women's quest for equality in America is a sheer fraud
Marg Petersen
In article <6btvem$9...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
Ges Hu <mxb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>day to pay for it and all he has to do is dust and make my meals. And
>while he is home during the day..he can go play poker with his buddies.
>Hell, this is what I saw the married housewives doing when I was
>growing up in middle class America. Send the kid off to school..and
>have the whole day to lay on the beach or whatever..just be sure to be
>home to make dinner for dadda.
Hmmm, you certainly weren't in my neck of the woods then,dear.
I don't recall *ever* having time to lay on the beach, let
alone a *whatever*. By the way, making dinner for "dadda"
IS work, dahling, just as much as talking to clients or
working on a helpdesk.
>
>Ges Hu
Marg
[P.S. Still haven't got a date eh honey?]
--
Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~goddess
"At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
Ges Hu
The quest by women in America for 'equality' is simply a fraud.
What women are really seeking is .. give me.. give me... give me..
I hear women saying..equal job rights..equal pay rights..blah blah
blah..
But do I also hear them say.. I want equal right to askout. I wanna
have the equal chance to do first askout and risk rejection. I wanna
askout a man who is making less than me and offer him a vacation
in Cancun and free support for life. I wanna marry a man without money
and set him up in a nice house while I go into the city early every
day to pay for it and all he has to do is dust and make my meals. And
while he is home during the day..he can go play poker with his buddies.
Hell, this is what I saw the married housewives doing when I was
growing up in middle class America. Send the kid off to school..and
have the whole day to lay on the beach or whatever..just be sure to be
home to make dinner for dadda.
Woman's quest for equality is a shameful, selfish , one-sided sham. It
is a fraud because it is one way. Women demand equality..but refuse
to take on the burdens that men have always had to deal with in order
to have (deserve) all that so called greatness women want. Women
are getting the cream without the chaff.
One argument they often give for behaving this way is : gee..well we
are very different.
This is crap.
Hell..if , as a man, I was shown a personal interest as are women when
they are growing up..I'd be different too.
Actually..in a way it is true. They are super selfishlessly different.
Women in America have actually been weened to believe that they deserve
to be put on a pedestal and given things. Woe to the man who doesn't
bow to their presence, and pay for their meals, etc etc.
Men in America are forced to beg and chase and pay for the promise of a
lay.
There is total truth to the above statement...why?.. because this
onewayaskout culture promotes sex deprivation in men. Why? Because it
is difficult to do askout and especially so when it is not returned to
you from time to time to balance things out. So, usually a man holds
out until the pain of deprivation exceeds the potential pain of
rejection and the embarassment of showing a need.. so naturally..most
men come to the relationship seeking sex.
Sometimes I wonder how all this man beg for woman crap continues to
exist. Hell..ain't man the stronger sex.. or has man just been sold
out by laws that have put on the books by 'politicians' looking to
grow their careers. Man in America has been robbed of his control
over the social arena by laws that do not allow him to be a real man
anymore. Man in America is now a paper tiger.. a has been.. an
individual who now has many of the same responsibilities he has had
in the past..but not the authority that went with it. This, to me,
translates into man being redefined as beggar.
I truly doubt we'd have this state of affairs between men and women if
we lived in a tribal state..and in smaller groups. Giving the law
making rights to the 3rd party politicians..has over time..led to
this situation..I believe.
Ges Hu
Mercutio
Julie Simpson <ghostv...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in article
<ghostv_nospam-1...@slsyd62p09.ozemail.com.au>...
> In article <6btvem$9...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
> mxb...@ix.netcom.com(Ges Hu) wrote:
>
> > But do I also hear them say.. I want equal right to askout. I wanna
> > have the equal chance to do first askout and risk rejection. I wanna
> > askout a man who is making less than me and offer him a vacation
> > in Cancun and free support for life. I wanna marry a man without money
> > and set him up in a nice house while I go into the city early every
> > day to pay for it and all he has to do is dust and make my meals. And
> > while he is home during the day..he can go play poker with his
buddies.
> > Hell, this is what I saw the married housewives doing when I was
> > growing up in middle class America. Send the kid off to school..and
> > have the whole day to lay on the beach or whatever..just be sure to be
> > home to make dinner for dadda.
>
> masturbatory fantasy in public?
You feminists always have to get ugly when you find you have no logic.
>
> > I truly doubt we'd have this state of affairs between men and women if
> > we lived in a tribal state..and in smaller groups.
>
> Yes, we have civilisation instead.
>
> Julie
Is that what you call it? Pollution, murder, rape, wars, abortion, drugs,
violence - yep, we're doin' great!
Daniel B. Holzman
>
>What women are really seeking is .. give me.. give me... give me..
>
>I hear women saying..equal job rights..equal pay rights..blah blah
>blah..
>
It's just that they're asking me out instead of you, Ges. Yes, still.
David Schmidt
Marg Petersen wrote:
[snip]
> By the way, making dinner for "dadda"
> IS work, dahling, just as much as talking to clients or
> working on a helpdesk.
Yes, but hardly equivalent to an 8 hour day. I do the cooking
for myself and my SO, so I know that the vast majority of cooking
is either 20-30 minutes working start to finish or a few hours of
mostly sitting around waiting for the oven to do it's job for an
entire meal if you cook from scratch (like I do), less if you
use pre-packaged stuff.
Now, if taking care of kids is involved, it's a completely
different story.
David S.
Mark Sobolewski
god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) wrote:
> In article <6btvem$9...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
> Ges Hu <mxb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >while he is home during the day..he can go play poker with his buddies.
> >Hell, this is what I saw the married housewives doing when I was
> >growing up in middle class America. Send the kid off to school..and
> >have the whole day to lay on the beach or whatever..just be sure to be
> >home to make dinner for dadda.
>
> I don't recall *ever* having time to lay on the beach, let
> alone a *whatever*.
There are upper middle class women that enjoyed such an existance.
Yet... they are the ones collecting the highest alimony. Go figure.
> By the way, making dinner for "dadda"
> IS work, dahling, just as much as talking to clients or
> working on a helpdesk.
Agreed. Just not all work is paid the same hence working as a clerk
at 7-11 is different than manning a computer help desk.
If you REALLY feel that way, you are free to donate any excess pay
your receive to those who earn less than you do. :-)
> >
> >Ges Hu
>
> Marg
>
> [P.S. Still haven't got a date eh honey?]
I know many career women that don't have dates (partly because I
stopped taking their calls.) At least one of these gals was
considering having a child thru a sperm bank.
Say what you like about Ges Hu, but his conduct isn't raising my
taxes to pay for govt. daycare because his children are suffering from
neglect.
I would rather have Ges Hu do NOTHING than do the WRONG thing.
(Except, of course, Marg thinks whatever women do is the right
thing: Have children or not have children. Provided it's a woman
doing it.)
Mark
Marg Petersen
In article <marks-12029...@ip-55-005.sna.primenet.com>,
Mark Sobolewski <ma...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) wrote:
>> In article <6btvem$9...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
>> Ges Hu <mxb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >day to pay for it and all he has to do is dust and make my meals. And
>> >while he is home during the day..he can go play poker with his buddies.
>> >Hell, this is what I saw the married housewives doing when I was
>> >growing up in middle class America. Send the kid off to school..and
>> >have the whole day to lay on the beach or whatever..just be sure to be
>> >home to make dinner for dadda.
>>
>> Hmmm, you certainly weren't in my neck of the woods then,dear.
>> I don't recall *ever* having time to lay on the beach, let
>> alone a *whatever*.
>
>There are upper middle class women that enjoyed such an existance.
>Yet... they are the ones collecting the highest alimony. Go figure.
Well, they *earned* it eh? By *catching* themselves a real catch.
