Women are better fighters than men
roger_d...@yahoo.com
> Because men think with their penises and women with their brains.Many
> men are killed while wanking, because they are penis-controlled.
I agree. Now please use your brain to focus on sucking my dick.
Hyerdahl1
>From: roger_d...@yahoo.com
>Date: 4/11/2004 5:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <4079AB44.10188.51AECED@localhost>
She'd have to be able to find it first; do you have some sort of magnification
device?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Each colony is a family unit, comprising a single egg-laying female ...The
workers cooperate in the food gathering, nest building and rearing offspring.
Males are reared only at times of year when their presence is required.
(Secret Life of Bees)
connor_a
> She'd have to be able to find it first; do you have some sort of magnification> device?
Most women like yurself can only spurt blood, puss and gastric juice;
men of almost any age can sperm a new generation via a younger
generation of women.
Women think with their 'hearts', men with their brains - hence few, if
any equal inventions by women - feminine women at least.
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/12/2004 5:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <6688b088.04041...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20040412112501...@mb-m02.aol.com>...
>
> She'd have to be able to find it first; do you have some sort of
>magnification> device?
>
>Most women like yurself can only spurt blood, puss and gastric juice; men of
almost any age can sperm a new generation via a younger>generation of women.
Hon, women of any age can perform the sex act long after men like you have
flaccid dick problems, AND women can have a family with or without any specific
man. I'd call that a win.
>>Women think with their 'hearts', men with their brains - hence few, if>any
equal inventions by women - feminine women at least.
>
Women will continue to do everything men do plus gestate; they just won't
gestate for you, dear. You should really get over the fact that a woman took
your job and had children.
Jayne Kulikauskas
"howldog" <no...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c92a9c1a2d77f63...@news.teranews.com...
> On 14 Apr 2004 14:27:44 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>
>
> >Women will continue to do everything men do plus gestate;
>
>
>
> that again.
>
> they cant produce sperm. then you'll just ignore that truth and say,
> they dont need too, but thats beside the point. the truth is, "women"
> CANNOT do everything "men" do. They CANNOT produce sperm, whether they
> "need" an individual man to do it or not.
>
> they wont do many things, as individuals, on average, near as well as
> individual men, on average.
[]
Exactly. As long as Hyerdahl keeps making her claim that women can do
everything that men can, she destroys her credibility. There are
significant differences between the sexes. There are going to be some
things that, on average, men do better than women can. There are going to
be some things that, on average, women do better than men. Making a baby is
something that takes both a man and a woman to do.
Jayne
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/14/04 8:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7c92a9c1a2d77f63...@news.teranews.com>
>
>On 14 Apr 2004 14:27:44 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>
>
>>Women will continue to do everything men do plus gestate;
>
>
>GAK
>
>that again.
Why not? It's true.
>
>they cant produce sperm. then you'll just ignore that truth and say, they dont
need too, but thats beside the point. the truth is, "women">CANNOT do
everything "men" do. They CANNOT produce sperm, whether they>"need" an
individual man to do it or not.
>
Well, the implication is that women are doing everything OF VALUE that men do.
Since producing sperm has no greater value that producing ova, the two are
akin.
>they wont do many things, as individuals, on average, near as well
as>individual men, on average.
And no man can gestate. AND, women do indeed (on the average) do many things
better than men just as men may do many things better than women. It works
both ways dear, and still, women are doing everything having value that men are
doing PLUS GESTATING.
Ken&Laura Chaddock
>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>From: conn...@hotmail.com (connor_a)
>>Date: 4/12/2004 5:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <6688b088.04041...@posting.google.com>
>>
>>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>>news:<20040412112501...@mb-m02.aol.com>...
>>
>>She'd have to be able to find it first; do you have some sort of
>>magnification> device?
>>
>>Most women like yurself can only spurt blood, puss and gastric juice; men of
>
> almost any age can sperm a new generation via a younger>generation of women.
>
> Hon, women of any age can perform the sex act long after men like you have
> flaccid dick problems
Not so true there Parg, a little KY jelly goes a long way however, the
big *V* (and now others) have leveled the playing field and
unfortunately for you bitter girlies, after about 28 you have such a
rapidly declining fertility that by 38 it's almost impossible to get
pregnant while a man...puffed up with Viagra or not...can plant his
fertile seed between the legs of some sweet young thing virtually
indefinately...and "sweet young things" are a dime a dozen for older,
afluent men...
, AND women can have a family with or without any specific
> man. I'd call that a win.
>
>
>>>Women think with their 'hearts', men with their brains - hence few, if>any
>
> equal inventions by women - feminine women at least.
>
> Women will continue to do everything men do plus gestate; they just won't
> gestate for you, dear. You should really get over the fact that a woman took
> your job and had children.
Young women will, older women, alas, will not...
...Ken
Ken&Laura Chaddock
>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>From: conn...@hotmail.com (connor_a)
>>Date: 4/12/2004 5:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <6688b088.04041...@posting.google.com>
>>
>>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
> Hon, women of any age can perform the sex act long after men like you have
> flaccid dick problems,
Well, a bit of KY jelly can go a long way but once she hits 28 her
fertility is dropping so fast that well before she hits menopause she's
effectively infertile where as the big *V* (and several others) have
done wonders for, ah...flagging...men and unlike a post menopausal
woman, an older man, inflated by Viagra *can* still plant his (potent)
seed between the legs of some sweet young thing...something no woman can
do...
AND women can have a family with or without any specific
> man. I'd call that a win.
I don't know, sperm banks *are* drying up rapidly AND most women would
rather know the father of their child...even if it's so they can assure
themselves they aren't carrying the child of an axe murderer...
> Women will continue to do everything men do
A woman can't father a child
plus gestate;
They can't gestate after menopause while a man can father a child at
virtually any age...
...Ken
connor_a
> Hon, women of any age can perform the sex act long after men like you have
> flaccid dick problems, AND women can have a family with or without any specific> man. I'd call that a win.
... viagra, Testosterone, all saviors of the "dickie knee" I'd call
that a WIN.
WASUPs! (Women As Sexists Under Patriachy) have every reason to FEAR
equality, Arlington as a start point for sharing the burdens isn't a
feminist goal, nor is any other of 'this work'.
>
> Women will continue to do everything men do plus gestate; they just won't
> gestate for you, dear.
In 0.5% of the domain of masculine, yes of course women 'do
everything' just in teeeny weeeny numbers compared to men ;-)
>You should really get over the fact that a woman took > your job and
had children.
>
WASUP's! like YOU aren't capable of gestating, Connor can spear, sperm
and cunt hunt at will. l-)
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/14/2004 9:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <c5jo7t$2hi7l$1...@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>
You're wrong on several counts Dave Sim's 'Jayne' :-) First, we don't judge
one person's role choices by what more of her sex do than the other sex. We
don't limit roles based on what you think more men than women do well.
Secondly, making a baby is what women do, as individuals with any sperm
donation from any man. And soon, even that won't be necessary.
>
>Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas
"The Mechanic" <GoatGe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dc3e848ff6ba30db...@news.teranews.com...
[]
> >Exactly. As long as Hyerdahl keeps making her claim that women can do
> >everything that men can, she destroys her credibility.
>
>
> how can you destroy something you never had?
Quite right. It would destroy her credibility if she had any. Is that
better?<g>
Jayne
Jayne Kulikauskas
> On 16 Apr 2004 01:19:18 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>
>
>
> >You're wrong on several counts Dave Sim's 'Jayne' :-)
>
>
>
> are there no limits to the depths of your obssessions?
She can call me Dave Sim's sock puppet any time she wants. He is brilliant,
talented and heroic. I consider it an honour to be called his creation.
Jayne
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/14/2004 1:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <A7hfc.27180$kc2.3...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>
>Hyerdahl1 wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>>From: conn...@hotmail.com (connor_a)
>>>Date: 4/12/2004 5:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <6688b088.04041...@posting.google.com>
>>>
>>>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>>>news:<20040412112501...@mb-m02.aol.com>...
>>>
>>
>women.
>>
>> Hon, women of any age can perform the sex act long after men like you have
>> flaccid dick problems
>
Not so true there Parg, a little KY jelly goes a long way however, the >big *V*
(and now others) have leveled the playing field and >unfortunately for you
bitter girlies, after about 28 you have such a
>rapidly declining fertility that by 38 it's almost impossible to get
>pregnant while a man...puffed up with Viagra or not...can plant his
>fertile seed between the legs of some sweet young thing virtually
>indefinately...and "sweet young things" are a dime a dozen for older,
>afluent men...
Sweet young things don't want you or your flacid dick, tho. So it all evens
out. :-)
>
>, AND women can have a family with or without any specific>> man. I'd call
that a win.
>>
>>
>>>>Women think with their 'hearts', men with their brains - hence few, if>any
>>>> equal inventions by women - feminine women at least.
>>
????
>> Women will continue to do everything men do plus gestate; they just won't
>> gestate for you, dear. You should really get over the fact that a woman
>took> your job and had children.
>
> Young women will, older women, alas, will not...
>
Old women already have children, dear; young women will do as they damn well
please, and your sons can darn their own socks.
>...Ken
Ken&Laura Chaddock
>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>From: Ken&Laura Chaddock chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca
> Not so true there Parg, a little KY jelly goes a long way however, the >big *V*
> (and now others) have leveled the playing field and >unfortunately for you
> bitter girlies, after about 28 you have such a
>
>>rapidly declining fertility that by 38 it's almost impossible to get
>>pregnant while a man...puffed up with Viagra or not...can plant his
>>fertile seed between the legs of some sweet young thing virtually
>>indefinately...and "sweet young things" are a dime a dozen for older,
>>afluent men...
>
> Sweet young things don't want you or your flacid dick, tho. So it all evens
> out. :-)
You'd be unpleasantly surprised on that count Parg ;-)
>> Young women will, older women, alas, will not...
>
> Old women already have children, dear;
That's why so many "former" feminists are disgruntled after having run
into the hard reality of declining fertility and the virtual
impossibility of getting pregnant after age 40 is it ?
> young women will do as they damn well
> please, and your sons can darn their own socks.
My "son" isn't interested in getting married. At nineteen he's quite
convinced he doesn't want to put up with some lazy bimbo sitting at home
all day while he works to support her fat ass and he's certainly not
interested in losing half of what he's worked for in a divorce
settlement...it's like the lyrics to that song "I won't pay, I won't
pay, Nooo waaay...hey, why don't you get a job..."
...Ken
Hyerdahl1
>Message-id: <eF0gc.29328$kc2.4...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
(edit)
>My "son" isn't interested in getting married. At nineteen he's quite
convinced he doesn't want to put up with some lazy bimbo sitting at home all
day while he works to support her fat ass and he's certainly not interested in
losing half of what he's worked for in a divorce
>settlement...it's like the lyrics to that song "I won't pay, I won't
>pay, Nooo waaay...hey, why don't you get a job..."
>
Good. That will restrict HIS ability to pass on YOUR genes. Works well. BTW,
Ken, does Laura know you say you have young women wanting to suck you off, or
are you now divorced?
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/16/04 7:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <08453ad3883754f8...@news.bubbanews.com>
> First, we don't judge>one person's role choices by what more of her sex do
than the other sex. We>>don't limit roles based on what you think more men
than women do well.
>>
>LOL! no, WE dont do that, YOU do the reverse all day long.
>
Howso?
Secondly, making a baby is what women do,
>
>thats pretty sad. as far as sexism goes, thats probly the single most>sexist
statement ever made in here, that i've seen.
>
Why? Are you suggesting the negative of my statement that women DON'T make
babies?
>
>>as individuals with any sperm>>donation from any man. And soon, even that
won't be necessary.
>
>
>ok maybe THATS the most sexist statement made in here, in the last ten
>minutes.
>
Why? Are you suggesting that science isn't accomplishing that, even as we
speak?
Mark Sobolewski
> >Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
> >From: howldog no...@yahoo.com
> >Date: 4/16/04 7:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <08453ad3883754f8...@news.bubbanews.com>
> >
> >On 16 Apr 2004 01:19:18 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
> >
> >
>
> > First, we don't judge>one person's role choices by what more of her sex do
> than the other sex. We>>don't limit roles based on what you think more men
> than women do well.
> >>
> >LOL! no, WE dont do that, YOU do the reverse all day long.
> >
> Howso?
>
> Secondly, making a baby is what women do,
Actually, I thought men co-contributed. (You know, you remember
the moment the poor helpless woman needs cash lest
the 'primary caregiver' starve the kid or abandon it...
> >thats pretty sad. as far as sexism goes, thats probly the single most>sexist
> statement ever made in here, that i've seen.
> >
> Why? Are you suggesting the negative of my statement that women DON'T make
> babies?
Quite simple: If only women make babies, then men shouldn't
pay mommy support. One plays one pays.
> >
> >>as individuals with any sperm>>donation from any man. And soon, even that
> won't be necessary.
> >
> >
> >ok maybe THATS the most sexist statement made in here, in the last ten
> >minutes.
> >
> Why? Are you suggesting that science isn't accomplishing that, even as we
> speak?
Women already can buy sperm but that means they have to pay the bills.
I don't believe senior citizens will allow themselves to starve, do you?
regards,
Mark Sobolewski
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/16/2004 9:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <c5p287$49eku$1...@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>
Well, you certainly should be Jayne; you are so obviously not your own.
Nothing much to be proud of on your own, dear. :-)
>
>Jayne
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/14/2004 5:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <%hkfc.27244$kc2.3...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>
>Hyerdahl1 wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>>From: conn...@hotmail.com (connor_a)
>>>Date: 4/12/2004 5:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <6688b088.04041...@posting.google.com>
>>>
>>>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>
>> Hon, women of any age can perform the sex act long after men like you have
>> flaccid dick problems,
>
> Well, a bit of KY jelly can go a long way but once she hits 28 her
>fertility is dropping so fast that well before she hits menopause she's
>effectively infertile where as the big *V* (and several others) have
>done wonders for, ah...flagging...men and unlike a post menopausal
>woman, an older man, inflated by Viagra *can* still plant his (potent)
>seed between the legs of some sweet young thing...something no woman can
>do...
>
>AND women can have a family with or without any specific
>> man. I'd call that a win.
>I don't know, sperm banks *are* drying up rapidly
Where? Here, they seem to be doing just fine.
AND most women would rather know the father of their child...even if it's so
they can assure themselves they aren't carrying the child of an axe
murderer...
Most women believe in nurture over nature, and the only time they seem
interested in knowing the father is when he's an egalitarian, worth knowing.
>
>> Women will continue to do everything men do
>
> A woman can't father a child
A woman need not, when she can have a child without fathering one.
>
>plus gestate;
>
> They can't gestate after menopause while a man can father a child at
>virtually any age...
>
After menopause, women don't want children; they are much more interested in
other pursuits and are not a slave to their own sex drive, as are men.
>...Ken
Ken&Laura Chaddock
>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>From: Ken&Laura Chaddock chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca
>>Date: 4/16/04 7:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <eF0gc.29328$kc2.4...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>
>>My "son" isn't interested in getting married. At nineteen he's quite
>
> convinced he doesn't want to put up with some lazy bimbo sitting at home all
> day while he works to support her fat ass and he's certainly not interested in
> losing half of what he's worked for in a divorce
>
>>settlement...it's like the lyrics to that song "I won't pay, I won't
>>pay, Nooo waaay...hey, why don't you get a job..."
>>
>
> Good. That will restrict HIS ability to pass on YOUR genes.
Well perhaps, though I suspect he will change his mind later (if not
already) since he's already thought about prenuptial agreements, about
how to protect himself and ensure he won't take a financial bath if he
ever is involved in a failed relationship. He also knows how important
it is to document everything, from where the money comes from and where
it goes to how much time he is spending with any kids.
I think he's fairly typical of young men today, they understand that
things are stacked against them and that they have to take precautions.
They know that women are likely to be inconstant, particularly if they
have a chance to raid the marriage and walk away with the cash and are
protecting themselves against it. They have their eyes open...
...Ken
> Ken, does Laura know you say you have young women wanting to suck you off, or
> are you now divorced?
Yea she does...she says it turns her on to see some sweet young thing
coming onto me...
...Ken
Hyerdahl1
>Message-id: <t4ngc.29809$kc2.4...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>
>Hyerdahl1 wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>>From: Ken&Laura Chaddock chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca
>>>Date: 4/16/04 7:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <eF0gc.29328$kc2.4...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>>
>>>My "son" isn't interested in getting married. At nineteen he's quite
>>
>> convinced he doesn't want to put up with some lazy bimbo sitting at home
>all
>> day while he works to support her fat ass and he's certainly not
>interested in
>> losing half of what he's worked for in a divorce
>>
>>>settlement...it's like the lyrics to that song "I won't pay, I won't
>>>pay, Nooo waaay...hey, why don't you get a job..."
>>>
>>
>> Good. That will restrict HIS ability to pass on YOUR genes.
>
> Well perhaps, though I suspect he will change his mind later (if not
already) since he's already thought about prenuptial agreements, about how to
protect himself and ensure he won't take a financial bath if he ever is
involved in a failed relationship.
So, you've moved from saying he won't marry to saying he will. Good to know.
:-) As to prenups, if they don't take into account both parties, they usually
don't work out. There must be two lawyers, full disclosure and a plan of
action that includes both parties and the rights of both parties. Let's hope
he doesn't forget those.
He also knows how important >it is to document everything, from where the money
comes from and where
>it goes to how much time he is spending with any kids.
Indeed. Of course, you've already changed your position here, regarding your
son, so how likely am I to believe that he's singing 'onward Christian
soldiers' before his alleged wedding?
> I think he's fairly typical of young men today, they understand that
>things are stacked against them and that they have to take precautions.
Most young folks, female or male, are NOT thinking about divorce when they
marry. Older couples, who have learned thru experience, may be more wary. Of
course, my children have also been educated about marriage and the contract it
represents.
>They know that women are likely to be inconstant, particularly if they >have
a chance to raid the marriage and walk away with the cash and are protecting
themselves against it.
Ah, is that why we never hear from the mysterious "Laura"? :-) Well, you are
free to preach your hatred and distrust of women TO your son, but he probably
will regard you the same way Randall Terry's kids regard him, eh?
They have their eyes open...
So your wife DID run out on you. Good to know.
>
>...Ken
>
>
>> Ken, does Laura know you say you have young women wanting to suck you off,
>or
>> are you now divorced?
>
> Yea she does...she says it turns her on to see some sweet young thing
>coming onto me...
>
>...Ken
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/17/2004 6:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <f741bce1.04041...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20040417162547...@mb-m17.aol.com>...
>> >Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>> >From: howldog no...@yahoo.com
>> >Date: 4/16/04 7:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <08453ad3883754f8...@news.bubbanews.com>
>> >
>> >On 16 Apr 2004 01:19:18 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > First, we don't judge>one person's role choices by what more of her sex
>do>> than the other sex. We>>don't limit roles based on what you think more
men than women do well.
>> >>
>> >LOL! no, WE dont do that, YOU do the reverse all day long.
>> >
>> Howso?
>>
> Secondly, making a baby is what women do,
>
>Actually, I thought men co-contributed. (You know, you remember>the moment
the poor helpless woman needs cash lest
>the 'primary caregiver' starve the kid or abandon it...
>
>> >thats pretty sad. as far as sexism goes, thats probly the single
>most>sexist> statement ever made in here, that i've seen.
>> >
>> Why? Are you suggesting the negative of my statement that women DON'T make
>> babies?
>
>Quite simple: If only women make babies, then men shouldn't>pay mommy support.
One plays one pays.
Well, men's little squirt is a contribution but ONLY women gestate and deliver
new life into the world. If ALL MEN want to give up the right to parent, all
women can accept the payment. Let me know when we can begin negotiations. :-)
Grizzlie Antagonist
Is that the female view of sex? Yeah, I thought so. I've always said
so.
>is a contribution
Getting even that much of a concession from you was like delivering by
Caesarian - it has only taken about 8 years or so to get you to admit
that men contribute to procreation.
>but ONLY women gestate and deliver
>new life into the world.
And yet, the male role is indispensable to the process, even if it's
just a "little squirt".
> If ALL MEN want to give up the right to parent, all
>women can accept the payment. Let me know when we can begin negotiations. :-)
You seem to be a little unclear on the concept, Puke.
You have been told that you can't claim, on behalf of the female sex,
virtually full credit for bringing life into the world while
disdaining full responsibility for sustaining that life.
How did that manifest into an argument that men should pay for GIVING
UP the right to parent? It reminds me of the old Herblock cartoon:
"We generously allow you to pay for the cow - all we ask is that you
let us take the cream".
Besides, according to you, men really aren't parents at all - they
don't contribute anything more substantial than a "little squirt".
Then why should men be charged with more than token responsibility for
sustaining the lives that ONLY women gestate and deliver into the
world? That's the question that you are trying to sidestep.
And what "payment"? How would you enforce that payment without a male
security apparatus?
And what "negotiations"? As a feminist, you believe that men have
historically oppressed women. Obviously, if this happened, men did
this because they COULD.
You don't believe that women have historically oppressed men.
Obviously, if women have not historically oppressed men, it's because
they CAN'T.
So what "negotiations"? Men can always go back to oppressing women
again and are under no compunction to "negotiate" with them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grizzliea...@yahoo.com
"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause
for tonight's player of the game - AL-BERT-O CAS-S-S-
S-S-S--S-S-TILLO!"
- P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium, July 4, 2003
"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).
- Horace, the Roman poet
MY DEAR ROBINSON: It was your account of a west
country legend which first suggested the idea of
this little tale to my mind. For this, and for
the help which you gave me in its evolution,
all thanks.
Yours most truly, A. CONAN DOYLE.
- Author's dedication of "Hound of the
Baskervilles" to Bertram Fletcher Robinson
Ken&Laura Chaddock
>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>From: Ken&Laura Chaddock chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca
>>Date: 4/17/2004 9:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <t4ngc.29809$kc2.4...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>>
>>Hyerdahl1 wrote:
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>>>From: Ken&Laura Chaddock chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca
>>>>Date: 4/16/04 7:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>>Message-id: <eF0gc.29328$kc2.4...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>>>
>>>>My "son" isn't interested in getting married. At nineteen he's quite
>>>convinced he doesn't want to put up with some lazy bimbo sitting at home
>>>all day while he works to support her fat ass and he's certainly not
>>>interested in losing half of what he's worked for in a divorce
>>>settlement...it's like the lyrics to that song "I won't pay, I won't
>>>>pay, Nooo waaay...hey, why don't you get a job..."
>>>>
>>>Good. That will restrict HIS ability to pass on YOUR genes.
>> Well perhaps, though I suspect he will change his mind later (if not
> already) since he's already thought about prenuptial agreements, about how to
> protect himself and ensure he won't take a financial bath if he ever is
> involved in a failed relationship.
>
> So, you've moved from saying he won't marry to saying he will.
You still have your reading comprehension problem I see...or is it just
another weak attempt to twist my words and discredit me ? In the off
chance that you just unable to understand what I said, I'll rephrase
it...I said he's not currently interested in getting married but that I
expect this might change and that there were signs that his instance
that he isn't going to get married isn't the whole story since he's
talking about pre-nupts etc
> :-) As to prenups, if they don't take into account both parties, they usually
> don't work out.
In Canada the only proviso is that there was no coercion in the signing
of the agreement and both parties understood what they were signing.
This was very recently upheld in a pleasing Superior Court ruling in BC
just last month which not only upheld a pre-nuptual agreement in the
face of contrary provincial legislation but also in the face of the
woman claiming that she didn't really "understand" the implications when
she signed...the fact that she's a lawyer probably damaged the
credibility of this claim...but the written decision stated quite
clearly that if you sign a pre-nuptual agreement with the expectation
that it will not be upheld, you are not dealing in good faith and that
your behaviour borders on fraud. He went on to state that you must
negotiate in good faith and that the court must assume that you did so
and that your were in agreement with the provisions of the agreement and
except in extreme circumstances (like coercion...and he specifically
stated that a partner refusing to marry you unless you signed the
pre-nuptual CANNOT be considered coercion), the pre-nuptual agreement
must be upheld.
In an even more enlightening statement the judge said that Canadians
have the *RIGHT* to arrange their affairs in ways which may or may not
correspond with the main stream view and that courts must uphold this
right. Some legal experts claim this could have profound implications on
many areas, for example if this could set a precedent which may allow
challenges to provincial rules on common law "marriage" and child custody.
> There must be two lawyers,
Not in Canada
> full disclosure
It only makes sense since you have to disclose your existing assets so
they, and any income or increase in value in them can be excluded from
matrimonial income/property...
>
>> I think he's fairly typical of young men today, they understand that
>>things are stacked against them and that they have to take precautions.
>
>
> Most young folks, female or male, are NOT thinking about divorce when they
> marry. Older couples, who have learned thru experience, may be more wary. Of
> course, my children have also been educated about marriage and the contract it
> represents.
That's what bitter girlies hope...but men aren't stupid, they are
learning to be as pragmatic and heartless as women and either not
getting married at all or getting married with iron clad pre-nuptuals
which will protect them from gold diggers...
>
> They know that women are likely to be inconstant, particularly if they have
> a chance to raid the marriage and walk away with the cash and are protecting
> themselves against it.
>
> Ah, is that why we never hear from the mysterious "Laura"? :-)
What's is Parg ? Have to stoop to innuendo and ad hominem because you
can't rebut my assertion ? Typical...
> Well, you are free to preach your hatred and distrust of women TO your
> son,
Making accurate observation on the state of marriage and divorce in our
society hardly amounts to "hatred" though given the propensity of women
to use biased laws to legally rob their husbands, you are probably
correct to say I "distrust" woman and feel that many are not reliable or
"constant".
> but he probably will regard you the same way Randall Terry's kids
> regard him, eh?
As a pro-choice activist I have been opposed to Randall Terry and
Operation Rescue for many years and would be more than happy to see
Operation Rescue just disappear but unlike you, I derive NO joy or
pleasure from the family and personal troubles he is currently
experiencing...
> They have their eyes open...
>
> So your wife DID run out on you. Good to know.
We'll be celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary this July 7th...but
even if it were true, why is it that you derive joy or pleasure from the
unhappiness and misfortunes of others ?
...Ken
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/15/2004 12:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <6688b088.04041...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20040414102744...@mb-m15.aol.com>...
>
>> Hon, women of any age can perform the sex act long after men like you have
flaccid dick problems, AND women can have a family with or without any
>specific> man. I'd call that a win.
>
>... viagra, Testosterone, all saviors of the "dickie knee" I'd call>that a
WIN.
Perhaps, but women need not take any harmful drugs into their system to enjoy
sex and I'd call that a WIN too.
>>WASUPs! (Women As Sexists Under Patriachy) have every reason to FEAR
>equality, Arlington as a start point for sharing the burdens isn't a
>feminist goal, nor is any other of 'this work'.
Women don't need to fear that which they have no legal right to take, eh? With
rights come duties. Let us all know when women need to fear. :-)
>
>> Women will continue to do everything men do plus gestate; they just won't
>> gestate for you, dear.
>
>In 0.5% of the domain of masculine, yes of course women 'do>everything' just
in teeeny weeeny numbers compared to men ;-)
Again, connor, choices are just choices. If you don't want to join the
military, just say no.
>
>>You should really get over the fact that a woman took > your job and
>had children.
>>
>WASUP's! like YOU aren't capable of gestating, Connor can spear, sperm
>and cunt hunt at will. l-)
Hahahahaha. The only varmint you can get is an inflatable, connor. And if she
has any artificial intelligence, you better pray she doesn't have a gun. :-)
Hyerdahl1
>Message-id: <25Ggc.30113$kc2.4...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>
>Hyerdahl1 wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>>From: Ken&Laura Chaddock chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca
>>>Date: 4/17/2004 9:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <t4ngc.29809$kc2.4...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>>>
>>>Hyerdahl1 wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>>>>From: Ken&Laura Chaddock chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca
>>>>>Date: 4/16/04 7:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>>>Message-id: <eF0gc.29328$kc2.4...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>My "son" isn't interested in getting married. At nineteen he's quite
convinced he doesn't want to put up with some lazy bimbo sitting at home
all day while he works to support her fat ass and he's certainly not>interested
in losing half of what he's worked for in a divorce >>settlement...it's like
the lyrics to that song "I won't pay, I won't >pay, Nooo waaay...hey, why don't
you get a job..."
>>>>>
>>>>Good. That will restrict HIS ability to pass on YOUR genes.
>
Well perhaps, though I suspect he will change his mind later (if not > already)
since he's already thought about prenuptial agreements, about how
>to>> protect himself and ensure he won't take a financial bath if he ever is>
involved in a failed relationship.
>>
>> So, you've moved from saying he won't marry to saying he will.
>
> You still have your reading comprehension problem I see...or is it just
>another weak attempt to twist my words and discredit me ?
You've twisted your own words dear; a boy who says he won't marry won't likely
be talking about prenups, eh? :-)
In the off >chance that you just unable to understand what I said, I'll
rephrase
>it...I said he's not currently interested in getting married but that I
expect this might change and that there were signs that his instance that he
isn't going to get married isn't the whole story since he's
>talking about pre-nupts etc
So he IS interested in marriage. I'm glad you've been able to figure that out.
:-)As to prenups, if they don't take into account both parties, they>usually>>
don't work out.
>
In Canada the only proviso is that there was no coercion in the signing >of the
agreement and both parties understood what they were signing.This was very
recently upheld in a pleasing Superior Court ruling in BC >just last month
which not only upheld a pre-nuptual agreement in the >face of contrary
provincial legislation but also in the face of the >woman claiming that she
didn't really "understand" the implications when >she signed...the fact that
she's a lawyer probably damaged the credibility of this claim...but the
written decision stated quite >clearly that if you sign a pre-nuptual agreement
with the expectation >that it will not be upheld, you are not dealing in good
faith and that
your behaviour borders on fraud. He went on to state that you must >negotiate
in good faith and that the court must assume that you did so and that your
were in agreement with the provisions of the agreement and >except in extreme
circumstances (like coercion...and he specifically >stated that a partner
refusing to marry you unless you signed the
>pre-nuptual CANNOT be considered coercion), the pre-nuptual agreement
>must be upheld. In an even more enlightening statement the judge said that
Canadians have the *RIGHT* to arrange their affairs in ways which may or may
not
>correspond with the main stream view and that courts must uphold this
>right. Some legal experts claim this could have profound implications on
>many areas, for example if this could set a precedent which may allow
>challenges to provincial rules on common law "marriage" and child custody.
Nah. Canada is refining its law just as we do here in the states. AND, the
law that's evolving will still tend to consider the intent of the parties as
well as full disclosure and having independent counsel.
>
>> There must be two lawyers,
>
> Not in Canada
That is coming to your neighborhood soon. :-)
>
>> full disclosure
>
> It only makes sense since you have to disclose your existing assets so
>they, and any income or increase in value in them can be excluded from
matrimonial income/property...
The problems that crop up with this one is that assets change. The prenup has
to be re-evaluated every few years or it can be tossed.
>>>> I think he's fairly typical of young men today, they understand that
>>>things are stacked against them and that they have to take precautions.
>>
>>
>> Most young folks, female or male, are NOT thinking about divorce when they
>> marry. Older couples, who have learned thru experience, may be more
wary.>Of> course, my children have also been educated about marriage and the
contract>it> represents.
>
> That's what bitter girlies hope...but men aren't stupid, they are
>learning to be as pragmatic and heartless as women and either not >getting
married at all or getting married with iron clad pre-nuptuals >which will
protect them from gold diggers..
There are no "iron clad" prenups. There are good ones that address the actual
needs and intentions of the parties and there are prenups that don't work out
because they are one sided or out to hurt a party. There are also prenups
filed under duress....like the Barry Bonds prenup drawn up by a lawyer and
brought to the bride to sign an hour before the wedding.
:-)
>> They know that women are likely to be inconstant, particularly if they
>have>> a chance to raid the marriage and walk away with the cash and are
>protecting> themselves against it.
>>
Yadda yadda... No one is buying hon.
>> Ah, is that why we never hear from the mysterious "Laura"? :-)
>
> What's is Parg ? Have to stoop to innuendo and ad hominem because you
>can't rebut my assertion ? Typical...
I don't think you have a wife, Ken. I think you have a blow up doll.
Ken&Laura Chaddock
>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>From: Ken&Laura Chaddock chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca
>>Date: 4/18/2004 6:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <25Ggc.30113$kc2.4...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>>
>> You still have your reading comprehension problem I see...or is it just
>>another weak attempt to twist my words and discredit me ?
>
> You've twisted your own words dear; a boy who says he won't marry won't likely
> be talking about prenups, eh? :-)
Why would you think that Parg, Ian was a Boy Scout...remember "Be
Prepared"...I also know a couple of women who never married (and who
insist they never will) who still like to look at wedding dresses...my
sister is one...
> In the off chance that you just unable to understand what I said, I'll
> rephrase it...I said he's not currently interested in getting married but that I
> expect this might change and that there were signs that his instance that he
> isn't going to get married isn't the whole story since he's
> talking about pre-nupts etc
>
> So he IS interested in marriage. I'm glad you've been able to figure that out.
> :-)As to prenups, if they don't take into account both parties, they>usually>>
> don't work out.
Things are somewhat different up here Parg. A pre-nuptual is considered
more like "terms and conditions" and the court has upheld the principle
that individuals have a right to arrange their affairs in ways which
differ from the norm and that (except in extreme cases) "society" has no
right to interfere with that arrangement. One common pre-nuptual which
differs quite significantly from US practice concerns a partner's
"entitlement" to the assets of the marriage. A high income earner can
write a pre-nuptual which would, on divorce, limit his or her partner's
claim to the marital assets. If the partner knowingly accepts that as a
"condition" of the marriage it has been and will be upheld in Canadian
courts...The *really* nice aspect of the recent decision is that the
court stated that a pre-nuptual even supersedes provincial law...
>
> In Canada the only proviso is that there was no coercion in the signing of the
> agreement and both parties understood what they were signing.This was very
> recently upheld in a pleasing Superior Court ruling in BC just last month
> which not only upheld a pre-nuptual agreement in the face of contrary
> provincial legislation but also in the face of the woman claiming that she
> didn't really "understand" the implications when she signed...the fact that
> she's a lawyer probably damaged the credibility of this claim...but the
> written decision stated quite clearly that if you sign a pre-nuptual agreement
> with the expectation that it will not be upheld, you are not dealing in good
> faith and that your behaviour borders on fraud. He went on to state that you
> must negotiate in good faith and that the court must assume that you did so
> and that your were in agreement with the provisions of the agreement and
> except in extreme circumstances (like coercion...and he specifically stated
> that a partner refusing to marry you unless you signed the pre-nuptual CANNOT
> be considered coercion), the pre-nuptual agreement must be upheld. In an even
> more enlightening statement the judge said that Canadians have the *RIGHT* to
> not arrange their affairs in ways which may or may correspond with the main
> stream view and that courts must uphold this right. Some legal experts claim
> this could have profound implications on many areas, for example if this could
> set a precedent which may allow challenges to provincial rules on common law
> "marriage" and child custody.
>
> Nah. Canada is refining its law just as we do here in the states.
Yep we are...and after years of anti-male family and divorce law the
pendulum is swinging back
> AND, the law that's evolving will still tend to consider the intent of the parties
> as well as full disclosure and having independent counsel.
In Canada we still have the concept of being the purveyor of your own
misfortune...unless you can prove that you *really* didn't understand
the implications of the contract, if you are stupid enough to sign it,
it will be upheld...which is as it should be.
>>>There must be two lawyers,
>>
>> Not in Canada
>
> That is coming to your neighborhood soon. :-)
Not according to the latest Superior Court Ruling...
>
>>>full disclosure
>>
>> It only makes sense since you have to disclose your existing assets so
>>they, and any income or increase in value in them can be excluded from
>>matrimonial income/property...
>
> The problems that crop up with this one is that assets change. The prenup has
> to be re-evaluated every few years or it can be tossed.
In Canada, pre-existing assets are not considered "matrimonial
property" unless they are specifically and knowingly converted into
matrimonial property. I'll give you and example. Say that when I get
married I have $10,000,000. That is NOT a matrimonial asset, neither
will any income which derives from that be matrimonial income. Now
suppose I also have a pre-existing $200,000 home in which my spouse and
I live. Unless that is specifically excluded via either a pre-nuptual or
other measures that will be considered matrimonial property and subject
to division of assets.
>> That's what bitter girlies hope...but men aren't stupid, they are
>>learning to be as pragmatic and heartless as women and either not >getting
>>married at all or getting married with iron clad pre-nuptuals >which will
>>protect them from gold diggers..
>
> There are no "iron clad" prenups.
There are in Canada...as has been very recently confirmed by the
Superior Court of British Colombia
> There are good ones that address the actual
> needs and intentions of the parties and there are prenups that don't work out
> because they are one sided or out to hurt a party.
There's no such thing as a "one sided" pre-nuptual Parg, you aren't
being forced to marry, if you don't like the pre-nuptual agreement don't
get married...but if you DO agree to the pre-nuptual, you should expect
to be held to your *freely made* commitment...
> There are also prenups filed under duress....like the Barry Bonds
> prenup drawn up by a lawyer and brought to the bride to sign an
> hour before the wedding. :-)
What duress ? Did the lawyer hold a gun to her head to make her sign it
? What dire consequence would have befallen her if she had refused to
sign ? I know that a US court probably overturned it but US courts are
notoriously anti-male so this comes as no surprise. Fortunately a
Canadian likely would have upheld it...
