criminal sentencing of men vs. women in usa
Hanuman
criminal sentencing, and kept saying my claim that sex had a bigger impact
than race on sentencing was incorrect. So, I looked up the data to refute
her. The following sources may be of interest. They all show that men
receive a much worse deal than women in sentencing, and that being a man
contributed more to longer sentences than being black or Hispanic, or a
foreign citizen.
--------------------
http://www.ussc.gov/15_year/executive_summary_and_preface.pdf
Unlike race and ethnic discrimination, the evidence is more consistent that
similar offenders are sometimes treated differently based on their gender.
Gender effects are found in both drug and non-drug offenses and greatly
exceed the race and ethnic effects discussed above. The typical male drug
offender has twice the odds of going to prison as a similar female offender.
Sentence lengths for men are typically 25 to 30 percent longer for all types
of cases. Additional analyses show that the effects are present every year.
--------------------
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2004/11/a_few_highlight.htmlRACIAL/ETHNIC
DISPARITY: Across five recent years, a typical Black male or
Hispanic male drug trafficker had somewhat greater odds of being imprisoned
when compared to a typical White male drug trafficker. No differences were
found in non-drug cases. The odds of a typical Black drug offender being
sentenced to imprisonment are about 20 percent higher than the odds of a
typical White offender, while the odds of a Hispanic drug offender are about
40 percent higher.... Some of these differences might be explained by
legally relevant considerations for which we have no data.
GENDER DISPARITY: Unlike race and ethnic discrimination, the evidence is
more consistent that similar offenders are sometimes treated differently
based on their gender. Gender effects are found in both drug and non-drug
offenses and greatly exceed the race and ethnic effects discussed above. The
typical male drug offender has twice the odds of going to prison as a
similar female offender. Sentence lengths for men are typically 25 to 30
percent longer for all types of cases.
--------------------
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/09/12/prison-sentencing-study-whites-women-non-poor-and-us-citizens-are-given-lighter-sentences/
Although the bank robbery differential was largest, women received a break
on sentencing compared to men across the board.
--------------------
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=alea
See pages 44-53 for the statistics that show that the difference between men
and women is FAR wider than the difference between whites and blacks for the
majority of sentencing outcomes.
--------------------
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/index/supreme/BiasCmte/FinalReport.ch4.pdf
Among the findings of the Kramer/Ulmer study were the following:
1. Courts rely primarily on the legally prescribed factors, i.e., the type
and seriousness of offense and the defendant's prior criminal record, in
determining sentences for defendants. (These may, however, reflect
persistent structural inequalities.)
2. In sentencing, the mode of conviction matters. Defendants who were
convicted following a trial-especially a jury trial-were substantially more
likely to be incarcerated and received substantially longer prison terms
than those who entered guilty pleas.
3. Nevertheless, after controlling for legally prescribed factors and mode
of conviction, the study found that the defendant status characteristics of
race, ethnicity, gender, and age definitely affect sentencing outcomes of
all kinds.
. Gender is the most consistently influential variable among defendant
status characteristics, especially when analyzed in interaction with race,
ethnicity, and age. Women are both less likely to be incarcerated than men
and to receive shorter sentences than men, with young African American and
young white females receiving the most lenient sentencing outcomes. The
gender disparities that appeared are not necessarily unwarranted, however,
as gender might correlate with other factors that may be viewed as
legitimate considerations in sentencing, such as family responsibilities and
role in the offense. (Information about such considerations was not
available.)
. Race alone has a minor effect on sentencing disparity, but in combination
with gender and age shows more complex effects. Specifically, the role of
race in sentencing outcomes depends upon gender and, to a lesser extent,
age. Overall, African Americans are slightly more likely to be incarcerated
than whites and received slightly longer sentences. African Americans had a
1.2 percent greater probability of incarceration and received sentences that
were, on average, 1.3 months longer than whites. When the researchers
studied the interactive effects of race, ethnicity, gender, and age,
however, they found that the effects on sentencing differed "dramatically"
by gender and by age. Specifically, young African American males, ages
18-29, had a 4.8 percent greater probability of incarceration and received
sentences that were, on average, 4.3 months longer than whites. Older
African American males, ages 30 and over, had a 4.1 percent greater
probability of incarceration and received sentences that were, on average, 3
months longer than whites. In contrast, young African American females were
sentenced more leniently than all male groups, with incarceration odds less
than half of those of the reference group of young white males. The terms of
incarceration for young African American females, on average, were 15 months
shorter than those of the reference group.
--------------------
http://cjr.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/31/2/105.pdf
A number of extralegal defendant and circuit characteristics also emerged
to impact odds of incarceration. Although race and ethnicity had no impact
on odds of incarceration, gender and age measures revealed that females and
older offenders exhibited significantly lower incarceration odds than
comparable males and younger offenders. Defendant's U.S. citizenship and
higher education level also worked to mediate the odds of incarceration.
--
"Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds. The
mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow
blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his
opinions courageously and honestly." - Albert Einstein
patrick...@standardregister.com
Of course, if it were the other way around then the gender gap in
sentencing would be taken as evidence of the oppression of women and
the priviledge of men. As it is, though, I would still think that
women would be protesting this. It certainly indicates that they are
not seen as being as capable and responsible as men. But maybe they're
happy enough about their get out of jail free card to overlook the
patronizing attitude involved in not holding them responsible for their
actions. The law may declare them equal but women will never truly be
seen as equal until they are as willing to take up their
responsibilities as they are willing to lobby for opportunity and
protection.
Rob
On Nov 27, 1:21 pm, patrick.bar...@standardregister.com wrote:
> Hanuman wrote:
> > I...
>
> > 3. Nevertheless, after controlling for legally prescribed factors and mode
> > of conviction, the study found that the defendant status characteristics of
> > race, ethnicity, gender, and age definitely affect sentencing outcomes of
> > all kinds.
>
> > . Gender is the most consistently influential variable among defendant
> > status characteristics, especially when analyzed in interaction with race,
> > ethnicity, and age. Women are both less likely to be incarcerated than men
> > and to receive shorter sentences than men, with young African American and
> > young white females receiving the most lenient sentencing outcomes. The
> > gender disparities that appeared are not necessarily unwarranted, however,
> > as gender might correlate with other factors that may be viewed as
> > legitimate considerations in sentencing, such as family responsibilities and
> > role in the offense. (Information about such considerations was not
> > available.)
>
> > ...
> Of course, if it were the other way around then the gender gap in
> sentencing would be taken as evidence of the oppression of women and
> the priviledge of men. As it is, though, I would still think that
> women would be protesting this. It certainly indicates that they are
> not seen as being as capable and responsible as men. But maybe they're
> happy enough about their get out of jail free card to overlook the
> patronizing attitude involved in not holding them responsible for their
> actions. The law may declare them equal but women will never truly be
> seen as equal until they are as willing to take up their
> responsibilities as they are willing to lobby for opportunity and
> protection.
It is pertinent that the article states 'family responsibilities' as a
legitimate reason for inequality. This points to the crux of the issue.
As long as women remain central to continuity (i.e. as long as women
control the scarce reproductive resources of egg, womb, breast and
maternal instinct) successful human cultures will always protect women
over and above men.
Cultures that 'expect women to take up their responsibilities' are
destined to be out-reproduced by those that protect and nurture women's
reproductive resources. As a result any equality based culture (ours in
not one such, notwithstanding feminist pretence) would quickly
disappear, at least until technology changes human reproductive
dynamics substantially.
--
Rob
There's no gender equality...
Society
<patrick...@standardregister.com> wrote in message
news:1164633717....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hanuman wrote:
>> I'm having a discussion with a woman
>> elsewhere who is harping on race in
>> criminal sentencing, and kept saying
>> my claim that sex had a bigger impact
>> than race on sentencing was incorrect.
Those race whore womanfirsters (of
whatever sex they happen to be) are
so ignorant. They blank out of their tiny
hyerliar substitutes-for-brains all
evidence that contradicts their dogma.
Sheesh!
>> http://www.ussc.gov/15_year/executive_summary_and_preface.pdf
>> http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2004/11/a_few_highlight.htmlRACIAL/ETHNIC
>> http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/09/12/prison-sentencing-study-whites-women-non-poor-and-us-citizens-are-given-lighter-sentences/
>> http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=alea
>> http://www.courts.state.pa.us/index/supreme/BiasCmte/FinalReport.ch4.pdf
>> http://cjr.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/31/2/105.pdf
>
> Of course,
...instead of quoting the whole looooong post
you could'a snipped all but the relevant parts
to which you were replying, patrick barnes.
(Your transgression will be discussed at a
Man Law table in an upcoming Miller Beer
advert. ;-)
> if it were the other way around then the
> gender gap in sentencing would be taken
> as evidence of the oppression of women
> and the privilege of men.
Womanfirsters of the traditionalist faction
don't bother to look at the sexist bias in
criminal sentencing for obvious reasons.