:-)
>> By the way, making dinner for "dadda"
>> IS work, dahling, just as much as talking to clients or
>> working on a helpdesk.
>
>Agreed. Just not all work is paid the same hence working as a clerk
>at 7-11 is different than manning a computer help desk.
I didn't say anything about how much was paid; only that
making dinner is work. Are you disputing that? By the way,
I FAR prefer womaning a computer helpdesk myself as opposed
to making dinner.
>If you REALLY feel that way, you are free to donate any excess pay
>your receive to those who earn less than you do. :-)
Who was talking about salary? You're the one who brought up
the amount being more or less. I was merely making the point
that making dinner IS work. The previous poster seemed to
believe it was part of the entire day of lazing one's life
away. By the way, I DO donate a goodly portion of my pay to
help those less fortunate than myself; CARDV as well as MADD
and the Oregon Trooper Lodge among them.
>> >Ges Hu
>>
>> Marg
>>
>> [P.S. Still haven't got a date eh honey?]
>
>I know many career women that don't have dates (partly because I
>stopped taking their calls.) At least one of these gals was
>considering having a child thru a sperm bank.
Fine with me. That is her choice eh? Jealous are you? :-)
>Say what you like about Ges Hu, but his conduct isn't raising my
>taxes to pay for govt. daycare because his children are suffering from
>neglect.
No, he's just boring us all to death.
>I would rather have Ges Hu do NOTHING than do the WRONG thing.
>(Except, of course, Marg thinks whatever women do is the right
>thing: Have children or not have children. Provided it's a woman
>doing it.)
Absolutely. Women are the ONLY ones who *have* children.
Others contribute, sometimes. Sometimes they are just not
involved at all. Please continue in you're "doing nothing"
the both of you. It will be better for the gene pool.
>Mark
Marg
Steen Goddik
On 12 Feb 1998, Mercutio wrote:
> > > I truly doubt we'd have this state of affairs between men and women if
> > > we lived in a tribal state..and in smaller groups.
> > Yes, we have civilisation instead.
> > Julie
> Is that what you call it? Pollution, murder, rape, wars, abortion, drugs,
> violence - yep, we're doin' great!
And what does this have to do with men and women not living in a
tribal state? Your claims seem to deal with the sixe of society in
general, NOT with anything being a direct consequense of men and
women's interaction in tribal societies vs. in civilized times.
Sincerely,
Steen Goddik sgo...@sunflowr.edu.com
"Naar moderen fryser, faar barnet en ekstra sweater paa"
"When the parent is freezing, the child gets an extra sweater on"
Mercutio
> In article <01bd37b8$0e0e72e0$5f1facc7@pc3080>, "Mercutio"
> <a2br...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > You feminists always have to get ugly when you find you have no logic.
>
he
> described? Give me a break. It was an ugly, whining misogynist post in
> the first place. And it was a fantasy. He phrased it in the terms "when
> I was growing up" - how many kids do you know who have an accurate view
of
> what their mother's life is really like? He just _hasn't_ grown up, he
> wants momma to keep on taking care of him like he thinks she was taken
> care of.
Well, I never mentioned YOUR masterbating. Millions of women have good
lives and are not feminists. They LIKE being women. I take it you don't
believe in "recovered memories" either?
> There is no logic in the original post to respond to.
Ok, maybe not, but it that a reason to be ugly?
>
> > Is that what you call it? Pollution, murder, rape, wars, abortion,
drugs,
> > violence - yep, we're doin' great!
>
> Who said it was perfect? But I for one am grateful I live now instead of
> some stinking medieval village community. You can take a
glass-half-empty
> view of the world if you like. I prefer to think that, for all
humanity's
> faults, we have made some progress. Just my $0.02
Yeah, I like my electricity, water, gas, etc. But we're hardly civilized.
>
> Oh, incidentally, in tribal life you do get murder, rape, wars, abortion
> and drugs, it's just you don't get to hear about them as often (no mass
> communication between tribes). Pollution's about all you'd escape, but
> you'd have to allow for pestilence and disease instead. Sounds like you
> have some weird Rousseau-ian notion about "noble savages". Ick.
>
> Julie
Acutally not. American Indians warred with each for centuries before the
white man came and showed them more efficient killing methods.
Mitchell Holman
}
}I FAR prefer womaning a computer helpdesk myself as opposed
}to making dinner.
}
" Womaning" a computer?
Sounds like a profitable business - taking the
rough edges off of balky computers and getting
them in touch with their feminine side. And for a
fee, too, no doubt.
human
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:42:16 +1100, Julie Simpson wrote:
:>In article <6btvem$9...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
:>mxb...@ix.netcom.com(Ges Hu) wrote:
:>
:>> But do I also hear them say.. I want equal right to askout. I wanna
:>> have the equal chance to do first askout and risk rejection. I wanna
:>> askout a man who is making less than me and offer him a vacation
:>> in Cancun and free support for life. I wanna marry a man without money
:>> and set him up in a nice house while I go into the city early every
:>> day to pay for it and all he has to do is dust and make my meals. And
:>> while he is home during the day..he can go play poker with his buddies.
:>> Hell, this is what I saw the married housewives doing when I was
:>> growing up in middle class America. Send the kid off to school..and
:>> have the whole day to lay on the beach or whatever..just be sure to be
:>> home to make dinner for dadda.
:>
:>You don't feel even slightly embarrassed about airing this little
:>masturbatory fantasy in public?
You were masturbating while you read his post?
--
Alternate views of feminism:
"Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women" by Christina Hoff Sommers
"Moral Panic - Biopolitics Rising" by John Fekete
"The New Victorians" by Rene Denfeld
"The Myth of Male Power" by Warren Farrell
"Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales From The Strange World of Women's Studies" by D. Patai & N. Koertge
and related web sites:
http://www.hugin.imat.com/~sheaffer
http://www.vix.com/pub/men/index.html
http://www.kfs.org/~kashka/ammd.html
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm
Chris Owens
Mercutio wrote:
>
> Millions of women have good
> lives and are not feminists. They LIKE being women.
Millions of women also have good lives, are feminists, and like being
women.
> I take it you don't
> believe in "recovered memories" either?
Well, no.
> Yeah, I like my electricity, water, gas, etc. But we're hardly civilized.
Sure we are . . . our society is organized around cities.
Chris Owens
Society
Ges Hu, I hear you.
The responses to your initial post are so disappointing. The constructive
path would be to consider what's gone wrong with our culture and look for
ways to change them for the better. Nowhere did the Old Feminism call for
an atomistic world of lonely, isolated men and women.
Yes, I agree that today, as women gain access to independent incomes, they
should accept the responsibilities, challenges, and opportunities now
opening to them. Instead of demanding a company chaperone and crying
"sexual harassment" whenever a man botches a pass, women should - as
Camille Paglia advocates - dare to initiate asking men out and risking
rejection. That would be a good first step for women who want to move
beyond their traditional status of quasi-children and step into full
adulthood. Such a transformation won't be instant, and will be resisted by
many men (meaning that men also have to change their attitudes) but the
time has come for the transformation to begin.
Acceptance of men as homemakers requires breaking more barriers. Women
still tend to "marry up" so a high-income earning woman is overwhelmingly
likely to have a relationship with even-higher income men. Thus, the
income/lifestyle tradeoffs will continue to be less favorable for couples
who choose to have the man leave paid employment to take up homemaking.
Women would have to change their preferences and begin favoring attributes
in men other than wealth and earning power before the attraction of
"marrying up" fades. As women increasingly enter high-paying occupations,
become able to support themselves and their family on their own income, the
attraction of marrying up should fade.
Women today have access to almost all the opportunities open to men, with
the notable exception of Draft Registration. Arguably women have more legal
protections. But as women's advocates recognized earlier this century, laws
that protect women do so at the price of limiting the advancement of women.
