Declaring War on the Feminists and Recruiting Bin Laden
Tom Smith
Dear Bin,
Nice work on Tuesday, but don't get too puffed up because we did make
those jets pretty darn available to you.
Listen, the reason I'm writing is that we are having some severe problems
here in America with our own women. They took over our government thrity
years ago with the help of those imperialist pussies that you are
fighting. We are always going to need the imperialist pussies, but we
can do without the feminists. I suggest a deal where we work together
and get the imperialist pussies off your back if you help us get the
feminists off ours.
All you have to do is call yousreselves "Moslem Masculists" and us anti-
imperialists over here will do the same, you know, but adjust it for our
particular religion, like "Wiccan Masculist" or "Existential Masculist".
This way we can all work together for joy and harmony and won't need to
resort to bombing the shit out of us poor pussy Americans.
Let's start organizing our first "Masculist March on Washington" and
invite all the Palestinians and Iraqui's to join us American Masculists.
We could sing things like "We should overcome" or do what I did in my
youth and yell with clinched fist thrusting above our heads, "1-2-3-4 we
don't want your fucking pussy imperialism".
Brothers for a pussyless future,
Tom
Stephen Morgan
> An Open letter to Bin Laden:
>
> Dear Bin,
>
> Nice work on Tuesday, but don't get too puffed up because we did make
> those jets pretty darn available to you.
If he did it it was a phenomenal success, he should be "puffed up".
> Listen, the reason I'm writing is that we are having some severe problems
> here in America with our own women.
Master of understatment.
> They took over our government thrity
> years ago with the help of those imperialist pussies that you are
> fighting. We are always going to need the imperialist pussies, but we
> can do without the feminists. I suggest a deal where we work together
> and get the imperialist pussies off your back if you help us get the
> feminists off ours.
>
> All you have to do is call yousreselves "Moslem Masculists" and us anti-
> imperialists over here will do the same, you know, but adjust it for our
> particular religion, like "Wiccan Masculist" or "Existential Masculist".
> This way we can all work together for joy and harmony and won't need to
> resort to bombing the shit out of us poor pussy Americans.
Then who will the terrorists terrorise?
> Let's start organizing our first "Masculist March on Washington" and
> invite all the Palestinians and Iraqui's to join us American Masculists.
> We could sing things like "We should overcome" or do what I did in my
> youth and yell with clinched fist thrusting above our heads, "1-2-3-4 we
> don't want your fucking pussy imperialism".
That doesn't rhyme.
> Brothers for a pussyless future,
>
> Tom
Long live freedom.
--
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in
heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in
thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done
many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye
that work iniquity.
-- Matthew 7:21-23
Tom Smith
ncav...@crosswinds.net says...
> In soc.men, Tom Smith (QIM) wrote:
> > An Open letter to Bin Laden:
> >
> > Dear Bin,
> >
> > Nice work on Tuesday, but don't get too puffed up because we did make
> > those jets pretty darn available to you.
>
> If he did it it was a phenomenal success, he should be "puffed up".
>
> > Listen, the reason I'm writing is that we are having some severe problems
> > here in America with our own women.
>
> Master of understatment.
<smile>, and overstatement sometimes.
> > They took over our government thrity
> > years ago with the help of those imperialist pussies that you are
> > fighting. We are always going to need the imperialist pussies, but we
> > can do without the feminists. I suggest a deal where we work together
> > and get the imperialist pussies off your back if you help us get the
> > feminists off ours.
> >
> > All you have to do is call yousreselves "Moslem Masculists" and us anti-
> > imperialists over here will do the same, you know, but adjust it for our
> > particular religion, like "Wiccan Masculist" or "Existential Masculist".
> > This way we can all work together for joy and harmony and won't need to
> > resort to bombing the shit out of us poor pussy Americans.
>
> Then who will the terrorists terrorise?
Nobody. We are all going to sit around the campfire together and sing
"Cum Bai Ya".
> > Let's start organizing our first "Masculist March on Washington" and
> > invite all the Palestinians and Iraqui's to join us American Masculists.
> > We could sing things like "We should overcome" or do what I did in my
> > youth and yell with clinched fist thrusting above our heads, "1-2-3-4 we
> > don't want your fucking pussy imperialism".
>
> That doesn't rhyme.
Yeah, I wrote it in a hurry. How's "1-2-3-4 we don't want your fucking
pussy imperialism 'any more"?
> > Brothers for a pussyless future,
> >
> > Tom
>
> Long live freedom.
Live Free or Die.
Tom
Stephen Morgan
> In article <slrn9q2h9o....@wildcard.ntl.com>,
> ncav...@crosswinds.net says...
> > In soc.men, Tom Smith (QIM) wrote:
> > > An Open letter to Bin Laden:
> > >
> > > Dear Bin,
> > >
> > > Nice work on Tuesday, but don't get too puffed up because we did make
> > > those jets pretty darn available to you.
> >
> > If he did it it was a phenomenal success, he should be "puffed up".
> >
> > > Listen, the reason I'm writing is that we are having some severe problems
> > > here in America with our own women.
> >
> > Master of understatment.
>
> <smile>, and overstatement sometimes.
You are rather erratic, yes.
> > > They took over our government thrity
> > > years ago with the help of those imperialist pussies that you are
> > > fighting. We are always going to need the imperialist pussies, but we
> > > can do without the feminists. I suggest a deal where we work together
> > > and get the imperialist pussies off your back if you help us get the
> > > feminists off ours.
> > >
> > > All you have to do is call yousreselves "Moslem Masculists" and us anti-
> > > imperialists over here will do the same, you know, but adjust it for our
> > > particular religion, like "Wiccan Masculist" or "Existential Masculist".
> > > This way we can all work together for joy and harmony and won't need to
> > > resort to bombing the shit out of us poor pussy Americans.
> >
> > Then who will the terrorists terrorise?
>
> Nobody. We are all going to sit around the campfire together and sing
> "Cum Bai Ya".
That won't please the Muslims. Or, for that matter, the Wiccans,
Atheists and the rest.
> > > Let's start organizing our first "Masculist March on Washington" and
> > > invite all the Palestinians and Iraqui's to join us American Masculists.
> > > We could sing things like "We should overcome" or do what I did in my
> > > youth and yell with clinched fist thrusting above our heads, "1-2-3-4 we
> > > don't want your fucking pussy imperialism".
> >
> > That doesn't rhyme.
>
> Yeah, I wrote it in a hurry. How's "1-2-3-4 we don't want your fucking
> pussy imperialism 'any more"?
1-2-3-4, no more imperialist feminist whores.
> > > Brothers for a pussyless future,
> > >
> > > Tom
> >
> > Long live freedom.
>
> Live Free or Die.
I'd rather die than live free.
Tom Smith
Yeah, I know, I was kidding. As a masculist in this situation, I would
support massive draft resistence and advocate for women being used to
fight any war that was clearly not a war for survival, which this isn't,
until men's grievances and rights are addressed appropirately. No more
cadres of vets comming back only to have their jobs and kids ripped off
by the feminists who sent them and stayed back. That's not "fair".
> > > > Let's start organizing our first "Masculist March on Washington" and
> > > > invite all the Palestinians and Iraqui's to join us American Masculists.
> > > > We could sing things like "We should overcome" or do what I did in my
> > > > youth and yell with clinched fist thrusting above our heads, "1-2-3-4 we
> > > > don't want your fucking pussy imperialism".
> > >
> > > That doesn't rhyme.
> >
> > Yeah, I wrote it in a hurry. How's "1-2-3-4 we don't want your fucking
> > pussy imperialism 'any more"?
>
> 1-2-3-4, no more imperialist feminist whores.
Much better Steve. Let's organize the Taliban for a "Masculist March on
Washington"!!
> > > > Brothers for a pussyless future,
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > >
> > > Long live freedom.
> >
> > Live Free or Die.
>
> I'd rather die than live free.
To each his own. You never lived in the beautiful state of New
Hampshire.
Tom
Stephen Morgan
When you're fighting a war of survival you need all the soldiers you can
get, even women. In World War Two the Red Army had female soldiers, the
Nazis didn't.
> until men's grievances and rights are addressed appropirately. No more
> cadres of vets comming back only to have their jobs and kids ripped off
> by the feminists who sent them and stayed back. That's not "fair".
Yes.
> > > > > Let's start organizing our first "Masculist March on Washington" and
> > > > > invite all the Palestinians and Iraqui's to join us American Masculists.
> > > > > We could sing things like "We should overcome" or do what I did in my
> > > > > youth and yell with clinched fist thrusting above our heads, "1-2-3-4 we
> > > > > don't want your fucking pussy imperialism".
> > > >
> > > > That doesn't rhyme.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I wrote it in a hurry. How's "1-2-3-4 we don't want your fucking
> > > pussy imperialism 'any more"?
> >
> > 1-2-3-4, no more imperialist feminist whores.
>
> Much better Steve. Let's organize the Taliban for a "Masculist March on
> Washington"!!
I don't think you'll ever be extreme enough for them.
> > > > > Brothers for a pussyless future,
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > > Long live freedom.
> > >
> > > Live Free or Die.
> >
> > I'd rather die than live free.
>
> To each his own. You never lived in the beautiful state of New
> Hampshire.
It's better to die and live forever than to live free of the dominion of
God and die.
Tom Smith
You're the one who said I was an "extremist"
> > > > > > Brothers for a pussyless future,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom
> > > > >
> > > > > Long live freedom.
> > > >
> > > > Live Free or Die.
> > >
> > > I'd rather die than live free.
> >
> > To each his own. You never lived in the beautiful state of New
> > Hampshire.
>
> It's better to die and live forever than to live free of the dominion of
> God and die.
That beats out New Hampshire's motto ("Live free or die").
Tom
Tom Smith
lemu...@mindXspring.com says...
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 20:20:26 GMT, Tom Smith (QIM) <q...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ->An Open letter to Bin Laden:
> ->
> ->Dear Bin,
> ->
> ->Nice work on Tuesday, but don't get too puffed up because we did make
> ->those jets pretty darn available to you.
> ->
> ->Listen, the reason I'm writing is that we are having some severe problems
> ->here in America with our own women. They took over our government thrity
> ->years ago with the help of those imperialist pussies that you are
> ->fighting. We are always going to need the imperialist pussies, but we
> ->can do without the feminists. I suggest a deal where we work together
> ->and get the imperialist pussies off your back if you help us get the
> ->feminists off ours.
>
> Careful! trippwhatever might be keeping tabs on ya, and he'll notify
> The Authorities if you shoot your mouth off.
They've had a file on me since 1966 and now we all feel kind of like old
chums. They know I'm harmless and I know they are pussies. So we just
chuckle and go about our business.
Tom
>
> ->
> ->All you have to do is call yousreselves "Moslem Masculists" and us anti-
> ->imperialists over here will do the same, you know, but adjust it for our
> ->particular religion, like "Wiccan Masculist" or "Existential Masculist".
> ->This way we can all work together for joy and harmony and won't need to
> ->resort to bombing the shit out of us poor pussy Americans.
> ->
> ->Let's start organizing our first "Masculist March on Washington" and
> ->invite all the Palestinians and Iraqui's to join us American Masculists.
> ->We could sing things like "We should overcome" or do what I did in my
> ->youth and yell with clinched fist thrusting above our heads, "1-2-3-4 we
> ->don't want your fucking pussy imperialism".
> ->
> ->Brothers for a pussyless future,
> ->
> ->Tom
>
>
Parg2000
>From: Tom Smith (QIM) q...@yahoo.com
>Date: 9/13/01 1:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <MPG.160a0381f4bac4069897c9@news>
{Parg} I don't see why you're worried Tom; it is obvious to me that you never
had any "pussy" to begin with. <G>
>
>Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jen Larson
> In soc.men, Tom Smith (QIM) wrote:
> > An Open letter to Bin Laden:
You are one sick mother fucker. You should get the fuck out of the USA,
or better yet, go spew on a street corner then you can get erased. You
are never going to see US women getting shoved back under men, neither
is your son or any future bloodline that breaths. Good thing your ex
raised the kids, very smart chyk that one.
Jen Larson
"Tom Smith (QIM)" wrote:
I am the biggest idiot on the net! *well I paraphrased for him*
Stephen Morgan
>
>
>
> > In soc.men, Tom Smith (QIM) wrote:
> > > An Open letter to Bin Laden:
>
> You are one sick mother fucker. You should get the fuck out of the USA,
Who else would want him? He doesn't pay his child support.
> or better yet, go spew on a street corner then you can get erased.
Killing people for their opinions? No freedom of speech?
> You
> are never going to see US women getting shoved back under men, neither
> is your son or any future bloodline that breaths.
Don't bet on it.
> Good thing your ex
> raised the kids, very smart chyk that one.
You've never even met her.
Jen Larson
Stephen Morgan wrote:
> In soc.men, Jen Larson wrote:
> > You are one sick mother fucker. You should get the fuck out of the USA,
> Who else would want him? He doesn't pay his child support.
I don't care. Get the fuck out is what I say to him.
> > or better yet, go spew on a street corner then you can get erased.
> Killing people for their opinions? No freedom of speech?
He's free to speak. This has been known to get you slammed. Bad timing
and whatnot.
> > You
> > are never going to see US women getting shoved back under men, neither
> > is your son or any future bloodline that breaths.
> Don't bet on it.
I will bet my life on it pal.
> > Good thing your ex
> > raised the kids, very smart chyk that one.
> You've never even met her.
I know enough about him that she was correct and proper to not over
expose them to him.
Tom Smith
ncav...@crosswinds.net says...
> In soc.men, Jen Larson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > In soc.men, Tom Smith (QIM) wrote:
> > > > An Open letter to Bin Laden:
> >
> > You are one sick mother fucker. You should get the fuck out of the USA,
>
> Who else would want him? He doesn't pay his child support.
>
> > or better yet, go spew on a street corner then you can get erased.
>
> Killing people for their opinions? No freedom of speech?
>
> > You
> > are never going to see US women getting shoved back under men, neither
> > is your son or any future bloodline that breaths.
>
> Don't bet on it.
Steve, Jen represents the very same feminists who rode to glory on the
backs of us draft dodgers. Now thirty years later with unlimited power,
they are worse than the rednecks we were fighitng in the sixties.
That's herstory for you.
Tom
Philip Lewis
"Jen Larson" <stra...@udel.edu> wrote in message
news:3BA28A7B...@udel.edu...
>
>
> Stephen Morgan wrote:
>
> > In soc.men, Jen Larson wrote:
> > > You are one sick mother fucker. You should get the fuck out of the
USA,
>
> > Who else would want him? He doesn't pay his child support.
>
> I don't care. Get the fuck out is what I say to him.
>
> > > or better yet, go spew on a street corner then you can get erased.
>
> > Killing people for their opinions? No freedom of speech?
>
> He's free to speak. This has been known to get you slammed. Bad timing
> and whatnot.
>
> > > You
> > > are never going to see US women getting shoved back under men, neither
> > > is your son or any future bloodline that breaths.
>
> > Don't bet on it.
>
> I will bet my life on it pal.
Sure Jen - just like you "bet" that you had invented a revolutionary new
computer but when called on it - you couldn't produce the goods!Your "bets"
are worthless in here Jen.
Phil
Whitey
>An Open letter to Bin Laden:
>
>Dear Bin,
>
FUCK YOU! We hope you die a horrible and infinitely painful death
choking on your own excrement!
Byte Me.
GARRYOWEN!
Whitey
wrote:
Fuck you, Tom. 'Taint funny, McGee!
Byte Me.
GARRYOWEN!
Tom Smith
says...
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 20:20:26 GMT, Tom Smith (QIM) <q...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> Fuck you, Tom. 'Taint funny, McGee!
Lighten up Gary Owen and loosen that girdle of yours. Have you read my
theory of "Matriotism"?
Tom
Chive Mynde
Please seek professional, psychological help.
- Chive
Science is not belief, but the will to find out.
Chive Mynde
> Long live freedom
How ironic coming from somebody who *opposes* freedom for women.
Stephen Morgan, get professional psychological help.
Philip Lewis
"Chive Mynde" <chyve...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:ccd55c9c.01092...@posting.google.com...
You first - you need it most considering that you have confused feminist
fallacies for allegedly "anti-feminist" ones!!!
*chuckle*
Phil
Stephen Morgan
> ncav...@crosswinds.net (Stephen Morgan) wrote in message news:<slrn9q2h9o....@wildcard.ntl.com>...
>
> > Long live freedom
I was being sarcastic.
> How ironic coming from somebody who *opposes* freedom for women.
I opposse freedom whereever I see it.
> Stephen Morgan, get professional psychological help.
>
> - Chive
>
> Science is not belief, but the will to find out.
--
We shall not rest until we have rooted out Christianity.
-- Heinrich Himmler
Chive Mynde
Please seek professional, psychological help.
- Chive
Parg2000
>From: pau...@mediaone.net (Whitey)
>Date: 9/20/01 4:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3baa78ba....@news.ne.mediaone.net>
>
>
>
>>An Open letter to Bin Laden:
>>
>>Dear Bin,
>>
>FUCK YOU! We hope you die a horrible and infinitely painful death
>choking on your own excrement!
{Parg} I guess it's to early to say to bin Ladan,
"fuck you and the 1970 Jeep you rode in on"?
>
>
>Byte Me.
>GARRYOWEN!
>
>
>
>
>
>
Spence
Tom has a point here. I mean what have we got to loose-
an end to our lives?... What kind of life have we at the moment?
an end to theft of our children? GOOD
an end to slavery to men? GOOD
an end to theft of our money? GOOD
I could give many other examples, but you get the message.
Chive Mynde
Tom has never had a "point".
He simply hates women because they don't give a bitter boy like
him the time of day.
Why should they?
> I mean what have we got to loose-
The word is "lose".
I know you probably don't understand, but consult a dictionary.
Chive Mynde
> I opposse freedom whereever I see it.
You've made that point, multiple times.
And, you use your religious fundamentalism as an excuse
to deny human rights to others.
I suppose that if Bush is serious about eliminating
terrorism, we should start with the Christian fundies
here at home.
Let's eliminate them, first.