Womanfirsters of the feminist faction
don't bother to look because they take
the side of the woman in everything, no
matter what.
> As it is, though, I would still think that
> women would be protesting this.
<giggle>
How little you know about women and
feminists, patrick barnes!
> It certainly indicates that they are not seen
> as being as capable and responsible as men.
True. But this doesn't bother the traditionalist
faction of womanfirsters and as for feminists,
they are thoroughly despicable hypocrites who
demand that everyone must take the woman's
side in everything. To them, "the woman's side"
means whatever gives any particular woman
an advantage, no matter how that contradicts
the feminists' past positions for any other woman
in the contrary situation. By the way, notice
that this feminist demand that women be coddled
matches up almost perfectly with the traditional
generosity and forbearance men give to women.
(Don't call it "male chivalry", tho', 'cause that
term is redundant. It's just "chivalry". There's
no such thing as "female chivalry".)
> But maybe they're happy enough about
> their get out of jail free card to overlook
> the patronizing attitude involved in not
> holding them responsible for their actions.
Yup. Without femme-favoring double standards,
feminism would go nowhere. For instance,
back in the 1960s and '70s when the so-called
Equal Rights Amendment (to the US Constitution)
was before the legislatures of the states for
ratification, Phyllis Schlafly earned the undying
hatred of feminists when she pointed out that
"equal" means women would be equally
subject to military conscription as US men
have long been. "No it won't," barked feminist
proponents of the amendment. This had the
effect of making feminists look two-faced
and opportunistic to America's adults. The
possibility they might be drafted right alongside
their men also turned millions of women
against this proposal to carve "equality of
the sexes" into America's fundamental national
law. The E.R.A. failed to pass.
Since then, feminists and other womanfirsters
have been busy picking-and-choosing situations
in which statutes will require "equality", which
will preserve special sexist perks for women,
and which will retain provisions that oppress
men. Feminists crow about this being "equality"
and "a victory for women". The hypocrisy of
feminists knows no bounds.
> The law may declare them equal but women
> will never truly be seen as equal until they are
> as willing to take up their responsibilities
> as they are willing to lobby for opportunity
> and protection.
Then women as-a-class will "never truly
be seen as equal", patrick barnes. Evidence?
Well, consider this: You don't hear of women
even conceding an inch in the ancient cry heard
in a crisis, "women and children first". It's
never "_children_ and women first". People
who can't even give up their protect-me-pink
pedestals of special safety for _children_
cannot be honestly thought to be willing to
give up their privileged positions altogether.
--
Honor men. Get to the point.
Society
"Rob" <robw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1164637707....@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> It is pertinent that the article states 'family
> responsibilities' as a legitimate reason
> for inequality.
I disagree. Women are three times more
likely to abuse and kill their children than
men. Therefore, "family responsibilities"
should subject women to _harsher_ penalties
in order to inhibit their proclivity to do harm
to the most helpless human beings.
No, those "family responsibilities" are no
more than a dodge to excuse the criminality
of women. A single dad raising his children
wouldn't get a break from the police, prosecutors,
juries, or sentencing judges because _he_
has family responsibilities.
Wake up. "Just look around you," to quote
a character in feminazi Marilyn French's
polemical novel _The Women's Room_.
When you look around, you'll see that women
have special privileges galore and often
shamelessly exploit men's generosity toward
women. For instance, that several thousand
cases of female genital mutilation occur
in the US each year is well known by
criminologists but these cases don't ever go
to trial because -- just as in the rest of the
world -- female genital mutilation is done
by or at the instigation of _women_. That
case in which a man was convicted of such
a deed that the hyerliar was crying about
recently was simply the first case ever in
which a man could be blamed. So _that_
case went to trial. (Duh.)
> This points to the crux of the issue.
> As long as women remain central to
> continuity (i.e. as long as women
> control the scarce reproductive resources
> of egg, womb, breast and maternal instinct)
> successful human cultures will always
> protect women over and above men.
Well, we can at least stop protecting
barren women! Send the feminists to
the mines and the front while requiring
that womanly women pop an extra couple
of sprogs during their lifetime to make
up the difference. This requires no new
technology at all, keeping records is as
old as the invention of carving marks on
a stick.
--
They wanted equality with men?
Then let's give it to 'em, good
and hard!
Mark Borgerson
Soc...@feminism.is.invalid says...
>
> "Rob" <robw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1164637707....@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > It is pertinent that the article states 'family
> > responsibilities' as a legitimate reason
> > for inequality.
>
> I disagree. Women are three times more
> likely to abuse and kill their children than
> men. Therefore, "family responsibilities"
> should subject women to _harsher_ penalties
> in order to inhibit their proclivity to do harm
> to the most helpless human beings.
>
> No, those "family responsibilities" are no
> more than a dodge to excuse the criminality
> of women. A single dad raising his children
> wouldn't get a break from the police, prosecutors,
> juries, or sentencing judges because _he_
> has family responsibilities.
Do you have any data to support that contention or
is it just an opinion? I would hope that single fathers
get the same consideration as single mothers, but I've never
seen any stats that even break out single fathers as a group
in relation to sentencing.
><<SNIP>>
Mark Borgerson
Rob
On Nov 28, 4:34 am, "Society" <Soci...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
> "Rob" <robwil...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:1164637707....@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
We both agree that women have special treatment. Where we differ is
that you believe we should try to achieve gender equality and I believe
we should recognise that gender equality doesn't, and can't ever, work
- at least until technology removes women's central role in
reproduction.
Hanuman
Read the studies posted earlier in this thread. A couple of them mention
the fact that fathers do not receive lighter sentencing, but mothers do.
Andre Lieven
With the average woman havig fewer than two children, this " central
role " only ties up some 18 months of her life.
She can do actually equal tasks for the other 45 years of her adult
working life ( 18-65, minus 18 months ), OR, she can e treated as a
proper UNequal person, and thus, for her less than equal contribution,
she can have similarly less than equal EARNED rights.
Andre
Mark Borgerson
says...
> "Rob" (robw...@yahoo.co.uk) writes:
> > On Nov 28, 4:34 am, "Society" <Soci...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
> >> "Rob" <robwil...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:1164637707....@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >
<<SNIP>>
> >> a stick.
> >
> > We both agree that women have special treatment. Where we differ is
> > that you believe we should try to achieve gender equality and I believe
> > we should recognise that gender equality doesn't, and can't ever, work
> > - at least until technology removes women's central role in
> > reproduction.
>
> With the average woman havig fewer than two children, this " central
> role " only ties up some 18 months of her life.
>
> She can do actually equal tasks for the other 45 years of her adult
> working life ( 18-65, minus 18 months ), OR, she can e treated as a
> proper UNequal person, and thus, for her less than equal contribution,
> she can have similarly less than equal EARNED rights.
>
Really? Women "can do actually equal tasks"??? That's quite a change
from the belief that women are not capable of many tasks
performed by men---firefighter, soldier, sailor, etc!
Mark Borgerson
Mark Borgerson
han...@monkey.com says...
http://www.ussc.gov/15_year/executive_summary_and_preface.pdf
The word "father" was not found in the document.
***********************************************************************
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2004/11/a_few_hi
ghlight.htmlRACIAL/ETHNIC
Page Not Found. Can't search this one.
************************************************************************
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/09/12/prison-sentencing-
study-whites-women-non-poor-and-us-citizens-are-given-lighter-sentences/
The word "father" was not found in the document.
***********************************************************************
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/index/supreme/BiasCmte/FinalReport.ch4.pdf
The word "father" was not found in the document.
**********************************************************************
http://cjr.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/31/2/105.pdf
The word "father" was not found in the document.
So did I miss something? I searched for the terms 'father' and
'mother' without finding references to lighter sentences. Was
I using the wrong search terms, or were you thinking of a different
reference?
In your own post you say:
"The gender disparities that appeared are not necessarily unwarranted,
however, as gender might correlate with other factors that may be viewed
as legitimate considerations in sentencing, such as family
responsibilities and role in the offense. (Information about such
considerations was not available.)"
What part of "Information about such considerations was not available"
did I misinterpret?
Mark Borgerson
Rob
On Nov 28, 2:56 pm, d...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
There's a lot more involved in carrying out the principle reproductive
role in a successful society than merely gestation. Not least the
importance you acquire in the opposite sexes perception.
--
Rob
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
physical child custody.
Andre Lieven
Little of which demands more of the mother than of a father...
> Not least the
> importance you acquire in the opposite sexes perception.
Note which sex refuses to do so...
Andre
Hanuman
> In article <uUTah.49611$si3....@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
> han...@monkey.com says...
> So did I miss something? I searched for the terms 'father' and
> 'mother' without finding references to lighter sentences. Was
> I using the wrong search terms, or were you thinking of a different
> reference?
>
>
> In your own post you say:
>
> "The gender disparities that appeared are not necessarily unwarranted,
> however, as gender might correlate with other factors that may be
> viewed as legitimate considerations in sentencing, such as family
> responsibilities and role in the offense. (Information about such
> considerations was not available.)"
