FAQ Women to Avoid for Marriage
mark
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:56:38 GMT, Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com>
wrote:
Absolutely awesome insights Lenny!
Now take cover for the flak your going to get!
How about a women’s FAQ, same subject?
>
>For men, the marriage contract has been gutted almost useless over the
>last 25 years. "Adjustments" to family law initially designed to
>protect woman and children from abusive husbands and poverty after
>divorce have gone so overboard that it offers a too easy way out for
>spouses instead of working out the problems that are inevitable in most
>relationships. Husbands and fathers by law are disposable, dispensable.
>
>If you have doubt about this ask just about any man who has lost his
>family, children and most of his assets in a "nobody's fault" divorce.
>Since the divorce rates hover at 50+%, they shouldn't be hard to find --
>a percentage that puts any man in marriage or considering marriage at
>great
>potential risk.
>
>Our society honors quick fixes and instant gratifications over
>honoring husbands and fatherhood. To reduce your disposability factor in
>future marriages (in lieu of waiting for the laws to change), I offer
>the following tips of problem "stereotypes" of women to avoid as potential
>partners.
>
>1. THE FEARFUL FEMINIST -- Avoid women who see sexism and male privilege
>at every turn. These women are insecure, androphobic and it's only a matter
>of time before you are seen as part of the problem too--no matter how
>hard you try to prove you are fair. Her problem has nothing to do with you
>specifically, just men in general and her own self-doubts. You can't fix it.
>
>2. THE CAREER BOUND -- Avoid women who chase careers not so much
>because they love their work, but that they are adamant, even paranoid
>about being independent. You are going to be highly disposable as a
>husband and father in a culture that promotes instant gratification and
>taking the easy way out when the relationship takes its inevitable bumpy
>turn. Exception being if you are comfortable taking
>the submissive role in a relationship (many American men are). But if
>you want her to have as much of a career as you, donÕt have expectations
>of raising a family as well. Very few are able to Òhave it all,Ó and
>only women can have a career and children. Usually both suffer.
This was my wife's mother. Poor husband did not stand a chance.
Divorced and living in a
trailer court.
>
>3. THE WOUNDED BIRD -- Avoid women in recovery, therapy, or from
>fatherless or father-scarce families. Fortunately since victimhood is
>honored in this culture, these women tend to readily blab about their
>wounds 10 minutes after you meet them. Women who have truly healed
>have no scabs to obsessively pick at. Resist the urge to be the heroic
>rescuer, for her healing can only be done by herself and you will only be
>resented for your patronizing efforts, eventually. "In recovery" is
>present tense. If unable to resist your ego's need to be a hero, join a
>Big Brother program instead. It's appropriate to patronize children (in
>it's positive sense).
My favorite type of women that I am instantly attracted to. Thank god
common sense overrides urges.
>
>4. THE TICKING BIO CLOCKS -- Avoid older career women with ticking
>biological clocks. These women can be particularly bad picks. They have
>demonstrated generally their low priority in taking the time and the
>effort into having durable relationships with men. By "ticking clock"
>age she may be too independent and set in her ways to be willing to make
>a whole lot of flexible room for your bad habits or personality flaws.
>You are a VERY disposable piece of family furniture (usually realized
>after you've deposited your seed and invested half your assets).
>
>Time given for you to shape up to her version of an "equal" partner
>varies from "strong woman" to strong woman. If you marry the boss,
>that's what you'll get. Again, many American men are fine with the
>submissive marriage partner role. Hell, they can even be President some
>day!
They all are bad picks. Whether they are young and have baby urges or
older career women with clocks ticking, if you thought that a man was
not very picky about his sex partners, wait till you see a women that
is willing to settle. Scary!
>
>5. AMERICAN WOMEN -- Consider marrying a foreign women from a culture
>which does not dishonor men, husbands and fathers. And only if you're
>exhausted with traditional dating methods and a seamless stream of
>"high-maintenance" women. Warning: some foreign cultures encourage a
>predatory mentality of women against men without the need for feminist
>pretenses. Suitors beware.
I have to disagree here. Far more than just suitors beware, I think
both American and
foreign women’s goals are exactly the same. They just use different
techniques to get what
they want. More American women are what you see is what you get. With
other cultures,
esp Asian, what you see is not necessarily what you get. Anything
less than what you see is
what you get is deceit, not politeness.
>
>These are generalizations of course and they are only a suggestive
>guideline starting point in the ounce-of-prevention category of avoiding
>the dangers of divorce. The best solution is to reverse the trend today
>of making husbands instant disposables and making fatherhood
>functionally illegal. Help create family laws which promote family
>stability and commitment rather than divorce.
>
>
>Love, lenny
>
>P.S. Yes, men can be jerks too. But you don't need me to restate this
>when there are so many other people around who have made a profession out
>of
>men-bashing and awful-izing.
>
>--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
Kukulcan
>>women to avoid...<<
...and the kind of woman to go for is the one that:
turns you on (you're in love) and... you actually like her.
Love without like is something to be avoided in my book.
It's easy to see a "hot chick" (tm) out there. I fall in love every day.
I can't speak for other men but, for myself, the key to having a really
good time is if I actually like her. The thought of intentionally playing
nasty games with someone I loved but didn't like didn't cross my mind until
just now.
Hmmm... if we both loved but didn't like each other that would make for
some "trippy games." <g>
As for marriage... I would avoid that, unless the vows were completely
re-written from the original, or it were obvious both people were intent on
keeping those vows.
To me child-spawning is not in the cards. I adore women nonetheless. Is
this possible? I'm one of those "guys" who wants to do everything except
fuck as a result.
I think some of the older women especially appreciate this approach. If
she insists I fuck her I will but I never push for that particular act.
She has to be sterile or beyond childbearing years for me to have sex with
her in any case.
FWIW
Andy
Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<schaferE...@netcom.com>...
> 3. THE WOUNDED BIRD -- Avoid women in recovery, therapy, or from
> fatherless or father-scarce families. Fortunately since victimhood is
> honored in this culture, these women tend to readily blab about their
> wounds 10 minutes after you meet them. Women who have truly healed
> have no scabs to obsessively pick at. Resist the urge to be the heroic
> rescuer, for her healing can only be done by herself and you will only be
> resented for your patronizing efforts, eventually. "In recovery" is
> present tense. If unable to resist your ego's need to be a hero, join a
> Big Brother program instead. It's appropriate to patronize children (in
> it's positive sense).
>
> 4. THE TICKING BIO CLOCKS -- Avoid older career women with ticking
> biological clocks. These women can be particularly bad picks. They have
> demonstrated generally their low priority in taking the time and the
> effort into having durable relationships with men. By "ticking clock"
> age she may be too independent and set in her ways to be willing to make
> a whole lot of flexible room for your bad habits or personality flaws.
> You are a VERY disposable piece of family furniture (usually realized
> after you've deposited your seed and invested half your assets).
>
> Time given for you to shape up to her version of an "equal" partner
> varies from "strong woman" to strong woman. If you marry the boss,
> that's what you'll get. Again, many American men are fine with the
> submissive marriage partner role. Hell, they can even be President some
> day!
>
> 5. AMERICAN WOMEN -- Consider marrying a foreign women from a culture
> which does not dishonor men, husbands and fathers. And only if you're
> exhausted with traditional dating methods and a seamless stream of
> "high-maintenance" women. Warning: some foreign cultures encourage a
> predatory mentality of women against men without the need for feminist
> pretenses. Suitors beware.
>
D.Hu
mark wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:56:38 GMT, Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
> Absolutely awesome insights Lenny!
>
> Now take cover for the flak your going to get!
>
> How about a women’s FAQ, same subject?
>
> >1. THE FEARFUL FEMINIST -- Avoid women who see sexism and male privilege
> >at every turn....
[snip]
Women need only to know one thing:
Sloppy dressing + sloppy speech = sloppy lover.
--
D HU
Vancouver, B.C.
Don't sweat the small stuff
Jerry Terryl
>future marriages (in lieu of waiting for the laws to change), I offer
>the following tips of problem "stereotypes" of women to avoid as potential
>partners.
>
>1. THE FEARFUL FEMINIST -- Avoid women who see sexism and male privilege
>2. THE CAREER BOUND -- Avoid women who chase careers not so much
>3. THE WOUNDED BIRD -- Avoid women in recovery, therapy, or from
>4. THE TICKING BIO CLOCKS -- Avoid older career women with ticking
>5. AMERICAN WOMEN -- Consider marrying a foreign women from a culture
Ummmm... excuse me, Lenny, but WHAT'S LEFT?
Jerry Terryl
On Tue, 21 Oct 1997 09:50:09 -0500, Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca>
wrote:
>This is distressing. Isn't there anyone out there who just wants
>companionship?
Yes -- buy a pet dog or cat. :)
Christine A. Owens
Dave Platt wrote:
>
> # How about a women’s FAQ, same subject?
> #
> There is already a whole genre of books on that subject, with titles like
> "96 Men to Avoid." In fact, "The Rules" is a subset of that. Then there's
> the "All Men Must Die" website, which takes this to an absolute extreme.
>
> This is distressing. Isn't there anyone out there who just wants
> companionship?
Sure there are. You just have to look in the right places. Pick something that
you are interested in, join a club relating to that interest, and you will find lots
of people with whom you can make friends.
Chris Owens
Aimless
Kukulcan wrote:
> To me child-spawning is not in the cards. I adore women nonetheless. Is
> this possible? I'm one of those "guys" who wants to do everything except
> fuck as a result.
>
> I think some of the older women especially appreciate this approach. If
> she insists I fuck her I will but I never push for that particular act.
> She has to be sterile or beyond childbearing years for me to have sex with
> her in any case.
Ever hear of birth control? Condoms?
Red
Fine, just leave them all for me!
(You've just cancelled out all the women out there.)
The best women: rednecks!
Max Burke
>rebecca stark <net...@axs.com.au> wrote in article
<3450313C...@hotmail.com>...
> Why does everyone see marriage as such an important part of life??? It is
simply
> a tradtion that can aford to be broken... Considering that as mentioned the
> divorce rate is over 50% it is simply a waste of time going through with
it...
> The whole original idea of marriage was simply to transfer posession of the
> woman from one man, the father, to another man, the husband... I don't see
how
> this kind of ceremony has any place in modern day society...
> Although women are still raised thinking their one purpose in life is to
snatch
> up a man and settle him down... Get married, raise a family... Women are
still
> considered a failure if they are not married with a couple of kids, no
matter
> what their career...
> I think it's time we stoped telling how to avoid divorce, but how to avoid
> marrige in the first place!! Do we really need a piece of paper that says we
are
> bound together for life??? Shouldn't we let love be that bind???
Marriage is just a cultural 'contract' to cover pair bonding between male
and female humans which provides a stable environment for the offspring
of that pair bonding.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Marriage
Any intelligent woman who reads the marriage contract and then
goes into it, deserves all the consequences.
Isadora Duncan (1878–1927), U.S. dancer. My Life, ch. 19 (1927).
--
M...@ihug.co.nz
Replace MLV with mlvburke to email me
gar...@west.net
Lenny,
I loved your advice. I couldn't agree with you more. Every
relationship I have had with American women, and I have had many, has
failed for one or more of the reasons you have listed. The sad thing
is that the rest of the world is always looking at the US for
leadershsip and they are copying our bad habits and our misconceived
social engineering experiments that are having a disasterous effect on
our society..
Love
Alex
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:56:38 GMT, Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com>
wrote:
>
Steve Chaney
In article <01bcdfaa$1d400320$13a11dcb@default>, Max Burke <Max_...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
># Women
>Impenetrable in their dissimulation, cruel in their vengeance, tenacious in
>their
>purposes, unscrupulous as to their methods, animated by profound and hidden
>hatred for the tyranny of man—it is as though there exists among them an
>ever-present conspiracy toward domination, a sort of alliance like that
>subsisting
>among the priests of every country.
>
>Denis Diderot (1713–84), French philosopher.
>On Women (1772; repr. in Selected Writings, ed. by Lester G. Crocker, 1966).
That's alright. Women used to not be able to vote, own property, or earn
their own living. Mother nature had to balance things, you know. Nowadays
women can vote, own property, and earn their own living, and to the extent
that these rights (and other equal protections under the law) become
absolute, the kind of women YOU are mentioning, are less and less
acceptable to the mainstream women of America.
As for being unscrupulous towards the other gender, what about Howard Stern?
Where is this scorn towards unscrupulousness when Ted Kennedy drowns his
girlfriend, Bill Clinton womanizes, or Newt Gingrich divorces his wife because
she's recovering from cancer surgery, etc.? Hell, what about Islamic code
concerning women? Is it not a conspiracy when some 50 million Chinese baby
girls have been drowned or aborted because males are less expensive in the
Chinese economy?
Mother nature finds a way to balance things out between the genders. If
"all" women were evil to men in 1772, according to Miseur Diderot, it might
have been because women had no RIGHTS back then. Maybe Miseur Diderot
would have had a different attitude if he had afforded the women around him
an educational system equal to the one that he was able to participate in.
Maybe the women he hung around, wouldn't be so Evil[tm]. He had no problem
keeping his wife (if he had one, heh) barefoot and pregnant at home,
deprived of any right to hold property or participate in political
activities, etc. - and even if his wife HAD all that, others around him,
did not.
No matter which way you cut it, Diederot was way off base. Back then,
women HAD a justiihfication for being mean, if they were in fact that way;
they had few RIGHTS. People get mean and people become vengeful,
tenacious, and unscrupulous, when they live in a society that treats them
as second class citizens. It's called resentment. Nowadays, things have
changed, and so has the acceptability of certain women who are like this.
Most women won't accept the company of women who actually DO fit Diderot's
terrible assessment.
However, I do notice people like Kennedy, Clinton, and as much as I like
the guy, Gingrich, getting away with actions which more than accurately
make Diderot's words stick accurately upon them. It's all about balance.
Please tell the ENTIRE story when you endeavor to post these one-sided
quotes supposedly depicting half of the human species. If simple
intellectual honesty is not a valid reason for this admonition, let me
address this for you in a way you might understand: you are encouraging
certain male readers to act cynically towards other women, and somewhere
down the line, one of those women might come back and inflict it on
someone else.
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
In article <redhawk2-ya0240800...@snews.zippo.com>, Sean C <redh...@SPAMFREEmindspring.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>A much simpler solution is: DON'T GET MARRIED! Any woman who is worth
>marrying should be just as willing to stay with you and enjoy the benefits
>of togetherness without your signing away 50 percent of your assets. If she
>insists on that piece of paper as a pre-condition for continuing the
>relationship, perhaps you should wonder why.
Gee. I see the Tokevirus is spreading.
The only other explanation would be that it is easier for you to justify
throwing out the baby AND the bath water, rather than the more accurate,
beneficial and thought process-intensive task of reforming divorce laws in
order to make marriage less risky a situation. (Which would of course mean
women would get married later because they would choose to get financially
stable beforehand.)
-- Steve
det...@been-there.com
you want her to have as much of a career as you, don't have expectations
of raising a family as well. Very few are able to "have it all," and
only women can have a career and children. Usually both suffer.
3. THE WOUNDED BIRD -- Avoid women in recovery, therapy, or from
fatherless or father-scarce families. Fortunately since victimhood is
honored in this culture, these women tend to readily blab about their
wounds 10 minutes after you meet them. Women who have truly healed
have no scabs to obsessively pick at. Resist the urge to be the heroic
rescuer, for her healing can only be done by herself and you will only be
resented for your patronizing efforts, eventually. "In recovery" is
present tense. If unable to resist your ego's need to be a hero, join a
Big Brother program instead. It's appropriate to patronize children (in
it's positive sense).
4. THE TICKING BIO CLOCKS -- Avoid older career women with ticking
biological clocks. These women can be particularly bad picks. They have
demonstrated generally their low priority in taking the time and the
effort into having durable relationships with men. By "ticking clock"
age she may be too independent and set in her ways to be willing to make
a whole lot of flexible room for your bad habits or personality flaws.
You are a VERY disposable piece of family furniture (usually realized
after you've deposited your seed and invested half your assets).
Time given for you to shape up to her version of an "equal" partner
varies from "strong woman" to strong woman. If you marry the boss,
that's what you'll get. Again, many American men are fine with the
submissive marriage partner role. Hell, they can even be President some
day!
They all are bad picks. Whether they are young and have baby urges or
older career women with clocks ticking, if you thought that a man was
not very picky about his sex partners, wait till you see a women that
is willing to settle. Scary!
5. AMERICAN WOMEN -- Consider marrying a foreign women from a culture
which does not dishonor men, husbands and fathers. And only if you're
exhausted with traditional dating methods and a seamless stream of
"high-maintenance" women. Warning: some foreign cultures encourage a
predatory mentality of women against men without the need for feminist
pretenses. Suitors beware.
These are generalizations of course and they are only a suggestive
guideline starting point in the ounce-of-prevention category of avoiding
the dangers of divorce. The best solution is to reverse the trend today
of making husbands instant disposables and making fatherhood
functionally illegal. Help create family laws which promote family
stability and commitment rather than divorce.
Love, lenny
P.S. Yes, men can be jerks too. But you don't need me to restate this
when there are so many other people around who have made a profession out
of men-bashing and awful-izing.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
The_Doge of St. Louis
>Lenny,
> I loved your advice. I couldn't agree with you more. Every
>relationship I have had with American women, and I have had many, has
>failed for one or more of the reasons you have listed.
Yep, that must be it all right. Every relationship you have had has
failed, so it's just plain logical to assume that it *must* be the fault
of all those nasty ol' American women.
After all, it's just absurd to assume that all your relationships fail
because of something *you* might be doing.
Say, why don't you and Lenny just take a vow of chastity and go off and
live in a monastery somewhere in Idaho? At the very least, it would save
the rest of us having to read Lenny's litany of complaints every time he
re-posts it, and the gene pool could only be improved thereby.
Feh.
--
<*> ObQuote: "The war between the sexes is the only one in which both sides
regularly sleep with the enemy."
--- Quentin Crisp
======================================================================
<*> The_Doge of St. Louis
Stage, screen, radio
http://www.pobox.com/~thedoge/
Robert E. Charles
aw, there's an easier answer. just don't get married.
--
Robert E. Charles | rcha...@mail.sunlink.net
--
http://www.sunlink.net/~rcharles/index.htm
--
Make love, not war: Get married and do both!!!
--
I think. That's why I'm an atheist: #444, actually.
--
Per
On 26 Oct 1997 17:52:13 -0800, gun...@crl.crl.com (Steve Chaney)
wrote:
>That's alright. Women used to not be able to vote, own property, or earn
>their own living.
.
Or get drafted.
Or be held accountable for their debts. The husband went to
debtors prison for the wife's offense.
.
> Mother nature had to balance things, you know. Nowadays
>women can vote, own property, and earn their own living,
.
And still don't have to register with the Selective Service,
as all males in America below a certain age must do.
.
[...]
.
>As for being unscrupulous towards the other gender, what about Howard Stern?
.
Howard Stern is a least honest and open about his opinions.
How about the Super Bowl battering hoax?
How about the Rule of Thumb Hoax?
How about the "Feminization of Poverty" hoax?
How about the glass ceiling hoax?
How about Anita Hill?
How about the "women are shortchanged on health" hoax?
How about "schools shortchange girls" hoax?
Enough unscrupulousness for you? Never mind, feminism has lots
more in store.
Max Burke
> Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.crl.com> wrote in article
<630s4d$9...@crl.crl.com>...
snip...
>
> That's alright. Women used to not be able to vote, own property, or earn
> their own living. Mother nature had to balance things, you know. Nowadays
> women can vote, own property, and earn their own living, and to the extent
> that these rights (and other equal protections under the law) become
> absolute, the kind of women YOU are mentioning, are less and less
> acceptable to the mainstream women of America.
Why on earth do you think I NEED to care about what 'main stream' women
in America find acceptable.
>
> As for being unscrupulous towards the other gender, what about Howard Stern?
> Where is this scorn towards unscrupulousness when Ted Kennedy drowns his
> girlfriend, Bill Clinton womanizes, or Newt Gingrich divorces his wife
because
> she's recovering from cancer surgery, etc.? Hell, what about Islamic code
> concerning women? Is it not a conspiracy when some 50 million Chinese baby
> girls have been drowned or aborted because males are less expensive in the
> Chinese economy?
>
These have no relevance to the thread : (FAQ Women to avoid in marriage) :
Howard Stern
Ted Kennedy
Newt Gingrich
The Islamic code
the Chinese economy.
Bill Clinton has not been charged, tried, or convicted of any crime (yet),
much as you republicans wish him to be.
> Mother nature finds a way to balance things out between the genders. If
> "all" women were evil to men in 1772, according to Miseur Diderot, it might
> have been because women had no RIGHTS back then. Maybe Miseur Diderot
> would have had a different attitude if he had afforded the women around him
> an educational system equal to the one that he was able to participate in.
> Maybe the women he hung around, wouldn't be so Evil[tm]. He had no problem
> keeping his wife (if he had one, heh) barefoot and pregnant at home,
> deprived of any right to hold property or participate in political
> activities, etc. - and even if his wife HAD all that, others around him,
> did not.
And a time of balancing is rapidly approaching for feminism, the 'pendulum' is
starting to swing the other way.
> No matter which way you cut it, Diederot was way off base. Back then,
> women HAD a justiihfication for being mean, if they were in fact that way;
> they had few RIGHTS. People get mean and people become vengeful,
> tenacious, and unscrupulous, when they live in a society that treats them
> as second class citizens. It's called resentment. Nowadays, things have
> changed, and so has the acceptability of certain women who are like this.
> Most women won't accept the company of women who actually DO fit Diderot's
> terrible assessment.
Which exactly describes the way a rapidly increasing number of men (and women)
feel the way they are treated by the feminist movement.
> Please tell the ENTIRE story when you endeavor to post these one-sided
> quotes supposedly depicting half of the human species. If simple
> intellectual honesty is not a valid reason for this admonition, let me
> address this for you in a way you might understand: you are encouraging
> certain male readers to act cynically towards other women, and somewhere
> down the line, one of those women might come back and inflict it on
> someone else.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
# Because there is very little honour left in American life, there is a
certain built-in
tendency to destroy masculinity in American men.
Norman Mailer (b. 1923), U.S. author. Cannibals and Christians,
“Petty Notes on Some Sex in America” (1966; first published 1962–63).
Steve Chaney
In article <01bce295$f9cb8380$6af131ca@default>, Max Burke <Max_...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.crl.com> wrote in article
><630s4d$9...@crl.crl.com>...
>> In article <01bcdfaa$1d400320$13a11dcb@default>, Max Burke
><Max_...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>snip...
>
>>
>> That's alright. Women used to not be able to vote, own property, or earn
>> their own living. Mother nature had to balance things, you know. Nowadays
>> women can vote, own property, and earn their own living, and to the extent
>> that these rights (and other equal protections under the law) become
>> absolute, the kind of women YOU are mentioning, are less and less
>> acceptable to the mainstream women of America.
>
>Why on earth do you think I NEED to care about what 'main stream' women
>in America find acceptable.
My point was that if there ARE women the likes of which would make
Diderot's quote even REMOTELY relevant to the modern age, they do not
represent the mainstream, and aren't looked upon very favorably anymore.
>> As for being unscrupulous towards the other gender, what about Howard Stern?