Stephen Morgan
>
> > I opposse freedom whereever I see it.
>
> You've made that point, multiple times.
>
> And, you use your religious fundamentalism as an excuse
> to deny human rights to others.
No I don't.
> I suppose that if Bush is serious about eliminating
> terrorism, we should start with the Christian fundies
> here at home.
Any Christian would be happy to die for their faith.
> Let's eliminate them, first.
Me first.
--
Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers,
in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
-- 1 Timothy 4:12
Whitey
wrote:
>In article <3baa78f3....@news.ne.mediaone.net>, pau...@mediaone.net
>says...
>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 20:20:26 GMT, Tom Smith (QIM) <q...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Fuck you, Tom. 'Taint funny, McGee!
>
>Lighten up Gary Owen and loosen that girdle of yours. Have you read my
>theory of "Matriotism"?
>
Yeah. It's crap. And I wear not a girdle. Unlike you, I am not a
cross-dresser.
Byte Me.
GARRYOWEN!
Giant Attitude
> ncav...@crosswinds.net (Stephen Morgan) wrote in message news:<slrn9qmtmp....@wildcard.ntl.com>...
>
> > I opposse freedom whereever I see it.
>
> You've made that point, multiple times.
>
> And, you use your religious fundamentalism as an excuse
> to deny human rights to others.
>
> I suppose that if Bush is serious about eliminating
> terrorism, we should start with the Christian fundies
> here at home.
>
> Let's eliminate them, first.
>
> - Chive
Aren't you the one who claims that ANTI-feminism is a form of murder?
How would you "eliminate" Christian fundamentalists?
And name one instance -- ONE, just ONE -- of a Christian
fundamentalist organization being responsible for terrorism.
Parg2000
>From: pau...@mediaone.net (Whitey)
>Message-id: <3bb487ae....@news.ne.mediaone.net>
{Parg} <G> Indeed. Besides what woman would want a man who wouldn't wear a
girdle she wouldn't wear, herself?
>
>
>Byte Me.
>GARRYOWEN!
>
>
>
>
>
>
Asia
news:<slrn9qmtmp....@wildcard.ntl.com>...
>
> > I opposse freedom whereever I see it.
>
> You've made that point, multiple times.
>
> And, you use your religious fundamentalism as an excuse
> to deny human rights to others.
>
> I suppose that if Bush is serious about eliminating
> terrorism, we should start with the Christian fundies
> here at home.
Yes I agree. We should do something more about domestic terrorism(abortion
clinic bombings) in the country AND those who harbor it(Jerry Falwell and
all the other hate-filled religious fanatics).
Philip Lewis
"Asia" <jewe...@home.com> wrote in message
news:H6Py7.14332$Zb.66...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
>
> "Chive Mynde" <chyve...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:ccd55c9c.01092...@posting.google.com...
> > ncav...@crosswinds.net (Stephen Morgan) wrote in message
> news:<slrn9qmtmp....@wildcard.ntl.com>...
> >
> > > I opposse freedom whereever I see it.
> >
> > You've made that point, multiple times.
> >
> > And, you use your religious fundamentalism as an excuse
> > to deny human rights to others.
> >
> > I suppose that if Bush is serious about eliminating
> > terrorism, we should start with the Christian fundies
> > here at home.
>
> Yes I agree.
You have just AGREED with one biggest fruitcase trolls on usenet -
congratulations!
>We should do something more about domestic terrorism(abortion
> clinic bombings) in the country AND those who harbor it(Jerry Falwell and
> all the other hate-filled religious fanatics).
Pretty fond of stereotyping for a "feminist" aren't you - but then again
HYPOCRISY is one of the hallmarks of a feminist - a movement actually based
on sexism!
Phil
johnpetri
"Asia" <jewe...@home.com> wrote in message news:<H6Py7.14332
$Zb.66...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com>...
Deborah
> but then again
> HYPOCRISY is one of the hallmarks of a feminist - a movement actually based
> on sexism!
God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
Sexist pigs. I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to
complain about not having the right to vote or go to colleges.
And what a bunch of hypocrites for asking pregnancy leave at work for
women and yet doing nothing for obtaining a pregnancy leave for men.
Deborah
Tom Smith
violet...@hotmail.com says...
That's just one of many sexist government policies femiist support. How
about custody for mothers? The draft? VAWA? Affirmative action when
there's 55% women to 45% men in college? Thirty years of feminism to
produce Brittany Spears? A massive exclusive advocacy for women and none
for men? Control of the democratic party and a loud voice in the
republican party for women?
You feminists disgust me.
Tom
Asia
"Tom Smith (QIM)" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1636ded0dac661fd989843@news...
> In article <d059eb80.01101...@posting.google.com>,
> violet...@hotmail.com says...
> > "Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > but then again
> > > HYPOCRISY is one of the hallmarks of a feminist - a movement actually
based
> > > on sexism!
> >
> > God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
> > Sexist pigs. I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to
> > complain about not having the right to vote or go to colleges.
> > And what a bunch of hypocrites for asking pregnancy leave at work for
> > women and yet doing nothing for obtaining a pregnancy leave for men.
>
> That's just one of many sexist government policies femiist support.
I suppose it's sexist that women gets pregnant too. Maybe you should tell
God she is a sexist and you demand the right for all men to be able get
pregnant so that they can too obtain pregnancy leave.
> The draft?
It's generally the anti-feminists who are against women being drafted. They
don't believe women belong in the military period.
>Thirty years of feminism to produce Brittany Spears?
Thousands of years to produce Michael Jackson?
> Control of the democratic party and a loud voice in the republican party
for women?
So I guess that means men control the republican party and have a loud voice
all over the world.
> You feminists disgust me.
Then maybe you should stop reading and posting to this ng and save yourself
and the rest of us from being disgusted.
>
> Tom
Stephen Morgan
> "Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > but then again
> > HYPOCRISY is one of the hallmarks of a feminist - a movement actually based
> > on sexism!
>
> God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
He will.
> Sexist pigs.
Yes.
> I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to
> complain about not having the right to vote
Remembering of course that only 16% of the population of England could
vote until 1918. The oppression of poor men was worse than any
oppression of women.
> or go to colleges.
What?
> And what a bunch of hypocrites for asking pregnancy leave at work for
> women and yet doing nothing for obtaining a pregnancy leave for men.
If you can't work then quit your job, their's no right to maternity
leave.
From angi...@yinyang.enterprise-plc.com Wed Aug 8 23:18:05 2001
From: angi...@yinyang.enterprise-plc.com (Angilion)
Newsgroups: soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism *is* sexism - by definition!
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 20:23:18 GMT
Message-ID: <3b719424...@news.freeserve.net>
On 6 Aug 2001 03:04:25 -0700, artemes...@aol.com (Artemesia) wrote:
>Bobbie <xit...@swbell.net> wrote in message news:<xiting-9833CC....@newssvr11-ext.news.prodigy.com>...
>
>> Feminism is the advocacy of equal opportunity. Equal opportunity
>> means opportunity for everyone. To bad you see it as somehow hurting
>> you.
>
>And to think this whole thing started with the Pankhurst girls
>thinking they should have the right to vote.
Have you actually read their material? About how men use
biological warfare against women as an instrument of oppression,
for example?
If you want to start it with the Pankhurst family, it started with a
Pankhurst man (husband to one of the famous Pankhursts and
father to the other two). Of course, he's a man so he must be
ignored since it doesn't fit in with the "oppressed women fighting
against men, the oppressors" viewpoint.
John Stuart Mill was advocating sexual equality in voting rights
before the parents of the "Pankhurst girls" were alive, I think
you'll find. He got the matter to a Commons vote in 1867, where
it did very well for a Private Members Bill.
Men such as those are utterly ignored when people talk about
sexual equality in voting rights, for the reason I gave above IMO.
Of the top of my head, I can't think of anyone advocating sexual
equality in voting rights in the UK before Mary Wollstonecroft, who
was politically active towards the end of the 18th century, but there
might have been someone earlier.
So no, it did not start with the "Pankhurst girls" thinking they should
have the right to vote.
>Or Susan B. Anthony and the Seneca Falls crowd being amazed that their
>husbands, fathers, sons and brothers chose to give the vote to black
>males, recently emancipated 50 years before they gave it to their
>wives, mothers, sisters and daughters.
>
>The sad thing is that a thing so simlpe as extending the franchise to
>the distaff portion of the population would turn into the ridiculous
>battle of the sexes and deterioration of the nuclear family as we know
>it somehow leads one to wonder when and where we took this left turn.
It was *never* about that. That was just an easily identifiable issue.
It was always about conflict. It was always about sexist stereotyping
(positive stereotypes of female people and negative stereotypes of male
people).
>Christabelle Pankhurst is probably reeling in her grave.
Only because men haven't been disadvantaged enough, I would
say.
--
Always remember you're unique.
Just like everyone else. (Anon)
--
O deliver not the soul of thy turtledove unto the multitude of the
wicked: forget not the congregation of thy poor for ever.
Have respect unto the covenant: for the dark places of the earth are
full of the habitations of cruelty.
O let not the oppressed return ashamed: let the poor and needy praise thy name.
-- Psalm 74:19-21
John Jones
How do you know this? Or perhaps more to the point, why should anyone
accept this claim?
>
> >Thirty years of feminism to produce Brittany Spears?
>
> Thousands of years to produce Michael Jackson?
>
> > Control of the democratic party and a loud voice in the
republican party
> for women?
>
> So I guess that means men control the republican party and have a
loud voice
> all over the world.
The opposite of feminism is not men. The opposite of feminism is
egalitariansm.
>
>
> > You feminists disgust me.
>
> Then maybe you should stop reading and posting to this ng and save
yourself
> and the rest of us from being disgusted.
That doesn't follow. Alt.feminism isn't a newsgroup for feminism,
it's a newsgroup ABOUT feminism. That's why feminists are so
outnumbered here - criticism of feminism is on-topic and feminism
can't prevail in open discussions.
> >
> > Tom
>
>
Stephen Morgan
> In article <d059eb80.01101...@posting.google.com>,
> violet...@hotmail.com says...
> > "Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > but then again
> > > HYPOCRISY is one of the hallmarks of a feminist - a movement actually based
> > > on sexism!
> >
> > God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
> > Sexist pigs. I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to
> > complain about not having the right to vote or go to colleges.
> > And what a bunch of hypocrites for asking pregnancy leave at work for
> > women and yet doing nothing for obtaining a pregnancy leave for men.
>
> That's just one of many sexist government policies femiist support. How
> about custody for mothers?
Can't expect those brutish, uncivilised men to raise children.
> The draft?
Can't expect those delicate, sophisticated women to go off and fight.
> VAWA?
Nasty, brutish men think they have the right to control women using DV.
> Affirmative action when
> there's 55% women to 45% men in college?
AA just assures equality. 100% female is equality.
> Thirty years of feminism to
> produce Brittany Spears?
?
> A massive exclusive advocacy for women and none
> for men?
Men have all the power and control, women are helpless victims of their
brutish need for power.
> Control of the democratic party and a loud voice in the
> republican party for women?
>
> You feminists disgust me.
Good.
Stephen Morgan
>
> "Tom Smith (QIM)" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1636ded0dac661fd989843@news...
> > In article <d059eb80.01101...@posting.google.com>,
> > violet...@hotmail.com says...
> > > "Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > but then again
> > > > HYPOCRISY is one of the hallmarks of a feminist - a movement actually
> based
> > > > on sexism!
> > >
> > > God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
> > > Sexist pigs. I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to
> > > complain about not having the right to vote or go to colleges.
> > > And what a bunch of hypocrites for asking pregnancy leave at work for
> > > women and yet doing nothing for obtaining a pregnancy leave for men.
> >
> > That's just one of many sexist government policies femiist support.
>
> I suppose it's sexist that women gets pregnant too. Maybe you should tell
> God she is a sexist and you demand the right for all men to be able get
> pregnant so that they can too obtain pregnancy leave.
Pregnancy leave is a bad thing. Maternity and paternity leave should be
equal.
> > The draft?
>
> It's generally the anti-feminists who are against women being drafted. They
> don't believe women belong in the military period.
Anti-feminists are against the draft, feminists are against the draft
*for women*.
> >Thirty years of feminism to produce Brittany Spears?
>
> Thousands of years to produce Michael Jackson?
Thousands of years of what?
> > Control of the democratic party and a loud voice in the republican party
> for women?
>
> So I guess that means men control the republican party and have a loud voice
> all over the world.
No, that's a lie.
> > You feminists disgust me.
>
> Then maybe you should stop reading and posting to this ng and save yourself
> and the rest of us from being disgusted.
Why did you cut this?:
"How about custody for mothers? ... VAWA? Affirmative action when
there's 55% women to 45% men in college? ... A massive exclusive
advocacy for women and none for men?"
--
Parg2000
>From: violet...@hotmail.com (Deborah)
>Date: 10/17/01 12:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <d059eb80.01101...@posting.google.com>
{Parg} Hahahahaa.. Very nice!
>
>Deborah
>
>
>
>
>
>
Deborah
> > God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
> > Sexist pigs. I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to
> > complain about not having the right to vote or go to colleges.
> > And what a bunch of hypocrites for asking pregnancy leave at work for
> > women and yet doing nothing for obtaining a pregnancy leave for men.
>
> That's just one of many sexist government policies femiist support.
Pregnancy leave, I assume you mean? Well, in order for our species to
not vanish, people have to have kids which means women have to give
birth to them. I think women shouldn't be laid off or be considered
unreliable if they have a kid. It's absurd.
However, someone did mention paternity leave which I actually have
just been reading up about and seems like a very good idea. More men
need to stay at home if their partner is having a child and help them
out. Europe already does this. But this is just one idea that needs
changing in the US.
> How about custody for mothers?
This can go both ways. Yes, women do get custody much more often- but
for some mothers they don't want the children that much or don't care.
Some women even try to have the man get custody but the courts will
not allow it. Having the idea that women are the ones that need to
take care of the kids is going to perpetuate "domestisity is for
women" idea and make it more difficult for women to obtain jobs
because they have to take care of the kids too.
> The draft?
No, the draft isn't fair, it's old-fashioned. It dates back to times
where women had to stay home and raise the kids while the men played
the pawns and went out to fight.
> VAWA?
VAWA was created because stats showed much more women than me were
being abused and reported. If more men complained, more would be
done. How can anything be done if no one knows about it?
> Affirmative action when there's 55% women to 45% men in college?
Well, there are more women in this world than men. I assume that has
something to do with it.
http://www.nandotimes.com/nation/story/76259p-1069366c.html
The population gap is shrinking, but still there is about 94 men to
100 women, plus fewer men apply to colleges than women.
> Control of the democratic party and a loud voice in the
> republican party for women?
If you think they are 'steering in the captain's chair' I think you
are very wrong. Women in politics have a voice, yes. But, A) There
are more men than women in our congress and House of Reps and B) There
never was a female President or even Vice President (and I wonder what
soc.men would say if finally one day a woman did become President?)
My point is simple: When our government will be controlled by approx.
an equal number of men to women, when there will be women presidents
and vice presidents, when women's more expensive basic health care
needs will be covered, and when people will truly believe than men and
women have equal ability *then* I will be content.
As it stands, I understand Feminism (by definition) today because
there are many advantages that men have over women which need to be
balanced.
Deborah
Bob
Deborah wrote:
As it stands, I understand Feminism (by definition) today because
there are many advantages that men have over women which need to be
balanced.
Name one!
Bob
Asia
"Stephen Morgan" <ncav...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:slrn9sqgmj....@wildcard.ntl.com...
> In alt.feminism, Deborah wrote:
> > "Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > but then again
> > > HYPOCRISY is one of the hallmarks of a feminist - a movement actually
based
> > > on sexism!
> >
> > God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
>
> He will.
Christians are so judgemental...
>
>>
> > I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to
> > complain about not having the right to vote
>
> Remembering of course that only 16% of the population of England could
> vote until 1918. The oppression of poor men was worse than any
> oppression of women.
>
Well then feminism probably helped both men and women gain the right to
vote!
> > or go to colleges.
>
> What?
>
> > And what a bunch of hypocrites for asking pregnancy leave at work for
> > women and yet doing nothing for obtaining a pregnancy leave for men.
I am for men having paternity leave for when they have new children just
like women. When I had my first child I was upset that my husband's work did
not even give him any kind of paternity leave. It is a really important time
with a child when they are very young and both fathers and mothers deserve
that time to bond with their new child.
You sound like you have no compassion towards parents or children at all. I
don't see what is so hypocritical with wanting to be with ones new baby.
Some people can't afford to just quit work. They need to support their
family. While taking a leave is good quiting their job would not be. Have
some compassion for families my God!
>
> If you can't work then quit your job, their's no right to maternity
leave.
SOME PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD TO QUIT THEIR JOBS!!! Have some compassion!
If a person becomes sick or has a condition like pregnancy and childbirth
they should get a certain amount of time off and be able to come back in a
couple months when they have recovered. That is not sexist as I think men
who have any kind of condition or becoming a new dad should be able to take
a couple of months off also and be able to go back to work.
Asia
> In alt.feminism, Tom Smith (QIM) wrote:
> > In article <d059eb80.01101...@posting.google.com>,
> > violet...@hotmail.com says...
> > > "Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > but then again
> > > > HYPOCRISY is one of the hallmarks of a feminist - a movement
actually based
> > > > on sexism!
> > >
> > > God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
> > > Sexist pigs. I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to
> > > complain about not having the right to vote or go to colleges.
> > > And what a bunch of hypocrites for asking pregnancy leave at work for
> > > women and yet doing nothing for obtaining a pregnancy leave for men.
> >
> > That's just one of many sexist government policies femiist support. How
> > about custody for mothers?
>
> Can't expect those brutish, uncivilised men to raise children.
>
> > The draft?
>
> Can't expect those delicate, sophisticated women to go off and fight.
I don't like the draft but I do believe if men are drafted that women should
also be. Not many people agree with me on this. The only exception I have is
that both of child's parents can not be drafted. So if one has already been
drafted the other parent can not be drafted period. Can't leave a child
without any parents.
>
> > VAWA?
