, but not your own. That leads to the question
> > > of whether your own experience would be simply a positive
> > > anecdote or a statistical anomaly.
>
> > <yawn> Since the issues I am speaking of are wide such as to make
> > ANY single anecdotes 100% meaningless, your pitiful attempts to
> > focus on them, about me, and not about your totally factless
> > ASSumptions that led you to total stupidity. Again.
>
> You ignore the fact that even an anecdote is a valid data point.
And, one "data point", by itself means... NOTHING. Duh.
> What was Farrell's study except a collection of anecdotes?
10,000 men are of far more significance to an issue about men than
one
(you) pussy-whipped femi-cowshitter...
> You make ASSumptions about me based on what you've read in this
> NG.
No, I draw actual conclusions, based on what others such as you,
choose to say. Deal with it.
> Why shouldn't I ask questions about you base on what I've
> read here?
Because your "questions" start from a position of willful ignorance,
and are passive aggressive statements that you are too much of a
coward to ever present openly and honestly.
> After all, the answers might lead to a better understanding
> of your position and attitude.
<shrug> If you need gossip about your teacher to learn the
lesson, then you really SUCK at being a student above the
level of grade 2...
> > I find the question of why are you such a pussywhipped ignorant sexist
> > wanker to be of more interest, and of more *relevance* to this NG...
>
> This newsgroup needs help, then.
Yes, it does. But, NOT from a pussy-whipped sexist hypocrite such
as yourself.
> Should we take a vote, then? How many people want to know
> whether Andre contributes more than 50% of the earned income
> in his family?
<Yawn> See, BDSG, only ONE person gets a vote over my personal
life.
If you want to TRY to EARN a vote with me, the starting Entry Fee
is $4,000 US per month, in cash.
Until you provide that, your "votes" mean about as much as the
vote of a illegal immigrant to the US trying to vote in a US Federal
election...
> Results so far:
>
> 1 for (me)
Actual count of *qualified* voters: Zero.
> 1 disqualified (Andre already knows the answer)
Correction: Only One *qualified* vote votes no, thus the final
tally is 1-0.
> unknown number of abstentions.
Correction: Unknown and irrelevant number of unqualified voyeurs.
> > Andre
>
> > > Nice to see I've climbed out of your killfile again, though! ;-)
>
> > > There was getting to hardly anything but KRaP postings.
Then, stop posting your sexist and ignorant krap. Duh.
Andre
Mark Borgerson
@c1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, andre...@yahoo.ca says...
>
> Reality: Women are the primary consumers in the US.
>
> Women represent an economic powerhouse, making over 85% of the
> consumer
> purchases (in the US) and influencing over 95% of total goods and
> services.1
> $1.5
> trillion.2 Women also purchase 50 percent or better in traditional
> categories like automobiles, consumer electronics and PCs.
>
> Over the next decade, women will control two thirds of consumer wealth
> in the
> United States and be the beneficiaries of the largest transference of
> wealth in
> Boomer
> women will experience a double inheritance windfall, from both parents
> and
> husband.
Congratulations. You've just provided yet another link to one of those
cites that quotes spending numbers without any attribution of the
data sources.
>
> There are myriads of books, available on amazon.com, that cover this.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/85%25-Niche-Power-Women-Colors-Latina/dp/0980174554
>
> Marketing to Women: How to Understand, Reach, and Increase Your Share
> of
> the World's Largest Market Segment (Hardcover) by Marti Barletta
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Women-Understand-Increase-Largest/dp/1419520199/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246931606&sr=1-1
>
> One of her standout case studies is Lowe's Home Improvement Stores.
> In the "men's world" of home improvement, women actually make most
> purchases (over 60%) and drive 80% of them.
> ------------
None of these sources seem able to explain who is making the consumer
purchasing desisions for all the unmarried men living alone
in the US.
http://www.census.gov/Press-
Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/002265
.html
All the cites you've provided seem to be from organizations trying
to market themselves to women-oriented advertisers. That hardly
makes them objective sources.
Ah, so is it your wife or yourself that has no vote in your
personal life?
>
> If you want to TRY to EARN a vote with me, the starting Entry Fee
> is $4,000 US per month, in cash.
>
> Until you provide that, your "votes" mean about as much as the
> vote of a illegal immigrant to the US trying to vote in a US Federal
> election...