>> Where is this scorn towards unscrupulousness when Ted Kennedy drowns his
>> girlfriend, Bill Clinton womanizes, or Newt Gingrich divorces his wife
>because
>> she's recovering from cancer surgery, etc.? Hell, what about Islamic code
>> concerning women? Is it not a conspiracy when some 50 million Chinese baby
>> girls have been drowned or aborted because males are less expensive in the
>> Chinese economy?
>>
>
>These have no relevance to the thread : (FAQ Women to avoid in marriage) :
>
>Howard Stern
>Ted Kennedy
>Newt Gingrich
>The Islamic code
>the Chinese economy.
Then maybe they belong under "men to avoid in marriage"? That was my
point there. Can't you concentrate on women NOT to avoid? This "Women to
avoid" thing has been reposted many many times. Can we have a new act?
>And a time of balancing is rapidly approaching for feminism, the 'pendulum' is
>starting to swing the other way.
Your posts seem to show that you do not see this...
>> No matter which way you cut it, Diederot was way off base. Back then,
>> women HAD a justiihfication for being mean, if they were in fact that way;
>> they had few RIGHTS. People get mean and people become vengeful,
>> tenacious, and unscrupulous, when they live in a society that treats them
>> as second class citizens. It's called resentment. Nowadays, things have
>> changed, and so has the acceptability of certain women who are like this.
>> Most women won't accept the company of women who actually DO fit Diderot's
>> terrible assessment.
>
>Which exactly describes the way a rapidly increasing number of men (and women)
>feel the way they are treated by the feminist movement.
So if you agree, then why not divert these energies towards (in your sexual
preference case) women who are NOT like that?
>> Please tell the ENTIRE story when you endeavor to post these one-sided
>> quotes supposedly depicting half of the human species. If simple
>> intellectual honesty is not a valid reason for this admonition, let me
>> address this for you in a way you might understand: you are encouraging
>> certain male readers to act cynically towards other women, and somewhere
>> down the line, one of those women might come back and inflict it on
>> someone else.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
># Because there is very little honour left in American life, there is a
>certain built-in
> tendency to destroy masculinity in American men.
>Norman Mailer (b. 1923), U.S. author. Cannibals and Christians,
>“Petty Notes on Some Sex in America” (1966; first published 1962–63).
There isn't much honor in a thread in which people are making comments
like, "well if we avoid these women, then we avoid ALL women". That's a
blanket condemnation of the whole female species, and it is vastly
inaccurate. Where's the honor in that? Once again I am imploring you to
post more about pursuing the women you like, rather than posting the same
ol' same ol' about avoiding the ones you don't.
-- Steve
Max Burke
> >snip...
> >
> >>
> >> That's alright. Women used to not be able to vote, own property, or earn
> >> their own living. Mother nature had to balance things, you know.
Nowadays
> >> women can vote, own property, and earn their own living, and to the
extent
> >> that these rights (and other equal protections under the law) become
> >> absolute, the kind of women YOU are mentioning, are less and less
> >> acceptable to the mainstream women of America.
> >
> >Why on earth do you think I NEED to care about what 'main stream' women
> >in America find acceptable.
>
> My point was that if there ARE women the likes of which would make
> Diderot's quote even REMOTELY relevant to the modern age, they do not
> represent the mainstream, and aren't looked upon very favorably anymore.
Of course there are women who still look for the 'main chance' where their
relationships with men are concerned, just as there are men who behave the
same way, the always have been men and women like this, there always
will be, and IMO they are a lot more common than you believe.
>
> >> As for being unscrupulous towards the other gender, what about Howard
Stern?
> >> Where is this scorn towards unscrupulousness when Ted Kennedy drowns his
> >> girlfriend, Bill Clinton womanizes, or Newt Gingrich divorces his wife
> >because
> >> she's recovering from cancer surgery, etc.? Hell, what about Islamic
code
> >> concerning women? Is it not a conspiracy when some 50 million Chinese
baby
> >> girls have been drowned or aborted because males are less expensive in
the
> >> Chinese economy?
> >>
> >
> >These have no relevance to the thread : (FAQ Women to avoid in marriage) :
> >
> >Howard Stern
> >Ted Kennedy
> >Newt Gingrich
> >The Islamic code
> >the Chinese economy.
>
> Then maybe they belong under "men to avoid in marriage"? That was my
> point there. Can't you concentrate on women NOT to avoid? This "Women to
> avoid" thing has been reposted many many times. Can we have a new act?
What I would suggest is that one of the women who post here do a list
of men to avoid in marriage (Lefty would be a good choice IMHO),
incidentally I found the original list quite humorous (sorry Lenny), and would
not regard it as the definitive list of women to avoid.
>
> >And a time of balancing is rapidly approaching for feminism, the 'pendulum'
is
> >starting to swing the other way.
>
> Your posts seem to show that you do not see this...
I do see this, mainly in the news media, ie when women commit crimes now,
it is now just reported as a crime committed, there is a lot less of the
editorial
comment on the reasons why women commit crimes than there used to be,
and radical feminist's are starting to complain about this, also politicians,
in New Zealand anyway, appear to be more careful about taking 'on board' the
feminist view point so quickly, they are starting to question the feminist
idea's
and ideal's that they are asked to promote and support.
>
> >> No matter which way you cut it, Diederot was way off base. Back then,
> >> women HAD a justiihfication for being mean, if they were in fact that
way;
> >> they had few RIGHTS. People get mean and people become vengeful,
> >> tenacious, and unscrupulous, when they live in a society that treats them
> >> as second class citizens. It's called resentment. Nowadays, things have
> >> changed, and so has the acceptability of certain women who are like this.
> >> Most women won't accept the company of women who actually DO fit
Diderot's
> >> terrible assessment.
> >
> >Which exactly describes the way a rapidly increasing number of men (and
women)
> >feel the way they are treated by the feminist movement.
>
> So if you agree, then why not divert these energies towards (in your sexual
> preference case) women who are NOT like that?
Just what do YOU think I am TRYING to achieve? I regard the usenet as
a vehicle SOLELY to voice one's opinion, I do not believe, for one minute
anything I say hear is going to change anyone's beliefs, in fact I would be
rather concerned for a person's mental state if they did actually change the
way
they thought just because of what I post here.
snip...
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >----
> ># Because there is very little honour left in American life, there is a
> >certain built-in
> > tendency to destroy masculinity in American men.
> >Norman Mailer (b. 1923), U.S. author. Cannibals and Christians,
> >"Petty Notes on Some Sex in America" (1966; first published 1962–63).
>
> There isn't much honor in a thread in which people are making comments
> like, "well if we avoid these women, then we avoid ALL women". That's a
> blanket condemnation of the whole female species, and it is vastly
> inaccurate. Where's the honor in that? Once again I am imploring you to
> post more about pursuing the women you like, rather than posting the same
> ol' same ol' about avoiding the ones you don't.
I now get very worried about any woman that wants to start any sort of
relationship with me, that involves me 'pursuing' her.
I have found (often to my surprise, why is she interested in me), that any
normal relationship a woman wishes to have with me does not involve a
'pursuit' but a mutual meeting of ideals and goals (to be polite, for
those readers with a sensitive nature).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
# There are always women who will take men on their own terms.
If I were a man I wouldn’t bother to change while there are women
like that around.
Ann Oakley (b. 1944), British sociologist, author.
Quoted in: Observer (London, 27 Oct. 1991).
Sean C
> In article <redhawk2-ya0240800...@snews.zippo.com>, Sean C
<redh...@SPAMFREEmindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >A much simpler solution is: DON'T GET MARRIED! Any woman who is worth
> >marrying should be just as willing to stay with you and enjoy the benefits
> >of togetherness without your signing away 50 percent of your assets. If she
> >insists on that piece of paper as a pre-condition for continuing the
> >relationship, perhaps you should wonder why.
>
> Gee. I see the Tokevirus is spreading.
What the hell is a "Tokevirus?"
>
> The only other explanation would be that it is easier for you to justify
> throwing out the baby AND the bath water, rather than the more accurate,
> beneficial and thought process-intensive task of reforming divorce laws in
> order to make marriage less risky a situation.
Why, great idea; instead of avoiding certain women for marriage, I am going
to march up to the steps of the Capitol Building and force all those people
there to meet my demands to reform the divorce laws or I will have them all
fired. While I am there, I will insist they pass a law making it mandatory
for women to ask men out on dates. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Besides the fact that you're being incredibly unrealistic, please explain
why I should be concerned with marriage at all? I see no particular
necessity for marriage as a pre-condition for two people getting together
and spending their lives as a loving couple. If someone insists on marriage
as a pre-condition for a love relationship--or continuing an existing
relationship--I think it would be wise to ask why. And since I can
single-handedly change the nature of my personal relationships a helluva
lot easier than changing the laws of the country, that would seem to be the
logical path when push comes to shove.
(Which would of course mean
> women would get married later because they would choose to get financially
> stable beforehand.)
> -- Steve
I doubt that. Women often marry early now because it provides them with
financial stability. Changing the divorce laws wouldn't change that much at
all, but it would probably make divorce a less attractive option for women
who are principally concerned with their financial security after the
divorce.
Sean Conlon
--
Remove SPAMFREE from e-mail address to send e-mail.
____________________________
The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
Flannery O'Connor
It is discouraging to try and penetrate a mind like yours. You ought to get
it out and dance on it. That would take some of the rigidity out of it.
Mark Twain
the...@pobox.com
In article <3453fc2...@news.sunlink.net>,
rcha...@mail.sunlink.net (Robert E. Charles) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:56:38 GMT, Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> aw, there's an easier answer. just don't get married.
I agree. Some folks just aren't cut out for marriage and should stay
single. Others find it congenial. It's purely a matter of individual
preference.
If Mr. Shafer doesn't care for the insitution of marriage and wants to
stay single that's his choice and I'd be the last person to condemn him
for it. What I find tiresome is the attempt to justify this decision by
endlessly re-posting this axe-grinding "FAQ" (a misnomer in any case,
since there's no evidence anyone other than Mr. Shafer has ever asked any
of the "questions" his post claims to address, much less asked them
frequently).
Granted, there's a fair amount of societal pressure to get married, but
one can resist it without engaging in negative stereotyping of the
opposite sex.
=============================
The_Doge of St. Louis
Stage, screen, radio
http://www.pobox.com/~thedoge
=============================
Eugenia
the...@inlink.com (The_Doge of St. Louis) wrote [to]:
>Say, why don't you and Lenny just take a vow of chastity and go off and
>live in a monastery somewhere in Idaho? [...]
It's in Wallace.
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <01bce2bf$8a9b5d80$603261cb@default> "Max Burke"
<Max_...@nowhere.com> writes:
>
>> Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.crl.com> wrote in article
><631ifu$i...@crl.crl.com>...
>> In article <01bce295$f9cb8380$6af131ca@default>, Max Burke
><Max_...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> >snip...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> That's alright. Women used to not be able to vote, own property,
or earn> >> their own living. Mother nature had to balance things, you
know. >Nowadays> >> women can vote, own property, and earn their own
living, and to the>extent>> >> that these rights (and other equal
protections under the law) become>> >> absolute, the kind of women YOU
are mentioning, are less and less> >> acceptable to the mainstream
women of America.
----------
If you believe that women who vote and own property are
less acceptable to "mainstream women of America", I have
some water-view property I'd like to sell you. :] Main-
stream American women want those very absolute rights.
The only women who will fall for THIS absence of logic
are found waving their arms in the background at Pussy
Keeper conventions, and perhaps very young girls with
few opportunities or education.
-----------------
>
>>
>> My point was that if there ARE women the likes of which would make
>> Diderot's quote even REMOTELY relevant to the modern age, they do
not> represent the mainstream, and aren't looked upon very favorably
anymore.
---------
What part of feminism is NOT acceptable by the mainstream?
----------
>
>What I would suggest is that one of the women who post here do a list
>of men to avoid in marriage (Lefty would be a good choice IMHO),
>incidentally I found the original list quite humorous (sorry Lenny),
and would>not regard it as the definitive list of women to avoid.
----------
Thank you. I'm sure glad I'm not on THAT list. The
idea of marriage is all but repugnant to me. Of course,
there is a special man in my life.
>
>>
>> >And a time of balancing is rapidly approaching for feminism, the
'pendulum'>is> >starting to swing the other way.
------------
In what way? All I have noticed is more and more people
speaking about freedom, equality, human rights; I think
we're all headed in the right direction....left. :]
-------------
>>
(edit)
>> ># Because there is very little honour left in American life, there
is a> >certain built-in> > tendency to destroy masculinity in American
men.
>> >Norman Mailer (b. 1923), U.S. author. Cannibals and Christians,
>> >"Petty Notes on Some Sex in America" (1966; first published
1962–63).
---------
From what I recall, Mailer (like Hemingway) needed a
new chattel for each book. When that kind of ideal
works against society, it will indeed evolve out. I'm
not sure I'd call that kind of "ideal" masulinity.
---------------------
>>
>(edit)
># There are always women who will take men on their own terms.
>If I were a man I wouldn’t bother to change while there are women
>like that around.
----------
I think this author has a point; women are starting
to feel the same way about men, however, while men
are having to go to Thailand for their brides.
Lefty
Max Burke
> Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<633amp$q...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>...
> ><631ifu$i...@crl.crl.com>...
> >> In article <01bce295$f9cb8380$6af131ca@default>, Max Burke
> ><Max_...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >snip...
> >> >
> >> >>
Steve Chaney posted this, not me... (Max_...@nowhere.com)
> >> >> That's alright. Women used to not be able to vote, own property,
> or earn> >> their own living. Mother nature had to balance things, you
> know. >Nowadays> >> women can vote, own property, and earn their own
> living, and to the>extent>> >> that these rights (and other equal
> protections under the law) become>> >> absolute, the kind of women YOU
> are mentioning, are less and less> >> acceptable to the mainstream
> women of America.
>
> ----------
> If you believe that women who vote and own property are
> less acceptable to "mainstream women of America", I have
> some water-view property I'd like to sell you. :] Main-
> stream American women want those very absolute rights.
> The only women who will fall for THIS absence of logic
> are found waving their arms in the background at Pussy
> Keeper conventions, and perhaps very young girls with
> few opportunities or education.
> -----------------
Steve Chaney was NOT saying that women who vote and own property
are less acceptable to "mainstream women of America, he was saying
that the women in quote I had in my post were not acceptable to
the mainstream women in America (I agree with him BTW).
However I disagree with him that there are less of this type of
women around today, IMO there are still women who always look
for the 'main chance' in every relationship they have with men.
The quote Steve Chaney was commenting on :
# Women
Impenetrable in their dissimulation, cruel in their vengeance, tenacious in
their purposes, unscrupulous as to their methods, animated by profound
and hidden hatred for the tyranny of man—it is as though there exists
among them an ever-present conspiracy toward domination, a sort of
alliance like that subsisting among the priests of every country.
Denis Diderot (1713–84), French philosopher.
On Women (1772; repr. in Selected Writings, ed. by Lester G. Crocker, 1966).
Steve Chaney posted this comment (below)
> >>
> >> My point was that if there ARE women the likes of which would make
> >> Diderot's quote even REMOTELY relevant to the modern age, they do
> not> represent the mainstream, and aren't looked upon very favorably
> anymore.
>
> ---------
> What part of feminism is NOT acceptable by the mainstream?
> ----------
As far as I'm aware him was NOT talking about feminism at all.
> >
>
> >What I would suggest is that one of the women who post here do a list
> >of men to avoid in marriage (Lefty would be a good choice IMHO),
> >incidentally I found the original list quite humorous (sorry Lenny),
> and would>not regard it as the definitive list of women to avoid.
>
> ----------
> Thank you. I'm sure glad I'm not on THAT list. The
> idea of marriage is all but repugnant to me. Of course,
> there is a special man in my life.
> >
> >>
> >> >And a time of balancing is rapidly approaching for feminism, the
> 'pendulum'>is> >starting to swing the other way.
>
> ------------
> In what way? All I have noticed is more and more people
> speaking about freedom, equality, human rights; I think
> we're all headed in the right direction....left. :]
> -------------
In what way? The feminist viewpoint is no longer being taken at
'face value', nor accepted as being the only way for society to
develop, evolve, whatever.
> >>
> (edit)
>
> >> ># Because there is very little honour left in American life, there
> is a> >certain built-in> > tendency to destroy masculinity in American
> men.
> >> >Norman Mailer (b. 1923), U.S. author. Cannibals and Christians,
> >> >"Petty Notes on Some Sex in America" (1966; first published
> 1962–63).
>
> ---------
> From what I recall, Mailer (like Hemingway) needed a
> new chattel for each book. When that kind of ideal
> works against society, it will indeed evolve out. I'm
> not sure I'd call that kind of "ideal" masulinity.
> ---------------------
>
> >>
> >(edit)
> ># There are always women who will take men on their own terms.
> >If I were a man I wouldn't bother to change while there are women
> >like that around.
>
>
> ----------
> I think this author has a point; women are starting
> to feel the same way about men, however, while men
> are having to go to Thailand for their brides.
Maybe the men who do take 'foreign' wives, find that American
women are no longer capable of having a normal relationship with
a man.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
# Women and Men
Once a man is on hand, a woman tends to stop believing in her
own beliefs.
Colette Dowling (b. 1939), U.S. author.
The Cinderella Complex, ch. 6 (1981).
dream...@erols.com
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> In <01bce358$1e32bc80$17a11dcb@default> "Max Burke"
> <Max_...@nowhere.com> writes:
> > >>
> >> >(edit)
> >> ># There are always women who will take men on their own terms.
> >> >If I were a man I wouldn't bother to change while there are women
> >> >like that around.
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> I think this author has a point; women are starting
> >> to feel the same way about men, however, while men
> >> are having to go to Thailand for their brides.
> >
> >Maybe the men who do take 'foreign' wives, find that American
> >women are no longer capable of having a normal relationship with
> >a man.
> >---------
>
> ---------
> situation have reason to be complacent, until
> somthing better comes along.
>
> Lefty
>
>
Or just maybe both sexes are just being too piety. Or selfish. If both
sexes would learn understanding and be truthful to themselves then the
mail order brides and the divorce rate would go down to nill.
dreamwalker
Steve Chaney
In article <schaferE...@netcom.com>, Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.crl.com> wrote:
>
>: Then maybe they belong under "men to avoid in marriage"? That was my
>: point there. Can't you concentrate on women NOT to avoid? This "Women to
>: avoid" thing has been reposted many many times. Can we have a new act?
>
>First off, I am the author of the FAQ you're objecting to. Second, the
>response from men reading it has been very positive, so what exactly is
>your problem with it being reprinted, are you jealous? Which leads me to
>my next point...Third, you seem to have no problem recycling your FAQs...
>Fourth, there is a steady turnover of readers to these newgroups, for
>most I would venture that they are reading these for the first time...Fifth,
>if this still troubles you to see these posts, then stop your whining and
>please put me in your killfile and that will end your problem.
Like I said, I approached this with a bit more vim and vigor than I should
have. I haven't reposted my FAQ's in a long time, and my point here is
that there should be more of an effort aimed at women to LOOK FOR, not
these cultural dinosaurs you keep talking about who, while still wreaking
chaos on society, are nonetheless stampeding into cultural extinction.
That's all.
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
In article <633amp$q...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> >snip...
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> That's alright. Women used to not be able to vote, own property,
>or earn> >> their own living. Mother nature had to balance things, you
>know. >Nowadays> >> women can vote, own property, and earn their own
>living, and to the>extent>> >> that these rights (and other equal
>protections under the law) become>> >> absolute, the kind of women YOU
>are mentioning, are less and less> >> acceptable to the mainstream
>women of America.
>
> If you believe that women who vote and own property are
> less acceptable to "mainstream women of America", I have
> some water-view property I'd like to sell you. :] Main-
> stream American women want those very absolute rights.
> The only women who will fall for THIS absence of logic
> are found waving their arms in the background at Pussy
> Keeper conventions, and perhaps very young girls with
> few opportunities or education.
> -----------------
The quote about "women used not to be able to vote" was my post; the other
guy was just replying to it. I think some serious wires got crossed here;
what I said was, women used not to be able to vote, own property, or make
their own money. Is it any WONDER that some women were bitchy to the
extent that Diderot was describing? Now, as women enjoy the right to do
all the above, we are seeing much LESS of this bitchiness, and rightfully
so. If you have more equal rights, you have fewer severely disgruntled
people.
All I was trying to do was dispel the credibility of Diderot's slam against
women. If I don't, then I have no right to raise hell when a woman makes
misandrist comments about men. What goes around, comes back around. I'm
sure you've heard of "the buck stops here", no?
>>> My point was that if there ARE women the likes of which would make
>>> Diderot's quote even REMOTELY relevant to the modern age, they do
>not> represent the mainstream, and aren't looked upon very favorably
>anymore.
>
> ---------
> What part of feminism is NOT acceptable by the mainstream?
> ----------
The part, which says women like Kay Bailey Hutchinson (a pro-choice US
Senator from Texas) are not REAL women because they are moderates and not
ultraliberals. (This was said by Gloria Steinem, by the way.) Mainstream
women do not accept feminists who make misandrist comments about men - and
I have, for Dawn's sake, posted some of those comments by both
Congresswomen AND feminist leaders.
>>What I would suggest is that one of the women who post here do a list
>>of men to avoid in marriage (Lefty would be a good choice IMHO),
>>incidentally I found the original list quite humorous (sorry Lenny),
>and would>not regard it as the definitive list of women to avoid.
>
> ----------
> Thank you. I'm sure glad I'm not on THAT list. The
> idea of marriage is all but repugnant to me. Of course,
> there is a special man in my life.
I would rather we not sit around going tit for tat posting negatives about
the genders.
>>> >And a time of balancing is rapidly approaching for feminism, the
>'pendulum'>is> >starting to swing the other way.
>
> ------------
> In what way? All I have noticed is more and more people
> speaking about freedom, equality, human rights; I think
> we're all headed in the right direction....left. :]
> -------------
Some feminists (like Paglia) are for freedom and libertarianism; other
feminists (like Steinem) are in it for the right to be bitter and hateful.
Some feminists want to ban porn (and they have worked with Christian
conservative politicians on these issues!), meanwhile TRUE, libertarian
feminists like Betty Friedan, take serious exception to these people.
I recognize that feminism is not monolithic, and that there are good and
corrupt elements within, and it is my contention that the corrupt elements
have stronger media representation, and more legislative power, but almost
no representation in the mainstream. The exact opposite is true for the
less corrupt elements.
Just thought I'd clarify things.
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
In article <3456194d...@news.idt.net>, Per <pe...@idt.net> wrote:
>On 26 Oct 1997 17:52:13 -0800, gun...@crl.crl.com (Steve Chaney)
>wrote:
>
>
>>their own living.
> Or get drafted.
> Or be held accountable for their debts. The husband went to
>debtors prison for the wife's offense.
>.
>>women can vote, own property, and earn their own living,
> And still don't have to register with the Selective Service,
>as all males in America below a certain age must do.
>.
>[...]
>.
> Howard Stern is a least honest and open about his opinions.
> How about the Super Bowl battering hoax?
> How about the Rule of Thumb Hoax?
> How about the "Feminization of Poverty" hoax?
> How about the glass ceiling hoax?
> How about Anita Hill?
> How about the "women are shortchanged on health" hoax?
> How about "schools shortchange girls" hoax?
> Enough unscrupulousness for you? Never mind, feminism has lots
>more in store.
I am not against you on these issues; however, men did do some bad things
to women. Such as, it was (and in Japan, it still is, or recently was)
legal to rape your wife... c'mon, how much worse does it get?