A woman who truly wants equality for herself must muster the courage to
speak out against all forms of special legal protections that purport to
favor her gender. Other women, traditionalist and New Feminist, and
traditionalist men will react to these courageous women with outrage. Men
who show support for these courageous women will be derided by other men as
"selfish," "insensitive," or "taking advantage." But that's the price of
progress; one of the virtues of people of good will is that they are
willing to personally pay that price.
Mark Sobolewski
Chris Owens <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:
> Mercutio wrote:
> >
> > Millions of women have good
> > lives and are not feminists. They LIKE being women.
>
> Millions of women also have good lives, are feminists, and like being
> women.
You didn't invalidate his point (which I presume) is:
Women don't NEED feminism to live a good life. The Patriarchy
had it's benefits as well as it's drawbacks and for many women
the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
I don't think men deserve blame for EITHER woman's unhappiness
with their lot in life. Today, women have a choice.
Mark
Marg Petersen
In article <marks-15029...@ip-55-099.sna.primenet.com>,
Mark Sobolewski <ma...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
>Chris Owens <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:
>> Mercutio wrote:
>> >
>> > Millions of women have good
>> > lives and are not feminists. They LIKE being women.
>>
>> Millions of women also have good lives, are feminists, and like being
>> women.
>
>You didn't invalidate his point (which I presume) is:
>
>Women don't NEED feminism to live a good life. The Patriarchy
>had it's benefits as well as it's drawbacks and for many women
>the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Well, I would ammend that to say, the Patriarchy had it's
benefits as well as it's drawbacks for *some* women, not
many. And to me, those drawbacks far outweighed any benefits
that might have been forthcoming. Being treated as a brainless,
charwoman, laundress and breeder with the *hope* of being fed
and housed, does NOT seem like much of a benefit.
>I don't think men deserve blame for EITHER woman's unhappiness
>with their lot in life. Today, women have a choice.
Only those men who stand in the way of women's equality
are/can be blamed for anything. If you're not part of that
*problem*, then you have no blame to shoulder.
Rich
Marg Petersen wrote:
<>
> Only those men who stand in the way of women's equality
> are/can be blamed for anything.
Are you saying that -feminism- can be blamed for being against equality?
> If you're not part of that
> *problem*, then you have no blame to shoulder.
Well, you are part of that problem.
Rich
Mark Sobolewski
god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) wrote:
> In article <marks-15029...@ip-55-099.sna.primenet.com>,
> Mark Sobolewski <ma...@primarycolor.com> wrote:
> >Chris Owens <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:
> >> Mercutio wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Millions of women have good
> >> > lives and are not feminists. They LIKE being women.
> >>
> >> Millions of women also have good lives, are feminists, and like being
> >> women.
> >
> >You didn't invalidate his point (which I presume) is:
> >
> >Women don't NEED feminism to live a good life. The Patriarchy
> >had it's benefits as well as it's drawbacks and for many women
> >the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
>
> Well, I would ammend that to say, the Patriarchy had it's
> benefits as well as it's drawbacks for *some* women, not
> many. And to me, those drawbacks far outweighed any benefits
> that might have been forthcoming. Being treated as a brainless,
> charwoman, laundress and breeder with the *hope* of being fed
> and housed, does NOT seem like much of a benefit.
If you're being fed and housed in a nice middle class neighborhood
and sending your kids to nice schools, that's a lot better
than many poor women _and_ men have hope to achieve.
I love hearing how the big evil patriarchy kept women from
becoming brain surgeons and winning the nobel prize. Maybe
_some_ women could acheive these things, but many could
not. And many more don't WANT to take the risks and
responsibilities of being the breadwinner.
> >I don't think men deserve blame for EITHER woman's unhappiness
> >with their lot in life. Today, women have a choice.
>
> Only those men who stand in the way of women's equality
> are/can be blamed for anything. If you're not part of that
> *problem*, then you have no blame to shoulder.
Has it ever occurred to you that _women_ are standing in the way
of men's equality? That those women who demand that men pay
their way and support them are oppressing men who might like
to take some time off with the kids? That this goes _both_
ways to both genders?
Of course, I know your "solution" to inequality: Special privileges
for those who who gestate and nothing but bills for those who
don't. Thanks, but no thanks.
If women want equality, they have to make it themselves. I certainly
know that's MY situation.
Mark
Mark Sobolewski
In article <34E7576B...@earthlink.net>, Anonymous, Reply wrote:
> Marg Petersen wrote:
>
> <>
>
> > Only those men who stand in the way of women's equality
> > are/can be blamed for anything.
>
>
> > *problem*, then you have no blame to shoulder.
>
That's right Rich!
If Marg supported kicking middle class divorced women off of alimony
and back into the workplace, women's income would rise to that
of men's pretty quickly.
Has anyone noticed that the only ones justifying all these Patriarchal
perks and treatment are Marg and Carol Ann (depending upon the situation,
of course.) I'll consider Patriarchy oppression when women don't
need to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the kitchen... :-)
Mark
Mark Sobolewski
In article <34E798...@snet.net>, amasam...@snet.net wrote:
> Society wrote:
> > Yes, I agree that today, as women gain access to independent incomes, they
> > should accept the responsibilities, challenges, and opportunities now
> > opening to them. Instead of demanding a company chaperone and crying
> > "sexual harassment" whenever a man botches a pass, women should - as
> > Camille Paglia advocates - dare to initiate asking men out and risking
> > rejection. That would be a good first step for women who want to move
> > beyond their traditional status of quasi-children and step into full
> > adulthood. Such a transformation won't be instant, and will be resisted by
> > many men (meaning that men also have to change their attitudes) but the
> > time has come for the transformation to begin.
>
> any woman who hasn't, and frequently. And yes, we get rejected,
> sometimes quite rudely.
I have a friend whose a 6' tall blonde bodybuilder. During college,
he would have women stare at him and proposition him from apartment
building balconies. One time he had a cold and a woman came by and brought
him chicken soup. When we teased him about it, he turned a cool
shade of red.
Women, like men, will chase after attractive partners more often than
less attractive ones. I suppose it's progress that women nowadays
ask out extremely attractive men.
Anyway, Steve was the most sincere person I know and it turned him
off when women chased after him for his looks just as I'm sure
attractive women don't like such an attitude from men.
He rejected many women just for kicks (especially after seeing how
they treated us lesser men) and when he did so, he would say
something like "I don't date fat chicks" even if the woman was
perfectly healthy.
Was that rude? Sure. Steve was disgusted with such women because
he didn't build his muscles to impress them, but for his own
health. (Although I think he did get an ego trip out of it.)
> And yes we pay when accepted. Ask the mother of
> any teenage/college age boy how aggressive young women are.
Quite frankly, I don't know. I'm at the period in my life where
most of my associates and friends have children from infancy to
10 years old so I can't say for sure.
> Not
> surprisingly, this assertiveness has lead to such nonsense as "The
> Rules" encouraging women to go back to sitting by the phone.
You mean that when these gals get rejected, they blame men as a group
rather than accepting that the boy just didn't want to date them.
It MUST be some sexist thing because NOBODY could possibly not want
to date her, right? :-)
That's kind of like a guy who is rejected by a girl at a disco
and yells: "Lesbian!" Clearly, the gold chained stud thinks that
ANY woman who rejects him must not like men at all! :-)
> > Acceptance of men as homemakers requires breaking more barriers. Women
> > still tend to "marry up" so a high-income earning woman is overwhelmingly
> > likely to have a relationship with even-higher income men. Thus, the
> > income/lifestyle tradeoffs will continue to be less favorable for couples
> > who choose to have the man leave paid employment to take up homemaking.