>
> What part of "Information about such considerations was not available"
> did I misinterpret?
>
>
> Mark Borgerson
IIRC, they use words like "dependant" and "family responsibility" for this,
not "father" or "mother." You would have to search for those words, not for
father or mother. Maybe it was another study. I can't honestly recall
exactly where I read it, as I went through several dozen sites when looking
up this data.
Mark Borgerson
han...@monkey.com says...
> Mark Borgerson wrote:
> > In article <uUTah.49611$si3....@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
> > han...@monkey.com says...
>
> > So did I miss something? I searched for the terms 'father' and
> > 'mother' without finding references to lighter sentences. Was
> > I using the wrong search terms, or were you thinking of a different
> > reference?
> >
> >
> > In your own post you say:
> >
> > "The gender disparities that appeared are not necessarily unwarranted,
> > however, as gender might correlate with other factors that may be
> > viewed as legitimate considerations in sentencing, such as family
> > responsibilities and role in the offense. (Information about such
> > considerations was not available.)"
> >
> > What part of "Information about such considerations was not available"
> > did I misinterpret?
> >
> >
> > Mark Borgerson
>
> IIRC, they use words like "dependant" and "family responsibility" for this,
> not "father" or "mother." You would have to search for those words, not for
> father or mother. Maybe it was another study. I can't honestly recall
> exactly where I read it, as I went through several dozen sites when looking
> up this data.
>
good arguement when there are so many potential supporting sources. I'm
not sure that the decisions of the judges and prosecutors will make
sense to us--but it's worth the effort of a bit of research.
Mark Borgerson
Society
>
> We both agree that women have special treatment.
> Where we differ is that you believe we should
> try to achieve gender equality
I prefer to phrase it as "Women who want to
be equal to men should get it, good and hard."
(Apologies to H.L. Mencken.)
> and I believe we should recognise that gender
> equality doesn't, and can't ever, work - at least
> until technology removes women's central role
> in reproduction.
We probably don't differ in outlook all that
much, Rob, tho' we may disagree on what
is the effective corrective action to take
in response to the madness of the unisexists,
feminists, et. al.
I've reached the limit of my tolerance of
women who prattle on about how ba-ad
they have it and all the while behaving
rudely toward folks who dare suggest that
women can have equality with men the
instant women climb down from their
pedestals and positions of social privilege.
I mentioned the barrenness of many
"progressive" women partly for the
purpose of pointing out that women who
don't have any intention at all of having
a "central role in reproduction" cynically
exploit the sympathies and privileges
historically extended by men to women
who _do_ reproduce (and do so fruitfully).
Then there's also the paradox of giving
women who murder children some special
_de facto_ (and often _de jure_) protections
from facing the consequences that a mere
man would typically suffer and all the while
basing this (in some deep way) on the
assumption that because women have a
"central role in reproduction" this somehow
excuses women whose "central role" is
as a murderer who eradicates the fruits
of her own or someone else's "reproduction".
Sheesh!
--
On the stock market, options are commodities that
people pay money for whether they exercise them
or not. Do you think that maybe women are paying
a price for their options? ... If an option is a
commodity, is it not understandable that men would
expect to be compensated for the options they
are giving up?
Jack Kammer, in _Good Will Toward Men_
hb, page 26; St. Martin's Press - 1994.
Society
"Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:ekimbq$h64$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>
> "Rob" (robw...@yahoo.co.uk) writes:
>>
>> Andre Lieven patiently explained...
>>>
>>> With the average woman having fewer
>>> than two children, this "central role"
>>> 18 months of her life.
Heh heh. Andre, you've busted Rob for
trying to get away with disparaging men
by playing a cunning riff on this tired
old feminist trick:
Trick: No man can know how awful childbirth is.
False. We have wives, sisters, mothers, female friends,
and so forth, and we have a pretty good idea of what is
and is not involved. We're not about to be bluffed into
giving more sympathy than is merited or bullied
into playing dumb.
From the post "FAQ: Feminist myths and tricks
frequently used to disrupt discussion".
by Steve Reynolds, ste...@cygnus.ieu.comtra.org
The entire FAQ can be found at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=stever.F...@cygnus.ieu.comtra.org
>> There's a lot more involved in carrying out
>> the principle reproductive role in a successful
>> society than merely gestation.
>
> Little of which demands more of the mother
> than of a father...
True again, Andre! Rob should think a second
time. Then he'd figure out that the principle
role in raising a child beyond "merely gestation"
(Rob's own admission) is being the primary
_money raiser,_ not the primary child minder.
After all, without the money there's no child
minder available!
Women use a baby as their excuse to drop
out of the workplace; they don't use babies
as their reason to leave home for the
workplace and sticking their man with
the duty of being the child minder. Despite
their crowing about how women have it
worse because more often than their man
they stay home with the baby, the most
überfeminist woman still insists on staying
home with the baby -- or howls if she's
unable to do so! In economics we call this
her revealed preference and consider that
more indicative of her actual desires than
her earlier expressed preference that turns
out to be no more than so much mouth on
her part.
--
If raising kids is so menial and degrading,
why do women fight us so bitterly in divorce
for the opportunity to do it?
from _If Men Have All the Power How Come Women
Make the Rules_ by Jack Kammer,
www.rulymob.com - publishers. (1999) page 92.
Andre Lieven
> "Andre Lieven" <dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:ekimbq$h64$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>>
>> "Rob" (robw...@yahoo.co.uk) writes:
>>>
>>> Andre Lieven patiently explained...
>>>>
>>>> With the average woman having fewer
>>>> than two children, this "central role"
>>>> [in reproduction] only ties up some
>>>> 18 months of her life.
>
> Heh heh. Andre, you've busted Rob for
> trying to get away with disparaging men
> by playing a cunning riff on this tired
> old feminist trick:
Indeed; facts can be a real bitch, eh ? <g>
> Trick: No man can know how awful childbirth is.
>
> False. We have wives, sisters, mothers, female friends,
> and so forth, and we have a pretty good idea of what is
> and is not involved. We're not about to be bluffed into
> giving more sympathy than is merited or bullied
> into playing dumb.
>
> From the post "FAQ: Feminist myths and tricks
> frequently used to disrupt discussion".
> by Steve Reynolds, ste...@cygnus.ieu.comtra.org
>
> The entire FAQ can be found at:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=stever.F...@cygnus.ieu.comtra.org
>
>>> There's a lot more involved in carrying out
>>> the principle reproductive role in a successful
>>> society than merely gestation.
>>
>> Little of which demands more of the mother
>> than of a father...
>
> True again, Andre! Rob should think a second
> time. Then he'd figure out that the principle
> role in raising a child beyond "merely gestation"
> (Rob's own admission) is being the primary
> _money raiser,_ not the primary child minder.
> After all, without the money there's no child
> minder available!
Exactly, and if the concern were really about making
sure that a *responsible* provider was looking after the
child, we'd have father primary custody back in a flash.
Women gestate, men pay; the first role only takes 9
months, while the latter role can take over 20 *years*.
> Women use a baby as their excuse to drop
> out of the workplace; they don't use babies
> as their reason to leave home for the
> workplace and sticking their man with
> the duty of being the child minder. Despite
> their crowing about how women have it
> worse because more often than their man
> they stay home with the baby, the most
> überfeminist woman still insists on staying
> home with the baby -- or howls if she's
> unable to do so! In economics we call this
> her revealed preference and consider that
> more indicative of her actual desires than
> her earlier expressed preference that turns
> out to be no more than so much mouth on
> her part.
Exactly and specifically correct. Its not a " loss "
when a person *chooses* a role *over* all others.
> --
> If raising kids is so menial and degrading,
> why do women fight us so bitterly in divorce
> for the opportunity to do it?
Rob should face that basic truth.
> from _If Men Have All the Power How Come Women
> Make the Rules_ by Jack Kammer,
> www.rulymob.com - publishers. (1999) page 92.
Andre
Ben
It's clear you have no clue what it takes to have and raise children.
Women currently provide the bulk of care to very young children, and it
does indeed become their priority.
>
> She can do actually equal tasks for the other 45 years of her adult
> working life ( 18-65, minus 18 months ),
65 years minus 18 months equals 45 years? Maybe you want to use your
calculator.
>OR, she can e treated as a
> proper UNequal person, and thus, for her less than equal contribution,
> she can have similarly less than equal EARNED rights.
>
> Andre
Perhaps in Canada one has to "earn" rights, but in the USA, one already
has rights without having to do anything to earn them.
Rob
On Dec 1, 4:10 pm, d...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
> "Society" (Soci...@feminism.is.invalid) writes:
> > "Andre Lieven" <d...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> >news:ekimbq$h64$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>
> >> "Rob" (robwil...@yahoo.co.uk) writes:
>
> >>> Andre Lieven patiently explained...