The fact is, nature balances things out. Take a deep breath and when you
come to realize that, you'll feel a BIT more peaceful about the way men and
women relate to each other, and you'll begin to understand that if you want
a quality woman, you should be a quality man, and instead of running away
from the crap, you should be running towards the gold.
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
Oh man, this is the first time in a LONG time I've had someone step up and
correct a major misinterpretation like this. =] Thanks =]
Maybe there are a billion of these immature people around; my point is,
you'll get further ahead by concentrating on the better class of women,
than giving such publicity to these other morons. I'm sorry I approached
this in such a caustic manner at first, I'm glad I have a chance to take
that attitude BACK and put this on a more peaceful note! =]
>> >> >And a time of balancing is rapidly approaching for feminism, the
>> 'pendulum'>is> >starting to swing the other way.
>>
>> ------------
>> In what way? All I have noticed is more and more people
>> speaking about freedom, equality, human rights; I think
>> we're all headed in the right direction....left. :]
>> -------------
>
>In what way? The feminist viewpoint is no longer being taken at
>'face value', nor accepted as being the only way for society to
>develop, evolve, whatever.
The corrupt feminist viewpoint is strongly represented in the media; it is
the mainstream women, who are looking for a more moderate, "true to the
equal rights cause" feminist movement, to stand up for. And they're not
waiting for 20,000 Camille Paglias and Betty Friedan's, to convince the
media; they're doing it on their own.
Women have simply WALKED into colleges, onto jobs, into the military, and
into office, and pursued the simple desire to be treated equally, without
these corrupt power grabbing morons who THINK they represent true feminism
(but only represent themselves) going to bat for them. I am glad that this
is happening, and more accurately, I have no problem with it. The
mainstream population represents real feminism; Steinem and her kind are
their own brand.
>> ----------
>> I think this author has a point; women are starting
>> to feel the same way about men, however, while men
>> are having to go to Thailand for their brides.
>
>Maybe the men who do take 'foreign' wives, find that American
>women are no longer capable of having a normal relationship with
>a man.
May I ask what you mean here? Do you mean they find it HARD to find a
woman who is capable of having a normal relationship with a man, or do you
mean that women like this, are actually few and far between?
I just wanted to make sure I'm not making up anything about what people are
saying.
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
In article <01bce2bf$8a9b5d80$603261cb@default>, Max Burke <Max_...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.crl.com> wrote in article
><631ifu$i...@crl.crl.com>...
>>
>> Diderot's quote even REMOTELY relevant to the modern age, they do not
>> represent the mainstream, and aren't looked upon very favorably anymore.
>
>Of course there are women who still look for the 'main chance' where their
>relationships with men are concerned, just as there are men who behave the
>same way, the always have been men and women like this, there always
>will be, and IMO they are a lot more common than you believe.
They may be more common than I believe. In fact, a LOT of them are in Los
Angeles, and I avoid dating Los Angeles natives because of that. However,
what I also did, was look for women who aren't like that, and I found them
- a lot. My girlfriend is one of them.
>> >Howard Stern
>> >Ted Kennedy
>> >Newt Gingrich
>> >The Islamic code
>> >the Chinese economy.
>>
>> Then maybe they belong under "men to avoid in marriage"? That was my
>> point there. Can't you concentrate on women NOT to avoid? This "Women to
>> avoid" thing has been reposted many many times. Can we have a new act?
>
>What I would suggest is that one of the women who post here do a list
>of men to avoid in marriage (Lefty would be a good choice IMHO),
I would suggest against this; the buck has got to stop somewhere, why not
here?
>incidentally I found the original list quite humorous (sorry Lenny), and would
>not regard it as the definitive list of women to avoid.
Thank you for clarifying that part for me. It was quite easy to mistake
you for being serious, especially after you posted the quote by Diderot.
You might not agree with me, because I find it offensive when women (and
advertisers, for that matter) make misandrist comments, generalizations and
jokes. To preserve my credibility, I don't subscribe to misogynist
equivalents, either. I feel that if I stand there and laugh at such
things, I have no leg to stand on when someone makes a slur about men, or
in my case, blacks. It's an honor thing. I would rather enjoy humor in
other ways.
>> >And a time of balancing is rapidly approaching for feminism, the 'pendulum'
>is
>> >starting to swing the other way.
>>
>> Your posts seem to show that you do not see this...
>
>I do see this, mainly in the news media, ie when women commit crimes now,
>it is now just reported as a crime committed, there is a lot less of the
>editorial
>comment on the reasons why women commit crimes than there used to be,
>and radical feminist's are starting to complain about this, also politicians,
>in New Zealand anyway, appear to be more careful about taking 'on board' the
>feminist view point so quickly, they are starting to question the feminist
>idea's
>and ideal's that they are asked to promote and support.
That is because the mainstream women are to these corrupt feminists, what a
seething ocean of magma is, when it is flowing directly under Wilshire
Boulevard. It eventually comes to the surface, swallowing up everything
above it. Right now it is coming out of the man(person? :)holes. The
media would rather not get burned by standing on the Gloria Steinem side of
the street, which is going under.
I'm sure the analogy is clear =]
>> >Which exactly describes the way a rapidly increasing number of men (and
>women)
>> >feel the way they are treated by the feminist movement.
>>
>> So if you agree, then why not divert these energies towards (in your sexual
>> preference case) women who are NOT like that?
>
>Just what do YOU think I am TRYING to achieve?
I'm not so sure anymore. I assumed the worst about you, and I was wrong.
Mea culpa.
>> There isn't much honor in a thread in which people are making comments
>> like, "well if we avoid these women, then we avoid ALL women". That's a
>> blanket condemnation of the whole female species, and it is vastly
>> inaccurate. Where's the honor in that? Once again I am imploring you to
>> post more about pursuing the women you like, rather than posting the same
>> ol' same ol' about avoiding the ones you don't.
>
>I now get very worried about any woman that wants to start any sort of
>relationship with me, that involves me 'pursuing' her.
>I have found (often to my surprise, why is she interested in me), that any
>normal relationship a woman wishes to have with me does not involve a
>'pursuit' but a mutual meeting of ideals and goals (to be polite, for
>those readers with a sensitive nature).
Well said! Well said!
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
In article <redhawk2-ya0240800...@snews.zippo.com>, Sean C <redh...@SPAMFREEmindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <630sbr$9...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.crl.com (Steve Chaney) wrote:
>
>> In article <redhawk2-ya0240800...@snews.zippo.com>, Sean C
><redh...@SPAMFREEmindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >A much simpler solution is: DON'T GET MARRIED! Any woman who is worth
>> >marrying should be just as willing to stay with you and enjoy the benefits
>> >of togetherness without your signing away 50 percent of your assets. If she
>> >insists on that piece of paper as a pre-condition for continuing the
>> >relationship, perhaps you should wonder why.
>>
>> Gee. I see the Tokevirus is spreading.
>
>What the hell is a "Tokevirus?"
Don't ask.
>> The only other explanation would be that it is easier for you to justify
>> throwing out the baby AND the bath water, rather than the more accurate,
>> beneficial and thought process-intensive task of reforming divorce laws in
>> order to make marriage less risky a situation.
>
>Why, great idea; instead of avoiding certain women for marriage, I am going
>to march up to the steps of the Capitol Building and force all those people
>there to meet my demands to reform the divorce laws or I will have them all
>fired. While I am there, I will insist they pass a law making it mandatory
>for women to ask men out on dates. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Alimony is a legal issue that is quite tangible; dating is neither. And
you can have those goons in the Capitol Building fired - by getting the
votes to put someone in their place who agrees more with your ideals.
However, passing laws making women ask men out...? nah, I won't even get
into that.. that had to be a troll, it is nothing like what I was
espousing...
>Besides the fact that you're being incredibly unrealistic, please explain
>why I should be concerned with marriage at all?
I was referring to the Tokevirus (aka Jackie the Tokeman) who feels the
institution of marriage should be abolished; if all you want is to abolish
it from YOUR particular lifestyle, that is different, and I have no problem
with that. Your reaction is no different, psychologically, from a
boycott.
>I doubt that. Women often marry early now because it provides them with
>financial stability. Changing the divorce laws wouldn't change that much at
>all, but it would probably make divorce a less attractive option for women
>who are principally concerned with their financial security after the
>divorce.
I would say that reforming divorce laws would encourage those women who do
marry for financial stability, to pursue their own stability first. There
will always be people who take the easy way through life, though.
-- Steve
Max Burke
> >Maybe the men who do take 'foreign' wives, find that American
> >women are no longer capable of having a normal relationship with
> >a man.
>
>
> ---------
> That _could_ be; or, perhaps women fleeing a bad
> situation have reason to be complacent, until
> somthing better comes along.
>
The same could apply to men, re the 'bad situation', but they decide
not to be complacent and wait for something better to come along,
but be pro-active and go looking for an 'improved situation'.
The foreign wives they marry sure do get an improved 'situation'
(for the majority of these marriages), they get citizenship of their
husband's country, they get a vastly improved standard of living,
and they get their basic human rights protected by law, and
political freedom.
What does the man get? He gets a loving wife, who respects him,
and wants him to be everything that feminist women seem to
despise in marriage.
------------------------------------------------------------
# Marriage
The curse which lies upon marriage is that too often the individuals
are joined in their weakness rather than in their strength—each
asking from the other instead of finding pleasure in giving.
It is even more deceptive to dream of gaining through the child a
plenitude, a warmth, a value, which one is unable to create for
oneself; the child brings joy only to the woman who is capable of
disinterestedly desiring the happiness of another, to one who without
being wrapped up in self seeks to transcend her own existence.
Simone De Beauvoir (1908–86), French novelist, essayist.
The Second Sex, bk. 2, pt. 5, ch. 2 (1949).
Max Burke
Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.crl.com> wrote in article <636lit$9...@crl.crl.com>...
> In article <01bce2bf$8a9b5d80$603261cb@default>, Max Burke
<Max_...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.crl.com> wrote in article
> ><631ifu$i...@crl.crl.com>...
> >>
snip...
> >
> >What I would suggest is that one of the women who post here do a list
> >of men to avoid in marriage (Lefty would be a good choice IMHO),
>
> I would suggest against this; the buck has got to stop somewhere, why not
> here?
>
>
> >incidentally I found the original list quite humorous (sorry Lenny), and
would
> >not regard it as the definitive list of women to avoid.
>
> Thank you for clarifying that part for me. It was quite easy to mistake
> you for being serious, especially after you posted the quote by Diderot.
> You might not agree with me, because I find it offensive when women (and
> advertisers, for that matter) make misandrist comments, generalizations and
> jokes. To preserve my credibility, I don't subscribe to misogynist
> equivalents, either. I feel that if I stand there and laugh at such
> things, I have no leg to stand on when someone makes a slur about men, or
> in my case, blacks. It's an honor thing. I would rather enjoy humor in
> other ways.
I guess I'll just have to learn where to use the 8-) in my posts.
> >And a time of balancing is rapidly approaching for feminism, the 'pendulum'
> >is starting to swing the other way.
> >
> >Your posts seem to show that you do not see this...
> >
> >I do see this, mainly in the news media, ie when women commit crimes now,
> >it is now just reported as a crime committed, there is a lot less of the
> >editorial
> >comment on the reasons why women commit crimes than there used to be,
> >and radical feminist's are starting to complain about this, also
politicians,
> >in New Zealand anyway, appear to be more careful about taking 'on board'
the
> >feminist view point so quickly, they are starting to question the feminist
> >idea's
> >and ideal's that they are asked to promote and support.
> That is because the mainstream women are to these corrupt feminists, what a
> seething ocean of magma is, when it is flowing directly under Wilshire
> Boulevard. It eventually comes to the surface, swallowing up everything
> above it. Right now it is coming out of the man(person? :)holes. The
> media would rather not get burned by standing on the Gloria Steinem side of
> the street, which is going under.
> I'm sure the analogy is clear =]
> >Which exactly describes the way a rapidly increasing number of men (and
> >women) feel the way they are treated by the feminist movement.
> >So if you agree, then why not divert these energies towards (in your sexual
> >preference case) women who are NOT like that?
> >
> >Just what do YOU think I am TRYING to achieve?
>
> I'm not so sure anymore. I assumed the worst about you, and I was wrong.
> Mea culpa.
I am 100% behind women being treated by society EXACTLY the same way
as men are, however I am 100% against anyone being given special treatment
because of their gender through biased laws, by politicians out to promote
themselves, by the news media who like to publicise 'this weeks cause',
and special interest groups such as NOW.
>There isn't much honor in a thread in which people are making comments
>like, "well if we avoid these women, then we avoid ALL women". That's a
>blanket condemnation of the whole female species, and it is vastly
>inaccurate. Where's the honor in that? Once again I am imploring you to
>post more about pursuing the women you like, rather than posting the same
>ol' same ol' about avoiding the ones you don't.
> >I now get very worried about any woman that wants to start any sort of
> >relationship with me, that involves me 'pursuing' her.
> >I have found (often to my surprise, why is she interested in me), that any
> >normal relationship a woman wishes to have with me does not involve a
> >'pursuit' but a mutual meeting of ideals and goals (to be polite, for
> >those readers with a sensitive nature).
>
> Well said! Well said!
-------------------------------------------------------------
# Quotation
Quotes from Mao, Castro, and Che Guevara . . . are as germane to our
highly technological, computerised society as a stagecoach on a jet
runway at Kennedy airport.
Saul Alinsky (1909–72), U.S. radical activist. Rules for Radicals, Prologue
(1971).
Eric Conrad
In article <636joi$8...@crl.crl.com>, Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.crl.com> wrote:
>I am not against you on these issues; however, men did do some bad things
>to women. Such as, it was (and in Japan, it still is, or recently was)
>legal to rape your wife... c'mon, how much worse does it get?
Can you document this claim about Japanese law? Rumors of this sort
are very frequently made by feminists (and repeated in newspapers and on
television) without ever having been checked. The Superbowl and anorexia
hoaxes were fashioned by feminists and disseminated widely by newspapers
and television -- is this simply another such hoax?
Eric
--
Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu)
http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~econrad/
Department of Mathematics
The Ohio State University
Matt Kennel (Remove 'NOSPAM' to reply)
On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 16:36:02 GMT, Per <pe...@idt.net> wrote:
: I have always said that traditional sexual roles were intended
:to strike a certain balance. This balance was made along the lines of
:the abilities of men and women and their respective willingness to do
:certain jobs. Women have better fine-motor skills, so naturally they
:were better at sewing and weaving. Men are more willing to do risky or
:dangerous work, so they did. Women have always wanted to spend more
:time close to their children, so they did. Women risked their lives in
:childbirth, men risked their lives in dangerous work and protecting
:their societies.
: Now feminists want to blame men for all the choices that women
:made. And yes, women did make choices.
Ahem. Unless you were rich enough to have nursemaids, before the modern
era children *starved* without breastfeeding. This is fundamental biological
asymmetry, irrelevant to modern feminism or loathing of such.
--
* Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
*
* According to California Assembly Bill 3320, it is now a criminal offense
* to solicit any goods or services by email to a CA resident without
* providing the business's legal name and complete street address.
*
Steve Chaney
In article <01bce441$395af240$41f131ca@default>, Max Burke <Max_...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.crl.com> wrote in article <636lit$9...@crl.crl.com>...
>>
>> I would suggest against this; the buck has got to stop somewhere, why not
>> here?
>>
>would
>> >not regard it as the definitive list of women to avoid.
>>
>> you for being serious, especially after you posted the quote by Diderot.
>> You might not agree with me, because I find it offensive when women (and
>> advertisers, for that matter) make misandrist comments, generalizations and
>> jokes. To preserve my credibility, I don't subscribe to misogynist
>> equivalents, either. I feel that if I stand there and laugh at such
>> things, I have no leg to stand on when someone makes a slur about men, or
>> in my case, blacks. It's an honor thing. I would rather enjoy humor in
>> other ways.
>
>I guess I'll just have to learn where to use the 8-) in my posts.
You wouldn't believe how it feels when you get burned thinking someone
was kidding, only to find out later that they were being serious about
what they're saying.
>> >Which exactly describes the way a rapidly increasing number of men (and
>> >women) feel the way they are treated by the feminist movement.
>> >So if you agree, then why not divert these energies towards (in your sexual
>> >preference case) women who are NOT like that?
>> >
>> >Just what do YOU think I am TRYING to achieve?
>>
>> I'm not so sure anymore. I assumed the worst about you, and I was wrong.
>> Mea culpa.
>
>I am 100% behind women being treated by society EXACTLY the same way
>as men are, however I am 100% against anyone being given special treatment
>because of their gender through biased laws, by politicians out to promote
>themselves, by the news media who like to publicise 'this weeks cause',
>and special interest groups such as NOW.
That's why I voted for Prop 209 in California =] This whole "this week's
cause" is the symptom of a greater problem - the appeal to raw, readily
available emotion, rather than logic and reasoning. It is why politicians
rely more on wit and sound bites, than logic and reasoning, in campaigns
and conflicts on Capitol Hill. Who wants to listen to logic when the
opposition is standing there making fun of the guy? Talk about a sheep
mentality...
-- Steve
Mix
gun...@crl.crl.com (Eric Cartman) whined:
>In article <redhawk2-ya0240800...@snews.zippo.com>, Sean C
><redh...@SPAMFREEmindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <630sbr$9...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.crl.com (Steve Chaney) wrote:
>>Besides the fact that you're being incredibly unrealistic, please explain
>>why I should be concerned with marriage at all?
>
>I was referring to the Tokevirus (aka Jackie the Tokeman) who feels the
>institution of marriage should be abolished; if all you want is to abolish
>it from YOUR particular lifestyle, that is different, and I have no problem
>with that. Your reaction is no different, psychologically, from a
>boycott.
Hey obsession boy, I thought you didn't like it when I participated in
threads where you were holding court?
I notice that your opponent in this case has criticized exactly the same
thing about you that I did - your absurd idea that it is somehow more
beneficial to engage in hopeless windmill-tilting campaigns against vast
social problems when changing your own actions - by not getting married -
is far less labor intensive and also has the advantage that it is 100%
effective.
My answer to the question 'What women should be avoided for marriage?' is:
All of them.
Jackie the Tokeman
Steve Chaney
In article <1997103001...@sirius.infonex.com>, Mix <mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>gun...@crl.crl.com (Eric Cartman) whined:
>>In article <redhawk2-ya0240800...@snews.zippo.com>, Sean C
>><redh...@SPAMFREEmindspring.com> wrote:
>>In article <630sbr$9...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.crl.com (Steve Chaney) wrote:
>>>Besides the fact that you're being incredibly unrealistic, please explain
>>>why I should be concerned with marriage at all?
>>
>>I was referring to the Tokevirus (aka Jackie the Tokeman) who feels the
>>institution of marriage should be abolished; if all you want is to abolish
>>it from YOUR particular lifestyle, that is different, and I have no problem
>>with that. Your reaction is no different, psychologically, from a
>>boycott.
>
>Hey obsession boy, I thought you didn't like it when I participated in
>threads where you were holding court?
You are an excellent opportunity for me to show my superior intellect. You
exist to make me look good.
>I notice that your opponent in this case has criticized exactly the same
>thing about you that I did - your absurd idea that it is somehow more
>beneficial to engage in hopeless windmill-tilting campaigns against vast
>social problems when changing your own actions - by not getting married -
>is far less labor intensive and also has the advantage that it is 100%
>effective.
As if you aren't tilting at windmills trying to abolish marriage? Please,
Tokevirus. Get a clue.
-- Steve
Max Burke
> dream...@erols.com wrote in article <34566C...@erols.com>...
> Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
snip...
> > >
> > >Maybe the men who do take 'foreign' wives, find that American
> > >women are no longer capable of having a normal relationship with
> > >a man.
> > >---------
> > ---------
> > That _could_ be; or, perhaps women fleeing a bad
> > situation have reason to be complacent, until
> > somthing better comes along.
> >
> > Lefty
>
> Or just maybe both sexes are just being too piety. Or selfish. If both
> sexes would learn understanding and be truthful to themselves then the
> mail order brides and the divorce rate would go down to nill.
>
> dreamwalker
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That say's it all about your comment. 8-)
On a serious note however, there is nothing wrong with marrying
foreign women (or mail order brides if you prefer), if the marriage is
successful, both parties benefit, however there will always a place
for divorce, as it is pointless for a couple to stay together when
a marriage has irretrievably broken down.
--------------------------------------------------
# Divorce
France may claim the happiest marriages in the world,
but the happiest divorces in the world are “made in America.”
Helen Rowland (1875-1950), U.S. journalist.
A Guide to Men, “What Every Woman Wonders” (1922).
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <34566C...@erols.com> dream...@erols.com writes:
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>>
>> In <01bce358$1e32bc80$17a11dcb@default> "Max Burke"
>> <Max_...@nowhere.com> writes:
>> > >>
>> >> ># There are always women who will take men on their own terms.
>> >> >If I were a man I wouldn't bother to change while there are
women
>> >> >like that around.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----------
>> >> I think this author has a point; women are starting
>> >> to feel the same way about men, however, while men
>> >> are having to go to Thailand for their brides.
>> >
>> >Maybe the men who do take 'foreign' wives, find that American
>> >women are no longer capable of having a normal relationship with
>> >a man.
>>
>> ---------
>> That _could_ be; or, perhaps women fleeing a bad
>> situation have reason to be complacent, until
>> somthing better comes along.
>>
>> Lefty
>>
>>
>
>
> Or just maybe both sexes are just being too piety. Or selfish. If
both>sexes would learn understanding and be truthful to themselves then
the>mail order brides and the divorce rate would go down to nill.
>
>dreamwalker
---------
That could also be true, but one man's meat may be another
woman's poison. Therein lies the rub.
Lefty
Max Burke
> In <01bce404$f82f9000$2bf131ca@default> "Max Burke"
> <Max_...@nowhere.com> writes:
> >
> >What does the man get? He gets a loving wife, who respects him,
> >and wants him to be everything that feminist women seem to
> >despise in marriage.
>
> ----------
> It it works out, I would call it a good thing for all
> concerned, including the women who didn't have to go
> thru the discovery that the American man in question
> wanted a subservient instead of an equal.
>
> Lefty
What you call subservient (for the wife), would be near absolute
freedom say a woman from South East Asia (Thailand, The Philippines),
you do know what marriage is like (even for university educated)
women in those countries dont you? As to wether they are subservient
or equal (in these marriages), that is just a matter of opinion (yours as
apposed to mine), they are fully equal under law (the US in your case,
and New Zealand in mine), as to feminist equality the women probably
would want nothing to do with it.
Here is what equality means to one feminist 'saint' :
A commitment to sexual equality with males . . . is a commitment to
becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped,
the murderer instead of the murdered.
Andrea Dworkin (b. 1946), U.S. feminist critic. “Renouncing Sexual
`Equality’,” speech, 12 Oct. 1974, at the National Organisation for
Women Conference on Sexuality, New York City
(published in Our Blood, ch. 2, 1976).
Although it is from 1974, and is talking about sexual equality,
it sums up for me, in three short sentences, what the total
radical feminist movement dogma is, and what their final
goal for society will be. (Its amazing what you can discover
when you go to the 'source' and NOT rely on hearsay or
rumour).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
# Equality
The trauma of the Sixties persuaded me that my generation’s
egalitarianism was a sentimental error. . . . I now see the
hierarchical as both beautiful and necessary. Efficiency liberates;
egalitarianism tangles, delays, blocks, deadens.