Can you explain what VAWA is?
>
> Nasty, brutish men think they have the right to control women using DV.
>
> > Affirmative action when
> > there's 55% women to 45% men in college?
>
> AA just assures equality. 100% female is equality.
I don't know how Affirmative Action works. I went to college and got my B.A.
I did not get the help of anyone cept my family who helped pay. As long as
people have the money and the grades they can go to college. If you don't
have the money you can get a loan or grant like most students do. I have not
heard of any man being denied being able to get into college because he is a
man.
>
> > Thirty years of feminism to
> > produce Brittany Spears?
And tons of boys/girls/men/women adore her. So what?
>
> ?
>
>
> Men have all the power and control, women are helpless victims of their
> brutish need for power.
No you make is sound like because women are allowed to have a voice and use
it that that somehow is making men helpless victims.
>
> > Control of the democratic party and a loud voice in the
> > republican party for women?
> >
> > You feminists disgust me.
>
> Good.
Go to Afghanistan where women aren't seen or heard. I am sure you would be
happy there.
Laura M. Hagan
Asia <jewe...@home.com> wrote in message news:Pynz7.21564$Zb.96...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
[snip]
Hey Asia, you're still here! I thought you stomped out in a huff
a couple weeks ago.
Since you're still here, d'you mind answering the questions I
asked, just before you pretended to leave? For your convenience,
here they are again:
--------------begin repost--------------------
Asia <jewe...@home.com> wrote in message news:k8Mu7.74457$QK.44...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
>
> Religious groups are very antifemale and are fighting very hard to take away
> women's rights.
Please identify the legislation that has been introduced on their
behalf to put this in effect.
> They have joined in with the republican party and have
> succesfully got their president in.
Please identify the legislation that President Bush has either
sponsored or publicly supported that would take away women's
rights.
> Many of these religious groups believe a
> woman should be submissive to her husband, that a woman should not take
> birth control, should not have control of her own body, they believe a
> mother belongs at home with her kids, many are against mothers working,
Once again -- please identify the legislation you're talking
about, that these religious groups have introduced either in
Congress or in State legislatures, to enforce these beliefs.
> they
> are against sexual education so a woman and a man can actually learn
> important things about their body, some treat women like second class by
> referring to them as sluts or whores yet you don't here them saying this
> about men. Christianity and Islam are the biggest women hater groups. They
> even teach women to hate women. The even harbor their own terrorist that go
> and blow up women's clinics and try to frighten the hell out of drs and
> women.
I know nothing at all about Islam. Christianity, however, is
the world's largest sponsor of hospitals and health care. How
exactly is all of Christianity a "woman hater group?"
> The scary thing is these people push hard to force their ways on all
> people in America.
Yeah? Name the legislation, then, so I can write to my Congress
critter about it.
> And it is possible for them to succed.
>
> Also women still are discriminated against in the workforce.
How?
> Women still
> make less for the same jobs
Unmitigated horseshit
> and jobs that are typically considered women's
> jobs are still low paid. One example is teaching. Teachers have to get a
> B.A. and then an M.A. and more college even after that. Yet they are not
> paid even enough to support a family on their own. Yet jobs that are
> typically men's job like computer networking where you get a degree in 2
> years make 3 times as much as a teacher.
So why don't women choose to be computer networkers instead?
You're very big on people being responsible for their own choices
when it's "men choosing not to go to doctors." Why aren't these
women responsible for their choices?
[on college:]
> Actually this is an area where women do have more of an advantage then men.
> 60% of college students are now female. I don't think this is bad. If it
> were 60% male I wouldn't think that was bad either. I don't think people
> should be automatically accteped into a college based on their sex or color
> over another.
> People choose different fields. Some fields you will find lots of women in
> like child care. And some fields you will find lots of men in like drs.
Gosh. Ya think? And just above you were talking about this
being a function of discrimination. When it's women choosing
traditionally female jobs and getting lower pay because of it, that's
discrimination. When it's men being kept out of colleges because
of affirmative action and a man-and-boy-unfriendly education
environment, that's people making their own choices in life.
Can you see the hypocrisy now that it's been pointed out, or
are you still too much a feminist for that?
----------------end repost---------------------
Most particularly, I would like you to explain why you think that
women are still discriminated against in the workforce. Thanks.
Andre Lieven
"Asia" (jewe...@home.com) writes:
> "Stephen Morgan" <ncav...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
> news:slrn9sqm5l....@wildcard.ntl.com...
>> In alt.feminism, Tom Smith (QIM) wrote:
>> > In article <d059eb80.01101...@posting.google.com>,
>> > violet...@hotmail.com says...
>> > > "Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > but then again HYPOCRISY is one of the hallmarks of a feminist -
>> > > > a movement actually based on sexism!
>> > >
>> > > God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
>> > > Sexist pigs. I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to
>> > > complain about not having the right to vote or go to colleges.
>> > > And what a bunch of hypocrites for asking pregnancy leave at work for
>> > > women and yet doing nothing for obtaining a pregnancy leave for men.
>> >
>> > That's just one of many sexist government policies femiist support. How
>> > about custody for mothers?
>>
>> Can't expect those brutish, uncivilised men to raise children.
>>
>> > The draft?
>>
>> Can't expect those delicate, sophisticated women to go off and fight.
>
> I don't like the draft but I do believe if men are drafted that women should
> also be. Not many people agree with me on this.
Including NO feminist organisation, anywhere.
> The only exception I have is
> that both of child's parents can not be drafted. So if one has already been
> drafted the other parent can not be drafted period. Can't leave a child
> without any parents.
>>
>> > VAWA?
>
> Can you explain what VAWA is?
Do your own research. Its easy to look up.
Enter in " Violence Against WOMEN Act ". Note: Its NOT about violence
against MEN. Thats clear, right from the title.
>> Nasty, brutish men think they have the right to control women using DV.
>>
>> > Affirmative action when there's 55% women to 45% men in college?
>>
>> AA just assures equality. 100% female is equality.
>
> I don't know how Affirmative Action works.
Yeah, we've noticed that you don't know much of anything about feminism...
> I went to college and got my B.A.
> I did not get the help of anyone cept my family who helped pay.
If your college ( as many do ) had preferences for women in student
selection, then its very likely that you got in through AA.
> As long as people have the money and the grades they can go to college.
Actually, no. You can go all the way back to the Bakke case.
> If you don't have the money you can get a loan or grant like most students
> do. I have not heard of any man being denied being able to get into college
> because he is a man.
Well, we're back to that ignorance thing. Note: This has happened,
many times. Its just that you don't know about it.
Just because you don't know about it, doesn't mean that it hasn't
happened.
>> > Thirty years of feminism to produce Brittany Spears?
>
> And tons of boys/girls/men/women adore her. So what?
Compared to many male performers of note, thats pretty not much to
crow about.
>> ?
>> Men have all the power and control, women are helpless victims of their
>> brutish need for power.
>
> No you make is sound like because women are allowed to have a voice and use
> it that that somehow is making men helpless victims.
Nope. What we object to, is women making just about ALL of the decisions
that affect men's lives.
Go look up " Presumption Of Paternity " laws. You have a computer,
and, as you say, an education. So, do some research, IF you want to
actually know something about whats being discussed here.
>> > Control of the democratic party and a loud voice in the
>> > republican party for women?
>> >
>> > You feminists disgust me.
>>
>> Good.
>
> Go to Afghanistan where women aren't seen or heard. I am sure you would be
> happy there.
Again, no answer that is even close to on topic, just a denigration
of the opposer. Thats the sign of feminism, no facts, just ignorance
and name calling.
Andre
--
" The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some
other way, and terminate in beauty and forgiveness "
David Gelernter, " 1939 "
Asia
"Laura M. Hagan" <doesn'tlik...@goaway.com> wrote in message
news:3bce...@news.qnet.com...
Fundamentalists believe women and men are not equal and that a man is the
head of the house and that a women should be submissve and obey her husband.
This is in the bible also.
Christians are against women having control over their own bodies. They are
anti-choice, anti-birth control, and anti-women saying theyre not in the
mood to their husbands.
They teach something called "family values" that basically teaches a woman
is only good for having babies and staying home. Any woman who does more
than that is both selfish and is responsible for the downfall in our
society. She is responsible for everything bad.
The bible itself if very sexist. Both in how it is written and what is
written. Basically everything that happens to women including the pain of
child birth is all a woman's fault and a punishment from god. Because of
this some preachers and even drs think that a woman SHOULD suffer during
labor without any help of pain meds.
Fornication in the bible is considered a sin and any woman who actually
enjoys it is called a whore. Women who are sexual in this day and age get
called slut and whore while it seems to be a good thing if a man is sexual.
>
> > The scary thing is these people push hard to force their ways on all
> > people in America.
>
> Yeah? Name the legislation, then, so I can write to my Congress
> critter about it.
The christian coalition fights against both men and women's civil rights.
They are the right-wing conservatives.
>
> > And it is possible for them to succed.
> >
>
>
> > and jobs that are typically considered women's
> > jobs are still low paid. One example is teaching. Teachers have to get a
> > B.A. and then an M.A. and more college even after that. Yet they are not
> > paid even enough to support a family on their own. Yet jobs that are
> > typically men's job like computer networking where you get a degree in
joys 2
> > years make 3 times as much as a teacher.
>
> So why don't women choose to be computer networkers instead?
> You're very big on people being responsible for their own choices
> when it's "men choosing not to go to doctors." Why aren't these
> women responsible for their choices?
Because I don't want to be a computer networker and teachers deserve more
pay so why should I do a job I don't want? Why should I not try to help get
teachers more pay like they should get?
>
> [on college:]
> > Actually this is an area where women do have more of an advantage then
men.
> > 60% of college students are now female. I don't think this is bad. If it
> > were 60% male I wouldn't think that was bad either. I don't think people
> > should be automatically accteped into a college based on their sex or
color
> > over another.
> > People choose different fields. Some fields you will find lots of women
inse
> > like child care. And some fields you will find lots of men in like drs.
>
> Gosh. Ya think? And just above you were talking about this
> being a function of discrimination. When it's women choosing
> traditionally female jobs and getting lower pay because of it, that's
> discrimination. When it's men being kept out of colleges because
> of affirmative action and a man-and-boy-unfriendly education
> environment, that's people making their own choices in life.
> Can you see the hypocrisy now that it's been pointed out, or
> are you still too much a feminist for that?
Becoming a teacher takes a lot of education. For other jobs that take that
much education there is much more pay involved. It's time teachers get paid
what they deserve.
I don't know of any man who has been lept out of a college because of
affirmative action.
Ray Fischer
>> I know nothing at all about Islam. Christianity, however, is
>> the world's largest sponsor of hospitals and health care. How
>> exactly is all of Christianity a "woman hater group?"
>
>Fundamentalists believe women and men are not equal and that a man is the
>head of the house and that a women should be submissve and obey her husband.
>This is in the bible also.
You argue that men must take care of and protect women and children.
>Christians are against women having control over their own bodies. They are
>anti-choice, anti-birth control, and anti-women saying theyre not in the
>mood to their husbands.
You are against men having control over their own bodies, arguing that men
should be forced to work for women and children.
>They teach something called "family values" that basically teaches a woman
>is only good for having babies and staying home.
Given that you argue that men must support women when they have babies
and stay at home, what's your objection?
>The bible itself if very sexist.
So are you.
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
rfis...@sonic.net into you -- Nietzsche
Stephen Morgan
> Tom Smith (QIM) <q...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
> > > Sexist pigs. I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to
> > > complain about not having the right to vote or go to colleges.
> > > And what a bunch of hypocrites for asking pregnancy leave at work for
> > > women and yet doing nothing for obtaining a pregnancy leave for men.
> >
> > That's just one of many sexist government policies femiist support.
>
> Pregnancy leave, I assume you mean? Well, in order for our species to
> not vanish, people have to have kids which means women have to give
> birth to them. I think women shouldn't be laid off or be considered
> unreliable if they have a kid. It's absurd.
Why? They suddenly take weeks or months off work, leaving their employer
in the lurch. This is unreliable. If they won't do the job they should
be fired.
> However, someone did mention paternity leave which I actually have
> just been reading up about and seems like a very good idea. More men
> need to stay at home if their partner is having a child and help them
> out.
"help them out"? Sexist.
> Europe already does this.
No.
> But this is just one idea that needs
> changing in the US.
>
> > How about custody for mothers?
>
> This can go both ways. Yes, women do get custody much more often- but
> for some mothers they don't want the children that much or don't care.
> Some women even try to have the man get custody but the courts will
> not allow it. Having the idea that women are the ones that need to
> take care of the kids is going to perpetuate "domestisity is for
> women" idea and make it more difficult for women to obtain jobs
> because they have to take care of the kids too.
Good. More women out of the workforce!
> > The draft?
>
> No, the draft isn't fair, it's old-fashioned. It dates back to times
> where women had to stay home and raise the kids while the men played
> the pawns and went out to fight.
You mean it dates to times when anti-male sexism was just as bad as now.
> > VAWA?
>
> VAWA was created because stats showed much more women than me were
> being abused and reported.
It's a sexist, gender-based law with no basis in fact. Women are more
domestically violent than men, men are just prevented from reporting it
by the sexist system.
> If more men complained, more would be
> done.
Complain to who? Can't complain to the police, they (the male victim)
would stand an evens chance of getting arrested themselves.
> How can anything be done if no one knows about it?
You'd know the truth if your only source of information wasn't the
feminist advocacy groups.
> > Affirmative action when there's 55% women to 45% men in college?
>
> Well, there are more women in this world than men. I assume that has
> something to do with it.
Women are 51% of the population. Any AA is based solely on anti-male
sexism.
> http://www.nandotimes.com/nation/story/76259p-1069366c.html
>
> The population gap is shrinking, but still there is about 94 men to
> 100 women, plus fewer men apply to colleges than women.
Because of sexism, yes.
> > Control of the democratic party and a loud voice in the
> > republican party for women?
>
> If you think they are 'steering in the captain's chair' I think you
> are very wrong.
Because you are ignorant or because you are a liar?
> Women in politics have a voice, yes. But, A) There
> are more men than women in our congress and House of Reps
"Frontman Fallacy". You assume male politicians give a shit about men
generally. An incorrect assumption. They care only about their own
wellbeing, this means pandering to feminism and Illuminism.
> and B) There
> never was a female President or even Vice President
Just as irrelevant. There is still no Ministry of Men, but a Ministry of
Women.
> (and I wonder what
> soc.men would say if finally one day a woman did become President?)
I'd disapprove.
> My point is simple: When our government will be controlled by approx.
> an equal number of men to women, when there will be women presidents
> and vice presidents, when women's more expensive basic health care
> needs will be covered,
Women already consume six times as much NHS money than men.
> and when people will truly believe than men and
> women have equal ability
People believe the myths feminism has pounded into them, that women are
mentally and spiritually better than men.
> *then* I will be content.
You won't be content while there are men on this earth.
> As it stands, I understand Feminism (by definition) today because
> there are many advantages that men have over women which need to be
> balanced.
That's a lie. What are these advantages men have over women? Why don't
you care about the dozens of advantages women have over men?
Stephen Morgan
>
> "Stephen Morgan" <ncav...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
> news:slrn9sqgmj....@wildcard.ntl.com...
> > In alt.feminism, Deborah wrote:
> > > "Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > but then again
> > > > HYPOCRISY is one of the hallmarks of a feminist - a movement actually
> based
> > > > on sexism!
> > >
> > > God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
> >
> > He will.
>
> Christians are so judgemental...
Not at all.
> > > I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to
> > > complain about not having the right to vote
> >
> > Remembering of course that only 16% of the population of England could
> > vote until 1918. The oppression of poor men was worse than any
> > oppression of women.
>
> Well then feminism probably helped both men and women gain the right to
> vote!
The poor men who riotted are the ones who forced the Parliament to give
men and women the vote. It was a choice between extending the right to
vote and controlling an armed uprising. They extended the right to vote
gradually from 1830 to 1928. In 1830 2% of the adult population could
vote, in 1832 *poor men* riotted across the country, several of them
being killed by the army and burning several buildings. In 1928 100% of
the over-21 population could vote. Women donated nothing to the
enterprise except sandwiches for the riotous.
> > > or go to colleges.
> >
> > What?
> >
> > > And what a bunch of hypocrites for asking pregnancy leave at work for
> > > women and yet doing nothing for obtaining a pregnancy leave for men.
>
> I am for men having paternity leave for when they have new children just
> like women. When I had my first child I was upset that my husband's work did
> not even give him any kind of paternity leave. It is a really important time
> with a child when they are very young and both fathers and mothers deserve
> that time to bond with their new child.
Then they can quit their jobs.
> You sound like you have no compassion towards parents or children at all. I
> don't see what is so hypocritical with wanting to be with ones new baby.
Wanting to get paid for work without actually doing the work is
hypocritical.
> Some people can't afford to just quit work.
Then they shouldn't be having kids. They can't stay at home with their
kids and get paid for it.
> They need to support their
> family. While taking a leave is good quiting their job would not be. Have
> some compassion for families my God!
I'm no God.
> > If you can't work then quit your job, their's no right to maternity
> leave.
>
> SOME PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD TO QUIT THEIR JOBS!!! Have some compassion!
If they want to spend time with their kids in stead of at work they
should quit.
> If a person becomes sick or has a condition like pregnancy and childbirth
> they should get a certain amount of time off and be able to come back in a
> couple months when they have recovered.
Unpaid, I suppose. No maternity leave, though, if they can get to work
they do so, or they get fired.
> That is not sexist as I think men
> who have any kind of condition or becoming a new dad should be able to take
> a couple of months off also and be able to go back to work.
If they have a genuine medical condition.
Stephen Morgan
>
> "Stephen Morgan" <ncav...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
> news:slrn9sqm5l....@wildcard.ntl.com...
> > In alt.feminism, Tom Smith (QIM) wrote:
> > > In article <d059eb80.01101...@posting.google.com>,
> > > violet...@hotmail.com says...
> > > > "Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > but then again
> > > > > HYPOCRISY is one of the hallmarks of a feminist - a movement
> actually based
> > > > > on sexism!