>> They know that women are likely to be inconstant, particularly if they
>>have a chance to raid the marriage and walk away with the cash and are
>>protecting themselves against it.
>>
> Yadda yadda... No one is buying hon.
Canadian courts are babe...
>>>Ah, is that why we never hear from the mysterious "Laura"? :-)
>>
>> What's is Parg ? Have to stoop to innuendo and ad hominem because you
>>can't rebut my assertion ? Typical...
>
>
> I don't think you have a wife, Ken. I think you have a blow up doll.
You seem to have <snipped> quite a bit of my post Parg, why didn't you
answer my questions regarding why you seem to derive so much pleasure
from the misfortunes of others ?
...Ken
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/18/2004 2:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <88t580t30k332ngde...@4ax.com>
>
(edit)
>And yet, the male role is indispensable to the process, even if it's>just a
"little squirt".
The "male role" does not indicate a need for ANY individual man, tho. Therin
you'll find the difference.
>
>> If ALL MEN want to give up the right to parent, all>women can accept the
payment. Let me know when we can begin negotiations.>:-)
>
>
>You seem to be a little unclear on the concept, Puke.
>
Not at all, Sim; I'm VERY clear.
>You have been told that you can't claim, on behalf of the female
sex,>virtually full credit for bringing life into the world while
>disdaining full responsibility for sustaining that life.
Well, women do get full credit for gestation and delivery and all attendant
risks, because men don't contribute there. AND, men seem to want to be
fathers so with rights come duties.
>How did that manifest into an argument that men should pay for GIVING>UP the
right to parent?
Pay what? If men universally give up parenting rights, then and only then,
will they not be obligated by parenting duties.
It's just that easy.
It reminds me of the old Herblock cartoon:
>"We generously allow you to pay for the cow - all we ask is that you>let us
take the cream".
You ARE the cartoon expert here. :-) However, the trade is tit for tat; no
rights no duties on a universal level.
>
>Besides, according to you, men really aren't parents at all - they>don't
contribute anything more substantial than a "little squirt".
Prior to actually HAVING a child, that is all any man contributes. However,
once there is a child a father can be as active in contribution as he desires,
just like a mother.
>Then why should men be charged with more than token responsibility for
>sustaining the lives that ONLY women gestate and deliver into the>world?
As long as no men want to BE fathers, (parental rights) I see no reason why
for them to have universal duties.
That's the question that you are trying to sidestep.
What question? It seems fairly simple to me; if men want the right to parent,
they must accept the duties of parenting and the risks just like women.
>And what "payment"? How would you enforce that payment without a male
>security apparatus?
Rigth now, society manages to collect child support from NCPs who may or may
not want to pay. Parents have the responsibility of supporting their kids
whatever sex the parents are.
>And what "negotiations"? As a feminist, you believe that men
have>historically oppressed women.
Yes, indeed, men who wanted patriarchy.
Obviously, if this happened, men did
>this because they COULD.
Yes, and because they were boorish brutes. Ah, but today, they CAN'T.
>
>You don't believe that women have historically oppressed men.
No, I don't.
>Obviously, if women have not historically oppressed men, it's because>they
CAN'T.
>
No, I don't think women have a reason to WANT to oppress men. I don't think
women are as insecure as most men.
>So what "negotiations"? Men can always go back to oppressing women again and
are under no compunction to "negotiate" with them.
>
You seem to forget that today we have equal rights and guns. I just don't see
men shooting their wives and daughters simply because they are insecure. I
suspect men will just have to grow up and that sexist men will simply have more
bile.
Grizzlie Antagonist
>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>>Date: 4/18/2004 2:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <88t580t30k332ngde...@4ax.com>
>>
>(edit)
>
>>And yet, the male role is indispensable to the process, even if it's>just a
>"little squirt".
>
>The "male role" does not indicate a need for ANY individual man, tho. Therin
>you'll find the difference.
The female role does not indicate a need for any individual woman.
So?
>>> If ALL MEN want to give up the right to parent, all>women can accept the
>payment. Let me know when we can begin negotiations.>:-)
>>
>>
>>You seem to be a little unclear on the concept, Puke.
>>
>Not at all, Sim; I'm VERY clear.
>
>>You have been told that you can't claim, on behalf of the female
>sex,>virtually full credit for bringing life into the world while
>>disdaining full responsibility for sustaining that life.
>
>Well, women do get full credit for gestation and delivery
This is like giving the first baseman "full credit" for the double
play when the play started with the interchange between the shortstop
and the second baseman.
>and all attendant
>risks, because men don't contribute there.
It doesn't matter because "gestation and delivery" are not all that is
necessary. The first baseman doesn't get full credit for the double
play just because he's the one that ends up with the ball when the
play is completed.
>AND, men seem to want to be
>fathers so with rights come duties.
What "duties" did you ever impose upon women who wanted to have the
right to be mothers, Puke?
>>How did that manifest into an argument that men should pay for GIVING>UP the
>right to parent?
>
>Pay what? If men universally give up parenting rights, then and only then,
>will they not be obligated by parenting duties.
>It's just that easy.
Really, Puke?
Then you favor choice for men? Aren't you always arguing AGAINST
choice for men. Sure you are.
> It reminds me of the old Herblock cartoon:
>>"We generously allow you to pay for the cow - all we ask is that you>let us
>take the cream".
>
>You ARE the cartoon expert here. :-)
And you are the cartoon character here.
>However, the trade is tit for tat; no
>rights no duties on a universal level.
>>
>>Besides, according to you, men really aren't parents at all - they>don't
>contribute anything more substantial than a "little squirt".
>
>Prior to actually HAVING a child, that is all any man contributes. However,
>once there is a child a father can be as active in contribution as he desires,
>just like a mother.
You don't really favor choice for men, Puke.
But as always, I regard it as a moral victory when I pin you down to a
position that you really don't believe in.
>>Then why should men be charged with more than token responsibility for
>>sustaining the lives that ONLY women gestate and deliver into the>world?
>
>
>As long as no men want to BE fathers, (parental rights) I see no reason why
>for them to have universal duties.
>
> That's the question that you are trying to sidestep.
>
>What question? It seems fairly simple to me; if men want the right to parent,
>they must accept the duties of parenting and the risks just like women.
>
>>And what "payment"? How would you enforce that payment without a male
>>security apparatus?
>
>Rigth now, society manages to collect child support from NCPs who may or may
>not want to pay.
Yes, with the male security apparatus that I've already alluded to.
> Parents have the responsibility of supporting their kids
>whatever sex the parents are.
You don't believe this for one minute, Puke.
>
>>And what "negotiations"? As a feminist, you believe that men
>have>historically oppressed women.
>
>Yes, indeed, men who wanted patriarchy.
>
> Obviously, if this happened, men did
>>this because they COULD.
>
>Yes, and because they were boorish brutes. Ah, but today, they CAN'T.
Ah, but they CAN.
>>You don't believe that women have historically oppressed men.
>
>No, I don't.
>
>>Obviously, if women have not historically oppressed men, it's because>they
>CAN'T.
>>
>No, I don't think women have a reason to WANT to oppress men.
Of course you do, Puke. Women are piggy. Actually, women have a
great deal of emotional power over men that is never factored into the
"power" equation.
But if it is true that women don't oppress men, it's because they
CAN'T. Not because they don't want to. You would kill God Himself if
you could get your hands on him, Puke.
> I don't think
>women are as insecure as most men.
Neither do I. I think that women are much more insecure than men.
And so does feminist Simone de Beauvoir:
**In addition to the primary sexual characteristics, woman has various
secondary sexual peculiarities that are more or less directly produced
in consequence of the first, through hormonal action. On the average
she is shorter than the male and lighter, her skeleton is more
delicate, and the pelvis is larger in adaptation to the functions of
pregnancy and childbirth; her connective tissues accumulate fat and
her contours are thus more rounded than those of the male. Appearance
in general, structure, skin, hair is distinctly different in the two
sexes. Muscular strength is much less in woman, about two thirds that
of man; she has less respiratory capacity, the lungs and trachea being
smaller. The larynx is relatively smaller, and in consequence the
female voice is higher. The specific gravity of the blood is lower in
woman and there is less haemoglobin; women are therefore less robust
and more disposed to anaemia than are males. Their pulse is more
rapid, the vascular system less stable, with ready blushing.
Instability is strikingly characteristic of woman's organisation in
general; among other things, man shows greater stability in the
metabolism of calcium, woman fixing much less of this material and
losing a good deal during menstruation and pregnancy. It would seem
that in regard to calcium the ovaries exert a catabolic action, with
resulting instability that brings on difficulties in the ovaries and
in the thyroid, which is more developed in woman than in man.
Irregularities in the endocrine secretions react on the sympathetic
nervous system, and nervous and muscular control is uncertain. This
lack in stability and control underlies woman's emotionalism, which is
bound up with circulatory fluctuations palpitation of the heart,
blushing, and so forth — and on this account women are subject to such
displays of agitation as tears, hysterical laughter, and nervous
crises.**
***
** Woman is weaker than man, she has less muscular strength, fewer red
blood corpuscles, less lung capacity, she runs more slowly, can lift
less heavy weights, can compete with man in hardly any sport; she
cannot stand up to him in a fight. To all this weakness must be added
the instability, the lack of control, and the fragility already
discussed: these are facts. Her grasp on the world is thus more
restricted; she has less firmness and less steadiness available for
projects that in general she is less capable of carrying out. In other
words, her individual life is less rich than man's.**
- The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir
>>So what "negotiations"? Men can always go back to oppressing women again and
>are under no compunction to "negotiate" with them.
>>
>You seem to forget that today we have equal rights and guns.
You don't have guns, Puke. And you have equal rights only because of
male suffererance.
And to the extent that women have guns, their emotional weaknesses
will prevent them from ever using them as a means of attaining
political might.
> I just don't see
>men shooting their wives and daughters simply because they are insecure.
You're boasting that women have "guns".
Obviously, you see women shooting their husbands and sons because they
are insecure.
Sky King
> >Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
> >Date: 4/11/2004 5:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <4079AB44.10188.51AECED@localhost>
> >
> >nathal...@lycos.com (Nathalie Hutt) wrote:
> >
> >> Because men think with their penises and women with their brains.Many
> >> men are killed while wanking, because they are penis-controlled.
> >
> >I agree. Now please use your brain to focus on sucking my dick.
>
> She'd have to be able to find it first; do you have some sort of magnification
> device?
> >
Hyerdahl1
>Message-id: <hv%gc.30586$kc2.4...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
>Things are somewhat different up here Parg. A pre-nuptual is considered more
like "terms and conditions" and the court has upheld the principle that
individuals have a right to arrange their affairs in ways which >differ from
the norm and that (except in extreme cases) "society" has no >right to
interfere with that arrangement.
A Canadian prenup is much like an American prenup in that it is a CONTRACT with
terms and conditions. And a valid prenup should be upheld in either country.
The question is about validity.
In Canada the only proviso is that there was no coercion in the signing of
>the>> agreement and both parties understood what they were signing.
Canadian law may not be quite as simple as you bitter boys wish it were, but
certainly the lack of coersion is ONE, and only one, element of a valid prenup.
This was very recently upheld in a pleasing Superior Court ruling in BC just
last month
>> which not only upheld a pre-nuptual agreement in the face of contrary
>> provincial legislation but also in the face of the woman claiming that she
>> didn't really "understand" the implications when she signed...the fact that
she's a lawyer probably damaged the credibility of this claim...but the
written decision stated quite clearly that if you sign a pre-nuptual>agreement
>> with the expectation that it will not be upheld, you are not dealing in
>good> faith and that your behaviour borders on fraud. He went on to state that
>you > must negotiate in good faith and that the court must assume that you did
so> and that your were in agreement with the provisions of the agreement and
>> except in extreme circumstances (like coercion...and he specifically stated
>> that a partner refusing to marry you unless you signed the pre-nuptual
>CANNOT > be considered coercion), the pre-nuptual agreement must be upheld. In
an>even more enlightening statement the judge said that Canadians have the
*RIGHT*>to > not arrange their affairs in ways which may or may correspond with
the main>> stream view and that courts must uphold this right. Some legal
experts>claim > this could have profound implications on many areas, for
example if this>could > set a precedent which may allow challenges to
provincial rules on common>law > "marriage" and child custody.
>>
>> Nah. Canada is refining its law just as we do here in the states.
>
> Yep we are...and after years of anti-male family and divorce law the
>pendulum is swinging back
>
No it isn't. If anything the law requires MORE evidence of fairness than less.
And I don't think women worry about the laws being MORE fair. :-) AND, the
law that's evolving will still tend to consider the intent of the>parties >> as
well as full disclosure and having independent counsel.
>
> In Canada we still have the concept of being the purveyor of your own
>misfortune...unless you can prove that you *really* didn't understand >the
implications of the contract, if you are stupid enough to sign it, >it will be
upheld...which is as it should be.
>
>>>>There must be two lawyers,
>>>
>>> Not in Canada
>
Read the very case from which you're quoting:
Supreme Court of Canada ruling:
Hatshorne v. Hartshorne
March 26, 2004
Property Rights
(edit)
Legal News Canada - Supreme Court of Canada affirms prenuptials
March 27, 2004
Prenuptials: A deal is a deal
Supreme Court of Canada affirms marriage agreements
(edit)
In Hartshorne v. Hartshorne, a 6-3 majority sad that "courts should respect
private arrangements that spouses make for the division of their property on
the breakdown of their relationship...
...
Prenuptials are enforceable when:
Substantively fair: the circumstances of the parties at the time of separation
are within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time the
agreement was formed. THE PARTIES HAVE INDEPENDENT LEGAL ADVICE
Both parties remain faithful to the intent and specifics of the agreement.
Provisions are made for spousal support (self-sufficiency and needs are met).
Assets are kept separate.
While the courts reaffirmed fair treatment for spouses who would suffer from
financial hardship it said that didn't mean equal access to all assets, not
when you've signed them away.
>
>> That is coming to your neighborhood soon. :-)
>
> Not according to the latest Superior Court Ruling...
>>
>>>>full disclosure
>>>
It only makes sense since you have to disclose your existing assets so >they,
and any income or increase in value in them can be excluded from>>matrimonial
income/property...
>>
>> The problems that crop up with this one is that assets change. The prenup
>has> to be re-evaluated every few years or it can be tossed.
>
In Canada, pre-existing assets are not considered "matrimonial >property"
unless they are specifically and knowingly converted into >matrimonial
property. I'll give you and example.
We were not talking about property earned before the marriage. We were talking
about review of the prenup to adjust for a full disclosure of marital assets.
You are confused here.
(edit)
>
>
>> There are good prenups that address the actual> needs and intentions of the
parties and there are prenups that don't work>out> because they are one sided
or out to hurt a party.
>
There's no such thing as a "one sided" pre-nuptual Parg, you aren't
>being forced to marry, if you don't like the pre-nuptual agreement don't >get
married...but if you DO agree to the pre-nuptual, you should expect
>to be held to your *freely made* commitment...
>> There are also prenups filed under duress....like the Barry Bonds
prenup drawn up by a lawyer and brought to the bride to sign an>> hour before
the wedding. :-)
>
> What duress ? Did the lawyer hold a gun to her head to make her sign it
>? What dire consequence would have befallen her if she had refused to
>sign ? I know that a US court probably overturned it but US courts are
>notoriously anti-male so this comes as no surprise. Fortunately a
>Canadian likely would have upheld it...
>
Hahahaha. I don't think so. I'd say that most judges would find extreme
duress an hour before the wedding. Hahahahaha.
Now that I've provided you an education about Canadian law, perhaps you should
look up Dave Sims; he lives in Canada and has been divorced.
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/20/2004 6:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <16232246.04042...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20040412112501...@mb-m02.aol.com>...
>> >Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>> >From: roger_d...@yahoo.com
>> >Date: 4/11/2004 5:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <4079AB44.10188.51AECED@localhost>
>> >
>> >nathal...@lycos.com (Nathalie Hutt) wrote:
>> >
>> >> Because men think with their penises and women with their brains.Many
>> >> men are killed while wanking, because they are penis-controlled.
>> >
>> >I agree. Now please use your brain to focus on sucking my dick.
>>
>> She'd have to be able to find it first; do you have some sort of
>magnification
>> device?
>> >
>>No need...she will feel it when its shoved down her throat.
Not if you feel the edge of her razor first. :-)
Hyerdahl1
>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>Message-id: <s47980196hsp8j80r...@4ax.com>
>
>On 20 Apr 2004 03:15:23 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>>>Date: 4/18/2004 2:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <88t580t30k332ngde...@4ax.com>
>>>
>>(edit)
>>
>And yet, the male role is indispensable to the process, even if it's>just a
"little squirt".
>>
The "male role" does not indicate a need for ANY individual man, tho.Therin
>>you'll find the difference.
>
>The female role does not indicate a need for any individual woman.
>So?
>
Sure it does. If a man wants a child, he must solicit a particular woman to
gestate one for him. He can either marry a wife willing to gestate for him or
hire a surrogate. A woman only needs a few drops of sperm.
If ALL MEN want to give up the right to parent, all>women can accept the
>>payment. Let me know when we can begin negotiations.>:-)
>>>
>>>
>>>You seem to be a little unclear on the concept, Puke.
>>>
>>Not at all, Sim; I'm VERY clear.
>>
>>>You have been told that you can't claim, on behalf of the
female>>sex,>virtually full credit for bringing life into the world while
>disdaining full responsibility for sustaining that life.
>>
>>Well, women do get full credit for gestation and delivery
>
>>This is like giving the first baseman "full credit" for the double play when
the play started with the interchange between the shortstop>and the second
baseman.
>
Not as it pertains to gestation and delivery, Sim. I think you're confusing
those two things with conception.
>>
>>and all attendant>risks, because men don't contribute there.
>
>It doesn't matter because "gestation and delivery" are not all that is
necessary.
As far as women are concerned, any few drops of sperm are all that's needed for
them to run with the ball. :-) And women KNOW THAT.
The first baseman doesn't get full credit for the double>play just because
he's the one that ends up with the ball when the
>play is completed.
>
It's actually more about risk and time and pain, etc. Even a five year old
doesn't credit his father for the new baby. :-)
>
>>AND, men seem to want to be
>>fathers so with rights come duties.
>
>
>What "duties" did you ever impose upon women who wanted to have the
>right to be mothers, Puke?
Women have the same duties men have, Dave Sim.
>
>>>How did that manifest into an argument that men should pay for
GIVING>UP>the>>right to parent?
>>
>>Pay what? If men universally give up parenting rights, then and only then,
>>will they not be obligated by parenting duties.>>It's just that easy.
>
>
>Really, Puke?
>
Sure.
>Then you favor choice for men?
No, I don't. That is choice for INDIVIDUAL men. That means they risk, just
like the woman, and then want to run away from their decision. I'm talking
about ALL MEN relinquishing their right to parent children.
Aren't you always arguing AGAINST
>choice for men. Sure you are.
Yes; there is no Fuck and Run C4m; it's a figmen of bitter boy imagination.
>
>
>> It reminds me of the old Herblock cartoon:>>"We generously allow you to pay
for the cow - all we ask is that you>let us>>take the cream".
>>
>>You ARE the cartoon expert here. :-)
>
>And you are the cartoon character here.
>
Hmmmm....
>
>>However, the trade is tit for tat; no
>>rights no duties on a universal level.
>>>
>>>Besides, according to you, men really aren't parents at all - they>don't
>>contribute anything more substantial than a "little squirt".
>>
Prior to actually HAVING a child, that is all any man contributes.
However,once there is a child a father can be as active in contribution as
hedesires,>just like a mother.
>
>You don't really favor choice for men, Puke.
No. Never said I did, Sim. I said if all men want to relinquish all parental
rights, they can also get rid of all parental duties. I think men want to
retain those rights.
>
>But as always, I regard it as a moral victory when I pin you down to a
>position that you really don't believe in.
When will you be starting?
>
>
>>>Then why should men be charged with more than token responsibility for
>>>sustaining the lives that ONLY women gestate and deliver into the>world?
>>
>>As long as no men want to BE fathers, (parental rights) I see no reason why
>>>for them to have universal duties.
>>
>> That's the question that you are trying to sidestep.
>>
>>What question? It seems fairly simple to me; if men want the right to
>parent,>>they must accept the duties of parenting and the risks just like
women.
>>
And what "payment"? How would you enforce that payment without a male>security
apparatus?
>>
>>Rigth now, society manages to collect child support from NCPs who may or may
>>not want to pay.
>
>Yes, with the male security apparatus that I've already alluded to.
What "security apparatus" that includes women and men is going to become
extinct? :-)
>Parents have the responsibility of supporting their kids>>whatever sex the
parents are.
>You don't believe this for one minute, Puke.
>
>Sure I do Dave Sim.
>>
>>>And what "negotiations"? As a feminist, you believe that men
>>have>historically oppressed women.
>>
>>Yes, indeed, men who wanted patriarchy.
>>
>> Obviously, if this happened, men did
>>>this because they COULD.
>>
>>Yes, and because they were boorish brutes. Ah, but today, they CAN'T.
>>
>Ah, but they CAN.
No, actually, they can't; today women have equal rights AND GUNS.
>
>>>You don't believe that women have historically oppressed men.
>>
>>No, I don't.
>>
>>>Obviously, if women have not historically oppressed men, it's
because>they>>CAN'T.
>>>
>>No, I don't think women have a reason to WANT to oppress men.
>
>Of course you do, Puke. Women are piggy. Actually, women have a
>great deal of emotional power over men that is never factored into the
>"power" equation.
>
Well, that's certainly YOUR problem isn't it Sim. You cannot explain exactly
why making sure women have equal rights results in women having superior
rights.
AND, I don't see why women would have a reason to oppress men. Free and equal
women don't need to fear oppression themselves.
>But if it is true that women don't oppress men, it's because they>CAN'T. Not
because they don't want to. You would kill God Himself if>you could get your
hands on him, Puke.
Your _god_ or mine? :-)
>> I don't think
>>women are as insecure as most men.
>>
>Neither do I. I think that women are much more insecure than men.
Nah; they can do all that men do of value, plus gestate.
>
(edit)
>>>So what "negotiations"? Men can always go back to oppressing women
again>and>>are under no compunction to "negotiate" with them.
>>>
>>You seem to forget that today we have equal rights and guns.
>
>
>You don't have guns, Puke. And you have equal rights only because of
>male suffererance.
>
Women HAVE GUNS dear. :-)
Grizzlie Antagonist
>>ubject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>>Date: 4/19/2004 8:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <s47980196hsp8j80r...@4ax.com>
>>
>>On 20 Apr 2004 03:15:23 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>>>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>>>>Date: 4/18/2004 2:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>>Message-id: <88t580t30k332ngde...@4ax.com>
>>>>
>>>(edit)
>>>
>>And yet, the male role is indispensable to the process, even if it's>just a
>"little squirt".
>>>
>The "male role" does not indicate a need for ANY individual man, tho.Therin
>>>you'll find the difference.
>>
>
>>The female role does not indicate a need for any individual woman.
>>So?
>>
>Sure it does. If a man wants a child, he must solicit a particular woman to
>gestate one for him.
No Puke, since ANY fertile woman will do for this purpose. And in a
society where men have not chosen to protect women from other men, he
need not "solicit".
> He can either marry a wife willing to gestate for him or
>hire a surrogate.
Or...
>A woman only needs a few drops of sperm.
You're using semantics to make things sound different from how they
really are.
A man "only" needs a womb to impregnate.
>
> If ALL MEN want to give up the right to parent, all>women can accept the
>>>payment. Let me know when we can begin negotiations.>:-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You seem to be a little unclear on the concept, Puke.
>>>>
>>>Not at all, Sim; I'm VERY clear.
>>>
>>>>You have been told that you can't claim, on behalf of the
>female>>sex,>virtually full credit for bringing life into the world while
>>disdaining full responsibility for sustaining that life.
>>>
>>>Well, women do get full credit for gestation and delivery
>>
>>>This is like giving the first baseman "full credit" for the double play when
>the play started with the interchange between the shortstop>and the second
>baseman.
>>
>Not as it pertains to gestation and delivery, Sim. I think you're confusing
>those two things with conception.
Gestation and delivery are not all there is to procreation, Puke.
>>>and all attendant>risks, because men don't contribute there.
>>
>>It doesn't matter because "gestation and delivery" are not all that is
>necessary.
>
>As far as women are concerned, any few drops of sperm are all that's needed for
>them to run with the ball. :-) And women KNOW THAT.
As far as men are concerned, any womb is all that's necessary to
deposit the ball. And men KNOW THIS. I can play the semantics game
too, Puke.
> The first baseman doesn't get full credit for the double>play just because
>he's the one that ends up with the ball when the
>>play is completed.
>>
>It's actually more about risk and time and pain, etc.
Finally, I pin the Puke down. And, you know, I almost forgot...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> In fact, it is my belief that women and men are more alike than
>>>different,
>>Again, I'll remember this the next time that you argue that women are>superior
>because they can gestate.
>
>I've never once argued that.
Yes, Puke; you argue it all of the time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.>Even a five year old
>doesn't credit his father for the new baby. :-)
Well Puke, the five year old is a) almost as immature as you are; b)
has not learned about sex and procreation - in fact c) he probably has
been told that the "stork" brought him and d) probably sees more of
his mother than his father anyway -- but that doesn't mean that the
five year old's perception is ACCURATE.
Five year olds are relatively easy to deceive, are they not?
>>>AND, men seem to want to be
>>>fathers so with rights come duties.
>>
>>
>>What "duties" did you ever impose upon women who wanted to have the
>>right to be mothers, Puke?
>
>Women have the same duties men have, Dave Sim.
What are they, Puke?
>>>>How did that manifest into an argument that men should pay for
>GIVING>UP>the>>right to parent?
>>>
>>>Pay what? If men universally give up parenting rights, then and only then,
>>>will they not be obligated by parenting duties.>>It's just that easy.
>>
>>
>>Really, Puke?
>>
>Sure.
>
>>Then you favor choice for men?
>
>No, I don't.
(wagging my finger) Ah ah ah, I didn't think so. And do you favor
choice for women? Sure you do.
> That is choice for INDIVIDUAL men. That means they risk, just
>like the woman, and then want to run away from their decision. I'm talking
>about ALL MEN relinquishing their right to parent children.
I'm not sure what you're babbling here, unless you are trying to argue
that no individual man gets a choice unless all men choose the same
way - which isn't choice for men at all.
So Puke, why do you favor choice for women and not men?
> Aren't you always arguing AGAINST
>>choice for men. Sure you are.
>
>Yes; there is no Fuck and Run C4m;
Why not, Puke? If women enjoy sex as much as men do, why isn't there?
>it's a figmen of bitter boy imagination.
Well, there's no such thing as recreational abortion C4W or breed and
pay C4W either - it's just a figment of bitter bitch imagination.
>>
>>
>>> It reminds me of the old Herblock cartoon:>>"We generously allow you to pay
>for the cow - all we ask is that you>let us>>take the cream".
>>>
>>>You ARE the cartoon expert here. :-)
>>
>>And you are the cartoon character here.
>>
>Hmmmm....
>>
>>>However, the trade is tit for tat; no
>>>rights no duties on a universal level.
>>>>
>>>>Besides, according to you, men really aren't parents at all - they>don't
>>>contribute anything more substantial than a "little squirt".
>>>
>Prior to actually HAVING a child, that is all any man contributes.
>However,once there is a child a father can be as active in contribution as
>hedesires,>just like a mother.
>>
>>You don't really favor choice for men, Puke.
>
>No. Never said I did, Sim. I said if all men want to relinquish all parental
>rights, they can also get rid of all parental duties. I think men want to
>retain those rights.
You seem to deny men's rights to behave as individuals, even as you
insist that this right be recognized on behalf of women.
>>But as always, I regard it as a moral victory when I pin you down to a
>>position that you really don't believe in.
>
>When will you be starting?
I'm talking from experience.
>>>>Then why should men be charged with more than token responsibility for
>>>>sustaining the lives that ONLY women gestate and deliver into the>world?
>>>
>>>As long as no men want to BE fathers, (parental rights) I see no reason why
>>>>for them to have universal duties.
>>>
>>> That's the question that you are trying to sidestep.
>>>
>>>What question? It seems fairly simple to me; if men want the right to
>>parent,>>they must accept the duties of parenting and the risks just like
>women.
>>>
>And what "payment"? How would you enforce that payment without a male>security
>apparatus?
>>>
>>>Rigth now, society manages to collect child support from NCPs who may or may
>>>not want to pay.
>>
>>Yes, with the male security apparatus that I've already alluded to.
>
>What "security apparatus" that includes women and men is going to become
>extinct? :-)
http://www.worldcongress.org/WCFUpdate/Archive02/wcf_update_223.htm
It is in this context that social scientist Martin Van Creveld asks if
there still exists even "a single field in which men are at a clear
advantage and [in which] women will NEVER be able to play more than a
marginal role?" In an extended analysis, recently published in Social
Research, Van Creveld dares to assert that "such a field does
exist...and its name is violence." In his assessment of the social
meaning of violence, Van Creveld goes so far as to suggest that "one
of its functions is to clearly separate men from women."
Van Creveld freely acknowledges "the ongoing feminization of the
police and the armed forces" in the industrialized nations, but he
discounts this phenomenon as "an illusion." "The more women there are
in any branch of the police, the further removed from violence that
branch is likely to be," he remarks. "The more women in any armed
force, the less likely it is to engage in serious military
operations."
Van Creveld does not have far to look to find the reasons that, even
in the police and the military, women are not to be found in the
theater of violence. "There is nothing like violence," he reasons, "to
penalize weakness. It does so quickly; it does so in the most
unpleasant way imaginable; and it does so with results which, all too
often, are irrevocable." Putting women into the police and military
has not erased "the fact that women's bodies are much less suitable
[than men's] for engaging in violence or defending against [it]";
>>Parents have the responsibility of supporting their kids>>whatever sex the
>parents are.
>
>
>>You don't believe this for one minute, Puke.
>>
>>Sure I do Dave Sim.
No you don't, Puke.
>>>>And what "negotiations"? As a feminist, you believe that men
>>>have>historically oppressed women.
>>>
>>>Yes, indeed, men who wanted patriarchy.
>>>
>>> Obviously, if this happened, men did
>>>>this because they COULD.
>>>
>>>Yes, and because they were boorish brutes. Ah, but today, they CAN'T.
>>>
>>Ah, but they CAN.
>
>No, actually, they can't; today women have equal rights AND GUNS.
Women DON'T have guns, Puke. You seem to think that a gun can be
carried and produced with the same facility as a set of keys.
>>>>You don't believe that women have historically oppressed men.
>>>
>>>No, I don't.
>>>
>>>>Obviously, if women have not historically oppressed men, it's
>because>they>>CAN'T.
>>>>
>>>No, I don't think women have a reason to WANT to oppress men.
>>
>>Of course you do, Puke. Women are piggy. Actually, women have a
>>great deal of emotional power over men that is never factored into the
>>"power" equation.
>>
>Well, that's certainly YOUR problem isn't it Sim. You cannot explain exactly
>why making sure women have equal rights results in women having superior
>rights.
What if dogs and cats were to be given equal rights? Wouldn't that
result in them having SUPERIOR rights?
Well, the same principle applies with women.
>AND, I don't see why women would have a reason to oppress men. Free and equal
>women don't need to fear oppression themselves.
>
>>But if it is true that women don't oppress men, it's because they>CAN'T. Not
>because they don't want to. You would kill God Himself if>you could get your
>hands on him, Puke.
>
>Your _god_ or mine? :-)
Any god that you could get your hands on.
>>> I don't think
>>>women are as insecure as most men.
>>>
>>Neither do I. I think that women are much more insecure than men.
>
>Nah; they can do all that men do of value, plus gestate.
No, they can't, per the Simone de Beauvoir quote that you snipped out.
This one.
***
>>>>So what "negotiations"? Men can always go back to oppressing women
>again>and>>are under no compunction to "negotiate" with them.
>>>>
>>>You seem to forget that today we have equal rights and guns.
>>
>>
>>You don't have guns, Puke. And you have equal rights only because of
>>male suffererance.
>>
>Women HAVE GUNS dear. :-)
No they don't, Puke.
Sky King
> >Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
> >From: rebe...@adelphia.net (Sky King)
> >Date: 4/20/2004 6:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <16232246.04042...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
> >news:<20040412112501...@mb-m02.aol.com>...
> >> >Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
> >> >From: roger_d...@yahoo.com
> >> >Date: 4/11/2004 5:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >> >Message-id: <4079AB44.10188.51AECED@localhost>
> >> >
> >> >nathal...@lycos.com (Nathalie Hutt) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Because men think with their penises and women with their brains.Many
> >> >> men are killed while wanking, because they are penis-controlled.
> >> >
> >> >I agree. Now please use your brain to focus on sucking my dick.
> >>
> >> She'd have to be able to find it first; do you have some sort of
> magnification
> >> device?
> >> >
> >>No need...she will feel it when its shoved down her throat.
>
> Not if you feel the edge of her razor first. :-)
>
>
LOL.. the overwhelming majority of women do not carry razors dear...or
guns...or knives. MOST cannot defend themselves and that is why we
have a VAWA
hon. How does it feel to be the weaker sex?
chuckle
Hyerdahl1
women seem to be arming themselves quite nicely.
Women wielding barrel of protection
Training, ownership of guns finding appeal among defense-minded females
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
By Hayli Fellwock, hfel...@bgdailynews.com -- 270-783-3240
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Joe Imel/Daily News
Deborah Williams of Bowling Green demonstrates the proper way to hold a gun
during her concealed-carry class March 6 at The Firing Line shooting range on
Shive Lane.
Ponytails and manicured nails are becoming a more common sight at shooting
ranges, indicating a turning tide for the gun industry. The historically
male-dominated shooting sport is becoming less foreign to females as more women
flock to gun classes and target practice.
“We have had somewhere around 6,000 students since October 1996, and I would
say around one-third to nearly half of our students are female,” said Deborah
Williams of Bowling Green, who has helped teach concealed-weapons classes for
the past eight years. “I get a mixture of single women who live alone, women
who have felt it is necessary because they’ve become victims of a crime, or I
have occasionally had women who are being stalked.
“Some women come with husbands or boyfriends and they take the class
together. A lot of females get into this and learn that it is a really fun
sport.”
The expanding market has not gone unnoticed by corporations. In 1990, the Smith
and Wesson gun company introduced the LadySmith – a slim, easily concealed
revolver with a shortened trigger reach. Now, the LadySmith can be further
feminized with rosewood grips, gold detailing and an engraved image of a rose.
Purse manufacturers have also identified a marketing niche – bags equipped
with a special compartment for guns. Some women, frustrated and pained by
waistline gun holsters often worn comfortably by men, have taken a liking to
the more skirt-friendly thigh holsters.
Mike Clay, owner of The Firing Line indoor range and gun shop on Shive Lane,
said he has seen gun-shopping females from all walks of life. He has also seen
many women improve their aim on the range after only a little practice.
“Women are good shots,” he said. “Women usually outshoot men. I can’t
explain why.”
Williams ventured a guess: Women are usually easier to teach, she said, because
men may have picked up bad techniques, such as shooting the wrong way.
“Women tend to be more focused, and tend to learn what we teach them and do
it right,” she said. “I would much prefer to have a student, whether male
or female, who hasn’t been shooting a lot, because they haven’t picked up
those bad habits and they don’t have preconceived notions.”
Williams said another thing most women have in their favor is a fierce maternal
instinct. Protection, whether of self or family, plays a large role in why
women take up the shooting sport.
“There is nothing meaner on this Earth than a woman when her family is
threatened,” Williams said.
Beverly Steele, a 57-year-old Bowling Green woman who recently participated in
Williams’ eight-hour concealed-carry class at The Firing Line, said she would
like her 36-year-old daughter take the class next. Her daughter, single mother
to an 8-year-old boy, lives in a rural area.
“She lives out in the country alone and her little Pomeranian isn’t much
protection,” Steele said. “I have known a lot of ladies who are interested
in taking this class, and my daughter is going to be next. I think a lot of
women are realizing that this type of training is important for
self-preservation.”
Steele said her job – teaching graduated driver’s licensing to high school
students – frequently requires driving alone at night. She and her mother,
who is now 79, have also driven cross-country seven times, spending about 40
percent of their time on secondary roads. Steele said having a gun and
concealed-carry permit would bring confidence and reassurance in her many
travels.
•••
May 12, 1997, was a routine Monday evening for Ann Barry – until an incident
at about 11 p.m. that garnered national media attention.
The Western Kentucky University history professor awoke to a loud chopping
sound as two men pick-axed their way through the side door of her ranch-style
home. Acting on skills gathered from years of training that began as a young
girl hunting with her grandfather, Barry grabbed her Ruger SP101 revolver from
the nightstand beside her bed. She crouched in the darkness at the end of the
long hallway, and saw a man at the opposite end of the hall turn toward a guest
bedroom and flick on the light.
“He had a gun,” she said. “It was then or never. For me, it was live or
go six feet under.
“He started to turn toward me and I just shot him. I shot him in the side as
he was turning. Otherwise, we would have been facing each other and would have
probably killed each other.”
The man still managed to shoot five bullets into the darkness, but Barry was
unharmed. Only then did she have the opportunity to call law enforcement. She
said a woman’s first resort in such scenarios should be to call 911 and flee
out a window or back door, but she had no such options.
“What happened that night took about two minutes altogether, but it seemed
like an eternity,” she said.