Camille Paglia (b. 1947), U.S. author, critic, educator.
Sex, Art, and American Culture, “Sexual Personae:
The Cancelled Preface” (1992).
Carol Ann Hemingway
>> >women are no longer capable of having a normal relationship with
>> >a man.
>
>>
>>
>> That _could_ be; or, perhaps women fleeing a bad
>> situation have reason to be complacent, until
>> somthing better comes along.
>>
>
>not to be complacent and wait for something better to come along,
>but be pro-active and go looking for an 'improved situation'.
>
>The foreign wives they marry sure do get an improved 'situation'
>(for the majority of these marriages), they get citizenship of their
>husband's country, they get a vastly improved standard of living,
>and they get their basic human rights protected by law, and
>political freedom.
------------
This is correct. I know two men who both were divorced
(several times) from American wives. They are brothers
one was married to a gal from Russia; the other wife
was oriental; the marriages lasted just long enough
to assure citizenship.
-------------------------------
Max Burke
> > <Max_...@nowhere.com> writes:
>
snip....
> Here is what equality means to one feminist 'saint' :
>
> A commitment to sexual equality with males . . . is a commitment to
> becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped,
> the murderer instead of the murdered.
>
> Andrea Dworkin (b. 1946), U.S. feminist critic. "Renouncing Sexual
> `Equality'," speech, 12 Oct. 1974, at the National Organisation for
> Women Conference on Sexuality, New York City
> (published in Our Blood, ch. 2, 1976).
>
Although it is from 1974, and is talking about RENOUNCING
sexual equality (with men), it sums up for me, in three short
sentences, what the total radical feminist movement now dogma is,
and what their final goal for society will be. (Its amazing what
you can discover when you go to the 'source' and NOT rely
on hearsay or rumour).
Three reasons why I believe the above is true :
1.) How to become rich :
Radical feminists believe and want their ex husbands
to continue to support them (finically) at the same standard
as when they were married, even to the fact of obtaining
half their husband's FUTURE income.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. How to become a rapist :
When ever women a convicted of sex crimes, there
are ALWAYS mitigating circumstances, and if their
victim is an underage male, then the crime is very minor,
as the boy would not have been adversely affected, he
probably even enjoyed the experience. When that
defence fails, it is everyone else who is to blame,
the victims parent's, the offenders husband, society, etc.
(Got to Dejanews and read the Teacher fucks
student thread). But when men commit sex crimes
against under age children, an immediate witch hunt
ensues (Read the Teenage mom's, adult fathers thread).
I have done a search in Dejanews of all the women
posting here about the teenage mom's/adult fathers,
and cannot find one single post from any of them
condemning the female teacher (like they condemn
these adult fathers), nor one post criticising the women
who actively defended this teacher. (so much for
equality).
My opinion? : Any adult (male or female) that
has sex (forced and/or consensual) with under
age children should be prosecuted equally.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3. How to become a murderer :
Radical feminist's believe AND promote the right
of battered women to murder their husband's, and
then say they should not be charged with murder.
My opinion? : Murder is never justified, self defence
ONLY applies when the victim is in immediate
danger of being killed themselves.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> # Equality
> The trauma of the Sixties persuaded me that my generation's
> egalitarianism was a sentimental error. . . . I now see the
> hierarchical as both beautiful and necessary. Efficiency liberates;
> egalitarianism tangles, delays, blocks, deadens.
>
> Camille Paglia (b. 1947), U.S. author, critic, educator.
> Sex, Art, and American Culture, "Sexual Personae:
> The Cancelled Preface" (1992).
Max Burke
Steve Chaney <gun...@crl.crl.com> wrote in article <639898$i...@crl.crl.com>...
> In article <01bce441$395af240$41f131ca@default>, Max Burke<636lit$9...@crl.crl.com>...
> >>
> >I guess I'll just have to learn where to use the 8-) in my posts.
>
> You wouldn't believe how it feels when you get burned thinking someone
> was kidding, only to find out later that they were being serious about
> what they're saying.
Been there, done that !!!
That's why, if I find myself getting 'emotional' about someone's posts,
I usually file it away, and reply later, when I have thought about it for a
while.
However there are some exceptions, there are some who post just deserve
the 'kill file' treatment, I just cant be bothered replying to this type
normally.
snipped.... Things in agreement.
de...@lehigh.edu
Anecdotal evidence! I love it! It proves everything! "I know this guy who
knew this guy and this other guy!" Yes! Let's go for it! I knew this woman
and her husband hid his assets and moved all the stuff out of their safety
deposit box and...!
'S great. What I'm saying is why destroy a sacred covenant because some
people get burned?
In article <redhawk2-ya0240800...@snews.zippo.com>, redhawk2@SPAM
FREEmindspring.com (Sean C) writes:
>In article <62mk6c$s...@ns3-1.CC.Lehigh.EDU>, de...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
>
>> In article <redhawk2-ya0240800...@snews.zippo.com>,
>redhawk2@SPAM
>
>> >A much simpler solution is: DON'T GET MARRIED! Any woman who is worth
>> >marrying should be just as willing to stay with you and enjoy the benefits
>> >of togetherness without your signing away 50 percent of your assets. If she
>> >insists on that piece of paper as a pre-condition for continuing the
>> >relationship, perhaps you should wonder why.
>>
>> Gee, and here I thought my husband's and my marriage was based on trust and
>> love and commitment. On faith and mutual pleasure and mutual support. On a
>> public avowal of our vision turned in the same direction.
>
>The fact remains that over 50 percent of marriages end in divorce, that
>women intitiate the majority of divorces, and that men usually lose 50
>percent of their assets in the divorce. If a relationship is really based
>on trust, mutual respect and understanding and all that, then it hardly
>needs a piece of paper to affirm it, does it?
>
> Good thing he
>> doesn't has "assets" that I could "get" in my evil female way, otherwise my
>> belief in a decency in society would collapse. But Sean, here, is trying to
>> get me to take half my husband's worthless stupid cat and half his "Kolchak"
>> vids. Silly me--I want neither.
>
>I'm not trying to get you to do anything. The evidence in clear that a lot
>of women will exploit their husbands in a divorce, and it is sensible for a
>man to take precautions against this, including avoiding marriage
>altogether. I hear from a lot of guys I know that it was common for their
>ex-wives to take their credit cards and go on a spending spree just prior
>to their divorce, and stick the man with the bill. Another guy I knew had
>his bicycle stolen by a an ex-girlfriend who thought she was entitiled to
>it. Such women are thieves, pure and simple, but the sad thing is they
>think they are entitiled to steal from men.
>
>Any woman who insists on that piece of paper as a pre-condition for a
>relationship is clearly less likely to be trustworthy than one who does
>not.
Blair Zajac
In article <63416g$5...@leasion.demon.co.uk>, ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk (Mark
Evans) wrote:
>the...@pobox.com wrote:
>: In article <3453fc2...@news.sunlink.net>,
>: rcha...@mail.sunlink.net (Robert E. Charles) wrote:
>: >
>: > >On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:56:38 GMT, Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com>
wrote:
>: > [snip]
>: >
>: > aw, there's an easier answer. just don't get married.
>:
>: I agree. Some folks just aren't cut out for marriage and should stay
>: single. Others find it congenial. It's purely a matter of individual
>
>The evidence is that a significent number of the former try to do it
>however. Maybe if it wasn't rammed down their throats so much they
>would have the opportunity to avoid making potentially fatal mistakes
>becuase of peer preasure.
>
>: preference.
>:
>: If Mr. Shafer doesn't care for the insitution of marriage and wants to
>: stay single that's his choice and I'd be the last person to condemn him
>: for it. What I find tiresome is the attempt to justify this decision by
>
>And both you and he live somewhere where single people never subsidise
>the married. i.e. married people pay exactly the same income tax as
>singles; all aspects of marriage, divorce, marriage counsoling, etc are
>privatly funded; no-one will get free health insurance simply as a
>result of being married to someone???
In the US, the tax system taxes married couples effectively at a higher
rate than singles.
Specifically, the US tax system is a progressive tax system. Meaning, the
higher the income, the higher the tax rate. A married couple must declare
their *combined* income, which pushes them up to a higher rate than it they
could file as individuals.
Thus, the statement is incorrect.
--
Zajac says, 'Laws are like paper money -- they are only valid as long as
people have faith in them.'
jmo...@geocities.com
In article <6394v1$2s...@ns2-1.CC.Lehigh.EDU>,
de...@Lehigh.EDU wrote:
>
> Anecdotal evidence! I love it! It proves everything! "I know this guy who
> knew this guy and this other guy!" Yes! Let's go for it! I knew this woman
> and her husband hid his assets and moved all the stuff out of their safety
> deposit box and...!
And do you have the other kind of evidence to prove your point? BTW, what
is your point?
>
> 'S great. What I'm saying is why destroy a sacred covenant because some
> people get burned?
And how is Sean suggesting that a 'sacred covenant' get destroyed?
Joe
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Christine A. Owens
Per wrote:
>
> >I am not against you on these issues; however, men did do some bad things
> >to women. Such as, it was (and in Japan, it still is, or recently was)
> >legal to rape your wife... c'mon, how much worse does it get?
> Or, more to the point, how often did it happen?
No one knows.
> And was it
> legal to rape, or did the law merely say that sexual activity was
> expected of both partners in marriage?
No, rape is defined as a man-on-woman crime; with being married to the accuser being a
specific defense against the charge. [As is still the case in several US states.]
Now, if a woman is not legally free to accuse her husband of rape, how can she
legitimately be said to have consented to any act of sex?
> I have always said that traditional sexual roles were intended
> to strike a certain balance.
You are implying an intent to social evolution here which is highly inappropriate.
> This balance was made along the lines of
> the abilities of men and women and their respective willingness to do
> certain jobs.
Actually, it had more to do with women being pregnant/having small children to care
for than anything else.
> Women have better fine-motor skills, so naturally they
> were better at sewing and weaving.
Odd, then, isn't it, that in the Navajo culture, amongst others, it is the men who were
primarily the weavers?
> Men are more willing to do risky or
> dangerous work, so they did.
Such as?
> Women have always wanted to spend more
> time close to their children, so they did.
Until quite recently, women had no choice, in either direction. Either you found
another nursing woman who was willing to care for your infant, or you stayed close
enough to nurse it throughout the day. And, for most of history, most women left
their toddlers to the care of others, while they were out in the fields, working
alongside the men.
> Women risked their lives in
> childbirth, men risked their lives in dangerous work and protecting
> their societies.
Or not so dangerous work. It is only in this century that a significant class of women
not employed has arisen, too, you know.
> Now feminists want to blame men for all the choices that women
> made. And yes, women did make choices.
Which were constrained by social acceptance, as were those of men.
Chris Owens
Mix
gun...@crl.crl.com (Eric Cartman) whined:
>In article <1997103001...@sirius.infonex.com>, Mix
><mixm...@remail.obscura.com> wrote:
>>gun...@crl.crl.com (Eric Cartman) whined:
>>>In article <redhawk2-ya0240800...@snews.zippo.com>, Sean C
>>><redh...@SPAMFREEmindspring.com> wrote:
>>>In article <630sbr$9...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.crl.com (Steve Chaney)
>>>wrote:
>>>>Besides the fact that you're being incredibly unrealistic, please explain
>>>>why I should be concerned with marriage at all?
>>>
>>>I was referring to the Tokevirus (aka Jackie the Tokeman) who feels the
>>>institution of marriage should be abolished; if all you want is to abolish
>>>it from YOUR particular lifestyle, that is different, and I have no problem
>>>with that. Your reaction is no different, psychologically, from a
>>>boycott.
>>
>>Hey obsession boy, I thought you didn't like it when I participated in
>>threads where you were holding court?
>
>You are an excellent opportunity for me to show my superior intellect. You
>exist to make me look good.
And where is this staggering intellect on display? In your parrot-like
spouting of conventional wisdom like 'marriage is good, marriage is good,
ooga booga, praise jesus, ook ook ook, rush limbaugh rules, gabba gabba
hey, dr. laura is my personal saviour'
Yeah. You're a regular Einstein.
>>I notice that your opponent in this case has criticized exactly the same
>>thing about you that I did - your absurd idea that it is somehow more
>>beneficial to engage in hopeless windmill-tilting campaigns against vast
>>social problems when changing your own actions - by not getting married -
>>is far less labor intensive and also has the advantage that it is 100%
>>effective.
>
>As if you aren't tilting at windmills trying to abolish marriage? Please,
>Tokevirus. Get a clue.
Cartman you are such a stupid fat fuck. I am advising that men simply NOT
GET MARRIED. No windmill tilting necessary and it is 100% effective at
avoiding the scourge of alimony and community property. I have not and will
never lift a finger to abolish the institution of marriage. If people wish
to commit themselves to that institution for life it's their funeral not
mine.
Jackie the Tokeman
Mark Evans
Christine A. Owens (cao...@redsuspenders.com) wrote:
: Per wrote:
: >
: > >I am not against you on these issues; however, men did do some bad things
: > >to women. Such as, it was (and in Japan, it still is, or recently was)
: > >legal to rape your wife... c'mon, how much worse does it get?
: > .
: > Or, more to the point, how often did it happen?
:
: No one knows.
:
: > And was it
: > legal to rape, or did the law merely say that sexual activity was
: > expected of both partners in marriage?
:
: No, rape is defined as a man-on-woman crime; with being married to the accuser being a
: specific defense against the charge. [As is still the case in several US states.]
: Now, if a woman is not legally free to accuse her husband of rape, how can she
: legitimately be said to have consented to any act of sex?
Nor, by the other part of this definition, can it be said that HE consented to any act
of sex...
The_Doge of St. Louis
In article <01bce4fe$dd4f0220$50f131ca@default>, "Max Burke"
<Max_...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> > <Max_...@nowhere.com> writes:
>>
>snip....
>
>> Here is what equality means to one feminist 'saint' :
>>
>> A commitment to sexual equality with males . . . is a commitment to
>> becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped,
>> the murderer instead of the murdered.
>>
>> Andrea Dworkin (b. 1946), U.S. feminist critic. "Renouncing Sexual
>> `Equality'," speech, 12 Oct. 1974, at the National Organisation for
>> Women Conference on Sexuality, New York City
>> (published in Our Blood, ch. 2, 1976).
Ah, yes; cheap debater's tactic #32. You find an extreme representative
of a movement and then, without bothering to present any evidence that
said extreme representative actually has any support in the movement,
blithely assume that the wacko in question speaks for everyone in the
movement.
Nothing new here. The left wing uses this dodge as well, picking out the
most radical of the right-wing screwheads and assuming that they speak for
conservatives as a whole. It's bogus when they use it, and it bogus when
you use it.
Free clue: most feminists don't have much more use for Dworkin than you
do, especially in light of her bizarre sexual attitudes and her cheerful
willingness to support the Religious Reich's big goverenment censorship
agenda.
>Although it is from 1974, and is talking about RENOUNCING
>sexual equality (with men), it sums up for me, in three short
>sentences, what the total radical feminist movement now dogma is,
>and what their final goal for society will be. (Its amazing what
>you can discover when you go to the 'source' and NOT rely
>on hearsay or rumour).
And particularly when you don't worry about whether the "source"
represents anyone but herself and a few other goofballs.
>Three reasons why I believe the above is true :
Actually, it's pretty clear that you only need one: it fits your political
and social agenda and your near-hysterical fear of "feminsts" (a.k.a. The
Minions of Set). After that it's the usual farrago of unsupported
assumptions and villification of any woman who expresses sentiments that
distinguish her from a prostitute or a doormat.
Why don't you just take a vow of celibacy and save everyone a lot of grief?
--
<*> ObQuote: "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
-- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
======================================================================
<*> The_Doge of St. Louis
Stage, screen, radio
http://www.pobox.com/~thedoge/
Per
On 29 Oct 1997 23:34:55 GMT, ken...@nospam.lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt
Kennel (Remove 'NOSPAM' to reply)) wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 16:36:02 GMT, Per <pe...@idt.net> wrote:
>: I have always said that traditional sexual roles were intended
>:to strike a certain balance. This balance was made along the lines of
>:the abilities of men and women and their respective willingness to do
>:certain jobs. Women have better fine-motor skills, so naturally they
>:were better at sewing and weaving. Men are more willing to do risky or
>:dangerous work, so they did. Women have always wanted to spend more
>:time close to their children, so they did. Women risked their lives in
>:childbirth, men risked their lives in dangerous work and protecting
>:their societies.
>: Now feminists want to blame men for all the choices that women
>:made. And yes, women did make choices.
.
>Ahem. Unless you were rich enough to have nursemaids, before the modern
>era children *starved* without breastfeeding. This is fundamental biological
>asymmetry, irrelevant to modern feminism or loathing of such.
.
And unless a man was rich enough to own his own land -- which
very, very few men could afford -- then his choices of work were
extremely limited as well. And unless the man supported the family,
the family went without.
At any rate, the "patriarchy" did not create gestation and
lactation, so it is absolutely insane to penalize male workers today
for the facts of life that men did not create. Nor did the
"patriarchy" create the differences in women's fine-motor skills or
men's greater upper body strength.
At any rate, even today women flock to safe, flexible, indoor
work and are overrepresented in those areas. Men should not have to
pay because of women's choices. If women do not take similar risks,
put in similar commitment, and make similar sacrifices, they don't
deserve special credit just for being women.
.
---
Affirmative action is a system of justice in which someone who
resembles the criminal is required to compensate someone
who resembles the victim.
Read Per's MANifesto Newsletter,
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
Daniel Mocsny
The_Doge of St. Louis wrote:
> Yup. Frankly, I'm getting pretty sick of hearing from these wimps who
> apparently can't cope with the idea of a woman as a partner in a
> relationship. IMO, a Real Man(tm) doesn't feel threatened by a woman who
> can stand on her own two feet and prefers to treat him as her equal rather
> than Ole Massa.
The thread is about marriage. Marriage is a tradition that
dates from a time when men and women were anything but equals.
It is rather difficult to picture men and women of equal
status coming up with an institution of marriage much like
the one we have now.
Institutions, cultures, and technologies take their shape in
part from underlying social and physical realities. For example,
the presence of a navigable river in a particular region strongly
influences where people settle and what sorts of trade and industry
they develop. If the river suddenly dries up or shifts course, a
whole bunch of cultural adaptations will no longer make sense.
In a society of true equals, the present institution of marriage
would be about as relevant as a riverboat stranded in a desert.
> Any dolt can give orders. It takes maturity to consider the other
> person's point of view and work out a mutually beneficial arrangement.
Or luck. I have found that my ability to get along with other
people depends more on who those other people are than anything
else. It's actually rather amazing to experience a disagreement
with person A for a long time, and then to go meet new person B,
with whom one expects to have the same disagreement, but
instead discovering that what was previously a liability has
moved up to being merely inconsequential if not even an asset.
No two people can ever agree on every last thing, but choice of
partner has a greater effect on relationship success than anything
else. If a person happens to feel most comfortable with a particular
type of relationship, then it is probably in that person's
interest to do whatever is necessary to find a partner who is
OK with that. A man who desires a "traditional" marriage is being
perfectly rational, not to mention unobtrusive, by finding a woman
who wants the same thing. After all, he's not trying to pass laws
or agitate or sic lawyers on women who want to live differently.
I'm not sure I can justify passing a value judgment on a person
who desires a particular power-sharing arrangement in a relationship.
Surely there cannot be just one relationship model that has to
work for everybody? That seems so limiting. There are people
(men and women) who are more comfortable taking orders, and
other people are more comfortable giving them. How many marriages
have you seen that would strike a disinterested observer as being
well-balanced in terms of power-sharing? I have seen plenty
that were not, and by no means was the person calling the shots
always the man. But rather than wring my hands at the injustice of
it all, I just let people live the lives they choose to live.
> Alas, this seems to be a rather Politically Incorrect notion among some
> guys in these fora.
It's important to distinguish between what people say and what they
do. It's common for foreign-wife importers to prattle on about respect
for traditional family values and so on, but all you have to do is
look at the women who get imported. In addition to their much-ballyhooed
fondness for home and hearth, these women also happen to be quite a few
notches higher in physical attractiveness than the average prevailing in
either the country they left or the country they entered. (But don't
take my word for it; go visit one of the foreign marriage Web sites
and look at the pictures. You won't find any dating-related Web
site featuring pictures of a comparably attractive set of American
women. That's because comparably attractive American women usually
do not need to advertise on the Internet for husbands.)
Very few men will be honest enough to admit to what's really
politically incorrect: selecting a life partner primarily on
the basis of her physical appearance. So we hear a bunch of noise
about this family-orientation of the hot babes from Russia,
etc., because, I believe, this sounds like a more respectable
motive than selecting women for their pretty faces, perky breasts,
tiny waists, tight derrieres, and shapely legs (did I miss anything?).
I suspect that if the same noisemakers could land similarly hot
American feminists, they would find a way to cope.
I know I always have. It's amazing what a man can do with the
right motivation.
--
--- Daniel J. Mocsny
Max Burke
> The_Doge of St. Louis wrote in message ...
>In article <01bce4fe$dd4f0220$50f131ca@default>, "Max Burke"
><Max_...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>> > <Max_...@nowhere.com> writes:
>>> Here is what equality means to one feminist 'saint' :
>>>
>>> A commitment to sexual equality with males . . . is a commitment to
>>> becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped,
>>> the murderer instead of the murdered.
>>>
>>> Andrea Dworkin (b. 1946), U.S. feminist critic. "Renouncing Sexual
>>> `Equality'," speech, 12 Oct. 1974, at the National Organisation for
>>> Women Conference on Sexuality, New York City
>>> (published in Our Blood, ch. 2, 1976).
>Ah, yes; cheap debater's tactic #32. You find an extreme representative
>of a movement and then, without bothering to present any evidence that
>said extreme representative actually has any support in the movement,
>blithely assume that the wacko in question speaks for everyone in the
>movement.
It's strange how when anyone opposed to radical feminism use's are feminist
dogma quote to 'illustrate' a point, it suddenly becomes 'an
extreme representation' and the feminist making the quote is a
'wacko'..... very strange indeed.
>Nothing new here. The left wing uses this dodge as well, picking out the
>most radical of the right-wing screwheads and assuming that they speak for
>conservatives as a whole. It's bogus when they use it, and it bogus when
>you use it.
As I said... Very, very strange.
>Free clue: most feminists don't have much more use for Dworkin than you
>do, especially in light of her bizarre sexual attitudes and her cheerful
>willingness to support the Religious Reich's big goverenment censorship
>agenda.
She is STILL a public figure who claims to represent feminism, and women,
therefore I WILL continue to read what she say's and I will continue to
comment on it. If you dont like that... tough, you're just going to have to
live with it!
>
>>Although it is from 1974, and is talking about RENOUNCING
>>sexual equality (with men), it sums up for me, in three short
>>sentences, what the total radical feminist movement now dogma is,
>>and what their final goal for society will be. (Its amazing what
>>you can discover when you go to the 'source' and NOT rely
>>on hearsay or rumour).
>
>And particularly when you don't worry about whether the "source"
>represents anyone but herself and a few other goofballs.
She claims to represent a lot more than just 'herself and a few other
goofballs.'