> > > >
> > > > God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
> > > > Sexist pigs. I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to
> > > > complain about not having the right to vote or go to colleges.
> > > > And what a bunch of hypocrites for asking pregnancy leave at work for
> > > > women and yet doing nothing for obtaining a pregnancy leave for men.
> > >
> > > That's just one of many sexist government policies femiist support. How
> > > about custody for mothers?
> >
> > Can't expect those brutish, uncivilised men to raise children.
> >
> > > The draft?
> >
> > Can't expect those delicate, sophisticated women to go off and fight.
>
> I don't like the draft but I do believe if men are drafted that women should
> also be.
So you believe the draft is a good thing? Conscription is nothing more
that slave labour, even if it is "for King and Country".
> Not many people agree with me on this. The only exception I have is
> that both of child's parents can not be drafted.
No doubt you would have them leave the women.
> So if one has already been
> drafted the other parent can not be drafted period. Can't leave a child
> without any parents.
Why not? In time of war would they need all the hands that could muster?
Send the kids to the grandparents, the uncles, foster homes, ophanages,
whatever.
> > > VAWA?
>
> Can you explain what VAWA is?
The Violence Against Women Act.
> > Nasty, brutish men think they have the right to control women using DV.
> >
> > > Affirmative action when
> > > there's 55% women to 45% men in college?
> >
> > AA just assures equality. 100% female is equality.
>
> I don't know how Affirmative Action works. I went to college and got my B.A.
> I did not get the help of anyone cept my family who helped pay.
Unlikely, whether you realised you were being helped (and your
competition hindered) or not.
> As long as
> people have the money and the grades they can go to college.
If they college accepts them.
> If you don't
> have the money you can get a loan or grant like most students do. I have not
> heard of any man being denied being able to get into college because he is a
> man.
You have selective eyesight.
> > > Thirty years of feminism to
> > > produce Brittany Spears?
>
> And tons of boys/girls/men/women adore her. So what?
>
> > ?
> >
> >
> > Men have all the power and control, women are helpless victims of their
> > brutish need for power.
>
> No you make is sound like because women are allowed to have a voice and use
> it that that somehow is making men helpless victims.
I didn't say that at all.
> > > Control of the democratic party and a loud voice in the
> > > republican party for women?
> > >
> > > You feminists disgust me.
> >
> > Good.
>
> Go to Afghanistan where women aren't seen or heard. I am sure you would be
> happy there.
No, Islamic theocracies aren't my thing.
Stephen Morgan
And we're right.
> and that a man is the
> head of the house and that a women should be submissve and obey her husband.
> This is in the bible also.
Yes!
> Christians are against women having control over their own bodies.
Correct!
> They are
> anti-choice,
Yes!
> anti-birth control,
Not really.
> and anti-women saying theyre not in the
> mood to their husbands.
And anti-men saying they're not in the mood the their wives, yes.
> They teach something called "family values" that basically teaches a woman
> is only good for having babies and staying home.
No.
> Any woman who does more
> than that is both selfish and is responsible for the downfall in our
> society. She is responsible for everything bad.
Women are responsible for the downfall of our society, yes.
> The bible itself if very sexist.
Yes! This is not a bad thing. Women can gain salvation, just like men.
This is all important.
> Both in how it is written and what is
> written. Basically everything that happens to women including the pain of
> child birth is all a woman's fault and a punishment from god. Because of
> this some preachers and even drs think that a woman SHOULD suffer during
> labor without any help of pain meds.
Yes.
> Fornication in the bible is considered a sin and any woman who actually
> enjoys it is called a whore.
Fornication is always a bad thing, yes.
> Women who are sexual in this day and age get
> called slut and whore while it seems to be a good thing if a man is sexual.
Certainly not. Women's sexuality is seen as good, men's as bad.
> > > The scary thing is these people push hard to force their ways on all
> > > people in America.
> >
> > Yeah? Name the legislation, then, so I can write to my Congress
> > critter about it.
>
> The christian coalition fights against both men and women's civil rights.
> They are the right-wing conservatives.
>
> > > And it is possible for them to succed.
> > >
> >
> >
> > > and jobs that are typically considered women's
> > > jobs are still low paid. One example is teaching. Teachers have to get a
> > > B.A. and then an M.A. and more college even after that. Yet they are not
> > > paid even enough to support a family on their own. Yet jobs that are
> > > typically men's job like computer networking where you get a degree in
> joys 2
> > > years make 3 times as much as a teacher.
> >
> > So why don't women choose to be computer networkers instead?
> > You're very big on people being responsible for their own choices
> > when it's "men choosing not to go to doctors." Why aren't these
> > women responsible for their choices?
>
> Because I don't want to be a computer networker and teachers deserve more
> pay so why should I do a job I don't want?
Because you want more pay.
> Why should I not try to help get
> teachers more pay like they should get?
You should. You should also try to get all women out of the teaching
field, women aren't allowed to teach, they can't be trusted with it.
> > [on college:]
> > > Actually this is an area where women do have more of an advantage then
> men.
> > > 60% of college students are now female. I don't think this is bad. If it
> > > were 60% male I wouldn't think that was bad either. I don't think people
> > > should be automatically accteped into a college based on their sex or
> color
> > > over another.
> > > People choose different fields. Some fields you will find lots of women
> inse
> > > like child care. And some fields you will find lots of men in like drs.
> >
> > Gosh. Ya think? And just above you were talking about this
> > being a function of discrimination. When it's women choosing
> > traditionally female jobs and getting lower pay because of it, that's
> > discrimination. When it's men being kept out of colleges because
> > of affirmative action and a man-and-boy-unfriendly education
> > environment, that's people making their own choices in life.
> > Can you see the hypocrisy now that it's been pointed out, or
> > are you still too much a feminist for that?
>
> Becoming a teacher takes a lot of education. For other jobs that take that
> much education there is much more pay involved. It's time teachers get paid
> what they deserve.
They get more than they deserve.
> I don't know of any man who has been lept out of a college because of
> affirmative action.
That's because you choose not to see them.
John Jones
[...]
>
> Becoming a teacher takes a lot of education. For other jobs that
take that
> much education there is much more pay involved.
Name some.
> It's time teachers get paid what they deserve.
If you're representative, I'd say that some teachers are already
getting paid too much.
>
> I don't know of any man who has been lept out of a college because
of affirmative action.
To paraphrase John Reinhagen:
We'll stipulate any degree of ignorance you care to make.
Andre Lieven
> "Asia" <jewe...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:mHpz7.21847$Zb.98...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
> [...]
>>
>> Becoming a teacher takes a lot of education. For other jobs that
>> take that much education there is much more pay involved.
>
> Name some.
agree with "Asia" on this one.
My g/f is a teacher, and her pay, considering her seniority, and
education ( and, she has to take courses to maintain her certificate,
unlike with doctors ), *sucks*, especially when you consider the
responsibilities that society heaps on teachers.
Now, we can say, " They knew the pay sucked going in ", and to
an extent, thats true.
But, as with anything else, you get what you pay for. Perhaps
paying teachers a reasonable wage would get more good ones to join
up, and others to stay in.
>> It's time teachers get paid what they deserve.
>
> If you're representative, I'd say that some teachers are already
> getting paid too much.
Quite. However, most are underpaid, compared to most other careers.
If there still is The American Dream ( or, as Brooks and Dunn sing
in their new song- title escapes me, but its the main single from
the CD Steers And Stripes- " In America, everyone gets to dance ",
then teachers deserve, by dint of what we ask them to do, " deserve
to dance ", too.
>> I don't know of any man who has been lept out of a college because
> of affirmative action.
>
> To paraphrase John Reinhagen:
>
> We'll stipulate any degree of ignorance you care to make.
Agreed. Her ignorance isn't our problem.
Asia
No I don't like the draft at all.
>
> > Not many people agree with me on this. The only exception I have is
> > that both of child's parents can not be drafted.
>
> No doubt you would have them leave the women.
Wrong. People are picked by their birthdate not by there sex. If one parent
has already been called the other parent cannont be. Stop assuming shit.
>
> > So if one has already been
> > drafted the other parent can not be drafted period. Can't leave a child
> > without any parents.
>
> Why not? In time of war would they need all the hands that could muster?
> Send the kids to the grandparents, the uncles, foster homes, ophanages,
> whatever.
No. You have no compassion for family.
>
> > > > VAWA?
> >
> > Can you explain what VAWA is?
>
> The Violence Against Women Act.
ok well I am against violence against men, women and children and animals of
course.
>
> > > Nasty, brutish men think they have the right to control women using
DV.
> > >
> > > > Affirmative action when
> > > > there's 55% women to 45% men in college?
> > >
> > > AA just assures equality. 100% female is equality.
> >
> > I don't know how Affirmative Action works. I went to college and got my
B.A.
> > I did not get the help of anyone cept my family who helped pay.
>
> Unlikely, whether you realised you were being helped (and your
> competition hindered) or not.
>
> > As long as
> > people have the money and the grades they can go to college.
>
> If they college accepts them.
The colleges I know of accept everyone who has the money and grades.
Colleges are not a rat race. They NEED MORE students because that is how
they make their money. The colleges around here encourage MORE PEOPLE(men
and women) to go to college because they need MORE students.
>
> > If you don't
> > have the money you can get a loan or grant like most students do. I have
not
> > heard of any man being denied being able to get into college because he
is a
> > man.
>
> You have selective eyesight.
so do you
>
> > > > Thirty years of feminism to
> > > > produce Brittany Spears?
> >
> > And tons of boys/girls/men/women adore her. So what?
> >
> > > ?
> > >
> > >
> > > Men have all the power and control, women are helpless victims of
their
> > > brutish need for power.
> >
> > No you make is sound like because women are allowed to have a voice and
use
> > it that that somehow is making men helpless victims.
>
> I didn't say that at all.
>
> > > > Control of the democratic party and a loud voice in the
> > > > republican party for women?
> > > >
> > > > You feminists disgust me.
> > >
> > > Good.
> >
> > Go to Afghanistan where women aren't seen or heard. I am sure you would
be
> > happy there.
>
> No, Islamic theocracies aren't my thing.
No but a christian theocracy run by all men is your thing.
Please answer these questions
1) Would you ever vote for a woman for President if she was the best choice
and could be a great leader?
2) Do you believe women should be submissive to their husbands? If yes what
does that mean(give examples)
3) Do you believe women should be allowed to vote?
4) Do you think women should discuss their political opinions in public?
5) Are you against women having a right to control whether they have a child
by taking birth control?
6) Do you think women who sleep around are sluts? Do you think men who sleep
around are sluts also?
7) Do you think women sin more than men?
8) Do you think women lie more than men?
9) Do you believe women belong to men?
10) Do you believe women who are raped asked for it?
11) Do you think women should go to college?
12) Do you think a mother belongs at home, taking care of the children,
cleaning the house, and cooking?
13) Do you believe women who are in the work force are taking away a job
that should go to a man because men should not have to compete with women?
14) Do you believe women are responsible for all the bad things in society
because they are in the workforce?
15)Do you believe a woman's dream should be to get married, have children,
and stay home and not for her to have dreams of having a career?
16)Do you see single mothers as being completely the mothers' fault and no
man is responsible?
17) Do you believe women's health concerns are less important than mens?
18) Do women have a right to not have sex with their husband if they are not
in the mood or should a woman always pleasure her husband because that is
her purpose?
19) Do you believe employers should hire based on a person's skills and
experience and not on their sex or race?
20) Do you believe men and women should respect each other and treat one
another the way they would want to be treated?
Asia
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:A1qz7.6808$no1....@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Asia <jewe...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >> I know nothing at all about Islam. Christianity, however, is
> >> the world's largest sponsor of hospitals and health care. How
> >> exactly is all of Christianity a "woman hater group?"
> >
> >Fundamentalists believe women and men are not equal and that a man is the
> >head of the house and that a women should be submissve and obey her
husband.
> >This is in the bible also.
>
> You argue that men must take care of and protect women and children.
>
> >Christians are against women having control over their own bodies. They
are
> >anti-choice, anti-birth control, and anti-women saying theyre not in the
> >mood to their husbands.
>
> You are against men having control over their own bodies, arguing that men
> should be forced to work for women and children.
>
> >They teach something called "family values" that basically teaches a
woman
> >is only good for having babies and staying home.
>
> Given that you argue that men must support women when they have babies
> and stay at home, what's your objection?
>
> >The bible itself if very sexist.
>
> So are you.
Asia
Well you've proven all my points. You are the one who is sexist and you
admit it. You don't want women to have equality. You represent what most of
these anti-feminist people really believe but they don't admit they are
anti-woman and really are against equality. Thank you for proving my point.I
will never follow your religion, I will not be submissive to my husband, nor
will I expect him to be submissive to me, next time I have a child I will
get another epidural and I will not believe it is a punishment from your
mythological god, I will not tell women to get out of the teaching field or
any other field, and I don't believe women solely are responsible for
societies' downfalls and are evil natured.
Deborah
> Why? They suddenly take weeks or months off work, leaving their employer
> in the lurch. This is unreliable. If they won't do the job they should
> be fired.
I suppose on the same principle *you* stated we shouldn't let men have
coustody of the kids because if they are at work all the time they
make unreliable parents and shouldn't have kids.
> > However, someone did mention paternity leave which I actually have
> > just been reading up about and seems like a very good idea. More men
> > need to stay at home if their partner is having a child and help them
> > out.
>
> "help them out"? Sexist.
It's sexist to work in an equal partnership in your family? Perhaps
you haven't a clue about what sexism is, or you just can't read what I
write.
"sex·ism (skszm)
n.
Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against
women.
Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of
social roles based on gender"
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=sexism
> > Europe already does this.
>
> No.
False. The country that does this mainly right now is Sweden. Sweden
certainly isn't in Africa. It's in Europe, Mr. Morgan.
> Good. More women out of the workforce!
Perfect example of sexism. Now you know what it is.
> > > The draft?
> >
> > No, the draft isn't fair, it's old-fashioned. It dates back to times
> > where women had to stay home and raise the kids while the men played
> > the pawns and went out to fight.
>
> You mean it dates to times when anti-male sexism was just as bad as now.
Explain/prove how women 100-200 years ago in the US made the draft as
anti-male sexism.
> It's a sexist, gender-based law with no basis in fact. Women are more
> domestically violent than men, men are just prevented from reporting it
> by the sexist system.
Well I say Martians are abused more than any group, but because the
Queen of England prevents their reports to go through, you never ever
hear about it. Really.
> > If more men complained, more would be
> > done.
>
> Complain to who? Can't complain to the police, they (the male victim)
> would stand an evens chance of getting arrested themselves.
Can't prove what hasn't been reported, however. Can't expect action
for something that has no proof or even filed complaint.
> You'd know the truth if your only source of information wasn't the
> feminist advocacy groups.
Making assumptions? Bad tactic. You have no clue where I get my
information.
> > > Affirmative action when there's 55% women to 45% men in college?
> >
> > Well, there are more women in this world than men. I assume that has
> > something to do with it.
>
> Women are 51% of the population.
Where's your sources to prove this (We are talking about the US)? I
gave mine.
>
> > http://www.nandotimes.com/nation/story/76259p-1069366c.html
> >
> > The population gap is shrinking, but still there is about 94 men to
> > 100 women, plus fewer men apply to colleges than women.
>
> Because of sexism, yes.
Prove this, this specifically.
> > If you think they are 'steering in the captain's chair' I think you
> > are very wrong.
>
> Because you are ignorant or because you are a liar?
Ahh, add-homonyms. The most primitive display of thinking.
> > (and I wonder what
> > soc.men would say if finally one day a woman did become President?)
>
> I'd disapprove.
= Sexist.
> You won't be content while there are men on this earth.
= Assumptions, narrow-minded judgement, and overall insanity.
> That's a lie. What are these advantages men have over women?
Leadership is a big one. Men have many more leadership roles than
women, and men have all of the highest ranking leadership roles and
are MUCH more likey to have them over an women in the future. Also,
men in general have higher pay for the same jobs as women, and women
are viewed as weaker by the general media and society (which is
portrayed in ads, tv, etc.)
> Why don't you care about the dozens of advantages women have over men?
More assumptions. You are a hypocrite when you ask me to care (and
assume I don't) about men's issues but couldn't care less about
women's.
So far in this thread alone, I talked about the woman's advantage over
men when it comes to child custody and the draft. You must have
missed that or can't read very well.
Deborah
Stephen Morgan
Most violent crimes are commited against men, most domestic violence is
against men and children, why is there no VAMA?
> > > > Nasty, brutish men think they have the right to control women using
> DV.
> > > >
> > > > > Affirmative action when
> > > > > there's 55% women to 45% men in college?
> > > >
> > > > AA just assures equality. 100% female is equality.
> > >
> > > I don't know how Affirmative Action works. I went to college and got my
> B.A.
> > > I did not get the help of anyone cept my family who helped pay.
> >
> > Unlikely, whether you realised you were being helped (and your
> > competition hindered) or not.
> >
> > > As long as
> > > people have the money and the grades they can go to college.
> >
> > If they college accepts them.
>
> The colleges I know of accept everyone who has the money and grades.
> Colleges are not a rat race. They NEED MORE students because that is how
> they make their money. The colleges around here encourage MORE PEOPLE(men
> and women) to go to college because they need MORE students.
They lower the required grades for women and raise them for men.
> > > If you don't
> > > have the money you can get a loan or grant like most students do. I have
> not
> > > heard of any man being denied being able to get into college because he
> is a
> > > man.
> >
> > You have selective eyesight.
>
> so do you
No.
> > > > > Thirty years of feminism to
> > > > > produce Brittany Spears?
> > >
> > > And tons of boys/girls/men/women adore her. So what?
> > >
> > > > ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Men have all the power and control, women are helpless victims of
> their
> > > > brutish need for power.
> > >
> > > No you make is sound like because women are allowed to have a voice and
> use
> > > it that that somehow is making men helpless victims.
> >
> > I didn't say that at all.
> >
> > > > > Control of the democratic party and a loud voice in the
> > > > > republican party for women?
> > > > >
> > > > > You feminists disgust me.