> > Women would have to change their preferences and begin favoring attributes
> > in men other than wealth and earning power before the attraction of
> > "marrying up" fades. As women increasingly enter high-paying occupations,
> > become able to support themselves and their family on their own income, the
> > attraction of marrying up should fade.
>
> The majority of women DO NOT value wealth and power in men. Women are
> not whores. This is a complete myth created by men.
Gee. Then all those free meals that women eat on the man's tab
are all a complete work of fiction. :-) Oh, and the fact that women
tend to date older men (Who tend to earn more because they have
more experience) etc. Yep. All that is fiction too. :-)
Maybe things are changing, but that's certainly how things were and
are for many people.
>Most women value
> personality above all else, followed by sense of humor and intelligence
> and having things in common.
Then why do they continue to date such jerks? :-)
Really. Think about it: If women didn't like sexist maucho jerks,
why do they keep dating them? If men aren't helping to wash the dishes,
there must be a reason why.
> Look around you. I know of as many
> couples where the wife makes more than the husband as the other way
> around.
Agreed. Sometimes looks is the primary factor (my friend just married
a man whose very tall and well built (if you know what I mean) but
is a slob and loser otherwise. We don't know WHAT she sees in him
(he has no personality) but I guess that's the point: He's her choice.
(Oh, he's also a boozer and can't hold a job or clean up around the
house.) But he _IS_ tall and good looking (although he's gained
a lot of weight recently.) Kind of reminds me of the classical
cheerleader getting married and then going to pot scenario.
>In most cases, the salaries are basically equal.
But when the salaries are _VERY_ skewed, it's usually in favor of
the woman earning less. If this wasn't true, then there wouldn't
be a wage gap and more women than male SAH parents. However
you explain it, the gap is there.
>My husband
> makes less than me, I couldn't care less. I worked at a law firm for 10
> years and all the woman lawyers were married to teachers, police
> officers, men who made a fraction of what they did.
Teachers are usually well educated and I will admit, have great personalities.
For many women, status is measured by how well degreed a man is
even if the degree isn't useful. (I have a friend with a masters degree
in history and even though he makes little money, he impresses women
who are impressed by that kind of thing.)
Police officers have a unique "maucho" factor that turns many women on.
These men often fulfill career women's fantasies but they have the highest
divorce rates in the country.
Anyway, teachers and cops have "maucho" and status features that meet
traditional expectations even if it doesn't seem that way at first.
> And they raved
> about their husbands, because the men were supportive of their careers
> and did their fair share of housework and childrearing.
Has it ever occurred to you that you may be seeing a single slice of
what society is like?
Being married for such a long time and having friends with similar interests
and values, you may think that all of society is that way. I think
we build friendships with people who think more or less the way we
do and that's the way we see the world. It's not that the world
out there doesn't exist, we just aren't interested in it.
That's why I'm open to the possibility that life has surprises for me,
but there is no denying social trends we read about. Clearly women
tend to still marry well-to-do men (or not marry at all). SOMETHING
must be causing it.
> Most women place
> so little value on how much money a man earns. It's not even a
> consideration.
Agreed. Now that these women, like men, have some spending money
they want a bimbo. :-)
I think it's the ultimate in equality, if you think about it. When
you see a failed marriage between two seemingly non-sexist people,
look a little closely. Does it seem as if the people had demands
that weren't obvious at first? Is the man so supportive of his
career wife (in the beginning) because he's liberated, or is he
so supportive because she's a great looking blonde?
I'm not saying either way, I'm just pointing out that there is often
more to things than we see. That applies to myself. I'm always trying
to increase my perspective. Truth is an ever elusive thing like
an onion. I just keep finding layers...
> Most women don't want a man who makes a lot of money,
I disagree. I think both men and women LIKE a lot of money, but
they may not feel secure enough to handle the situation. Career women
may feel that a rich man may be too controlling, career men
may feel that their children will play second fiddle to her career.
> they want a man who does laundry and spends time with his family. I
> don't understand how men can't see that.
Probably because your liberated friends are married and happy and
we're seeing the leftovers. The women who are jerks who couldn't
find a man to marry (or are now divorced from a jerk) and that's
what we have to choose from.
I'm sure nice girls are out there, but they are probably hidden and/or
married. After all, there must be nice guys out there who knew
a good thing when they saw it. Same thing for the lack of qualified
men for women: If all women are looking for the same thing (whatever
that is) there will be a shortage of it. It's like a bank run.
> Don't judge women by the
> golddiggers hanging on Donald Trump's arm. A man who treats woman with
> kindness and respect will never lack for girlfriends, no matter how
> little he makes.
I wish I knew what women meant by "kindness and respect". Some women
mean "Men who will do what I tell him to, pay my way and hold open
my doors, and shut up the rest of the time" and others mean what
you and I think it means.
To this day, when I hear the phrase "women like gentlemen" 99% of
the time I think it means opening doors for them like a personal
slave servant. Oftentimes, I'm right. I keep hoping I'll meet
someone who will prove me wrong.
Mark
h...@brig.net
Society wrote:
>
>::::"::"":"":::::::::::::::::::::::::::""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'
:::::::::::::::::::::;;;;;;;;;;;
Blair Zajac
snip
>
>The majority of women DO NOT value wealth and power in men. Women are
>not whores. This is a complete myth created by men. Most women value
>personality above all else, followed by sense of humor and intelligence
>and having things in common. Look around you. I know of as many
>couples where the wife makes more than the husband as the other way
>around. In most cases, the salaries are basically equal. My husband
>makes less than me, I couldn't care less. I worked at a law firm for 10
>years and all the woman lawyers were married to teachers, police
>officers, men who made a fraction of what they did. And they raved
>about their husbands, because the men were supportive of their careers
>and did their fair share of housework and childrearing. Most women place
>so little value on how much money a man earns. It's not even a
>consideration. Most women don't want a man who makes a lot of money,
>they want a man who does laundry and spends time with his family. I
>don't understand how men can't see that. Don't judge women by the
>golddiggers hanging on Donald Trump's arm. A man who treats woman with
>kindness and respect will never lack for girlfriends, no matter how
>little he makes.
>
>D.J.
Looks as though we have one definition of a male feminist.
--
Zajac says, 'Logic and feminism are antonyms.'
Ama
..and one can say Zajac is an asshole..
Ama
Mercutio
> In article <01bd3885$263e12d0$5f1facc7@pc3080>, "Mercutio"
> <a2br...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > Well, I never mentioned YOUR masterbating. Millions of women have
good
> > lives and are not feminists. They LIKE being women.
>
I REALLY don't care, believe me.
> I, by the way, was not the one criticising
> stay-at-home women, who presumably are the non-feminists you are
> supporting here. It was the original post that took issue with them.
Good. But stay-at-home women are very rarely feminists. In fact only a
tiny percentage of ALL women in the US claim to be feminists. Feminists
are a far-out weird minority.
> Your statement also seems to imply that feminists don't like being women,
Oh, then why do they try so hard to be men?
> which to my way of thinking suggests you've never actually met a
feminist.
>
> Either that or you have this weird, warped notion that only separatist
> lesbians can be feminists. It seems a prevalent attitude with a lot of
> the men posting to this ng. Most of the feminists I know are happily
> married, with kids, living in the suburbs. They have good lives, too.
Good lives I'm sure, due to hard-working men who take care of them while
they're free to whine and complain about being oppressed.
>
> Which is not to deny lesbians a voice. But then sexual preference has
> nothing to do with feminism.
>
> > I take it you don't
> > believe in "recovered memories" either?
>
> Hmmm? Am I just dense, or is the "recovered memory" line really a
> non-sequitur? I don't understand.
"Recovered memories" are another feminist fantasy.