>
>>Three reasons why I believe the above is true :
>
>Actually, it's pretty clear that you only need one: it fits your political
>and social agenda and your near-hysterical fear of "feminists" (a.k.a. The
>Minions of Set). After that it's the usual farrago of unsupported
>assumptions and vilification of any woman who expresses sentiments that
>distinguish her from a prostitute or a doormat.
Could you send me a 'copy' of my 'agenda', I seem to have forgotten what
it 'is'.
Me, hysterical.... never, especially over something as dogmatic and biased
as radical feminism, there's no need to get hysterical about a movement
that is being destroyed from within by it's own supporters, I'm just helping
to disconnect it from the 'life support machinery', that' what you do for
brain dead entities, give them a human death.
#
Here's another quote for you to 'rant' about....
The orthodox feminists are so carried away with victimology, with a rhetoric
of male-bashing that it's full of female chauvinists, if you will. Also,
women
are quite eager to censor, to silence. And what concerns me most as a
philosopher is it's become very anti-intellectual, and I think it poses a
serious
risk to young women in the universities. Women's studies classes are
increasingly a kind of initiation into the most radical wing, the most
intolerant
wing, of the feminist movement.
-- Christina Sommers
#
>Why don't you just take a vow of celibacy and save everyone a lot of grief?
Why would I want to do that, there are too many normal women in the real
world who are not afraid to have a normal sexual relationship with a normal
man.... but you probably know nothing about 'normal' relationships do you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
# A woman who looks like a girl and thinks like a man is the best sort,
the most enjoyable to be and the most pleasurable to have and to hold.
Julie Burchill (b. 1960), British journalist, author. Damaged Gods, “Born
again Cows” (1986).
Per
On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:59:15 -0800, "Christine A. Owens"
<cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:
>Per wrote:
>No, rape is defined as a man-on-woman crime; with being married to the accuser being a
>specific defense against the charge. [As is still the case in several US states.]
>Now, if a woman is not legally free to accuse her husband of rape, how can she
>legitimately be said to have consented to any act of sex?
.
Wow, what an amazing leap of illogic. So let's just play
along: If a man is not legally free to refuse to support his wife or
child, how can he legitimately be said to have consented to any act of
support? If you are not legally free to beat your kids, how can you
have consented to raise them?
P.S.: Feminists have done wonders with distorting the concept
that women were supposed to give their husbands sex as part of the
marriage contract. I used to think you had enough integrity not to
play such games, but a few of your posts recently have me rethinking
your honesty. Be that as it may, the institution of marriage is an
artificial, social concept, and throughout the ages, society has
struggled to find a way to make it work. The idea was that the husband
would offer shelter, food, a steady income from his labor while the
woman would offer sex, domestic skills, and childcare. EACH person was
expect to uphold one part of the bargain. Feminism, with its open
hatred of marriage, has tried to undermine it. But feminism's approach
has always been to strengthen the man's traditional responsibility
while freeing women from any responsibility at all. Thus feminists
demand that women can be able to walk away from a marriage and still
be supported for life by the labor of a man they have no
responsibility toward.
.
>> I have always said that traditional sexual roles were intended
>> to strike a certain balance.
.
>You are implying an intent to social evolution here which is highly inappropriate.
.
Hard to decipher this, but you seem to be saying that
traditional sexual roles were antithetical to social evolution. Your
feminist hatred of marriage is coming to the fore. But it's quite the
contrary. Check any neighborhood where divorce and single parenthood
is high, and you will find greater levels of poverty. Traditional
sexual roles, and marriage, gave father, mother and child all some
form of support and aid that they needed and thus made possible much
of the progress in the world.
>> This balance was made along the lines of
>> the abilities of men and women and their respective willingness to do
>> certain jobs.
.
>Actually, it had more to do with women being pregnant/having small children to care
>for than anything else.
.
Ahem. The balance was made along the lines of the abilities of
men and women.
.
>> Women have better fine-motor skills, so naturally they
>> were better at sewing and weaving.
.
>Odd, then, isn't it, that in the Navajo culture, amongst others, it is the men who were
>primarily the weavers?
.
Feminists love to cite an exception they think disproves the
rule. It doesn't. Are the Navajo weavers doing sacred or ceremonial
work, or artistic work, or merely performing rote labor? You can
diddle with snide little examples like this, but the fact remains --
men have more strength and stamina, women have better fine motor
skills. Obstructionist smokescreens like yours really don't change
that vast, overall fact, and citing an exception or two does not
disprove the overall tendency. And that is what traditional gender
roles grew out of. They are not the same roles all over. But it still
comes down to men doing the heavy work, women doing the child care.
.
[snip some truly blockheaded obstructionism.]
.
>> Women have always wanted to spend more
>> time close to their children, so they did.
.
>Until quite recently, women had no choice, in either direction.
.
Sure they did. And now that women have all the democratic
choices they can use, most women still would prefer to stay at home.
Many who work do so only because they cannot get by on one income any
more. Entire herds of feminists are discovering that "work is not the
story of my life" and opting out to have and raise kids. It's still
far more important to women than to men.
I reserve the space below for you to cite some example (of
dubious authenticity) that you will pretend destroys this entire
overall pattern.
>> Women risked their lives in
>> childbirth, men risked their lives in dangerous work and protecting
>> their societies.
.
>Or not so dangerous work. It is only in this century that a significant class of women
>not employed has arisen, too, you know.
.
And before the industrial revolution, nearly all work was
manual. Manual labor always has certain risks. Now that there is work
outside the home that is fairly safe and clean, all the sudden we find
hordes of feminists claiming they're oppressed and wanting to work
outside the home. Funny thing, though -- you don't hear that from the
women in blue-collar neighborhoods where the work outside the home
still tends to be pretty rugged.
.
>> Now feminists want to blame men for all the choices that women
>> made. And yes, women did make choices.
.
>Which were constrained by social acceptance, as were those of men.
.
As I said, here's another feminist who wants to blame the
choices of women on men. No sooner had I said it than some feminist
did it. I can read these people like a book.
Rager
FAQ Men to Avoid for Marriage
1. THE ADAMENT CHAUVINIST -- Avoid men who see male privilege
as their right. These men are insecure and do not like women and it's
only a matter of time before you are seen as part of their problem
too--no matter how hard you try to prove you are fair. His problem
has nothing to do with you specifically, just women in general and his
own self-doubts. You can't fix it.
2. THE CAREER BOUND -- Avoid men who chase careers not so much
because they love their work, but that they are adamant, even paranoid
about being independent. You are going to be highly disposable as a
wife and mother in a culture that promotes instant gratification and
taking the easy way out when the relationship takes its inevitable
bumpy turn. Exception being if you are comfortable taking
the submissive role in a relationship (many American women are). But
if you want him to have as much of a career as you, don't have
expectations of raising a family as well. Very few are able to have
it all, and only men can have a career and children. Usually both
suffer.
3. THE WOUNDED BIRD -- Avoid men in recovery, therapy, or who
constantly complain about their previous relationships with women,
i.e., mothers, girlfriends, wives. Fortunately since victimhood is
honored in this culture, these men tend to readily blab about their
wounds 10 minutes after you meet them. Men who have truly healed have
no scabs to obsessively pick at. Resist the urge to be the heroic
rescuer, for his healing can only be done by himself and you will only
be resented for your patronizing efforts, eventually. "In recovery"
is present tense. If unable to resist your ego's need to be a hero,
join a Big Sister program instead. It's appropriate to patronize
children (in it's positive sense).
4. THE TICKING BIO CLOCKS -- Avoid older career men with ticking
biological clocks. These men can be particularly bad picks. They
have demonstrated generally their low priority in taking the time and
the effort into having durable relationships with women. By "ticking
clock" age he may be too independent and set in his ways to be willing
to make a whole lot of flexible room for your bad habits or
personality flaws. You are a VERY disposable piece of family
furniture (usually realized after you've had his children and invested
half your youth).
Time given for you to shape up to his version of an "equal" partner
varies from "strong man" to strong man. If you marry the boss,
that's what you'll get. Again, many American women are fine with the
submissive marriage partner role. Hell, they can even be the First
Lady some day!
5. AMERICAN MEN -- Consider marrying a foreign men from a culture
which does not dishonor women, wives and mothers. And only if you're
exhausted with traditional dating methods and a seamless stream of
"high-maintenance" men. Warning: some foreign cultures encourage a
predatory mentality of men against women without the need for
chauvinistic pretenses. Ladies beware.
the...@pobox.com
In article <345BB3F5...@mfm.com>,
Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
>
> The_Doge of St. Louis wrote:
> > Yup. Frankly, I'm getting pretty sick of hearing from these wimps who
> > apparently can't cope with the idea of a woman as a partner in a
> > relationship. IMO, a Real Man(tm) doesn't feel threatened by a woman who
> > can stand on her own two feet and prefers to treat him as her equal rather
> > than Ole Massa.
>
> The thread is about marriage.
Actually, this thread was about Shafer's most recent re-post of his FMA
(Frequently Made Assertions) list (not to be confused with a FAQ list,
which derives from public interest rather than a particular individual's
obsessions), consisting of a collection of negative stereotypes and
culminating in a dismissal of every woman who expresses opinions that
separate her from a prostitute or a doormat.
> Marriage is a tradition that
> dates from a time when men and women were anything but equals.
> It is rather difficult to picture men and women of equal
> status coming up with an institution of marriage much like
> the one we have now.
I suppose it depends on how you define "an institution of marriage much
like the one we have now". To a great degree, a marriage is what the two
people involved make of it. Various state laws impose some restrictions
on a couple's options, but basically two people who get married have a
wide variety of choices on how that marriage will work. They can agree
to be monagamous or not. They can agree to have children or not. They
can work out whatever division of daily household duties they want. They
can agree to work out a variety of power balance arrangements. And so
on.
> In a society of true equals, the present institution of marriage
> would be about as relevant as a riverboat stranded in a desert.
I think some of the rather archaic legal aspects of marriage in some
states would be irrelevant, but as a blanket statement I don't think this
is valid. My wife and I treat each other with the respect one would
expect of equals, as have my parents - and they just celebrated their
50th anniversary. My own experience, therefore, tells me that it's
possible to establish a level playing field (so to speak) within the
institution of marriage both now and a half- century ago.
That doesn't mean that one *must* get married to do this, of course.
> > Any dolt can give orders. It takes maturity to consider the other
> > person's point of view and work out a mutually beneficial arrangement.
[..]
> No two people can ever agree on every last thing, but choice of
> partner has a greater effect on relationship success than anything
> else. If a person happens to feel most comfortable with a particular
> type of relationship, then it is probably in that person's
> interest to do whatever is necessary to find a partner who is
> OK with that.
No argument here. I think that choosing the right partner can be
regarded as a necessary but not sufficient condiditon for a successful
relationship based on consideration of the needs of both parties.
> A man who desires a "traditional" marriage is being
> perfectly rational, not to mention unobtrusive, by finding a woman
> who wants the same thing. After all, he's not trying to pass laws
> or agitate or sic lawyers on women who want to live differently.
That's fair enough, I suppose. I think at least some of the reason for
my negative reaction to this thread lies in the way it's being presented.
Instead of taking a positive approach ("The Kind of Woman I'd Like to
Marry" or whatever), it concentrates on insulting and demeaning millions
of women. It also attempts to suggest that Mr. Shafer's difficulty in
finding a mate is the fault of all those awful American women when, IMO,
it would be more honest for him and his apologists to admit that the
difficulty is of their own making.
As it is, they seem to be suggesting that everyone is out of step but
them.
> I'm not sure I can justify passing a value judgment on a person
> who desires a particular power-sharing arrangement in a relationship.
> Surely there cannot be just one relationship model that has to
> work for everybody? That seems so limiting.
This could be just as easily addressed to the originators of this thread
as to me, of course. My own judgemental response is in reply to an even
more judgemental attitude from Shafer et. al. That doesn't excuse it, I
suppose, but it does explain it.
That said, I actually agree with your statement here. I really don't
care what power-sharing arragement a couple comes up with, as long as
it's consensual. What raises my hackles is when someone raises his or her
particular arrangement to the level of Universal Truth(tm) and keeps
re-posting attacks on any heretic who doesn't share it.
[...]
> > Alas, this seems to be a rather Politically Incorrect notion among some
> > guys in these fora.
>
> It's important to distinguish between what people say and what they
> do. It's common for foreign-wife importers to prattle on about respect
> for traditional family values and so on, but all you have to do is
> look at the women who get imported. In addition to their much-ballyhooed
> fondness for home and hearth, these women also happen to be quite a few
> notches higher in physical attractiveness than the average prevailing in
> either the country they left or the country they entered. (But don't
> take my word for it; go visit one of the foreign marriage Web sites
> and look at the pictures. You won't find any dating-related Web
> site featuring pictures of a comparably attractive set of American
> women. That's because comparably attractive American women usually
> do not need to advertise on the Internet for husbands.)
All of this assumes, of course, that there's a shred of truth to most of
these claims and that the pictures are a) current and b) actually of the
person in question. I have never paid much attention to these various
mail-order bride operations, so I have no idea how many of them or
reputable. Given the Godawful economic situation in some of the
countries from which they're coming, however, it seems to me that the
women in question (or their domestic promoters) have a rather strong
incentive to make them look as attractive as possible, regardless of how
well this corresponds to reality.
> Very few men will be honest enough to admit to what's really
> politically incorrect: selecting a life partner primarily on
> the basis of her physical appearance.
Could be. I haven't selected my partners *primarily* on the basis of
physical appearance, but this has certainly been an important factor, no
question about it. I think most men probably use this as one of their
"top five" (or maybe "top two"..) criteria.
> So we hear a bunch of noise
> about this family-orientation of the hot babes from Russia,
> etc., because, I believe, this sounds like a more respectable
> motive than selecting women for their pretty faces, perky breasts,
> tiny waists, tight derrieres, and shapely legs (did I miss anything?).
> I suspect that if the same noisemakers could land similarly hot
> American feminists, they would find a way to cope.
In fact, I'd take that "one step beyond" (so to speak) and suggest that
if these noisemakers were getting on well with women at all they wouldn't
keep posting these rants about how awful half of the population is. It's
always easier to blame others and attack scapegoats than to take a long,
hard look in the mirror and ask difficult questions about yourself.
> I know I always have. It's amazing what a man can do with the
> right motivation.
De gustibus and all that. I have found that physical attractiveness will
only work for a relatively short period of time. Sooner or later
(usually sooner), you have to deal with the person inside that nice body.
If the person I'm involved with isn't interesting, intelligent, and
generally stimulating on more than a purely sexual level, I lose interest
rather quickly.
=============================
The_Doge of St. Louis
Stage, screen, radio
http://www.pobox.com/~thedoge
=============================
The_Doge of St. Louis
In article <63g0of$ngj$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, "Max Burke"
<Max_...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> The_Doge of St. Louis wrote in message ...
>>Free clue: most feminists don't have much more use for Dworkin than you
>>do, especially in light of her bizarre sexual attitudes and her cheerful
>>willingness to support the Religious Reich's big goverenment censorship
>>agenda.
>
>She is STILL a public figure who claims to represent feminism, and women,
>therefore I WILL continue to read what she say's and I will continue to
>comment on it. If you dont like that... tough, you're just going to have to
>live with it!
Hey, it's your funeral. Alas, for someone who claims to believe that men
are always logical, you seem rather deficient in that quality yourself.
Are you seriously maintaining that anyone who claims to represent a
particular group is automatically assumed to represent that group?
What's really going on here is this: extremists like Dworkin fit your
cartoon image of feminism, so you insist that they must represent
feminists, despite any evidence to support this. That's not logic, Max,
it's exactly the opposite - restructuring reality based on your emotional
needs.
>>>Although it is from 1974, and is talking about RENOUNCING
>>>sexual equality (with men), it sums up for me, in three short
>>>sentences, what the total radical feminist movement now dogma is,
>>>and what their final goal for society will be. (Its amazing what
>>>you can discover when you go to the 'source' and NOT rely
>>>on hearsay or rumour).
>>
>>And particularly when you don't worry about whether the "source"
>>represents anyone but herself and a few other goofballs.
>
>She claims to represent a lot more than just 'herself and a few other
>goofballs.'
Once again: anyone can *claim* anything. The members of the Aryan
Nations claim to represent all white people. Louis Farrahkan claims to
represent all black people. Fallwell, Ankerberg, and other fundie
bottom-feeders claim to represent all Christians. Do you believe those
claims as well? Do I really have to point out how absurd it is for you to
blithely assume that Dworkin actually represents anyone other than herself
and a few other loose nuts based on nothing more reliable than her own
assertions?
Clearly, you have a much higher opinion of Dworkin's credibility than I
do. Personally, if her leg fell off at the hip I wouldn't trust the stump
to bleed.
Maybe you and she have more in common than you think.
--
<*> ObQuote: "If the world were a logical place, men would ride side-saddle."
-- Rita Mae Brown
======================================================================
<*>The_Doge of St. Louis
Stage, screen, radio
http://www.pobox.com/~thedoge/
Max Burke
> the...@pobox.com wrote in message <8785701...@dejanews.com>...
>In article <345BB3F5...@mfm.com>,
> Daniel Mocsny <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
>>
>> The thread is about marriage.
>
>Actually, this thread was about Shafer's most recent re-post of his FMA
>(Frequently Made Assertions) list (not to be confused with a FAQ list,
>which derives from public interest rather than a particular individual's
>obsessions), consisting of a collection of negative stereotypes and
>culminating in a dismissal of every woman who expresses opinions that
>separate her from a prostitute or a doormat.
Aw poor dogey.... cant stand a little bit of negative stereotyping....
Like have to men put up with day in... day out...
snip...
>> A man who desires a "traditional" marriage is being
>> perfectly rational, not to mention unobtrusive, by finding a woman
>> who wants the same thing. After all, he's not trying to pass laws
>> or agitate or sic lawyers on women who want to live differently.
>
>That's fair enough, I suppose. I think at least some of the reason for
>my negative reaction to this thread lies in the way it's being presented.
> Instead of taking a positive approach ("The Kind of Woman I'd Like to
>Marry" or whatever), it concentrates on insulting and demeaning millions
>of women.
As millions of men are insulted and demeaned by attitudes of women
like you.
It also attempts to suggest that Mr. Shafer's difficulty in
>finding a mate is the fault of all those awful American women when, IMO,
>it would be more honest for him and his apologists to admit that the
>difficulty is of their own making.
What makes you think he is 'looking' for a 'mate', do you know him
personally, or is it the old feminist myth that all men are interested in
is a sex object to play with?
>
>As it is, they seem to be suggesting that everyone is out of step but
>them.
>
>> I'm not sure I can justify passing a value judgment on a person
>> who desires a particular power-sharing arrangement in a relationship.
>> Surely there cannot be just one relationship model that has to
>> work for everybody? That seems so limiting.
>
>This could be just as easily addressed to the originators of this thread
>as to me, of course. My own judgemental response is in reply to an even
>more judgemental attitude from Shafer et. al. That doesn't excuse it, I
>suppose, but it does explain it.
Why do you think anyone NEEDS to be excused by you, just because
YOU have a problem with another persons opinion. (post).
>
>That said, I actually agree with your statement here. I really don't
>care what power-sharing arrangement a couple comes up with, as long as
>it's consensual. What raises my hackles is when someone raises his or her
>particular arrangement to the level of Universal Truth(tm) and keeps
>re-posting attacks on any heretic who doesn't share it.
pot, kettle, black..... As long as everyone agrees with, and posts
things that you approve of it's ok.
>
>[...]
>
>> > Alas, this seems to be a rather Politically Incorrect notion among some
>> > guys in these fora.
I for one will always be politically incorrect, rather than bound by a
rigid set of dogmatic beliefs and rules that seek to prevent a diversity of
opinion and opposite viewpoints. (beliefs)
You still haven't said what a 'fora' is.
snip....
>
>> Very few men will be honest enough to admit to what's really
>> politically incorrect: selecting a life partner primarily on
>> the basis of her physical appearance.
I'll be honest 'enough', physical appearance is important to me,
just as much as EVERY other facet of the person is, I regard
people as a whole being, not just being classified as one thing
or the other.
>
>Could be. I haven't selected my partners *primarily* on the basis of
>physical appearance, but this has certainly been an important factor, no
>question about it. I think most men probably use this as one of their
>"top five" (or maybe "top two"..) criteria.
>
>> So we hear a bunch of noise
>> about this family-orientation of the hot babes from Russia,
>> etc., because, I believe, this sounds like a more respectable
>> motive than selecting women for their pretty faces, perky breasts,
>> tiny waists, tight derrieres, and shapely legs (did I miss anything?).
>> I suspect that if the same noisemakers could land similarly hot
>> American feminists, they would find a way to cope.
>
>In fact, I'd take that "one step beyond" (so to speak) and suggest that
>if these noisemakers were getting on well with women at all they wouldn't
>keep posting these rants about how awful half of the population is. It's
>always easier to blame others and attack scapegoats than to take a long,
>hard look in the mirror and ask difficult questions about yourself.
How do YOU know how these 'noisemakers' get on with members of
the opposite sex? What were you saying earlier about judgemental
attitudes? Just because you dont like what others post, these people
are immediately judged as failures as human beings... so much for
your political correctness then... (I guess you drag that belief out when
its convenient)
snip....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
# Political Correctness
It is silly to call fat people 堵ravitationally challenged迫a self-righteous
fetishism of language which is no more than a symptom of political
frustration.
Terry Eagleton (b. 1943), British critic. Guardian (London, 27 Oct. 1992).
Max Burke
> The_Doge of St. Louis wrote in message ...
>
>> The_Doge of St. Louis wrote in message ...
>>Free clue: most feminists don't have much more use for Dworkin than you
>>do, especially in light of her bizarre sexual attitudes and her cheerful
>>willingness to support the Religious Reich's big goverenment censorship
>>agenda.
->She is STILL a public figure who claims to represent feminism, and women,
->therefore I WILL continue to read what she say's and I will continue to
->comment on it. If you dont like that... tough, you're just going to have
to
->live with it!
>Hey, it's your funeral. Alas, for someone who claims to believe that men
>are always logical, you seem rather deficient in that quality yourself.
It's not my funeral, rather it will be radical feminist movements funeral.
Men aren't always logical, we still sometimes believe radical feminist's
propaganda and dogma, and suffer the consequence's for it, that is
not being logical, however we do learn from our mistakes and apply
logic to any future claims from the radical feminist's.
As to my 'supposed' lack of logic, maybe, as I am trying to debate
subject's with you could be construed as behaving illogically.
>Are you seriously maintaining that anyone who claims to represent a
>particular group is automatically assumed to represent that group?
Her claim appears to be the valid one, as she is the one being
reported in the news media, not you, or any other feminist's
who say that she doesn't represent feminism.
>
>What's really going on here is this: extremists like Dworkin fit your
>cartoon image of feminism, so you insist that they must represent
>feminists, despite any evidence to support this. That's not logic, Max,
>it's exactly the opposite - restructuring reality based on your emotional
>needs.
Radical feminism sure is a 'cartoon caricature' of the feminist movement.
I dont need to restructure 'reality' to suit my emotional 'needs', what
emotional need would I have for radical feminism? I am NOT a victim of
anyone, I am NOT being oppressed by anyone, and I certainly DONT
need any group, person, or dogma to justify my existence, beliefs, or
human rights.
->Although it is from 1974, and is talking about RENOUNCING
->sexual equality (with men), it sums up for me, in three short
->sentences, what the total radical feminist movement now dogma is,
->and what their final goal for society will be. (Its amazing what
->you can discover when you go to the 'source' and NOT rely
->on hearsay or rumour).