>
> > Results so far:
> >
> > 1 for (me)
>
> Actual count of *qualified* voters: Zero.
>
> > 1 disqualified (Andre already knows the answer)
>
> Correction: Only One *qualified* vote votes no, thus the final
> tally is 1-0.
>
> > unknown number of abstentions.
>
> Correction: Unknown and irrelevant number of unqualified voyeurs.
>
> > > Andre
> >
> > > > Nice to see I've climbed out of your killfile again, though! ;-)
> >
> > > > There was getting to hardly anything but KRaP postings.
>
> Then, stop posting your sexist and ignorant krap. Duh.
>
Mark Borgerson
Andre Lieven
> In article <16db1fb0-8756-42d1-941a-c30c0f48c854
> @c1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, andrelie...@yahoo.ca says...
No refutation even attempted ? Excellent, my factual point stands,
and
you AGREE that you are a pussy-whipped wanker.
No refutation even attempted ? Excellent, my factual point stands,
and
you AGREE that you are a lazy dumb bastard.
No refutation even attempted ? Excellent, my factual points stand.
Once again, yo0ur REFUSAL to even acknowledge this issue, much less
address it, PROVES your sexist misandry.
> > > > > Or, like women, do they go to work out of economic necessity?
>
> > > > ROTFLMAO ! Women work out of "economic necessity". That's hysterical,
> > > > though deeply ignorant and stoopid.
>
> > > Single women working full time might disagree with you.
>
> > So ? Morons working for pin money, all the while freeloading off of
> > men, off of society, and off of their parents, are of no interest to
> > me at all, and are beneath my contempt.
>
> > Tell us again, BDSG, about all the brave women who ran INTO the
> > WTC towers that day... All NONE of them...
Your IN-ability to address this issue PROVES that even you know that
women do NOT do 50% of most of the difficult jobs of society.
> > > > Borgerson, study after study shows that women CONTROL 85% of all
> > > > discretionary consumer spending. So, if women want to reduce their
> > > > "necessity" to work, they could SPEND LESS...
>
> > > Study after study????
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > I've seen several references to one study-- from many years ago.
>
> > Then, you further cement your willful moron status.
>
> > Just Googling "women 85% consumer spending" gets 147,000
> > hits.
>
> >http://dontmarry.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/women-make-over-85-of-the-c...
>
> > Women make over 85% of the consumer purchases in the United States.
>
> > The Six Costliest Mistakes You Can Make in Marketing to Women
> > by Andrea Learned
> > Published on May 21, 2002
>
> > 1. Mistake: Thinking that women are a =3Fniche.=3F
>
> > Reality: Women are the primary consumers in the US.
>
> > Women represent an economic powerhouse, making over 85% of the
> > consumer purchases (in the US) and influencing over 95% of total goods
> > and services.1
> > Women's consumer spending is $3.7 trillion and business spending is
> > $1.5 trillion.2 Women also purchase 50 percent or better in traditional
> > male categories like automobiles, consumer electronics and PCs.
>
> > Over the next decade, women will control two thirds of consumer wealth
> > in the United States and be the beneficiaries of the largest transference of
> > wealth in our country's history. Estimates range from $12 to $40 trillion.
> > Many Boomer women will experience a double inheritance windfall, from
> > both parents and husband.
>
> Congratulations. You've just provided yet another link to one of those
> cites that quotes spending numbers without any attribution of the
> data sources.
So ? Your HYPOCRISY shows itself again, because you ONLY demand
such "attributation" from those whose views you CANNOT refute/debate.
Read the cited books, you foolish moron; They contain plenty of
"attributations".
> > There are myriads of books, available on amazon.com, that cover this.
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/85%25-Niche-Power-Women-Colors-Latina/dp/098017...
>
> > Marketing to Women: How to Understand, Reach, and Increase Your Share
> > of the World's Largest Market Segment (Hardcover) by Marti Barletta
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Women-Understand-Increase-Largest/dp/...
>
> > One of her standout case studies is Lowe's Home Improvement Stores.
> > In the "men's world" of home improvement, women actually make most
> > purchases (over 60%) and drive 80% of them.