Frederick
In article <01bd3a27$ea3acea0$dd1d8ed1@b6700>,
"Society" <mi...@jps.net> wrote:
[deletia]
>
> Women today have access to almost all the opportunities open to men, with
> the notable exception of Draft Registration. Arguably women have more legal
> protections. But as women's advocates recognized earlier this century, laws
> that protect women do so at the price of limiting the advancement of women.
> A woman who truly wants equality for herself must muster the courage to
> speak out against all forms of special legal protections that purport to
> favor her gender. Other women, traditionalist and New Feminist, and
> traditionalist men will react to these courageous women with outrage. Men
> who show support for these courageous women will be derided by other men as
> "selfish," "insensitive," or "taking advantage." But that's the price of
> progress; one of the virtues of people of good will is that they are
> willing to personally pay that price.
You seem to be optimistic about these barriers to progress. I must confess
that I am not. I don't expect that we will see progress toward true equality
between men and women, only more what we've seen over the last 20 years, a lot
of manuvering for power and advantage on the part of various special interest
groups -- men who insist on being chivalrous and women who insist that they
need special protections. We seem to have reached a state that is,
ironically, beginning to resemble traditional gender relationships more and
more. What, for example, is the VAWA except a renewal of the Victorian
attitude about the child-like vulnerability of women enacted by chivalrous men
who only want to help protect them? What have the family laws ever been (as
they are actually applied) except an affirmation of the traditional notions of
women as mothers and the =natural= primary caregivers of children? What are
the restrictions to women in combat but an affirmation of the traditional role
of men as warriors?
These things are never going to change because men and women don't want them
to change.
=Fred
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
human
On Sun, 15 Feb 1998 20:36:38 -0500, D.J. wrote:
:>Society wrote:
:>
:>> Yes, I agree that today, as women gain access to independent incomes, they
:>> should accept the responsibilities, challenges, and opportunities now
:>> opening to them. Instead of demanding a company chaperone and crying
:>> "sexual harassment" whenever a man botches a pass, women should - as
:>> Camille Paglia advocates - dare to initiate asking men out and risking
:>> rejection. That would be a good first step for women who want to move
:>> beyond their traditional status of quasi-children and step into full
:>> adulthood. Such a transformation won't be instant, and will be resisted by
:>> many men (meaning that men also have to change their attitudes) but the
:>> time has come for the transformation to begin.
:>
:>I can't believe you think young women don't ask men out. I don't know
:>any woman who hasn't, and frequently. And yes, we get rejected,
:>sometimes quite rudely. And yes we pay when accepted. Ask the mother of
:>any teenage/college age boy how aggressive young women are. Not
:>surprisingly, this assertiveness has lead to such nonsense as "The
:>Rules" encouraging women to go back to sitting by the phone.
Reported in my paper yesterday (Sunday): a survey done at George Brown
College in Toronto by Suzanne Kavanagh found among other things:
only 43 percent of women prefer to split the bill; when a woman is paying
for a date she expects to spend less than $60, if a man is paying the figure
leaps to $100. Avergage cost of ten dates is $1050 (which appears to
mean, given the previous figures, that men are paying for most of the
first ten dates). So no, "you" don't pay when you accept a date. If you are
going to respond with a complaint of some kind amounting to a
challenge of the validity of this survey please challenge D.J.'s unsupported
claim at the same time.
Frederick
>
> The majority of women DO NOT value wealth and power in men. Women are
> not whores. This is a complete myth created by men. Most women value
> personality above all else, followed by sense of humor and intelligence
> and having things in common. Look around you. I know of as many
> couples where the wife makes more than the husband as the other way
> around. In most cases, the salaries are basically equal.
I did a survey of the women at my job a few years back. This was
possible because their salaries and those of most of the husbands are a matter
of public record by law here. These were mostly professional women (a total
of about 80 women) with incomes in the high 5 to low 6 figure range. Most of
them (80%) were married to men that made about as much as they did. Most of
the balance were women married to men who made more money. Less than 3% were
married to men who made significantly less, and all of these men did have
jobs. This contrasts to the men with the same sorts of jobs and incomes, who
mostly married women who made less than they at the time of marriage. The
rest of the men married women who made about the same as they, and none of the
men had married a woman who made more than they.
There are a number of academic studies that support this survey of mine, as it
turns out. These tend to show that most people marry within the same
socioeconomic stratum. Of the people that marry out of their SES, men tend to
marry down and women marry up. I don't know what accounts for that; whether
it is male pride getting in the way of marrying a rich woman or women not
deigning to marry down, but I suspect that it is the latter to some extent at
least.
The tradition of women marrying a person who has the resources to support them
is still strong, and while women may choose to stop working outside of the
home for part of the marriage, men generally feel that they don't have that
choice.
Women have for centuries sized up potential mates using a number of measures,
and one of these measures is definitely the ability to act as provider.
Obviously, a number of other factors also come into play. The image of women
not taking any account of a man's provider status, a rather naive, romantic
image at best, is not supported by the facts.
Diane Mathews
I'm w/ you on most of what you say. And i won't deny the
cultural pressures and teaching that cause some women to
behave as you describe in your last paragraph. However,
for as much as women are taught to "get a man" who will
take care of her, men have been taught to do the taking
care of -- and some men consider it threatening to marry
a woman who is "too powerful."
More simply: One can usually find equivalent behaviors
on both sides of the fence...until we just get rid of
the fence.
--
FSDM #0.1/2 Komrade Snapperhead, 2nd Mate
My opinions; not my employer's opinions.
human
I've met women who were not the *least* bit embarrased to state that
they were looking for men who made a lot more than they did. One of them
was even able to state a minimum salary figure for potential mates. I've
never heard a man say anything like that.
Kyle
Diane Mathews wrote:
>
>
> I'm w/ you on most of what you say. And i won't deny the
> cultural pressures and teaching that cause some women to
> behave as you describe in your last paragraph. However,
> for as much as women are taught to "get a man" who will
> take care of her, men have been taught to do the taking
> care of -- and some men consider it threatening to marry
> a woman who is "too powerful."
>
> More simply: One can usually find equivalent behaviors
> on both sides of the fence...until we just get rid of
> the fence.
> --
Nice try. The .001% of men who won't marry up do not equal
the 100% of women who will. The fence was not constucted by
men. Would you marry a guy on welfare?
Kyle
Rich
D.J. wrote:
<Society cut>
> I can't believe you think young women don't ask men out. I don't know
> any woman who hasn't, and frequently. And yes, we get rejected,
> sometimes quite rudely. And yes we pay when accepted.
Funny thing, I went out briefly with a 25-year old last year. She bought'
exactly one thing and expected me to pay for the rest. And the rest I
do not -even- want to talk about.
> Ask the mother of
> any teenage/college age boy how aggressive young women are. Not
> surprisingly, this assertiveness has lead to such nonsense as "The
> Rules" encouraging women to go back to sitting by the phone.
"The Rules" was written by women D.J.
<Society cut again, goes for first aid>
> The majority of women DO NOT value wealth and power in men.
As if you speak for anyone but yourself.
> Women are
> not whores.
And look at the way -you- stereotype men.
> This is a complete myth created by men.
Was it? Post your evidence then.
> Most women value
> personality above all else,
You misspelled "security and comfort", hope this helps. And it is odd
how many men report that women suddenly lose interest when they find out
how much he makes.
> followed by sense of humor and intelligence
> and having things in common. Look around you.
I've been there and done that, and think that your stereotypes are far
more idealistic than most women are. And I have years of second-hand
experiences that are just like mine showing that my experiences are not
unique.
> I know of as many
> couples where the wife makes more than the husband as the other way
> around. In most cases, the salaries are basically equal.
Lets see how long that lasts. Typically the first child is the breaking
point.
> My husband
> makes less than me, I couldn't care less. I worked at a law firm for 10
> years and all the woman lawyers were married to teachers, police
> officers, men who made a fraction of what they did.