>And particularly when you don't worry about whether the "source"
>represents anyone but herself and a few other goofballs.
->She claims to represent a lot more than just 'herself and a few other
->goofballs.'
>Once again: anyone can *claim* anything. The members of the Aryan
>Nations claim to represent all white people. Louis Farrahkan claims to
>represent all black people. Fallwell, Ankerberg, and other fundie
>bottom-feeders claim to represent all Christians. Do you believe those
>claims as well? Do I really have to point out how absurd it is for you to
>blithely assume that Dworkin actually represents anyone other than herself
>and a few other loose nuts based on nothing more reliable than her own
>assertions?
These are the groups that get the attention of the News media, and hence
the public, therefore they 'appear' to represent the 'white people,
black people, Christians, feminism, etc.
Do you claim that YOU represent the feminist movement then?
Because if you do, I would put you in the same league as Andrea Dwokin
and Catherine MacKinnon, because of the attitude your post's take
against men (such as me) when we post something you dont agree with.
>Clearly, you have a much higher opinion of Dworkin's credibility than I
>do. Personally, if her leg fell off at the hip I wouldn't trust the stump
>to bleed.
My opinion of Andrea Dwokin is to rank her and her dogma on the
same level groups like the KKK, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the right
wing militia groups of the USA. Is that a high enough opinion for you?
>Maybe you and she have more in common than you think.
I certainly believe you have a lot more in common with her than I do.
---------------------------------------------------------------
# Propaganda is that branch of the art of lying which consists in nearly
deceiving your friends without quite deceiving your enemies.
F. M. Cornford (1874–1943), British author, poet.
Quoted in: New Statesman (London, 15 Sept. 1978).
r.so...@worldnet.att.net
>
> >> The_Doge of St. Louis wrote in message ...
>
> >>Free clue: most feminists don't have much more use for Dworkin than you
> >>do, especially in light of her bizarre sexual attitudes and her cheerful
> >>willingness to support the Religious Reich's big goverenment censorship
> >>agenda.
> >
>
> Hey, it's your funeral. Alas, for someone who claims to believe that men
> are always logical, you seem rather deficient in that quality yourself.
> particular group is automatically assumed to represent that group?
>
>
Who does represent feminism? Name the national leaders you believe
represent
feminism. I asked Steen this several weeks ago, but I haven't gotten an
answer yet, perhaps you will oblige.
Rich Soyack
Hambone
The_Doge of St. Louis wrote:
> do. Personally, if her leg fell off at the hip I wouldn't trust the stump
> to bleed.
> -- Rita Mae Brown
Sawdust or cotton stuffing might come out.
Hambone
Nick Danger
On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 23:05:56 -0600, The_Doge of St. Louis wrote:
:>Do I really have to point out how absurd it is for you to
:>blithely assume that Dworkin actually represents anyone other than herself
:>and a few other loose nuts based on nothing more reliable than her own
:>assertions?
Having "pointed this out", it's up to you to explain how The
Dworkster appears regularly in panel discussions featured in
Ms. Magazine, to pick just one venue where this supposed
'loose nut' is allowed to vent her spleen.
Are you also unaware that she packs college auditoriums
with cheering feminists as she goes about her speaking
tour?
This woman is closer to Mainstream Feminism than you
want to admit.
--------------------------------------------
This article is made of 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------
Erika
In article <345F0A...@worldnet.att.net>, r.so...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Who does represent feminism? Name the national leaders you believe
> represent feminism.
I don't believe there are ANY national leaders that represent the
"feminism" that we see in these bases. The "women are superior men are
scum" type "feminism" that *I* certainly do not subscribe to. I believe in
EQUALITY, not one sex being superior over another.
Hillary Clinton could be believed to represent "feminists", however, she's
a competent woman doing relevant work. She deserves everything she gets,
and is not whining about how "men have held her back 'cos I'm a woman -
waaahh!". That's also why I like her.
Erika
<=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=>
Social Security is:
Having a chilled bottle of Champagne in your refrigerator at all times.
jmo...@geocities.com
> they develop. If the river suddenly dries up or shifts course, a
> whole bunch of cultural adaptations will no longer make sense.
>
> would be about as relevant as a riverboat stranded in a desert.
Are you implying that marriage wouldn't exist or that it would simply
be different? I can't think of a more universal human institution than
marriage. This suggests to me that it would exist no matter what type
of human society you had.
[snipped]
> Very few men will be honest enough to admit to what's really
> politically incorrect: selecting a life partner primarily on
> the basis of her physical appearance. So we hear a bunch of noise
> about this family-orientation of the hot babes from Russia,
> etc., because, I believe, this sounds like a more respectable
> motive than selecting women for their pretty faces, perky breasts,
> tiny waists, tight derrieres, and shapely legs (did I miss anything?).
> I suspect that if the same noisemakers could land similarly hot
> American feminists, they would find a way to cope.
>
Are you suggesting that physical appearance is so important to these men
that the nonfeminist, family-orientation of these women is basically
irrelevant? I would speak for myself if I were you.
Appearance is always important to a man, just as a man's ability to be
gainfully employed is important to a woman. But IMHO your harping
on the all-importance of attractiveness is just a cynical twisting of the
motivations of these men.
And I seriously doubt that most of them would accept a feminist, simply
because she was a hot-looking babe. As far as I can tell, the majority of
men who marry foreign "mail-order" brides tend to be older men whose
chief motivation is to get and remain married. Certainly they choose
attractive women, but they also tend to be mature enough to understand
the folly of thinking with their penises. Choosing a woman simply because
she's attractive is asking for trouble. By the same token, I'm sure many
women find OJ attractive, but I would question their wisdom in choosing
him as a partner simply because he's rich and powerful.
I'm married to a foreign woman (I met her through a friend, not an
introduction service). She's great looking, but I've never met a woman
who came close to her in generosity and her willingness to express her
feelings for me. If you think that's not important in a marriage, I would
say that you're crazy.
> I know I always have. It's amazing what a man can do with the
> right motivation.
You would put up with the nonsensical demands of feminists if they
happened to have a pretty face? If this is true, I rather pity you.
>
> --
> --- Daniel J. Mocsny
Joe
PangK
>From: egreen*@*cybergal*.SPA
>Hillary Clinton could be believed to represent "feminists", however, she's a
competent woman doing relevant work. She deserves everything she gets, and is
not whining about how "men have held her back 'cos I'm a woman - waaahh!".
That's also why I like her.
Competent woman? What the hell has she ever done, aside from engineer the
WHitewater scam? Hard as I look I can't find her making much of a mark as a
lawyer. No wins in BIG cases. DOn't see her name in lawbooks of any landmark
cases. (Nor even any small ones.) Aside from the hot air with regard to
VILLAGES (and SHE didn't even write the book) what's the woman done????
Oh, she graduated FIRST in her class at Yale? Except when she graduated Yale
did NOT rank students! And didn't use grades
other than pass fail. She got into WHo's WHo? BFD! ANyone with $150 can be in
it nowadays.
Ah, but she MARRIED Bill CLinton and had his kid.
(Well we THINK so.)
The_Doge of St. Louis
In article <63me9p$rp3$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, "Max Burke"
<Max_...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> The_Doge of St. Louis wrote in message ...
[...]
>>Once again: anyone can *claim* anything. The members of the Aryan
>>Nations claim to represent all white people. Louis Farrahkan claims to
>>represent all black people. Fallwell, Ankerberg, and other fundie
>>bottom-feeders claim to represent all Christians. Do you believe those
>>claims as well? Do I really have to point out how absurd it is for you to
>>blithely assume that Dworkin actually represents anyone other than herself
>>and a few other loose nuts based on nothing more reliable than her own
>>assertions?
>
>These are the groups that get the attention of the News media, and hence
>the public, therefore they 'appear' to represent the 'white people,
>black people, Christians, feminism, etc.
Okey-dokey, Burke. By that standard, I agree that Andrea Dworkin's
opinions represent feminists....just as much as the Aryan Nations platform
represents white people, the beliefs of the Nation of Isam represent black
people AND the Islamic world, and the rabid theocracy of Falwell
represents all Christians.
Happy now? >:-{)>
And by the way: since you apparently don't own a dictionary, I won't
bother suggesting that you look up "fora". I will, instead, provide you
with a clue: I used the word in the phrase "these fora" suggesting that
the question you should be asking is not "what's a fora" but rather "what
are fora".
If you'd had a proper secondary school education (i.e., one including a
year or two of Latin), of course, you wouldn't have had to ask that
question to begin with. You young people today really are *astonishingly*
ill-educated.
<plonk> The last word is yours. Enjoy. >:-{)>
--
<*> ObQuote: "We are not ready for any unforseen event that may or may not occur."
-- Dan Quayle, in an interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer
Scott
On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 23:05:56 -0600, the...@inlink.com (The_Doge of
St. Louis) wrote:
[snip]
+>She claims to represent a lot more than just 'herself and a few
other
+>goofballs.'
+
+Once again: anyone can *claim* anything. The members of the Aryan
+Nations claim to represent all white people. Louis Farrahkan claims
+to represent all black people. Fallwell, Ankerberg, and other fundie
+bottom-feeders claim to represent all Christians. Do you believe
+those claims as well? Do I really have to point out how absurd it is
+for you to blithely assume that Dworkin actually represents anyone
+other than herself and a few other loose nuts based on nothing more
+reliable than her own assertions?
That would depend on how hard the members of that group or
organisation worked to present a contrary view. Unfortunately, I have
seen little effort on the part of ***MOST*** (not all) feminists to
contradict the views that Dworkin et al present. On the contrary,
when the "violent young males"* quote by dworkin was raised as an
issue, Lefty and the gang were falling over each other to defend the
statement.
* perhaps you will recall a margin note dworkin wrote claiming that
the dark side of peace was that violent young males were not sent off
to war to be killed
+
+Clearly, you have a much higher opinion of Dworkin's credibility than
+I do. Personally, if her leg fell off at the hip I wouldn't trust
+the stump to bleed.
+
+Maybe you and she have more in common than you think.
+--
+<*> ObQuote: "If the world were a logical place, men would ride
side-saddle."
+ -- Rita Mae Brown
+======================================================================
+<*>The_Doge of St. Louis
+Stage, screen, radio
+http://www.pobox.com/~thedoge/
Steve Chaney
In article <thedoge-0111...@ppp-207-193-20-62.stlsmo.swbell.net>, the...@inlink.com (The_Doge of St. Louis) wrote:
>
> In article <01bce4fe$dd4f0220$50f131ca@default>, "Max Burke"
> <Max_...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> > <Max_...@nowhere.com> writes:
> >>
> >snip....
> >
> >> Here is what equality means to one feminist 'saint' :
> >>
> >> A commitment to sexual equality with males . . . is a commitment to
> >> becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped,
> >> the murderer instead of the murdered.
> >>
> >> Andrea Dworkin (b. 1946), U.S. feminist critic. "Renouncing Sexual
> >> `Equality'," speech, 12 Oct. 1974, at the National Organisation for
> >> Women Conference on Sexuality, New York City
> >> (published in Our Blood, ch. 2, 1976).
>
> Ah, yes; cheap debater's tactic #32. You find an extreme representative
> of a movement and then, without bothering to present any evidence that
> said extreme representative actually has any support in the movement,
> blithely assume that the wacko in question speaks for everyone in the
> movement.
She has been looked to for insight into such things as the Anita Hill /
Clarence Thomas sexual harassment issue, by the mainstream press. It is
for this exact reason, this only reason, that she ever found her way out
from under the rock she normally hides. Note that the National Organization
for Women is still looked at for gender issue opinions by the mainstream
press, whereas their vehement opposition, Concerned Women for America (which
outnumbers them 3 to 1), gets ZERO media representation. Talk about ignoring
the lion for the squeal of a mouse!
> Nothing new here. The left wing uses this dodge as well, picking out the
> most radical of the right-wing screwheads and assuming that they speak for
> conservatives as a whole. It's bogus when they use it, and it bogus when
> you use it.
It's nice to see you are at least being consistent.
> Free clue: most feminists don't have much more use for Dworkin than you
> do, especially in light of her bizarre sexual attitudes and her cheerful
> willingness to support the Religious Reich's big goverenment censorship
> agenda.
Woah, someone else besides me has noticed the way in which feminists and
hard right Christian groups get in bed together over political issues like
pornography. (I'd rather see people getting off on porn, rather than spreading
diseases and making kids they don't take responsibility for.)
> >Although it is from 1974, and is talking about RENOUNCING
> >sexual equality (with men), it sums up for me, in three short
> >sentences, what the total radical feminist movement now dogma is,
> >and what their final goal for society will be. (Its amazing what
> >you can discover when you go to the 'source' and NOT rely
> >on hearsay or rumour).
>
> And particularly when you don't worry about whether the "source"
> represents anyone but herself and a few other goofballs.
(completion)
...that the media consults for opinions and then sells to the rest of us as
relevant to certain major gender issues at hand.
> >Three reasons why I believe the above is true :
>
> Actually, it's pretty clear that you only need one: it fits your political
> and social agenda and your near-hysterical fear of "feminsts" (a.k.a. The
> Minions of Set). After that it's the usual farrago of unsupported
> assumptions and villification of any woman who expresses sentiments that
> distinguish her from a prostitute or a doormat.
His social agenda is, at worst, that these madcap feminist ragtags are being
played by the media as the norm, and have better access to the politicians
who make our nation's laws, than the MILLIONS of normal women who are not in
the least represented by these looneytunes.
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
In article <345d4f8d...@news.mindspring.com>, Rager <Ra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>FAQ Men to Avoid for Marriage
>
>1. THE ADAMENT CHAUVINIST -- Avoid men who see male privilege
>as their right. These men are insecure and do not like women and it's
>only a matter of time before you are seen as part of their problem
>too--no matter how hard you try to prove you are fair. His problem
>has nothing to do with you specifically, just women in general and his
>own self-doubts. You can't fix it.
Great. This is EXACTLY what I was hoping wouldn't pop up, but when you
have people going on endlessly about women, well, this is what ya get...
-- Steve
Sean C
In article <thedoge-0111...@ppp-207-193-20-62.stlsmo.swbell.net>,
the...@inlink.com (The_Doge of St. Louis) wrote:
> Ah, yes; cheap debater's tactic #32. You find an extreme representative
> of a movement and then, without bothering to present any evidence that
> said extreme representative actually has any support in the movement,
> blithely assume that the wacko in question speaks for everyone in the
> movement.
I really find it amusing when feminists claim that Dworkin has no power or
influence within the feminist movement, but then when you point out the
blatant daily barrage of male-bashing, anti-male pseudo-science and
propaganda, and media and legal bias against men we're exposed to--most of
it coming from people calling themselves "feminists"--we are told that two
"extremist" feminists, Andrea Dworkin/Catherine MacKinnon, are responsible
for all of it.
Pretty damn miraculous how these two can be so obscure and lacking in
influence while simultaneously being solely responsible for all of
feminism's bigotry and excesses.
> Nothing new here. The left wing uses this dodge as well, picking out the
> most radical of the right-wing screwheads and assuming that they speak for
> conservatives as a whole. It's bogus when they use it, and it bogus when
> you use it.
>
> Free clue: most feminists don't have much more use for Dworkin than you
> do, especially in light of her bizarre sexual attitudes and her cheerful
> willingness to support the Religious Reich's big goverenment censorship
> agenda.
Doubtful. While most feminists may not be quite as extreme as Dworkin, her
anti-male bigotry sits quite squarely on a continuum with the rest of
so-called "moderate" feminism. So Dworkin spits her venom straight, while
other feminists water it down a bit. It's still venom.
> >Although it is from 1974, and is talking about RENOUNCING
> >sexual equality (with men), it sums up for me, in three short
> >sentences, what the total radical feminist movement now dogma is,
> >and what their final goal for society will be. (Its amazing what
> >you can discover when you go to the 'source' and NOT rely
> >on hearsay or rumour).
>
> And particularly when you don't worry about whether the "source"
> represents anyone but herself and a few other goofballs.
More than "a few" goofballs have filled auditoriums to capacity and cheered
her on in colleges she has visited throughout the country.
> >Three reasons why I believe the above is true :
>
> Actually, it's pretty clear that you only need one: it fits your political
> and social agenda and your near-hysterical fear of "feminsts" (a.k.a. The
> Minions of Set). After that it's the usual farrago of unsupported
> assumptions and villification of any woman who expresses sentiments that
> distinguish her from a prostitute or a doormat.
Of all the unsupported assumptions I've seen so far, the one remaining
unanswered is exactly which national leaders *do* represent this moderate,
mainstream feminism that is alleged to exist? If Dworkin doesn't speak for
feminism, who does? And please don't tell me that all feminists speak with
individual voices and all that crap--it takes a lot of organized,
single-minded philosophy, power and direction to achieve what feminism has,
both good and bad. Who speaks for this power bloc?
Sean Conlon
--
Remove SPAMFREE from e-mail address to send e-mail.
____________________________
The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.
Flannery O'Connor
It is discouraging to try and penetrate a mind like yours. You ought to get
it out and dance on it. That would take some of the rigidity out of it.
Mark Twain
Steve Chaney
In article <638mca$q...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>
> In <01bce404$f82f9000$2bf131ca@default> "Max Burke"
> <Max_...@nowhere.com> writes:
> >
> >> Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> ><635mmh$b...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>...
> >> In <01bce358$1e32bc80$17a11dcb@default> "Max Burke"
> >> <Max_...@nowhere.com> writes:
> >
> >> >Maybe the men who do take 'foreign' wives, find that American
> >> >women are no longer capable of having a normal relationship with
> >> >a man.
>
> >> ---------
> >> That _could_ be; or, perhaps women fleeing a bad
> >> situation have reason to be complacent, until
> >> somthing better comes along.
> >>
> >
> >The same could apply to men, re the 'bad situation', but they decide
> >not to be complacent and wait for something better to come along,
> >but be pro-active and go looking for an 'improved situation'.
> >
> >The foreign wives they marry sure do get an improved 'situation'
> >(for the majority of these marriages), they get citizenship of their
> >husband's country, they get a vastly improved standard of living,
> >and they get their basic human rights protected by law, and
> >political freedom.
>
> ------------
> This is correct. I know two men who both were divorced
> (several times) from American wives. They are brothers
> one was married to a gal from Russia; the other wife
> was oriental; the marriages lasted just long enough
> to assure citizenship.
> -------------------------------
That only proves that those 2 particular men that you are referring
to, did not have what it takes. They either marry women who are
wrong for them (for instance, someone who wants something besides
what they can offer in the long run), or they screw up the
relationship by virtue of personality flaws, or both. In any case,
these 2 men are doing something drastically wrong, and whether or
not they married someone from outside the country or within, the
end result is the same. It does not reflect upon the question of
whether or not marrying foreign women is good or bad.
> >What does the man get? He gets a loving wife, who respects him,
> >and wants him to be everything that feminist women seem to
> >despise in marriage.
>
> ----------
> It it works out, I would call it a good thing for all
> concerned, including the women who didn't have to go
> thru the discovery that the American man in question
> wanted a subservient instead of an equal.
Oh boy, she's got me. I guess I'd better come clean before Tersian
or Jim Dutton find out; I am looking for a foreign bride who is into
Confucious. She must walk behind me at all times, and never step on
my shadow. She must stay home unless accompanied by me. She must do
all the cooking and cleaning, and of course, bear only baby boys.
Oh, and the most important thing - she must periodically dust that
portrait in the living room of Chairman Jiang, the one with him
wearing the 3-pointed hat during his trip to Pennsylvania. =]
-- Steve
Steve Chaney
Christine A. Owens
Per wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:59:15 -0800, "Christine A. Owens"
> <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:
>
> >Per wrote:
>
> >No, rape is defined as a man-on-woman crime; with being married to the accuser being a
> >specific defense against the charge. [As is still the case in several US states.]
> >Now, if a woman is not legally free to accuse her husband of rape, how can she
> >legitimately be said to have consented to any act of sex?
> .
> Wow, what an amazing leap of illogic. So let's just play
> along: If a man is not legally free to refuse to support his wife or
> child, how can he legitimately be said to have consented to any act of
> support?
He can't.
> If you are not legally free to beat your kids, how can you
> have consented to raise them?
Beating children is not a requisite for raising them.
> P.S.: Feminists have done wonders with distorting the concept
> that women were supposed to give their husbands sex as part of the
> marriage contract.
You see, Per, my entire problem with the whole issue is summed up in the
sentence above. Why is it an assumption that sex is something women
give their husbands, as opposed to something married people give to each
other? Why is the obligation only one-way?
> The idea was that the husband
> would offer shelter, food, a steady income from his labor while the
> woman would offer sex, domestic skills, and childcare.
Why is sex a one-way gift?
> Feminism, with its open
> hatred of marriage, has tried to undermine it.
Per, I, a feminist, don't hate marriage; in point of fact, I am very
happily married. However, that doesn't mean that I don't think that
the TERMS of what constitutes marital obligation should be
re-examined.
> But feminism's approach
> has always been to strengthen the man's traditional responsibility
> while freeing women from any responsibility at all.
Not this feminist. I view marriage as a mutual obligation to provide
companionship and support.
> Thus feminists
> demand that women can be able to walk away from a marriage and still
> be supported for life by the labor of a man they have no
> responsibility toward.
Not this feminist. IMO, the only time that alimony is at all appropriate
is when EITHER party to the marriage, by mutual agreement of the parties
in the marriage, forwent employment in order to provide household
services. In ONLY that case, there should be a LIMITED amount of alimony
provided to permit the individual to obtain the skills required to become
employable.
> >> I have always said that traditional sexual roles were intended
> >> to strike a certain balance.
> .
> >You are implying an intent to social evolution here which is highly inappropriate.
> .
> Hard to decipher this, but you seem to be saying that
> traditional sexual roles were antithetical to social evolution.
No, I am saying that social evolution HAPPENED, it was not PLANNED.
> Check any neighborhood where divorce and single parenthood
> is high, and you will find greater levels of poverty.
Well, let's see: The cul-de-sac which consititutes my
neighborhood has 23 houses. 4 married couples, 3 with children. 3 sets
of living together, with children, without benefit of marriage. 5 single
people without children. 4 NCPs, 7 CPs. And, trust me, NONE of us are
poor. So, this is not an universal; although I will agree that both
single parenthood and divorce are good predictors of a lower economic
status.
> Traditional
> sexual roles, and marriage, gave father, mother and child all some
> form of support and aid that they needed and thus made possible much
> of the progress in the world.
So would non-traditional sexual roles designed around the concept of
mutual support. I happen to be a professional. Many of my friends are
also professionals, and most of the married ones are two-career families.
When these marriages work, as mine does, it is because the people have
chosen to step OUTSIDE the traditional sex-roles, and divide obligations
based on more pragmatic lines pertaining to their own situation. When
these marriages DON'T work, the most common complaint I have heard is
'She expects too much of me around the house/he doesn't do enough around
the house.'
> >> This balance was made along the lines of
> >> the abilities of men and women and their respective willingness to do
> >> certain jobs.
> .
> >Actually, it had more to do with women being pregnant/having small children to care
> >for than anything else.
> .
> Ahem. The balance was made along the lines of the abilities of
> men and women.
Hardly. A non-pregnant woman who had someone else to care for her
children was perfectly capable of doing all sorts of things, from which
she was barred by her sex.