> > ------------
>
> None of these sources seem able to explain who is making the consumer
> purchasing desisions for all the unmarried men living alone
> in the US.
So, it is your insane ASSertion that NO unmarried men have
girlfriends/
fiancees, etc ?
Well, we can safely add insanity to the very long list of moronic
pathologies
of yours...
> http://www.census.gov/Press-
> Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/002265
> .html
>
> All the cites you've provided seem to be from organizations trying
> to market themselves to women-oriented advertisers. That hardly
> makes them objective sources.
<Laughs> Yes, because people trying to make money marketing are
well known for using false data, because that way, they can earn far
more money from their *bankruptcies*...
Gads, you ARE a thicky.
> > The three dimensions of your willful IGNORANCE in this field are
> > immense.
And, still growing in all three directions...
> > > Can you support that 'study after study' statement
> > > or are blowing smoke? You made the 'study after study' claim. You
> > > get to support it.
>
> > Read above, oh hypocritical sexist moron.
>
> > > > Man, you just can't put the pieces together even a little bit. Moron.
>
> > > > > > > > > and as you pointed out that's harsher on average now than it was then.
>
> > > > > > > > So, let the wives go out and EARN 50% of the household money.
>
> > > > > > > That's happening more often now that it was in the 90's.
>
> > > > > > "What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without
> > > > > > evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
>
> > > > Thus, your claim 100% Epic Failed. Yet, you haven't got the moral
> > > > honesty to withdraw it. Hypocrite.
>
> > Your further refusal to address, much less make amends for your
> > idiotic hypocrisy just marks your character as being lower than a
> > NOW President...
No refutation even attempted ? Good, then we agree on the fact that
you
ARE a sexist BIGOT moron of sucky character.
> > > > > > > > Oh, I forgot, that's not the *fun* kind of "equality"...
>
> > > > > > > So, are you going out and EARNING 50% of your household money?
> > > > > > > Is your wife doing so? Do you practice what you preach?
>
> > > > > > Once again, you confuse (Because you are willfully stupid, due to your
> > > > > > Women Firsterism -- More evidence that Feminism DOES cause brain
> > > > > > damage.) 'anecdotes' with 'evidence', when dealing with societal
> > > > > > trends.
>
> > > > > > My married life isn't any of your business. Deal with that, too.
>
> > > > > OK. So you feel free to discuss the married life and working
> > > > > roles of others, but not your own. That leads to the question
> > > > > of whether your own experience would be simply a positive
> > > > > anecdote or a statistical anomaly.
>
> > > > <yawn> Since the issues I am speaking of are wide such as to make
> > > > ANY single anecdotes 100% meaningless, your pitiful attempts to
> > > > focus on them, about me, and not about your totally factless
> > > > ASSumptions that led you to total stupidity. Again.
>
> > > You ignore the fact that even an anecdote is a valid data point.
>
> > And, one "data point", by itself means... NOTHING. Duh.
No refutation even attempted ? Excellent, I accept your concession
that an anecdote is NOT data.
> > > What was Farrell's study except a collection of anecdotes?
>
> > 10,000 men are of far more significance to an issue about men than
> > one
> > (you) pussy-whipped femi-cowshitter...
>
> > > You make ASSumptions about me based on what you've read in this
> > > NG.
>
> > No, I draw actual conclusions, based on what others such as you,
> > choose to say. Deal with it.
>
> > > Why shouldn't I ask questions about you base on what I've
> > > read here?
>
> > Because your "questions" start from a position of willful ignorance,
> > and are passive aggressive statements that you are too much of a
> > coward to ever present openly and honestly.
No refutation even attempted ? Excellent, you agree that your
"questions" are of the lowest form of dishonest passive agressive
behavior.
> > > After all, the answers might lead to a better understanding
> > > of your position and attitude.
>
> > <shrug> If you need gossip about your teacher to learn the
> > lesson, then you really SUCK at being a student above the
> > level of grade 2...
>
> > > > I find the question of why are you such a pussywhipped ignorant sexist
> > > > wanker to be of more interest, and of more *relevance* to this NG...
>
> > > This newsgroup needs help, then.
>
> > Yes, it does. But, NOT from a pussy-whipped sexist hypocrite such
> > as yourself.
>
> > > Should we take a vote, then? How many people want to know
> > > whether Andre contributes more than 50% of the earned income
> > > in his family?