The man Barry shot, 28-year-old James Shugart, was arrested in a nearby field,
where he had collapsed. He was sentenced to 25 years in a federal penitentiary
on charges of attempted murder and first-degree burglary.
His partner that night, 18-year-old Gordon Wayne Childress, was arrested upon
further investigation and sentenced to 20 years in a federal penitentiary on
charges of attempted murder by complicity and first-degree burglary by
complicity.
The two men were part of a ring of thieves who had burglarized several homes at
random throughout the Barren River district.
“People were getting scared and wondering who they were going to hit next,
but they picked the wrong house that night,” Barry said, reiterating the
importance of proper firearm training and practice to ensure a cool head in
dangerous situations.
“I have been exposed to guns and that type of thing all my life, but when
this sort of thing happens unexpectedly, you are really thrown into sheer
panic,” she said. “I just acted on impulse, but fortunately I had training.
Proper training is very important. You can’t just have a gun. You have to
practice with it, care for it, and learn how to use it.”
•••
Williams had a similar experience in 1977, when a man tried to break into her
apartment one afternoon while her husband, Rick, was at work. In her case, law
enforcement arrived in time to arrest the man, but Williams was standing in her
living room, armed and ready with a shotgun.
“This guy had been questioned on 11 rapes and I would have been his 12th,”
Williams said. “The police got there in time, but I had only a few minutes to
decide, ‘Will I shoot this guy if he comes through my door?’ Most women
don’t think of those things, but these are things you need to be prepared
for.”
That is the reason for the concealed-carry classes, Williams said. It teaches
men and women to think through life-threatening scenarios, as opposed to being
trigger-happy.
“So many people misunderstood this when we first started,” Williams said.
“People thought we were going to be a bunch of vigilantes out here.”
On the contrary, she said, the class teaches proper shooting techniques, when
not to shoot, safe ways to carry, clean and store a gun, and the legalities of
self-defense with a deadly weapon. Upon passing written firing-range tests at
the end of the course, participants are eligible to apply for a concealed-carry
permit at their local sheriff’s office.
Donna Rehders of Bowling Green took the class recently after deciding it was
time to join her husband, Tom, a concealed-carry licensee of nearly two years.
“I go lots of places alone and I’m worried,” Rehders said. “You see all
this stuff on television about women getting abducted and they don’t have
protection.”
Williams said the frequently presupposed notion of female vulnerability can
actually work in their favor.
“I think that women are very vulnerable, or more so than men, on one hand,”
she said. “On the other hand, I think we have the element of surprise on our
side. They don’t expect us to be armed. They don’t expect us to be able to
defend ourselves and do it the right way.
“We are not going out hunting for crime. But if it comes to you, you are
doing what you have to do to protect yourself and your family.”
— For more information about a class at The Firing Line, call 842-1791.
chuckle
howldog
>>
>Most women choose peace over war and tolerance over violence.
so do most men.
you conviently omit that.
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/21/2004 12:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <5776296d3afdd988...@news.bubbanews.com>
In matters of criminal law, (which was the subject before you deleted it),
there are simply not as many female as male criminals. More men commit
violence than women, so of most criminals more men than women also seem to
prefer violence to tolerance.
Hyerdahl1
>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>Message-id: <u7pb80h52td9fua6f...@4ax.com>
>
>On 21 Apr 2004 01:56:50 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>
>>>ubject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>>>Date: 4/19/2004 8:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <s47980196hsp8j80r...@4ax.com>
>>>
>>>On 20 Apr 2004 03:15:23 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>>>>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>>>>>Date: 4/18/2004 2:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>>>Message-id: <88t580t30k332ngde...@4ax.com>
>>>>>
>>>>(edit)
>>>>
>>>And yet, the male role is indispensable to the process, even if it's>just a
>>"little squirt".
>>>>
>>The "male role" does not indicate a need for ANY individual man, tho.Therin
>>>>you'll find the difference.
>>>
>>
>>>The female role does not indicate a need for any individual woman.
>>>So?
>>>
>>Sure it does. If a man wants a child, he must solicit a particular woman to
>>gestate one for him.
>
>No Puke, since ANY fertile woman will do for this purpose.
You mean any INDIVIDUAL woman, engaged for nine mos. :-) A squirt into a
turkey baster takes just a few minutes, and she can go to a sperm bank, dear
where NO individual man is required.
Keep in mind that one man could father a nation. :-)
And in a>society where men have not chosen to protect women from other men,
he>need not "solicit".
>
Women here have guns to shoot it off or knives to cut it off, dear. AND, if
all else fails they have both the law and abortion.
:-) They don't need you, your dick, your sperm or your permission.
>
>> He can either marry a wife willing to gestate for him or>>hire a surrogate.
>
>
>Or...
>
Or, nothing. Your rape fantasy doesn't work here.
>>>A woman only needs a few drops of sperm.
>
>
>You're using semantics to make things sound different from how they
>really are.
No; I'm using reality to let you know that you and yours only get to procreate
with permission of a willing woman.
>
>A man "only" needs a womb to impregnate.
There is no womb for rent; you must have a willing woman if you want a child.>
>
>
>> If ALL MEN want to give up the right to parent, all>women can accept the
>>>>payment. Let me know when we can begin negotiations.>:-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You seem to be a little unclear on the concept, Puke.
>>>>>
>>>>Not at all, Sim; I'm VERY clear.
>>>>
>>>>>You have been told that you can't claim, on behalf of
the>>female>>sex,>virtually full credit for bringing life into the world while
>>>disdaining full responsibility for sustaining that life.
>>>>
>>>>Well, women do get full credit for gestation and delivery
>>>
>>>>This is like giving the first baseman "full credit" for the double play
>when>>the play started with the interchange between the shortstop>and the
second>>baseman.
>>>
>>Not as it pertains to gestation and delivery, Sim. I think you're confusing
>>those two things with conception.
>
>Gestation and delivery are not all there is to procreation, Puke.
>
I never said they were, Dave; I simply informed you that men have no status to
claim in matters of gestation and delivery.
All they have is a sqirt and a hope.
>
>>>>and all attendant>risks, because men don't contribute there.
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter because "gestation and delivery" are not all that is
>>necessary.
>>
>>As far as women are concerned, any few drops of sperm are all that's needed
>for>>them to run with the ball. :-) And women KNOW THAT.
>
>
>As far as men are concerned, any womb is all that's necessary to>deposit the
ball.
Let me know when you can BUY a womb with a view, Dave. :-)
And men KNOW THIS. I can play the semantics game
>too, Puke.
Yes, but you can't win at them.
>
>> The first baseman doesn't get full credit for the double>play just because
>>he's the one that ends up with the ball when the>>>play is completed.
>>>
>>It's actually more about risk and time and pain, etc.
>
>>Finally, I pin the Puke down. And, you know, I almost forgot...
>
>You couldn't pin a tail on the donkey dear.
(edit)>
>>>Again, I'll remember this the next time that you argue that women
>are>superior>>because they can gestate.
>>
>>I've never once argued that.
>
>Yes, Puke; you argue it all of the time.
>
No, I don't.
>
>.>Even a five year old
>>doesn't credit his father for the new baby. :-)
>
>Well Puke, the five year old is a) almost as immature as you are; b)>has not
learned about sex and procreation - in fact c) he probably has>been told that
the "stork" brought him and d) probably sees more of his mother than his father
anyway -- but that doesn't mean that the>five year old's perception is
ACCURATE.
Sure it does. Babies know that mommy "grows" the baby when daddy cannot.
>
>Five year olds are relatively easy to deceive, are they not?
It doesn't take much in the way of sophistication to understand that men cannot
grow a baby.
>>
>>>>AND, men seem to want to be
>>>>fathers so with rights come duties.
>>>>>>
>>>What "duties" did you ever impose upon women who wanted to have the
>>>right to be mothers, Puke?
>>
>>Women have the same duties men have, Dave Sim.
>
>What are they, Puke?
>
To support any existing child, Dave.
>
>>>>>How did that manifest into an argument that men should pay for
>>GIVING>UP>the>>right to parent?
>>>>
>>>>Pay what? If men universally give up parenting rights, then and only
>then,>>>>will they not be obligated by parenting duties.>>It's just that easy.
>>>
>>>
>>>Really, Puke?
>>>
>>Sure.
>>
>>>Then you favor choice for men?
>>
>>No, I don't.
>
>(wagging my finger) Ah ah ah, I didn't think so. And do you favor
>choice for women? Sure you do.
>
I favor both women and men having rights over their own bodies, Dave. Is that
what you mean?
>
>> That is choice for INDIVIDUAL men. That means they risk, just>>like the
woman, and then want to run away from their decision. I'm talking>about ALL
MEN relinquishing their right to parent children.
>
>
>I'm not sure what you're babbling here, unless you are trying to argue
>that no individual man gets a choice unless all men choose the same
>way - which isn't choice for men at all.
>
Men don't get special rights, Dave. They have the same rights women have.
They have the right to procreate, the right to parent, as well as the duty to
support existing children.
>So Puke, why do you favor choice for women and not men?
They both have the same choices over bodies and duties to support existing
children.
>
>
>> Aren't you always arguing AGAINST
>>>choice for men. Sure you are.
>>
>>Yes; there is no Fuck and Run C4m;
>>
>Why not, Puke? If women enjoy sex as much as men do, why isn't there?
>
I never once said that women enjoyed sex the SAME AS MEN; you see, women need
not BE men in order to enjoy sex AS women enjoy sex. Enjoying sex has nothing
to do with the natural and expected consequences of the sex act.
>Well, there's no such thing as recreational abortion C4W or breed and
>pay C4W either - it's just a figment of bitter bitch imagination.
Women do abort for whatever motivations they have because women have the SAME
bodily rights men have.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It reminds me of the old Herblock cartoon:>>"We generously allow you to
>pay>>for the cow - all we ask is that you>let us>>take the cream".
>>>>
>>>>You ARE the cartoon expert here. :-) >>
>>>And you are the cartoon character here.
>>>
>>Hmmmm....
>>>
>>>>However, the trade is tit for tat; no
>>>>rights no duties on a universal level.
>>>>>
>>>>>Besides, according to you, men really aren't parents at all - they>don't
contribute anything more substantial than a "little squirt".
>>>>
>>Prior to actually HAVING a child, that is all any man contributes.
>>However,once there is a child a father can be as active in contribution
as>>hedesires,>just like a mother.
>>>
>>>You don't really favor choice for men, Puke.
>>
>>No. Never said I did, Sim. I said if all men want to relinquish
all>parental
>>rights, they can also get rid of all parental duties. I think men want to
>>retain those rights.
>
>You seem to deny men's rights to behave as individuals, even as you>insist
that this right be recognized on behalf of women.
Men HAVE the same exact rights as women have regarding bodily autonomy.
Men simply don't have rights over women's bodies, Dave. I believe most men
want to be parents and have parental rights which is why men have parental
duties as well.
>
>>>But as always, I regard it as a moral victory when I pin you down to
a>>>position that you really don't believe in.
>>
>>When will you be starting?
>
I'm talking from experience.
You're talking out of a cartoon head.
>
>
>>>>>Then why should men be charged with more than token responsibility
for>>sustaining the lives that ONLY women gestate and deliver into the>world?
>>>>
>>>>As long as no men want to BE fathers, (parental rights) I see no reason
>why>>>>>for them to have universal duties.
>>>>
>>>> That's the question that you are trying to sidestep.
>>
There is no need TO sidestep, Dave. This is about risk; they both risk unsafe
or unprotected sex fully knowing the possible results. Two play; two pay.
There's no reason to ONLY blame the person housing the harm when two people set
the harm in motion UNLESS you're going to find a way to give women a DUTY to
abort.
>>
>>>>What question? It seems fairly simple to me; if men want the right to
>>>parent,>>they must accept the duties of parenting and the risks just like
>>women.
>>>>
>>And what "payment"? How would you enforce that payment without a
>male>security>>apparatus?
>>>>
>>>>Right now, society manages to collect child support from NCPs who may
or>may>>>not want to pay.
>>>
>>>Yes, with the male security apparatus that I've already alluded to.
>>
>>What "security apparatus" that includes women and men is going to become
>>extinct? :-)
>
>
>http://www.worldcongress.org/WCFUpdate/Archive02/wcf_update_223.htm
>
>It is in this context that social scientist Martin Van Creveld asks if>there
still exists even "a single field in which men are at a clear>advantage and [in
which] women will NEVER be able to play more than a>marginal role?" In an
extended analysis, recently published in Social
>Research, Van Creveld dares to assert that "such a field does>exist...and its
name is violence." In his assessment of the social>meaning of violence, Van
Creveld goes so far as to suggest that "one>of its functions is to clearly
separate men from women."
>
So basically, what you're suggesting is that the only place where men feel "at
home" in having CONTROL over their own domain, is thru violence? In that case,
bring it on, Dave. All the men kill all the women and you can put all of us
out of our misery. :-) In the meantime, the men I know and hold close are
trying to end violence. They have no need to oppress women because they are
not as insecure as you. AND, more women are buying guns every day, so it's
only a matter of time until your last bastion falls. Think of it as your
Waterloo.
>Van Creveld freely acknowledges "the ongoing feminization of the>police and
the armed forces" in the industrialized nations, but he discounts this
phenomenon as "an illusion." "The more women there are
>in any branch of the police, the further removed from violence that>branch is
likely to be," he remarks. "The more women in any armed force, the less likely
it is to engage in serious military>operations."
Well, that sounds pretty good to me; perhaps the way the violence will stop,
not with a bang, but a whimper ....a whimper from those who can't evolve save
thru exporting violence.
>
>Van Creveld does not have far to look to find the reasons that, even>in the
police and the military, women are not to be found in the>theater of violence.
"There is nothing like violence," he reasons, "to
>penalize weakness. It does so quickly; it does so in the most>unpleasant way
imaginable; and it does so with results which, all too often, are irrevocable."
Putting women into the police and military
>has not erased "the fact that women's bodies are much less suitable
>[than men's] for engaging in violence or defending against [it]";
>
Here's his problem, and yours; women aren't buying into the old protection con
game anymore. They are simply not willing to give special perks for mafioso
style protections. If men want to go out and kill one another, women need not
stop that. AND, keep in mind that more and more women ARE going into
professions that require martial arts training, so as more and more enter, less
and less violence is going to be tolerated on either side.
>>>Parents have the responsibility of supporting their kids>>whatever sex the
>>parents are.
>>
>>
>>>You don't believe this for one minute, Puke.
>>>
>>>Sure I do Dave Sim.
>
>
>No you don't, Puke.
Sure I do, Dave.>
>
>>>>>And what "negotiations"? As a feminist, you believe that
men>>>have>historically oppressed women.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, indeed, men who wanted patriarchy.
>>>>
Obviously, if this happened, men did
this because they COULD.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, and because they were boorish brutes. Ah, but today, they CAN'T.
>>>>
>>>Ah, but they CAN.
>>
>>No, actually, they can't; today women have equal rights AND GUNS.
>
>Women DON'T have guns, Puke. You seem to think that a gun can be
>carried and produced with the same facility as a set of keys.
I think women can carry guns just as men carry them. In fact, the number of
women filing for carry permits (I heard on the news) has risen 20% in the last
two years. So, you see, there is an interest there.
>
>>>>>You don't believe that women have historically oppressed men.
>>>>
>>>>No, I don't.
>>>>
>>>>>Obviously, if women have not historically oppressed men, it's
>>because>they>>CAN'T.
>>>>>
>>>>No, I don't think women have a reason to WANT to oppress men.
>>>
>>>Of course you do, Puke. Women are piggy. Actually, women have a>>>great
deal of emotional power over men that is never factored into the>"power"
equation.
>>>
>>Well, that's certainly YOUR problem isn't it Sim. You cannot explain
>exactly>why making sure women have equal rights results in women having
superior>rights.
>
What if dogs and cats were to be given equal rights? Wouldn't that
result in them having SUPERIOR rights?
I don't see how, provided they didn't have to BE the other to BE equal.
>
>Well, the same principle applies with women.
Women have equal rights already, Dave; now they are just in the process of
enforcing them. Title IX is a good example; there are schools all over the
country that need to enforce Title IX.
>
>>AND, I don't see why women would have a reason to oppress men. Free and
>equal>>women don't need to fear oppression themselves.
>>
>>>But if it is true that women don't oppress men, it's because they>CAN'T.
>Not>>because they don't want to. You would kill God Himself if>you could get
>your>>hands on him, Puke.
>>
>>Your _god_ or mine? :-)
>
>Any god that you could get your hands on.
>
You're quite wrong about that, Dave; I'm agnostic. :-)
>
>>>> I don't think>>>women are as insecure as most men.
>>>>
>>>Neither do I. I think that women are much more insecure than men.
>>
>>Nah; they can do all that men do of value, plus gestate.
>
(edit)
>
>>>>>So what "negotiations"? Men can always go back to oppressing women
>>again>and>>are under no compunction to "negotiate" with them.
>>>>>
>>>>You seem to forget that today we have equal rights and guns.
>>>
>>>You don't have guns, Puke. And you have equal rights only because of>>male
suffererance.
>>Women HAVE GUNS dear. :-)
>
>No they don't, Puke.
Sure they do, Sim. Heres one such story about a bitch with a gun.
http://www.ard.net/Political/Should_Women_Have_Guns_/should_women_have_gun
s_.shtml
B*tches with Guns: A Lesson in Reality
By Lyn Bates
(edit)
She looked just like what she is, a forty-something professional woman
who works in the broadcasting industry. But she is also a divorced mother of
two nearly grown sons -- she made sure to say good-bye to them before she
hopped in the car, alone. Well, not quite alone. As usual, her Ruger SP101 38
Special revolver with a 2 1/4 inch barrel was with her. She had learned to
shoot as a child when her father took her hunting, but she's only owned her own
gun for a couple of years. The Ruger fit her small hands nicely, and she
enjoyed practicing with it at the range. Carrying it was a bit of a problem.
s not "wearing a holstered gun" but
"carrying concealed" and therefore illegal.
(edit)
So, being a good law-abiding person and unable to use a fannypack, a
pocket, a purse, a briefcase, or a concealed on-body holster to contain
her firearm, she simply and lawfully put five Federal 110 grain jacketed
hollowpoints +P in the gun, put the gun in a holster, and put the holster on
the car seat beside her as she set off for Yuma that afternoon.
The interstate highways in Arizona are miles and miles and miles of
desert and not much else. "I'd be a fool to go without my gun," she
says. As often happens on long trips, nature called, loudly, about 4:30
in the afternoon. Maryann knew she couldn't hold out until she got to
Yuma, so she pulled in at the next rest area, one she had stopped at
"hundreds of times" before. It was one of those minimalist places with
no amenities but the rest rooms. No food service. No gas. And nobody
else around, apparently, though there was a silver 18-wheeler with a red
cab parked nearby.
It didn't have an identifying company name, so it must have been an
independent. Since truckers often pull their rigs off the road for a
quick nap, Maryann didn't think it was particularly ominous. The truck's
motor was running, which, in Arizona, even in February, is an indication
that the occupant wants to keep the air conditioning on. She parked her
4 door sedan near the area entrance.
She had absolutely no conscious premonition of disaster or feeling of
dread. If she had even felt slightly nervous, she says that she would
simply have driven away "and found a big cactus a few miles down the
road". But something must have been going on in her subconscious.
"This particular day, I stepped out of the car, and then, for some
reason, I cannot tell you what it was, I reached back into the car and
took the revolver out of the holster. Always before I'd just put it in
the glove box and locked it up, but this time I took it in my right
hand, my shooting hand, and held it down at my side, concealed in the
folds of my skirt. I know it couldn't be seen. I was breaking the law, I
suppose. Maybe if someone was very close to me they could have seen it,
but nobody at a distance would know I had it."
She walked from the car to the restroom, used the facilities, and came
out a few minutes later, casually holding the gun in the same position,
concealed in the purple flowered folds of her skirt. As soon as she
stepped out of the door, she saw him. He had been waiting for her to
come out. "Standing about 10 feet away, right in front of the door, was
a huge man. I'm talking about NFL lineman size!"
Maryann's brain registered the giant's appearance quickly: a white
baseball cap with a blue bill, collar-length brown hair, a faded
red-plaid shirt, jeans, and boots with pointed toes. But his size was
not the only ominous thing. He had a rope, coiled up on his arm in big
circles. Maryann recognized it right away as the type of rope used in
rodeos and ranches. He was grinning, but it was a cruel kind of grin.
Her surprise clearly registered on her face, and the giant man began to
laugh, but his laugh was as mean as his smile. Then he spoke.
"I'm gonna have some REEEEEEAL fun now!!" he boomed.
Maryann's initial shock suddenly dissipated, leaving outright anger in
its place. That someone would DARE approach her that way! That someone
would DARE to threaten her! With a rope! Her anger was overwhelming, and gave
her strength. She pulled her right arm up, took a good firing
stance, brought her left arm up to grasp the little Ruger in a good
two-handed hold that lined up the gun sights right in the middle of his
chest. The giant who was threatening her suddenly became a big, close
target that she'd have no trouble hitting.
She gave him a good view of the business end of her revolver as heranger poured
out of her in the words she shrieked. She called himsomething unprintable,
followed by, "If you want to play, we'll play
with this!"
The giant hadn't anticipated this change in his game plan. Instead of
the bondage games he'd had in mind, he suddenly had to decide between
living and dying. It's not a choice that takes long to make. The rope
dropped to the ground almost as quickly as his jaw dropped into an
expression of utter surprise. His hands went up, and he started backing
away. The giant was getting smaller and smaller with every step.
As he backed away from Maryann, away from his rope, away from his
intentions to harm her, and, hopefully, away from his image of himself
as a big, bad dude who could have any "fun" he wanted with a woman, he
started muttering, "Bitches with guns. Bitches with guns. Bitches with
guns." He kept saying it over and over, as his own surprise gave way to
impotent anger, "Bitches with guns. Bitches with guns."
This particular BWG was no fool. She kept the Ruger trained right in the
middle of his chest as she backed away herself, toward her car. Every
fiber of her body was consumed with the need to get out of this dangerous place
and back on the road.
She made it to the car, got in, locked the door. "I'm not going to panic
just yet," she told herself, as she took time to fasten her seat belt
before driving off. About ten miles down the highway, the adrenaline
rush that had fueled her furious defense began to subside, making her
shake so badly that she had to pull over.
Maryann can't remember if she cried, sitting there shaking on the side
of the road, waiting to recover enough motor coordination to continue
driving, but she soon continued on toward Yuma. She stopped at the first
phone she could find, in a gas station, and called the Department of
Public Safety to make a report. She told them what had happened, which
rest area it was, and gave a detailed description of the man. Although
she also told them where she would be staying in Yuma, she never heard
from them, and when she called them again after she got back to Phoenix,
there wasn't anything for them to tell her.
What lessons can we learn from Maryann's experience? It is good to be a
BWG (bitch with a gun). BWG's don't go looking for trouble, but if it
comes to them, they are ready. BWGs can keep themselves alive in the
face of circumstances that might destroy an unarmed woman.
Sometimes women who have been assaulted keep their stories to themselves for a
while, until they are ready to talk about it. Maryann told
everyone about it right away, the police, her colleagues, her family and
friends. Some of them asked, "What would you have done if he had started
toward you instead of backing away?" Her answer has the firm ring of
truth.
"I would have shot him right smack dab in the middle of the chest! I'm a
very good shot with that little puppy. And I would have done that because I
value my life. I've got things to do in this life, things I haven't finished,
and I'm not willingly going to let someone take my life from me. I value it too
much. If I don't value my life, who will? If I don't defend myself, there is
nobody else around to do it. I can't depend on Officer Friendly to be there.
The police can't always be where you are."
Her experience has left Maryann a vocal spokesperson for the right to
carry firearms for protection. "I am convinced that that firearm
prevented an assault, a sexual assault, a kidnapping, or a murder. I
truly believe I am alive today because of that firearm!"
Maryann fights not just for the right to have a gun, but for the right
to carry it concealed, because that is safer. "The reason my weapon was
effective that day was that it was concealed in the folds of my dress.
If this guy had seen it as I went into the bathroom, he could have
jumped me from behind as I came out, or he could have pulled a weapon
out of his vehicle or wherever he had one hidden. One of the only
reasons I survived is that he didn't know I had a gun!"
The difference between some people's public statements and private
actions on this issue is difficult for her to take. "I know at least
five police officers whose wives carry concealed, not only with their
husband's support and encouragement, but on their husband's advice! If
it is OK for a cop's wife, it ought to be OK for me. If a cop knows his
wife is safer that way, he ought to be willing to say that I'm safer
that way, too, but the police association won't come out in favor of
concealed carry."
Another important lesson is that it is important for individuals to be
able to decide for themselves whether to have a gun for protection. Many
states require a person applying for a concealed carry permit to "show
need", which usually means showing that they carry large sums of money
or have been threatened by someone.
Maryann says, "I see absolutely no reason to have to beg a police chief
or a sheriff for permission to carry. There is only one person who can
determine my need to carry a gun concealed for protection, and that is
me. Men will say, 'I drive a Mercedes and that makes me a prime target
for people who want to rob and beat me,' or 'I'm retired and people know
I have a lot of money.' Well, I don't drive a Mercedes. I'm a single
mom, so I don't have expensive clothes. I don't have any valuable
jewelry, not one piece. But I have one thing that all of the rest of
them don't have that makes me particularly vulnerable, and that's the
fact that I'm a woman!"
The little Ruger still goes everywhere with Maryann, though she has been
thinking of getting a Glock ever since she tried one and found the
trigger pull smoother than a revolver, and easy to shoot accurately.
"My gun makes me know that I have an edge, or at least am going in with
a fighting chance. That builds your confidence. And when you have that,
you are less likely to appear like a victim."
"I go to a range twice a month, and work with my revolver, and try other
weapons. I want to get the feel of other guns. My boys (age 18 and 20)
go, too. They both know how to shoot. We have all been through firearm
safety and handling courses as a family, together. They have a healthy
respect. When they were 9 and 12, we started going to the courses
together, me and the boys. It was something we did as a family,
something we enjoyed. We still enjoy it."
In the months following the incident at the rest stop, in a reaction
that nearly every assault survivor will recognize, Maryann replayed the
scene in her mind "a thousand times." She kept looking for the man, too,
knowing he was still out there somewhere. Now, after more then a year,
"It still haunts me a little but not nearly like it used to. I am still very
hesitant to stop at a rest area."
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
>grizzliea...@yahoo.com
>
>"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause
> for tonight's player of the game - AL-BERT-O CAS-S-S-
> S-S-S--S-S-TILLO!"
>
> - P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium, July 4, 2003
>
>"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
> hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).
>
> - Horace, the Roman poet
>
>MY DEAR ROBINSON: It was your account of a west
>country legend which first suggested the idea of
>this little tale to my mind. For this, and for
>the help which you gave me in its evolution,
>all thanks.
>
>Yours most truly, A. CONAN DOYLE.
>
> - Author's dedication of "Hound of the
>Baskervilles" to Bertram Fletcher Robinson
>
>
>
>
>
>
Grizzlie Antagonist
>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>From: howldog no...@yahoo.com
>>Date: 4/21/2004 12:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <5776296d3afdd988...@news.bubbanews.com>
>>
>>On 21 Apr 2004 17:55:07 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>Most women choose peace over war and tolerance over violence.
>>
>>so do most men.
>>
>>you conviently omit that.
>
>In matters of criminal law, (which was the subject before you deleted it),
>there are simply not as many female as male criminals. More men commit
>violence than women, so of most criminals more men than women also seem to
>prefer violence to tolerance.
More semantical tricks from Puke.
So male criminals are more likely to be violent than female
non-criminals. So?
And I thought you were the one that boasted of how women have GUNS.
The sum total of all your arguments, Puke, is that women are more
lethal than men because they have GUNS, but on the other hand, women
are less violent than men.
Well, you can't have it both ways, Puke, so which is it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grizzlie Antagonist
Since this is a transaction which any individual man and any
individual woman can engage in, how can you possibly argue that the
male role does not require any "individual" man while the female role
requires an "individual" woman.
> A squirt into a
>turkey baster takes just a few minutes, and she can go to a sperm bank, dear
>where NO individual man is required.
Other than ro provide the sperm.
And he can rent ANY surrogate mother.
>Keep in mind that one man could father a nation. :-)
Is that not an indication of how efficient men are?
How do you reconcile any of this with your on-the-other-hand
contention that men and women are more alike than different?
> And in a>society where men have not chosen to protect women from other men,
>he>need not "solicit".
>>
>Women here have guns to shoot it off or knives to cut it off, dear.
More castration fantasies from the Pukemeister. But you can't just
carry around a gun or knife in the open, Puke, in the same way you can
carry around a set of car keys.. And guns kill more unintended
victims than intended ones.
> AND, if
>all else fails they have both the law and abortion.
Ah - and a male security apparatus is required to enforce the law and
the right to abort is another one of those things that women only have
at male suffereanced.
>:-) They don't need you, your dick, your sperm or your permission.
>>
>
>>> He can either marry a wife willing to gestate for him or>>hire a surrogate.
>
>>
>>
>>Or...
>>
>Or, nothing. Your rape fantasy doesn't work here.
It is not a fantasy - it is just a reminder that women really do
require men to protect them from other men.
>>>>A woman only needs a few drops of sperm.
>>
>>
>>You're using semantics to make things sound different from how they
>>really are.
>
>No; I'm using reality to let you know that you and yours only get to procreate
>with permission of a willing woman.
Only in a society in which men are willing to protect women.
>>A man "only" needs a womb to impregnate.
>
>There is no womb for rent; you must have a willing woman if you want a child.>
More Pukish semantical tricks. You must have a willing sperm donor if
you want to bear one.
>>> If ALL MEN want to give up the right to parent, all>women can accept the
>>>>>payment. Let me know when we can begin negotiations.>:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You seem to be a little unclear on the concept, Puke.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Not at all, Sim; I'm VERY clear.
>>>>>
>>>>>>You have been told that you can't claim, on behalf of
>the>>female>>sex,>virtually full credit for bringing life into the world while
>>>>disdaining full responsibility for sustaining that life.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, women do get full credit for gestation and delivery
>>>>
>>>>>This is like giving the first baseman "full credit" for the double play
>>when>>the play started with the interchange between the shortstop>and the
>second>>baseman.
>>>>
>>>Not as it pertains to gestation and delivery, Sim. I think you're confusing
>>>those two things with conception.
>>
>>Gestation and delivery are not all there is to procreation, Puke.
>>
>I never said they were, Dave;
Yes Puke, that is EXACTLY what you are saying - while pretending that
this isn't what you are saying.
It's a typical device of yours - arguing that women are superior to
men while strategically trying to give yourself enough "wiggle" room
to deny that this is what you are arguing.
> I simply informed you that men have no status to
>claim in matters of gestation and delivery.
>All they have is a sqirt and a hope.
And that is simply your assignation of value to the male contribution
- it's not a description of the world as it really is. Gestation and
delivery are not possible without male contribution.
>>>>>and all attendant>risks, because men don't contribute there.
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't matter because "gestation and delivery" are not all that is
>>>necessary.
>>>
>>>As far as women are concerned, any few drops of sperm are all that's needed
>>for>>them to run with the ball. :-) And women KNOW THAT.
>>
>>
>>As far as men are concerned, any womb is all that's necessary to>deposit the
>ball.
>
>Let me know when you can BUY a womb with a view, Dave. :-)
Let me know when women can conceive immaculately, Puke.
>And men KNOW THIS. I can play the semantics game
>>too, Puke.
>
>Yes, but you can't win at them.
I just have to wait for you to lose at them.
>>> The first baseman doesn't get full credit for the double>play just because
>>>he's the one that ends up with the ball when the>>>play is completed.
>>>>
>>>It's actually more about risk and time and pain, etc.
>>
>>>Finally, I pin the Puke down. And, you know, I almost forgot...
>>
>>You couldn't pin a tail on the donkey dear.
Just on an ass like you, Puke.
>(edit)>
>>>>Again, I'll remember this the next time that you argue that women
>>are>superior>>because they can gestate.
>>>
>>>I've never once argued that.
>>
>>Yes, Puke; you argue it all of the time.
>>
>No, I don't.
You're trying to do it now.
>>.>Even a five year old
>>>doesn't credit his father for the new baby. :-)
>>
>
>>Well Puke, the five year old is a) almost as immature as you are; b)>has not
>learned about sex and procreation - in fact c) he probably has>been told that
>the "stork" brought him and d) probably sees more of his mother than his father
>anyway -- but that doesn't mean that the>five year old's perception is
>ACCURATE.
>
>Sure it does. Babies know that mommy "grows" the baby when daddy cannot.
When was the last time that you had a conversation with a baby, Puke?
>>Five year olds are relatively easy to deceive, are they not?
>
>It doesn't take much in the way of sophistication to understand that men cannot
>grow a baby.
You're also very easy to deceive - though it's difficult to match the
job that you do in deceiving yourself.
>>>>>AND, men seem to want to be
>>>>>fathers so with rights come duties.
>>>>>>>
>>>>What "duties" did you ever impose upon women who wanted to have the
>>>>right to be mothers, Puke?
>>>
>>>Women have the same duties men have, Dave Sim.
>>
>>What are they, Puke?
>>
>To support any existing child, Dave.
Really, Puke?
Are you saying that you would require a woman to support any existing
child that she carried to term?
Even if she later claimed that some man required her to do this?
No way you would impose that requirement on her, Puke; you'd spout off
about patriarchal bitterboys forcing women into baby-farming.
Are you saying that you would require a woman to pay child support to
a custodial father? Never in a million years would you require this
of any woman.
This is like your claim that you would support a male plaintiff who
wanted to gain entry to an all-female college - you said that you
would support him given the right circumstances. But we all know that
he could never prove, to your satisfaction, that the circumstances
were right.
You're pulling a similar semantical trick here.
>>>>>>How did that manifest into an argument that men should pay for
>>>GIVING>UP>the>>right to parent?
>>>>>
>>>>>Pay what? If men universally give up parenting rights, then and only
>>then,>>>>will they not be obligated by parenting duties.>>It's just that easy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Really, Puke?
>>>>
>>>Sure.
>>>
>>>>Then you favor choice for men?
>>>
>>>No, I don't.
>>
>>(wagging my finger) Ah ah ah, I didn't think so. And do you favor
>>choice for women? Sure you do.
>>
>I favor both women and men having rights over their own bodies, Dave. Is that
>what you mean?
But it's only the men that you want to hold responsible.
>>> That is choice for INDIVIDUAL men. That means they risk, just>>like the
>woman, and then want to run away from their decision. I'm talking>about ALL
>MEN relinquishing their right to parent children.
>>
>>
>>I'm not sure what you're babbling here, unless you are trying to argue
>>that no individual man gets a choice unless all men choose the same
>>way - which isn't choice for men at all.
>>
>Men don't get special rights, Dave. They have the same rights women have.
>They have the right to procreate, the right to parent, as well as the duty to
>support existing children.
Yeah, yeah, yeah - once again I pin you down into saying something
that you don't mean - but you don't believe that women have equal
responsibility.
>>So Puke, why do you favor choice for women and not men?
>
>They both have the same choices over bodies and duties to support existing
>children.
Not in Puke World.
>>> Aren't you always arguing AGAINST
>>>>choice for men. Sure you are.
>>>
>>>Yes; there is no Fuck and Run C4m;
>>>
>>Why not, Puke? If women enjoy sex as much as men do, why isn't there?
>>
>I never once said that women enjoyed sex the SAME AS MEN;
I said "as much as". I said "as much as". Do women enjoy sex "as
much as" men do, Puke? Can you give me a straight answer to this
question?
> you see, women need
>not BE men in order to enjoy sex AS women enjoy sex. Enjoying sex has nothing
>to do with the natural and expected consequences of the sex act.
Sure it does, Puke.
If women enjoy sex, then intercourse is not a form of exploitation of
women by men, which is what's implied in your argument, especially if
they enjoy it as much.
By the way, I don't claim that women enjoy sex or that they enjoy it
as much as men, but the issue here is whether you do.
>>Well, there's no such thing as recreational abortion C4W or breed and
>>pay C4W either - it's just a figment of bitter bitch imagination.
>
>Women do abort for whatever motivations they have because women have the SAME
>bodily rights men have.
<Shrugs> And so men can, as you say, "fuck and run" because they have
the same rights.
>>>>> It reminds me of the old Herblock cartoon:>>"We generously allow you to
>>pay>>for the cow - all we ask is that you>let us>>take the cream".
>>>>>
>>>>>You ARE the cartoon expert here. :-) >>
>>>>And you are the cartoon character here.
>>>>
>>>Hmmmm....
>>>>
>>>>>However, the trade is tit for tat; no
>>>>>rights no duties on a universal level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Besides, according to you, men really aren't parents at all - they>don't
>contribute anything more substantial than a "little squirt".
>>>>>
>>>Prior to actually HAVING a child, that is all any man contributes.
>>>However,once there is a child a father can be as active in contribution
>as>>hedesires,>just like a mother.
>>>>
>>>>You don't really favor choice for men, Puke.
>>>
>>>No. Never said I did, Sim. I said if all men want to relinquish
>all>parental
>>>rights, they can also get rid of all parental duties. I think men want to
>>>retain those rights.
>>
>>You seem to deny men's rights to behave as individuals, even as you>insist
>that this right be recognized on behalf of women.
>
>Men HAVE the same exact rights as women have regarding bodily autonomy.