This sounds like a total fabrication or another stereotype. Perhaps you
can substantiate it in some way?
> And they raved
> about their husbands, because the men were supportive of their careers
> and did their fair share of housework and childrearing.
That is, whatever the wife deems "fair". They had similar arrangements in
the Antebellum South.
> Most women place
> so little value on how much money a man earns.
Tell me how you think you know this.
> It's not even a
> consideration.
There are a lot of men who have direct experiences that contradict this
claim.
> Most women don't want a man who makes a lot of money,
> they want a man who does laundry and spends time with his family.
Yeah, right. What planet do you come from? Most women, post divorce
see no place in their children's lives for the father. And legally
they can make sure that they never see them again. In all divorces
that I have been near where there were children, the ex-wive interfered
with or prevented visitation.
> I don't understand how men can't see that.
Do you call all the men who have posted here liars? Do you call me a
liar? Cause everything I have ever seen and experienced had been the
exact opposite of what you claim.
> Don't judge women by the
> golddiggers hanging on Donald Trump's arm. A man who treats woman with
> kindness and respect will never lack for girlfriends, no matter how
> little he makes.
Right, for every relationship that falls apart, it's the man's fault.
You are one well programmed stereotype mine DJ. And when your marriage
falls apart, for some weird reason like your husband having needs and
expectations that you never wanted to hear about, I am sure that you
will have even more stereotypes proving that he was all wrong.
> D.J.
Rich
Nick Danger
On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 18:08:21 -0600, Frederick wrote:
[to amasam...@snet.net, who said with a straight face
that the majority of women do not value wealth and power in men]
:>Women have for centuries sized up potential mates using a number of measures,
:>and one of these measures is definitely the ability to act as provider.
:>Obviously, a number of other factors also come into play. The image of women
:>not taking any account of a man's provider status, a rather naive, romantic
:>image at best, is not supported by the facts.
I salute you on having done that as coldly as you did.
-----------------------
From the Land Up Over.
-----------------------
Blair Zajac
>
>..and one can say Zajac is an asshole..
>
>Ama
Another one of those enlightened posters that JJ thinks is great.
JJ, she is just made for you -- go after her -- you deserve each other.
Chris Owens
Mercutio wrote:
>
> > Your statement also seems to imply that feminists don't like being women,
>
> Oh, then why do they try so hard to be men?
Some do, some don't. *I* certainly don't.
>
> > which to my way of thinking suggests you've never actually met a
> feminist.
> >
> > Either that or you have this weird, warped notion that only separatist
> > lesbians can be feminists. It seems a prevalent attitude with a lot of
> > the men posting to this ng. Most of the feminists I know are happily
> > married, with kids, living in the suburbs. They have good lives, too.
>
> Good lives I'm sure, due to hard-working men who take care of them while
> they're free to whine and complain about being oppressed.
You are assuming that a] these women are dependent on their husbands; b]
they feel oppressed.
Chris Owens
human
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:22:51 +1100, Julie Simpson wrote:
:>In article <qvwyspyekm...@discovery.intergate.bc.ca>, "human"
:><per...@aplanet.com> wrote:
:>
:>> Reported in my paper yesterday (Sunday): a survey done at George Brown
:>> College in Toronto by Suzanne Kavanagh found among other things:
:>> only 43 percent of women prefer to split the bill; when a woman is paying
:>> for a date she expects to spend less than $60, if a man is paying the figure
:>> leaps to $100. Avergage cost of ten dates is $1050 (which appears to
:>> mean, given the previous figures, that men are paying for most of the
:>> first ten dates). So no, "you" don't pay when you accept a date. If you are
:>> going to respond with a complaint of some kind amounting to a
:>> challenge of the validity of this survey please challenge D.J.'s unsupported
:>> claim at the same time.
:>
:>You have to ask why it is that this happens. Here, it's almost
:>inconceivable that a man would pay for everything - unless the woman is
:>unemployed. The rule is to go dutch. In cases I know of where the man is
:>poorer (eg, writers) the women pay. Really, it's not an issue.
:>
:>My experience of North America (maybe 30 trips there over 10 years) was
:>that I always paid my share of everything, and no-one said anything to
:>indicate that my behaviour was odd. But evidently posters here are hung
:>up about it. Did I just mix in odd socioeconomic circles, or what?
:>
:>Julie
:>
Your experience runs counter to the survey results mentioned. I also remember
a long discussion a year or two ago on the net where women were coming up with
all sorts of rationalizations why men should pay for the first date(s) - but the
women still wanted to be treated as equals of course.
Rick Hodges
Mercutio wrote:
>
> Julie Simpson <ghostv...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in article
> <ghostv_nospam-1...@slsyd74p22.ozemail.com.au>...
> > In article <01bd3885$263e12d0$5f1facc7@pc3080>, "Mercutio"
> > <a2br...@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, I never mentioned YOUR masterbating. Millions of women have
> good
> > > lives and are not feminists. They LIKE being women.
> >
> > And you think I don't?
>
> I REALLY don't care, believe me.
>
> > I, by the way, was not the one criticising
> > stay-at-home women, who presumably are the non-feminists you are
> > supporting here. It was the original post that took issue with them.
>
> Good. But stay-at-home women are very rarely feminists. In fact only a
> tiny percentage of ALL women in the US claim to be feminists. Feminists
> are a far-out weird minority.
Talk about a straw man!
>
> > Your statement also seems to imply that feminists don't like being women,
>
> Oh, then why do they try so hard to be men?
>
> > which to my way of thinking suggests you've never actually met a
> feminist.
> >
> > Either that or you have this weird, warped notion that only separatist
> > lesbians can be feminists. It seems a prevalent attitude with a lot of
> > the men posting to this ng. Most of the feminists I know are happily
> > married, with kids, living in the suburbs. They have good lives, too.
>
> Good lives I'm sure, due to hard-working men who take care of them while
> they're free to whine and complain about being oppressed.
A mean non-argument.
Robert Huff
Julie Simpson wrote:
> But men will talk about looking for a woman with great tits.
And are considered boors (at best) when they do. That includes
by most other men.
Can you point to the same level of disparagement of women who
quietly but unmistakably have "makes enough to support us both
... comfortably" as part of their filters?
Robert Huff
Robert Huff
Julie Simpson wrote:
> Here, it's almost
> inconceivable that a man would pay for everything - unless the woman is
> unemployed. The rule is to go dutch. In cases I know of where the man is
> poorer (eg, writers) the women pay. Really, it's not an issue.
While paying one's own bill is becoming more common in the U.S.,
there are still expanses of the social landscape where it is not
the norm, and some where it happens as part of a very careful
calculus involving
being able to do some stuff and/or who "owes" what.
There are, by recent reports, a goodly number of American women
who would be perfectly happy to be supported in the style to
which they wish to become accustomed. They may realize it isn't
going to happen ... but they still fantasize in a way their male
peers do not.
> My experience of North America (maybe 30 trips there over 10 years) was
> that I always paid my share of everything, and no-one said anything to
> indicate that my behaviour was odd. But evidently posters here are hung
> up about it. Did I just mix in odd socioeconomic circles, or what?
It may be the people you associated with. It may have been
you're a foreigner, and got cut extra slack.
Robert Huff
Mitchell Holman
In article <ghostv_nospam-1...@slsyd83p24.ozemail.com.au>, ghostv...@ozemail.com.au (Julie Simpson) wrote:
}
}But men will talk about looking for a woman with great tits.
You make that sound like it was a negative or something......
human
On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:15:57 GMT, Mitchell Holman wrote:
:>In article <ghostv_nospam-1...@slsyd83p24.ozemail.com.au>, ghostv...@ozemail.com.au (Julie Simpson) wrote:
:>
:>
:>}
:>}But men will talk about looking for a woman with great tits.