> > > >
> > > > Good.
> > >
> > > Go to Afghanistan where women aren't seen or heard. I am sure you would
> be
> > > happy there.
> >
> > No, Islamic theocracies aren't my thing.
>
> No but a christian theocracy run by all men is your thing.
>
> Please answer these questions
[...]
I answered those in the new thread you started about them.
Stephen Morgan
We are both sexist, but I freely admit it.
> and you
> admit it.
Yes.
> You don't want women to have equality.
Correct.
> You represent what most of
> these anti-feminist people really believe but they don't admit they are
> anti-woman and really are against equality.
No. Most anti-feminists, like Angilion, Michael Snyder and others on
this newsgroup, don't think like me at all. They aren't like me.
> Thank you for proving my point.I
> will never follow your religion, I will not be submissive to my husband,
Why not?
> nor
> will I expect him to be submissive to me, next time I have a child I will
> get another epidural and I will not believe it is a punishment from your
> mythological god,
Why do you hate Christianity so much?
> I will not tell women to get out of the teaching field or
> any other field, and I don't believe women solely are responsible for
> societies' downfalls and are evil natured.
Fine.
Stephen Morgan
> ncav...@crosswinds.net (Stephen Morgan) wrote:
>
> > Why? They suddenly take weeks or months off work, leaving their employer
> > in the lurch. This is unreliable. If they won't do the job they should
> > be fired.
>
> I suppose on the same principle *you* stated we shouldn't let men have
> coustody of the kids because if they are at work all the time they
> make unreliable parents and shouldn't have kids.
Men should have custody, they can afford the children.
> > > However, someone did mention paternity leave which I actually have
> > > just been reading up about and seems like a very good idea. More men
> > > need to stay at home if their partner is having a child and help them
> > > out.
> >
> > "help them out"? Sexist.
>
> It's sexist to work in an equal partnership in your family?
It's sexist to assume men will only be helpers to the primary partner.
> Perhaps
> you haven't a clue about what sexism is, or you just can't read what I
> write.
You write sexism.
> "sex·ism (skszm)
> n.
> Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against
> women.
> Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of
> social roles based on gender"
>
> http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=sexism
>
> > > Europe already does this.
> >
> > No.
>
> False. The country that does this mainly right now is Sweden. Sweden
> certainly isn't in Africa. It's in Europe, Mr. Morgan.
Sweden is *in* Europe, but it *isn't* Europe.
> > Good. More women out of the workforce!
>
> Perfect example of sexism. Now you know what it is.
I know what it is.
> > > > The draft?
> > >
> > > No, the draft isn't fair, it's old-fashioned. It dates back to times
> > > where women had to stay home and raise the kids while the men played
> > > the pawns and went out to fight.
> >
> > You mean it dates to times when anti-male sexism was just as bad as now.
>
> Explain/prove how women 100-200 years ago in the US made the draft as
> anti-male sexism.
I never said they did.
> > It's a sexist, gender-based law with no basis in fact. Women are more
> > domestically violent than men, men are just prevented from reporting it
> > by the sexist system.
>
> Well I say Martians are abused more than any group, but because the
> Queen of England prevents their reports to go through, you never ever
> hear about it. Really.
Martians aren't violent people. Women are.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ncavalier/feminism/links.html#dv
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
> > > If more men complained, more would be
> > > done.
> >
> > Complain to who? Can't complain to the police, they (the male victim)
> > would stand an evens chance of getting arrested themselves.
>
> Can't prove what hasn't been reported, however.
Of course you can.
> Can't expect action
> for something that has no proof or even filed complaint.
Filing a complaint just causes problems. The police blame the [male]
victim.
> > You'd know the truth if your only source of information wasn't the
> > feminist advocacy groups.
>
> Making assumptions? Bad tactic. You have no clue where I get my
> information.
It's obvious from the lies you say.
> > > > Affirmative action when there's 55% women to 45% men in college?
> > >
> > > Well, there are more women in this world than men. I assume that has
> > > something to do with it.
> >
> > Women are 51% of the population.
>
> Where's your sources to prove this (We are talking about the US)? I
> gave mine.
World population, I forget the source.
> > > http://www.nandotimes.com/nation/story/76259p-1069366c.html
> > >
> > > The population gap is shrinking, but still there is about 94 men to
> > > 100 women, plus fewer men apply to colleges than women.
Your cite says 96.4, not 94.
> > Because of sexism, yes.
>
> Prove this, this specifically.
I'm not responsible for your ignorance.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ncavalier/feminism/links.html#education
> > > If you think they are 'steering in the captain's chair' I think you
> > > are very wrong.
> >
> > Because you are ignorant or because you are a liar?
>
> Ahh, add-homonyms. The most primitive display of thinking.
I'm just seeking the truth, are you ingnorant or dishonest?
> > > (and I wonder what
> > > soc.men would say if finally one day a woman did become President?)
> >
> > I'd disapprove.
>
> = Sexist.
Yes.
> > You won't be content while there are men on this earth.
>
> = Assumptions, narrow-minded judgement, and overall insanity.
Just common sense, based on what you've said here.
> > That's a lie. What are these advantages men have over women?
>
> Leadership is a big one.
That's natural, men are better leaders than women.
> Men have many more leadership roles than
> women, and men have all of the highest ranking leadership roles and
> are MUCH more likey to have them over an women in the future.
I don't see how that's important, but yes.
> Also,
> men in general have higher pay for the same jobs as women,
The "Pay Gap" myth. Rubbish. False, lie. For the same work men and women
get the same pay, approximately.
> and women
> are viewed as weaker by the general media and society (which is
> portrayed in ads, tv, etc.)
1) No, they aren't protrayed that way.
2) They are weaker.
> > Why don't you care about the dozens of advantages women have over men?
>
> More assumptions. You are a hypocrite when you ask me to care (and
> assume I don't) about men's issues but couldn't care less about
> women's.
You mean these non-existant women's issues like the "pay gap"? Show me a
genuine issue and I might care. Until then I'll just say that masculism
has women's best interests at heart.
> So far in this thread alone, I talked about the woman's advantage over
> men when it comes to child custody and the draft.
You're in favour of them.
> You must have
> missed that or can't read very well.
John Jones
"Deborah" <violet...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d059eb80.01101...@posting.google.com...
> ncav...@crosswinds.net (Stephen Morgan) wrote:
>
> > Why? They suddenly take weeks or months off work, leaving their
employer
> > in the lurch. This is unreliable. If they won't do the job they
should
> > be fired.
>
> I suppose on the same principle *you* stated we shouldn't let men
have
> coustody of the kids because if they are at work all the time they
> make unreliable parents and shouldn't have kids.
That's almost a statement of the status quo.
>
> > > However, someone did mention paternity leave which I actually
have
> > > just been reading up about and seems like a very good idea.
More men
> > > need to stay at home if their partner is having a child and help
them
> > > out.
> >
> > "help them out"? Sexist.
>
> It's sexist to work in an equal partnership in your family? Perhaps
> you haven't a clue about what sexism is, or you just can't read what
I
> write.
>
> "sex·ism (skszm)
> n.
> Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against
> women.
> Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of
> social roles based on gender"
Is that old sexist definition still on the books?
Shaking Hell [Lan]
> and I don't believe women solely are responsible for societies'
> downfalls and are evil natured.
No, just mostly responsible, and mostly evil natured.
--
http://members.tripod.com/LanTheBoy
Email: Anti-chaos. ICQ://26027485
doomdoomdoomdoomdoom...................
zink
%%%%%%%The Darkness will love you, the Darkness will take care of you%%%%%%%%
...... . People are poison, the hatred can heal you . ........
Parg2000
>Date: 10/17/01 6:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <slrn9ss88c....@wildcard.ntl.com>
>
>In alt.feminism, Asia wrote:
>>
>> "Stephen Morgan" <ncav...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
>> news:slrn9sqgmj....@wildcard.ntl.com...
>> > In alt.feminism, Deborah wrote:
>> > > "Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > but then again
>> > > > HYPOCRISY is one of the hallmarks of a feminist - a movement actually
>> based
>> > > > on sexism!
>> > >
>> > > God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
>> >
>> > He will.
{Parg} Perhaps, but then his MOTHER will wash out his mouth with soap. <G>
>>
>> Christians are so judgemental...
>
>Not at all.
{Parg} Fundamentalists like you are judgemental. The religion doesn't much
matter. Fudies are going down. <G>
>
>> > > I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to>> > > complain
about not having the right to vote
>> >
>> > Remembering of course that only 16% of the population of England could
>> > vote until 1918. The oppression of poor men was worse than any
>> > oppression of women.
{Parg} Facts are facts; women were oppressed by men and bitter boys have no
way to refute that. History bears them out.
>>> Well then feminism probably helped both men and women gain the right to
>> vote!
{Parg} Indeed. Wherever feminists go, they increase human rights. Steve
Imparl would rather human rights only apply to fundies. <G>
>
><cut>
>>
>>
Laura M. Hagan
Asia <jewe...@home.com> wrote in message news:mHpz7.21847$Zb.98...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
>
> "Laura M. Hagan" <doesn'tlik...@goaway.com> wrote in message
> news:3bce...@news.qnet.com...
> >
> > Asia <jewe...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Pynz7.21564$Zb.96...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
> > [snip]
> >
> > Hey Asia, you're still here! I thought you stomped out in a huff
> > a couple weeks ago.
> > Since you're still here, d'you mind answering the questions I
> > asked, just before you pretended to leave? For your convenience,
> > here they are again:
> > --------------begin repost--------------------
> > Asia <jewe...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:k8Mu7.74457$QK.44...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
> > >
> > > Religious groups are very antifemale and are fighting very hard to take
> away
> > > women's rights.
> >
> > Please identify the legislation that has been introduced on their
> > behalf to put this in effect.
No answer?
> > > They have joined in with the republican party and have
> > > succesfully got their president in.
> >
> > Please identify the legislation that President Bush has either
> > sponsored or publicly supported that would take away women's
> > rights.
No answer?
> > > Many of these religious groups believe a
> > > woman should be submissive to her husband, that a woman should not take
> > > birth control, should not have control of her own body, they believe a
> > > mother belongs at home with her kids, many are against mothers working,
> >
> > Once again -- please identify the legislation you're talking
> > about, that these religious groups have introduced either in
> > Congress or in State legislatures, to enforce these beliefs.
No answer?
It frightens me badly that someone in a position to teach children
has such poor reading comprehension skills. I asked you to name
the legislation. I'm still waiting.
> > > And it is possible for them to succed.
> > >
> >
> >
> > > and jobs that are typically considered women's
> > > jobs are still low paid. One example is teaching. Teachers have to get a
> > > B.A. and then an M.A. and more college even after that. Yet they are not
> > > paid even enough to support a family on their own. Yet jobs that are
> > > typically men's job like computer networking where you get a degree in
> joys 2
> > > years make 3 times as much as a teacher.
> >
> > So why don't women choose to be computer networkers instead?
> > You're very big on people being responsible for their own choices
> > when it's "men choosing not to go to doctors." Why aren't these
> > women responsible for their choices?
>
> Because I don't want to be a computer networker and teachers
> deserve more pay so why should I do a job I don't want? Why
> should I not try to help get teachers more pay like they should get?
What, exactly, does that have to do with discrimination? Are
you seriously arguing that every time you don't get what you want,
it's because you're being discriminated against? Really?
I'm even more frightened than before. Do you teach children
that when they don't get what they want, it's someone else's fault?
> > [on college:]
> > > Actually this is an area where women do have more of an advantage then
> men.
> > > 60% of college students are now female. I don't think this is bad. If it
> > > were 60% male I wouldn't think that was bad either. I don't think people
> > > should be automatically accteped into a college based on their sex or
> color
> > > over another.
> > > People choose different fields. Some fields you will find lots of women
> inse
> > > like child care. And some fields you will find lots of men in like drs.
> >
> > Gosh. Ya think? And just above you were talking about this
> > being a function of discrimination. When it's women choosing
> > traditionally female jobs and getting lower pay because of it, that's
> > discrimination. When it's men being kept out of colleges because
> > of affirmative action and a man-and-boy-unfriendly education
> > environment, that's people making their own choices in life.
> > Can you see the hypocrisy now that it's been pointed out, or
> > are you still too much a feminist for that?
>
> Becoming a teacher takes a lot of education. For other jobs that take
> that much education there is much more pay involved. It's time
> teachers get paid what they deserve.
What *you* say they deserve, you mean. And once again, how
exactly is any of this a function of discrimination? Shall I quote you?
Asia says, "People choose different fields." Gosh, Asia, doesn't that
mean that people are free to choose not to be teachers if they don't
like the pay?
> I don't know of any man who has been lept out of a college because of
> affirmative action.
Your ignorance in this regard is not in dispute. You shouldn't keep
calling attention to it, though, it does even more harm to your credibility
than the other silly things you've said.
> > ----------------end repost---------------------
> >
> > Most particularly, I would like you to explain why you think that
> > women are still discriminated against in the workforce. Thanks.
What, no answer to this? I thought this was the central issue of
your previous post, and you're running away from it now?
> >
>
>
Asia
> > Well you've proven all my points. You are the one who is sexist
>
> We are both sexist, but I freely admit it.
>
>
> Correct.
I want equality for men and women. There's nothing sexist about that.
>
> > You represent what most of
> > these anti-feminist people really believe but they don't admit they are
> > anti-woman and really are against equality.
>
> No. Most anti-feminists, like Angilion, Michael Snyder and others on
> this newsgroup, don't think like me at all. They aren't like me.
Thank Goodness. I have some respect for them. None for you.
>
> > Thank you for proving my point.I
> > will never follow your religion, I will not be submissive to my husband,
>
> Why not?
Because I don't want to and your god is make believe!
>
> > nor
> > will I expect him to be submissive to me, next time I have a child I
will
> > get another epidural and I will not believe it is a punishment from your
> > mythological god,
>
> Why do you hate Christianity so much?
Because people like you!
>
> > I will not tell women to get out of the teaching field or
> > any other field, and I don't believe women solely are responsible for
> > societies' downfalls and are evil natured.
>
> Fine.
>
You can live your life the way you want. Marry a woman who is christian and
will be submissive to you. I will live my life the way I want. I want
NOTHING to do with your evil religion and your evil intolerant ways. I will
continue to live my life the way I believe is best.
Ray Fischer
>> >Fundamentalists believe women and men are not equal and that a man is the
>> >head of the house and that a women should be submissve and obey her husband.
>> >This is in the bible also.
>>
>> You argue that men must take care of and protect women and children.
>
>No I argue that men AND women must take care of their children.
No, men must take care of women and children when women are irresponsible
and choose to have children that they cannot support.
>> >Christians are against women having control over their own bodies. They
>are
>> >anti-choice, anti-birth control, and anti-women saying theyre not in the
>> >mood to their husbands.
>>
>> You are against men having control over their own bodies, arguing that men
>> should be forced to work for women and children.
>
>Once again. Men AND women need to support their children.
You're just restating you position that men must be forced to work
when women are irresponsible.
>> >They teach something called "family values" that basically teaches a woman
>> >is only good for having babies and staying home.
>>
>> Given that you argue that men must support women when they have babies
>> and stay at home, what's your objection?
>
>I argue that men AND women must support THEIR children.
Children that only women are allowed to choose.
John Jones
>
> > > Well you've proven all my points. You are the one who is sexist
> >
> > We are both sexist, but I freely admit it.
> >
> > > You don't want women to have equality.
> >
> > Correct.
>
> I want equality for men and women. There's nothing sexist about
that.
Nothing feminist about it either
Ray Fischer
>> > You don't want women to have equality.
>>
>> Correct.
>
>I want equality for men and women.
And yet you keep arguing AGAINST equality.
You're either stupid or lying.
>You can live your life the way you want. Marry a woman who is christian and
>will be submissive to you. I will live my life the way I want. I want
>NOTHING to do with your evil religion and your evil intolerant ways. I will
>continue to live my life the way I believe is best.
Tell us, will you become a baby whore? Lie to some man so that you can
have a baby and then make him pay for it?
Stephen Morgan
> >Subject: Re: Stephen Morgan: Mentally-Ill
> >From: ncav...@crosswinds.net (Stephen Morgan)
> >Date: 10/17/01 6:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <slrn9ss88c....@wildcard.ntl.com>
> >
> >In alt.feminism, Asia wrote:
> >>
> >> "Stephen Morgan" <ncav...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
> >> news:slrn9sqgmj....@wildcard.ntl.com...
> >> > In alt.feminism, Deborah wrote:
> >> > > "Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > but then again
> >> > > > HYPOCRISY is one of the hallmarks of a feminist - a movement actually
> >> based
> >> > > > on sexism!
> >> > >
> >> > > God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
> >> >
> >> > He will.
>
> {Parg} Perhaps, but then his MOTHER will wash out his mouth with soap. <G>
No, she was a good woman, she wouldn't think about rebelling against the
Lord.
> >> Christians are so judgemental...
> >
> >Not at all.
>
> {Parg} Fundamentalists like you are judgemental. The religion doesn't much
> matter. Fudies are going down. <G>
No.
> >> > > I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to>> > > complain
> about not having the right to vote
> >> >
> >> > Remembering of course that only 16% of the population of England could
> >> > vote until 1918. The oppression of poor men was worse than any
> >> > oppression of women.
>
> {Parg} Facts are facts; women were oppressed by men and bitter boys have no
> way to refute that. History bears them out.
That is a lie, not a fact. Women were never oppressed here.
> >>> Well then feminism probably helped both men and women gain the right to
> >> vote!
A lie, as I showed.
> {Parg} Indeed. Wherever feminists go, they increase human rights.
Liar.
> Steve
> Imparl would rather human rights only apply to fundies. <G>
No, he wouldn't, and neither would I.
Stephen Morgan
>
> > > Well you've proven all my points. You are the one who is sexist
> >
> > We are both sexist, but I freely admit it.
> >
> > > You don't want women to have equality.
> >
> > Correct.
>
> I want equality for men and women. There's nothing sexist about that.
You don't want that.
> > > You represent what most of
> > > these anti-feminist people really believe but they don't admit they are
> > > anti-woman and really are against equality.