>
> >>>> With the average woman having fewer
> >>>> than two children, this "central role"
> >>>> [in reproduction] only ties up some
> >>>> 18 months of her life.
>
> > Heh heh. Andre, you've busted Rob for
> > trying to get away with disparaging men
> > by playing a cunning riff on this tired
> > old feminist trick:Indeed; facts can be a real bitch, eh ? <g>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Trick: No man can know how awful childbirth is.
>
> > False. We have wives, sisters, mothers, female friends,
> > and so forth, and we have a pretty good idea of what is
> > and is not involved. We're not about to be bluffed into
> > giving more sympathy than is merited or bullied
> > into playing dumb.
>
> > From the post "FAQ: Feminist myths and tricks
> > frequently used to disrupt discussion".
> > by Steve Reynolds, ste...@cygnus.ieu.comtra.org
>
> > The entire FAQ can be found at:
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=stever.FADC.0...@cygnus.ieu.comtra.org
>
> >>> There's a lot more involved in carrying out
> >>> the principle reproductive role in a successful
> >>> society than merely gestation.
>
> >> Little of which demands more of the mother
> >> than of a father...
>
> > True again, Andre! Rob should think a second
> > time. Then he'd figure out that the principle
> > role in raising a child beyond "merely gestation"
> > (Rob's own admission) is being the primary
> > _money raiser,_ not the primary child minder.
> > After all, without the money there's no child
> > minder available!Exactly, and if the concern were really about making
Which face should I use to do that?
Surreal.
Andre Lieven
>> role " only ties up some 18 months of her life.
>
> It's clear you have no clue what it takes to have and raise children.
Denigration Alone, Parg.
> Women currently provide the bulk of care to very young children, and it
> does indeed become their priority.
Indeed, by their CHOICE, a choice which also has an effect of making
it IMPOSSIBLE for said women to earn as much $$$ as the men who are still
at work. ( Can't get paid and promoted if you are NOT THERE... )
You state that as if it were inevitable; like a True Communist. Its not,
of course.
>> She can do actually equal tasks for the other 45 years of her adult
>> working life ( 18-65, minus 18 months ),
>
> 65 years minus 18 months equals 45 years? Maybe you want to use your
> calculator.
Man, you ARE an illiterate boob: 65 years minus 18 years ( Age of legal
working majority ), equals 47 years, minus two times nine months - Heck,
I'll throw in three months of paid maternity leave for each of the two
kids, so make that minus two times 1 year - equals 45 years. Ta-Daa !
Thank for proving that you ARE a Talking Barbie ! ( " Math is hard ! " ).
<laughs>
>> OR, she can e treated as a
>> proper UNequal person, and thus, for her less than equal contribution,
>> she can have similarly less than equal EARNED rights.
>>
>> Andre
>
> Perhaps in Canada one has to "earn" rights, but in the USA, one already
> has rights without having to do anything to earn them.
Really ? Ask any 18 year old MAN what can happen if he doesn't sign up
with Selective Service...
Once again, an illiterate FemiBoob shows that Feminism IS a brain rot !
Thanks for that ! <laughs>
Andre
Andre Lieven
> omtra.org
>>
>> >>> There's a lot more involved in carrying out
>> >>> the principle reproductive role in a successful
>> >>> society than merely gestation.
>>
>> >> Little of which demands more of the mother
>> >> than of a father...
>>
>> > True again, Andre! Rob should think a second
>> > time. Then he'd figure out that the principle
>> > role in raising a child beyond "merely gestation"
>> > (Rob's own admission) is being the primary
>> > _money raiser,_ not the primary child minder.
>> > After all, without the money there's no child
>> > minder available!Exactly, and if the concern were really about making
>> sure that a *responsible* provider was looking after the
>> child, we'd have father primary custody back in a flash.
>>
>> Women gestate, men pay; the first role only takes 9
>> months, while the latter role can take over 20 *years*.
We note that you had NO attempted rebuttal for ths basic FACT.
Thus, our point stands, and yours.... *collapses*.
HTH.
>> > Women use a baby as their excuse to drop
>> > out of the workplace; they don't use babies
>> > as their reason to leave home for the
>> > workplace and sticking their man with
>> > the duty of being the child minder. Despite
>> > their crowing about how women have it
>> > worse because more often than their man
>> > they stay home with the baby, the most
>> > =FCberfeminist woman still insists on staying
>> > home with the baby -- or howls if she's
>> > unable to do so! In economics we call this
>> > her revealed preference and consider that
>> > more indicative of her actual desires than
>> > her earlier expressed preference that turns
>> > out to be no more than so much mouth on
>> > her part.
>
>> Exactly and specifically correct. Its not a " loss "
>> when a person *chooses* a role *over* all others.
>>
>> > --
>> > If raising kids is so menial and degrading,
>> > why do women fight us so bitterly in divorce
>> > for the opportunity to do it?
>
>> Rob should face that basic truth.
>
> Which face should I use to do that?
The one you presently lack: Honest Truth.
> Surreal.
Yes, your WomenFirster Cowshit Claims were that...
But, thats no one's problem but yours...
Andre
Andre Lieven
> over to full time daycare centers, babysitters, nannies, or other
> family members only 4 to 8 weeks after the infant was born. Some must
> do so because they absolutely must work to pay the bills but many
> others do so to chase more discretionary income and luxury goodies or
> to pursue their so-called careers. There are many woman who simply
> don't take care of their offspring at all and for many reasons among
> them drug and alchohol abuse, mental illness, and out and out
> abandonment of their children.
>
> Your blanket statement that all [implied by your wording] "women
> provide the bulk of care to very young children and it does indeed
> become their priority" is simply not true.
Its nice of Bennie to demonstrate so clearly his status as a
Big Daddy Sir Galahad Borgerson Excuser/Enabler of Feminist Filth.
Did you miss where he tried to take me to task for demonstrating
that 18 + 2 + 45 = 65 ? Now *that* was funny !
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On 2 Dec 2006 00:34:41 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> measure of misplaced chivalry in his comments about mothers above.
Thats why I stopped reading the Useful Fool, for doing exactly what
Borgerson does. Neither one of them can face that women can be equally
held responible for anything, yet neither one can face that that
belief of theirs *must* mean that women should be treated as less
than adults.
Folks like you and I, among many fine folks here, point out the failings
of Feminism, in part ( At least for myself ) because we don't view women
as being the functional equivalent of children, and we believe that women
can, when liberated from the brain rot known as Feminism, be as responsible
for themselves as men are routinely told to be.
>>Did you miss where he tried to take me to task for demonstrating
>>that 18 + 2 + 45 = 65 ? Now *that* was funny !
>
> Actually, I couldn't follow it. It was rather convoluted and as you
> know, math is hard. <g>
Thats why you can get calculators in the Dollar Store now... :-)
The gist of it was ( It was in the stuff you snipped away, to focus
on the part of Ben's Feministahood that you were replying to ) that
I said that women who had only two kids ( The high side of average
these days ) could only claim to a couple of years of time where
they might not be able to be as productive on the job as men.
This was in reply to Rob's false point that women being the sole
arbiters of reproduction have a claim on more than men do, in
societal terms.
Ben then called me names ( How Parg of him, Denigration Alone,
and all ) because *he couldn't grasp* how I got my numbers.
Which were, woman is adult at 18, retires at 65, ergo, 47 years
of working adult time, minus a year ( 9 months pregnancy, 3 months
maternity leave ) per kid, making 45 years of productive and
can't-complain-men-have-more-time lifetime.
Somehow Bennie couldn't add up the following:
18 ( age of adulthood ) + 2 ( 1 year per kid ) + 45 ( Remainder
of lifetime between 18 and 65 ) = 65.
Amazing. He'll likely not reply to my spanking his innumerate ass,
as he has the integrity of a Parg.
Andre
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> over to full time daycare centers, babysitters, nannies, or other
> family members only 4 to 8 weeks after the infant was born. Some must
> do so because they absolutely must work to pay the bills but many
> others do so to chase more discretionary income and luxury goodies or
> to pursue their so-called careers. There are many woman who simply
> don't take care of their offspring at all and for many reasons among
> them drug and alchohol abuse, mental illness, and out and out
> abandonment of their children.
>
> Your blanket statement that all [implied by your wording] "women
> provide the bulk of care to very young children and it does indeed
> become their priority" is simply not true.
I don't agree that his wording implied "all women" because he used "the
bulk of" as a qualifier to indicate "the major portion or greater part,"
i.e., "something more than half" and possibly even "most," but not
"all."
Given the utter bullshit we've had to slog through because of Hyerdahl's
steadfast assertion (in the "gender cleansing" thread) that "men rape"
means "some men rape" not "all men are rapists," it has suddenly become
very important to recognize the appropriate use of qualifiers as they
come along.
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phèdre nó Delaunay
Andre Lieven
> Jill wrote:
>> On 1 Dec 2006 09:54:56 -0800, "Ben" <ArG...@hotmail.com> whined:
Yet, he failed/refused to qualify " women ", thus indicating a bias for
" women " instead of PARENTS...