Ah, so there really IS such a thing as "fuck and run" C4M.
>Men simply don't have rights over women's bodies, Dave. I believe most men
>want to be parents and have parental rights which is why men have parental
>duties as well.
And you would impose these duties on ALL such men whether they want
parental rights or not.
>>>>But as always, I regard it as a moral victory when I pin you down to
>a>>>position that you really don't believe in.
>>>
>>>When will you be starting?
>>
>I'm talking from experience.
>
>You're talking out of a cartoon head.
I'm talking TO one.
>>>>>>Then why should men be charged with more than token responsibility
>for>>sustaining the lives that ONLY women gestate and deliver into the>world?
>>>>>
>>>>>As long as no men want to BE fathers, (parental rights) I see no reason
>>why>>>>>for them to have universal duties.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the question that you are trying to sidestep.
>>>
>There is no need TO sidestep, Dave. This is about risk; they both risk unsafe
>or unprotected sex fully knowing the possible results.
They certainly do. They BOTH know that if anyone gets pregnant, it's
not going to be HIM.
> Two play; two pay.
Not if men are to have the same autonomy as women, Puke.
She knew that the risk of pregnancy was hers and hers alone. If dad
isn't a rapist, why should he pay if he doesn't have any interest in
parental rights?
>There's no reason to ONLY blame the person housing the harm when two people set
>the harm in motion UNLESS you're going to find a way to give women a DUTY to
>abort.
There's no reason to ONLY blame the person whose contribution you
disparage as a "little squirt" unless you're going to find a way to
give men the RIGHT to REQUIRE women to abort.
>>>>>What question? It seems fairly simple to me; if men want the right to
>>>>parent,>>they must accept the duties of parenting and the risks just like
>>>women.
>>>>>
>>>And what "payment"? How would you enforce that payment without a
>>male>security>>apparatus?
>>>>>
>>>>>Right now, society manages to collect child support from NCPs who may
>or>may>>>not want to pay.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, with the male security apparatus that I've already alluded to.
>>>
>>>What "security apparatus" that includes women and men is going to become
>>>extinct? :-)
>>
>>
>>http://www.worldcongress.org/WCFUpdate/Archive02/wcf_update_223.htm
>>
>>It is in this context that social scientist Martin Van Creveld asks if>there
>still exists even "a single field in which men are at a clear>advantage and [in
>which] women will NEVER be able to play more than a>marginal role?" In an
>extended analysis, recently published in Social
>>Research, Van Creveld dares to assert that "such a field does>exist...and its
>name is violence." In his assessment of the social>meaning of violence, Van
>Creveld goes so far as to suggest that "one>of its functions is to clearly
>separate men from women."
>So basically, what you're suggesting is that the only place where men feel "at
>home" in having CONTROL over their own domain, is thru violence?
"At home" is your Pukish way of putting it, not mine or Van Creveld's.
And I don't agree that violence is the ONLY male domain.
> In that case,
>bring it on, Dave.
Oh, come on, Puke; you don't mean that.
>All the men kill all the women and you can put all of us
>out of our misery. :-)
WHOA! ANOTHER instance of where Puke inadvertently allows her public
to see behind the curtain.
It's like on November 15, 2001 where you addressed me (of all people)
as "friend" and told me that I seemed well provided for in the "love
department". You're really a very lonely woman, aren't you, Puke, and
the only way that you know how to seek friends is to bare your teeth
and growl at them - except on that one occasion.
And then, earlier this year, you told me that I was "evil", which was
a strange expression coming from a woman who pretends not to care what
others think of her - was that you way of exhibiting more distress?
And now, even though you grace it with a smiley face, I think that you
really are very miserable about being a woman. I think that you
really wish that someone would put you out of your misery.
>In the meantime, the men I know and hold close are
>trying to end violence.
Well Puke, this is contrary to what you argued in another thread about
men's innate capacity for violence.
Which men do you "hold close"?
>They have no need to oppress women because they are
>not as insecure as you. AND, more women are buying guns every day,
I guess that these women aren't trying to end violence.
>so it's
>only a matter of time until your last bastion falls. Think of it as your
>Waterloo.
And during the Cold War, the superpowers had enough armaments to
destroy each other many times over - but the armaments were never used
in that way - so Puke, I'm not impressed with your gun-toting chicks,
with the numbers that they are supposed to represent, or the political
power that they are supposed to wield.
>>Van Creveld freely acknowledges "the ongoing feminization of the>police and
>the armed forces" in the industrialized nations, but he discounts this
>phenomenon as "an illusion." "The more women there are
>>in any branch of the police, the further removed from violence that>branch is
>likely to be," he remarks. "The more women in any armed force, the less likely
>it is to engage in serious military>operations."
>
>Well, that sounds pretty good to me; perhaps the way the violence will stop,
>not with a bang, but a whimper
Oh so, Puke, NOW your argument for including women in armed forces is
NOT the Annie Oakley one ("anything you can do, I can do better"),
it's all of a sudden switched to the pacifist-female "Earth Mother"
argument.
Well, guess what, Puke.
You can't have it both ways.
Both arguments can't be true.
>....a whimper from those who can't evolve save
>thru exporting violence.
And whom are we talking about, Puke?
How are women supposed to evolve if they continue to exercise the
right to abort?
>>Van Creveld does not have far to look to find the reasons that, even>in the
>police and the military, women are not to be found in the>theater of violence.
>"There is nothing like violence," he reasons, "to
>>penalize weakness. It does so quickly; it does so in the most>unpleasant way
>imaginable; and it does so with results which, all too often, are irrevocable."
>Putting women into the police and military
>>has not erased "the fact that women's bodies are much less suitable
>>[than men's] for engaging in violence or defending against [it]";
>>
>Here's his problem, and yours; women aren't buying into the old protection con
>game anymore.
I'm afraid that they ARE Puke - and in many instances, they INITIATE
the con game ("let's you and him fight over me").
>They are simply not willing to give special perks for mafioso
>style protections.
Oh no, Puke, you are talking like a woman that no man wants to fight
over. I don't have a very high regard for the female sex, and I
regard the female sex, as a whole, as being as bad as you are - but
HERE'S an example of where you DEFINITELY don't speak for other women.
Of COURSE, women give special perks for mafioso style protections -
for that matter, that's why male feminists exist - because they are
looking to get those perks from women by oppressing other men.
Who was the Vanity Fair editor who said that she would gladly give
Bill Clinton a blowjob as long as he would protect abortion rights?
Obviously, she feels that catering to a male politician is a better
way of protecting her rights than owning a gun would be.
>If men want to go out and kill one another, women need not
>stop that.
<Shrugs> And if some men want to go out and exploit women, other men
need not stop that.
>AND, keep in mind that more and more women ARE going into
>professions that require martial arts training, so as more and more enter, less
>and less violence is going to be tolerated on either side.
ROLFMAO!
Yeah, THAT'll get it done, Puke.
THAT'll make women physically equal to men.
>>>>Parents have the responsibility of supporting their kids>>whatever sex the
>>>parents are.
>>>
>>>
>>>>You don't believe this for one minute, Puke.
>>>>
>>>>Sure I do Dave Sim.
>>
>>
>>No you don't, Puke.
>
>Sure I do, Dave.>
No you don't, Puke.
>>>>>>And what "negotiations"? As a feminist, you believe that
>men>>>have>historically oppressed women.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, indeed, men who wanted patriarchy.
>>>>>
> Obviously, if this happened, men did
>this because they COULD.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, and because they were boorish brutes. Ah, but today, they CAN'T.
>>>>>
>>>>Ah, but they CAN.
>>>
>>>No, actually, they can't; today women have equal rights AND GUNS.
>>
>>Women DON'T have guns, Puke. You seem to think that a gun can be
>>carried and produced with the same facility as a set of keys.
>
>I think women can carry guns just as men carry them.
Except for men in uniform, I don't see men wandering around the
streets openly carrying guns either, Puke.
>In fact, the number of
>women filing for carry permits (I heard on the news) has risen 20% in the last
>two years. So, you see, there is an interest there.
Nevertheless Puke, I'll wager that even in your neighborhood, women
don't just go around carrying guns on their shoulders as they would
carry purses.
I have, at the request of the women, in question, walked a number of
women to their parking lots as the sun was setting at the end of the
day. A number of male contributors to soc.men have probably done the
same.
It's still cheaper and less troublesome for a woman to ask a guy to
walk them to their cars than to hold a gun and glance furtively
around.
So, Puke - I guess that women really ARE buying into what you refer to
as "the protection con game".
The only country in the world that I am aware of where women carry
around guns as part of the normal patter of life is Israel - which is
not exactly a feminist paradise.
>>>>>>You don't believe that women have historically oppressed men.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, I don't.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Obviously, if women have not historically oppressed men, it's
>>>because>they>>CAN'T.
>>>>>>
>>>>>No, I don't think women have a reason to WANT to oppress men.
>>>>
>>>>Of course you do, Puke. Women are piggy. Actually, women have a>>>great
>deal of emotional power over men that is never factored into the>"power"
>equation.
>>>>
>>>Well, that's certainly YOUR problem isn't it Sim. You cannot explain
>>exactly>why making sure women have equal rights results in women having
>superior>rights.
>>
>What if dogs and cats were to be given equal rights? Wouldn't that
>result in them having SUPERIOR rights?
>
>I don't see how, provided they didn't have to BE the other to BE equal.
If dogs and cats were to be given equal rights to humans, they would
have superior rights, and the same applies to women.
>>Well, the same principle applies with women.
>
>Women have equal rights already, Dave;
Well, in the spirit of "equality", men have allowed them to have
SUPERIOR rights, Puke, and society is the worse for it.
>now they are just in the process of
>enforcing them. Title IX is a good example; there are schools all over the
>country that need to enforce Title IX.
Title IX is another issue in and of itself.
>>>AND, I don't see why women would have a reason to oppress men. Free and
>>equal>>women don't need to fear oppression themselves.
>>>
>>>>But if it is true that women don't oppress men, it's because they>CAN'T.
>>Not>>because they don't want to. You would kill God Himself if>you could get
>>your>>hands on him, Puke.
>>>
>>>Your _god_ or mine? :-)
>>
>>Any god that you could get your hands on.
>>
>You're quite wrong about that, Dave; I'm agnostic. :-)
It's just your excuse for not shooting any god.
And for every story like this, Puke, there are probably a number of
stories where women injured themselves or an unintended target with a
firearm.
And the story discloses more than you intended to disclose.
Sounds like the biatch STILL doesn't usually stop at rest areas. She
ends the article by saying that she is "still very hesitant" to do so.
When I'm traveling up and down the state, I stop at rest areas all of
the time, Puke, and I even sleep overnight in the back seat of my car.
And I don't own a gun.
I guess that I have more freedom than she does.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jayne Kulikauskas
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <grizzliea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pqde80l30bolt6l1g...@4ax.com...
[]
> And now, even though you grace it with a smiley face, I think that you
> really are very miserable about being a woman. I think that you
> really wish that someone would put you out of your misery.
[]
She sounds like she hates men and wants to hurt them. When she writes about
sex, it sounds like she is disgusted by it. Of course she is miserable
being a woman. How could she be happy feeling that way? For me, the best
thing about being female has been to be in a fulfilling relationship with a
man. And Hyerdahl must realize, at some level, that is what is missing from
her life. That certainly explains her pathetic attempts to get male
attention on this newsgroup. It is very sad.
Jayne
Sky King
Sure they are. They had a march to ban guns.
>
> Women wielding barrel of protection
> Training, ownership of guns finding appeal among defense-minded females
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> By Hayli Fellwock, hfel...@bgdailynews.com -- 270-783-3240
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
> Joe Imel/Daily News
> Deborah Williams of Bowling Green demonstrates the proper way to hold a gun
> during her concealed-carry class March 6 at The Firing Line shooting range on
> Shive Lane.
> Ponytails and manicured nails are becoming a more common sight at shooting
> ranges, indicating a turning tide for the gun industry. The historically
> male-dominated shooting sport is becoming less foreign to females as more women
> flock to gun classes and target practice.
> “We have had somewhere around 6,000 students since October 1996, and I would
> say around one-third to nearly half of our students are female,” said Deborah
> Williams of Bowling Green, who has helped teach concealed-weapons classes for
> the past eight years. “I get a mixture of single women who live alone, women
> who have felt it is necessary because they’ve become victims of a crime, or I
> have occasionally had women who are being stalked.
Note that most of the folks there are MEN. Men have more guns and
know how to use them.
>
> “Some women come with husbands or boyfriends and they take the class
> together. A lot of females get into this and learn that it is a really fun
> sport.”
Yep a sport but not something they would use as self-defense.
>
> The expanding market has not gone unnoticed by corporations. In 1990, the Smith
> and Wesson gun company introduced the LadySmith – a slim, easily concealed
> revolver with a shortened trigger reach. Now, the LadySmith can be further
> feminized with rosewood grips, gold detailing and an engraved image of a rose.
Sure..it will look pretty gathering dust.
>
>
Snipped the rest of these EXCEPTIONS.
Hyerdahl1
grizzliea...@earthlink.net
<pqde80l30bolt6l1ggnf6njt1lhakhelae@4ax
>
>>>>(edit)
>>>>>>>>
>Sure it does. If a man wants a child, he must solicit a particular
woman>to>>>gestate one for him.
>>>
>No Puke, since ANY fertile woman will do for this purpose.
Not true. It has to be a particular willing woman. After all, even if you
were to rape just any woman, she could abort, no?
>Since this is a transaction which any individual man and any>individual woman
can engage in, how can you possibly argue that the>male role does not require
any "individual" man while the female role
>requires an "individual" woman.
>
Because sperm is free or cheap and very easy to cum by. In fact, men donate
sperm willingly to lesbians all the time.
:-)> A squirt into a>>turkey baster takes just a few minutes, and she can go to
a sperm bank, dear>where NO individual man is required.
>
>Other than ro provide the sperm.
>
>>Keep in mind that one man could father a nation. :-)
>
>Is that not an indication of how efficient men are?
No, just the value of insemination.
>
>How do you reconcile any of this with your on-the-other-handcontention that
men and women are more alike than different?
>
It is obvious that women and men are more alike than different. Skin, eyes,
hair, flesh, blood, brain, etc.
And in a>society where men have not chosen to protect women from
other>men,>he>need not "solicit".
>>>
>>Women here have guns to shoot it off or knives to cut it off, dear.
>
>More castration fantasies from the Pukemeister.
No, just the truth. Women need not be victims of rape.
(edit)
>> AND, if>>all else fails they have both the law and abortion.
>
>Ah - and a male security apparatus is required to enforce the law and>the
right to abort is another one of those things that women only have>at male
suffereanced.
No; there are two SC justices...who are female>:-) They don't need you, your
dick, your sperm or your permission.
>>>
He can either marry a wife willing to gestate for him or>>hire a>surrogate.
>> >
>>>Or...
>>>
>>Or, nothing. Your rape fantasy doesn't work here.
>
>It is not a fantasy - it is just a reminder that women really do require men
to protect them from other men.
No, in fact, women aren't willing to pay special perks for male protection;
sell it someplace else.
(edit)>
I'm using reality to let you know that you and yours only get
to>procreate>>with permission of a willing woman.
>
>Only in a society in which men are willing to protect women.
>
>No, here women can both protect themselves and abort.
>
>A man "only" needs a womb to impregnate.
>>
>There is no womb for rent; you must have a willing woman if you want
a>child.>
>
>More Pukish semantical tricks. You must have a willing sperm donor if
>you want to bear one.
Sperm is free; it runs in the streets. :-)
>
(edit)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, women do get full credit for gestation and delivery
>>>>>
This is like giving the first baseman "full credit" for the double
play>>when>>the play started with the interchange between the shortstop>and
the>>second>>baseman.
>>>>>
>Not as it pertains to gestation and delivery, Sim. I think you're>confusing
>>>>those two things with conception.
>>>
>>>Gestation and delivery are not all there is to procreation, Puke.
>>>
>>I never said they were, Dave;
>
>Yes Puke, that is EXACTLY what you are saying - while pretending that>this
isn't what you are saying.
No, I'm calling to your attention that the woman's sacrifice is much greater
than the the man's when it comes to childbirth.
>
>It's a typical device of yours - arguing that women are superior to>men while
strategically trying to give yourself enough "wiggle" room>to deny that this is
what you are arguing.
I don't need to claim female superiority because the truth will out on its own.
Either women are superior or they are not. And women are not insecure like
men to want to limit male roles.
>>> I simply informed you that men have no status to>claim in matters of
gestation and delivery.>>All they have is a sqirt and a hope.
>
>And that is simply your assignation of value to the male contribution- it's
not a description of the world as it really is. Gestation and>delivery are not
possible without male contribution.
>
Sperm contribution from any male source.
>>>>>>and all attendant>risks, because men don't contribute there.
>>>>>
>It doesn't matter because "gestation and delivery" are not all that
is>necessary.
>>>>
As far as women are concerned, any few drops of sperm are all that's>needed
>>>for>>them to run with the ball. :-) And women KNOW THAT.
>>>>>
>>>As far as men are concerned, any womb is all that's necessary to>deposit
>the>ball.
>>
>>Let me know when you can BUY a womb with a view, Dave. :-)
>
>Let me know when women can conceive immaculately, Puke.
Ok; it's not far off:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,792086,00.html
scientists have succeeded in reducing the body cell of a female mouse to half
its normal DNA content, and then using it to fertilise the egg of another
mouse. The result is a male offspring that has two mothers and no father.
Science, it seems, is suddenly telling us what feminists have been saying all
along: the future is female.
...From sperm count to social status, and from fertilisation to death, as
civilisation advances those who bear Y chromosomes are in relative
decline...End of sperm report
Sean O'Hagan
Sunday September 15, 2002
The Observer
>>>>Finally, I pin the Puke down. And, you know, I almost forgot...
>>>
>>>You couldn't pin a tail on the donkey dear. You didn't do so here.
Hyerdahl1
>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>Message-id: <pqde80l30bolt6l1g...@4ax.com>
(edit)>
>I said "as much as". I said "as much as". Do women enjoy sex "as>much as"
men do, Puke? Can you give me a straight answer to this question?
I don't view sexual enjoyment in terms of women and men, but rather in terms of
individuals. Some women enjoy sex MORE than some men, and the reverse is also
true.
(edit)
>If women enjoy sex, then intercourse is not a form of exploitation of>women by
men, which is what's implied in your argument, especially if they enjoy it as
much.
>
>By the way, I don't claim that women enjoy sex or that they enjoy it
>as much as men, but the issue here is whether you do.
???? How would my personal enjoyment of sex even be relevant to this debate?
>
>>>Well, there's no such thing as recreational abortion C4W or breed and
>>>pay C4W either - it's just a figment of bitter bitch imagination.
???? The choice to abort is already a reality for women regardless of their
motivations. AND, women have the same rights men have, so I don't see a
problem.
>>>>Women do abort for whatever motivations they have because women have
the>SAME>>bodily rights men have.
>
<Shrugs> And so men can, as you say, "fuck and run" because they have>the same
rights.
Women don't have any right at all to abandon an existing child. Nor do men.
You must be confusing bodily rights with mere wallet protection.
> It reminds me of the old Herblock cartoon:>>"We generously allow you
to>>pay>>for the cow - all we ask is that you>let us>>take the cream".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You ARE the cartoon expert here. :-) >>
>>>>>And you are the cartoon character here.
>>>>>
>>>>Hmmmm....
>>>>>
>However, the trade is tit for tat; no
>rights no duties on a universal level.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Besides, according to you, men really aren't parents at all
->they>don't>contribute anything more substantial than a "little squirt".
>>>>>>
>>>>Prior to actually HAVING a child, that is all any man
contributes.>>>However,once there is a child a father can be as active in
contribution>>as>>he desires,>just like a mother.
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't really favor choice for men, Puke.
>>>>
>>>>No. Never said I did, Sim. I said if all men want to
relinquishall>parental
>rights, they can also get rid of all parental duties. I think men want
to>retain those rights.
>>>
You seem to deny men's rights to behave as individuals, even as you>insist
>that this right be recognized on behalf of women.
>>
>>Men HAVE the same exact rights as women have regarding bodily autonomy.
>
>Ah, so there really IS such a thing as "fuck and run" C4M.
Sure; any man who finds himself attached to a world renowned violinist can
abort her.
:-)
>
>>>Men simply don't have rights over women's bodies, Dave. I believe most men
>>want to be parents and have parental rights which is why men have parental
>>duties as well.
>
>
>And you would impose these duties on ALL such men whether they want>parental
rights or not.
Of course. Two play; two pay. When you choose to engage in risky behavior
what else would you expect? You want SOCIETY to pay for your indiscretions?
>
>
>>>>>But as always, I regard it as a moral victory when I pin you down to
>>a>>>position that you really don't believe in.
>>>>
>>>>When will you be starting?
>>>
>>I'm talking from experience.
>>
>>You're talking out of a cartoon head.
>
>I'm talking TO one.
>
>One who is winning this debate, dear. If you were winning you would be able
to tell me what credible celebrities support your cause.
>>>>>>>Then why should men be charged with more than token
responsibility>>for>>sustaining the lives that ONLY women gestate and deliver
into
>the>world?
>>>>>>
As long as no men want to BE fathers, (parental rights) I see no
reason>>>why>>>>>for them to have universal duties.
>>>>>>
> That's the question that you are trying to sidestep.
>>>>
>>There is no need TO sidestep, Dave. This is about risk; they both risk
>unsafe>>or unprotected sex fully knowing the possible results.
>
>They certainly do. They BOTH know that if anyone gets pregnant, it's>not
going to be HIM.
Indeed. Thus, he relinquishes his control over the process, eh?
>>> Two play; two pay.
>
>Not if men are to have the same autonomy as women, Puke.
Yes indeed. Men can control their own sperm any time they want, Dave.
>
>She knew that the risk of pregnancy was hers and hers alone. If dad>isn't a
rapist, why should he pay if he doesn't have any interest in>parental rights?
>
Well, the facts are that childbirth is the biological imperative of sex. Both
know the risks they take and both know that once the burden is passed onto the
woman the man doesn't get to control the process.There's no reason to ONLY
blame the person housing the harm when two people>set>>the harm in motion
UNLESS you're going to find a way to give women a DUTY to>>abort.
>
>There's no reason to ONLY blame the person whose contribution you
disparage as a "little squirt" unless you're going to find a way to>give men
the RIGHT to REQUIRE women to abort.
>
But, Sim...we are not ONLY requiring the woman to support; we are requiring
both and it's not really about blame but about responsibility.
>What question? It seems fairly simple to me; if men want the right
to>parent,>>they must accept the duties of parenting and the risks just
like>women.
>>>>>>
And what "payment"? How would you enforce that payment without a
male>security>>apparatus?
>>>>>>
Right now, society manages to collect child support from NCPs who may
or>may>>>not want to pay.
>>>>>
Yes, with the male security apparatus that I've already alluded to.
>>>>
What "security apparatus" that includes women and men is going to become
>extinct? :-)
>>>
>>>>http://www.worldcongress.org/WCFUpdate/Archive02/wcf_update_223.htm
>>>
>It is in this context that social scientist Martin Van Creveld asks>if>there
still exists even "a single field in which men are at a clear>advantage
and>[in>>which] women will NEVER be able to play more than a>marginal role?" In
an>extended analysis, recently published in Social>Research, Van Creveld dares
to assert that "such a field does>exist...and
>its name is violence." In his assessment of the social>meaning of violence,
Van
>Creveld goes so far as to suggest that "one>of its functions is to
clearly>separate men from women."
>
So basically, what you're suggesting is that the only place where men
feel>"at>home" in having CONTROL over their own domain, is thru violence?
>
>
>"At home" is your Pukish way of putting it, not mine or Van Creveld's.
Ah, but the sentiment is the same, is it not? I mean if that's truely what
seperates the sexes/genders, then men really suck.
:-) Of course, I don't see men quite the same way you and Van Creveld see
them.
Most men (at least the ones I know) don't need to control women or put them
down in order to build themselves up. Strong men ...mature adult men, simply
don't need that.
>>And I don't agree that violence is the ONLY male domain.
>
Ah, well good. Then you agree that this is not the ONLY thing that either
seperates the sexes or binds them. That's a start.
>>> In that case,>bring it on, Dave.
>
>
>Oh, come on, Puke; you don't mean that.
>
>I'm laughing at you, Dave, at your insecurity. You and I BOTH know that most
men don't hate women the way you do.
>>All the men kill all the women and you can put all of us>>out of our misery.
:-)
>
>WHOA! ANOTHER instance of where Puke inadvertently allows her public
>to see behind the curtain.
Hahahahaha. I was joking....It isn't me who gets up every morning praying to
Allah, thanking him that I'm not a woman.
:-)
>>It's like on November 15, 2001 where you addressed me (of all people)
as "friend" and told me that I seemed well provided for in the
"love>department".
???? I don't recall. AND, keep in mind that I comment based on what people
tell me. For example, Dave Sim is reported to have suffered thru a terrible
divorce. That could certainly change a person's capacity to love if it
embittered that person. Life is not static.
(edit)
>And then, earlier this year, you told me that I was "evil", which was
>a strange expression coming from a woman who pretends not to care what
>others think of her - was that you way of exhibiting more distress?
Well, if you read what I write in other posts, you'll find that I find
"evildoers" rather laughable. It was a joke, Sim.
And, as I recall, it was also a slight to the other postor; I was comparing
levels of response. You should be proud that you came out on the more erudite
side of that. :-)
(edit)>
>
>>>Van Creveld freely acknowledges "the ongoing feminization of the>police and
>the armed forces" in the industrialized nations, but he discounts
this>phenomenon as "an illusion." "The more women there are>>in any branch of
the police, the further removed from violence that>branch>is>>likely to be," he
remarks. "The more women in any armed force, the less>likely>>it is to engage
in serious military>operations."
>>
>>Well, that sounds pretty good to me; perhaps the way the violence will
>stop>>not with a bang, but a whimper
>
>
>Oh so, Puke, NOW your argument for including women in armed forces is
>NOT the Annie Oakley one ("anything you can do, I can do better"),
>it's all of a sudden switched to the pacifist-female "Earth Mother"
>argument.
>
>Well, guess what, Puke.
>
>You can't have it both ways.
>
That's what you think. :-)
Off to work now; If I have time, more later.
Hyerdahl1
>Message-id: <16232246.0404...@posting.google.com>
uncontrollable flesh hanging between your legs waiting to be cut or snipped or
bruised at every turn.
>> Most women choose peace over war and tolerance over violence. However,
>today's>> women seem to be arming themselves quite nicely.
>
>Sure they are. They had a march to ban guns.
>
Some did, and some men JOINED them. Other women sport guns.
>
>> Women wielding barrel of protection
>> Training, ownership of guns finding appeal among defense-minded females
>>
Well, it is in some circles....probably in those circles where women are more
likely to USE guns.
>> By Hayli Fellwock, hfel...@bgdailynews.com -- 270-783-3240
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------
>>
>> Joe Imel/Daily News
>> Ponytails and manicured nails are becoming a more common sight at
shooting>> ranges, indicating a turning tide for the gun industry. The
historically> male-dominated shooting sport is becoming less foreign to females
as more
>women flock to gun classes and target practice. > “We have had somewhere
around 6,000 students since October 1996, and I>would> say around one-third to
nearly half of our students are female,” said>Deborah Williams of Bowling
Green, who has helped teach concealed-weapons classes>for> the past eight
years. “I get a mixture of single women who live alone,
>women> who have felt it is necessary because they’ve become victims of a
crime, or>I> have occasionally had women who are being stalked.
>
>Note that most of the folks there are MEN. Men have more guns and
>know how to use them.
>
I guess Sky Penis didn't hear the word HALF. :-)
>
>> The expanding market has not gone unnoticed by corporations. In 1990, the
>Smith and Wesson gun company introduced the LadySmith – a slim, easily
concealed>> revolver with a shortened trigger reach. Now, the LadySmith can be
further> feminized with rosewood grips, gold detailing and an engraved image of
a
>rose.
>
>Sure..it will look pretty gathering dust.
>>
>Just like that gun Charlton Hesten has in his bedroom. He admitted to Michael
Moore that it was just gathering dust.
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/21/04 7:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <g8de80986kdfr9n0p...@4ax.com>
>
>On 21 Apr 2004 22:08:00 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>>From: howldog no...@yahoo.com
>>>Date: 4/21/2004 12:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <5776296d3afdd988...@news.bubbanews.com>
>>>
>>>On 21 Apr 2004 17:55:07 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Most women choose peace over war and tolerance over violence.
>>>
>>>so do most men.
>>>
>>>you conviently omit that.
>>
>>In matters of criminal law, (which was the subject before you deleted
it),>there are simply not as many female as male criminals. More men commit
violence than women, so of most criminals more men than women also seem
to>prefer violence to tolerance.
>
>
>More semantical tricks from Puke.
>
>So male criminals are more likely to be violent than female>non-criminals.
So?
>
So more men prefer violence to tolerance.
>And I thought you were the one that boasted of how women have GUNS.
Indeed. The right to defend oneself and the desire for peace are not mutually
exclusive.
>>The sum total of all your arguments, Puke, is that women are more
lethal than men because they have GUNS, but on the other hand, women
>are less violent than men.
>
I don't think women have to be "MORE" lethal in order to defend themselves.
Do you? AND, women are indeed less violent than men when it comes to
instigating and perpetrating violent crime.
>Well, you can't have it both ways, Puke, so which is it?
Linear thinkers can't have it both ways; I'm not a linear thinker.
dduck...@ameritech.net
Excellent diagnosis. I used to read her posts and I always thought they
were written by someone to discredit feminism, until I realized that Parg is
simply the logical endgame of feminism, just like GA is the logical
masculine counter response. I just wish we could head off the coming war
because I don't think the GA types are going to show any mercy to the Parg
types.
Peace,
Dexter
Jayne Kulikauskas
<dduck...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:HBXhc.734$DJ3...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
That is a very interesting point. They do illustrate what a complete
breakdown between the sexes would look like. Maybe I'm just projecting
here, but it seems to me, that GA comes across as self-sufficient where
Hyedahl seems lonely and pathetic.
Jayne
Ralph DuBose
Translation: "I can believe whatever I want to believe. I can block
out reality whenever I need to. Too bad if you can't".
Responsible adults let their thinking be disciplined by the world
around them. Stalinists reject this because it involves giving up
absolute power for themselves. We know where you stand.
Ralph DuBose
You have no right to say this. You have consistently spoken of men
as being so radically different than women as to constitute a
different order of being.
You also display, on regular basis, a complete and utter inability
to understand how men experience their lives -- which is hardly
consistent with your assertion that you have so much in common with
them.
Of course, you have not done much to convince us that you are even
human. By all the available evidence "Hyerdahl" is just a crude
program that runs night and day spewing out the same half dozen
cliches whether or not they actually fit the discussion at hand.
At least bees are honest creatures doing honest creature-things. A
scam-person-lame-programmed-bullshit-dispenser is a haunted, hollow,
revolting abomination. Turn it off like a fissling light socket. Then
go off and find a real live, warm woman and embrace her. Real women
like that. Robotminded pretenders will never get it.
Grizzlie Antagonist
>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men>From: Grizzlie Antagonist
>grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>>Date: 4/21/2004 9:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time>Message-id:
><pqde80l30bolt6l1ggnf6njt1lhakhelae@4ax
>>
>>>>>(edit)
>>>>>>>>>
>>Sure it does. If a man wants a child, he must solicit a particular
>woman>to>>>gestate one for him.
>>>>
>>No Puke, since ANY fertile woman will do for this purpose.
>
>Not true. It has to be a particular willing woman. After all, even if you
>were to rape just any woman, she could abort, no?
Well, so it has to be a willing woman. How does that prove that women
are better situated than men?
You can't get sperm from an unwilling male donor.
>>Since this is a transaction which any individual man and any>individual woman
>can engage in, how can you possibly argue that the>male role does not require
>any "individual" man while the female role
>>requires an "individual" woman.
>>
>Because sperm is free or cheap and very easy to cum by. In fact, men donate
>sperm willingly to lesbians all the time.
They don't "donate" it, Puke; come mierda!
>:-)> A squirt into a>>turkey baster takes just a few minutes, and she can go to
>a sperm bank, dear>where NO individual man is required.
>>
>>Other than ro provide the sperm.
>>
>>>Keep in mind that one man could father a nation. :-)
>>
>>Is that not an indication of how efficient men are?
>
>No, just the value of insemination.
Really, Puke?
Well, keep in mind that no woman can mother a nation.
>>How do you reconcile any of this with your on-the-other-handcontention that
>men and women are more alike than different?
>>
>It is obvious that women and men are more alike than different.
Then why do you argue that women are superior, Puke?
> Skin,
Men and women have different skin texture.
>eyes,
There are gender differences in visual acuity.
>hair,
Also gender differences in texture.
> flesh,
How does that differ from "skin", Puke?
>blood,
Gender differences in blood cell count.
> brain, etc.
Please. Let's not go there AGAIN!
> And in a>society where men have not chosen to protect women from
>other>men,>he>need not "solicit".
>>>>
>>>Women here have guns to shoot it off or knives to cut it off, dear.
>>
>>More castration fantasies from the Pukemeister.
>
>No, just the truth. Women need not be victims of rape.
Not as long as men are around to protect them.
>(edit)
>>> AND, if>>all else fails they have both the law and abortion.
>>
>>Ah - and a male security apparatus is required to enforce the law and>the
>right to abort is another one of those things that women only have>at male
>suffereanced.
>
>No; there are two SC justices...who are female>:-)
Appointed by male presidents, confirmed by male Senate members, etc.
>They don't need you, your
>dick, your sperm or your permission.
No, they need a male security apparatus to maintain their positions as
SC justices and to see that, if they vote in the majority, the law is
carried out.
>
> He can either marry a wife willing to gestate for him or>>hire a>surrogate.
>>> >
>>>>Or...
>>>>
>>>Or, nothing. Your rape fantasy doesn't work here.
>>
>>It is not a fantasy - it is just a reminder that women really do require men
>to protect them from other men.
>
>No, in fact, women aren't willing to pay special perks for male protection;
>sell it someplace else.
>(edit)>
Tsk, tsk Puke; you just "edited" away my side of the argument which
completely blew away yours. No doubt, that's WHY you edited it away.
> I'm using reality to let you know that you and yours only get
>to>procreate>>with permission of a willing woman.
>>
>>Only in a society in which men are willing to protect women.
>>
>>No, here women can both protect themselves and abort.
Only if men allow them to.
>>A man "only" needs a womb to impregnate.
>>>
>>There is no womb for rent; you must have a willing woman if you want
>a>child.>
>>
>>More Pukish semantical tricks. You must have a willing sperm donor if
>>you want to bear one.
>
>Sperm is free; it runs in the streets. :-)
Even if this were true, men can get vasectomies, no? You need not
only a willing sperm donor but a willing sperm donor for the purpose
of procreation.
>(edit)
What did you edit away here, Puke?
Did I give you another good sound thrashing by delivering something
else that you couldn't respond to?
>>>>>>>Well, women do get full credit for gestation and delivery
>>>>>>
>This is like giving the first baseman "full credit" for the double
>play>>when>>the play started with the interchange between the shortstop>and
>the>>second>>baseman.
>>>>>>
>>Not as it pertains to gestation and delivery, Sim. I think you're>confusing
>>>>>those two things with conception.
>>>>
>>>>Gestation and delivery are not all there is to procreation, Puke.
>>>>
>>>I never said they were, Dave;
>>
>>Yes Puke, that is EXACTLY what you are saying - while pretending that>this
>isn't what you are saying.
>
>No, I'm calling to your attention that the woman's sacrifice is much greater
>than the the man's when it comes to childbirth.
Even if that were true, it's not more indispensable, Puke.
>>It's a typical device of yours - arguing that women are superior to>men while
>strategically trying to give yourself enough "wiggle" room>to deny that this is
>what you are arguing.
>
>I don't need to claim female superiority
Well, you try to do so all of the time - maybe it's a luxury and not a
need.
>because the truth will out on its own.
What a weasely politician-like answer! As I said, you assert that
women are superior and then try to deny that this is what you said.
> Either women are superior or they are not.
Pop goes the weasel!
>And women are not insecure like
>men to want to limit male roles.
Of course they are, Puke.
Go to your directory and see how many "women's" organizations there
are in your area and how many "men's" organizations.
>>>> I simply informed you that men have no status to>claim in matters of
>gestation and delivery.>>All they have is a sqirt and a hope.
>>
>>And that is simply your assignation of value to the male contribution- it's
>not a description of the world as it really is. Gestation and>delivery are not
>possible without male contribution.
>>
>Sperm contribution from any male source.
Ah, ah, ah - you said it. MALE source.
>>>>>>>and all attendant>risks, because men don't contribute there.
>>>>>>
>>It doesn't matter because "gestation and delivery" are not all that
>is>necessary.
>>>>>
>As far as women are concerned, any few drops of sperm are all that's>needed
>>>>for>>them to run with the ball. :-) And women KNOW THAT.
>>>>>>
>>>>As far as men are concerned, any womb is all that's necessary to>deposit
>>the>ball.
>>>
>>>Let me know when you can BUY a womb with a view, Dave. :-)
>>
>>Let me know when women can conceive immaculately, Puke.
>
>Ok; it's not far off:
>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,792086,00.html
>
>scientists have succeeded in reducing the body cell of a female mouse to half
>its normal DNA content, and then using it to fertilise the egg of another
>mouse. The result is a male offspring that has two mothers and no father.