> >
> > No. Most anti-feminists, like Angilion, Michael Snyder and others on
> > this newsgroup, don't think like me at all. They aren't like me.
>
> Thank Goodness. I have some respect for them. None for you.
Good.
> > > Thank you for proving my point.I
> > > will never follow your religion, I will not be submissive to my husband,
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because I don't want to
Very self-willed of you, neo-Nazi.
> and your god is make believe!
No.
> > > nor
> > > will I expect him to be submissive to me, next time I have a child I
> will
> > > get another epidural and I will not believe it is a punishment from your
> > > mythological god,
> >
> > Why do you hate Christianity so much?
>
> Because people like you!
Why do you hate me?
> > > I will not tell women to get out of the teaching field or
> > > any other field, and I don't believe women solely are responsible for
> > > societies' downfalls and are evil natured.
> >
> > Fine.
>
> You can live your life the way you want. Marry a woman who is christian and
> will be submissive to you. I will live my life the way I want. I want
> NOTHING to do with your evil religion and your evil intolerant ways. I will
> continue to live my life the way I believe is best.
Until you go to hell.
Parg2000
>Date: 10/18/01 11:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <%BFz7.7016$no1....@typhoon.sonic.net>
>
>Asia <jewe...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>> > You don't want women to have equality.
>>>
>>> Correct.
>>
>>I want equality for men and women.
>
>And yet you keep arguing AGAINST equality.
>
>You're either stupid or lying.
>
>>You can live your life the way you want. Marry a woman who is christian and
>>will be submissive to you. I will live my life the way I want. I want
>>NOTHING to do with your evil religion and your evil intolerant ways. I will
>>continue to live my life the way I believe is best.
>
>Tell us, will you become a baby whore? Lie to some man so that you can
>have a baby and then make him pay for it?
{Parg} ????? You are confusing Ray. Do you think that every woman who
doesn't want to marry a fucking patriarch is out to get you.
<G>
Tom Smith
> > > complain about not having the right to vote or go to colleges.
> > > And what a bunch of hypocrites for asking pregnancy leave at work for
> > > women and yet doing nothing for obtaining a pregnancy leave for men.
> >
> > That's just one of many sexist government policies femiist support.
>
> not vanish, people have to have kids which means women have to give
> birth to them.
One more year of feminism being unchallenged by the feminist media, will
certainly make me wish that civilization ends. Listen, this country is a
fucking nightmare for any real men. We are slaves of stupid women like
yourself and have to deal with your stupid mouths popping up.
Osama, you can have this one.
Tom
goddess
"Parg2000" <parg...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20011018195046...@mb-cl.news.cs.com...
> >Subject: Re: Stephen Morgan: Mentally-Ill
> >From: rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
> >Date: 10/18/01 11:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <%BFz7.7016$no1....@typhoon.sonic.net>
> >
> >Asia <jewe...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> > You don't want women to have equality.
> >>>
> >>> Correct.
> >>
> >>I want equality for men and women.
> >
> >And yet you keep arguing AGAINST equality.
> >
> >You're either stupid or lying.
> >
> >>You can live your life the way you want. Marry a woman who is christian
and
> >>will be submissive to you. I will live my life the way I want. I want
> >>NOTHING to do with your evil religion and your evil intolerant ways. I
will
> >>continue to live my life the way I believe is best.
> >
> >Tell us, will you become a baby whore? Lie to some man so that you can
> >have a baby and then make him pay for it?
>
> {Parg} ????? You are confusing Ray. Do you think that every woman who
> doesn't want to marry a fucking patriarch is out to get you.
> <G>
LOL. Well, maybe not HIM, personally, but *some* man at any rate. In
Rayworld women have only 2 choices, either submit to patriarchy OR submit to
deception. He sees nothing else. Poor Ray. It must be very dismal in his
world.
Marg
Chive Mynde
> "Chive Mynde" <chyve...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:ccd55c9c.01092...@posting.google.com...
> > ncav...@crosswinds.net (Stephen Morgan) wrote in message
> news:<slrn9qmtmp....@wildcard.ntl.com>...
> >
> > > I opposse freedom whereever I see it.
> >
> > You've made that point, multiple times.
> >
> > And, you use your religious fundamentalism as an excuse
> > to deny human rights to others.
> >
> > I suppose that if Bush is serious about eliminating
> > terrorism, we should start with the Christian fundies
> > here at home.
>
> Yes I agree. We should do something more about domestic terrorism(abortion
> clinic bombings) in the country AND those who harbor it(Jerry Falwell and
> all the other hate-filled religious fanatics).
Well, what do you propose?
- Chive
Science is not belief, but the will to find out.
Parg2000
>Date: 10/19/01 12:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9qoj87$kr3$1...@sevenofnine.peak.org>
{Parg} I'll say.
Artemesia
> Pankhurst man (husband to one of the famous Pankhursts and
> father to the other two). Of course, he's a man so he must be
> ignored since it doesn't fit in with the "oppressed women fighting
> against men, the oppressors" viewpoint.
Apparently you missed my post "I'd like to that my dear ole Dad".
Like Mr. Pankhurst, my father married a highly educated woman and
raised his daughters to be bright and educated, too. He really wanted
me to follow him into Structual Engineering. But he and my mother
also sent me to ballet lessons and cotillion, too.
>
> John Stuart Mill was advocating sexual equality in voting rights
> before the parents of the "Pankhurst girls" were alive, I think
> you'll find. He got the matter to a Commons vote in 1867, where
> it did very well for a Private Members Bill.
Yes, I'm familiar with his work......utilitarianism.
Artermesia
Angilion
Morgan) wrote:
>In alt.feminism, Asia wrote:
[..]
>> I suppose it's sexist that women gets pregnant too. Maybe you should tell
>> God she is a sexist and you demand the right for all men to be able get
>> pregnant so that they can too obtain pregnancy leave.
>
>Pregnancy leave is a bad thing. Maternity and paternity leave should be
>equal.
Why? That would not be sexual equality, unless the mother and
father are both equally pregnant and both equally give birth.
Personally, I'd split parental leave into two types. The first would
be purely due to physical reasons, as determined by a doctor. That
would apply to pregnancy and childbirth and therefore only to those
parents who went through those things. The second type would be
parental, applying to all parents equally. A minimum period, with
companies free to offer extensions to that period as part of the job
if they wish (e.g. work for the company for 5 years and get an
extra week, or whatever).
[..]
>Why did you cut this?:
>
>"How about custody for mothers? ... VAWA? Affirmative action when
>there's 55% women to 45% men in college? ... A massive exclusive
>advocacy for women and none for men?"
Those facts do not agree with her faith, so they cannot exist. Simple.
--
Always remember you're unique.
Just like everyone else. (Anon)
Angilion
>"Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> but then again
>> HYPOCRISY is one of the hallmarks of a feminist - a movement actually based
>> on sexism!
>
>God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
>Sexist pigs. I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to
>complain about not having the right to vote or go to colleges.
>And what a bunch of hypocrites for asking pregnancy leave at work for
>women and yet doing nothing for obtaining a pregnancy leave for men.
All of which could have been campaigned for without feminism.
You are making the assumption that sexism is the only alternative
to sexism. It is not. Sexual equality *is* an option if enough people
make it so.
Bob
Angilion wrote:
> Why? That would not be sexual equality, unless the mother and
> father are both equally pregnant and both equally give birth.
Another definition of "equal." Apparently men would have to be women in order
to be "equal." That way "equal rights" can mean "rights for women" and still be
"equal" as long as men are not women.
A window on the feminist mind. Pathetic!
Bob
Bob
Angilion wrote:
> On 17 Oct 2001 00:52:44 -0700, violet...@hotmail.com (Deborah) wrote:
>
> >"Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> but then again
> >> HYPOCRISY is one of the hallmarks of a feminist - a movement actually based
> >> on sexism!
> >
> >God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
> >Sexist pigs. I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to
> >complain about not having the right to vote or go to colleges.
More feminist lies Angilion? Lots of 19th century women went to college. Then,
as now, they had many women's colleges. In fact, then, as now, it was mostly the
upper middle class college women who were the hard line feminists leaders.
Save your pathetic victimology lies for someone who is as ignorant as you.
> You are making the assumption that sexism is the only alternative
> to sexism. It is not. Sexual equality *is* an option if enough people
> make it so.
You are right there. Sexual equality is an option if enough people oppose sexist
bigotry like feminism, and repeal the many sexist laws and regulations that
feminist lobbies have gotten enacted.
Bob
Matthew Vincent
>Angilion wrote:
>
>> On 17 Oct 2001 00:52:44 -0700, violet...@hotmail.com (Deborah) wrote:
>>
>> >"Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> but then again
>> >> HYPOCRISY is one of the hallmarks of a feminist - a movement actually based
>> >> on sexism!
>> >
>> >God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
>> >Sexist pigs. I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to
>> >complain about not having the right to vote or go to colleges.
>
>More feminist lies Angilion?
You're misquoting. It was Deborah, and not Angilion, who said the
above. Angilion said the following:
>> You are making the assumption that sexism is the only alternative
>> to sexism. It is not. Sexual equality *is* an option if enough people
>> make it so.
Hope that this is now clarified.
Matthew
Angilion
>Angilion wrote:
I'll replace the section Bob cut here, since it is relevant.
Bob wrote "Pregnancy leave is a bad thing. Maternity and paternity
leave should be equal."
>> Why? That would not be sexual equality, unless the mother and
Ah...when both sides hurl abuse at me, I know I am in the right.
Why do you think it's equality to ignore pregnancy and childbirth
because neither apply to men?
I note you also ignored my suggestion for child-related leave.
Angilion
>Angilion wrote:
>
>> On 17 Oct 2001 00:52:44 -0700, violet...@hotmail.com (Deborah) wrote:
>>
>> >"Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> but then again
>> >> HYPOCRISY is one of the hallmarks of a feminist - a movement actually based
>> >> on sexism!
>> >
>> >God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
>> >Sexist pigs. I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to
>> >complain about not having the right to vote or go to colleges.
>
>More feminist lies Angilion? Lots of 19th century women went to college. Then,
>as now, they had many women's colleges. In fact, then, as now, it was mostly the
>upper middle class college women who were the hard line feminists leaders.
>
>Save your pathetic victimology lies for someone who is as ignorant as you.
You really are a silly fool, aren't you?
As anyone can see, Bob is replying to words from Deborah as
if they were from me. I wrote in opposition to Deborah. Which
is unsurprising, since I am opposed to feminism.
[..]
Angilion
wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 13:22:09 GMT, Bob <bobx...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Angilion wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 Oct 2001 00:52:44 -0700, violet...@hotmail.com (Deborah) wrote:
>>>
>>> >"Philip Lewis" <phill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> but then again
>>> >> HYPOCRISY is one of the hallmarks of a feminist - a movement actually based
>>> >> on sexism!
>>> >
>>> >God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
>>> >Sexist pigs. I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to
>>> >complain about not having the right to vote or go to colleges.
>>
>>More feminist lies Angilion?
>
>You're misquoting. It was Deborah, and not Angilion, who said the
>above. Angilion said the following:
I also wrote the following, which I put here in order to show my words
in context:
"All of which could have been campaigned for without feminism."
>>> You are making the assumption that sexism is the only alternative
>>> to sexism. It is not. Sexual equality *is* an option if enough people
>>> make it so.
[..]
Stephen Morgan
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 13:17:19 GMT, Bob <bobx...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Angilion wrote:
>
> I'll replace the section Bob cut here, since it is relevant.
>
> Bob wrote "Pregnancy leave is a bad thing. Maternity and paternity
> leave should be equal."
I wrote that, not Bob.
> >> Why? That would not be sexual equality, unless the mother and
> >> father are both equally pregnant and both equally give birth.
> >
> >Another definition of "equal." Apparently men would have to be women in order
> >to be "equal." That way "equal rights" can mean "rights for women" and still be
> >"equal" as long as men are not women.
> >
> >A window on the feminist mind. Pathetic!
>
> Ah...when both sides hurl abuse at me, I know I am in the right.
>
> Why do you think it's equality to ignore pregnancy and childbirth
> because neither apply to men?
Because it *is* equality. Men don't have to *be* women to *be* equal.
> I note you also ignored my suggestion for child-related leave.
--
We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teacher, leave those kids alone
-- Pink Floyd
Deborah
> >God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
> >Sexist pigs. I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to
> >complain about not having the right to vote or go to colleges.
> >And what a bunch of hypocrites for asking pregnancy leave at work for
> >women and yet doing nothing for obtaining a pregnancy leave for men.
>
> All of which could have been campaigned for without feminism.
Feminism is the women's movement for equality to men. The campaign
for the rig to vote could have been done separately but wouldn't have
had nearly as much momentum with out a group and a movement with many
causes (for equality) backing it up.
> You are making the assumption that sexism is the only alternative
> to sexism. It is not.
Not at all. I am saying Feminism isn't sexist, but rather the
reaction to sexism against women in any form, with the goal to create
balance between the sexes.
If women one day do reach some near-perfect equality to men, Feminism
will become a movement of the past. If women start leading the world
and it's been over a century since there was a male president, then a
men's movement will have to happen.
Any man who thinks he needs to keep women out of high positions of
power/leadership and create a "men's movement" for that is creating a
movement to oppress women, and is in essence a man who feels he is
oppressed because he cannot oppress women (i.e. Stephen Morgan)
> Sexual equality *is* an option if enough people make it so.
Yes.
Deborah
Stephen Morgan
> angi...@yinyang.enterprise-plc.com (Angilion) wrote:
>
> > >God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
> > >Sexist pigs. I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to
> > >complain about not having the right to vote or go to colleges.
> > >And what a bunch of hypocrites for asking pregnancy leave at work for
> > >women and yet doing nothing for obtaining a pregnancy leave for men.
> >
> > All of which could have been campaigned for without feminism.
>
> Feminism is the women's movement for equality to men. The campaign
> for the rig to vote could have been done separately but wouldn't have
> had nearly as much momentum with out a group and a movement with many
> causes (for equality) backing it up.
>
> > You are making the assumption that sexism is the only alternative
> > to sexism. It is not.
>
> Not at all. I am saying Feminism isn't sexist, but rather the
> reaction to sexism against women in any form, with the goal to create
> balance between the sexes.
Nazism isn't racist. it's just a movement to gain equality for the
oppressed Aryan race with our oppressive sub-human Jewish overlords.
Yes?
> If women one day do reach some near-perfect equality to men, Feminism
> will become a movement of the past. If women start leading the world
> and it's been over a century since there was a male president, then a
> men's movement will have to happen.
Women already have a preferable position to men in this society, a
men's movement is necessary to destroy feminism.
> Any man who thinks he needs to keep women out of high positions of
> power/leadership and create a "men's movement" for that is creating a
> movement to oppress women, and is in essence a man who feels he is
> oppressed because he cannot oppress women (i.e. Stephen Morgan)
I do not feel oppressed because I can't oppress women. Ideally to men's
movement will remove women from positions of power, but first it has to
relieve the oppression men face.
> > Sexual equality *is* an option if enough people make it so.
>
> Yes.
This means destroying feminism.
BrettG
"Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9qljsi$4tl$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "John Jones" (rdic...@midsouth.rr.comNOSPAM) writes:
> > "Asia" <jewe...@home.com> wrote in message
> > [...]
> >>
> >> Becoming a teacher takes a lot of education. For other jobs that
> >> take that much education there is much more pay involved.
> >
>
> While I hate to have to do it, I have to, only in *part* mind you,
> agree with "Asia" on this one.
>
> My g/f is a teacher, and her pay, considering her seniority, and
> education ( and, she has to take courses to maintain her certificate,
> unlike with doctors ), *sucks*, especially when you consider the
> responsibilities that society heaps on teachers.
Hi Andre
I have to respectfully disagree with you on this.
My ex is a teacher. She works about 6.5 hours per day, has 10 weeks
fully paid holiday's each year, several "student free days" each year,
and gets paid around A$65K each year. In contrast, a typical aircraft
maintenance engineer working for Qantas will earn less than $35K.
Also, most teachers would live reasonably close to their school,
and hence don't need to spend 1-2 hours commuting into the CBD.
She was an english/history teacher who couldn't spell to save her
life. She moved on to teach "technology studies" despite being,
and continuing to be, totally clueless in the field, often resorting
to asking me the most fundamental of questions.
No, I don't fall for the poor, poor teacher routine, not for a second.
Teachers are very good at whining about how underpaid they are
compared to other "professionals". They usually ignore the
significant perks that they alone enjoy.
Just for interest sake;
65K / (42 weeks X 5 days X 6.5 hours) = $47 per hour
35K / (48 weeks X 5 days X 7.5 hours) = $19 per hour
Andre Lieven
> angi...@yinyang.enterprise-plc.com (Angilion) wrote:
>
>> >God damn those women of the 19th century for inventing Feminism!
>> >Sexist pigs. I mean they had the gall, the outrageous insolence to
>> >complain about not having the right to vote or go to colleges.
>> >And what a bunch of hypocrites for asking pregnancy leave at work for
>> >women and yet doing nothing for obtaining a pregnancy leave for men.
>>
>> All of which could have been campaigned for without feminism.
>
> Feminism is the women's movement for equality to men.
Thats a very nice saying. Only problem is, that all of the *actions*
of feminists makes that saying to be untrue. IE- A lie.
> The campaign
> for the rig to vote could have been done separately but wouldn't have
> had nearly as much momentum with out a group and a movement with many
> causes (for equality) backing it up.
If you'll read your history, you would learn that the guerilla tactics
of those feminists *lost* their cause public support for quite a while.
So, they actually *hurt* their cause, and delayed it's success.
So, the vote for women was arrived at *despite* feminism.
>> You are making the assumption that sexism is the only alternative
>> to sexism. It is not.
>
> Not at all. I am saying Feminism isn't sexist,
You can say that. By the evidence, you'd be seriously *wrong*, but you
can say it.
Just as we can say what it really *is*, based on that pesky concept
of *the evidence*.
Feel free to post about even *one* thing that feminism has done
to get men equla rights to women, since you claim that feminism is
about equal rights for all, and not just for all *women*.