I didn't see Julie's reply so I don't know if she said more than this; but
if that was her total reply to my post I have two responses:
1. We were talking about the importance of money to women and your
comment seems merely to be a diversion; if it is something you want
to discuss why not start a thread on it. It in no way negates the idea
that many women factor a man's income in as a component (the main
one in many cases) of evaluating his attractiveness.
2. Admiration of a physical attribute is at least admiration about the
person themself rather than what they can buy you.
3. I seriously doubt any man you were dating ever said anything to your
face like the comments I was referring to, which would be "Julie any woman
I'd get serious about would have to be at least a DD".
human
On Wed, 18 Feb 98 00:31:50, human wrote:
:>On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:15:57 GMT, Mitchell Holman wrote:
:>
:>:>In article <ghostv_nospam-1...@slsyd83p24.ozemail.com.au>, ghostv...@ozemail.com.au (Julie Simpson) wrote:
:>:>
:>:>
:>:>}
:>:>}But men will talk about looking for a woman with great tits.
:>
:>I didn't see Julie's reply so I don't know if she said more than this; but
:>if that was her total reply to my post I have two responses:
Ok, I got enthusiastic and it was three.
r.so...@worldnet.att.net
Robert Huff wrote:
>
> Julie Simpson wrote:
>
> > But men will talk about looking for a woman with great tits.
>
> by most other men.
Your experience differs greatly from mine.
r.so...@worldnet.att.net
Julie Simpson wrote:
>
> In article <cueainsqik...@discovery.intergate.bc.ca>, "human"
> <per...@aplanet.com> wrote:
>
> > Your experience runs counter to the survey results mentioned. I also remember
> > a long discussion a year or two ago on the net where women were coming
> up with
> > all sorts of rationalizations why men should pay for the first date(s)
> - but the
> > women still wanted to be treated as equals of course.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Julie
>
> --
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ghostv/JuliesHomePage.htm
No, what is usually said here is that whoever asks the other person out
should pay for the date.
Rich Soyack
JC
Yep - I've met women who came out and said they EXPECT a man to wine and dine them, at fancy resteraunts and
the whole 9 yards. I suppose it works the other way too, where a guy expects a woman to "put out" because he
bought her dinner, so it can play both ways.
I personally made it a point to avoid these kinds of women - I'm not going to work at building a career and
earning potential so my wife (girlfriend, whatever...) can sit on the couch eating bon bons all day while
calling the "Psychic Friends Network." But I digress.....
jc
> I've met women who were not the *least* bit embarrased to state that
> they were looking for men who made a lot more than they did. One of them
> was even able to state a minimum salary figure for potential mates. I've
> never heard a man say anything like that.
>
John Reinhagen
In article <ucvaaiuwgiw...@nntp.cts.com>,
Nick Danger <nda...@cts.spamTHIS.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 18:08:21 -0600, Frederick wrote:
>
> [to amasam...@snet.net, who said with a straight face
> that the majority of women do not value wealth and power in men]
>
>:>Women have for centuries sized up potential mates using a number of measures,
>:>and one of these measures is definitely the ability to act as provider.
>:>Obviously, a number of other factors also come into play. The image of women
>:>not taking any account of a man's provider status, a rather naive, romantic
>:>image at best, is not supported by the facts.
>
>I salute you on having done that as coldly as you did.
It was pretty good, wasn't it?
Reminds me of a killing a few years ago in Austin, in which a man was
burned to death. His charred corpse was propped in a sitting position on
a park bench, where it was found the next morning. The perpetrator was a
topless dancer at a local club, who claimed that the burning was a defense
against a rape attempt.
Sheriff Terry Keel's response was succinct: "The physical evidence does
not support that."
(No, I don't know how it all came out. I'll look it up.)
JCR
--
Have a Squamous Omicron!
Steen Goddik
On 15 Feb 1998, Society wrote:
> The responses to your initial post are so disappointing. The constructive
> path would be to consider what's gone wrong with our culture and look for
> ways to change them for the better. Nowhere did the Old Feminism call for
> an atomistic world of lonely, isolated men and women.
That is not being called for by feminists, but rather from some
hateful anti-feminists who are angry about the loss of privileges and
are bemoaning the loss of the good old days.
Lots of women and men get along just fine. They are married, in love
etc. and do not fit into any of the hateful anti-feminist venom speved
by these anti-feminists.
> Yes, I agree that today, as women gain access to independent incomes, they
> should accept the responsibilities, challenges, and opportunities now
> opening to them.
Sure. As long as women have the option of obtaining equal
opportunity, there is no problem and therefore no need for feminism,
just as today, there is no domestic anti-slavery association in the
US.
Instead of demanding a company chaperone and crying
> "sexual harassment" whenever a man botches a pass,
Your claim do not reflect reality.
women should - as
> Camille Paglia advocates - dare to initiate asking men out and risking
> rejection.
They do.
That would be a good first step for women who want to move
> beyond their traditional status of quasi-children and step into full
> adulthood.
Women can step as much as they want, but why shouldn't they complain
when they find their path blocked by some of the anti-feminists, why
are doing their utmost to reverse progress?
Such a transformation won't be instant, and will be resisted by
> many men (meaning that men also have to change their attitudes) but the
> time has come for the transformation to begin.
Sure. If an anti-feminist don't discriminate and attack feminists,
then feminists won't complain about and attack anti-feminists either.
At that point, I foresee that we actually have moved beyond name
calling and have reached an opportunity for progress and consensus.
> Acceptance of men as homemakers requires breaking more barriers.
Absolutely. We have supported the removal of this particular
stereotypical restriction for a LONG time.
Women> still tend to "marry up"
Maybe some do, but I am sure most people marry because of love and
because they have something in common.
so a high-income earning woman is overwhelmingly
> likely to have a relationship with even-higher income men.
Most couples meet and marry long before they are high-income, and long
before they are sure what each partner's future earning potential will
be.
Thus, the
> income/lifestyle tradeoffs will continue to be less favorable for couples
> who choose to have the man leave paid employment to take up homemaking.
Indeed. As long as women are discriminated against, and do not obtain
the higher incomes, there will be a disincentive within the family to
let the husband be a homemaker. When women are more likely to be the
high-income wage earner than they are now, and when their earnings
tend to be more in synch with men's then it is also more likely that
the number of male homemakers will approach the number of female
homemakers.
> Women would have to change their preferences and begin favoring attributes
> in men other than wealth and earning power before the attraction of
> "marrying up" fades.
See above.
As women increasingly enter high-paying occupations,
> become able to support themselves and their family on their own income, the
> attraction of marrying up should fade.
Absolutely. That is, IF they are marrying "up" rather than marrying
for love and compatibility.
> Women today have access to almost all the opportunities open to men, with
> the notable exception of Draft Registration.
There is, off course, the matter of the glass ceiling. Also, even if
women have that near-perfect access you write about, why are their
income not reflecting this? How can they have near-perfect
opportunity, and still have an earning potential so much less than
men, that they are the predominant homemaker due to less income
potential?
> Arguably women have more legal> protections.
Laws arise when a need is perceived. So therefore it must have
appeared that women needed more laws to protect them. That is a
result of women having been exposed to more discrimination. Contrast
this with labor laws, and you will find that the number of
sex-specific laws pale in comparison. Employees appear to have needed
a lot of protection due to having less pover over their situation, and
hten, as a special case, women have had additional laws passed in
their favor, as they had even less pover over their situation in the
labor market.
But as women's advocates recognized earlier this century, laws
> that protect women do so at the price of limiting the advancement of women.
> A woman who truly wants equality for herself must muster the courage to
> speak out against all forms of special legal protections that purport to
> favor her gender.