> >> Women have better fine-motor skills, so naturally they
> >> were better at sewing and weaving.
> .
> >Odd, then, isn't it, that in the Navajo culture, amongst others, it is the men who were
> >primarily the weavers?
> .
> Feminists love to cite an exception they think disproves the
> rule. It doesn't. Are the Navajo weavers doing sacred or ceremonial
> work, or artistic work, or merely performing rote labor?
All three, depending on the use to which the fabric was going to be
put.
> You can
> diddle with snide little examples like this, but the fact remains --
> men have more strength and stamina, women have better fine motor
> skills.
No. ON AVERAGE men have more strength, women have more stamina,
and either sex will have fine motor skills if given sufficient
childhood training therein.
> >> Women have always wanted to spend more
> >> time close to their children, so they did.
> .
> >Until quite recently, women had no choice, in either direction.
> .
> Sure they did. And now that women have all the democratic
> choices they can use, most women still would prefer to stay at home.
Which, of course, explains why the vast majority of women are employed.
> Many who work do so only because they cannot get by on one income any
> more.
How do you know?
> >> Women risked their lives in
> >> childbirth, men risked their lives in dangerous work and protecting
> >> their societies.
> .
> >Or not so dangerous work. It is only in this century that a significant class of women
> >not employed has arisen, too, you know.
> .
> And before the industrial revolution, nearly all work was
> manual.
And, that which wasn't was still the purview of men.
> Now that there is work
> outside the home that is fairly safe and clean, all the sudden we find
> hordes of feminists claiming they're oppressed and wanting to work
> outside the home. Funny thing, though -- you don't hear that from the
> women in blue-collar neighborhoods where the work outside the home
> still tends to be pretty rugged.
You know, I know an awful lot of 'blue-collar' types. Most of their
wives work . . . many of them by choice.
> >> Now feminists want to blame men for all the choices that women
> >> made. And yes, women did make choices.
> .
> >Which were constrained by social acceptance, as were those of men.
> .
> As I said, here's another feminist who wants to blame the
> choices of women on men.
Precisely how am I blaming the choices of women on men?
Chris Owens
Bards
On Wed, 05 Nov 1997 08:50:26 -0800, "Christine A. Owens"
<cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:
>Per wrote:
<snip! snip! snip!>
Chris, be not trolled.
Per just can't get a girlfriend. This has become society's problem in
his head. I really don't think there's any room in there for more than
one person.
Per, just bugger off and deal with it, there's a good boy.
John Reinhagen
Also sprach Bards:
>On Sat, 01 Nov 1997 21:48:12 GMT, pe...@idt.net (Per) wrote:
>Per, I have done you the courtesy of reading your web site (at least
>the bit of it which works, which isn't much - go away and learn HTML),
On this subject you are specifically, factually wrong. Per's HTML works.
Your browser is probably broken.
Of course, given the snotty, stupid tone of the rest of your statements, you
could just be lying.
JCR
--
"It was just an oversight?... I'll send you a little helpful reminder, okay?
You'll notice it because it'll look very much like a subpoena."
-- Congressional investigator Richard Goodwin, in "Quiz Show"
Per
On Wed, 05 Nov 1997 08:50:26 -0800, "Christine A. Owens"
<cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:
>Per wrote:
.
>> On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 09:59:15 -0800, "Christine A. Owens"
>> <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:
.
>> >Per wrote:
.
>> >No, rape is defined as a man-on-woman crime; with being married to the accuser being a
>> >specific defense against the charge. [As is still the case in several US states.]
>> >Now, if a woman is not legally free to accuse her husband of rape, how can she
>> >legitimately be said to have consented to any act of sex?
.
>> Wow, what an amazing leap of illogic. So let's just play
>> along: If a man is not legally free to refuse to support his wife or
>> child, how can he legitimately be said to have consented to any act of
>> support?
.
>He can't.
.
This will come as a surprise to the millions of fathers
throughout history who willing sacrificed for their children. I think
feminists have a difficult time admitting such men exist.
.
[...]
>> P.S.: Feminists have done wonders with distorting the concept
>> that women were supposed to give their husbands sex as part of the
>> marriage contract.
.
>You see, Per, my entire problem with the whole issue is summed up in the
>sentence above. Why is it an assumption that sex is something women
>give their husbands, as opposed to something married people give to each
>other? Why is the obligation only one-way?
.
Now you're just trying to derail the discussion, which was
about the *age-old traditional* forms of marriage. Obviously, if you
read "The Song of Solomon," you realize that sex *was* something that
both partners give to each other, that it's been that way forever, and
that it's even acknowledged in scripture. And I don't know that the
obligation has always been one way, because sometimes the requirement
of intercourse was mutual for both partners. Women could divorce
husbands who were impotent.
Other than that, society had to find a way to make marriage a
stable institution by making it more attractive to MEN, who saw
certain disadvantages in being permanently tied to one women who would
only grow older. And men have always had unilateral marital
responsibilities that women did not have. Men were expected to risk
their lives protecting their wives. No corresponding responsibility
from women, and please don't tell me how much you oppose that, because
it's just words. With all the drawbacks men see in traditional
marriage, society said that one way to bond couples together more
closely was that they were assured of mutual sex.
I'm not saying that these are MY recommendations, just that
that's the way it once was. And I object to the man-bashing feminists
who try to "rule of thumb" these old customs and exaggerate them into
an endorsement of rape.
[...]
.
>> Feminism, with its open
>> hatred of marriage, has tried to undermine it.
>
>Per, I, a feminist, don't hate marriage; in point of fact, I am very
>happily married. However, that doesn't mean that I don't think that
>the TERMS of what constitutes marital obligation should be
>re-examined.
.
To your advantage, of course.
Anyway, the writings of early feminists are clearly on record
as saying marriage was a form of oppression for women, and good old
Betty Friedan even compared it to a Nazi concentration camp.
[...]
>> Thus feminists
>> demand that women can be able to walk away from a marriage and still
>> be supported for life by the labor of a man they have no
>> responsibility toward.
.
>Not this feminist.
.
Of course.
.
[...]
.
>> >> I have always said that traditional sexual roles were intended
>> >> to strike a certain balance.
.
>> >You are implying an intent to social evolution here which is highly inappropriate.
.
>> Hard to decipher this, but you seem to be saying that
>> traditional sexual roles were antithetical to social evolution.
.
>No, I am saying that social evolution HAPPENED, it was not PLANNED.
.
And do you wish to say the American Revolution happened, it
was not planned?
Go as far back into recorded history as you want, and you will
still find societies making laws and customs to plan their societies.
Not all of these laws and customs were perforce good. But the idea
that you could dismiss everything from the Code of Hammurabi (sp?) to
The Enlightenment is astounding.
.
>> Check any neighborhood where divorce and single parenthood
>> is high, and you will find greater levels of poverty.
>
>Well, let's see: The cul-de-sac which consititutes my
>neighborhood has 23 houses. 4 married couples, 3 with children. 3 sets
>of living together, with children, without benefit of marriage. 5 single
>people without children. 4 NCPs, 7 CPs. And, trust me, NONE of us are
>poor. So, this is not an universal; although I will agree that both
>single parenthood and divorce are good predictors of a lower economic
>status.
.
Meaning marriage is NOT antithetical to social evolution.
Thank you.
.
>> Traditional
>> sexual roles, and marriage, gave father, mother and child all some
>> form of support and aid that they needed and thus made possible much
>> of the progress in the world.
.
>So would non-traditional sexual roles designed around the concept of
>mutual support.
.
But they won't give a fatherless child a father. Feminists
seem to think that having a father is optional for a child and does no
harm. And feminists seem to think that THEY are the best judges of
whether children need fathers. Feminist selfishness is extremely
damaging to the little kids who are never given a choice.
[...]
>> Sure they did. And now that women have all the democratic
>> choices they can use, most women still would prefer to stay at home.
.
>Which, of course, explains why the vast majority of women are employed.
.
How can that be when the work force is still about 60% men?
At any rate, I note that you cannot distinguish between "would
prefer to stay home" and "do."
[...]
.
>> Now that there is work
>> outside the home that is fairly safe and clean, all the sudden we find
>> hordes of feminists claiming they're oppressed and wanting to work
>> outside the home. Funny thing, though -- you don't hear that from the
>> women in blue-collar neighborhoods where the work outside the home
>> still tends to be pretty rugged.
.
>You know, I know an awful lot of 'blue-collar' types. Most of their
>wives work . . . many of them by choice.
.
How many of them do the same jobs their husbands do? Or do
they do office/service work while the man does construction work? Be
honest.
.
>> >> Now feminists want to blame men for all the choices that women
>> >> made. And yes, women did make choices.
.
>> >Which were constrained by social acceptance, as were those of men.
.
>> As I said, here's another feminist who wants to blame the
>> choices of women on men.
.
>Precisely how am I blaming the choices of women on men?
.
"Society" is a feminist code word for "men made us do it."
-----
Tired of man-bashing and anti-male stereotypes? Read
Per's MANifesto, a monthly newsletter on anti-male attitudes
and related topics. An informative package of news and humor.
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
Per
On Wed, 05 Nov 1997 13:56:52 GMT, ba...@spamdragon.com (Bards) wrote:
>Per, just bugger off and deal with it, there's a good boy.
.
Let me guess from the language. You're a male feminist, right?
Bards
Y... A.... W.... N.
Killfiled.
the...@pobox.com
In article <oyauwjusaxe...@putc1221144.cts.com>,
"Nick Danger" <nda...@cts.spamTHIS.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 03 Nov 1997 23:05:56 -0600, The_Doge of St. Louis wrote:
>
> :>Do I really have to point out how absurd it is for you to
> :>blithely assume that Dworkin actually represents anyone other than herself
> :>and a few other loose nuts based on nothing more reliable than her own
> :>assertions?
>
> Having "pointed this out", it's up to you to explain how The
> Dworkster appears regularly in panel discussions featured in
> Ms. Magazine, to pick just one venue where this supposed
> 'loose nut' is allowed to vent her spleen.
Since I have no idea what "regularly" means in this case or what
positions she's taking on said panels, I really can't say. I would
assume that "Ms." would be interested in providing outlets for a variety
of views on their panels. Dworkin certainly represents one rather
extremist segment of feminism (which is a pretty ill-defined movement, on
the whole) and has managed to draw lots of media attention to herself,
largely by making asburd and outrageous statements, so I wouldn't be
surprised to find her popping up in various feminist fora.
> Are you also unaware that she packs college auditoriums
> with cheering feminists as she goes about her speaking
> tour?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but surely it has occurred to you that
feminista who disagree strongly with her positions are rather less likely
to pack those auditoriums? In any case, it is my understanding that she
is a rather effective public speaker. I know women who admire her style
while still disagreeing with her more radical positions.
It's not dissimilar, IMO, to the way many black Americans deal with
Farrahkan. They focus on the positive aspects of his message while
disregarding his racism and loony Nation of Islam "theology" (which has,
as far as I can see, almost nothing in common with the real Islamic
religion).
And, of course, there's the tendency for members of a group to pull the
wagons into a circle when a prominent member of ther community is
attacked, even while recognizing that said member has said some things
with which the majority of them strongly disagree.
> This woman is closer to Mainstream Feminism than you
> want to admit.
I rather doubt it. I know a number of women who consider themselves
feminists who think many of Dworkin's more controversial positions are
rubbish.
Ultimately, though, this doesn't matter. Dowrkin and other extremists
are very important to people who are threatened by what they preceive
(correctly or not) as the "feminist agenda", much the way clowns like
Randall Terry are very important to those opposed to the
pro-life/anti-abortion agenda. They're very useful debate fodder and
handy for the old "guilt by association" trick.
Personally, I find that approach rather intellectually dishonest. Face
it: if every feminist in America rose up with one voice tomorros and
repudiated Dworkin's more exteme statements, guys who are threatened by
the idea of treating women as equals would just dig up another fringe
type and start the whole tar-baby process over again.
=============================
The_Doge of St. Louis
Stage, screen, radio
http://www.pobox.com/~thedoge
=============================
Steve Chaney
In article <3461c879....@news.oz.net>, Mike <m...@oz.net> wrote:
When was the last time I ever referred to women as "part of my problem"?
Hello, Mike, any run through DejaNews will point out many posts BY me,
trying to counteract stereotypes aimed at women. You see, if guys can sit
around getting away with that, then so can women, and since I really REALLY
dislike negative comments said about men, well, I can't really like them
said about women, and vice-versa.
The only real way to go is to expect adult, mature and intelligent behavior
from the person you're dating (as in, not hauling ass and leaving you in a
parking lot all by yourself because you told them the relationship can't,
in your eyes, mature into something romantic, or whining about womanizers
and then finding yourself in bed with one time and time again - that kind
of stuff). Looking behind you and screaming about losers and people who
make your dating life most NOT pleasant, is much less productive than
making an effort to focus on the kind of person you would rather be with.
I'm sorry you're still hung up on the memory of me being bitter in the MANY
months past, Mike, but you know, I have one retort for you: get over it.
It hasn't been that way for a year now (even though I still have to get
over my dislike for Los Angeles, but that's people in general =), and as
such you're just beating a straw man.
-- Steve
John Fereira
In article <34668c6e...@news.idt.net>, pe...@idt.net (Per) wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Nov 1997 13:56:52 GMT, ba...@spamdragon.com (Bards) wrote:
>
>
>>Per, just bugger off and deal with it, there's a good boy.
> Let me guess from the language. You're a male feminist, right?
Let me guess (though, taking a look at your web site, it seems to
be a pretty educated guess). You're a misogynist, right?
John Fereira
ja...@cornell.edu
Stop Unsolicited Commercial Email - Join CAUCE (http://www.cauce.org)
Support HR 1748, the anti-spam bill.
Steve Chaney
In article <345F0A...@worldnet.att.net>, <r.so...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Who does represent feminism? Name the national leaders you believe
>represent
>feminism.
The answer to that one is simple. There is a single group which is wholly
dominated by extremists in the feminism movement. They have less than
300,000 members. Yet the media gives them an absolute MONOPOLY over who
gets to pontificate over the airwaves about women's issues.
Yes, you know who they are. The ones who sought to outlaw pornography in
conjunction with the Christian Coalition, and yet also paint the CC as
their WORST enemy, and yet at the same time throw up "freedom of choice"
about abortion (hello, is pornography not freedom of choice also???).
It is none other than....ack!...the National Organization for Women.
-- Steve
Nick Danger
On Wed, 05 Nov 1997 14:02:45 -0600, the...@pobox.com wrote:
:>Face it: if every feminist in America rose up with one voice tomorros and
:>repudiated Dworkin's more exteme statements, guys who are threatened by
:>the idea of treating women as equals would just dig up another fringe
:>type and start the whole tar-baby process over again.
If you're suggesting here that the opposition to organized feminism
consists of "guys who are threatened by the idea of treating women
as equals", I think you need to come in from the 1970's and look around.
Things have changed a bit since you last left the dojo.
It turns out that equality was not the goal of organized feminists. That
was only a smokescreen. What they were really after was preferential
treatment. Imagine our surprise when, with women now a majority of college
students and an even bigger majority of those graduating, feminists
objected to the end of preferential admissions for women. When were
they going to stop, when women were 80% of the students?
Organized feminism recently rejoiced as the last two male-only colleges
in the US were opened to women. There are now only 84 single-sex
colleges left. All are women-only. Was this really a drive for equality?
It's hard to maintain that with a straight face, eh?
The right of an accused to face his accuser, and the prohibition against
hearsay evidence, no longer obtain in the US.... if the accused is male,
the accuser is female, and the crime is on a list of those which are
causes celebre for organized feminism. There is no crime for which
a woman can be tried in which hearsay evidence is admissible, or in
which she does not have the right to face her accuser. Is this really
equality, or is something else going on here? Is feminism really about
creating a legally privileged class who can jail others at whim? It
would indeed seem so, for it was they who pressed for these changes
and lobbied extensively for them.
Any argument that organized feminism is about "equality for women" is no
longer defensible in light of their actual behavior. This is a supremacy
movement that is distinguishable from the white supremacy movement
only in the degree to which it has managed to fool the media into
thinking it's something else.
Possible reasons for opposing them include a concern for basic
civil liberties, a desire for a more even-handed approach to the
adjustment to technologically-changed gender roles, concern
over their tendencies toward censorship, a desire to to see the
continuous male-bashing and demonization of men come to a
merciful end, and a sense that their meddling in education is
starting to border on child abuse as it relates to boys.
Blair Zajac
In article <63pddu$1...@crl.crl.com>, gun...@crl.crl.com (Steve Chaney) wrote:
>In article <schaferE...@netcom.com>, Lenny Schafer
<sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Christine A. Owens <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:
>>-snip-
>>: No, rape is defined as a man-on-woman crime; with being married to the
>> accuser being a
>>: specific defense against the charge. [As is still the case in several
>> US states.]
>>: Now, if a woman is not legally free to accuse her husband of rape, how
>> can she
>>: legitimately be said to have consented to any act of sex?
>>
>>Rape shield laws, for example, put the accused at a distinct
>>disadvantage in defending themselves against false accusations, a very
>>real and common ploy used by many women with other agendas.
>
>It is also known that in many courts, women who are victims of actual rape,
>are the ones who get put on trial, hard core. Her sexual history is put on
>display for everyone (if they can dig it up). Rape cases can EASILY turn
>unfair for either side when the court strays away from calling it right
>down the center, namely sticking to one issue: did she say yes or did she
>say no?
>
>
>-- Steve
That is a nice theoretical statement. When one accuses another of a certain
act, without any independent verification, then it is a matter of testing
the veracity of the accuser.
There is no easy answer to the question. Many states now have a law saying
that one cannot question the sexual life of the accusor. One wonders how
many innocent men have been falsely convicted as a consequence of these
laws?
--
Zajac says, 'Laws are like paper money -- they are only valid as long as
people have faith in them.'
Per
On Wed, 05 Nov 1997 16:21:19 GMT, ba...@spamdragon.com (Bards) wrote:
>Y... A.... W.... N.
>
>Killfiled.
.
There is a God.
.
Max Burke
> Per wrote in message <34662820...@news.idt.net>...
>On Wed, 05 Nov 1997 16:21:19 GMT, ba...@spamdragon.com (Bards) wrote:
>
>>Y... A.... W.... N.
>>
>>Killfiled.
>.
> There is a God.
>.
AMEN to that!! 8-))
---------------------------------------------------------
# Moses couldn't believe it. He went back to GOD.
"Tell me again. The Arabs get all the oil and we get
the end cut off our WHAT?"
The serious book of one liners.
By George Coote.
GAP Publishing 1997.
--
M...@ihug.co.nz
Replace MLV with mlvburke to email me
Ges Hu
In <schaferE...@netcom.com> Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com>
writes:
>-snip-
> Per writes:
>: > P.S.: Feminists have done wonders with distorting the
concept
>: > that women were supposed to give their husbands sex as part of the
>: > marriage contract.
>
>: You see, Per, my entire problem with the whole issue is summed up in
the
>: sentence above. Why is it an assumption that sex is something women
>: give their husbands, as opposed to something married people give to
each
>: other? Why is the obligation only one-way?
It is because our culture has to very stupid tradition I call
ONEWAYASKOUT. Onewayaskout...whereby the man always has to be
the one to risk direct rejection by showing the direct interest
in the woman..results in men being sex deprived until they beg
enough to get into position to hit a home run. When a man's
discomfort due to sex deprivation becomes greater than his fear
of rejection..he pursues the woman.
Because of all this...a whole series of romance make believe between
men and women has been built up in our society.
But no matter how you cut it...onewayaskout has resulted in a
breed of sex beggers. They are called men. ges hu
>
>Biology. Biology leans it heavily one way, (but not "only" one-way.
It's
>because for women, sex is a sellers market. Why's that? Pay close
>attention so you won't forget the explanation again: sex is far more
>risky an activity for women, than it is for men. Why? Because only
>women give birth -- a process that makes survival for women more
>difficult than for men.
really..
then how come men live , on average, less years than do women. ges hu
>
>How easy it seems how some can forget basic birds and bees facts when
they
>get in the way of psuedo-egalitarian ideology.
>
>: > The idea was that the husband
>: > would offer shelter, food, a steady income from his labor while
the
>: > woman would offer sex, domestic skills, and childcare.
which raises the question... who, the man or the woman, has the
greatest urge to have children? If it is the woman, then she is
basically getting what she wants anyways and is using the man
to fund it. ges hu
>
>: Why is sex a one-way gift?
>
>Because generally women can die from having sex. Men generally do
not.
and a man can die while crossing the street. ges hu
>This is your brain (picture two unbroken eggs). This is your brain
on
>drugs (picture two eggs frying in pan).... Get it? Because I don't
think
>it can be explained much more simpler...
>
>: > Feminism, with its open
>: > hatred of marriage, has tried to undermine it.
>
>: Per, I, a feminist, don't hate marriage; in point of fact, I am very
>: happily married. However, that doesn't mean that I don't think that
>: the TERMS of what constitutes marital obligation should be
>: re-examined.
>
>For yourself maybe. But you and the government ought to butt out of
>everyone else's. It's between the two marrying partners only.
>
>: > But feminism's approach
>: > has always been to strengthen the man's traditional responsibility
>: > while freeing women from any responsibility at all.
>
>: Not this feminist. I view marriage as a mutual obligation to
provide
>: companionship and support.
>
>Then you are misusing the term "feminist." There is nothing to do
with
>"mutual obligations" when it comes to mainstream practical feminism.
>Equality is merely a carefully chosen feminist agitprop employed in
>self-service only e.g. feminist support of affirmative action
>discriminations.
>
>Your personal beliefs do not define the term "feminism" no matter what
>those beliefs are.
>
>-lenny
>--
>using spamgard(tm). To send me email, include the password Lenny in
the
>Subject: line. "Et Hoc
Tuie"
Marg Petersen
In article <63rore$e...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
Ges Hu <mxb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>But no matter how you cut it...onewayaskout has resulted in a
>breed of sex beggers. They are called men. ges hu
>
[snip]
>which raises the question... who, the man or the woman, has the
>greatest urge to have children? If it is the woman, then she is
>basically getting what she wants anyways and is using the man
>to fund it. ges hu
Hmmmm, I would say that for *some* women their urge to have
children is at least as strong as some men's urge to have sex.
It usually works out for both. :-)
Marg
--
Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~goddess
"At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
Christine A. Owens
Lenny Schafer wrote:
>
> : You see, Per, my entire problem with the whole issue is summed up in the
> : sentence above. Why is it an assumption that sex is something women
> : give their husbands, as opposed to something married people give to each
> : other? Why is the obligation only one-way?
>
> because for women, sex is a sellers market. Why's that? Pay close
> attention so you won't forget the explanation again: sex is far more
> risky an activity for women, than it is for men. Why? Because only
> women give birth -- a process that makes survival for women more
> difficult than for men.
However, as we all know, pregnancy is not a common outcome of any given
act of sexual intercourse; and, even people well-educated in biology do
not necessarily think of pregnancy when they are contemplating a specific
sexual act. Further, in the traditional view of marriage, giving a man
children and giving him sex are considered different issues. Finally,
contraception has existed for thousands of years, albeit much more
effectively recently. Therefore, this is NOT an answer to the question
of why sex was viewed as something a woman gave a man.
> : > Feminism, with its open
> : > hatred of marriage, has tried to undermine it.