>
> > <Yawn> See, BDSG, only ONE person gets a vote over my personal
> > life.
>
> Ah, so is it your wife or yourself that has no vote in your
> personal life?
My statement stands. The details about it AREN'T any of your
business. Deal with that fact.
> > If you want to TRY to EARN a vote with me, the starting Entry Fee
> > is $4,000 US per month, in cash.
>
> > Until you provide that, your "votes" mean about as much as the
> > vote of a illegal immigrant to the US trying to vote in a US Federal
> > election...
No refutation even attempted ? Excellent, then you agree that you, and
everyone else who is not me, have AbZero standing from which to "vote"
on acquiring personal information about my life.
So, you acknowledge that you ARE a gossipy useless git.
> > > Results so far:
>
> > > 1 for (me)
>
> > Actual count of *qualified* voters: Zero.
>
> > > 1 disqualified (Andre already knows the answer)
>
> > Correction: Only One *qualified* vote votes no, thus the final
> > tally is 1-0.
>
> > > unknown number of abstentions.
>
> > Correction: Unknown and irrelevant number of unqualified voyeurs.
>
> > > > Andre
>
> > > > > Nice to see I've climbed out of your killfile again, though! ;-)
>
> > > > > There was getting to hardly anything but KRaP postings.
>
> > Then, stop posting your sexist and ignorant krap. Duh.
Clearly, you still have NOT learned this vital lesson.
Andre
Mark Borgerson
@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, andre...@yahoo.ca says...
<SNIP Ad-homs and information-free text>
> > > <Yawn> See, BDSG, only ONE person gets a vote over my personal
> > > life.
> >
> > Ah, so is it your wife or yourself that has no vote in your
> > personal life?
>
> My statement stands. The details about it AREN'T any of your
> business. Deal with that fact.
OK. Your statement stands. Either you or your wife doesn't get
a vote in your personal life. I don't particularly care which
of you doesn't get to vote. I just find it interesting that one
of you has no say in your personal life.
I suspect I find it easier to deal with than the disenfranchised
partner in your marriage. Perhaps you should both spend
some quality time with Dr. Phil! ;-)
Aha---there could be another explanation. Perhaps one of you is less
than a complete person and the other gets a partial vote to make the
total add up to one! ;-)
<snip more information-free text and ad-homs. I suppose that discussing
the joys and responsibilities of fatherhood with a person who has no
children was bound to end up this way.>
Mark Borgerson
Andre Lieven
again:
> In article <b58200d3-8309-4dcb-b8e9-39495286a877
> @x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, andrelie...@yahoo.ca says...
>
> <SNIP Ad-homs and information-free text>
>
> > > > <Yawn> See, BDSG, only ONE person gets a vote over my personal
> > > > life.
>
> > > Ah, so is it your wife or yourself that has no vote in your
> > > personal life?
>
> > My statement stands. The details about it AREN'T any of your
> > business. Deal with that fact.
>
> OK. Your statement stands. Either you or your wife doesn't get
> a vote in your personal life.
Were you dropped on your head as a small child ? Because you are
a massive thicky.
No, the one person who gets a vote on my life is ME. Period.
A 4 year old can grasp this, so why are you willfully *stoopider*
than a 4 year old ?
Please turn in your driver's license immediately, and make sure
that your wife can get a divorce, because it likely isn't legal to be
married to a massive retard in your state...
> I don't particularly care which
> of you doesn't get to vote. I just find it interesting that one
> of you has no say in your personal life.
A "say" and a "vote" are two different things. But, because you
are a massive retard, you don't grasp that those two words are
different for a reason...
> I suspect I find it easier to deal with than the disenfranchised
> partner in your marriage. Perhaps you should both spend
> some quality time with Dr. Phil! ;-)
<Massive Retard Projection>
> Aha---there could be another explanation. Perhaps one of you is less
> than a complete person and the other gets a partial vote to make the
> total add up to one! ;-)
Or, the simpler one: You are a retard, who cannot grasp the
simplest of concepts.
> <snip more information-free text and ad-homs. I suppose that discussing
> the joys and responsibilities of fatherhood with a person who has no
> children was bound to end up this way.>
Ah, the Feminist White Flag Of Victory.