>Science, it seems, is suddenly telling us what feminists have been saying all
>along: the future is female.
>...From sperm count to social status, and from fertilisation to death, as
>civilisation advances those who bear Y chromosomes are in relative
>decline...End of sperm report
And stories have also written about the coming of the artificial womb
as well, Puke, so in fact, it WILL be possible to rent a womb with a
view.
>
>Sean O'Hagan
>Sunday September 15, 2002
>The Observer
>>>>>Finally, I pin the Puke down. And, you know, I almost forgot...
>>>>
>>>>You couldn't pin a tail on the donkey dear. You didn't do so here.
Oh, I did tolerably well considering that you ran away like a scared
rabbit from much of what I had to say.
Grizzlie Antagonist
>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>>Date: 4/21/2004 9:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <pqde80l30bolt6l1g...@4ax.com>
>(edit)>
>
>
>>I said "as much as". I said "as much as". Do women enjoy sex "as>much as"
>men do, Puke? Can you give me a straight answer to this question?
>
>I don't view sexual enjoyment in terms of women and men, but rather in terms of
>individuals. Some women enjoy sex MORE than some men, and the reverse is also
>true.
>(edit)
In that case, Puke, men are not exploiting women by virtue of the fact
that they have sex with them.
>>If women enjoy sex, then intercourse is not a form of exploitation of>women by
>men, which is what's implied in your argument, especially if they enjoy it as
>much.
>>
>>By the way, I don't claim that women enjoy sex or that they enjoy it
>>as much as men, but the issue here is whether you do.
>
>???? How would my personal enjoyment of sex even be relevant to this debate?
YOUR personal enjoyment of sex? As far as I can tell, Puke, you are a
70-something virgin.
As far as whether or not women enjoy sex, I've already explained how
it's relevant to this debate.
>>>>Well, there's no such thing as recreational abortion C4W or breed and
>>>>pay C4W either - it's just a figment of bitter bitch imagination.
>
>???? The choice to abort is already a reality for women regardless of their
>motivations. AND, women have the same rights men have, so I don't see a
>problem.
Well, it sounds as if you are saying, Puke, that the issue of choice
for men or for women is a naked political power grab and that civil
rights doesn't come into the issue.
>>>>>Women do abort for whatever motivations they have because women have
>the>SAME>>bodily rights men have.
>>
><Shrugs> And so men can, as you say, "fuck and run" because they have>the same
>rights.
>
> Women don't have any right at all to abandon an existing child.
> Nor do men.
>You must be confusing bodily rights with mere wallet protection.
>
I did it again. I actually got another concession from the Pukester
that she never wanted to give. I actually got her to say, against her
will, that she would limit a woman's right to do whatever she wanted
to whomever she wanted whenever she wants.
Women may not have the right to abandon an existing child, but they
have the right to abort an unborn child, as you have so stridently
pointed out. So they still have a choice that men don't have.
>> It reminds me of the old Herblock cartoon:>>"We generously allow you
>to>>pay>>for the cow - all we ask is that you>let us>>take the cream".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You ARE the cartoon expert here. :-) >>
>>>>>>And you are the cartoon character here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Hmmmm....
>>>>>>
>>However, the trade is tit for tat; no
>>rights no duties on a universal level.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Besides, according to you, men really aren't parents at all
>->they>don't>contribute anything more substantial than a "little squirt".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>Prior to actually HAVING a child, that is all any man
>contributes.>>>However,once there is a child a father can be as active in
>contribution>>as>>he desires,>just like a mother.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You don't really favor choice for men, Puke.
>>>>>
>>>>>No. Never said I did, Sim. I said if all men want to
>relinquishall>parental
>>rights, they can also get rid of all parental duties. I think men want
>to>retain those rights.
>>>>
>You seem to deny men's rights to behave as individuals, even as you>insist
>>that this right be recognized on behalf of women.
>>>
>>>Men HAVE the same exact rights as women have regarding bodily autonomy.
>>
>>Ah, so there really IS such a thing as "fuck and run" C4M.
>
>Sure; any man who finds himself attached to a world renowned violinist can
>abort her.
>:-)
What exactly does this mean, Puke?
>>>>Men simply don't have rights over women's bodies, Dave. I believe most men
>>>want to be parents and have parental rights which is why men have parental
>>>duties as well.
>>
>>
>>And you would impose these duties on ALL such men whether they want>parental
>rights or not.
>
>Of course. Two play; two pay.
Not so, Puke. To you, the man's contribution is just a "little
squirt', remember? He has very little to do with the process; that's
what you keep insisting.
> When you choose to engage in risky behavior
The man never chooses to engage in risky behavior. There was never
any chance that he would get pregnant. By your reckoning, only one
"plays".
>what else would you expect? You want SOCIETY to pay for your indiscretions?
Society pays for female indiscretions all of the time, Puke - cash on
the barrelhead for children born out of wedlock.
You don't seem to have a problem with that.
>>>>>>But as always, I regard it as a moral victory when I pin you down to
>>>a>>>position that you really don't believe in.
>>>>>
>>>>>When will you be starting?
>>>>
>>>I'm talking from experience.
>>>
>>>You're talking out of a cartoon head.
>>
>>I'm talking TO one.
>>
>>One who is winning this debate, dear.
That's why you snip snip snip away facts that you don't like.
>If you were winning you would be able
>to tell me what credible celebrities support your cause.
Oh, get out of here, Puke! As though that were a substitute for
empiricism!
>>>>>>>>Then why should men be charged with more than token
>responsibility>>for>>sustaining the lives that ONLY women gestate and deliver
>into
>>the>world?
>>>>>>>
>As long as no men want to BE fathers, (parental rights) I see no
>reason>>>why>>>>>for them to have universal duties.
And you still cannot explain why you don't wish to see men treated as
individuals.
>> That's the question that you are trying to sidestep.
>>>>>
>>>There is no need TO sidestep, Dave. This is about risk; they both risk
>>unsafe>>or unprotected sex fully knowing the possible results.
>>
>>They certainly do. They BOTH know that if anyone gets pregnant, it's>not
>going to be HIM.
>
>Indeed. Thus, he relinquishes his control over the process, eh?
And hence responsibility for the process's outcome, eh?
>>>> Two play; two pay.
Your argument does not amount to that.
>>Not if men are to have the same autonomy as women, Puke.
>
>Yes indeed. Men can control their own sperm any time they want, Dave.
And according to you, women can control their own wombs any time they
want to, Puke.
So again, why should the man "pay" for what these wombs gestate?
>>She knew that the risk of pregnancy was hers and hers alone. If dad>isn't a
>rapist, why should he pay if he doesn't have any interest in>parental rights?
>>
>Well, the facts are that childbirth is the biological imperative of sex. Both
>know the risks they take and both know that once the burden is passed onto the
>woman the man doesn't get to control the process.There's no reason to ONLY
>blame the person housing the harm when two people>set>>the harm in motion
>UNLESS you're going to find a way to give women a DUTY to>>abort.
>>
>>There's no reason to ONLY blame the person whose contribution you
>disparage as a "little squirt" unless you're going to find a way to>give men
>the RIGHT to REQUIRE women to abort.
>>
>But, Sim...we are not ONLY requiring the woman to support; we are requiring
>both
No, Puke; not as long as we are allowing the woman to make the
unilateral decision to abort.
>and it's not really about blame but about responsibility.
I'm touched by your appeal to the better nature of men, Puke, but it's
obvious that you feel that men are to "blame".
>>What question? It seems fairly simple to me;
Of course it seems fairly simple to you, Puke. Woody Allen once wrote
an article distinguishing the oppressors from the oppressed by noting
that it was the oppressors that seemed to be having all of the fun.
You want to have all of the fun, and you can't see why anyone would
object.
>if men want the right
>to>parent,>>they must accept the duties of parenting and the risks just
>like>women.
And so what seems fairly simple to me, Puke, is that if a man DOESN'T
want the right to parent, he need not do any of this.
>And what "payment"? How would you enforce that payment without a
>male>security>>apparatus?
>>>>>>>
>Right now, society manages to collect child support from NCPs who may
>or>may>>>not want to pay.
>>>>>>
>Yes, with the male security apparatus that I've already alluded to.
>>>>>
>What "security apparatus" that includes women and men is going to become
>>extinct? :-)
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.worldcongress.org/WCFUpdate/Archive02/wcf_update_223.htm
>>>>
>>It is in this context that social scientist Martin Van Creveld asks>if>there
>still exists even "a single field in which men are at a clear>advantage
>and>[in>>which] women will NEVER be able to play more than a>marginal role?" In
>an>extended analysis, recently published in Social>Research, Van Creveld dares
>to assert that "such a field does>exist...and
>>its name is violence." In his assessment of the social>meaning of violence,
>Van
>>Creveld goes so far as to suggest that "one>of its functions is to
>clearly>separate men from women."
>>
>So basically, what you're suggesting is that the only place where men
>feel>"at>home" in having CONTROL over their own domain, is thru violence?
>>
>>
>>"At home" is your Pukish way of putting it, not mine or Van Creveld's.
>
>Ah, but the sentiment is the same, is it not? I mean if that's truely what
>seperates the sexes/genders, then men really suck.
Ah - yet ANOTHER glimpse into the not-so-hidden dark corners of Puke's
personality.
>:-) Of course, I don't see men quite the same way you and Van Creveld see
>them.
Neither do I and neither (probably) does Van Creveld.
>Most men (at least the ones I know) don't need to control women or put them
>down in order to build themselves up.
Then why do you hate men so much, Puke?
> Strong men ...mature adult men, simply
>don't need that.
Then why do you hate men so much, Puke?
>>>And I don't agree that violence is the ONLY male domain.
>>
>Ah, well good. Then you agree that this is not the ONLY thing that either
>seperates the sexes or binds them. That's a start.
No indeed, Puke, but it's always an option.
>>>> In that case,>bring it on, Dave.
>>
>>
>>Oh, come on, Puke; you don't mean that.
>>
>>I'm laughing at you, Dave, at your insecurity. You and I BOTH know that most
>men don't hate women the way you do.
That is beside the point, Puke.
If they DID, there would be nothing you could do about it.
>>>All the men kill all the women and you can put all of us>>out of our misery.
>:-)
>>
>>WHOA! ANOTHER instance of where Puke inadvertently allows her public
>>to see behind the curtain.
>
>Hahahahaha. I was joking...
No-o-o-o-o, I think not, Puke, though it only followed that you would
CLAIM to be only joking.
It isn't me who gets up every morning praying to
>Allah, thanking him that I'm not a woman.
I think you are confusing a Muslim prayer with an Orthodox Jewish one,
Puke.
>>>It's like on November 15, 2001 where you addressed me (of all people)
>as "friend" and told me that I seemed well provided for in the
>"love>department".
>
>???? I don't recall.
No doubt - even though I've cut and pasted it many times.
Are you now admitting to having been a regular contributor to soc.men
at that time?
>AND, keep in mind that I comment based on what people
>tell me. For example, Dave Sim is reported to have suffered thru a terrible
>divorce. That could certainly change a person's capacity to love if it
>embittered that person. Life is not static.
>(edit)
Is that what happened between you and Dickless Davie?
>>And then, earlier this year, you told me that I was "evil", which was
>>a strange expression coming from a woman who pretends not to care what
>>others think of her - was that you way of exhibiting more distress?
>
>Well, if you read what I write in other posts, you'll find that I find
>"evildoers" rather laughable. It was a joke, Sim.
You can't unring the bell, Puke, by claiming that you only rang it as
a joke.
>And, as I recall, it was also a slight to the other postor; I was comparing
>levels of response. You should be proud that you came out on the more erudite
>side of that. :-)
>(edit)>
No, I don't measure my self-esteem by the presence or absence of your
approval, Puke.
>>>>Van Creveld freely acknowledges "the ongoing feminization of the>police and
>>the armed forces" in the industrialized nations, but he discounts
>this>phenomenon as "an illusion." "The more women there are>>in any branch of
>the police, the further removed from violence that>branch>is>>likely to be," he
>remarks. "The more women in any armed force, the less>likely>>it is to engage
>in serious military>operations."
>>>
>>>Well, that sounds pretty good to me; perhaps the way the violence will
>>stop>>not with a bang, but a whimper
>>
>>
>>Oh so, Puke, NOW your argument for including women in armed forces is
>>NOT the Annie Oakley one ("anything you can do, I can do better"),
>>it's all of a sudden switched to the pacifist-female "Earth Mother"
>>argument.
>>
>>Well, guess what, Puke.
>>
>>You can't have it both ways.
>>
>That's what you think. :-)
'You are a slow learner, Winston,' said O'Brien gently.
'How can I help it?' he blubbered. 'How can I help seeing what is in
front of my eyes? Two and two are four.'
'Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are
three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It
is not easy to become sane.'
- 1984, George Orwell, Part 3, Chapter 2
Grizzlie Antagonist
>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>>Date: 4/21/04 7:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <g8de80986kdfr9n0p...@4ax.com>
>>
>>On 21 Apr 2004 22:08:00 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>>>From: howldog no...@yahoo.com
>>>>Date: 4/21/2004 12:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>>Message-id: <5776296d3afdd988...@news.bubbanews.com>
>>>>
>>>>On 21 Apr 2004 17:55:07 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Most women choose peace over war and tolerance over violence.
>>>>
>>>>so do most men.
>>>>
>>>>you conviently omit that.
>>>
>>>In matters of criminal law, (which was the subject before you deleted
>it),>there are simply not as many female as male criminals. More men commit
>violence than women, so of most criminals more men than women also seem
>to>prefer violence to tolerance.
>>
>>
>>More semantical tricks from Puke.
>>
>Poor baby can't seem to keep up.
Poor baby USES semantical tricks because she otherwise couldn't keep
up.
>>So male criminals are more likely to be violent than female>non-criminals.
>So?
>>
>So more men prefer violence to tolerance.
And didn't you say in another point in this thread that it was the
other way around, in your experience?
>>And I thought you were the one that boasted of how women have GUNS.
>
>Indeed. The right to defend oneself and the desire for peace are not mutually
>exclusive.
Why then, Puke, the greater physical stature of men is also not
exclusive of the desire for peace, is it?
>>>The sum total of all your arguments, Puke, is that women are more
> lethal than men because they have GUNS, but on the other hand, women
>>are less violent than men.
>>
>I don't think women have to be "MORE" lethal in order to defend themselves.
Well, you seem to think that women have guns and that men DON'T have
guns, so why is it that women, in your estimation, ARE more lethal?
>Do you? AND, women are indeed less violent than men when it comes to
>instigating and perpetrating violent crime.
But more violent than men when it comes to instigating and
perpetrating violent crime against CHILDREN because CHILDREN - unlike
men - are opponents that adult women can beat up.
So if female-on-male violence is relatively rare among adults, it's a
matter of female inability, not female pacificism.
>>Well, you can't have it both ways, Puke, so which is it?
>
>Linear thinkers can't have it both ways; I'm not a linear thinker.
You're trying to have it both ways because you're not an adult, not
because you're not a linear thinker.
Grizzlie Antagonist
Sounds like Dexter has already looked into his crystal ball and chosen
a winner :0)
Grizzlie Antagonist
It's nice of you to say so, Jayne Kulikauskas.
I'm self-sufficient in the sense that I'm able to pay my bills and
mind my own business.
I certainly have not accomplished a significant portion of what I had
hoped to accomplish by this stage in my life. Setbacks have happened.
I suppose that overcoming them to achieve even a moderate level of
self-sufficiency was an accomplishment in itself.
Sky King
Nope...just sucked and licked...that is what my women do to my willy. Oh..and
I can control it, its women that cannot control theirs.
>
> >> Most women choose peace over war and tolerance over violence. However,
> >today's>> women seem to be arming themselves quite nicely.
> >
> >Sure they are. They had a march to ban guns.
> >
> Some did, and some men JOINED them. Other women sport guns.
A minority of women have guns...a majority of men have guns.
chuckle
> >
> >> Women wielding barrel of protection
> >> Training, ownership of guns finding appeal among defense-minded females
> >>
> Well, it is in some circles....probably in those circles where women are more
> likely to USE guns.
WHERE?
>
>
> >> By Hayli Fellwock, hfel...@bgdailynews.com -- 270-783-3240
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ------
> >>
> >> Joe Imel/Daily News
>
> >> Ponytails and manicured nails are becoming a more common sight at
> shooting>> ranges, indicating a turning tide for the gun industry. The
> historically> male-dominated shooting sport is becoming less foreign to females
> as more
> >women flock to gun classes and target practice. > “We have had somewhere
> around 6,000 students since October 1996, and I>would> say around one-third to
> nearly half of our students are female,” said>Deborah Williams of Bowling
> Green, who has helped teach concealed-weapons classes>for> the past eight
> years. “I get a mixture of single women who live alone,
> >women> who have felt it is necessary because they’ve become victims of a
> crime, or>I> have occasionally had women who are being stalked.
> >
> >Note that most of the folks there are MEN. Men have more guns and
> >know how to use them.
> >
> I guess Sky Penis didn't hear the word HALF. :-)
I guess cunt licker didn't see the NEARLY before the HALF.
chuckle
> >
> >> The expanding market has not gone unnoticed by corporations. In 1990, the
> >Smith and Wesson gun company introduced the LadySmith – a slim, easily
> concealed>> revolver with a shortened trigger reach. Now, the LadySmith can be
> further> feminized with rosewood grips, gold detailing and an engraved image of
> a
> >rose.
> >
> >Sure..it will look pretty gathering dust.
> >>
> >Just like that gun Charlton Hesten has in his bedroom. He admitted to Michael
> Moore that it was just gathering dust.
> >
I am sure he has more than one dear.
Hyerdahl1
Women? Men do stupid things to their OWN dicks, dimbulb. AND, your real
problem is that women don't want anything to do with your misicule dick because
of what's attached to it.
>Oh..and>I can control it, its women that cannot control theirs.
>>
Their what? Women don't have or need dicks. It's too damned inconvenient, and
women lead busy lives. Here's some help for you, tho; here's a webcite
devoted to caring for that oft-injured peice of flesh.
http://www.medhelp.org/forums/Urology/messages/30673a.html
Each colony is a family unit, comprising a single egg-laying female ...The
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/22/2004 7:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <cb5b2d4e.04042...@posting.google.com>
Women are much, much less violent than men even when they purchase and learn to
use more and more guns. The purchase and use is dedicated to SELF DEFENSE.
I haven't seen women hit the local Taco Bell, armed. :-)
>> I don't think women have to be "MORE" lethal in order to defend
>themselves. Do you? AND, women are indeed less violent than men when it
comes to>> instigating and perpetrating violent crime.
>>
>> >Well, you can't have it both ways, Puke, so which is it?
>>
>> Linear thinkers can't have it both ways; I'm not a linear thinker.
>>
>
> Translation: "I can believe whatever I want to believe. I can block
>out reality whenever I need to. Too bad if you can't".> Responsible adults
let their thinking be disciplined by the world
>around them. Stalinists reject this because it involves giving up
>absolute power for themselves. We know where you stand.
>> >
>> >What is it about women owning more and more guns, but being less violent
than men escapes your cognitive ability?
Hyerdahl1
>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>Message-id: <bvch801fa8b7032ul...@4ax.com>
>
>On 22 Apr 2004 19:34:03 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>>>Date: 4/21/04 7:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <g8de80986kdfr9n0p...@4ax.com>
>>>
>>>On 21 Apr 2004 22:08:00 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>>>>From: howldog no...@yahoo.com
>>>>>Date: 4/21/2004 12:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>>>Message-id: <5776296d3afdd988...@news.bubbanews.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>On 21 Apr 2004 17:55:07 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Most women choose peace over war and tolerance over violence.
>>>>>
>>>>>so do most men.
>>>>>
>>>>>you conviently omit that.
>>>>
In matters of criminal law, (which was the subject before you deleted
it),>there are simply not as many female as male criminals. More men commit
>>violence than women, so of most criminals more men than women also
seem>>to>prefer violence to tolerance.
>>>
>>>
>>>More semantical tricks from Puke.
>>>
>>Poor baby can't seem to keep up.
>
>
>Poor baby USES semantical tricks because she otherwise couldn't keep
>up.
>
>
>>>So male criminals are more likely to be violent than female>non-criminals.
>>So?
>>>
>>So more men prefer violence to tolerance.
>>
>And didn't you say in another point in this thread that it was the>other way
around, in your experience?
>
>>>And I thought you were the one that boasted of how women have GUNS.
>>
>>Indeed. The right to defend oneself and the desire for peace are not
>mutually>>exclusive.
>
>
>Why then, Puke, the greater physical stature of men is also not>exclusive of
the desire for peace, is it?
>
The physical stature of men has nothing to do with peace or war or violence or
tolerance. There can be gentle giants, and are.
>>>>The sum total of all your arguments, Puke, is that women are more
lethal than men because they have GUNS, but on the other hand, women
are less violent than men.
>>>
>>I don't think women have to be "MORE" lethal in order to defend themselves.
>
>>Well, you seem to think that women have guns and that men DON'T have
>guns, so why is it that women, in your estimation, ARE more lethal?
>
I never once said women were "more lethal"; that seems to be your fish to fry.
I simply said that women are buying guns today in order to defend themselves.
I expect there to be more dead men as a result of that. However, that does not
indicate anything being more or less 'lethal'.
>>>Do you? AND, women are indeed less violent than men when it comes
to>instigating and perpetrating violent crime.
>
>But more violent than men when it comes to instigating and>perpetrating
violent crime against CHILDREN because CHILDREN - unlike>men - are opponents
that adult women can beat up.
>
Poor Sim shows how he loses the debate when he wants to change the subject.
Good going, Dave. Besides, I've already provided a DOJ site showing that the
same number of parents abuse children and that more men actually abuse
children.
>So if female-on-male violence is relatively rare among adults, it's a>matter
of female inability, not female pacificism.
>
The stressors of raising children is the only reason there is any violence
between women and children. It must be more difficult to abuse your kid from
the golf course, or titty bars.
>>>Well, you can't have it both ways, Puke, so which is it?
>>
>>Linear thinkers can't have it both ways; I'm not a linear thinker.
>
>You're trying to have it both ways because you're not an adult, not
>because you're not a linear thinker.
I am clearly suggesting to you that 1) women are much less violent than men and
2) that they are buying more guns for self defense. The two are easily
understandable to normal, non-linear thinkers who don't waste time on sexist
unpublishable cartoons.
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/22/04 7:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <cb5b2d4e.04042...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20040422114012...@mb-m11.aol.com>...
>> >Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men>From: Grizzlie Antagonist
>> grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>> >Date: 4/21/2004 9:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time>Message-id:
>> <pqde80l30bolt6l1ggnf6njt1lhakhelae@4ax
>> >
>> >>>>(edit)
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >Sure it does. If a man wants a child, he must solicit a particular
>> woman>to>>>gestate one for him.
>> >>>
>> >No Puke, since ANY fertile woman will do for this purpose.
>>
>> Not true. It has to be a particular willing woman. After all, even if you
>> were to rape just any woman, she could abort, no?
>>
>> >Since this is a transaction which any individual man and any>individual
>woman> can engage in, how can you possibly argue that the>male role does not
>require> any "individual" man while the female role >requires an "individual"
woman.
Well, let's see if I can help you understand this. Were I a female who wanted
a fatherless family, all I'd need to do is have sex with someone on an anon.
basis. The sperm, in that scenerio is free. Or, if I were a lesbian, I could
use artificial insemination for a slight cost. There, no specific man is
required, either. A man, otoh, must have a specific woman to gestate for him.
>> >
>> Because sperm is free or cheap and very easy to cum by. In fact, men
>donate>> sperm willingly to lesbians all the time.> :-)> A squirt into
a>>turkey baster takes just a few minutes, and she can>go to> a sperm bank,
dear>where NO individual man is required.
>> >
>> >Other than ro provide the sperm.
>> >
>> >>Keep in mind that one man could father a nation. :-)
>> >
>> >Is that not an indication of how efficient men are?
>>
>> No, just the value of insemination.
>> >
>> >How do you reconcile any of this with your on-the-other-handcontention
>that> men and women are more alike than different?
>> >
>> It is obvious that women and men are more alike than different. Skin,
>eyes,> hair, flesh, blood, brain, etc.
>>
> You have no right to say this. You have consistently spoken of men
>as being so radically different than women as to constitute a
>different order of being.
>
Not so, Ralph. I think women and men have much more in common than different.
You also display, on regular basis, a complete and utter inability>to
understand how men experience their lives -- which is hardly>consistent with
your assertion that you have so much in common with
>them.
Well, let's talk about the things women and men share in common: They both
have more bodily elements in common, than different. Both want to love and be
loved in return. Both want their lives and life's work to have value and
meaning, etc. Please feel free to add.
> Of course, you have not done much to convince us that you are even>human.
By all the available evidence "Hyerdahl" is just a crude program that runs
night and day spewing out the same half dozen
>cliches whether or not they actually fit the discussion at hand.
That is alwasys a possibility ...for any of us here. But denigration alone is
still a poor debate choice, Ralph.
> At least bees are honest creatures doing honest creature-things. A
>scam-person-lame-programmed-bullshit-dispenser is a haunted, hollow,
>revolting abomination. Turn it off like a fissling light socket. Then>go off
and find a real live, warm woman and embrace her.
A relationship with a warm human being is indeed more enjoyable than posting
here.
Go forth and muliply. :-)
Real women>like that. Robotminded pretenders will never get it.
>
Poor Ralph; in the end this is all he has with which to debate.
>
>> And in a>society where men have not chosen to protect women from
>> other>men,>he>need not "solicit".
>> >>>
>> >>Women here have guns to shoot it off or knives to cut it off, dear.
>> >
>> >More castration fantasies from the Pukemeister.
I can give as good as I get, Ralph. He inferred rape; I cut him to the quick.
>>
>> No, just the truth. Women need not be victims of rape.> (edit)>> >> AND,
if>>all else fails they have both the law and abortion.
>> >
>> >Ah - and a male security apparatus is required to enforce the law and>the
right to abort is another one of those things that women only have>at male
>> suffereanced.
>>
>> No; there are two SC justices...who are female>:-) They don't need you,
>your>> dick, your sperm or your permission. He can either marry a wife
willing to gestate for him or>>hire>a>surrogate.
>> >> >
>> >>>Or...
>> >>>
>> >>Or, nothing. Your rape fantasy doesn't work here.
>> >
>> >It is not a fantasy - it is just a reminder that women really do require
>men>> to protect them from other men.
>>
>> No, in fact, women aren't willing to pay special perks for male protection;>
sell it someplace else.
>> (edit)>
>>
I'm using reality to let you know that you and yours only get>>
to>procreate>>with permission of a willing woman.
>> >
>> >Only in a society in which men are willing to protect women.
>> >
>No, here women can both protect themselves and abort.
>> >
>> >A man "only" needs a womb to impregnate.
>> >>
>> >There is no womb for rent; you must have a willing woman if you want>>
a>child.>
>> >
>> >More Pukish semantical tricks. You must have a willing sperm donor if
>> >you want to bear one.
>>
Sperm is free; any woman can get it any time she wants, for free.
Hyerdahl1
>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>Message-id: <ab9h80hfkli98rktk...@4ax.com>
>
>On 22 Apr 2004 15:40:12 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men>From: Grizzlie Antagonist
>>grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>>>Date: 4/21/2004 9:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time>Message-id:
>><pqde80l30bolt6l1ggnf6njt1lhakhelae@4ax
>>>
>>>>>>(edit)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>Sure it does. If a man wants a child, he must solicit a particular
>>woman>to>>>gestate one for him.
>>>>>
>>>No Puke, since ANY fertile woman will do for this purpose.
>>
>>Not true. It has to be a particular willing woman. After all, even if
you>were to rape just any woman, she could abort, no?
>
>
>Well, so it has to be a willing woman. How does that prove that women
>are better situated than men?
>
>You can't get sperm from an unwilling male donor.
>
squirt sex, or to donate 9 mos. plus a medical procdure? :-)
>>>Since this is a transaction which any individual man and any>individual
>woman>>can engage in, how can you possibly argue that the>male role does not
>require>>any "individual" man while the female role>>>requires an "individual"
woman.
>>>
>>Because sperm is free or cheap and very easy to cum by. In fact, men donate
>>sperm willingly to lesbians all the time.
>
>They don't "donate" it, Puke; come mierda!
>
Sure they do, for free.
>
>>:-)> A squirt into a>>turkey baster takes just a few minutes, and she can go
>to>>a sperm bank, dear>where NO individual man is required.
>>>
>>>Other than ro provide the sperm.
>>>
>>>>Keep in mind that one man could father a nation. :-)
>>>
>>>Is that not an indication of how efficient men are?
>>
>>No, just the value of insemination.
>
>Really, Puke?
>
>Well, keep in mind that no woman can mother a nation.
>
Actually, without women a nation can not move forward, Sim. Without men,
sperm banks can still provide seeding.
>>>How do you reconcile any of this with your on-the-other-handcontention that
>>men and women are more alike than different?
>>>
>>It is obvious that women and men are more alike than different.
>
>>Then why do you argue that women are superior, Puke?
>
I don't.
>
>> Skin,
>
>Men and women have different skin texture.
Not really. If you look at the DNA that makes up skin, male and female skin is
much more alike than different,
>>eyes,
>
>>There are gender differences in visual acuity.
>
But the structure of eyes between women and men is 99.9% more alike than
different, eh. Having some few differences does not mean there is a greater
difference than similarity.
>
>>hair,
>
>
>Also gender differences in texture.
Again, more similar than different.
>
>
>
>>blood,
>
>
>Gender differences in blood cell count.
>
>Finding some miniscule difference does not mean blood is more dissimilar
between the sexes than similar, however. The similarities are still much much
greater than any miniscule difference.
> > brain, etc.
>
>
>Please. Let's not go there AGAIN!
>
Indeed. We already have determined that the brains of women and men are more
alike than different.
>
>
>>(edit)
>>>> AND, if>>all else fails they have both the law and abortion.
>>>
>>>Ah - and a male security apparatus is required to enforce the law and>the
>>right to abort is another one of those things that women only have>at male
>>suffereanced.
>>
>>No; there are two SC justices...who are female>:-)
>
>>Appointed by male presidents, confirmed by male Senate members, etc.
>
Again, you fail to see what you don't want to see, that women are getting into
politics more and more.
>
>>They don't need you, your
>>dick, your sperm or your permission.
>>
>No, they need a male security apparatus to maintain their positions as
SC justices and to see that, if they vote in the majority, the law is>carried
out.
>
Nah. Since the voting public is now composed of more women than men, eligible
TO vote, I don't see any male only apparatus.
>>>
>> He can either marry a wife willing to gestate for him or>>hire a>surrogate.
>
>>>> >
>>>>>Or...
>>>>>
>>>>Or, nothing. Your rape fantasy doesn't work here.
>>>
It is not a fantasy - it is just a reminder that women really do require>men
>>to protect them from other men.
>>
>>No, in fact, women aren't willing to pay special perks for male
protection;>sell it someplace else.
>>(edit)>
>
>> I'm using reality to let you know that you and yours only
get>>to>procreate>>with permission of a willing woman.
>>>
>>>Only in a society in which men are willing to protect women.
>>>
>>>No, here women can both protect themselves and abort.
>
>Only if men allow them to.
>
>>>A man "only" needs a womb to impregnate.
>>>>
>>>There is no womb for rent; you must have a willing woman if you want
>>a>child.>
>>>
>>>More Pukish semantical tricks. You must have a willing sperm donor if
>>>you want to bear one.
>>
>>Sperm is free; it runs in the streets. :-)
>>
>Even if this were true, men can get vasectomies, no? You need not
>only a willing sperm donor but a willing sperm donor for the purpose
>of procreation.
>
One man volunteering can father a nation, no? I know several men who would be
very happy to volunteer.
>
>>(edit)
>
>>>>>>>>Well, women do get full credit for gestation and delivery
>>>>>>>
>>This is like giving the first baseman "full credit" for the double
>>play>>when>>the play started with the interchange between the shortstop>and
>>the>>second>>baseman.
>>>>>>>
>>>Not as it pertains to gestation and delivery, Sim. I think
>you're>confusing>>>>>>those two things with conception.
>>>>>
>>>>>Gestation and delivery are not all there is to procreation, Puke.
>>>>>
>>>>I never said they were, Dave;
>>>
>>>Yes Puke, that is EXACTLY what you are saying - while pretending that>this
>>isn't what you are saying.
>>
>>No, I'm calling to your attention that the woman's sacrifice is much greater
>than the the man's when it comes to childbirth.
>
>Even if that were true, it's not more indispensable, Puke.
Sure it is. If all the men died tomorrow, women would still have sperm banks.
>>>>It's a typical device of yours - arguing that women are superior to>men
>while strategically trying to give yourself enough "wiggle" room>to deny that
this
>is>>what you are arguing.
>>
>>I don't need to claim female superiority
>
>Well, you try to do so all of the time - maybe it's a luxury and not a>need.
>
I don't see being different in some capacity as something that suggests a
superior being. Perhaps that is why you're confused about my position. For
example, men pee while standing; I don't necessarily see that as having a
superior position, just a different one.
>
>>because the truth will out on its own.
>>
>What a weasely politician-like answer!
Not at all.
As I said, you assert that women are superior and then try to deny that this is
what you said.
>
I have NEVER said that women were superior; you must be accusing me since you
HAVE said men are superior. You're the one on the moral low road Dave.
>
>> Either women are superior or they are not.
>>
>Pop goes the weasel!
>
Again, it's up to each person to decide for themselves whether or not they find
women superior.
>>And women are not insecure like
>>men to want to limit male roles.
>>
>Of course they are, Puke.
>
>Go to your directory and see how many "women's" organizations there>are in
your area and how many "men's" organizations.
>
>Are you blaming women because men can't or won't organize? That seems very
silly and rather insecure of you, Sim.
Here's the thing, Dave. First, ova donation is not as cheap or easy as sperm
donation. Secondly, I don't of ANY men who want to parent a child without a
partner. Do you? Third, there is no assurance that a womb will ever be
developed. Remember what those Utah scientists tried to tell us about cold
fusion?
:-) So, you can dream on and on, but the future you see doesn't seem to be on
the horizon.
>>>Sean O'Hagan
>>Sunday September 15, 2002
>>The Observer
>
>>>>>>Finally, I pin the Puke down. And, you know, I almost forgot...
>>>>>
>>>>>You couldn't pin a tail on the donkey dear. You didn't do so here.
>>
>Oh, I did tolerably well considering that you ran away like a scared>rabbit
from much of what I had to say.
Like what? I hit all the relevant points. You're the one looking like a deer
in the headlights. :-)
Ken&Laura Chaddock
> hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message news:<20040422153403...@mb-m11.aol.com>...
>>
>>Linear thinkers can't have it both ways; I'm not a linear thinker.
Nor, apparently, a rational one...
>
> Translation: "I can believe whatever I want to believe. I can block
> out reality whenever I need to. Too bad if you can't".
> Responsible adults let their thinking be disciplined by the world
> around them. Stalinists reject this because it involves giving up
> absolute power for themselves. We know where you stand.
Yea, you've caught on...
...Ken
Hyerdahl1
>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>Date: 4/22/2004 10:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <b1bh80145f2krfpqm...@4ax.com>
Well, how far can you "tell"? :-)
>
>As far as whether or not women enjoy sex, I've already explained how>it's
relevant to this debate.
>
>>>>>Well, there's no such thing as recreational abortion C4W or breed and>pay
C4W either - it's just a figment of bitter bitch imagination.
>>
>>???? The choice to abort is already a reality for women regardless of their
>>motivations. AND, women have the same rights men have, so I don't see a
>>problem.
>
>Well, it sounds as if you are saying, Puke, that the issue of choice
for men or for women is a naked political power grab and that civil rights
doesn't come into the issue.
Civil rights already assures women they have the same right as men to choose
the safer bodily procedures related to reproduction and other as regards their
own bodies.
>
>>>>>Women do abort for whatever motivations they have because women
have>>the>SAME>>bodily rights men have.
>>>
>><Shrugs> And so men can, as you say, "fuck and run" because they have>the
>same>>rights.
>>
>> Women don't have any right at all to abandon an existing child. >> Nor do
men.
>>You must be confusing bodily rights with mere wallet protection.
>>
>>I did it again. I actually got another concession from the Pukester
>that she never wanted to give.
Nonsense ...another Dave Sim comic.
I actually got her to say, against her will, that she would limit a woman's
right to do whatever she wanted>to whomever she wanted whenever she wants.
>
What are you on about, Dave?
>Women may not have the right to abandon an existing child, but they
>have the right to abort an unborn child, as you have so stridently>pointed
out. So they still have a choice that men don't have.
Men have the exact same bodily rights women have, just not the same abilities
or bodily functions. So, both women and men have the equal right to medical
recourse but women will not use a test for prostate cancer and men will not
have a pap smear, even tho both have same bodily rights.
(edit)
>>>>>>>
>>>However, the trade is tit for tat; no
>>>rights no duties on a universal level.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Besides, according to you, men really aren't parents at all
they>don't>contribute anything more substantial than a "little squirt".
>>>>>>>>
Prior to actually HAVING a child, that is all any man
contributes.>>>However,once there is a child a father can be as active in
contribution as he desires, just like a mother.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You don't really favor choice for men, Puke.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No. Never said I did, Sim. I said if all men want
to>relinquishall>parental>rights, they can also get rid of all parental duties.
I think men want
>>to>retain those rights.