Both of you are therefore busted on your hatred of men and fathers.
> Given the utter bullshit we've had to slog through because of Hyerdahl's
> steadfast assertion (in the "gender cleansing" thread) that "men rape"
> means "some men rape" not "all men are rapists," it has suddenly become
> very important to recognize the appropriate use of qualifiers as they
> come along.
Then, address your complaint to the NON qualifier user, Feminist Ben.
HTH.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> provide to their children. He did not use the word "bulk" in
> reference to the number of women he was talking about. My
> interpretation was not erroneous.
Quite correct. It was Ben who failed to understand how to qualify his
blanket and misandrous claim. Yet, Rhonda The KOOK fails to criticise
the right person.
>>Given the utter bullshit we've had to slog through because of Hyerdahl's
>>steadfast assertion (in the "gender cleansing" thread) that "men rape"
>>means "some men rape" not "all men are rapists," it has suddenly become
>>very important to recognize the appropriate use of qualifiers as they
>>come along.
Andre
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> provide to their children. He did not use the word "bulk" in
> reference to the number of women he was talking about. My
> interpretation was not erroneous.
"Meaning is what we bring to things, not what we take from them." Lois
McMaster Bujold.
I see your point, but in the world of people, there are men and there
are women. If women provide the bulk of care of care of children, the
process of elimination dictates that the balance of care is provided by
men.
The discussion is not particularly meaningful to me until you replace
"women" with "mothers" and come up with some statistical breakdown of
who is going to work and who is staying home with the kids, moms and
dads alike. I don't think that anyone is going to dispute that nearly
all daycare workers, babysitters and nannies are women, but I'm pretty
sure that's not what Ben had in mind when he constructed the sentence.
He doesn't strike me as the contentious sort, so I expect now that you
have pointed out the need for clarification, he will attend to refining
the thought.
patrick...@standardregister.com
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>
> Given the utter bullshit we've had to slog through because of Hyerdahl's
> steadfast assertion (in the "gender cleansing" thread) that "men rape"
> means "some men rape" not "all men are rapists," it has suddenly become
> very important to recognize the appropriate use of qualifiers as they
> come along.
>
The amazing thing to me is that even as they make those assertions,
both Pandora and Hyerdahl have hit me in other threads with the same
qualifier type arguments they're complaining about in that thread.
You'd think they'd at least wait a few days after ridiculing Kali's
objections before making the same objections themselves.
Rob
On Dec 2, 1:38 am, d...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
> ...
>
> The gist of it was ( It was in the stuff you snipped away, to focus
> on the part of Ben's Feministahood that you were replying to ) that
> I said that women who had only two kids ( The high side of average
> these days ) could only claim to a couple of years of time where
> they might not be able to be as productive on the job as men.
>
> This was in reply to Rob's false point that women being the sole
> arbiters of reproduction have a claim on more than men do, in
The reason that last sentence is vague is that you had to try to gloss
over what was actually posted in order to justify your 'false point'
claim.
In a discussion about sentencing inequalities I posted a reply to
Society:
#We both agree that women have special treatment. Where we differ is
that you believe we should try to achieve gender equality and I believe
we should recognise that gender equality doesn't, and can't ever, work
- at least until technology removes women's central role in
reproduction.#
Society's reply included: #We probably don't differ in outlook all
that
much, Rob#.
You posted: #With the average woman havig fewer than two children, this
" central
role " only ties up some 18 months of her life.# .
I replied: #There's a lot more involved in carrying out the principle
reproductive role in a successful society than merely gestation. Not
least the importance you acquire in the opposite sexes perception.#
And you replied, to the last point: #Note which sex refuses to do
so...#.
Women's central role in reproduction, brought about by their sole
possession of the scarce reproductive resources of egg, womb, breasts
and maternal instincts, has a substantial impact on women from shortly
after conception and throughout their life. They have significantly and
measurably different bodies, brains, chemistries and behaviours and
these differences make women central to any society's continuity (a
clue to this, should you doubt it, is the fact that widely used
reproductive statistics measure the number of daughters a woman has).
This reproductive value impacts, in its turn, on men's perceptions. The
effects are widespread and reach into almost every corner of our lives.
Until you subsequently limited it, the discussion was much broader than
simply the impact of gestation on women's working life.
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 21:41:40 -0500, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
>
>> I see your point,
>
> Very big of you since I was right and you were wrong. Why can't you
> just admit you made a mistake?
We don't agree. We can do several more rounds of this, but although it
amuses me to take an adversarial stance with Hyerdahl, it does not amuse
me at all to take an adversarial stance with you.
We do not agree, we are not going to agree, and I have no wish to engage
in battle over it. My point was not "you're wrong, Jill" so I'm not
going to put effort into such an argument.
>> but in the world of people, there are men and there
>> are women. If women provide the bulk of care of care of children, the
>> process of elimination dictates that the balance of care is provided
>> by men.
>>
>> The discussion is not particularly meaningful to me
>
> This discussion is not taking place for you alone. Further, what you
> find meaningful is not pertinent to the facts.
Then I can opt out and leave you to your debate, and I won't be missed.
> Ben failed to qualifiy
> his comments about women. That is the discussion you and are having.
> Changing the parameters is but a sad attempt on your part to avoid
> admitting you made a mistake. .
I do not need to avoid admitting I made a mistake because I do not
believe I made a mistake.
I also do not believe that there is any further reason to argue the
subject, so I won't.
<insert negative assessment of my character and debating skills here>
> <remainder of inapplicable comments snipped>
--
Rhonda Lea Kirk
Happiness limits the amount of suffering one is
willing to inflict on others. Phčdre nó Delaunay
Rob
On Dec 1, 6:14 pm, d...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:
> "Rob" (robwil...@yahoo.co.uk) proves that he has NO rebuttal:
Because it wasn't the topic under discussion. If you want to debate the
length of time women have to commit to gestation as a proportion of
their working lives compared to the amount men pay to raise their
children then start an appropriate thread. It's a comparison that I
don't find remotely interesting, so I probably won't contribute.
> Thus, our point stands, and yours.... *collapses*.
It's not either/or, you of all people should recognise the name of that
particular fallacy. Your post didn't address more than one small aspect
of the issue under discussion.
???
I couldn't agree more with Society's point about revealed preference.
Anyone who has read my posts over the years would know that, I hope.
That is why your posts seem positively surreal.
Ben
Actually, I'll have to retract my comment about your math. I'm afraid
I simply read it too fast.
Andre Lieven
IOW, you were.... WORNG ! " Take it like a MAN ! "
> I'm afraid I simply read it too fast.
And, the weaseling, feminine manner of excusing his FUCK UP & ASSumption...
Not to mention INability to read a thread for *comprehension*... A
further failing of his that he *evaded altogether*...
Man, Bennie has many failings displayed in this post... Yet, he attempts
to only cop an " accident " ploy... " Its not my fault ! "
Uh, yeah... it IS.
How... Feminist of Bennie.
<Ptui>
Andre
Ben
Would that you would do *anything* like a man.
>
> > I'm afraid I simply read it too fast.
>
> And, the weaseling, feminine manner of excusing his FUCK UP & ASSumption...
> Not to mention INability to read a thread for *comprehension*... A
> further failing of his that he *evaded altogether*...
Not at all. Did you see me retract any of my other comments? That
would mean (speaking of reading comprehension) that they still stand.
>
> Man, Bennie has many failings displayed in this post... Yet, he attempts
> to only cop an " accident " ploy... " Its not my fault ! "
For one who keens on and on about reading comprehension, you display so
little of it yourself.
>
> Uh, yeah... it IS.
>
> How... Feminist of Bennie.
lol Do you actually believe rote recitation of stock phrases gets
*more* effective the more you use them?
>
> <Ptui>
>
> Andre
Ben
Jill wrote:
> On 4 Dec 2006 16:52:47 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> mistake. Many to most people will never do that on usent. IMO Ben is
> a good sport and showed integrity.
Thanks Jill, I appreciate that. And I haven't been ignoring your
response to my post...I'll be getting to it a bit later.
Andre Lieven
> On 4 Dec 2006 16:52:47 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
>
>>"Ben-The-Weaseler" (ArG...@hotmail.com) skates and excuses himself:
> mistake.
No, it was almost the *least* that he could have done; note that he
did NOT *apologise for calling* ME mathematically challenged, when,if
*fact* it was HE that was so challenged...
And, he didn't leave it at " I fucked up, I'm sorry " ( NEITHER
statement did he actually make, BTW, in words or in meanings ), he then
tried to *excuse* his fuckup that led him to, erroneously, call ME names.
> Many to most people will never do that on usent.
Perhaps. Thats irrelevent. Hes not " many to most " people.
> IMO Ben is a good sport and showed integrity.
No, he showed that, when faced with a need to do a mea culpa,
that he would pretty much do the LEAST that he could get away
with.