Run away, little retard: You have already conceeded EVERYTHING
in this thread.
What you "suppose" means NOTHING. Grasp that truth.
Andre
Andrew Usher
> <snip more information-free text and ad-homs. I suppose that discussing
> the joys and responsibilities of fatherhood with a person who has no
> children was bound to end up this way.>
>
> Mark Borgerson
It's hard to even tell what Andre's point is anymore. Every discussion
with him ends up this way - with him just lashing out futilely; or as
I said, he 'picks fights for the hell of it'.
Andrew Usher
Andre Lieven
> On Jul 7, 12:47 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > <snip more information-free text and ad-homs. I suppose that discussing
> > the joys and responsibilities of fatherhood with a person who has no
> > children was bound to end up this way.>
>
Yes, I get that a lot from misandrist bigots...
> Every discussion
> with him ends up this way - with him just lashing out futilely; or as
> I said, he 'picks fights for the hell of it'.
<Massive Bigot Projection>
Looks like you and BDSG Borgerson have the Parg/Marg thing
all sewn up...
Andre
Mark Borgerson
033554...@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, andre...@yahoo.ca says...
> On Jul 7, 10:25 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 12:47 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > <snip more information-free text and ad-homs. I suppose that discussing
> > > the joys and responsibilities of fatherhood with a person who has no
> > > children was bound to end up this way.>
> >
> > It's hard to even tell what Andre's point is anymore.
>
> Yes, I get that a lot from misandrist bigots...
but only occasionally from people like Jill and Mark S.
>
> > Every discussion
> > with him ends up this way - with him just lashing out futilely; or as
> > I said, he 'picks fights for the hell of it'.
>
> <Massive Bigot Projection>
>
> Looks like you and BDSG Borgerson have the Parg/Marg thing
> all sewn up...
I'm not sure what this means. I defer to your greater
knowledge. I hardly ever read their stuff.
Mark Borgerson
Andre Lieven
> In article <a0d990b2-d7ca-41c9-aa35-
> 03355453c...@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, andrelie...@yahoo.ca says...
>
> > On Jul 7, 10:25 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 7, 12:47 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > <snip more information-free text and ad-homs. I suppose that discussing
> > > > the joys and responsibilities of fatherhood with a person who has no
> > > > children was bound to end up this way.>
>
> > > It's hard to even tell what Andre's point is anymore.
>
> > Yes, I get that a lot from misandrist bigots...
>
> but only occasionally from people like Jill and Mark S.
With them, it boils down to politics. They are, essentially, among
the Last Remaining Republican Kool-Aid Drinkers in the US.
As a Canadian, I find what the Republican Party has devolved into
to be more horrifying and absurd than the worst B horror movie.
But, UNLIKE YOU, neither Mark S. nor Jill are sexist in either
direction.
On topics to do with the sexes and with sexism, that's a HUGE
difference, in their favour.
> > > Every discussion
> > > with him ends up this way - with him just lashing out futilely; or as
> > > I said, he 'picks fights for the hell of it'.
>
> > <Massive Bigot Projection>
>
> > Looks like you and BDSG Borgerson have the Parg/Marg thing
> > all sewn up...
>
> I'm not sure what this means.
Of course you don't. <snicker> Because you're an ignorant fool.
> I defer to your greater knowledge.
Says the former moderating partner of a KOOK... (PJR).
> I hardly ever read
There; I corrected your inaccurate claim. You're welcome.
> their stuff.
They (Pagr/Marg) are your soulmates on the sexes.
Andre
Mark Borgerson
@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, andre...@yahoo.ca says...
> On Jul 8, 12:13 am, Mark Borgerson <mas...@bigot.nut> shat:
> > In article <a0d990b2-d7ca-41c9-aa35-
> > 03355453c...@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, andrelie...@yahoo.ca says...
> >
> > > On Jul 7, 10:25 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 7, 12:47 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > <snip more information-free text and ad-homs. I suppose that discussing
> > > > > the joys and responsibilities of fatherhood with a person who has no
> > > > > children was bound to end up this way.>
> >
> > > > It's hard to even tell what Andre's point is anymore.
> >
> > > Yes, I get that a lot from misandrist bigots...
> >
> > but only occasionally from people like Jill and Mark S.