Until you can do that, all you have is empty bluster.
> but rather the reaction to sexism against women in any form, with the
> goal to create balance between the sexes.
So, why don't feminists support C4M, but rather fight it ?
> If women one day do reach some near-perfect equality to men, Feminism
> will become a movement of the past.
BS. Women have achieved parity, and then some with men. Men are
disadvantaged in many areas, such as shorter life spans ( which is
*not* inevitable, since back around 1900, the gap was under one year )
as well as many laws that discriminate against men. VAWA, Presumption
Of Paternity, and so on.
So, whens the NOW Going Out Of Business Sale ? Opps, I forgot. That
would mean that their leaders would have to get *real* jobs...
> If women start leading the world
> and it's been over a century since there was a male president, then a
> men's movement will have to happen.
Excellent. I could have not asked for better proof that you ARE a
sexist BIGOT.
> Any man who thinks he needs to keep women out of high positions of
> power/leadership and create a "men's movement" for that is creating a
> movement to oppress women, and is in essence a man who feels he is
> oppressed because he cannot oppress women (i.e. Stephen Morgan)
BS. But, we're used to feminist LIES.
Free Clue: Not giving the wimmins everything they want, all of the
time, is NOT " oppression ".
>> Sexual equality *is* an option if enough people make it so.
>
> Yes.
So, when are you going to stop being a sexist bigot, and start
helping achieve that goal ?
Andre
--
" The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some
other way, and terminate in beauty and forgiveness "
David Gelernter, " 1939 "
Society
news:d059eb80.01102...@posting.google.com...
>
> Feminism is the women's movement for equality to men.
<laugh>
That's why feminists secured the 'right' to be conscripted
into the military *before* seeking the voting privilege, eh?
Hint: Take a history class, Deborah. And pass it!
Feminism is simply the latest in a long line of
social female supremacy movements. One of the
common reasons why women's suffrage was not
popular among the majority of US women for so much
of the period after 1848 was the memory of the
carnage among men during the War Between the
States.
Later, the women's suffrage cause became popular
among US women as its proponents increasingly claimed
that women had finer moral sentiments blah, blah
and therefore the vote would allow women to 'improve'
the nation. Don't forget that the first political project
of the feminists was to push alcohol prohibition on
America. It was intended as a way for women to
keep a tighter grip on their men's pay packet.
--
All excuses for feminism depend on censorship
of reality to appear plausible.
Andre Lieven
> "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:9qljsi$4tl$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> "John Jones" (rdic...@midsouth.rr.comNOSPAM) writes:
>> > "Asia" <jewe...@home.com> wrote in message
>> > news:mHpz7.21847$Zb.98...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
>> > [...]
>> >>
>> >> Becoming a teacher takes a lot of education. For other jobs that
>> >> take that much education there is much more pay involved.
>> >
>> > Name some.
>>
>> While I hate to have to do it, I have to, only in *part* mind you,
>> agree with "Asia" on this one.
>>
>> My g/f is a teacher, and her pay, considering her seniority, and
>> education ( and, she has to take courses to maintain her certificate,
>> unlike with doctors ), *sucks*, especially when you consider the
>> responsibilities that society heaps on teachers.
>
> Hi Andre
>
> I have to respectfully disagree with you on this.
>
> My ex is a teacher. She works about 6.5 hours per day, has 10 weeks
> fully paid holiday's each year, several "student free days" each year,
> and gets paid around A$65K each year. In contrast, a typical aircraft
> maintenance engineer working for Qantas will earn less than $35K.
Well, I can't speak to aircraft maintenence folks.
I can, about teachers, at least with some that I am familiar with
their situations.
First of all, that vacation time includes time to take *mandated*
refresher courses, without which some teachers can lose their
certificates. Next, anyone who presumes that the school schedule
is it for teachers working, is not informed as to what has to be
done, in order to be ready to teach between 8:30 and 3:30. BTW, thats
seven hours, right there.
But, prepping teaching plans ( my g/f *has* to submit weekly plans
to her superiors- they have to be written up *sometime* ), marking
papers, and tests ( I have helped her do this, and its also not as
easy as it might look- I once was feeling proud of myself, when I
was marking a couple of multiple choice tests for her, while she did
the essay ones, and I found three kids in one class, who had not only
the same right answers, but *all* of their wrong choices were the
same, too. I brought this to her, and she told me that she knew of
these kids, and that she routinely checked them against each other.
So, add forensic marking to the teachers bag of trained abilities ).
This *alone* will make up that hour less of school time. Now, add
in some extra-curricular activities, and you're well over the
standard working week, in hours.
Plus, some extra-c. jobs that are handed out can take up more
hours a week, on top of all those. My g/f got stuck with
Yearbook. I also helped out a couple of times ( as in, went with
her to school, and worked on editing in the yearbook office, with
her and several kids ). This added job, alone, added around ten
hours a week, amortised.
> Also, most teachers would live reasonably close to their school,
> and hence don't need to spend 1-2 hours commuting into the CBD.
Non sequitor. Many don't, and many other workers also live closer
then an hour. Thats a matter more of choice, then a remunerative
matter, either way.
> She was an english/history teacher who couldn't spell to save her
> life. She moved on to teach "technology studies" despite being,
> and continuing to be, totally clueless in the field, often resorting
> to asking me the most fundamental of questions.
Well then, yours was a poor teacher. That doesn't speak, at all,
to the standards of the good ones, and my g/f is an *excellent*
teacher.
> No, I don't fall for the poor, poor teacher routine, not for a second.
Not a routine. A fact of life, and it does behoove us to properly
pay for what our kids need.
> Teachers are very good at whining about how underpaid they are
> compared to other "professionals". They usually ignore the
> significant perks that they alone enjoy.
Hardly.
> Just for interest sake;
>
> 65K / (42 weeks X 5 days X 6.5 hours) = $47 per hour
First of all, I don't know any teachers who make this amount,
outside of university teachers. I'm not speaking of those.
Second, its more like 44 weeks X 5 days X 11 hours @ 40K=16.53.
At best. Not counting weekend done work, etc.
Plus, several days to weeks unpaid to maintain said license.
> 35K / (48 weeks X 5 days X 7.5 hours) = $19 per hour
So, my numbers suggest that said tech guy *is* getting more...
BrettG
Hmmm. Not here in Oz. Not by a long shot.
> Next, anyone who presumes that the school schedule
> is it for teachers working, is not informed as to what has to be
> done, in order to be ready to teach between 8:30 and 3:30. BTW, thats
> seven hours, right there.
I lived with a school teacher for 9 years. She left the profession
due to the perceived lack of pay and conditions that she "suffered"
as a teacher. I met her shortly after she joined the company where
I worked. It took her about 3 months to re-appraise her perceptions
of working in private industry vs teaching, after which she promptly
went back to teaching.
Also, 8.30 to 3.30 includes several breaks. I removed the break
times from both the teachers and aircraft engineers in my example, and
arrived at an approximate minimum number of hours 2B worked.
> But, prepping teaching plans ( my g/f *has* to submit weekly plans
> to her superiors- they have to be written up *sometime* ), marking
> papers, and tests
Canada is apparently *far* different to Oz if this is true. Over here
this sort of thing is only done at the start of the year, if at all.
And even then, a large proportion of teachers simply resubmit slightly
worked over versions of their previous years schedules. In fact this
was something that my wife used to complain about wrt her peers.
> ( I have helped her do this, and its also not as
> easy as it might look- I once was feeling proud of myself, when I
> was marking a couple of multiple choice tests for her, while she did
> the essay ones, and I found three kids in one class, who had not only
> the same right answers, but *all* of their wrong choices were the
> same, too. I brought this to her, and she told me that she knew of
> these kids, and that she routinely checked them against each other.
> So, add forensic marking to the teachers bag of trained abilities ).
Apparently, the problem is that some people do put in this time after
hours, but it is in no way actually *required*.
Earlier on, my wife was full on gung-ho into marking assignments at
home, and was often heard lamenting the slackness of her peers who
did not bother to do this. She told me that they would set the class
up reading textbooks or some such thing and then do the marking
during class time.
> This *alone* will make up that hour less of school time. Now, add
> in some extra-curricular activities, and you're well over the
> standard working week, in hours.
>
> Plus, some extra-c. jobs that are handed out can take up more
> hours a week, on top of all those. My g/f got stuck with
> Yearbook. I also helped out a couple of times ( as in, went with
> her to school, and worked on editing in the yearbook office, with
> her and several kids ). This added job, alone, added around ten
> hours a week, amortised.
>
> > Also, most teachers would live reasonably close to their school,
> > and hence don't need to spend 1-2 hours commuting into the CBD.
>
> Non sequitor.
Not at all. See below.
> Many don't, and many other workers also live closer
> then an hour. Thats a matter more of choice, then a remunerative
> matter, either way.
IME, a large proportion of working people commute to the CBD
or other heavily congested commercial/industrial areas. Schools
are very rarely located in such areas, existing primarily to service
suburban areas. Sydney is one of the most exepensive cities to live
in the world (or so I recall reading) and most young families end
up living way out on the fringes. Consequently, that is where large
numbers of schools end up being located, and that is where most
teachers need to commute.
Commute times are far more severe when you are commuting into
primary business areas along with thousands of other plebs rather
than just flitting around in the 'burbs.
> > She was an english/history teacher who couldn't spell to save her
> > life. She moved on to teach "technology studies" despite being,
> > and continuing to be, totally clueless in the field, often resorting
> > to asking me the most fundamental of questions.
>
> Well then, yours was a poor teacher.
That's no teacher, that's my wife! ;-)
> That doesn't speak, at all,
> to the standards of the good ones, and my g/f is an *excellent*
> teacher.
All professions contain good and bad examples. The main problem
with the teaching profession over here is that it is heavily unionised,
quite militant, almost impossible to be fired from, and promotions
are generally given on almost anything other than merit.
> > No, I don't fall for the poor, poor teacher routine, not for a second.
>
> Not a routine. A fact of life, and it does behoove us to properly
> pay for what our kids need.
I have no idea what the comparitive pay rates for teachers are in Canada.
but they are not, IMHO, horribly underpaid here in Aus. That does not
stop them from moaning at regular occasions that they somehow deserve
to be paid at the same levels as doctors and engineers.
> > Teachers are very good at whining about how underpaid they are
> > compared to other "professionals". They usually ignore the
> > significant perks that they alone enjoy.
>
> Hardly.
I would *love* to have every school holiday off work, with full pay,
to spend with my kids.
*No* other profession can lay claim to the ability to do this. And I do
recall hearing at one point a bunch of teachers *complaining* that they
should have 4 weeks a year leave just like everybody else does because
it was unfair and restrictive to force them to take their leave during the
set semester breaks. Of course, the 10 weeks they already enjoy would
still remain, the four weeks was going to be extra. Of course it was a
stupid idea and never flew, biut it gives you some idea of the mentality
of some of these people, and IMHO it is no coincidence that the teaching
"profession" is one of the most highly feminised of our time
> > Just for interest sake;
> >
> > 65K / (42 weeks X 5 days X 6.5 hours) = $47 per hour
>
> First of all, I don't know any teachers who make this amount,
> outside of university teachers. I'm not speaking of those.
These are Australian figures.
> Second, its more like 44 weeks X 5 days X 11 hours @ 40K=16.53.
> At best. Not counting weekend done work, etc.
Lots of people do unpaid weekend work. Myself for example.
For teachers, it is rarely a *requirement* of the job.
> Plus, several days to weeks unpaid to maintain said license.
We don't have teachers licences in Aus. Once a teacher, always
a teacher is the norm.
Also, my wife had her $12K (approx) worth of uni fees
paid for her by the education dept so that she could obtain a
masters degree.
> > 35K / (48 weeks X 5 days X 7.5 hours) = $19 per hour
>
> So, my numbers suggest that said tech guy *is* getting more...
I disagree, but then it appears that teaching in Canada is a somewhat
different beast than here in Australia.
Andre Lieven
Well then, this could be explained if in Aus, they pay teachers well,
while here in Canada and the US, they don't.
>> Next, anyone who presumes that the school schedule
>> is it for teachers working, is not informed as to what has to be
>> done, in order to be ready to teach between 8:30 and 3:30. BTW, thats
>> seven hours, right there.
>
> I lived with a school teacher for 9 years. She left the profession
> due to the perceived lack of pay and conditions that she "suffered"
> as a teacher. I met her shortly after she joined the company where
> I worked. It took her about 3 months to re-appraise her perceptions
> of working in private industry vs teaching, after which she promptly
> went back to teaching.
My g/f is in teaching not for the money, but because she loves it,
and she likes being able to teach the next generation what they
do need to learn.
> Also, 8.30 to 3.30 includes several breaks. I removed the break
> times from both the teachers and aircraft engineers in my example, and
> arrived at an approximate minimum number of hours 2B worked.
My g/f tells me that a good deal of non class time for her is time
when teachers at her school are assigned other duties, such as
cafeteria monitors, and the like.
As well, of course, prepping for another class, and marking tests
and papers can't be done while actively teaching a class. So, time
spent doing these things *is* working.
>> But, prepping teaching plans ( my g/f *has* to submit weekly plans
>> to her superiors- they have to be written up *sometime* ), marking
>> papers, and tests
>
> Canada is apparently *far* different to Oz if this is true. Over here
> this sort of thing is only done at the start of the year, if at all.
Well, I'm more speaking of the US here, as my g/f is a USian. But,
I am told that on this matter, most provinces do require around the
same things.
> And even then, a large proportion of teachers simply resubmit slightly
> worked over versions of their previous years schedules. In fact this
> was something that my wife used to complain about wrt her peers.
Not with NJ. She has to write in the plan, what specific topic areas
of the curriculum will be covered in the week to come. So, these plans
can't be recycled, week to week.
>> ( I have helped her do this, and its also not as
>> easy as it might look- I once was feeling proud of myself, when I
>> was marking a couple of multiple choice tests for her, while she did
>> the essay ones, and I found three kids in one class, who had not only
>> the same right answers, but *all* of their wrong choices were the
>> same, too. I brought this to her, and she told me that she knew of
>> these kids, and that she routinely checked them against each other.
>> So, add forensic marking to the teachers bag of trained abilities ).
>
> Apparently, the problem is that some people do put in this time after
> hours, but it is in no way actually *required*.
Thats more of a semantic issue. If, and when, the teacher has sufficient
at-school duties that preclude doing all of this marking, and essay
reading and marking, it becomes clear that doing this stuff primarily
after hours is inevitable, simply because there aren't fourteen hours
between 8:30 AM and 3:30 PM.
> Earlier on, my wife was full on gung-ho into marking assignments at
> home, and was often heard lamenting the slackness of her peers who
> did not bother to do this. She told me that they would set the class
> up reading textbooks or some such thing and then do the marking
> during class time.
I suppose that some teachers can get away with doing this. But, from
what she tells me ( and, based on what I've seen, I have zero reason
to doubt her on this ), with the way that the kids behave these days,
that benign neglect in class will result in chaos for all, and that
the administration will notice that very quickly.
Shes definitely not teaching the same kids that she and I were, some
20-30 years ago.
>> This *alone* will make up that hour less of school time. Now, add
>> in some extra-curricular activities, and you're well over the
>> standard working week, in hours.
>>
>> Plus, some extra-c. jobs that are handed out can take up more
>> hours a week, on top of all those. My g/f got stuck with
>> Yearbook. I also helped out a couple of times ( as in, went with
>> her to school, and worked on editing in the yearbook office, with
>> her and several kids ). This added job, alone, added around ten
>> hours a week, amortised.
>>
>> > Also, most teachers would live reasonably close to their school,
>> > and hence don't need to spend 1-2 hours commuting into the CBD.
>>
>> Non sequitor.
>
> Not at all. See below.
>> Many don't, and many other workers also live closer
>> then an hour. Thats a matter more of choice, then a remunerative
>> matter, either way.
>
> IME, a large proportion of working people commute to the CBD
> or other heavily congested commercial/industrial areas. Schools
> are very rarely located in such areas, existing primarily to service
> suburban areas. Sydney is one of the most exepensive cities to live
> in the world (or so I recall reading) and most young families end
> up living way out on the fringes. Consequently, that is where large
> numbers of schools end up being located, and that is where most
> teachers need to commute.
Well, my g/f lives in Linden, NJ. The whole of the Bos-Wash corridor
is all urban and suburban, all stacked up against each other. Plus,
she has the fiscally dubious " benefit " of living not only in that
long corridor ( which is expensive enough to live in ), but in the
portion that is close ( 25 miles ) to Manhattan, so the costs of
living are *really* high.
I'll give you a comparison that involved my ex, as I know those numbers
better, and they directly are comparable to where my g/f is.
At that time, I lived here in Ottawa, and my rent was about $800
Cdn a month. That was for a three floor, four bedroom, plus a finished
den, heat and power included, plus a garden and parking. In US dollars
that would have then been about $580 a month.
My ex then lived in Long Island, NY. Prices there about what they
are in North central NJ. For the princely sum of $600 US a month,
she had a basement *illegal* apartment, with one room, a kitchenette,
and a bath, with shower only. This space included no windows, save
for the louver on the door.
This woman was working in the private sector, and still the pay
sucked, relative to the costs of housing, especially relative to
Ottawa.
> Commute times are far more severe when you are commuting into
> primary business areas along with thousands of other plebs rather
> than just flitting around in the 'burbs.
That depends. Many of the teachers in my g/f's school don't live
that close to the school, as they can't afford to. And Linden, while
not bad, isn't the best area around.
>> > She was an english/history teacher who couldn't spell to save her
>> > life. She moved on to teach "technology studies" despite being,
>> > and continuing to be, totally clueless in the field, often resorting
>> > to asking me the most fundamental of questions.
>>
>> Well then, yours was a poor teacher.
>
> That's no teacher, that's my wife! ;-)
S'OK. I could tell you tales about my ex....
>> That doesn't speak, at all, to the standards of the good ones, and my
>> g/f is an *excellent* teacher.