He FAILED to " take it like a MAN ".
I'll also point out that he failed to address the point AT ALL until
I posted a supplementary item pointing out HIS up to then *silence*...
Thats not " integrity ", either.
Andre
Andre Lieven
"Ben-The-Failure" (ArG...@hotmail.cow) denigrates alone, like his heroine:
Denigration Alone, Parg.
>> > I'm afraid I simply read it too fast.
>>
>> And, the weaseling, feminine manner of excusing his FUCK UP & ASSumption...
>> Not to mention INability to read a thread for *comprehension*... A
>> further failing of his that he *evaded altogether*...
>
> Not at all. Did you see me retract any of my other comments? That
> would mean (speaking of reading comprehension) that they still stand.
<laughs> So, you remain... WORNG.
>> Man, Bennie has many failings displayed in this post... Yet, he attempts
>> to only cop an " accident " ploy... " Its not my fault ! "
>
> For one who keens on and on about reading comprehension, you display so
> little of it yourself.
Wow, three fallacies: <Projection>, Denigration Alone & " No proof offered ?
Cowshit fact free whiner caim fails ".
Congrats, even Parg rarely hits the trifecta of feminist filth failure !
>> Uh, yeah... it IS.
>>
>> How... Feminist of Bennie.
>
> lol Do you actually believe rote recitation of stock phrases gets
> *more* effective the more you use them?
<laughs> Beats YOUR *whining*, oh WORNG whiner !
Thanks for showing that my correction to Jill's now-proven erroneous
claim that you showed " integrity " was.... CORRECT.
>> <Ptui>
Andre
Andre Lieven
Thats OK, I've already gently corrected Jill's mistake about you, a mistake
that YOU proved was exactly that.
Thank YOU for so easily blowing yourself and her mistake out of the water.
<laughs>
> And I haven't been ignoring your
> response to my post...I'll be getting to it a bit later.
As soon as he figures out another excuse for his being WORNG...
Andre
Ben
All of this is true. I gotta remember the qualifiers. ;)
>
> Your blanket statement that all [implied by your wording] "women
> provide the bulk of care to very young children and it does indeed
> become their priority" is simply not true.
I was thinking along the lines of taking maternity/family leave
(although, encouragingly, more men are doing this), leaving full time
jobs to take part time jobs to be with the children, staying home full
time, etc. To the best of my knowledge, significantly more women than
men are doing these things, though it appears that more men are trying
to be primary caregivers. We debated in this newsgroup about how men
work more paid hours than women in order to generate the salary
necessary to support those women who are either staying home or taking
part time jobs, and I see today that MCP(?) posted an article
concerning how some women push men away from providing primary care.
To me, that would indicate mothers spending more time with very young
children than fathers. For those children going into day care, than
neither mother nor father is providing care during those hours.
I believed, and still do, that Andre's comment about the 'central role'
taking up only nine months per child is simplistic and doesn't reflect
the responsibilities of raising children during the initial years at
all.
Ben
Let's look at my one and only comment about that math:
"65 years minus 18 months equals 45 years? Maybe you want to use your
calculator."
Now where in there do you see me calling you any names?
>
> > Many to most people will never do that on usent.
>
> Perhaps. Thats irrelevent. Hes not " many to most " people.
>
> > IMO Ben is a good sport and showed integrity.
>
> No, he showed that, when faced with a need to do a mea culpa,
> that he would pretty much do the LEAST that he could get away
> with.
>
> He FAILED to " take it like a MAN ".
>
> I'll also point out that he failed to address the point AT ALL until
> I posted a supplementary item pointing out HIS up to then *silence*...
A quick check would reveal that I hadn't posted at all since the day of
the original post. As soon as I saw I had made an error, I retracted
it and admitted the mistake.
>
> Thats not " integrity ", either.
I'm not thinking anyone should rely on your definition of 'integrity'.
>
> Andre
Ben
Observation.
>
> >> > I'm afraid I simply read it too fast.
> >>
> >> And, the weaseling, feminine manner of excusing his FUCK UP & ASSumption...
> >> Not to mention INability to read a thread for *comprehension*... A
> >> further failing of his that he *evaded altogether*...
> >
> > Not at all. Did you see me retract any of my other comments? That
> > would mean (speaking of reading comprehension) that they still stand.
>
> <laughs> So, you remain... WORNG.
Because *you* say so? Hardly.
>
> >> Man, Bennie has many failings displayed in this post... Yet, he attempts
> >> to only cop an " accident " ploy... " Its not my fault ! "
> >
> > For one who keens on and on about reading comprehension, you display so
> > little of it yourself.
>
> Wow, three fallacies: <Projection>, Denigration Alone & " No proof offered ?
> Cowshit fact free whiner caim fails ".
*Yawn* Got anything new, or is this your 'A' game?
>
> Congrats, even Parg rarely hits the trifecta of feminist filth failure !
>
> >> Uh, yeah... it IS.
> >>
> >> How... Feminist of Bennie.
> >
> > lol Do you actually believe rote recitation of stock phrases gets
> > *more* effective the more you use them?
>
> <laughs> Beats YOUR *whining*, oh WORNG whiner !
lol My five-year old niece responds like this.
>
> Thanks for showing that my correction to Jill's now-proven erroneous
> claim that you showed " integrity " was.... CORRECT.
(shrug) I'll leave that up to Jill.
>
> >> <Ptui>
>
> Andre
Andre Lieven
More proof that you *sexistly and misandristically* view *fathers*
as being less than mothers.
Thanks for, once again, making my point for me. <laughs>
Andre
Andre Lieven
that you are caling me mathematicaly illiterate.
When, it was YOU who were *exactly* what you claimed I was...
Pot. Kettle. Deeper Black.
>> > Many to most people will never do that on usent.
>>
>> Perhaps. Thats irrelevent. Hes not " many to most " people.
>>
>> > IMO Ben is a good sport and showed integrity.
>>
>> No, he showed that, when faced with a need to do a mea culpa,
>> that he would pretty much do the LEAST that he could get away
>> with.
>>
>> He FAILED to " take it like a MAN ".
>>
>> I'll also point out that he failed to address the point AT ALL until
>> I posted a supplementary item pointing out HIS up to then *silence*...
>
> A quick check would reveal that I hadn't posted at all since the day of
> the original post. As soon as I saw I had made an error, I retracted
> it and admitted the mistake.
Welcome to the Bennie Spin Zone.
You claimed that I needed basic arithmetic help, when it was YOU who
needed *exactly* that, in your rush to try to show me up.
Your HATE blinds you to even basic arithmetic that a CHILD would get right.
If YOU wish to continue to display your reading and arithmetical skills
as being BELOW that of a CHILD, well, who am I to deny you such
opportunities ?
<Laughs>
>> Thats not " integrity ", either.
>
> I'm not thinking
Exactly. Try it for even once...
> anyone should rely on your definition of 'integrity'.
And, once again, the idiot who could NOT read for *comprehension*,
not do basic arithmetic calls his better names.
Parg. You. No difference at all.
Well, there is one; Parg is honest in her hate.
That puts you BELOW Parg. Pig.
And, as a possessor of AbZero integrity, you have NO standing to speak
on the topic. HTH.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>> Now, lets watch how sincere Bennie's faux " apology " turned out to be....
Indeed; it was utter cowshit from the word go.
Let us know when you can do basic arithmetic; until then, you have AbZero
standing to tel anyone what is.
>> >> > I'm afraid I simply read it too fast.
>> >>
>> >> And, the weaseling, feminine manner of excusing his FUCK UP & ASSumption...
>> >> Not to mention INability to read a thread for *comprehension*... A
>> >> further failing of his that he *evaded altogether*...
>> >
>> > Not at all. Did you see me retract any of my other comments? That
>> > would mean (speaking of reading comprehension) that they still stand.
>>
>> <laughs> So, you remain... WORNG.
>
> Because *you* say so?
Yep. Because at least *I CAN do basic arithmetic*, and because I DON'T
make ASSumptive claims of others needing " assistance "...
> Hardly.
Whats 18 = 2 = 45 ?
>> >> Man, Bennie has many failings displayed in this post... Yet, he attempts
>> >> to only cop an " accident " ploy... " Its not my fault ! "
>> >
>> > For one who keens on and on about reading comprehension, you display so
>> > little of it yourself.
>>
>> Wow, three fallacies: <Projection>, Denigration Alone & " No proof offered ?
>> Cowshit fact free whiner caim fails ".
>
> *Yawn* Got anything new, or is this your 'A' game?
No rebuttal even attempted ? Excellent, my point stands more confirmed.
Loser. Go back to Grade 1, and this time... PASS Arithmetic.
>> Congrats, even Parg rarely hits the trifecta of feminist filth failure !
>>
>> >> Uh, yeah... it IS.
>> >>
>> >> How... Feminist of Bennie.
>> >
>> > lol Do you actually believe rote recitation of stock phrases gets
>> > *more* effective the more you use them?