>>>>>
>>You seem to deny men's rights to behave as individuals, even as you>insist
>that this right be recognized on behalf of women.
>>>>
>>>>Men HAVE the same exact rights as women have regarding bodily autonomy.
>>>
>>>Ah, so there really IS such a thing as "fuck and run" C4M.
>>
>>Sure; any man who finds himself attached to a world renowned violinist can
>>abort her.
>>:-)
>
>What exactly does this mean, Puke?
>
>It means that while women and men have equal rights to medical attention, no
one can force you to have a pap smear or deny you the right to a prostate test.
:-)
>
>>>>>Men simply don't have rights over women's bodies, Dave. I believe most
>men>>>>want to be parents and have parental rights which is why men have
parental>>duties as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>And you would impose these duties on ALL such men whether they
>want>parental>>rights or not.
>>
>>Of course. Two play; two pay.
>
>Not so, Puke. To you, the man's contribution is just a "little
>squirt', remember? He has very little to do with the process; that's
>what you keep insisting.
>
I am reminded of a case where two perps were fighting over a gun in the
perpetration of a robbery. The bullet shot and killed the shop owner, and the
one man tried to avoid the felony murder rule by adopting the notion that he
had little to do with the robbery. The other man had bought the gun, owned the
getaway car and thought up the plan. :-)
>> When you choose to engage in risky behavior
>
>The man never chooses to engage in risky behavior.
Sure he did. Since sex is the default vehicle for the natual result of
childbirth, sex is risky as it pertains TO childbirth.
There was never>any chance that he would get pregnant. By your reckoning,
only one>"plays".
Well, you're free to think of things as opposed to the way that the rest of
society sees them, but you are a misogynist and want women to face all burdens
undertaken by two, alone. Nothing much new about that.
>
>>what else would you expect? You want SOCIETY to pay for your indiscretions?
>
>>Society pays for female indiscretions all of the time, Puke - cash on>the
barrelhead for children born out of wedlock.
>
If you're speaking of social programs, if you don't like them, don't vote for
them.
Last time I checked, those programs paid for the children of women and men.
You see, Sim, just because men abandon children doesn't mean those children
were cloned. :-)
>You don't seem to have a problem with that.
With what? Social programs that pay for children who have been abandoned by
fathers? Or social programs that are available to the poor of all kinds of
families? Grow up.
>
>>>>>>>But as always, I regard it as a moral victory when I pin you down
to>a>>>position that you really don't believe in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When will you be starting?
>>>>>
>>>>I'm talking from experience.
>>>>
>>>>You're talking out of a cartoon head.
>>>
>>>I'm talking TO one.
>>>
>>>One who is winning this debate, dear.
>
>That's why you snip snip snip away facts that you don't like.
Like what?>>If you were winning you would be able>to tell me what credible
celebrities support your cause.
>
>
>Oh, get out of here, Puke! As though that were a substitute for>empiricism!
>
Hahahaha. Poor baby, can't even find some lonely Senator, who supports the
vain and lonely C4m?
>>>>>>>>>Then why should men be charged with more than token
>>responsibility>>for>>sustaining the lives that ONLY women gestate and>deliver
>>into>>the>world?
>>>>>>>>
>>As long as no men want to BE fathers, (parental rights) I see no reason why
they shouldn't have universal duties as well.
>
>
>And you still cannot explain why you don't wish to see men treated as
individuals.
>
>
>>> That's the question that you are trying to sidestep.
>>>>>>
>>>>There is no need TO sidestep, Dave. This is about risk; they both risk
>>>unsafe>>or unprotected sex fully knowing the possible results.
>>>
>>>They certainly do. They BOTH know that if anyone gets pregnant, it's>not
>>going to be HIM.
>
So what? Men seem to want to parent children, Sim. They risk; they get
rights and duties. It's just that simple.
>
>>Indeed. Thus, he relinquishes his control over the process, eh?
>>
>And hence responsibility for the process's outcome, eh?
>
No Sim. Once you relinquish control you don't blame the other person for
having the burden and then wanting to limit their decision.
>
>
>>>>> Two play; two pay.
>
>
>Your argument does not amount to that.
>
>Sure it does.
>>>Not if men are to have the same autonomy as women, Puke.
>>Yes indeed. Men can control their own sperm any time they want, Dave.
>
>And according to you, women can control their own wombs any time they
>want to, Puke.
True enough. Now you're catching on.
>
>So again, why should the man "pay" for what these wombs gestate?
Because the man doesn't get to risk with the woman, pass the burden TO her, and
run away. That's a chicken shit ideal.
The court knows it. Feminists know it.
Religions know it, and so do you, really.
>>>She knew that the risk of pregnancy was hers and hers alone.
Indeed, and she accepts that risk. You don't see women here bellyaching about
thier physical burden, do you? The issue YOU are bellyaching about is your
financial risk which you take every time you unzip and insert.
If dad>isn't>a>>rapist, why should he pay if he doesn't have any interest
in>parental>rights?
>>>
>>Well, the facts are that childbirth is the biological imperative of sex.
>Both>know the risks they take and both know that once the burden is passed
onto
>the>woman the man doesn't get to control the process.There's no reason to
ONLY>>blame the person housing the harm when two people>set>>the harm in
motion>>UNLESS you're going to find a way to give women a DUTY to>>abort.
>>>
>>>There's no reason to ONLY blame the person whose contribution you>disparage
as a "little squirt" unless you're going to find a way to>give men>>the RIGHT
to REQUIRE women to abort.
>>>
>>But, Sim...we are not ONLY requiring the woman to support; we are requiring
>>both
>
>No, Puke; not as long as we are allowing the woman to make the>unilateral
decision to abort.
If there is no child, there is no child to support, and HE has the same
physical rights she has over his own body.
>
>
>>and it's not really about blame but about responsibility.
>
>
>I'm touched by your appeal to the better nature of men, Puke, but it's>obvious
that you feel that men are to "blame".
>
Not at all, just equally responsible.>
>if men want the right>to>parent,>>they must accept the duties of parenting and
the risks just>like>women.
>
>
>And so what seems fairly simple to me, Puke, is that if a man DOESN'T
>want the right to parent, he need not do any of this.
How does it matter what a man "wants" when he risked the physical imperative to
childbirth? He risks; he will have to pay, just like the mother, if a child
is born.
I'm not the one who said that what seperates women and men is the huge degree
of violence by men. :-)
>>:-) Of course, I don't see men quite the same way you and Van Creveld
see>>them.
>
>Neither do I and neither (probably) does Van Creveld.
Are you dissing your own source? :-)
>
>
>>Most men (at least the ones I know) don't need to control women or put them
>>down in order to build themselves up.
>
>>Then why do you hate men so much, Puke?
>
I don't hate men; I hate patriarchy sponsored by misogynists like you, Sim.
>
>> Strong men ...mature adult men, simply>>don't need that.
>
>Then why do you hate men so much, Puke?
Let's try again. I hate patriarchy, dear...you know fellows like you.
>
>
>>>>And I don't agree that violence is the ONLY male domain.
>>>
>>Ah, well good. Then you agree that this is not the ONLY thing that either
>>seperates the sexes or binds them. That's a start.
>>
>No indeed, Puke, but it's always an option.
>
On both sides, here in the west.
>
>>>>> In that case,>bring it on, Dave.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, come on, Puke; you don't mean that.
>>>
>>>I'm laughing at you, Dave, at your insecurity. You and I BOTH know that
>most>>men don't hate women the way you do.
>
>That is beside the point, Puke.
>
>If they DID, there would be nothing you could do about it.
>
>>>>All the men kill all the women and you can put all of us>>out of our
>misery. >>:-)
>>>
>>>WHOA! ANOTHER instance of where Puke inadvertently allows her public>>to
see behind the curtain.
>>
>>Hahahahaha. I was joking...
>
>No-o-o-o-o, I think not, Puke, though it only followed that you would
>CLAIM to be only joking.
>
>Well, it seemed to be the appropriate response under the circumstances; after
all you're the cartoonist. :-)
>
>It isn't me who gets up every morning praying to>>Allah, thanking him that I'm
not a woman.
>
>I think you are confusing a Muslim prayer with an Orthodox Jewish one,
>Puke.
>
I think sexists of any male perpetrated religion says close to the same thing.
:-)
>
>>>>It's like on November 15, 2001 where you addressed me (of all people)
>>as "friend" and told me that I seemed well provided for in
the>>"love>department".
>>
>>???? I don't recall.
>
>No doubt - even though I've cut and pasted it many times.
>
????
>Are you now admitting to having been a regular contributor to soc.men>at that
time?
At what time?
>
>>AND, keep in mind that I comment based on what people>>tell me. For example,
Dave Sim is reported to have suffered thru a terrible>>divorce. That could
certainly change a person's capacity to love if it>>embittered that person.
Life is not static.>(edit)
(edit to the meat)
>
>
>>>>>Van Creveld freely acknowledges "the ongoing feminization of the>police
>and>>the armed forces" in the industrialized nations, but he discounts
>>this>phenomenon as "an illusion." "The more women there are>>in any branch
>of>>the police, the further removed from violence that>branch>is>>likely to
be,"
>he>>remarks. "The more women in any armed force, the less>likely>>it is to
>engage>>in serious military>operations."
>>>>
>>>>Well, that sounds pretty good to me; perhaps the way the violence will
>stop>>not with a bang, but a whimper
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh so, Puke, NOW your argument for including women in armed forces is
NOT the Annie Oakley one ("anything you can do, I can do better"),>>>it's all
of a sudden switched to the pacifist-female "Earth Mother">>>argument.
>>>
I don't need EITHER ONE; equal rights is good enough of an argument whether
you, yourself view women as madonnas or whores. :-)
>>>Well, guess what, Puke.
>>>
>>>You can't have it both ways.
>>>
>>Not having things both ways is what happens when your linear thinking process
prevents you from finding solutions. Not having things ANY way is what happens
when you allow your linear thinking to cut off an unseen option while someone
is choking the life out of the other one.
KRP
"Hyerdahl1" <hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040424023448...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> >Well, it sounds as if you are saying, Puke, that the issue of choice
> for men or for women is a naked political power grab and that civil rights
> doesn't come into the issue.
It hasn't for at least 50 years Carol.
> Civil rights already assures women they have the same right as men to
choose
> the safer bodily procedures related to reproduction and other as regards
their
> own bodies.
Huh? Can men "ABORT?" When did we get that legal RIGHT?
> >Women may not have the right to abandon an existing child, but they
> >have the right to abort an unborn child, as you have so
stridently>pointed
> out. So they still have a choice that men don't have.
> Men have the exact same bodily rights women have, just not the same
abilities
> or bodily functions. So, both women and men have the equal right to
medical
> recourse but women will not use a test for prostate cancer and men will
not
> have a pap smear, even tho both have same bodily rights.
Of course not, we can pee standing up fine. When you try it Carol, all
you get is your socks soaked with your own piss! But not the same bodily
"abilities" there huh?
> >And according to you, women can control their own wombs any time they
> >want to, Puke.
> True enough. Now you're catching on.
IF women really controlled their own wombs, then they would never need a
DOCTOR to assist them in doing so!
> >So again, why should the man "pay" for what these wombs gestate?
> Because the man doesn't get to risk with the woman, pass the burden TO
her, and run away. That's a chicken shit ideal.
> The court knows it. Feminists know it. Religions know it, and so do you,
really.
Ah the cafeteria theist. The woman knows when she is fertile and when
she is not. Ther man does NOT know when she is, and despite your BS Carol,
women have been known to LIE their asses off and STILL belly up to the ATM
for fun and PROFIT! Millions of women use thew womb as nothing more than
their MEAL TICKET! SOet's cut the shit here.
> >>>She knew that the risk of pregnancy was hers and hers alone.
> Indeed, and she accepts that risk. You don't see women here bellyaching
about
> thier physical burden, do you? The issue YOU are bellyaching about is
your
> financial risk which you take every time you unzip and insert.
Carol yopu are one of those people who would jump from the roof of the
Chrysler building and sue the concrete manufacturer for the hard sidewalk!
I am waiting for the replay of the Amazon female warriors who don't need
to climb ropes Carol.
Sky King
Give us some examples of men getting killed while wanking or be branded a liar.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >I agree. Now please use your brain to focus on sucking my dick.
> >> >> >> >>
> She'd have to be able to find it first; do you have some sort of
> magnification
> >> >> >> >> device?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>No need...she will feel it when its shoved down her throat.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Not if you feel the edge of her razor first. :-)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >LOL.. the overwhelming majority of women do not carry razors dear...or
> >guns...or knives. MOST cannot defend themselves and that is why we>>>>have a
> VAWA>hon. How does it feel to be the weaker sex?
> >> >> >
> >> You tell me, sky. You claim to have that overly sensitive dangly peice of
> > uncontrollable flesh hanging between your legs waiting to be cut or snipped
> >or> bruised at every turn.
> >
> >Nope...just sucked and licked...that is what my women do to my willy.
>
> Women? Men do stupid things to their OWN dicks, dimbulb. AND, your real
> problem is that women don't want anything to do with your misicule dick because
> of what's attached to it.
Wrong...they suck and they swallow while my hand is forcing their little heads
down harder....Check out some of the new GAG FACTOR movies hon.
Grizzlie Antagonist
>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>>Date: 4/22/04 10:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <ab9h80hfkli98rktk...@4ax.com>
>>
>>On 22 Apr 2004 15:40:12 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men>From: Grizzlie Antagonist
>>>grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>>>>Date: 4/21/2004 9:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time>Message-id:
>>><pqde80l30bolt6l1ggnf6njt1lhakhelae@4ax
>>>>
>>>>>>>(edit)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>Sure it does. If a man wants a child, he must solicit a particular
>>>woman>to>>>gestate one for him.
>>>>>>
>>>>No Puke, since ANY fertile woman will do for this purpose.
>>>
>>>Not true. It has to be a particular willing woman. After all, even if
>you>were to rape just any woman, she could abort, no?
>>
>>
>>Well, so it has to be a willing woman. How does that prove that women
>>are better situated than men?
>>
>>You can't get sperm from an unwilling male donor.
>>
>Well, do you think it would be easier to get a man to engage in one time,
>squirt sex, or to donate 9 mos. plus a medical procdure? :-)
You are changing the subject, Puke.
The issue is not which is "easier" or which takes longer; the issue is
whether women can procreate without a willing male donor.
>>>>Since this is a transaction which any individual man and any>individual
>>woman>>can engage in, how can you possibly argue that the>male role does not
>>require>>any "individual" man while the female role>>>requires an "individual"
>woman.
>>>>
>>>Because sperm is free or cheap and very easy to cum by. In fact, men donate
>>>sperm willingly to lesbians all the time.
>>
>
>>They don't "donate" it, Puke; come mierda!
>>
>Sure they do, for free.
Are you talking about coitus or sperm donorship, Puke?
>>>:-)> A squirt into a>>turkey baster takes just a few minutes, and she can go
>>to>>a sperm bank, dear>where NO individual man is required.
>>>>
>>>>Other than ro provide the sperm.
>>>>
>>>>>Keep in mind that one man could father a nation. :-)
>>>>
>>>>Is that not an indication of how efficient men are?
>>>
>>>No, just the value of insemination.
>>
>>Really, Puke?
>>
>>Well, keep in mind that no woman can mother a nation.
>>
> Actually, without women a nation can not move forward, Sim. Without men,
>sperm banks can still provide seeding.
Without men, there are no sperm banks, Puke, and the nine months that
you refer to are too long a period of time for women to populate a
nation.
>>>>How do you reconcile any of this with your on-the-other-handcontention that
>>>men and women are more alike than different?
>>>>
>>>It is obvious that women and men are more alike than different.
>>
>>>Then why do you argue that women are superior, Puke?
>>
>I don't.
Yes, you do. Obviously, the phrase "squirt" is intended to be
disparaging.
>>> Skin,
>>
>>Men and women have different skin texture.
>
>Not really. If you look at the DNA that makes up skin, male and female skin is
>much more alike than different,
It's obvious, Puke, that you have never been in intimate contact with
a man's skin, and your attempt to quantify is meaningless.
Obviously, the differences between male and female skin are great
enough such that one is readily distinguishable from the other.
>>>eyes,
>>
>>>There are gender differences in visual acuity.
>>
>But the structure of eyes between women and men is 99.9% more alike than
>different, eh. Having some few differences does not mean there is a greater
>difference than similarity.
The same could probably be said for the difference between the eyes of
a human being and the eyes of a chimp. Your attempt to quantify is
meaningless.
>>>hair,
>>
>>
>>Also gender differences in texture.
>
>Again, more similar than different.
>>
>>
>>
>>>blood,
>>
>>
>>Gender differences in blood cell count.
>>
>>Finding some miniscule difference does not mean blood is more dissimilar
>between the sexes than similar, however. The similarities are still much much
>greater than any miniscule difference.
Even if we were to agree that each of the above differences is small,
in and of itself, cumulatively the differences themselves are great.
>> > brain, etc.
>>
>>
>>Please. Let's not go there AGAIN!
>>
>Indeed. We already have determined that the brains of women and men are more
>alike than different.
And yours is a very poor example of a female brain.
>>>(edit)
>>>>> AND, if>>all else fails they have both the law and abortion.
>>>>
>>>>Ah - and a male security apparatus is required to enforce the law and>the
>>>right to abort is another one of those things that women only have>at male
>>>suffereanced.
>>>
>>>No; there are two SC justices...who are female>:-)
>>
>>>Appointed by male presidents, confirmed by male Senate members, etc.
>>
>Again, you fail to see what you don't want to see, that women are getting into
>politics more and more.
You fail to see what you don't want to see, which is that female
participation is ENTIRELY due to male sufferance.
>>>They don't need you, your
>>>dick, your sperm or your permission.
>>>
>>No, they need a male security apparatus to maintain their positions as
>SC justices and to see that, if they vote in the majority, the law is>carried
>out.
>>
>Nah. Since the voting public is now composed of more women than men, eligible
>TO vote,
This doesn't matter, Puke, as men could simply disregard the wishes of
those women and refuse to allow them to vote or to count those votes.
>I don't see any male only apparatus.
That is because you do not see what you do not want to see.
>>> He can either marry a wife willing to gestate for him or>>hire a>surrogate.
>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>>Or...
>>>>>>
>>>>>Or, nothing. Your rape fantasy doesn't work here.
>>>>
>It is not a fantasy - it is just a reminder that women really do require>men
>>>to protect them from other men.
>>>
>>>No, in fact, women aren't willing to pay special perks for male
>protection;>sell it someplace else.
>>>(edit)>
>>
>>> I'm using reality to let you know that you and yours only
>get>>to>procreate>>with permission of a willing woman.
>>>>
>>>>Only in a society in which men are willing to protect women.
>>>>
>>>>No, here women can both protect themselves and abort.
>>
>>Only if men allow them to.
>>
>>>>A man "only" needs a womb to impregnate.
>>>>>
>>>>There is no womb for rent; you must have a willing woman if you want
>>>a>child.>
>>>>
>>>>More Pukish semantical tricks. You must have a willing sperm donor if
>>>>you want to bear one.
>>>
>>>Sperm is free; it runs in the streets. :-)
>>>
>>Even if this were true, men can get vasectomies, no? You need not
>>only a willing sperm donor but a willing sperm donor for the purpose
>>of procreation.
>>
>One man volunteering can father a nation, no? I know several men who would be
>very happy to volunteer.
This is beside the point of the argument, which is that men are
necessary. Are you saying that there aren't millions of women who
don't want to give birth?
>>>>>>>>>Well, women do get full credit for gestation and delivery
>>>>>>>>
>>>This is like giving the first baseman "full credit" for the double
>>>play>>when>>the play started with the interchange between the shortstop>and
>>>the>>second>>baseman.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>Not as it pertains to gestation and delivery, Sim. I think
>>you're>confusing>>>>>>those two things with conception.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Gestation and delivery are not all there is to procreation, Puke.
>>>>>>
>>>>>I never said they were, Dave;
>>>>
>>>>Yes Puke, that is EXACTLY what you are saying - while pretending that>this
>>>isn't what you are saying.
>>>
>>>No, I'm calling to your attention that the woman's sacrifice is much greater
>>than the the man's when it comes to childbirth.
>>
>
>>Even if that were true, it's not more indispensable, Puke.
>
>Sure it is. If all the men died tomorrow, women would still have sperm banks.
The sperm banks would obviously be depleted in a matter of time.
>>>>>It's a typical device of yours - arguing that women are superior to>men
>>while strategically trying to give yourself enough "wiggle" room>to deny that
>this
>>is>>what you are arguing.
>>>
>>>I don't need to claim female superiority
>>
>>Well, you try to do so all of the time - maybe it's a luxury and not a>need.
>>
>I don't see being different in some capacity as something that suggests a
>superior being. >perhaps that is why you're confused about my position. For
>example, men pee while standing; I don't necessarily see that as having a
>superior position, just a different one.
>>
Differences might not necessarily suggest superiority or inferiority
but that doesn't change the fact that you see these differences as a
form of gender superiority.
>>>because the truth will out on its own.
>>>
>>What a weasely politician-like answer!
>
>Not at all.
>
>As I said, you assert that women are superior and then try to deny that this is
>what you said.
>>
>I have NEVER said that women were superior;
You say it all the time, Puke.
> you must be accusing me since you
>HAVE said men are superior. You're the one on the moral low road Dave.
But you're the one who's lying.
>>> Either women are superior or they are not.
>>>
>>Pop goes the weasel!
>>
>Again, it's up to each person to decide for themselves whether or not they find
>women superior.
>>>And women are not insecure like
>>>men to want to limit male roles.
>>>
>>Of course they are, Puke.
>>
>>Go to your directory and see how many "women's" organizations there>are in
>your area and how many "men's" organizations.
>>
>>Are you blaming women because men can't or won't organize? That seems very
>silly and rather insecure of you, Sim.
Women use the law to prevent men from organizing, Puke.
That's not particularly relevant, Puke.
The fact that gold is more "valuable" than wood is a reflection of its
scarcity but not a reflection of the relative usefulness of wood and
gold.
If sperm is cheaper than ova, that does not mean that it is less
useful or that the producers of sperm are inferior to the producers of
ova.
>Secondly, I don't of ANY men who want to parent a child without a
>partner. Do you?
Of course, Puke, plenty of them. There are many single fathers who do
it quite well. There are many other men who want to be single
fathers.
>Third, there is no assurance that a womb will ever be
>developed. Remember what those Utah scientists tried to tell us about cold
>fusion?
>:-) So, you can dream on and on, but the future you see doesn't seem to be on
>the horizon.
It is not a question of the "future" that I "see", Puke.
It is simply a question of refuting your notion that women are more
necessary for procreation than men.
>>>>Sean O'Hagan
>>>Sunday September 15, 2002
>>>The Observer
>>
>
>>>>>>>Finally, I pin the Puke down. And, you know, I almost forgot...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You couldn't pin a tail on the donkey dear. You didn't do so here.
>>>
>>Oh, I did tolerably well considering that you ran away like a scared>rabbit
>from much of what I had to say.
>
>Like what? I hit all the relevant points.
No Puke, you cut and ran away from them.
Hyerdahl1
>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>Message-id: <1q5l80pk32vfgo1ij...@4ax.com>
>
>On 23 Apr 2004 20:11:27 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>>>Date: 4/22/04 10:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <ab9h80hfkli98rktk...@4ax.com>
>>>
>>>On 22 Apr 2004 15:40:12 GMT, hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men>From: Grizzlie Antagonist
>>>>grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>>>>>Date: 4/21/2004 9:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time>Message-id:
>>>><pqde80l30bolt6l1ggnf6njt1lhakhelae@4ax
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>(edit)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>Sure it does. If a man wants a child, he must solicit a particular
>>>>woman>to>>>gestate one for him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>No Puke, since ANY fertile woman will do for this purpose.
>>>>
>>>>Not true. It has to be a particular willing woman. After all, even if
>>you>were to rape just any woman, she could abort, no?
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, so it has to be a willing woman. How does that prove that women
>>>are better situated than men?
>>>
>>>You can't get sperm from an unwilling male donor.
>>>
>>Well, do you think it would be easier to get a man to engage in one time,
>>squirt sex, or to donate 9 mos. plus a medical procdure? :-)
>
>
>You are changing the subject, Puke.
No. The subject is, clearly, the same. The value of a squirt is simply not
the same as the value of a 9 mo. commitment that involves discomfort pain and
risk.
It's just that simple.
>The issue is not which is "easier" or which takes longer; the issue is>whether
women can procreate without a willing male donor.
Since male donors and their boners are easy to 'cum' by, there is no issue
there.
It's rather like saying women can't have gardens without willing rain drops.
:-)
>
>>>>>Since this is a transaction which any individual man and any>individual
>>>woman>>can engage in, how can you possibly argue that the>male role does
>not>>>require>>any "individual" man while the female role>>>requires an
>"individual">>woman.
>>>>>
>>>>Because sperm is free or cheap and very easy to cum by. In fact, men
>donate>>sperm willingly to lesbians all the time.
>>>
>>
>>>They don't "donate" it, Puke; come mierda!
>>>
>Sure they do, for free.
>
>
>Are you talking about coitus or sperm donorship, Puke?
>
Both.
>
>>>>:-)> A squirt into a>>turkey baster takes just a few minutes, and she can
>go>>>to>>a sperm bank, dear>where NO individual man is required.
>>>>>
>>>>>Other than ro provide the sperm.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Keep in mind that one man could father a nation. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Is that not an indication of how efficient men are?
>>>>
>>>>No, just the value of insemination.
>>>
>>>Really, Puke?
>>>
>>>Well, keep in mind that no woman can mother a nation.
>>>
>> Actually, without women a nation can not move forward, Sim. Without men,
>>sperm banks can still provide seeding.
>
>>Without men, there are no sperm banks, Puke, and the nine months that
>you refer to are too long a period of time for women to populate a>nation.
>
Women have been peopling a nation since the start of time, Sim. And the more
we evovle the less important individual men become to procreation.
>
>>>>>How do you reconcile any of this with your on-the-other-handcontention
>that>>>>men and women are more alike than different?
>>>>>
>>>>It is obvious that women and men are more alike than different.
>>>
>>>>Then why do you argue that women are superior, Puke?
>>>
>>I don't.
>
>
>Yes, you do. Obviously, the phrase "squirt" is intended to be>disparaging.
>
No. I like to use words my opponents find easy to understand. Would you
prefer me to use the word, ejaculate?
>
>>>> Skin,
>>>
>>>Men and women have different skin texture.
>>
>>Not really. If you look at the DNA that makes up skin, male and female skin
>is>>much more alike than different,
>
>>It's obvious, Puke, that you have never been in intimate contact with>a man's
skin, and your attempt to quantify is meaningless.
>
So, are you then saying that male skin is more different than alike than female
skin?
No?
>Obviously, the differences between male and female skin are great>enough such
that one is readily distinguishable from the other.
>
More alike than different, Dave Sim.
>>>>>eyes,
>>>
>>>>There are gender differences in visual acuity.
>>>
>>But the structure of eyes between women and men is 99.9% more alike than
>>different, eh. Having some few differences does not mean there is a
>greater>difference than similarity.
>
>
>The same could probably be said for the difference between the eyes of>a human
being and the eyes of a chimp. Your attempt to quantify is>meaningless.
>
Your attempt to find reasons to restrict or limit the roles of women based on
some perceived differences are duly noted.
>
>>>>hair,
>>>
>>>
>>>Also gender differences in texture.
>>
>>Again, more similar than different.
>>>
>>>>>blood,
>>>>
>>>Gender differences in blood cell count.
>>>
>>>Finding some miniscule difference does not mean blood is more dissimilar
>>between the sexes than similar, however. The similarities are still much
>much>greater than any miniscule difference.
>
>
>Even if we were to agree that each of the above differences is small,>in and
of itself, cumulatively the differences themselves are great.
Not great enough to have prevented your ex-wife, Deni from being a liberated
woman with her own career, who left you in the dust.
>
>>> > brain, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>Please. Let's not go there AGAIN!
>>>
>>Indeed. We already have determined that the brains of women and men are
>more>>alike than different.
>>
>And yours is a very poor example of a female brain.
I'm sure you would like to think so.
>>>>(edit)>> AND, if>>all else fails they have both the law and abortion.
>>>>>
>Ah - and a male security apparatus is required to enforce the law and>the
right to abort is another one of those things that women only have>at male
>suffereanced.
>>>>
>>>>No; there are two SC justices...who are female>:-)
>>>
>>>>Appointed by male presidents, confirmed by male Senate members, etc.
>>>
>Again, you fail to see what you don't want to see, that women are getting
>into>politics more and more.
>
>You fail to see what you don't want to see, which is that female participation
is ENTIRELY due to male sufferance.
Not any more, dear. Women's rights are codified and the citizens are
armed.They don't need you, your>>dick, your sperm or your permission.
>>>>
>>>No, they need a male security apparatus to maintain their positions as
>SC justices and to see that, if they vote in the majority, the law>is>carried
>>out.
>>>
>>Nah. Since the voting public is now composed of more women than men,
>eligible>TO vote,
>
>
>This doesn't matter, Puke, as men could simply disregard the wishes of>those
women and refuse to allow them to vote or to count those votes.
>
Hahahaha. You and Mark feel much the same on that issue, but you cannot prove
your point since most men WANT an egalitarian world where each citizen has a
voice. Most men don't need shackels to keep Deni down on the farm.
>
>>(edit)>>>
>>It is not a fantasy - it is just a reminder that women really do require>men
>>to protect them from other men.
>>>>
>>>>No, in fact, women aren't willing to pay special perks for
male>>protection;>sell it someplace else.
>>>>(edit)>
>>>
>>>> I'm using reality to let you know that you and yours
only>>get>>to>procreate>>with permission of a willing woman.
>>>>>
>>>>>Only in a society in which men are willing to protect women.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, here women can both protect themselves and abort.
>>>
>>>Only if men allow them to.
Men can't "allow" what they can't control, Dave. I have an herb garden. :-)
>>>
>>>>>A man "only" needs a womb to impregnate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>There is no womb for rent; you must have a willing woman if you want
>>>>a>child.>
>>>>>
>>>>>More Pukish semantical tricks. You must have a willing sperm donor if
>>>>>you want to bear one.
>>>>
>>>>Sperm is free; it runs in the streets. :-)
>>>>
>>>Even if this were true, men can get vasectomies, no? You need not
only a willing sperm donor but a willing sperm donor for the purpose>>>of
procreation.
>>>
>>One man volunteering can father a nation, no? I know several men who would
>be>>very happy to volunteer.
>
>This is beside the point of the argument, which is that men are>necessary.
Are you saying that there aren't millions of women who>don't want to give
birth?
>
It doesn't take much sperm to inseminate all those women, Dave. And, of
course, there are men lining up to try. :-) Perhaps you could put salt-peter
in the H20 supply?
:-)
(edit)
>>>>>>>>>
>No, I'm calling to your attention that the woman's sacrifice is much>greater
>>>than the the man's when it comes to childbirth.
>>>
>>
>>>Even if that were true, it's not more indispensable, Puke.
>>
>>Sure it is. If all the men died tomorrow, women would still have
sperm>banks.
>
>The sperm banks would obviously be depleted in a matter of time.
What difference would that make since some of the children born would be male
to contribute to the supply. AND, by the time the sperm supply became low,
cloning would be perfected, no?
>
>>>>>>It's a typical device of yours - arguing that women are superior to>men
>while strategically trying to give yourself enough "wiggle" room>to
deny>that>>this
>>>is>>what you are arguing.
>>>>
I don't need to claim female superiority
>>>
Well, you try to do so all of the time - maybe it's a luxury and not>a>need.
>>>
>>I don't see being different in some capacity as something that suggests a
superior being. >perhaps that is why you're confused about my position.
>For>example, men pee while standing; I don't necessarily see that as having a
>>superior position, just a different one.
>
>Differences might not necessarily suggest superiority or inferiority>but that
doesn't change the fact that you see these differences as a>form of gender
superiority.
Well, you can say that until your face turns blue, but, in the end, I don't
feel the NEED to find one sex more superior than the other. And, it has been
my observation that women don't have the need to put men down in order to make
themselves feel better.
>>
>>>>because the truth will out on its own.
>>>>
>>>What a weasely politician-like answer!
>>
>>Not at all.
>>
>>As I said, you assert that women are superior and then try to deny that this
>is>>what you said.
>>>
>>I have NEVER said that women were superior;
>
You say it all the time, Puke.
>
You are looking in the mirror and seeing me as yourself, >> You're the one on
the moral low road Dave.
>
>But you're the one who's lying.
So you bray, without a shred of proof.
Either women are superior or they are not.
>>>Pop goes the weasel!
>>>
>>Again, it's up to each person to decide for themselves whether or not they
>find>>women superior.
>
>>>>And women are not insecure like
>>>>men to want to limit male roles.
>>>>
>>>Of course they are, Puke.
>>>
>>>Go to your directory and see how many "women's" organizations there>are
in>>your area and how many "men's" organizations.
>>>
>>>Are you blaming women because men can't or won't organize? That seems very
>>silly and rather insecure of you, Sim.
>
>Women use the law to prevent men from organizing, Puke.
>
No, Sim; women use the law to prevent men from discriminating; women don't
care how you herd the cats.
>
>>>>>>> I simply informed you that men have no status to>claim in matters of
gestation and delivery.>>All they have is a squirt and a hope.
(edit)
>As far as women are concerned, any few drops of sperm are all>that's>needed
>>>>for>>them to run with the ball. :-) And women KNOW THAT.
>>>>>>>>>
>As far as men are concerned, any womb is all that's
necessary>to>deposit>the>ball.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Let me know when you can BUY a womb with a view, Dave. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Let me know when women can conceive immaculately, Puke.
Women can conceive without YOU, Dave while you can buy a uterus. Oh, btw,
where can I buy one of those? :-)
>>>>
>>>>Ok; it's not far off:
>>>>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,792086,00.html
>>>>
>scientists have succeeded in reducing the body cell of a female mouse to
>half>>its normal DNA content, and then using it to fertilise the egg
of>>another
>>>>mouse. The result is a male offspring that has two mothers and no father.
>>>>Science, it seems, is suddenly telling us what feminists have been saying
>>>all>>along: the future is female.
>>>>...From sperm count to social status, and from fertilisation to death, as
>>>>civilisation advances those who bear Y chromosomes are in relative
>>>>decline...End of sperm report
>>>
>>
>>>And stories have also written about the coming of the artificial womb>>as
well, Puke, so in fact, it WILL be possible to rent a womb with a>view.
>>
>>Here's the thing, Dave. First, ova donation is not as cheap or easy as
>sperm>donation.
>
>
>That's not particularly relevant, Puke.
Sure it is. If women want to keep ova from you, there is nothing you can do to
force an invasive procedure on them. :-)
>The fact that gold is more "valuable" than wood is a reflection of
its>scarcity but not a reflection of the relative usefulness of wood and>gold.
>
>If sperm is cheaper than ova, that does not mean that it is less>useful or
that the producers of sperm are inferior to the producers of>ova.
:-) You can think as you like, Sim; I'll take the gold over the wood any day.
>
>
>>Secondly, I don't of ANY single men who want to parent a child without
a>>partner. Do you?
>
Of course, Puke, plenty of them. There are many single fathers who do
it quite well.
There are many mothers and fathers who parent without partners. That wasn't
what I said. The operative words are "single men and want to". Most men don't
think about having children until they are with a partner. :-) Wanting to
raise existing children is another matter.
There are many other men who want to be single>fathers.
>
>Name some of them. What male celebrities do you know of who have become
single fathers without mates?
How many single celebrity fathers have adopted children?
>>>Third, there is no assurance that a womb will ever be developed. Remember
what those Utah scientists tried to tell us about cold>fusion?>:-) So, you can
dream on and on, but the future you see doesn't seem to be>on>>the horizon.
>It is not a question of the "future" that I "see", Puke.>It is simply a
question of refuting your notion that women are more
>necessary for procreation than men.
>
My argument is not about who is "necessary" but rather about who contributes
the most in terms of time, risk and pain.
>
>>>>>Sean O'Hagan
>>>>Sunday September 15, 2002
>>>>The Observer
>>
Each colony is a family unit, comprising a single egg-laying female ...The
Grizzlie Antagonist
Yes, there is, Puke. That is exactly what the issue is: whether
women can procreate without a willing male donor.
You are trying to argue that males are unnecessary for procreation so
the ease or difficulty of finding the donor is completely irrelevant
to this conversation.
>It's rather like saying women can't have gardens without willing rain drops.
Nice going, Puke; you just shot yourself in the foot.
Rain drops are not universal - there are areas in which droughts
occasionally take place and there IS a shortage of rain or other
supply of water.
You can't take men for granted any more than you can take the weather
for granted.
>>>>>>Since this is a transaction which any individual man and any>individual
>>>>woman>>can engage in, how can you possibly argue that the>male role does
>>not>>>require>>any "individual" man while the female role>>>requires an
>>"individual">>woman.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Because sperm is free or cheap and very easy to cum by. In fact, men
>>donate>>sperm willingly to lesbians all the time.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>They don't "donate" it, Puke; come mierda!
>>>>
>>Sure they do, for free.
>>
>>
>>Are you talking about coitus or sperm donorship, Puke?
>>
>Both.
Men sell their sperm, Puke; they don't donate it. And if a woman is a
lesbian, she presumably doesn't want to engage in coitus with a man.