>
> With them, it boils down to politics. They are, essentially, among
> the Last Remaining Republican Kool-Aid Drinkers in the US.
>
> As a Canadian, I find what the Republican Party has devolved into
> to be more horrifying and absurd than the worst B horror movie.
I agree. IMO Sarah Palin is the MK48 that sunk the Republicans.
The last week has only strengthened that opinion. John McCain
deserved better.
>
> But, UNLIKE YOU, neither Mark S. nor Jill are sexist in either
> direction.
>
> On topics to do with the sexes and with sexism, that's a HUGE
> difference, in their favour.
>
> > > > Every discussion
> > > > with him ends up this way - with him just lashing out futilely; or as
> > > > I said, he 'picks fights for the hell of it'.
> >
> > > <Massive Bigot Projection>
> >
> > > Looks like you and BDSG Borgerson have the Parg/Marg thing
> > > all sewn up...
> >
> > I'm not sure what this means.
>
> Of course you don't. <snicker> Because you're an ignorant fool.
>
> > I defer to your greater knowledge.
>
> Says the former moderating partner of a KOOK... (PJR).
Who was neither Parg nor Marg.
>
> > I hardly ever read
>
> There; I corrected your inaccurate claim. You're welcome.
>
> > their stuff.
>
> They (Pagr/Marg) are your soulmates on the sexes.
>
You're assuming they have souls? How generous of you.
Mark Borgerson
Andre Lieven
out his other foot:
> In article <7f2a8d0a-616f-4798-8b4b-72f2f4218895
> @r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, andrelie...@yahoo.ca says...
>
> > On Jul 8, 12:13 am, Mark Borgerson <mass...@bigot.nut> shat:
> > > In article <a0d990b2-d7ca-41c9-aa35-
> > > 03355453c...@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, andrelie...@yahoo.ca says...
>
> > > > On Jul 7, 10:25 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 7, 12:47 pm, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > <snip more information-free text and ad-homs. I suppose that discussing
> > > > > > the joys and responsibilities of fatherhood with a person who has no
> > > > > > children was bound to end up this way.>
>
> > > > > It's hard to even tell what Andre's point is anymore.
>
> > > > Yes, I get that a lot from misandrist bigots...
>
> > > but only occasionally from people like Jill and Mark S.
>
> > With them, it boils down to politics. They are, essentially, among
> > the Last Remaining Republican Kool-Aid Drinkers in the US.
>
> > As a Canadian, I find what the Republican Party has devolved into
> > to be more horrifying and absurd than the worst B horror movie.
>
> I agree. IMO Sarah Palin is the MK48 that sunk the Republicans.
> The last week has only strengthened that opinion. John McCain
> deserved better.
Well, he chose her, so he earned the resulting consequence of many
people no longer trusting his experience and judgement.
> > But, UNLIKE YOU, neither Mark S. nor Jill are sexist in either
> > direction.
>
> > On topics to do with the sexes and with sexism, that's a HUGE
> > difference, in their favour.
>
> > > > > Every discussion
> > > > > with him ends up this way - with him just lashing out futilely; or as
> > > > > I said, he 'picks fights for the hell of it'.
>
> > > > <Massive Bigot Projection>
>
> > > > Looks like you and BDSG Borgerson have the Parg/Marg thing
> > > > all sewn up...
>
> > > I'm not sure what this means.
>
> > Of course you don't. <snicker> Because you're an ignorant fool.
>
> > > I defer to your greater knowledge.
>
> > Says the former moderating partner of a KOOK... (PJR).
>
> Who was neither Parg nor Marg.
Who was as cracked as them, and as much of a misandrist sexist
bigot as them, and YOU.
> > > I hardly ever read
>
> > There; I corrected your inaccurate claim. You're welcome.
>
> > > their stuff.
>
> > They (Pagr/Marg) are your soulmates on the sexes.
>
> You're assuming they have souls?
No. That meaning is not implicit in the full word soulmate.
Apparently, a decent command of the English language is also
beyond your powers.
But, you're also the fool who thought that Gorbachev ran the
fUSSR in *1962*...
So, you are publicly stoopid about a GREAT many things.
> How generous of you.
You're ASSuming again. But, since you are a moron, that's not
a great surprise.
Andre