>>
>> <laughs> Beats YOUR *whining*, oh WORNG whiner !
>
> lol My five-year old niece responds like this.
And, if you had claimed that he was wrong, when actually YOU were,
he'd be right, and you'd be WORNG again.
>> Thanks for showing that my correction to Jill's now-proven erroneous
>> claim that you showed " integrity " was.... CORRECT.
>
> (shrug) I'll leave that up to Jill.
<laughs> Why not ? She can add 18 + 2 + 45...
>> >> <Ptui>
Andre
pandora
>
> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>
>> Given the utter bullshit we've had to slog through because of Hyerdahl's
>> steadfast assertion (in the "gender cleansing" thread) that "men rape"
>> means "some men rape" not "all men are rapists," it has suddenly become
>> very important to recognize the appropriate use of qualifiers as they
>> come along.
>>
>
> The amazing thing to me is that even as they make those assertions,
> both Pandora and Hyerdahl have hit me in other threads with the same
> qualifier type arguments they're complaining about in that thread.
No one "hit" you, hon. You're just a complainer and whiner like all the
rest.
CWQ
Rhonda Lea Kirk
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 22:17:20 -0800, patrick.barnes wrote:
>
>>
>> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>>
>>> Given the utter bullshit we've had to slog through because of
>>> Hyerdahl's steadfast assertion (in the "gender cleansing" thread)
>>> that "men rape" means "some men rape" not "all men are rapists," it
>>> has suddenly become very important to recognize the appropriate use
>>> of qualifiers as they come along.
>>>
>>
>> The amazing thing to me is that even as they make those assertions,
>> both Pandora and Hyerdahl have hit me in other threads with the same
>> qualifier type arguments they're complaining about in that thread.
>
> No one "hit" you, hon. You're just a complainer and whiner like all
> the rest.
>
> CWQ
As usual, she fails to address the issue and goes straight to the ad
hominem.
>> You'd think they'd at least wait a few days after ridiculing
>> Kali's
>> objections before making the same objections themselves.
Well, no. I think you're giving them way too much credit. :)
Ben
Straw man. Play with yourself on your own time. I have a whole
history of posts here that says otherwise.
Ben
Oh for crying out loud...grow a pair, will you?
>
> When, it was YOU who were *exactly* what you claimed I was...
>
> Pot. Kettle. Deeper Black.
>
> >> > Many to most people will never do that on usent.
> >>
> >> Perhaps. Thats irrelevent. Hes not " many to most " people.
> >>
> >> > IMO Ben is a good sport and showed integrity.
> >>
> >> No, he showed that, when faced with a need to do a mea culpa,
> >> that he would pretty much do the LEAST that he could get away
> >> with.
> >>
> >> He FAILED to " take it like a MAN ".
> >>
> >> I'll also point out that he failed to address the point AT ALL until
> >> I posted a supplementary item pointing out HIS up to then *silence*...
> >
> > A quick check would reveal that I hadn't posted at all since the day of
> > the original post. As soon as I saw I had made an error, I retracted
> > it and admitted the mistake.
>
> Welcome to the Bennie Spin Zone.
(shrug) The truth is the truth.
>
> You claimed that I needed basic arithmetic help, when it was YOU who
> needed *exactly* that, in your rush to try to show me up.
"Rush" to show you up? Why would I rush? I can take my time and do
that.
>
> Your HATE blinds you to even basic arithmetic that a CHILD would get right.
>
> If YOU wish to continue to display your reading and arithmetical skills
> as being BELOW that of a CHILD, well, who am I to deny you such
> opportunities ?
And oddly enough, your entire post consists of rants with no substance.
What are you trying to divert attention from?
>
> <Laughs>
>
> >> Thats not " integrity ", either.
> >
> > I'm not thinking
>
> Exactly. Try it for even once...
After you.
>
> > anyone should rely on your definition of 'integrity'.
>
> And, once again, the idiot who could NOT read for *comprehension*,
> not do basic arithmetic calls his better names.
Sorry, but you're not my better. Ego much?
>
> Parg. You. No difference at all.
>
> Well, there is one; Parg is honest in her hate.
And you're dishonest in your posts.
>
> That puts you BELOW Parg.
And still above you.
>Pig.
>
> And, as a possessor of AbZero integrity, you have NO standing to speak
> on the topic. HTH.
As I said, you're no judge of integrity, so your statement means little
to nothing.
>
> Andre
Ben
Are you so insecure that you seize upon this mistake and chase me
around two threads over it? Grow up.
>
> >> >> > I'm afraid I simply read it too fast.
> >> >>
> >> >> And, the weaseling, feminine manner of excusing his FUCK UP & ASSumption...
> >> >> Not to mention INability to read a thread for *comprehension*... A
> >> >> further failing of his that he *evaded altogether*...
> >> >
> >> > Not at all. Did you see me retract any of my other comments? That
> >> > would mean (speaking of reading comprehension) that they still stand.
> >>
> >> <laughs> So, you remain... WORNG.
> >
> > Because *you* say so?
>
> Yep. Because at least *I CAN do basic arithmetic*, and because I DON'T
> make ASSumptive claims of others needing " assistance "...
There's that reading comprehension problem again. I specifically
referenced my other statements, and you dodged right back to the
arithmetic error. Speaking of being like Parg....
>
> > Hardly.
>
> Whats 18 = 2 = 45 ?
>
> >> >> Man, Bennie has many failings displayed in this post... Yet, he attempts
> >> >> to only cop an " accident " ploy... " Its not my fault ! "
> >> >
> >> > For one who keens on and on about reading comprehension, you display so
> >> > little of it yourself.
> >>
> >> Wow, three fallacies: <Projection>, Denigration Alone & " No proof offered ?
> >> Cowshit fact free whiner caim fails ".
> >
> > *Yawn* Got anything new, or is this your 'A' game?
>
> No rebuttal even attempted ? Excellent, my point stands more confirmed.
You have no points, which is the point. Thanks for confirming.
>
> Loser. Go back to Grade 1, and this time... PASS Arithmetic.
>
> >> Congrats, even Parg rarely hits the trifecta of feminist filth failure !
> >>
> >> >> Uh, yeah... it IS.
> >> >>
> >> >> How... Feminist of Bennie.
> >> >
> >> > lol Do you actually believe rote recitation of stock phrases gets
> >> > *more* effective the more you use them?
> >>
> >> <laughs> Beats YOUR *whining*, oh WORNG whiner !
> >
> > lol My five-year old niece responds like this.
>
> And, if you had claimed that he was wrong, when actually YOU were,
> he'd be right, and you'd be WORNG again.
Do you know the difference between neice and nephew, or do I have to
chase you across several threads crowing about what I'm going to assume
is a legitimate error? lol
Ben
Jill wrote:
> wouldn't have responded to that post as what you say above is true.
Fair enough. :)
>
> >We debated in this newsgroup about how men
> >work more paid hours than women in order to generate the salary
> >necessary to support those women who are either staying home or taking
> >part time jobs, and I see today that MCP(?) posted an article
> >concerning how some women push men away from providing primary care.
>
> I didn't see the article today but that is old news. There was talk
> of the same as far back as 1978 when my daughter was born. At the
> time I remember thinking that I was guilty of the same although I
> didn't understand why I was doing it. I still don't understand why I
> behaved that way which is why I think the behavior is at least in part
> biologically driven in women.
You're right about it being old news, but it was fresh in my mind
because of that article. I remember my wife actually elbowing me aside
in order to change our son's diaper. lol I also agree that it's at
least partly biuologically driven. Do you think that part of might
also be due to some sort of standard over what constitutes a good
mother?
>
> >To me, that would indicate mothers spending more time with very young
> >children than fathers. For those children going into day care, than
> >neither mother nor father is providing care during those hours.
> >
> >I believed, and still do, that Andre's comment about the 'central role'
> >taking up only nine months per child is simplistic and doesn't reflect
> >the responsibilities of raising children during the initial years at
> >all.
>
> Once children are cared for by a sitter or daycare and later when they
> are in school full time the amount of parental care they require does
> drop significantly but that doesn't mean said care ceases to exist at
> all.
>
> Unfortunately in today's American society I do believe the amount of
> hands on care given to even a grade school child is much less than it
> needs to be, however, I again agree that amount of care usually
> doesn't drop to zero.
Agreed and agreed. In my case, my wife and I worked opposite shifts
most of our lives so that our son always had at least one parent at
home. I was also very fortunate in that I have sisters who doted on
him and babysat him on those occasions when we both had to work or our
shifts overlapped.
Andre Lieven
> On 4 Dec 2006 17:41:43 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> admitting he made a mistake. Your opinion obviously differs from
> mine. My opinion on this one isn't likely to change...perhaps we can
> agree to disagree.
We can, but you tell me... he made the error *and* the ASSumption,
yet he refused to apologise for either, and when faced with that
double refusal being pointed out, he went Parg Denigration Alone.
You ttel me on those *specifics*, how any of that constitutes
" integrity ". Make a case...