>>>>>:-)> A squirt into a>>turkey baster takes just a few minutes, and she can
>>go>>>to>>a sperm bank, dear>where NO individual man is required.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Other than ro provide the sperm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Keep in mind that one man could father a nation. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Is that not an indication of how efficient men are?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, just the value of insemination.
>>>>
>>>>Really, Puke?
>>>>
>>>>Well, keep in mind that no woman can mother a nation.
>>>>
>>> Actually, without women a nation can not move forward, Sim. Without men,
>>>sperm banks can still provide seeding.
>>
>>>Without men, there are no sperm banks, Puke, and the nine months that
>>you refer to are too long a period of time for women to populate a>nation.
>>
>Women have been peopling a nation since the start of time, Sim.
Not in great numbers, Puke; not at nine months a pop.
> And the more
>we evovle the less important individual men become to procreation.
So now you are maintaining that 1) you are not saying that men are
inferior and 2) men are inferior because of evolution - is that it?
>>>>>>How do you reconcile any of this with your on-the-other-handcontention
>>that>>>>men and women are more alike than different?
>>>>>>
>>>>>It is obvious that women and men are more alike than different.
>>>>
>>>>>Then why do you argue that women are superior, Puke?
>>>>
>>>I don't.
>>
>>
>>Yes, you do. Obviously, the phrase "squirt" is intended to be>disparaging.
>>
>No. I like to use words my opponents find easy to understand. Would you
>prefer me to use the word, ejaculate?
It is not a question of what I prefer. You have chosen to use
"squirt" instead of "ejaculate" because you wish to demean men.
>>>>> Skin,
>>>>
>>>>Men and women have different skin texture.
>>>
>>>Not really. If you look at the DNA that makes up skin, male and female skin
>>is>>much more alike than different,
>>
>>>It's obvious, Puke, that you have never been in intimate contact with>a man's
>skin, and your attempt to quantify is meaningless.
>>
>So, are you then saying that male skin is more different than alike than female
>skin?
>No?
>
>>Obviously, the differences between male and female skin are great>enough such
>that one is readily distinguishable from the other.
>>
>More alike than different, Dave Sim.
>
>>>>>>eyes,
>>>>
>>>>>There are gender differences in visual acuity.
>>>>
>>>But the structure of eyes between women and men is 99.9% more alike than
>>>different, eh. Having some few differences does not mean there is a
>>greater>difference than similarity.
>>
>>
>>The same could probably be said for the difference between the eyes of>a human
>being and the eyes of a chimp. Your attempt to quantify is>meaningless.
>>
>Your attempt to find reasons to restrict or limit the roles of women based on
>some perceived differences are duly noted.
Fine. Go ahead and duly note it. My honesty should also be duly
noted, as should your dishonesty - since you wish to restrict or limit
the roles of men based on differences that you find critical.
>>>>>hair,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Also gender differences in texture.
>>>
>>>Again, more similar than different.
>>>>
>>>>>>blood,
>>>>>
>>>>Gender differences in blood cell count.
>>>>
>>>>Finding some miniscule difference does not mean blood is more dissimilar
>>>between the sexes than similar, however. The similarities are still much
>>much>greater than any miniscule difference.
>>
>>
>>Even if we were to agree that each of the above differences is small,>in and
>of itself, cumulatively the differences themselves are great.
>
>Not great enough to have prevented your ex-wife, Deni from being a liberated
>woman with her own career, who left you in the dust.
Even if any of that were true, Puke, it would simply be an example of
your disengaging from the discussion and using the tactic of
denigration alone because you had no means of response.
It's usually possible to distinguish male from female upon immediate
sight, even briefly and from a distance. Obviously, even if the
differences between male and female are quantifiably small, the EFFECT
is great.
Then why do you hate men, Puke?
And actually, while most men would say that they are not opposed to
women's suffrage, I doubt that they would say that they want an
"egalitarian" world, with all of the implications that this entails.
And for that matter, you can't prove your point. You have said in the
past that men would not be able to take the vote away from women if
they wanted to.
Since most men DON'T want to, you cannot prove your point that they
would be unable to.
>where each citizen has a
>voice. Most men don't need shackels to keep Deni down on the farm.
It's just the other way around. Simone de Beauvoir, the feminist that
I keep citing and whose cites you keep deleting, said that women
should be deprived of the choice of becoming wives and mothers because
too many of them would make that choice if available to them.
It's actually the Pukes of this world that want to keep women
shackeled to a feminist lifestyle.
>>>(edit)>>>
>>>It is not a fantasy - it is just a reminder that women really do require>men
>>>to protect them from other men.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, in fact, women aren't willing to pay special perks for
>male>>protection;>sell it someplace else.
>>>>>(edit)>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm using reality to let you know that you and yours
>only>>get>>to>procreate>>with permission of a willing woman.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Only in a society in which men are willing to protect women.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, here women can both protect themselves and abort.
>>>>
>>>>Only if men allow them to.
>
>Men can't "allow" what they can't control, Dave. I have an herb garden. :-)
Those must be some interesting "herbs" that you're growing, Puke,
considering the lack of coherence in your dialogue.
Men in uniform shut down "gardens" such as yours every day.
>>>>>>A man "only" needs a womb to impregnate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no womb for rent; you must have a willing woman if you want
>>>>>a>child.>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>More Pukish semantical tricks. You must have a willing sperm donor if
>>>>>>you want to bear one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sperm is free; it runs in the streets. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>Even if this were true, men can get vasectomies, no? You need not
>only a willing sperm donor but a willing sperm donor for the purpose>>>of
>procreation.
>>>>
>>>One man volunteering can father a nation, no? I know several men who would
>>be>>very happy to volunteer.
>>
>>This is beside the point of the argument, which is that men are>necessary.
>Are you saying that there aren't millions of women who>don't want to give
>birth?
>>
>It doesn't take much sperm to inseminate all those women, Dave. And, of
>course, there are men lining up to try. :-)
Of course, given biological realities, these women need to get
inseminated before their biological clock runs out.
>Perhaps you could put salt-peter
>in the H20 supply?
Perhaps you might be turned into a pillar of salt; there's supposed to
be historical precedent for it.
>(edit)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>No, I'm calling to your attention that the woman's sacrifice is much>greater
>>>>than the the man's when it comes to childbirth.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>Even if that were true, it's not more indispensable, Puke.
>>>
>>>Sure it is. If all the men died tomorrow, women would still have
>sperm>banks.
>>
>>The sperm banks would obviously be depleted in a matter of time.
>
>What difference would that make since some of the children born would be male
>to contribute to the supply.
Puke, saying that more males would be born to alleviate the shortage
of males is not a very good argument in favor of your point that males
are not necessary
>AND, by the time the sperm supply became low,
>cloning would be perfected, no?
And why would cloning not make females just as irrelevant?
>>>>>>>It's a typical device of yours - arguing that women are superior to>men
>>while strategically trying to give yourself enough "wiggle" room>to
>deny>that>>this
>>>>is>>what you are arguing.
>>>>>
>I don't need to claim female superiority
>>>>
>Well, you try to do so all of the time - maybe it's a luxury and not>a>need.
>>>>
>>>I don't see being different in some capacity as something that suggests a
>superior being. >perhaps that is why you're confused about my position.
>>For>example, men pee while standing; I don't necessarily see that as having a
>>>superior position, just a different one.
>>
>>Differences might not necessarily suggest superiority or inferiority>but that
>doesn't change the fact that you see these differences as a>form of gender
>superiority.
>
>Well, you can say that until your face turns blue, but, in the end, I don't
>feel the NEED to find one sex more superior than the other.
Puke, you continue to argue that females are superior to males
regardless of whether or not you are willing to admit to a NEED to do
it.
>And, it has been
>my observation that women don't have the need to put men down in order to make
>themselves feel better.
Puke, that is exactly what women do and that is exactly what you are
doing.
>>>>>because the truth will out on its own.
>>>>>
>>>>What a weasely politician-like answer!
>>>
>>>Not at all.
>>>
>>>As I said, you assert that women are superior and then try to deny that this
>>is>>what you said.
>>>>
>>>I have NEVER said that women were superior;
>>
>You say it all the time, Puke.
>>
>You are looking in the mirror and seeing me as yourself, >> You're the one on
>the moral low road Dave.
>>
>>But you're the one who's lying.
>
>So you bray, without a shred of proof.
The proof is in everything that you have said under all of your
various screen names.
> Either women are superior or they are not.
>>>>Pop goes the weasel!
>>>>
>>>Again, it's up to each person to decide for themselves whether or not they
>>find>>women superior.
>>
>>>>>And women are not insecure like
>>>>>men to want to limit male roles.
>>>>>
>>>>Of course they are, Puke.
>>>>
>>>>Go to your directory and see how many "women's" organizations there>are
>in>>your area and how many "men's" organizations.
>>>>
>>>>Are you blaming women because men can't or won't organize? That seems very
>>>silly and rather insecure of you, Sim.
>>
>>Women use the law to prevent men from organizing, Puke.
>>
>No, Sim; women use the law to prevent men from discriminating; women don't
>care how you herd the cats.
Yes they do, deeply and passionately.
>>>>>>>> I simply informed you that men have no status to>claim in matters of
>gestation and delivery.>>All they have is a squirt and a hope.
>
>
>(edit)
>>As far as women are concerned, any few drops of sperm are all>that's>needed
>>>>>for>>them to run with the ball. :-) And women KNOW THAT.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>As far as men are concerned, any womb is all that's
>necessary>to>deposit>the>ball.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Let me know when you can BUY a womb with a view, Dave. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Let me know when women can conceive immaculately, Puke.
>
>Women can conceive without YOU, Dave while you can buy a uterus. Oh, btw,
>where can I buy one of those? :-)
What would you do with it? Feed it pennies, like a piggie bank?
>>>>>Ok; it's not far off:
>>>>>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,792086,00.html
>>>>>
>>scientists have succeeded in reducing the body cell of a female mouse to
>>half>>its normal DNA content, and then using it to fertilise the egg
>of>>another
>>>>>mouse. The result is a male offspring that has two mothers and no father.
>>>>>Science, it seems, is suddenly telling us what feminists have been saying
>>>>all>>along: the future is female.
>>>>>...From sperm count to social status, and from fertilisation to death, as
>>>>>civilisation advances those who bear Y chromosomes are in relative
>>>>>decline...End of sperm report
>>>>
>>>
>>>>And stories have also written about the coming of the artificial womb>>as
>well, Puke, so in fact, it WILL be possible to rent a womb with a>view.
>>>
>>>Here's the thing, Dave. First, ova donation is not as cheap or easy as
>>sperm>donation.
>>
>>
>>That's not particularly relevant, Puke.
>
>Sure it is. If women want to keep ova from you, there is nothing you can do to
>force an invasive procedure on them. :-)
>
>>The fact that gold is more "valuable" than wood is a reflection of
>its>scarcity but not a reflection of the relative usefulness of wood and>gold.
>>
>>If sperm is cheaper than ova, that does not mean that it is less>useful or
>that the producers of sperm are inferior to the producers of>ova.
>
>:-) You can think as you like, Sim; I'll take the gold over the wood any day.
Careful, Queen Midas, that you don't get what you wish for.
>>>Secondly, I don't of ANY single men who want to parent a child without
>a>>partner. Do you?
>>
>Of course, Puke, plenty of them. There are many single fathers who do
>it quite well.
>
>There are many mothers and fathers who parent without partners. That wasn't
>what I said. The operative words are "single men and want to". Most men don't
>think about having children until they are with a partner. :-)
How many women do, Puke?
> Wanting to
>raise existing children is another matter.
>
> There are many other men who want to be single>fathers.
>>
>>Name some of them. What male celebrities do you know of who have become
>single fathers without mates?
>How many single celebrity fathers have adopted children?
Oh, I grok you now, Puke.
You might actually have a point there - though I don't keep tabs on
the lives of celebrities and others might indeed be able to name some
male celebrities or men that they have known who have done this.
But for the sake of argument, I'll accept your distinction and I'll
assume that this is not a very popular choice among single males.
What of it? If women are actually more anxious to be single mothers
than men are to be single fathers, that strongly suggests that women
are more biologically hard-wired to be homebodies than are men.
If men are less anxious to be fathers, it's because they prefer to
engage the outside world; if women are more anxious to be mothers,
it's because their health and emotional well-being revolves around
home and hearth and NOT around the workplace.
So by your very own facts, that is a strong indcation that the
psychological differences between men and women are far more profound
than you would allow for - and, much to your eventual horror, suggest
an eventual return to something akin to the America of Ward and June
Cleaver.
>>>>Third, there is no assurance that a womb will ever be developed. Remember
>what those Utah scientists tried to tell us about cold>fusion?>:-) So, you can
>dream on and on, but the future you see doesn't seem to be>on>>the horizon.
>
>>It is not a question of the "future" that I "see", Puke.>It is simply a
>question of refuting your notion that women are more
>>necessary for procreation than men.
>>
>My argument is not about who is "necessary" but rather about who contributes
>the most in terms of time, risk and pain.
No, Puke - for there is no dispute that mere procreation will involve
a few minutes of a man's time and nine months of a woman's.
If that was your only point, there would be no argument. Obviously,
the argument takes place only because of your abuse of this biological
fact as a means of "proving" female superiority and your pronounced
disdain for the importance of the male role.
Ralph DuBose
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>(edit)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>Sure it does. If a man wants a child, he must solicit a particular
> woman>to>>>gestate one for him.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>No Puke, since ANY fertile woman will do for this purpose.
> >>>>
> >>>>Not true. It has to be a particular willing woman. After all, even if
> you>were to rape just any woman, she could abort, no?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Well, so it has to be a willing woman. How does that prove that women
> >>>are better situated than men?
> >>>
> >>>You can't get sperm from an unwilling male donor.
> >>>
> >>Well, do you think it would be easier to get a man to engage in one time,
> >>squirt sex, or to donate 9 mos. plus a medical procdure? :-)
> >
> >
> >You are changing the subject, Puke.
>
> No. The subject is, clearly, the same. The value of a squirt is simply not
> the same as the value of a 9 mo. commitment that involves discomfort pain and
> risk.
> It's just that simple.
>
Ha Ha It is women that are eager to be a mom about 10 times more
often than guys want to be a dad. Women are famous for tricking guys
into parenthood. How often does one hear about a guy lying to a woman
about his fertility in order to con her into pregnancy? Virtually
never.
Bsides, a woman can gestate and deliver a healthy child while in a
coma if someone just keeps the feeding tubes running.
And what is the point of using a word like "value"? All you really
should say is that the process is more costly to the female. But that
is just the way it is. Just the way God made it.
Women must decide whether parenthood is worth the cost but they have
no right to make up some binding notion that what they do creates a
debt for others -- by the "value" they create. That is just another
attempted scam from the computer program calling itself hyerdahl.
Hyerdahl1
>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>Message-id: <mi1m809psv900d8mm...@4ax.com>
I guarantee you, in the practicality of the matter, women can procreate without
any particular man and men cannot without a particular woman. It's rather like
saying women can't have gardens without willing rain drops.
>
>Nice going, Puke; you just shot yourself in the foot.
No, I didn't. :-) The rain drops are just there; their will has little to do
with things.
>
>Rain drops are not universal - there are areas in which droughts>occasionally
take place and there IS a shortage of rain or other>supply of water.
>
So what? There are still women's gardens all over the world, being watered.
:-)
>You can't take men for granted any more than you can take the weather>for
granted.
>
I don't take men for granted at all. I simply know the value of things. And,
I see women making more and more choices over their own lives, with every
passing day, INCLUDING the choice of what kind of family they desire. Some
women simply find the idea of a non-hostile family so attractive, that they are
not including men in those families. For them, it may be a risk factor.
>
Since this is a transaction which any individual man and any>individual
woman>>can engage in, how can you possibly argue that the>male role does
not>>>require>>any "individual" man while the female role>>>requires
an"individual">>woman.
>>>>>>>
Because sperm is free or cheap and very easy to cum by. In fact, men
donate>>sperm willingly to lesbians all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>They don't "donate" it, Puke; come mierda!
>>>>>
>>>Sure they do, for free.
>>>
>>>Are you talking about coitus or sperm donorship, Puke?
>>>
>>Both.
>
>Men sell their sperm, Puke; they don't donate it.
If you were not such a linear thinker, you would realize that men both donate
and sell sperm.
. And if a woman is a>lesbian, she presumably doesn't want to engage in coitus
with a man.
Well, some lesbians do; some don't. It's a matter of choice. Their names
escape me at the moment, but there was a lesbian couple where she was a famous
singer and the sperm donor a famous singer. No one really questioned how the
sperm got from one singer to the other. :-)
>
>>>>>>:-)> A squirt into a>>turkey baster takes just a few minutes, and she
>can>>>go>>>to>>a sperm bank, dear>where NO individual man is required.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Other than ro provide the sperm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Keep in mind that one man could father a nation. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is that not an indication of how efficient men are?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, just the value of insemination.
>>>>>
>>>>>Really, Puke?
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, keep in mind that no woman can mother a nation.
>>>>>
>>>> Actually, without women a nation can not move forward, Sim. Without
men,>>sperm banks can still provide seeding.
>>>
>>>>Without men, there are no sperm banks, Puke, and the nine months that
>>>you refer to are too long a period of time for women to populate a>nation.
>>>
>>Women have been peopling a nation since the start of time, Sim.
>
Not in great numbers, Puke; not at nine months a pop.
Dave, no one is on a time clock here. Women have been peopling a world since
time began. :-)
>
>
>> And the more>>we evovle the less important individual men become to
procreation.
>
>
>So now you are maintaining that 1) you are not saying that men are>inferior
and 2) men are inferior because of evolution - is that it?
No; I think men have their own intrinsic value and that whether or not they
are necessary for procreation does not diminish their value. You see, I have
no NEED to devalue men or to relegate them to certain roles in order to feel
equal.
How do you reconcile any of this with your on-the-other-handcontention
that>>>>men and women are more alike than different?
>>>>>>>
>It is obvious that women and men are more alike than different.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Then why do you argue that women are superior, Puke?
>>>>>
>>>>I don't.
>>>\
>>>Yes, you do. Obviously, the phrase "squirt" is intended to be>disparaging.
>>>
>>No. I like to use words my opponents find easy to understand. Would you
>>prefer me to use the word, ejaculate?
>>
>It is not a question of what I prefer. You have chosen to use>"squirt"
instead of "ejaculate" because you wish to demean men.
>
No Dave Sim; I wish to demean misogynists like you and patriarchy. For a
misogynist a squirt is just a squirt. For a loving and caring egalitarian
father, the contribution becomes much greater.
>>>>>> Skin,
>>>>>
>>>>>Men and women have different skin texture.
>>>>
>>>>Not really. If you look at the DNA that makes up skin, male and female
>skin>>>is>>much more alike than different,
>>>
>>>>It's obvious, Puke, that you have never been in intimate contact with>a
>man's>>skin, and your attempt to quantify is meaningless.
>>>
>>So, are you then saying that male skin is more different than alike than
>female>>skin?>>No?
>>
Obviously, the differences between male and female skin are great>enough
>such>that one is readily distinguishable from the other.
>>>
>>More alike than different, Dave Sim.
>>
>>>>>>>eyes,
>>>>>
>>>>>>There are gender differences in visual acuity.
>>>>>
>>>>But the structure of eyes between women and men is 99.9% more alike than
>>>>different, eh. Having some few differences does not mean there is a
>>>greater>difference than similarity.
>>>>>>
>>>The same could probably be said for the difference between the eyes of>a
>human>>being and the eyes of a chimp. Your attempt to quantify
is>meaningless.
>>>
>>Your attempt to find reasons to restrict or limit the roles of women based
>on>>some perceived differences are duly noted.
>
>>Fine. Go ahead and duly note it. My honesty should also be duly>noted, as
should your dishonesty - since you wish to restrict or limit>the roles of men
based on differences that you find critical.
>
I don't wish to restrict men at all, Sim. Men have the same rights women have
and can, do as they please as long as what they please to do does not interfere
with the rights of othere.
>>>>>
>hair,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Also gender differences in texture.
>>>>
>>>>Again, more similar than different.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>blood,
>>>>>>
>>>>>Gender differences in blood cell count.
>>>>>
>>>>>Finding some miniscule difference does not mean blood is more dissimilar
between the sexes than similar, however. The similarities are still much
much>greater than any miniscule difference.
>>>
>>>
>>>Even if we were to agree that each of the above differences is small,>in
>and>>of itself, cumulatively the differences themselves are great.
>>
>>Not great enough to have prevented your ex-wife, Deni from being a
liberated>woman with her own career, who left you in the dust.
>
>Even if any of that were true, Puke, it would simply be an example of
>your disengaging from the discussion and using the tactic of>denigration alone
because you had no means of response.
>
No, it would not. Clearly I used Deni as an example of a woman being able to
go her own way, pursuing her own career with or without male permission.
>It's usually possible to distinguish male from female upon immediate
>sight, even briefly and from a distance. Obviously, even if the>differences
between male and female are quantifiably small, the EFFECT is great.
>
A smart girl in a short skirt may well BE recognizable quite without the sexist
implementation of role limitation. THAT is my point. IOW, I have no need to
obscure some small differences that don't limit women's roles in society.
(edit)
No, they need a male security apparatus to maintain their positions as>>SC
justices and to see that, if they vote in the majority,
the>law>is>carried>>>>out.
>>>>>
>>>>Nah. Since the voting public is now composed of more women than men,
>>>eligible>TO vote,
>>>
>>>This doesn't matter, Puke, as men could simply disregard the wishes
>of>those>>women and refuse to allow them to vote or to count those votes.
>>>
>>Hahahaha. You and Mark feel much the same on that issue, but you cannot
>prove>your point since most men WANT an egalitarian world
>
>
>Then why do you hate men, Puke?
I don't. I hate patriarchy and sexist men like you who want patriarchy brought
back to life. :-)
>And actually, while most men would say that they are not opposed to
women's suffrage, I doubt that they would say that they want an"egalitarian"
world, with all of the implications that this entails.
>
I agree with you here in that there are many more insecure men than secure men.
That is why Afghanistan is a problem for the rest of civilization.
>And for that matter, you can't prove your point. You have said in the>past
that men would not be able to take the vote away from women if they wanted to.
>
They can't here in the west since womn both vote and have guns.
>Since most men DON'T want to, you cannot prove your point that they
>would be unable to.
And you can't prove your point that they would be able to. You see, Sim, most
men (even insecure men) have the understanding that equal means equal.
:-)
>
>where each citizen has a>>voice. Most men don't need shackels to keep Deni
down on the farm.
>
>>It's just the other way around. Simone de Beauvoir, the feminist that>I keep
citing and whose cites you keep deleting, said that women>should be deprived of
the choice of becoming wives and mothers because>too many of them would make
that choice if available to them.
De Beauvoir has often used sarcasm to make her points. In fact, didn't she
once say that wives were so amazing that every woman should have one? :-)
>
>>>>(edit)>>>
>>>>It is not a fantasy - it is just a reminder that women really do
>require>men to protect them from other men.
>>>>>>
>No, in fact, women aren't willing to pay special perks
for>male>>protection;>sell it someplace else.
>>>>>>(edit)>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm using reality to let you know that you and
yours>>only>>get>>to>procreate>>with permission of a willing woman.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Only in a society in which men are willing to protect women.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, here women can both protect themselves and abort.
>>>>>
>>>>>Only if men allow them to.
>>
>>Men can't "allow" what they can't control, Dave. I have an herb garden.
>:-)
>Those must be some interesting "herbs" that you're growing, Puke,considering
the lack of coherence in your dialogue.
Hahahaha. The are interesting and quite beyound the control of men.
>
>Men in uniform shut down "gardens" such as yours every day.
>
No, they don't. My garden is interesting but not THAT interesting. :-)
>
>>>>>>>A man "only" needs a womb to impregnate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is no womb for rent; you must have a willing woman if you want
>>>>>>a>child.>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>More Pukish semantical tricks. You must have a willing sperm donor if
>>>>>>>you want to bear one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sperm is free; it runs in the streets. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>Even if this were true, men can get vasectomies, no? You need not
only a willing sperm donor but a willing sperm donor for the
purpose>>>of>>procreation.
>>>>>
>>>>One man volunteering can father a nation, no? I know several men who
>would>>be>>very happy to volunteer.
>>>
>>>This is beside the point of the argument, which is that men are>necessary.
>>Are you saying that there aren't millions of women who>don't want to
give>>birth?
>>>
>>It doesn't take much sperm to inseminate all those women, Dave. And,
of>>course, there are men lining up to try. :-)
>
>Of course, given biological realities, these women need to get>inseminated
before their biological clock runs out.
>
>I don't see women worrying about that, Dave. Women who have spent their lives
on building a good friendship base, most likely have male friends who would
happily oblige. And, then there's those darned sperm banks.
> >Perhaps you could put salt-peter
>>in the H20 supply?
>
>Perhaps you might be turned into a pillar of salt; there's supposed to>be
historical precedent for it.
There is indeed, at least in biblical fantasyland.
>
>>(edit)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>No, I'm calling to your attention that the woman's sacrifice is>much>greater
>>>>>than the the man's when it comes to childbirth.
>>>>>
>>>>
>Even if that were true, it's not more indispensable, Puke.
>>>>
>>>>Sure it is. If all the men died tomorrow, women would still have
>>sperm>banks.
>>>
>>>The sperm banks would obviously be depleted in a matter of time.
>>
>>What difference would that make since some of the children born would be
>male>>to contribute to the supply.
>
>>Puke, saying that more males would be born to alleviate the shortage>of males
is not a very good argument in favor of your point that males>are not necessary
>
Well, I suppose the women could choose to only DELIVER female children. And
if that were the case, the women would have to lean on cloning to help things
along. But the sperm banks can keep sperm viable for quite a long time, no?
>>AND, by the time the sperm supply became low,>>cloning would be perfected,
no?
>
>And why would cloning not make females just as irrelevant?
If the females are the only ones left on earth, what difference would their
biological relevance make?
>
>>>>>>>>It's a typical device of yours - arguing that women are superior
>to>men>>>while strategically trying to give yourself enough "wiggle" room>to
>>deny>that>>this>>is>>what you are arguing.
>>>>>>
>>I don't need to claim female superiority
>>>>>
>>Well, you try to do so all of the time - maybe it's a luxury and not>a>need.
>>>>>
>>>>I don't see being different in some capacity as something that suggests a
>superior being. >perhaps that is why you're confused about my
position.>>>For>example, men pee while standing; I don't necessarily see that
as
>having a>>superior position, just a different one.
>>>
>>>Differences might not necessarily suggest superiority or inferiority>but
>that>doesn't change the fact that you see these differences as a>form of
gender>superiority.
>>
>>Well, you can say that until your face turns blue, but, in the end, I don't
>feel the NEED to find one sex more superior than the other.
>
>>Puke, you continue to argue that females are superior to males
regardless of whether or not you are willing to admit to a NEED to do>it.
So you bray, but your bray has no bark.
>And, it has been>>my observation that women don't have the need to put men
down in order to>make>>themselves feel better.
>
>
>Puke, that is exactly what women do and that is exactly what you are>doing.
>
No. Clearly I see women and men as equals regardless of their genetic
differences or reproductive contribution.
>I have NEVER said that women were superior;
>>>
>You say it all the time, Puke.
>>>
>>You are looking in the mirror and seeing me as yourself, >> You're the one
>on>the moral low road Dave.
>>>
>>>But you're the one who's lying.
>>
>>So you bray, without a shred of proof.
>
>The proof is in everything that you have said under all of your>various screen
names.
>
Either women are superior or they are not.
>>>>>Pop goes the weasel!
>>>>>
>>>>Again, it's up to each person to decide for themselves whether or not they
>>>find>>women superior. >And women are not insecure like>men to want to limit
male roles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Of course they are, Puke.
>>>>>
>>>>>Go to your directory and see how many "women's" organizations
there>are>in>>your area and how many "men's" organizations.
>>>>>
Are you blaming women because men can't or won't organize? That seems>very
>>>>silly and rather insecure of you, Sim.
>>>
>>>Women use the law to prevent men from organizing, Puke.
>>>
No, Sim; women use the law to prevent men from discriminating; women don't
care how you herd the cats.
>
>Yes they do, deeply and passionately.
>
So you bray.
I simply informed you that men have no status to>claim in matters of
>gestation and delivery.>>All they have is a squirt and a hope.
>>>(edit)
>>>As far as women are concerned, any few drops of sperm are all>that's>needed
>for>>them to run with the ball. :-) And women KNOW THAT.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>As far as men are concerned, any womb is all that's
necessary>to>deposit>the>ball.
>>>>>>>>
Let me know when you can BUY a womb with a view, Dave. :-)
>>>>>>>
Let me know when women can conceive immaculately, Puke.
>>
>>Women can conceive without YOU, Dave while you can buy a uterus. Oh, btw,
>>where can I buy one of those? :-)
>
>What would you do with it? Feed it pennies, like a piggie bank?
You never know. :-)
I'm not one bit concerned.
>>>>Secondly, I don't of ANY single men who want to parent a child without
>>a>>partner. Do you?
>>>
>>Of course, Puke, plenty of them. There are many single fathers who do>>it
quite well.
>>
>>There are many mothers and fathers who parent without partners. That wasn't
>>what I said. The operative words are "single men and want to". Most men
>don't>think about having children until they are with a partner. :-)
>
How many women do, Puke?
Most women do. Some women even think of names for their future children.
>
>> Wanting to>>raise existing children is another matter.
>>
>> There are many other men who want to be single>fathers.
>>>
>>>Name some of them. What male celebrities do you know of who have
become>>single fathers without mates?
>>How many single celebrity fathers have adopted children?
>
>
>Oh, I grok you now, Puke.
>
Indeed.
>You might actually have a point there - though I don't keep tabs on>the lives
of celebrities and others might indeed be able to name some>male celebrities or
men that they have known who have done this.
>
>But for the sake of argument, I'll accept your distinction and I'll>assume
that this is not a very popular choice among single males.
>
Ok.
>What of it? If women are actually more anxious to be single mothers>than men
are to be single fathers, that strongly suggests that women are more
biologically hard-wired to be homebodies than are men.
Wanting children has little to do with staying home. :-)
>
>If men are less anxious to be fathers, it's because they prefer to>engage the
outside world; if women are more anxious to be mothers,>it's because their
health and emotional well-being revolves around
>home and hearth and NOT around the workplace.
>
A healthy human being, female or male, builds a good combination of work and
play. Homelife is part of that. Try limiting someone elses roles, Dave; it's
not working here.
Ken&Laura Chaddock
>>Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>>You can't take men for granted any more than you can take the weather>for
>>granted.
> I don't take men for granted at all. I simply know the value of things. And,
> I see women making more and more choices over their own lives, with every
> passing day, INCLUDING the choice of what kind of family they desire. Some
> women simply find the idea of a non-hostile family so attractive, that they are
> not including men in those families. For them, it may be a risk factor.
Well I certainly hope these women aren't including another *woman* in
the family...if they do it's likely that they are jumping from the
frying pan into the fire since there is a significant volume of research
and statistics indicating that violence in lesbian relationships is
about FOUR TIMES higher with injuries just as severe as in heterosexual
relationships...if fact, one (relatively) recent study indicated that,
on a "per capita basis, the "spousal" murder rate for lesbians is about
TWICE as high as for heterosexuals...
...Ken
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/25/2004 6:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <mnZic.32812$kc2.4...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>
I don't believe you, unless you are talking about the woman's husband after he
finds out she's gay. :-) However, most single women are not gay; most are
simply single. Perhaps the best advice we can give women is to not get into a
traditional relationship where one partner is the controlling partner, eh?
>
>...Ken
Grizzlie Antagonist
This is interesting, as I work in domestic violence court and I can
count the number of lesbian batterings that have come to the court's
attention over the ten months that I have worked there on the fingers
of one hand - in fact, on one finger.
What you say may certainly be true, but lesbian batterings must be
flying under the radar of the law's scrutiny.
Grizzlie Antagonist
Puke, I am puzzled over why you took Dickless Davey's surname.
By giving him your surname and changing your own from Worstall to
Hemingway, weren't you making him the controlling partner?
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/25/2004 4:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <cb5b2d4e.04042...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyerdahl1@aol.@4ax
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>(edit)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>Sure it does. If a man wants a child, he must solicit a particular
>> woman>to>>>gestate one for him.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>No Puke, since ANY fertile woman will do for this purpose.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Not true. It has to be a particular willing woman. After all, even if
>> you>were to rape just any woman, she could abort, no?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Well, so it has to be a willing woman. How does that prove that women
>> >>>are better situated than men?
>> >>>
>> >>>You can't get sperm from an unwilling male donor.
>> >>>
>> >>Well, do you think it would be easier to get a man to engage in one time,
>> >>squirt sex, or to donate 9 mos. plus a medical procdure? :-)
>> >
>> >
>> >You are changing the subject, Puke.
>>
>> No. The subject is, clearly, the same. The value of a squirt is simply
>not
>> the same as the value of a 9 mo. commitment that involves discomfort pain
>and
>> risk.
>> It's just that simple.
>>
> Ha Ha It is women that are eager to be a mom about 10 times more often
than guys want to be a dad.
At some point in most adult's life they want children. Many men consider
having children a rite of passage, and so, while women may indeed want
children, so do men.
Women are famous for tricking guys
into parenthood.
Women can't trick men who don't risk childbirth.
How often does one hear about a guy lying to a woman about his fertility in
order to con her into pregnancy? Virtually never.
Men lie to women about love. When women base their lives on those lies,
children can be born. :-) So, the court doesn't care what sweet nothings
you each promise.
> Bsides, a woman can gestate and deliver a healthy child while in a
coma if someone just keeps the feeding tubes running.
????? Is there a point here?
> And what is the point of using a word like "value"? All you really should
say is that the process is more costly to the female.
Actually, a woman gets sperm for free so the "process" is more costly to the
male.
:-) However, the contribution of women is much more valuable since men can't
gestate and deliver no matter how hard they press their thighs together.
But that>is just the way it is. Just the way God made it.
>
Whose _god_. The Goddess gave women the ability and now women are doing
everything men are doing PLUS gestating.
Women must decide whether parenthood is worth the cost but they have
no right to make up some binding notion that what they do creates adebt for
others -- by the "value" they create. That is just another>attempted scam from
the computer program calling itself hyerdahl.
Women need not ever honor male only sacrafice if men don't honor female only
sacrafice. It's just that simple.
(edit)
Hyerdahl1
>From: Grizzlie Antagonist grizzliea...@earthlink.net
>Message-id: <dc0p805k7dtvsik32...@4ax.com>
????? I guess I'm surprised too. :-)
>
>By giving him your surname and changing your own from Worstall to>Hemingway,
weren't you making him the controlling partner?
It would certainly _seem_ that way to you :-) But no, a woman who changes her
name to that of her husband, doesn't lose her rights here in the west, but may
feel a loss of identity. I think that marriage is a negative for women,
however, in that it decreases the rights women have in many other countries.
In fact, up until a few short years ago, women in Utah had to have the
permission of their husbands in order to have their pay direct deposited.
Of course, that's Utah. :-)
Ritalin-Kid
> >> >>>You can't get sperm from an unwilling male donor.
> >> >>>
> >> >>Well, do you think it would be easier to get a man to engage in one time,
> >> >>squirt sex, or to donate 9 mos. plus a medical procdure? :-)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >You are changing the subject, Puke.
> >>
> >> No. The subject is, clearly, the same. The value of a squirt is simply
> not
> >> the same as the value of a 9 mo. commitment that involves discomfort pain
> and
> >> risk.
> >> It's just that simple.
> >>
>
> > Ha Ha It is women that are eager to be a mom about 10 times more often
> than guys want to be a dad.
>
> At some point in most adult's life they want children. Many men consider
> having children a rite of passage, and so, while women may indeed want
> children, so do men.
And this refutes Ralph's argument that women want children MORE than
men... how exactly? Are you even aware how often your mind wanders
into non-sequiturs?
> Women are famous for tricking guys
> into parenthood.
>
> Women can't trick men who don't risk childbirth.
Relationships is based upon trust, mediocre sexist. Even you should at
least have heard about this. When a man TRUSTS his partner that she
takes the pill, he is taking precautions. And it's been known that
some women pierced condoms to get pregnant.
And before you start babbling about not risking childbirth by not
having sex at all, please run at the closest school and ask an
anthropology professor about the sexual aspect of the human race as
not being EXCLUSIVELY biological in nature. Stop by the logic
department while you're there. I'm sure they have nice brochures with
pretty pictures in them :)
> How often does one hear about a guy lying to a woman about his fertility in
> order to con her into pregnancy? Virtually never.
>
> Men lie to women about love.
So do women.
> When women base their lives on those lies,
> children can be born. :-) So, the court doesn't care what sweet nothings
> you each promise.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Here Parg argues specifics to explain
the whole and wishes nobody notice. Priceless!
> > Bsides, a woman can gestate and deliver a healthy child while in a
> coma if someone just keeps the feeding tubes running.
>
> ????? Is there a point here?
Yeah. The point is, gestation is not the 'exploit' you're proudly
proclaiming as a PLUS.
> > And what is the point of using a word like "value"? All you really should
> say is that the process is more costly to the female.
>
> Actually, a woman gets sperm for free
Actually, they have to spread their legs as payment. Funny how, in
this case, you're not spouting bile against prostitution huh? :)
> so the "process" is more costly to the
> male.
Yeah, afterall, NOT risking death, body and hormones alterations, pain
and so forth is so costly nowadays. bwahahahahaahahaha!!!!!