>
> : Per, I, a feminist, don't hate marriage; in point of fact, I am very
> : happily married. However, that doesn't mean that I don't think that
> : the TERMS of what constitutes marital obligation should be
> : re-examined.
>
> For yourself maybe. But you and the government ought to butt out of
> everyone else's. It's between the two marrying partners only.
There are two ways of looking at this issue. First, I agree that the
specifics of any marital relationship should be negotiated between the
partners to the marriage. However, there is nothing wrong with wanting
to change the way that society, in general, views the terms of the
marital contract.
> : > But feminism's approach
> : > has always been to strengthen the man's traditional responsibility
> : > while freeing women from any responsibility at all.
>
> : Not this feminist. I view marriage as a mutual obligation to provide
> : companionship and support.
>
> Then you are misusing the term "feminist."
Hardly. Feminism is the philosophy that no woman should be barred
from opportunities for which she is qualified, or the education to
become qualified for those opportunities, solely because of her sex.
> Your personal beliefs do not define the term "feminism" no matter what
> those beliefs are.
Neither do yours. And, attempting to redefine feminism as what SOME
self-identifying feminists claim to be women's causes -- as you regularly
do -- is wrong.
Chris Owens
Ross Hayden
In article <3461E5...@redsuspenders.com>,> Lenny Schafer wrote:
> >
> > : You see, Per, my entire problem with the whole issue is summed up in the
> > : sentence above. Why is it an assumption that sex is something women
> > : give their husbands, as opposed to something married people give to each
> > : other? Why is the obligation only one-way?
> >
> > because for women, sex is a sellers market. Why's that? Pay close
> > attention so you won't forget the explanation again: sex is far more
> > risky an activity for women, than it is for men. Why? Because only
> > women give birth -- a process that makes survival for women more
> > difficult than for men.
>
> However, as we all know, pregnancy is not a common outcome of any given
> act of sexual intercourse; and, even people well-educated in biology do
> not necessarily think of pregnancy when they are contemplating a specific
> sexual act. Further, in the traditional view of marriage, giving a man
> children and giving him sex are considered different issues. Finally,
> contraception has existed for thousands of years, albeit much more
> effectively recently. Therefore, this is NOT an answer to the question
> of why sex was viewed as something a woman gave a man.
I don't really have this view directly, but my answer would be that men
are by nature almost always ready for sex. In other words, and in
comparison to women, it doesn't take a whole lot to get us excited. The
view that sex is something a woman allows, or gives to her man probably
stems from this fact.
> > : > But feminism's approach
> > : > has always been to strengthen the man's traditional responsibility
> > : > while freeing women from any responsibility at all.
> >
> > : Not this feminist. I view marriage as a mutual obligation to provide
> > : companionship and support.
> >
> > Then you are misusing the term "feminist."
>
> Hardly. Feminism is the philosophy that no woman should be barred
> from opportunities for which she is qualified, or the education to
> become qualified for those opportunities, solely because of her sex.
It has been proved in this group many times that today's feminism has
very little to do with the needs and wants of women. Just so we don't
get further into the argument of "my feminism vs. your feminism," take a
look at some of the proceedings from the UN Confernce on Women in Beijing
a few years back. Someone somewhere high up in the UN saw it fitting to
invite some of the most wacko, leftist women I've ever heard, as speakers
for the event: speakers whose ideas and philosophies were backwardly
anachronistic and varied starkly from the choices made by women today.
If an organization of 185 nations (including all of the Western world)
thinks that is feminism, then whatever you practice, if it is not
similar, is not feminism.
Ross
Daniel Mocsny
Per wrote:
> Tired of man-bashing and anti-male stereotypes?
Actually, no. These are always great conversation starters.
Whenever a woman spouts off about what she doesn't like about
men, it's very easy to ask her some simple questions and get
her to talk about what she likes in a relationship.
If the world was nice to men, we'd let down our guard and go
soft. We wouldn't have to work twice as hard to get four
times as far, and that might undermine our ability to rule
the world.
--
--- Daniel J. Mocsny
* The Navigator *
Christine A. Owens wrote:
> Lenny Schafer wrote:
> >
> > : You see, Per, my entire problem with the whole issue is summed up in the
> > : sentence above. Why is it an assumption that sex is something women
> > : give their husbands, as opposed to something married people give to each
> > : other? Why is the obligation only one-way?
> >
> > Biology. Biology leans it heavily one way, (but not "only" one-way. It's
> > because for women, sex is a sellers market. Why's that? Pay close
> > attention so you won't forget the explanation again: sex is far more
> > risky an activity for women, than it is for men. Why? Because only
> > women give birth -- a process that makes survival for women more
> > difficult than for men.
>
> However, as we all know, pregnancy is not a common outcome of any given
> act of sexual intercourse; and, even people well-educated in biology do
> not necessarily think of pregnancy when they are contemplating a specific
> sexual act. Further, in the traditional view of marriage, giving a man
> children and giving him sex are considered different issues. Finally,
> contraception has existed for thousands of years, albeit much more
> effectively recently. Therefore, this is NOT an answer to the question
> of why sex was viewed as something a woman gave a man.
>
> > : > Feminism, with its open
> > : > hatred of marriage, has tried to undermine it.
> >
> > : Per, I, a feminist, don't hate marriage; in point of fact, I am very
> > : happily married. However, that doesn't mean that I don't think that
> > : the TERMS of what constitutes marital obligation should be
> > : re-examined.
> >
> > For yourself maybe. But you and the government ought to butt out of
> > everyone else's. It's between the two marrying partners only.
>
> There are two ways of looking at this issue. First, I agree that the
> specifics of any marital relationship should be negotiated between the
> partners to the marriage. However, there is nothing wrong with wanting
> to change the way that society, in general, views the terms of the
> marital contract.
>
> > : > But feminism's approach
> > : > has always been to strengthen the man's traditional responsibility
> > : > while freeing women from any responsibility at all.
> >
> > : Not this feminist. I view marriage as a mutual obligation to provide
> > : companionship and support.
> >
> > Then you are misusing the term "feminist."
>
> Hardly. Feminism is the philosophy that no woman should be barred
> from opportunities for which she is qualified, or the education to
> become qualified for those opportunities, solely because of her sex.
>
> > Your personal beliefs do not define the term "feminism" no matter what
> > those beliefs are.
>
> Neither do yours. And, attempting to redefine feminism as what SOME
> self-identifying feminists claim to be women's causes -- as you regularly
> do -- is wrong.
>
> Chris Owens
*************************************
Correct Chris,
John.
************************************
It's maddening.
Carol Ann Hemingway
-----------
I don't think it matters at all. If an American man
marries a foreign woman in a foreign land, he will enjoy
the same kinds of culture they enjoy there; if he brings
her to America, she will enjoy the culture we have here.
How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm after the've seen
Paris? (New York) :]
----------
>
>
>> >What does the man get? He gets a loving wife, who respects him,
>> >and wants him to be everything that feminist women seem to
>> >despise in marriage.
>>
>> ----------
>> It it works out, I would call it a good thing for all
>> concerned, including the women who didn't have to go
>> thru the discovery that the American man in question
>> wanted a subservient instead of an equal.
>
>Oh boy, she's got me. I guess I'd better come clean before Tersian
>or Jim Dutton find out; I am looking for a foreign bride who is into
>Confucious. She must walk behind me at all times, and never step on
>my shadow. She must stay home unless accompanied by me. She must do
>all the cooking and cleaning, and of course, bear only baby boys.
>Oh, and the most important thing - she must periodically dust that
>portrait in the living room of Chairman Jiang, the one with him
>wearing the 3-pointed hat during his trip to Pennsylvania. =]
---------
Actually, it doesn't take all that. The only thing she
MUST do is to defer to you in all things instead of questioning
what it is (other than freedom) that she wants.
Lefty
>
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <63rore$e...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> mxb...@ix.netcom.com(Ges Hu)
writes:
>
(edit)
>It is because our culture has to very stupid tradition I call
>ONEWAYASKOUT. Onewayaskout...whereby the man always has to be
>the one to risk direct rejection by showing the direct interest
>in the woman..results in men being sex deprived until they beg
>enough to get into position to hit a home run. When a man's
>discomfort due to sex deprivation becomes greater than his fear
>of rejection..he pursues the woman.
>
>Because of all this...a whole series of romance make believe between
>men and women has been built up in our society.
>
>But no matter how you cut it...onewayaskout has resulted in a
>breed of sex beggers. They are called men. ges hu
----------
Is there some study or evidence to show that women WANT the
romantic (sexual) company of men as much as men WANT the romantic
(sexual) company of women? I have never seen one. Asking
someone out demands the desire to do so. If women haven't
the same desire, why should they ask men out on the same
basis? In fact, most of the time, I'd rather be out with my
friends. BTW, my friends come in most colors and both genders,
and friendship need not preclude sex. :]
Lefty
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Biology. Biology leans it heavily one way, (but not "only" one-way.
>It's
>>because for women, sex is a sellers market. Why's that? Pay close
>>attention so you won't forget the explanation again: sex is far more
>>risky an activity for women, than it is for men. Why? Because only
>>women give birth -- a process that makes survival for women more
>>difficult than for men.
>
>
>really..
>then how come men live , on average, less years than do women. ges hu
>>
>>How easy it seems how some can forget basic birds and bees facts when
>they
>>get in the way of psuedo-egalitarian ideology.
>>
>>: > The idea was that the husband
>>: > would offer shelter, food, a steady income from his labor while
>the
>>: > woman would offer sex, domestic skills, and childcare.
>
>
>
>which raises the question... who, the man or the woman, has the
>greatest urge to have children? If it is the woman, then she is
>basically getting what she wants anyways and is using the man
>to fund it. ges hu
>
>>
>>: Why is sex a one-way gift?
>>
>>Because generally women can die from having sex. Men generally do
>not.
>
>
>and a man can die while crossing the street. ges hu
>
>>This is your brain (picture two unbroken eggs). This is your brain
>on
>>drugs (picture two eggs frying in pan).... Get it? Because I don't
>think
>>it can be explained much more simpler...
>>
>>: > Feminism, with its open
>>: > hatred of marriage, has tried to undermine it.
>>
>>: Per, I, a feminist, don't hate marriage; in point of fact, I am
very
>
>>: happily married. However, that doesn't mean that I don't think
that
>
>>: the TERMS of what constitutes marital obligation should be
>>: re-examined.
>>
>>For yourself maybe. But you and the government ought to butt out of
>>everyone else's. It's between the two marrying partners only.
>>
>>: > But feminism's approach
>>: > has always been to strengthen the man's traditional
responsibility
>>: > while freeing women from any responsibility at all.
>>
>>: Not this feminist. I view marriage as a mutual obligation to
>provide
>>: companionship and support.
>>
>>Then you are misusing the term "feminist." There is nothing to do
>with
>>"mutual obligations" when it comes to mainstream practical feminism.
>>Equality is merely a carefully chosen feminist agitprop employed in
>>self-service only e.g. feminist support of affirmative action
>>discriminations.
>>
>>Your personal beliefs do not define the term "feminism" no matter
what
>
>>those beliefs are.
>>
Christine A. Owens
Daniel Mocsny wrote:
>
> > There are two ways of looking at this issue. First, I agree that the
> > specifics of any marital relationship should be negotiated between the
> > partners to the marriage. However, there is nothing wrong with wanting
> > to change the way that society, in general, views the terms of the
> > marital contract.
>
> then it probably benefits some group of people in its present
> form. If you want to change that thing into something else,
> then you are initiating a conflict with the people who like
> things the way they are now. Whether there is "something wrong"
> with that depends entirely on who you ask.
>
> I also find it puzzling that you can bounce so easily from
> individual freedom to societal control. If individual marriage
> partners are free to negotiate their own contracts, then
> the way "society" "views" that contract will reflect the
> distribution of choices that all the individual couples make.
> If you want to change society's "view," then you must want
> to change the choices of a substantial number of couples.
> How can you simultaneously favor individual freedom while
> wanting to influence the behavior of a substantial number of
> individuals?
My point is that, because of the way society views marriage, individual
marriage partners may not realize that they are free to negotiate their
own modus vivendi . . . socialization plays a very strong part in what
people view as the POSSIBLE choices. I don't care if every other couple
in the country chooses a 'traditional' marriage, as long as they also
acknowledge my right to choose something else. The point being that it
should be a choice, not necessarily an automatically assumed 'right way'.
> > Hardly. Feminism is the philosophy that no woman should be barred
> > from opportunities for which she is qualified, or the education to
> > become qualified for those opportunities, solely because of her sex.
>
> By your definition, all those women who agitated for affirmative
> action were either not feminists, or they were not interested in
> equality, because affirmative action is precisely about barring
> white males from opportunities for which they are qualified, solely
> because of their sex and ethnicity.
Suprise! I do not agree with AA as it was implemented in this country.
> Are willing to say to a woman who supports affirmative action,
> to her face, that she is not a feminist?
Yes.
> Have you ever actually
> done this?
Yes.
> Also, how do you define "for which she is qualified"? There are
> feminists today, serving in government and making public policy,
> who use the formula of looking at the proportion of women or minorities
> who are working in a given field to infer the existence of
> discrimination. That is, rather than examine any person's actual
> qualifications, they simply infer the existence of discrimination
> from disproportionate representation.
Qualified means 'can do the job'; NOT, 'we need more fill-in-the-blank'
doing this job'.
> There is much evidence to suggest that equal opportunity will
> never yield equal outcomes.
And, I don't expect it to do so. However, whenever you see a
high-status, high-compensation, high-demand job type being filled
almost exclusively by ONE type of person, the question of
discrimination should be examined.
> Human diversity *means* everybody will get a different result out
> of the same opportunity.
Of course.
> This is not to deny the obvious existence of discrimination against
> women and blacks, but simply to point out that there are limits to
> how equal unequal people can be made to be. There are plenty of
> outspoken feminists who object to scientific research into the
> biological differences between the sexes.
I don't. I find it fascinating [being a biologist]. However, I have
never heard of a difference so great -- or where the overlap was not
inclusive of most of the population -- that it should, a priori, bar
any person from non-sex-based opportunity. [Obviously when seeking a
sperm donor/surrogate mother, for example, one is limited to only part of
the the total population . . . that is a valid sex-based difference.]
> Also, why do "feminists" so often quote the "60 cents on the dollar"
> statistic as though it means something?
Because it grabs headlines?
> Where were you when these self-identifying feminists were defining
> feminism? Were you writing books, holding press conferences, carrying
> placards, writing letters to the editor, posting on Usenet, or doing
> anything else to get your alternative definition of feminism to the
> public?
I do not author books, nor speak in public. I do write letters, and,
obviously, post on Usenet.
> It is somewhat disingenuous for you to enjoy the freedom and legal
> advantages that the "bra-burning" feminists of yore won for you,
> while at the same time denying that these women speak for you in any way.
They didn't speak for me. They spoke for themselves. All in all, I
find most of them to be a tad over the top.
Chris Owens
laughin...@hotmail.com
In article <63tpro$1...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
(snip)
> >Oh boy, she's got me. I guess I'd better come clean before Tersian
> >or Jim Dutton find out; I am looking for a foreign bride who is into
> >Confucious. She must walk behind me at all times, and never step on
> >my shadow. She must stay home unless accompanied by me. She must do
> >all the cooking and cleaning, and of course, bear only baby boys.
> >Oh, and the most important thing - she must periodically dust that
> >portrait in the living room of Chairman Jiang, the one with him
> >wearing the 3-pointed hat during his trip to Pennsylvania. =]
>
> ---------
> Actually, it doesn't take all that. The only thing she
> MUST do is to defer to you in all things instead of questioning
> what it is (other than freedom) that she wants.
>
> Lefty
> >
I can think of a certain Islamic terrorist group that would make 'ol Max
feel right at home!
Allan Cybulskie
Carol Ann Hemingway <lef...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<63u06o$d...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>...
> In <63rore$e...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com> mxb...@ix.netcom.com(Ges Hu)
> writes:
> >
>
> (edit)
>
> >It is because our culture has to very stupid tradition I call
> >ONEWAYASKOUT. Onewayaskout...whereby the man always has to be
> >the one to risk direct rejection by showing the direct interest
> >in the woman..results in men being sex deprived until they beg
> >enough to get into position to hit a home run. When a man's
> >discomfort due to sex deprivation becomes greater than his fear
> >of rejection..he pursues the woman.
> >
> >Because of all this...a whole series of romance make believe between
> >men and women has been built up in our society.
> >
> >But no matter how you cut it...onewayaskout has resulted in a
> >breed of sex beggers. They are called men. ges hu
>
> ----------
> Is there some study or evidence to show that women WANT the
> romantic (sexual) company of men as much as men WANT the romantic
> (sexual) company of women? I have never seen one. Asking
> someone out demands the desire to do so. If women haven't
> the same desire, why should they ask men out on the same
> basis? In fact, most of the time, I'd rather be out with my
> friends. BTW, my friends come in most colors and both genders,
> and friendship need not preclude sex. :]
>
Considering all the studies that show that women want to get married, and
all the articles in women's magazines aimed at getting women into
relationships, and all the books aimed at getting women into relationships,
and the fact that some women ARE starting to ask men out DESPITE the fact
that it isn't considered to be the "natural" form of dating, I think it's
pretty safe to say that women, in general, want men as much as men, in
general, want women.
Are you going to claim that all through traditional courtship women didn't
want men because they didn't ask them out?
--
Allan Cybulskie
" 'Do you ever feel lonely?' ' Every time I awake'
'Does your heart ever break? ' 'Every time I awake'
'Do you ever feel lonely?' 'Every time I awake'
'Do you think it's a mistake?' 'Every time I awake' "
-- from "Promises" by Frozen Ghost
tst...@tcmail.frco.com
In article <346314...@redsuspenders.com>,> I find it fascinating [being a biologist]. .....<plus a plethora of intelligent discourse>
May we have your permission to clone you? I simply love rational people
who refuse to pander!
-Tim
Kris R.
Kris R. wrote: I have not followed all of this thread, but I will just
jump in and offer MHO.:) due to self experience.
> Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> In <63pc1l$q...@crl.crl.com> gun...@crl.com (Steve Chaney) writes:
> >
> lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
> >>
> >> In <01bce404$f82f9000$2bf131ca@default> "Max Burke"
> >> <Max_...@nowhere.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> In <01bce358$1e32bc80$17a11dcb@default> "Max Burke"
> >> >> <Max_...@nowhere.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> >Maybe the men who do take 'foreign' wives, find that American
> >> >> >women are no longer capable of having a normal relationship
I don't think that is the reason. I think they are often more liberated,
as to not put up with all the bullshit they hear sometimes .. (sorry).
Whereas a lot of other cultures _still_ emphasize on women being the
"silent partner" in relationship, kind of "being seen but not heard" at
all times?
> >>
> >> >> ---------
> >> >> That _could_ be; or, perhaps women fleeing a bad
> >> >> situation have reason to be complacent, until
> >> >> somthing better comes along.
Very few of them may be fleeing bad situations, perhaps in asian
countries? Generally though, not from western Europe. And I think the
rate of marriages w/ western Europeans and Asians are probably about
equal. (guessing!) Here in Florida it is at least that obvious.
> >> >The foreign wives they marry sure do get an improved 'situation'
> >> >(for the majority of these marriages), they get citizenship of
> their>> >husband's country, they get a vastly improved standard of
> living,>> >and they get their basic human rights protected by law, and
> >> >political freedom.
Hmmm I would not say the majority here. Maybe at best half of them. The
other half loses everything and makes a bad trade!! (self experience) I
left a great job, excellen pay, had everything I could possibly want,
lot's of friends - a life! And what did I trade it in for? Well, now
meanwhile I recovered, but then when I moved here, it was a tiny
apartment, with my belongings (what was left) stacked up against the
walls, with a husband who suddenly had amnesia of all the plans made
together, for a happy retirement in the future. I was devastated,
depressed, totally in distress, and faught for 6 long months to keep the
relationship going. Then came a point where I woke up and realized,it
was not going to happen - so I left. I did come back to Florida, but now
have a "little life" again, not much but better than before.
So, in the wake of this I realized I had lost all my posessions, my
lifetime savings, almost my sanity and my "identity" for a while at
least until I recovered from it (approx. 2 years).
> >>
> >> ------------
> >> This is correct. I know two men who both were divorced
> >> (several times) from American wives. They are brothers
> >> one was married to a gal from Russia; the other wife
> >> was oriental; the marriages lasted just long enough
> >> to assure citizenship.
> >> -------------------------------
I see a lot of people (military) here in Fla. THey have grown kids, seem
to have a long and happy relationship and still married. Most of them
are oriental women, and seem to have stuck w/ the guys. Very few I see
that are divorced later.
> >
> >That only proves that those 2 particular men that you are referring
> >to, did not have what it takes. They either marry women who are
> >wrong for them (for instance, someone who wants something besides
> >what they can offer in the long run), or they screw up the
> >relationship by virtue of personality flaws, or both. In any case,
> >these 2 men are doing something drastically wrong, and whether or
> >not they married someone from outside the country or within, the
> >end result is the same. It does not reflect upon the question of
> >whether or not marrying foreign women is good or bad.
No, it doesn't, because I know a lot of couples who are happily married
for many years and are from different cultures.
>
> -----------
> I don't think it matters at all. If an American man
> marries a foreign woman in a foreign land, he will enjoy
> the same kinds of culture they enjoy there; if he brings
> her to America, she will enjoy the culture we have here.
> How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm after the've seen
> Paris? (New York) :]
> ----------
> >
> >> >What does the man get? He gets a loving wife, who respects him,
> >> >and wants him to be everything that feminist women seem to
> >> >despise in marriage.
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> It it works out, I would call it a good thing for all
> >> concerned, including the women who didn't have to go
> >> thru the discovery that the American man in question
> >> wanted a subservient instead of an equal.
THAT is unfortunately true in some cases. Well, mine was one of them.
After being here for several months, he still did not help me find the
drivers license office or a used car. So one day I had enough and
ventured out to get those things. When I came home and said I have a car
and drivers license...he only said.."Idon't know what you are in a hurry
for?" and "I knew you'd go out and do what you want anyway"....later
when we had real trouble he even said "what do you want with a job, a
car, you can be home and wait for me"... to a woman who had a career
before and wanted to stay independent. He hated that and often said
that.
> >
> >Oh boy, she's got me. I guess I'd better come clean before Tersian
> >or Jim Dutton find out; I am looking for a foreign bride who is into
> >Confucious. She must walk behind me at all times, and never step on
> >my shadow. She must stay home unless accompanied by me. She must do
> >all the cooking and cleaning, and of course, bear only baby boys.
> >Oh, and the most important thing - she must periodically dust that
> >portrait in the living room of Chairman Jiang, the one with him
> >wearing the 3-pointed hat during his trip to Pennsylvania. =]
>
> ---------
> Actually, it doesn't take all that. The only thing she
> MUST do is to defer to you in all things instead of questioning
> what it is (other than freedom) that she wants.
>
> Lefty
> >
--
Kris ;) *the resident ALIEN of ss, but not green in color*
~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
visit my website:
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Lights/5515
I did nothing today and still got paid.
Dilbert
Disclaimer:
"This post has NO COPYRIGHT 1997 [krisrob], do the phuck
what you want with it for all I care, i'm not an egomaniac USENET
poster ;) support collective USENET anarchy, repost writings at will.
Keep wannabe writers and backseat lawyers off the wire."
Mark-Allen (copied, altered and used for my own
purposes)