>>>> <Ptui>
Andre
Andre Lieven
Irresponsible Feminist Evasion. You FAIL to make ANY ase for your
unsupported, fact free and father HATING loon claim.
> Play with yourself on your own time. I have a whole
> history of posts here that says otherwise.
Yeah, yeah... the lurkers support you in e-mail, too, eh pig face ?
But, thanks for now further showing your total LACK of " integrity ",
by trying to weasel away from YOUR father bashing crap.
>> Thanks for, once again, making my point for me. <laughs>
Indeed.<bg>
Andre
Andre Lieven
Denigration Alone fails, Parg.
>> When, it was YOU who were *exactly* what you claimed I was...
>>
>> Pot. Kettle. Deeper Black.
>>
>> >> > Many to most people will never do that on usent.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps. Thats irrelevent. Hes not " many to most " people.
>> >>
>> >> > IMO Ben is a good sport and showed integrity.
>> >>
>> >> No, he showed that, when faced with a need to do a mea culpa,
>> >> that he would pretty much do the LEAST that he could get away
>> >> with.
>> >>
>> >> He FAILED to " take it like a MAN ".
>> >>
>> >> I'll also point out that he failed to address the point AT ALL until
>> >> I posted a supplementary item pointing out HIS up to then *silence*...
>> >
>> > A quick check would reveal that I hadn't posted at all since the day of
>> > the original post. As soon as I saw I had made an error, I retracted
>> > it and admitted the mistake.
>>
>> Welcome to the Bennie Spin Zone.
>
> (shrug) The truth is the truth.
You wouldn't know " the truth " if it stripped naked, and started to a
truthy dance on your face, while singing " Truthy Days Are Here Again ".
>> You claimed that I needed basic arithmetic help, when it was YOU who
>> needed *exactly* that, in your rush to try to show me up.
>
> "Rush" to show you up? Why would I rush? I can take my time and do
> that.
<shrug> I had read it that your innumerate scribblings might be ue to YOUR
ADMITTED failure to spend enough time to read for comprehension.
Apparently, you say that evn when you take enogh time, you re still...
WORNG. OK.
>> Your HATE blinds you to even basic arithmetic that a CHILD would get right.
>>
>> If YOU wish to continue to display your reading and arithmetical skills
>> as being BELOW that of a CHILD, well, who am I to deny you such
>> opportunities ?
>
> And oddly enough, your entire post consists of rants with no substance.
<Projection>
> What are you trying to divert attention from?
<Projection>
>> <Laughs>
>>
>> >> Thats not " integrity ", either.
>> >
>> > I'm not thinking
>>
>> Exactly. Try it for even once...
>
> After you.
Whats 18 + 2 + 45 ?
>> > anyone should rely on your definition of 'integrity'.
>>
>> And, once again, the idiot who could NOT read for *comprehension*,
>> not do basic arithmetic calls his better names.
>
> Sorry, but you're not my better.
No proof offered ? Claim fails. Whats 18 + 2 + 45 ?
> Ego much?
Whats 18 + 2 + 45 ?
>> Parg. You. No difference at all.
>>
>> Well, there is one; Parg is honest in her hate.
>
> And you're dishonest in your posts.
<Projection> No proof EVER offered ? Cowshit ad hom claim still fails.
Whats 18 + 2 + 45 ?
>> That puts you BELOW Parg.
>
> And still above you.
Whats 18 + 2 + 45 ?
>>Pig.
>>
>> And, as a possessor of AbZero integrity, you have NO standing to speak
>> on the topic. HTH.
>
> As I said, you're no judge of integrity, so your statement means little
> to nothing.
<Massive UNEARNED Projetion>
Whats 18 + 2 + 45 ? Get some assistance...
Andre
Ben
Nope, just a refusal to let you pull your usual nonsense.
> You FAIL to make ANY ase for your
> unsupported, fact free and father HATING loon claim.
Oddly enough, when I clarified for Jill, she agreed. I noticed you
didn't respond to that.
>
> > Play with yourself on your own time. I have a whole
> > history of posts here that says otherwise.
>
> Yeah, yeah... the lurkers support you in e-mail, too, eh pig face ?
This just goes to prove what I've always said about you--you whinny on
about proof, but run when it's given to you.
>
> But, thanks for now further showing your total LACK of " integrity ",
> by trying to weasel away from YOUR father bashing crap.
>
> >> Thanks for, once again, making my point for me. <laughs>
>
> Indeed.<bg>
Talking to yourself again, Par---er, Andre.
>
> Andre
Ben
lol What "stands" is the fact that you are an Olympic caliber whiner.
>
> >> When, it was YOU who were *exactly* what you claimed I was...
> >>
> >> Pot. Kettle. Deeper Black.
> >>
> >> >> > Many to most people will never do that on usent.
> >> >>
> >> >> Perhaps. Thats irrelevent. Hes not " many to most " people.
> >> >>
> >> >> > IMO Ben is a good sport and showed integrity.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, he showed that, when faced with a need to do a mea culpa,
> >> >> that he would pretty much do the LEAST that he could get away
> >> >> with.
> >> >>
> >> >> He FAILED to " take it like a MAN ".
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll also point out that he failed to address the point AT ALL until
> >> >> I posted a supplementary item pointing out HIS up to then *silence*...
> >> >
> >> > A quick check would reveal that I hadn't posted at all since the day of
> >> > the original post. As soon as I saw I had made an error, I retracted
> >> > it and admitted the mistake.
> >>
> >> Welcome to the Bennie Spin Zone.
> >
> > (shrug) The truth is the truth.
>
> You wouldn't know " the truth " if it stripped naked, and started to a
> truthy dance on your face, while singing " Truthy Days Are Here Again ".
Then prove me wrong. Oops, you can't do it.
>
> >> You claimed that I needed basic arithmetic help, when it was YOU who
> >> needed *exactly* that, in your rush to try to show me up.
> >
> > "Rush" to show you up? Why would I rush? I can take my time and do
> > that.
>
> <shrug> I had read it that your innumerate scribblings might be ue to YOUR
> ADMITTED failure to spend enough time to read for comprehension.
>
> Apparently, you say that evn when you take enogh time, you re still...
> WORNG. OK.
My error was only one statement in the post. I notice you completely
dodging the rest of them. Again, I wonder why.
>
> >> Your HATE blinds you to even basic arithmetic that a CHILD would get right.
> >>
> >> If YOU wish to continue to display your reading and arithmetical skills
> >> as being BELOW that of a CHILD, well, who am I to deny you such
> >> opportunities ?
> >
> > And oddly enough, your entire post consists of rants with no substance.
>
> <Projection>
Fact. Do you read your own posts?
>
> > What are you trying to divert attention from?
>
> <Projection>
Hmmm...still no answer.
>
> >> <Laughs>
> >>
> >> >> Thats not " integrity ", either.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not thinking
> >>
> >> Exactly. Try it for even once...
> >
> > After you.
>
> Whats 18 + 2 + 45 ?
Sorry, not doing your work for you.
>
> >> > anyone should rely on your definition of 'integrity'.
> >>
> >> And, once again, the idiot who could NOT read for *comprehension*,
> >> not do basic arithmetic calls his better names.
> >
> > Sorry, but you're not my better.
>
> No proof offered ? Claim fails. Whats 18 + 2 + 45 ?
Still not going to do your work.
>
> > Ego much?
>
> Whats 18 + 2 + 45 ?
Ibid
>
> >> Parg. You. No difference at all.
> >>
> >> Well, there is one; Parg is honest in her hate.
> >
> > And you're dishonest in your posts.
>
> <Projection> No proof EVER offered ? Cowshit ad hom claim still fails.
>
> Whats 18 + 2 + 45 ?
>
> >> That puts you BELOW Parg.
> >
> > And still above you.
>
> Whats 18 + 2 + 45 ?
>
> >>Pig.
> >>
> >> And, as a possessor of AbZero integrity, you have NO standing to speak
> >> on the topic. HTH.
> >
> > As I said, you're no judge of integrity, so your statement means little
> > to nothing.
>
> <Massive UNEARNED Projetion>
Read your own posts.
>
> Whats 18 + 2 + 45 ? Get some assistance...
To deal with you? None needed.
>
> Andre
Ben
Let's talk about integrity a bit more. I notice you completely avoided
one entire post, probably because it contained this exchange:
(Ben)> >> > lol Do you actually believe rote recitation of stock
phrases gets
> >> > *more* effective the more you use them?
(Andre) > >> <laughs> Beats YOUR *whining*, oh WORNG whiner !
(Ben)> > lol My five-year old niece responds like this.
(Andre)> And, if you had claimed that he was wrong, when actually YOU
were,
> he'd be right, and you'd be WORNG again.
(Ben)Do you know the difference between neice and nephew, or do I have
to
>chase you across several threads crowing about what I'm going to assume
>is a legitimate error? lol
Well? Let's see what you're made of.