> :-) However, the contribution of women is much more valuable
Valuable? Ramses II had hundreds of children. Care to find me a woman
who could do the same? See, "value" is a subjective term. Your attempt
to decide what are the standards of "value" in procreation are just
that, sexist. You spout daily that men don't get to decide what women
value. Please have the intellectual integrity to apply the same logic
to men, mediocre bigot.
> since men can't
> gestate and deliver no matter how hard they press their thighs together.
And a single woman can't repopulate the world in 2 generations. So
what, insipid sexist?
> But that>is just the way it is. Just the way God made it.
> >
> Whose _god_. The Goddess gave women the ability and now women are doing
> everything men are doing PLUS gestating.
PLUS? Where's the PLUS in risking your life, well-being, handicapping
yourself to procreate, when men only have to squirt without any danger
to themselves?
Women are indeed gestating, but they are not performing as well as men
in certain fields. 5 years old can still shovel snow, it doesn't mean
anything in a snow storm though. Would you like me sloganizing
superficial crap like that every chance I'd get? You truly are a
pathetic creature.
> Women must decide whether parenthood is worth the cost but they have
> no right to make up some binding notion that what they do creates adebt for
> others -- by the "value" they create. That is just another>attempted scam from
> the computer program calling itself hyerdahl.
>
> Women need not ever honor male only sacrafice if men don't honor female only
> sacrafice.
All those men, throughout history, providing to their wife they loved,
to their kids they loved, plowing the fields day in, day out while
their loving wife are handicapped by a pregnancy, who couldn't find
and produce the food necessary to survive alone, you don't call that
honoring women their abilities to gestate, pathetic low-life sexist?
What more do you want from men? International days for women? You got
one. International days for mothers? You've got one. The kids (women
AND men) taking care of their elderly mothers? They DO. Ever heard of
the term "Daddy's girl?" Ever heard of the term "Mommy's boy"? BOTH
terms includes a loving male towards a female sibbling and vice versa.
What else?
Women are now considered equal socially. In order to get honor &
respect nowadays, women must pull their own weight. They want to be
respected and honored? They'll have to work as hard as men to earn it.
Merely sprouting a kid doesn't cut it in social circumstances anymore,
dear, ESPECIALLY since the government takes care of mother via
maternity leave without any repercussions to her work and plenty of
other social programs. That was in the OLD days. That you want
ADDITIONAL special recognition for gestation just shows your true
colors, sexist. Fortunately, women aren't like you. Thank the gods and
godesses!
> It's just that simple.`
Your logic sure is.
Ken&Laura Chaddock
How would you know ? If you believe the feminists, most women don't
identify their partners as their abusers...I suspect a lesbian would be
even *more* reluctant, after all, who's going to believe that her
*girlfriend* beat the shit our of her ? It's just like that Boston
Hospital study on domestic violence back in the early 90's where they
didn't even *have* categories for lesbian or female on male violence...
> What you say may certainly be true, but lesbian batterings must be
> flying under the radar of the law's scrutiny.
I have an acquaintance (a man) who was beaten so severely by his
girlfriend that he required 7 (SEVEN !) separate operations for facial
reconstruction...even though she did this in front of witnesses (and it
took two large men haul her off of him and to restrain her) the
prosecutor refused to charge her...his rational was "No one will EVER
believe that a woman could do this." The man is currently seeking
permission to bring a private prosecution and has filed suite for
damages...so your seeming surprise that female violence "flies under the
radar of law enforcement" is sort of surprising to me...
...Ken
Grizzlie Antagonist
<chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
I said that LESBIAN violence flies under the radar of law enforcement,
in my experience.
Female-on-male violence is becoming more open.
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/26/2004 12:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ad5b3a61.04042...@posting.google.com>
(edit)
>Valuable? Ramses II had hundreds of children. Care to find me a woman
>who could do the same?
Well, Ramses II certainly _thought_ he had fathered hundreds of children, but
only the mothers know for sure. :-)
connor_a
> I have an acquaintance (a man) who was beaten so severely by his
> girlfriend that he required 7 (SEVEN !) separate operations for facial
> reconstruction...even though she did this in front of witnesses (and it
> took two large men haul her off of him and to restrain her) the
> prosecutor refused to charge her...his rational was "No one will EVER
> believe that a woman could do this." The man is currently seeking
> permission to bring a private prosecution and has filed suite for
> damages...so your seeming surprise that female violence "flies under the
> radar of law enforcement" is sort of surprising to me...
>
> ...Ken
Feminist "fact", men simply 'make up' 1% of DV cases, actually,
feminists have no statistics on female->male violence, see it doesn't
help their ideological footing.
Ralph DuBose
> >Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
> >From: Jeste...@yahoo.com (Ritalin-Kid)
> >Date: 4/26/2004 12:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <ad5b3a61.04042...@posting.google.com>
>
> (edit)
>
> >Valuable? Ramses II had hundreds of children. Care to find me a woman
> >who could do the same?
>
> Well, Ramses II certainly _thought_ he had fathered hundreds of children, but
> only the mothers know for sure. :-)
At an earlier time, in an earlier debate, you lectured us all that
women could not be held responsible for "paternity fraud" because
(among other reasons) they could not be expected to know who the
father was.
Now you are saying something different. I suspect that you are
closer to the truth this time but so what? You will change the story
whenever you sense a momentary advantage and never really understand
why this sort of prevarication bothers people.
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/27/04 6:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <cb5b2d4e.04042...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20040427020105...@mb-m20.aol.com>...
>> >Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>> >From: Jeste...@yahoo.com (Ritalin-Kid)
>> >Date: 4/26/2004 12:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <ad5b3a61.04042...@posting.google.com>
>>
>> (edit)
>>
Valuable? Ramses II had hundreds of children. Care to find me a woman
>> >who could do the same?
>>
>> Well, Ramses II certainly _thought_ he had fathered hundreds of children,
>but>> only the mothers know for sure. :-)
>
> At an earlier time, in an earlier debate, you lectured us all that>women
could not be held responsible for "paternity fraud" because>(among other
reasons) they could not be expected to know who the
>father was.
Indeed. And, I stand by that. You can't EXPECT women to know the father any
more than you can expect men to remember the names of THEIR sex partners.
> Now you are saying something different.
No. I'm saying the exact same thing. Every mother knows when she is the
mother of a child. OTOH, a father has a vested interest in finding ways to
make sure he invests in a woman who will allow him TO be the father.
I suspect that you are>closer to the truth this time but so what?
The truth is the same in both instances; mothers know they are mothers;
mothers may or may not know the fathers, and there is no more duty for them TO
know than for men to know the names of THEIR sex partners.
You will change the story>whenever you sense a momentary advantage and never
really understand>why this sort of prevarication bothers people.
>
There is no prevarication. The issues are the same:
1. Mothers know their maternity
2. Mothers may not know the fathers id
3. Women have no greater duty than men
to know their sex partners
4. Father have a vested interest in finding
women they can trust to mother their
children.
That is the truth.
Ritalin-Kid
> (edit)
Took her fetid breath away...
> >Valuable? Ramses II had hundreds of children. Care to find me a woman
> >who could do the same?
>
> Well, Ramses II certainly _thought_ he had fathered hundreds of children, but
> only the mothers know for sure. :-)
And this adresses the fact that men can repopulate the whole world
with a few squirts... HOW, insipid sexist?
Hyerdahl1
>Message-id: <ad5b3a61.04042...@posting.google.com>
can repopulate just using misc. sperm.
Ralph DuBose
> >Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
> >From: rdu...@pdq.net (Ralph DuBose)
> >Date: 4/27/04 6:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <cb5b2d4e.04042...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
> >news:<20040427020105...@mb-m20.aol.com>...
> >> >Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
> >> >From: Jeste...@yahoo.com (Ritalin-Kid)
> >> >Date: 4/26/2004 12:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >> >Message-id: <ad5b3a61.04042...@posting.google.com>
> >>
> >> (edit)
> >>
> Valuable? Ramses II had hundreds of children. Care to find me a woman
> >> >who could do the same?
> >>
> >> Well, Ramses II certainly _thought_ he had fathered hundreds of children,
> >but>> only the mothers know for sure. :-)
> >
The only honest interpretation of the above exchange and your part
in it is that it concerns the fact that Ramses could have been
cuckolded by his harem and that only the women knew for sure who the
father(s) were. There is nothing to support the claim that it was
referring only to the fact that the moms knew that they were moms. The
words refer only to knowledge concerning "fatherhood", not
"parenthood" or "maternity". Besides, it is a crude, pointless
exercise in tautology to say that moms know they are moms- a complete
waste of space. Humans would never bother to produce such a empty
phrase.
The most likely explanation here is that "hyerdahl" is a simple
minded computer program that mechanically applies a few simple insults
and taunts in response to certain word patterns but does not
"understand" enough about language or human life to know when it
starts to produce gibberish.
Ben
> >Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
> >From: rdu...@pdq.net (Ralph DuBose)
> >Date: 4/27/04 6:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <cb5b2d4e.04042...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
> >news:<20040427020105...@mb-m20.aol.com>...
> >> >Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
> >> >From: Jeste...@yahoo.com (Ritalin-Kid)
> >> >Date: 4/26/2004 12:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >> >Message-id: <ad5b3a61.04042...@posting.google.com>
> >>
> There is no prevarication. The issues are the same:
>
> 1. Mothers know their maternity
If they don't, they're blithering idiots.
> 2. Mothers may not know the fathers id
If the Maury Povich Show is any indication, this is truer than many
might think. Apparently he's specializing in proving paternity,
except what's happening is that the mothers are falsely accusing one
man after another, and each time, they're "1,000% certain" the man
they're pointing at is the father. The reason they're so certain is
because it "just can't be" anyone else. More often than not, the DNA
tests show they're wrong. But it's not just that they're wrong,
they're flat-out lying, because they're insisting prior to the test
that they weren't with anyone else. One woman is up to 12 men and she
still doesn't have the right one--each time, she insisted he was the
only possible father.
> 3. Women have no greater duty than men
> to know their sex partners
They do if they're going to name a given man as the father. Or, they
can do the adult, responsible thing and advise that the man is one
'possible' father.
> 4. Father have a vested interest in finding
> women they can trust to mother their
> children.
Absolutely.
Ben
> >Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
> >From: Jeste...@yahoo.com (Ritalin-Kid)
> >Date: 4/29/2004 6:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <ad5b3a61.04042...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
> >
> >
> >> (edit)
> >
> >Took her fetid breath away...
> >
> >
> >> >Valuable? Ramses II had hundreds of children. Care to find me a woman
> >> >who could do the same?
> >>
> >> Well, Ramses II certainly _thought_ he had fathered hundreds of children,
> but
> >> only the mothers know for sure. :-)
> >
> >And this adresses the fact that men can repopulate the whole world
> >with a few squirts... HOW, insipid sexist?
> >
> >Men can't "repopulate" at all without women willing to bear children.
There doesn't appear to be a shortage of these.
> Women
> can repopulate just using misc. sperm.
I hate to break it to you, but in the sense that you refer to the
sperm as "Misc," so too are these women.
"...[The Left's] First Amendment would read 'Congress shall make no
law ... abridging the freedom of speech, etc. ... providing such
speech or activities do not offend. If any offense is taken, citizen
whiners, being necessary to the security of a politically correct
state, shall from time to time suppress the offender's free speech
rights by any means necessary, including, but not limited to, required
sensitivity training, re-education,
and loss of income'." -- Edwin Feulner
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/29/2004 6:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <581ee38e.04042...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20040429094511...@mb-m15.aol.com>...
>> >Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>> >From: Jeste...@yahoo.com (Ritalin-Kid)
>> >Date: 4/29/2004 6:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <ad5b3a61.04042...@posting.google.com>
>> >
>> >hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> (edit)
>> >
>>
>>> >
woman>who could do the same?
>> >>
>> >> Well, Ramses II certainly _thought_ he had fathered hundreds
of>children,>> but >> only the mothers know for sure. :-)
>> >
>And this adresses the fact that men can repopulate the whole world
>with a few squirts... HOW, insipid sexist?
>> >
>> >Men can't "repopulate" at all without women willing to bear children.
>
>There doesn't appear to be a shortage of these.
Well, there actually are when you compare sperm and ova, and the fact that it
takes one woman to gestate a child to term.
>
> Women>> can repopulate just using misc. sperm.
>
>I hate to break it to you, but in the sense that you refer to the>sperm as
"Misc," so too are these women.
>
Not at all. A woman can gestate with the misc. sperm of any man. A man needs
ova, which are hard to come by and a woman who is willing to put in nine mos.
and the pain and risk of delivery. That kind of investment requires more than
just "misc." value.
Hyerdahl1
You don't get to determine what is a "waste of space" in MY part of the debate,
Ralph. Looks like you're a bit of a control freak here. :-)
Humans would never bother to produce such a empty>phrase.
Humans have produced every phrase we use today, including ones you don't like,
citing as "empty".
> The most likely explanation here is that "hyerdahl" is a simple>minded
computer program that mechanically applies a few simple insults>and taunts in
response to certain word patterns but does not
>"understand" enough about language or human life to know when it
>starts to produce gibberish.
>
If it makes you feel better to find me some kind of bot, go ahead. Of course,
my argument will stand on its own and it would seem a
bit....well...embarassing, to be outclassed by a bot.
>
>> > At an earlier time, in an earlier debate, you lectured us
all>that>women>> could not be held responsible for "paternity fraud"
because>(among other> reasons) they could not be expected to know who the
>father was.
>>
>> Indeed. And, I stand by that. You can't EXPECT women to know the father
>any>> more than you can expect men to remember the names of THEIR sex
partners.
>>
>> > Now you are saying something different.
>>
>> No. I'm saying the exact same thing. Every mother knows when she is the>
mother of a child. OTOH, a father has a vested interest in finding ways to>
make sure he invests in a woman who will allow him TO be the father.
>>
>> I suspect that you are>closer to the truth this time but so what?
Indeed. In a harem....well...a slave never will love or respect the master.
She may show respect to save her life, but she will never FEEL respect for a
master.
The truth is the same in both instances; mothers know they are mothers; >>
mothers may or may not know the fathers, and there is no more duty for them
>TO> know than for men to know the names of THEIR sex partners.
>>
No, clearly there is no greater duty for women than for men. Women and men go
to spring break, and some of them have sex with a huge variety of partners,
even without knowing their names. When the young mom finds herself pregnant
she may indeed have no idea of the identity of the father, and yet, she had the
same sexual freedom as the men she fucked.
>> You will change the story>whenever you sense a momentary advantage and
>never>> really understand>why this sort of prevarication bothers people.
>> >
There is no prevarication. I'm suggesting to you that it is MEN who should
have a greater interest in guarding their sperm since once they send it into
the stream of possibility, they have no CONTROL over it.
It is MEN who don't know when they have a child born to a young woman many
miles away, they met on spring break.
Ralph DuBose
My purpose was to point out an instance of flagrant inconsistency
on your part. So you change the subject.
> Humans would never bother to produce such a empty>phrase.
>
> Humans have produced every phrase we use today, including ones you don't like,
> citing as "empty".
>
Saying that moms know when they are moms is silly because it is so
utterly obvious -- to human beings. I do not like or dislike the
meaning of the phrase. It is just a waste of language; like "I am
myself." or "Rain is water."
> > The most likely explanation here is that "hyerdahl" is a simple>minded
> computer program that mechanically applies a few simple insults>and taunts in
> response to certain word patterns but does not
> >"understand" enough about language or human life to know when it
> >starts to produce gibberish.
> >
> If it makes you feel better to find me some kind of bot, go ahead. Of course,
> my argument will stand on its own and it would seem a
> bit....well...embarassing, to be outclassed by a bot.
> >
You made no argument. You just said that women know if they are
moms or not.
> >> > At an earlier time, in an earlier debate, you lectured us
> all>that>women>> could not be held responsible for "paternity fraud"
> because>(among other> reasons) they could not be expected to know who the
> >father was.
> >>
> >> Indeed. And, I stand by that. You can't EXPECT women to know the father
> >any>> more than you can expect men to remember the names of THEIR sex
> partners.
> >>
> >> > Now you are saying something different.
> >>
> >> No. I'm saying the exact same thing. Every mother knows when she is the>
> mother of a child. OTOH, a father has a vested interest in finding ways to>
> make sure he invests in a woman who will allow him TO be the father.
> >>
> >> I suspect that you are>closer to the truth this time but so what?
>
> Indeed. In a harem....well...a slave never will love or respect the master.
> She may show respect to save her life, but she will never FEEL respect for a
> master.
>
As usual, you have a paper thin knowledge of history. The great
Harem of the Ottoman Sultan was a powerful institution that many women
wanted to enter. The guards were there to keep strangers out, not to
keep the women inside.
When has a really successful man had to beg for sex?
Hyerdahl1
>Message-id: <cb5b2d4e.04043...@posting.google.com>
>> > The only honest interpretation of the above exchange and your part>in it
is that it concerns the fact that Ramses could have been>cuckolded by his harem
and that only the women knew for sure who the
>> >father(s) were. There is nothing to support the claim that it was
>referring only to the fact that the moms knew that they were moms. The >words
refer only to knowledge concerning "fatherhood", not
"parenthood" or "maternity". Besides, it is a crude, pointless exercise in
tautology to say that moms know they are moms- a complete >waste of space.
>>
>> You don't get to determine what is a "waste of space" in MY part of the
>debate,> Ralph. Looks like you're a bit of a control freak here. :-)
>>
My purpose was to point out an instance of flagrant inconsistency on your
part.
There was no inconsistency; women obviously KNOW they are mothers and some of
them KNOW the identity of the fathers.
So you change the subject.
The subject is the same.
>>
>> Humans would never bother to produce such a empty>phrase.
>>
>> Humans have produced every phrase we use today, including ones you don't
>like,>> citing as "empty".
>>
> Saying that moms know when they are moms is silly because it is so
>utterly obvious -- to human beings.
Sometimes what is "obvious" to one may not be so to others. AND, there is a
point there that cannot be denied; i.e. that men have a vested interest in
protecting their sperm, and using it only when they want to invest in the
potential future of a human life.
I do not like or dislike the
>meaning of the phrase. It is just a waste of language; like "I am>myself." or
"Rain is water."
>
Well, rain being water doesn't have quite the same ramifications as the fact
that women know when they are mothers and men may not if they have not made a
committment to someone they can trust.
(edit)
>The most likely explanation here is that "hyerdahl" is a simple>minded
>> computer program that mechanically applies a few simple insults>and taunts
>in>> response to certain word patterns but does not >"understand" enough about
language or human life to know when it
>> >starts to produce gibberish.
>> >
>> If it makes you feel better to find me some kind of bot, go ahead. Of
>course,> my argument will stand on its own and it would seem a>
bit....well...embarassing, to be outclassed by a bot.
>> >
>
> You made no argument. You just said that women know if they are>moms or
not.
>
Indeed, as in comparison to men NOT knowing for certain absent a DNA test.
>
>> >> > At an earlier time, in an earlier debate, you lectured us>>
all>that>women>> could not be held responsible for "paternity fraud"
>> because>(among other> reasons) they could not be expected to know who the
>> >father was.
>> >>
Indeed. And, I stand by that. You can't EXPECT women to know the>father
>> >any>> more than you can expect men to remember the names of THEIR sex
>> partners.
>> >>
>> >> > Now you are saying something different.
>> >>
>> >> No. I'm saying the exact same thing. Every mother knows when she is
>the>> mother of a child. OTOH, a father has a vested interest in finding ways
>to>> make sure he invests in a woman who will allow him TO be the father.
>> >>
>> >> I suspect that you are>closer to the truth this time but so what?
>>
>> Indeed. In a harem....well...a slave never will love or respect the
>master. >> She may show respect to save her life, but she will never FEEL
respect for>a>> master.
>>
> As usual, you have a paper thin knowledge of history. The great
>Harem of the Ottoman Sultan was a powerful institution that many women
>wanted to enter.
Indeed; a woman having more in the way of life support is better than starving
to death and such a slave will still not love their masters, any more than a
Russian woman marrying a wealthier American man will love her buyer. You see,
for men this is a lose-lose situation.
The guards were there to keep strangers out, not to>keep the women inside.
When has a really successful man had to beg for sex?
I think you have stumbled on a very important truth here; both women and men
do what they must do to survive and to live well. When women are able to live
well without being bought by a man, any love they feel will be real. When a
woman is just a slave, or bought and paid for, she will never really love her
buyer. That is my point.
Ralph DuBose
Except that the subject here, in your own prior words, was that the
women of the harem knew who the fathers were even if Ramses did not.
And beforehand, you had said that women could not be expected to know.
> >> I suspect that you are>closer to the truth this time but so what?
>
> Indeed. In a harem....well...a slave never will love or respect the master.
> She may show respect to save her life, but she will never FEEL respect for a
> master.
>
> The truth is the same in both instances; mothers know they are mothers; >>
> mothers may or may not know the fathers, and there is no more duty for them
> >TO> know than for men to know the names of THEIR sex partners.
You change the subject.
> >>
> No, clearly there is no greater duty for women than for men. Women and men go
> to spring break, and some of them have sex with a huge variety of partners,
> even without knowing their names. When the young mom finds herself pregnant
> she may indeed have no idea of the identity of the father, and yet, she had the
> same sexual freedom as the men she fucked.
If this indeed true then I would say that such a woman has a
definite duty to leave blank the "father" slot on a Birth Certificate.
>
> >> You will change the story>whenever you sense a momentary advantage and
> never>> really understand>why this sort of prevarication bothers people.
> >> >
> There is no prevarication. I'm suggesting to you that it is MEN who should
> have a greater interest in guarding their sperm since once they send it into
> the stream of possibility,
This is one of your favorite phrases and it is quite a piece of
dishonesty the way you use it. "Stream of possibility" completely
obscures the decisive role of choice on the womans part. It would be
like saying that walking on the street puts one into a stream of
possibilty that could result in being mugged. But if the mugger does
not act, there will be no mugging. There is no "possibilty" about it
from that standpoint. It is all by the choice of the mugger. Likewise,
if a woman wants to trick a man into fatherhood, that is her
self-chosen action. Fate has nothing to do with it. Men might not have
control, but women do.
they have no CONTROL over it.
> It is MEN who don't know when they have a child born to a young woman many
> miles away, they met on spring break.
>
> >> There is no prevarication. The issues are the same:
> >>
> >> 1. Mothers know their maternity
> >> 2. Mothers may not know the fathers id
> >> 3. Women have no greater duty than men>> to know their sex partners
> >> 4. Father have a vested interest in finding women they can trust to
> mother their children.
> >>
> >> That is the truth.
> >>
A collection of crudely obvious notions that still manage to leave
out the biggest fact here which is that the world is much more crowded
with women looking for a man to support her motherhood than men
searching for a woman to bear his children. Any guy with a good job
can do that almost instantly if standards are low enough.
Ben
> >Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
> >From: ArG...@hotmail.com (Ben)
> >Date: 4/29/2004 6:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <581ee38e.04042...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
> >news:<20040429094511...@mb-m15.aol.com>...
> >> >Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
> >> >From: Jeste...@yahoo.com (Ritalin-Kid)
> >> >Date: 4/29/2004 6:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >> >Message-id: <ad5b3a61.04042...@posting.google.com>
> >> >
> >> >hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> (edit)
> >> >
>
> >>> >
> >> >> >Valuable? Ramses II had hundreds of children. Care to find me a
> woman>who could do the same?
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, Ramses II certainly _thought_ he had fathered hundreds
> of>children,>> but >> only the mothers know for sure. :-)
> >> >
> >And this adresses the fact that men can repopulate the whole world
> >with a few squirts... HOW, insipid sexist?
> >> >
> >> >Men can't "repopulate" at all without women willing to bear children.
> >
> >There doesn't appear to be a shortage of these.
>
> Well, there actually are when you compare sperm and ova,
*Only* if you compare sperm and ova...if you actually compare human to
human (which is really the only way it CAN be done), there's no
shortage of either.
>and the fact that it
> takes one woman to gestate a child to term.
Again, this doesn't appear to be a problem...in fact, the reverse
appears to be the problem.
> >
> > Women>> can repopulate just using misc. sperm.
> >
> >I hate to break it to you, but in the sense that you refer to the>sperm as
> "Misc," so too are these women.
> >
> Not at all. A woman can gestate with the misc. sperm of any man. A man needs
> ova, which are hard to come by
They're not.
> and a woman who is willing to put in nine mos.
> and the pain and risk of delivery.
Not a problem.
> That kind of investment requires more than
> just "misc." value.
I told you before about a guy I knew that had 22 children at last
count, by almost a third that many women. Seems to me that everyone
appears somewhat miscellaneous under those circumstances.
I also know of a woman with five children by five different fathers.
Still looks misc. to me, at least in the sense that you're using the
word.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident葉hat all men are created
equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." (I'm not seeing anything is here about guaranteeing
equality of outcome).
Hyerdahl1
>Message-id: <581ee38e.04043...@posting.google.com>
Sure there is. Men are having to go clear to Russia to buy wives. I'd say
that shows a shortage, not of women, but of western women willing to submit to
some male fantasy of superiority.
>>and the fact that it>> takes one woman to gestate a child to term.
>
>Again, this doesn't appear to be a problem...in fact, the reverse
>appears to be the problem.
Well, single women are certainly gestating for THEMSELVES. :-) And married
women either find an egalitarian mate or divorce.
>
>> >
>> > Women>> can repopulate just using misc. sperm.
>> >
>> >I hate to break it to you, but in the sense that you refer to the>sperm as
"Misc," so too are these women.
>> >
>> Not at all. A woman can gestate with the misc. sperm of any man. A man
>needs>> ova, which are hard to come by
>
>They're not.
>
Yes, in fact they are much harder to acquire than sperm, and more costly to
procure.
>> and a woman who is willing to put in nine mos.>> and the pain and risk of
delivery.
>
>Not a problem.
>
Sure it is for bubbas like you.
>> That kind of investment requires more than>> just "misc." value.
>
>I told you before about a guy I knew that had 22 children at last>count, by
almost a third that many women. Seems to me that everyone>appears somewhat
miscellaneous under those circumstances.
>
Not really. The mothers go on to be mothers all their lives. Fathers seem to
come and go in such situations.
>I also know of a woman with five children by five different fathers. >Still
looks misc. to me, at least in the sense that you're using the>word.
Well, the way I'm using the word gives women identification as parents and does
not identify men as fathers. If you're suggesting that a man can contribute to
the gene pool without being a father, that is, just fine with me.
>>"We hold these truths to be self-evident—that all men are created
>equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of>happiness."
(I'm not seeing anything is here about guaranteeing
>equality of outcome).
>
Indeed. Me neither. Or the right to KNOW you are a parent, apparently. :-)
Hyerdahl1
>Message-id: <cb5b2d4e.04043...@posting.google.com>
That would seem appropriate.
>>
>> >> You will change the story>whenever you sense a momentary advantage and
never really understand>why this sort of prevarication bothers people.
>> >> >
>> There is no prevarication. I'm suggesting to you that it is MEN who should>
have a greater interest in guarding their sperm since once they send it
>into> the stream of possibility,
>
> This is one of your favorite phrases and it is quite a piece of>dishonesty
the way you use it. "Stream of possibility" completely>obscures the decisive
role of choice on the womans part.
No. She has choices over HER body, he over his and they both know that. He
simply doesn't get a say over her body. If he doesn't want to risk spreading
his seed, that is totally within his control.
It would be>like saying that walking on the street puts one into a stream of
>possibilty that could result in being mugged.
Getting "mugged" is not the biological imperative for walking down the street.
Childbirth is the biological imperative for engaging in sex.
But if the mugger does>not act, there will be no mugging. There is no
"possibilty" about it>from that standpoint. It is all by the choice of the
mugger. Likewise,
>if a woman wants to trick a man into fatherhood, that is her self-chosen
action.
Women KNOW that two people risk childbirth when they engage in sex, and I don't
see you having any imput convincing them that what is risked by two should be
paid by one. But good luck on that. :-)
Fate has nothing to do with it. Men might not have>control, but women do.
>
Once the BURDEN has been passed men no longer have control. They are obligated
to use control when they do have it...over themselves. Those who can't control
themselves often try to control others. It won't work here.
>> >> There is no prevarication. The issues are the same:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Mothers know their maternity
>> >> 2. Mothers may not know the fathers id
>> >> 3. Women have no greater duty than men>> to know their sex
>partners
>> >> 4. Father have a vested interest in finding women they can trust to
>> mother their children.
>> >>
>> >> That is the truth.
>> >>
>
> A collection of crudely obvious notions that still manage to leave>out the
biggest fact here which is that the world is much more crowded>with women
looking for a man to support her motherhood than men
>searching for a woman to bear his children.
Not so. Many women can and do support themselves Ralph. No man can be a
father without a woman willing to donate nine mos. of her life, risk and
health.
Ben
Apples and oranges. Try and stay on topic.
> I'd say
> that shows a shortage, not of women, but of western women willing to submit to
> some male fantasy of superiority.
I'd say that the miniscule number of men doing this don't represent
anything.
>
>
> >>and the fact that it>> takes one woman to gestate a child to term.
> >
> >Again, this doesn't appear to be a problem...in fact, the reverse
> >appears to be the problem.
>
> Well, single women are certainly gestating for THEMSELVES. :-) And married
> women either find an egalitarian mate or divorce.
Or they can actually *be* adults or find themselves divorced.
> >
> >> >
> >> > Women>> can repopulate just using misc. sperm.
> >> >
> >> >I hate to break it to you, but in the sense that you refer to the>sperm as
> "Misc," so too are these women.
> >> >
> >> Not at all. A woman can gestate with the misc. sperm of any man. A man
> >needs>> ova, which are hard to come by
> >
> >They're not.
> >
> Yes, in fact they are much harder to acquire than sperm, and more costly to
> procure.
Only in a lab. In the real world, there's no shortage of women
getting pregnant.
>
> >> and a woman who is willing to put in nine mos.>> and the pain and risk of
> delivery.
> >
> >Not a problem.
> >
> Sure it is for bubbas like you.
Me? Nah. One wife, one child, that's all I wanted of either. But
from the braod perspective (no pun intended), again, no shortage of
women willing to get pregnant. Multiple times, in fact. Not a
problem at all.
>
> >> That kind of investment requires more than>> just "misc." value.
> >
> >I told you before about a guy I knew that had 22 children at last>count, by
> almost a third that many women. Seems to me that everyone>appears somewhat
> miscellaneous under those circumstances.
> >
> Not really. The mothers go on to be mothers all their lives. Fathers seem to
> come and go in such situations.
No, he's still the father. And some of these women would have even
more kids by him if he'd make himself available.
>
> >I also know of a woman with five children by five different fathers. >Still
> looks misc. to me, at least in the sense that you're using the>word.
>
> Well, the way I'm using the word gives women identification as parents and >does
> not identify men as fathers.
Of course not. That's because you're a bigot.
> If you're suggesting that a man can contribute >to
> the gene pool without being a father, that is, just fine with me.
What I'm saying is that both can contribute to the population pool in
the "miscellaneous" manner that you try and describe.
>
> >>"We hold these truths to be self-evident—that all men are created
> >equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> >rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of>happiness."
> (I'm not seeing anything is here about guaranteeing
> >equality of outcome).
> >
> Indeed. Me neither. Or the right to KNOW you are a parent, apparently. :-)
There's a *lot* of "rights" that aren't specified there, like Roe v.
Wade, for instance.
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all
spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined,
despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats."
-- P.J. O'Rourke
Hyerdahl1
>Message-id: <581ee38e.04050...@posting.google.com>
sexists.
>I'd say that the miniscule number of men doing this don't represent>anything.
>
When you couple that figure with the number of women divorcing men and raising
children alone, or choosing to be with someone who is not a sexist, that is a
much more compelling figure.
>>
>> >>and the fact that it>> takes one woman to gestate a child to term.
>> >
>> >Again, this doesn't appear to be a problem...in fact, the reverse
>> >appears to be the problem.
>>
>> Well, single women are certainly gestating for THEMSELVES. :-) And
>married> women either find an egalitarian mate or divorce.
>
>Or they can actually *be* adults or find themselves divorced.
>
It's ok by me if you want to compare the number of women with the number of men
who file for divorce. :-)
>> > >> >> > Women>> can repopulate just using misc. sperm.
>> >> >
I hate to break it to you, but in the sense that you refer to the>sperm
>as>> "Misc," so too are these women.
>> >> >
>> >> Not at all. A woman can gestate with the misc. sperm of any man. A man
>needs>> ova, which are hard to come by
>> >
>> >They're not.
>> >
>> Yes, in fact they are much harder to acquire than sperm, and more costly to
>> procure.
>
>Only in a lab. In the real world, there's no shortage of women>getting
pregnant.
>
Single women getting pregnant is not about including men in the process. In
fact, many single men who donate sperm to women need never even become fathers.
:-)
>>
>> >> and a woman who is willing to put in nine mos.>> and the pain and risk
>of>> delivery.
>> >
>> >Not a problem.
>> >
>> Sure it is for bubbas like you.
>
>Me? Nah. One wife, one child, that's all I wanted of either. But>from the
braod perspective (no pun intended), again, no shortage of>women willing to get
pregnant. Multiple times, in fact. Not a>problem at all.
If you're defining becoming a father the same way you define impregnating a
woman, aren't you the silly goose. :-)
Fatherhood is a bit more than a state of mind. :-)
>> >> That kind of investment requires more than>> just "misc." value.
>> >
>> >I told you before about a guy I knew that had 22 children at last>count,
>by>> almost a third that many women. Seems to me that everyone>appears
somewhat>> miscellaneous under those circumstances.
>> >
>> Not really. The mothers go on to be mothers all their lives. Fathers seem
>to> come and go in such situations.
>
>No, he's still the father. And some of these women would have even>more kids
by him if he'd make himself available.
>
A father can only BE a father if a woman identifies him as one, or if he
contracts with her to be one vis marriage, etc. Otherwise, he's just Johnny
Spermalseed.
>>
>> >I also know of a woman with five children by five different fathers.>>Still
>> looks misc. to me, at least in the sense that you're using the>word.
>>
>> Well, the way I'm using the word gives women identification as parents and
>>does> not identify men as fathers.
>
>Of course not. That's because you're a bigot.
>
No; it's because men don't control the process; they only control whether or
not they're willing to start the process. If you're suggesting that a man can
contribute >to>> the gene pool without being a father, that is, just fine with
me.
>
>What I'm saying is that both can contribute to the population pool in
>the "miscellaneous" manner that you try and describe.
>
Women are not misc. in the process as every time they deliver a child, they are
the legal mother. Women are not, misc.; they are mothers.
>> >>"We hold these truths to be self-evident—that all men are created
>> >equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>> >rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of>happiness."
>
>> (I'm not seeing anything is here about guaranteeing>> >equality of
outcome).
>> >
>> Indeed. Me neither. Or the right to KNOW you are a parent, apparently.
>:-)
>
>There's a *lot* of "rights" that aren't specified there, like Roe v.>Wade, for
instance.
The penumbral rights have held up rather nicely for both women and men
regarding their bodily privacy issues. However, if you have a problem with
them feel free to try to change them.
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 4/29/2004 6:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <581ee38e.04042...@posting.google.com>
>
>hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>news:<20040427134634...@mb-m24.aol.com>...
>> >Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>> >From: rdu...@pdq.net (Ralph DuBose)
>> >Date: 4/27/04 6:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <cb5b2d4e.04042...@posting.google.com>
>> >
>> >hyer...@aol.com (Hyerdahl1) wrote in message
>> >news:<20040427020105...@mb-m20.aol.com>...
>> >> >Subject: Re: Women are better fighters than men
>> >> >From: Jeste...@yahoo.com (Ritalin-Kid)
>> >> >Date: 4/26/2004 12:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >> >Message-id: <ad5b3a61.04042...@posting.google.com>
>> >>
>
>(snip)
>
>
> > There is no prevarication. The issues are the same:
>>
>> 1. Mothers know their maternity
>
>If they don't, they're blithering idiots.
Ben, even mothers who ARE "blitering idiots" know when they've given birth,
dear.
>
>> 2. Mothers may not know the fathers id
>
>If the Maury Povich Show is any indication, this is truer than many
>might think. Apparently he's specializing in proving paternity,>except what's
happening is that the mothers are falsely accusing one>man after another, and
each time, they're "1,000% certain" the man
>they're pointing at is the father. The reason they're so certain is>because
it "just can't be" anyone else. More often than not, the DNA>tests show
they're wrong. But it's not just that they're wrong,
>they're flat-out lying, because they're insisting prior to the test>that they
weren't with anyone else. One woman is up to 12 men and she still doesn't have
the right one--each time, she insisted he was the
>only possible father.
>
You watch tons more tv than me, Ben. However, you just offered evidence to
prove MY point that women may or may not know the identity of the father.
Thanks for your support.
>> 3. Women have no greater duty than men to know their sex partners
>
>They do if they're going to name a given man as the father. Or, they>can do
the adult, responsible thing and advise that the man is one>'possible' father.
>
Women who believe a particular man is the father have no added burden to
divulge all the men she engaged in sex, whether or not the man on the BC turns
out to be the father. AND, there is no law that forces her to "know" the
identity of the father. A man she lists as the father is simply the man she
believes to be the father.
>> 4. Father have a vested interest in finding women they can trust to mother
their children.
>
>Absolutely.
>
Since fathers don't control the process itself, that _should_ give them more
incentive, even as they fuck biker babes at titty bars. :-)