>
> All professions contain good and bad examples. The main problem
> with the teaching profession over here is that it is heavily unionised,
> quite militant, almost impossible to be fired from, and promotions
> are generally given on almost anything other than merit.
Relative to where teachers were 100 years ago, that still is an
improvement for just about everyone, except for the folks who think
that " calling " professions ought to pay slave wages.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like some of what teachers unions sometimes
do. But, when I see campaigns of teacher bashing from my provincial
gevernment, the same one that gave tax cuts for the rich on the backs
of the working poor, I can't see either side as pure.
>> > No, I don't fall for the poor, poor teacher routine, not for a second.
>>
>> Not a routine. A fact of life, and it does behoove us to properly
>> pay for what our kids need.
>
> I have no idea what the comparitive pay rates for teachers are in Canada.
> but they are not, IMHO, horribly underpaid here in Aus. That does not
> stop them from moaning at regular occasions that they somehow deserve
> to be paid at the same levels as doctors and engineers.
Neither does it stop doctors and lawyers from complaining about
their pay packets, either. So ?
>> > Teachers are very good at whining about how underpaid they are
>> > compared to other "professionals". They usually ignore the
>> > significant perks that they alone enjoy.
>>
>> Hardly.
>
> I would *love* to have every school holiday off work, with full pay,
> to spend with my kids.
TMy g/f, if she had kids, would say the same thing. Since she doesn't
get all those days off. It just means that shes not class teaching those
days. Many of them are scheduled with teacher training days, seminars
at which attendence is mandatory, and the like.
> *No* other profession can lay claim to the ability to do this. And I do
> recall hearing at one point a bunch of teachers *complaining* that they
> should have 4 weeks a year leave just like everybody else does because
> it was unfair and restrictive to force them to take their leave during the
> set semester breaks. Of course, the 10 weeks they already enjoy would
> still remain, the four weeks was going to be extra. Of course it was a
> stupid idea and never flew, biut it gives you some idea of the mentality
> of some of these people, and IMHO it is no coincidence that the teaching
> "profession" is one of the most highly feminised of our time
Well, I've never heard of any such thing over this side of the peaceful
pond. In general, its been more of a " not lose anything more " on this
side, in recent years. There are movements afoot for schools to be
open to teach all year, for instance.
One can also point to studies that show that the average teacher
over here has to spend some $700 per year of their own pay on needed
supplies, for which they are not reimbursed. There are office supply
chains that give teachers price breaks for this purpose.
>> > Just for interest sake;
>> >
>> > 65K / (42 weeks X 5 days X 6.5 hours) = $47 per hour
>>
>> First of all, I don't know any teachers who make this amount,
>> outside of university teachers. I'm not speaking of those.
>
> These are Australian figures.
YMMV.
>> Second, its more like 44 weeks X 5 days X 11 hours @ 40K=16.53.
>> At best. Not counting weekend done work, etc.
>
> Lots of people do unpaid weekend work. Myself for example.
Relatively few car assembly plant workers, never mind your
example of aircraft mechanics, can do that.
> For teachers, it is rarely a *requirement* of the job.
Over here, de facto, it is.
>> Plus, several days to weeks unpaid to maintain said license.
>
> We don't have teachers licences in Aus. Once a teacher, always
> a teacher is the norm.
Well, theres another difference.
> Also, my wife had her $12K (approx) worth of uni fees
> paid for her by the education dept so that she could obtain a
> masters degree.
My g/f had to pay back every penny, plus interest, of her
student loans.
>> > 35K / (48 weeks X 5 days X 7.5 hours) = $19 per hour
>>
>> So, my numbers suggest that said tech guy *is* getting more...
>
> I disagree, but then it appears that teaching in Canada is a somewhat
> different beast than here in Australia.
Canada, and the US.
BrettG
Good for her then. My point is that this attitude need not be
a requirement for the job, and I'm sure she will tell you that
there are plenty of teachers out there that don't have such an
attitude.
> > Also, 8.30 to 3.30 includes several breaks. I removed the break
> > times from both the teachers and aircraft engineers in my example, and
> > arrived at an approximate minimum number of hours 2B worked.
>
> My g/f tells me that a good deal of non class time for her is time
> when teachers at her school are assigned other duties, such as
> cafeteria monitors, and the like.
At my wifes school, they were each assigned supervision duties for
one week in each semester (or so I recall, I may be wrong on this)
> As well, of course, prepping for another class, and marking tests
> and papers can't be done while actively teaching a class. So, time
> spent doing these things *is* working.
There is no requirement that class time be spent actively teaching
a class, however your g/f should be commended for doing so.
> >> But, prepping teaching plans ( my g/f *has* to submit weekly plans
> >> to her superiors- they have to be written up *sometime* ), marking
> >> papers, and tests
> >
> > Canada is apparently *far* different to Oz if this is true. Over here
> > this sort of thing is only done at the start of the year, if at all.
>
> Well, I'm more speaking of the US here, as my g/f is a USian. But,
> I am told that on this matter, most provinces do require around the
> same things.
Fair enough then. Perhaps she should consider migrating to Oz? ;-)
> > And even then, a large proportion of teachers simply resubmit slightly
> > worked over versions of their previous years schedules. In fact this
> > was something that my wife used to complain about wrt her peers.
>
> Not with NJ. She has to write in the plan, what specific topic areas
> of the curriculum will be covered in the week to come. So, these plans
> can't be recycled, week to week.
Sounds a bit over the top to me, not to mention unecessarily bureacratic.
They must have members of staff who are full time employed to go over
all these submissions and make sure they are all above board. Either that,
or they just get filed in the round file cabinet.
Of course, things are much more laid back in Oz. We don't have any
of the things we hear about over there, such as metal detectors and
security guards.
> She's definitely not teaching the same kids that she and I were, some
> 20-30 years ago.
We are generally 10-15 years behind North America when it comes
to such social phenomena, so perhaps our turn will come.
<snip descriptions of various accommodation and commute scenarios>
< suffice to say peoples individual situations will always be different >
< and what applies to Sydney does not necessarily apply elsewhere >
Andre Lieven
qualified to speak of, the best teachers that I had, from grade
school, to high school, where their influence was especially beneficial,
to college, where even a bad one was useful, in a perverse sort of way,
the best ones inspired me to many things that I might well not have
considered, from less motivated and interesting teachers.
The below average teachers don't do much good in that area, for
their kids. But, if there are enough really good ones, then most
kids still have a shot at some exceptional influences for good
in their school careers.
And, that is worth a hell of a lot more then any of them on this side
of the peaceful pond get paid.
>> > Also, 8.30 to 3.30 includes several breaks. I removed the break
>> > times from both the teachers and aircraft engineers in my example, and
>> > arrived at an approximate minimum number of hours 2B worked.
>>
>> My g/f tells me that a good deal of non class time for her is time
>> when teachers at her school are assigned other duties, such as
>> cafeteria monitors, and the like.
>
> At my wifes school, they were each assigned supervision duties for
> one week in each semester (or so I recall, I may be wrong on this)
Hmm... It seems that this sort of duty is more onerous here, too.
>> As well, of course, prepping for another class, and marking tests
>> and papers can't be done while actively teaching a class. So, time
>> spent doing these things *is* working.
>
> There is no requirement that class time be spent actively teaching
> a class, however your g/f should be commended for doing so.
Well, she needs to do those things, so that she can bring all of
her abilities and attention to bear when teaching her classes.
I still marvel at her ability to keep all those kids ( With at least
five different classes per week, she has to keep some 150 kids
clear in her memory. That too, is a pretty skillful feat ) straight,
in knowing who is whom, and what, and how well, each is doing in her
classes.
>> >> But, prepping teaching plans ( my g/f *has* to submit weekly plans
>> >> to her superiors- they have to be written up *sometime* ), marking
>> >> papers, and tests
>> >
>> > Canada is apparently *far* different to Oz if this is true. Over here
>> > this sort of thing is only done at the start of the year, if at all.
>>
>> Well, I'm more speaking of the US here, as my g/f is a USian. But,
>> I am told that on this matter, most provinces do require around the
>> same things.
>
> Fair enough then. Perhaps she should consider migrating to Oz? ;-)
It would make the trip to see family ( not to mention *me* ) a bit
long-ish.
>> > And even then, a large proportion of teachers simply resubmit slightly
>> > worked over versions of their previous years schedules. In fact this
>> > was something that my wife used to complain about wrt her peers.
>>
>> Not with NJ. She has to write in the plan, what specific topic areas
>> of the curriculum will be covered in the week to come. So, these plans
>> can't be recycled, week to week.
>
> Sounds a bit over the top to me, not to mention unecessarily bureacratic.
Welcome to the land of big unions, both for teachers, management,
and the boards.
> They must have members of staff who are full time employed to go over
> all these submissions and make sure they are all above board. Either that,
> or they just get filed in the round file cabinet.
I would say that it takes far less time for a principal to verify
the data then it did to write it out for the teacher. Plus, I would
figure that said forms are kept, to compare the goals of the class
to the planned ones, and to measure year long achievement.
They do. heck, when I was seeing the ex in Long Island, a local
library in one community that she resided in, had an armed guard
there. And, thats in 1994.
>> She's definitely not teaching the same kids that she and I were, some
>> 20-30 years ago.
>
> We are generally 10-15 years behind North America when it comes
> to such social phenomena, so perhaps our turn will come.
Lets hope that its not to be as bad. Its somewhat less intense up
here in Canada, then it is in the US, and especially the urban east
of the US.
> <snip descriptions of various accommodation and commute scenarios>
> < suffice to say peoples individual situations will always be different >
> < and what applies to Sydney does not necessarily apply elsewhere >
Agreed. There is plenty of room for area differences.
Deborah
> > Feminism is the women's movement for equality to men.
>
> Thats a very nice saying. Only problem is, that all of the *actions*
> of feminists makes that saying to be untrue. IE- A lie.
Ah, I see. It was completely untrue that feminism helped women break
free of being sex slaves to their husbands, obtain the right to
abortion (and basically their entire bodies), the right to vote, to be
in essence more diverse, self-assured, and independent in general.
No... it was by some strange conspiracy that History said Feminism did
these things. Kind of like saying "I swear it was really Martha
Stewart who was behind the holocaust and not Hitler." IE- A lie.
> > The campaign
> > for the rig to vote could have been done separately but wouldn't have
> > had nearly as much momentum with out a group and a movement with many
> > causes (for equality) backing it up.
>
> If you'll read your history, you would learn that the guerilla tactics
> of those feminists *lost* their cause public support for quite a while.
Good that you read your history, now try understanding it Mr. Lieven:
Guerrilla tactics like "parades, silent vigils, and hunger strikes"
(http://www.nara.gov/education/teaching/woman/home.html), and were
thrown in jail for it because the police claimed they were "blocking
traffic" (a well documented exaggeration of their silent protests)
and beat the Feminist leaders brutally. One man (a General) said they
had never seen a human prisoner treated so inhumanity. Women were
literally thrown into their cells which broke bones upon impact,
strapped down, beaten, etc.
Nice guys, those police men, eh? But, I guess it was the Feminists
that were being militant and brutal? heh
> So, they actually *hurt* their cause, and delayed it's success.
Being too rebellious in those days, you forget, was simply wearing a
skirt above the ankles or speaking out as a woman *period*. Women had
never seen other women behave that way before, so they didn't know
what to think and it threatened what security or "normal" way of life
they knew.
> So, the vote for women was arrived at *despite* feminism.
No, it couldn't have happened with out Feminism. Feminist leaders
wrote and proposed the 19th Amendement in fact (hence the fame of
Susan B. Anthony)
> > Not at all. I am saying Feminism isn't sexist,
>
> You can say that. By the evidence, you'd be seriously *wrong*, but you
> can say it.
By evidence I am right.
> Feel free to post about even *one* thing that feminism has done
> to get men equla rights to women,
Well since you put it that way (and this isn't equal, but rather
something that has been improved through history to achieve a greater
gender-equal status):
- Work wages
- Voting rights
- Job opportunities
- Education opportunities
- Social acceptance (women are more heard now than 100, even 50 years
ago)
...and the list goes on. The fact that Feminism has brought women
closer to equality also means that Feminism has brought men closer to
equality by default.
> since you claim that feminism is
> about equal rights for all, and not just for all *women*.
The list of disadvantaged inequalities for women is greater than that
for men.
For example: The current work wage stats for men and women, the
current number of women leaders, land ownership by women, number of
women to men in poverty, number of women to men in dead-end or low
paying jobs, number of women to men sexually harassed, raped, etc.
> > but rather the reaction to sexism against women in any form, with the
> > goal to create balance between the sexes.
>
> So, why don't feminists support C4M, but rather fight it ?
Well, if the man took equal part in giving birth (like if he split it
with the woman and carried the child for 4 1/2 months and then somehow
switched it back to the woman so she could carry it for the remaining
months, plus they could take turns in labor) then I would say C4M has
a point. However, it's the woman that gives birth to the child and
carries it. If she doesn't want it, she has that right as it's her
body.
Give me *one example* of something pertaining to a man's body that men
have complete control over where women are creating something like a
C4W over, and then let's talk about how you should support that.
*After* the child is born, I believe there should be an *equal*
"ownership", so to speak. Before, mother nature pretty much made it
the woman's decision whether the child was to be born or not.
> > If women one day do reach some near-perfect equality to men, Feminism
> > will become a movement of the past.
>
> BS. Women have achieved parity, and then some with men. Men are
> disadvantaged in many areas, such as shorter life spans ( which is
> *not* inevitable, since back around 1900, the gap was under one year )
Ah, so maybe women should put out a campaign to expand the male life
span? And we are being sexist for allowing men to have a shorter life
span? Personally, I think the life span issue is a bi-product of many
factors (wars, etc) and is far aside from the point.
Plus, you have to consider that *many* women died during child birth
or child birth related complications/illnesses around 1900.
> > If women start leading the world
> > and it's been over a century since there was a male president, then a
> > men's movement will have to happen.
>
> Excellent. I could have not asked for better proof that you ARE a
> sexist BIGOT.
Whoops, you are confused. I was referring to the fact that our
country has gone centuries, in fact it's entire life with out female
leadership. I said that if women did the same as (actually less) than
men did to them, then yes of course a movement for men would have to
happen. Simple.
The fact that your reading comprehension skills are so low (Or at
least you seem to have very selective comprehension), it's no wonder
you are as clueless, rude, and judgmental as you are.
> > Any man who thinks he needs to keep women out of high positions of
> > power/leadership and create a "men's movement" for that is creating a
> > movement to oppress women, and is in essence a man who feels he is
> > oppressed because he cannot oppress women (i.e. Stephen Morgan)
>
> BS. But, we're used to feminist LIES.
Oh what a terribly moving and thought filled sentence. With such
excellent debate skills (including those wonderful add-homonyms of
yours), I just can't figure out why you have not won a Nobel Prize for
such intelligence.
> Free Clue: Not giving the wimmins everything they want, all of the
> time, is NOT " oppression ".
>
> >> Sexual equality *is* an option if enough people make it so.
> >
> > Yes.
>
> So, when are you going to stop being a sexist bigot, and start
> helping achieve that goal ?
Sounds like a good question to ask yourself instead Andre. :)
Deborah
John Jones
>
> > > Feminism is the women's movement for equality to men.
> >
> > Thats a very nice saying. Only problem is, that all of the
*actions*
> > of feminists makes that saying to be untrue. IE- A lie.
>
> Ah, I see. It was completely untrue that feminism helped women
break
> free of being sex slaves to their husbands,
Yes, because women were never slaves to their husband. Men could not
sell, or dispose of their wives like property - at least not in the
US. It's feminism's routine use of lies and hyperbole like this that
make conscientious people abhor feminism
> obtain the right to
> abortion (and basically their entire bodies), the right to vote,
Um, that was the supreme court that 'gave' you the right to an
abortion. Remember them? That group of nine men? At least you
didn't claim to have 'fought' for the right to vote, like so many of
your sexist feminist friends.
> to be
> in essence more diverse, self-assured, and independent in general.
> No... it was by some strange conspiracy that History said Feminism
did
> these things.
No, actually it was because some men handed you those rights.
That rant in no way addressed Mr Lieven's statement. Please stop
perpetuating negative stereotypes regarding women and logic.
>
> > So, they actually *hurt* their cause, and delayed it's success.
>
> Being too rebellious in those days, you forget, was simply wearing a
> skirt above the ankles or speaking out as a woman *period*. Women
had
> never seen other women behave that way before, so they didn't know
> what to think and it threatened what security or "normal" way of
life
> they knew.
And that contradicts mr Lieven's statement in what way?
>
> > So, the vote for women was arrived at *despite* feminism.
>
> No, it couldn't have happened with out Feminism. Feminist leaders
> wrote and proposed the 19th Amendement in fact (hence the fame of
> Susan B. Anthony)
>
> > > Not at all. I am saying Feminism isn't sexist,
> >
> > You can say that. By the evidence, you'd be seriously *wrong*, but
you
> > can say it.
>
> By evidence I am right.
This isn't 1848. The most visible (and influential) sexist people in
america are feminists.
>
> > Feel free to post about even *one* thing that feminism has done
> > to get men equla rights to women,
>
> Well since you put it that way (and this isn't equal, but rather
> something that has been improved through history to achieve a
greater
> gender-equal status):
>
> - Work wages
> - Voting rights
> - Job opportunities
> - Education opportunities
> - Social acceptance (women are more heard now than 100, even 50
years
> ago)
>
> ...and the list goes on. The fact that Feminism has brought women
> closer to equality also means that Feminism has brought men closer
to
> equality by default.
No it does not. Women already occupy a privileged position in society
and feminist keep screaming for more.
>
>
> > since you claim that feminism is
> > about equal rights for all, and not just for all *women*.
>
> The list of disadvantaged inequalities for women is greater than
that
> for men.
>
> For example: The current work wage stats for men and women, the
> current number of women leaders, land ownership by women, number of
> women to men in poverty, number of women to men in dead-end or low
> paying jobs, number of women to men sexually harassed, raped, etc.
>
Sorry toots, I don't accept ANYTHING a feminist says without
peer-reviewed evidence. And don't waster you time on that 7x cents on
the dollar lie.