Probably. This, however, would be more in line with the french laws
regarding begging under the monarchy. I am sure you have heard about
them; the ones about outlawing begging. They were very equal: Poor
people were not allowed to beg, and rich people were not allowed to
beg. It was very egalitarian, as NOBODY were allowed to beg, but only
in your wildest fantasy can you consider this to represent true
equality and equal opportunities.
Other women, traditionalist and New Feminist, and
> traditionalist men will react to these courageous women with outrage.
No. Merely with the above argument.
Men> who show support for these courageous women will be derided by
other men as> "selfish," "insensitive," or "taking advantage." But
that's the price of > progress; one of the virtues of people of good
will is that they are> willing to personally pay that price.
rather, I would say that they are supportive of the backlash against
women. The backlash which becomes more intense, the closer women gets
to obtaining equal opportunities with men.
Sincerely,
Steen Goddik sgo...@sunflowr.edu.com
"Naar moderen fryser, faar barnet en ekstra sweater paa"
"When the parent is freezing, the child gets an extra sweater on"
Steen Goddik
On 15 Feb 1998, Mark Sobolewski wrote:
> Chris Owens <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:
> > Millions of women also have good lives, are feminists, and like being
> > women.
> You didn't invalidate his point (which I presume) is:
>
> Women don't NEED feminism to live a good life. The Patriarchy
> had it's benefits as well as it's drawbacks and for many women
> the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Absolutely, and for many women the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.
What is wrong with letting each woman (and man) participate in the
system in the way she/he wants to?
> I don't think men deserve blame for EITHER woman's unhappiness
> with their lot in life. Today, women have a choice.
MEn are not blamed. The genderarchy and SOME men and SOME women are
blamed for this.
Some women do indeed have a choice, and some women (and men, when they
try to make their choice are being met with ridicule, discrimination
and bigotry from people why believe that the traditional ways are the
ONLY ways. What is wrong with NOT exposing women and men to this?
James Buster
>the notable exception of Draft Registration.
When did Draft Registration become an opportunity? It's not an
opportunity, it's a restriction. A teenage girl's opportunity
for post-secondary education is not impaired by her failure to
register for the draft, like it is for her brother.
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
much like Earth.
ma...@primarycolor.com
Steen Goddik <sgo...@sunflowr.usd.edu> wrote:
> On 15 Feb 1998, Mark Sobolewski wrote:
> > Chris Owens <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:
> > > Millions of women also have good lives, are feminists, and like being
> > > women.
>
> > You didn't invalidate his point (which I presume) is:
> >
> > Women don't NEED feminism to live a good life. The Patriarchy
> > had it's benefits as well as it's drawbacks and for many women
> > the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
>
> Absolutely, and for many women the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.
> What is wrong with letting each woman (and man) participate in the
> system in the way she/he wants to?
Nothing.
That's what I've been saying all along: Hold _each_ person responsible
for their choices and allow experience to show them the right path.
The problem is that women are often not taking responsibilities for
their choices: When a woman marries for money and quits her job,
she wants to blame men. When a woman tries to "double dip" and
get men to pay her way (even as she has a career) and it doesn't
work out, feminists want to provide her with state funded childcare
because neither she or he want to quit their job.
Either way, it's women who have all the choices with men getting nothing
but blame and taxation. Of course, that's their new agenda: Whatever
freedoms we have left have to be taken away and given to the government.
A woman pay for childcare? What? Are you out of your mind? :-)
The shopping malls are open and women have better things to spend
their money on... :-)
> > I don't think men deserve blame for EITHER woman's unhappiness
> > with their lot in life. Today, women have a choice.
>
> MEn are not blamed. The genderarchy
YOU don't blame men but that doesn't mean feminists agree with you.
They don't use the phrase "genderarchy", they say Patriarchy.
Read a newspaper or this newsgroup every once in a while. Attend
a divorce court hearing or talk to an affirmative action supporter.
>and SOME men and SOME women are blamed for this.
Agreed.
> Some women do indeed have a choice, and some women (and men, when they
> try to make their choice are being met with ridicule, discrimination
> and bigotry from people why believe that the traditional ways are the
> ONLY ways. What is wrong with NOT exposing women and men to this?
Nothing. Understand that I'm doing this myself.
Steen Goddik
On 16 Feb 1998, Mercutio wrote:
> Julie Simpson <ghostv...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in article
> > Your statement also seems to imply that feminists don't like being women,
> Oh, then why do they try so hard to be men?
Well, for some of us, it is because we ARE men, and we actually don't
have to try very hard. It comes quite naturally :-) And for a lot
of female feminists, you are actually in error, as they are very
comfortable with who they are.
> > which to my way of thinking suggests you've never actually met a
> feminist.
That is my impression as well.
> > Either that or you have this weird, warped notion that only separatist
> > lesbians can be feminists. It seems a prevalent attitude with a lot of
> > the men posting to this ng. Most of the feminists I know are happily
> > married, with kids, living in the suburbs. They have good lives, too.
>
> Good lives I'm sure, due to hard-working men who take care of them while
> they're free to whine and complain about being oppressed.
Actually, the feminists women I know nearly all work, and several of
them are actually the main/only breadwinner. Your statement is quite
inaccurate, and have the appearance of being based on biased
stereotypes. Please observe what the world is REALLY like, and learn
from that observation that you are quite wrong.
> > Hmmm? Am I just dense, or is the "recovered memory" line really a
> > non-sequitur? I don't understand.
>
> "Recovered memories" are another feminist fantasy.
You have your attributions wrong. Actually it is a psychological
term, and not a feminist one.
Pat Winstanley
In article <6cipta$rj...@fido.asd.sgi.com>, James Buster
<bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com> writes
>In article <01bd3a27$ea3acea0$dd1d8ed1@b6700>, Society <mi...@jps.net> wrote:
>>Women today have access to almost all the opportunities open to men, with
>>the notable exception of Draft Registration.
>
>When did Draft Registration become an opportunity? It's not an
>opportunity, it's a restriction. A teenage girl's opportunity
>for post-secondary education is not impaired by her failure to
>register for the draft, like it is for her brother.
Could you point me to a teenage boy whose registration for the draft
over the past then years or so has impaired his post-secondary
education?
Yes... if little boys have to register for the whispy possibility they
may be drafted, so should little girls... far dos...
Pat Winstanley
http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html
Blair Zajac
In article <ZVBfREAL...@pierless.demon.co.uk>, Pat Winstanley
<pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In the US, if a male does not register for the draft, he is unable to
receive any government benefits. This point is made in literature sent out
by the government in soliciting draft registration by males when they turn
18 years old.
Pat Winstanley
In article <bzajac-ya02408000...@news.tcsn.net>, Blair
Zajac <bza...@tcsn.net> writes
So how does registering for the draft impair him in any way?
How many draft registered men have been actually called up to serve in
the past ten years or so? How many have been forced to forgo their
education *because* they registered for the draft?
And I still think it should be both men and women who have to register
(and be equally liable to be called up and sent into battle), or neither
men nor women and leave it all to volunteers (who equally should be just
as likely as each other to be sent into battle). Do you have a problem
with that?
Do you feel that is unfair?
Pat Winstanley
http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html
Eric Conrad
In article <kTK1tlAI...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <bzajac-ya02408000...@news.tcsn.net>, Blair
>Zajac <bza...@tcsn.net> writes
>>receive any government benefits. This point is made in literature sent out
>>by the government in soliciting draft registration by males when they turn
>>18 years old.
>So how does registering for the draft impair him in any way?
>
>How many draft registered men have been actually called up to serve in
>the past ten years or so? How many have been forced to forgo their
>education *because* they registered for the draft?
This simply doesn't matter. The fact is that the current peace
might change tomorrow.
Why should men be forced to register when women are not?
>And I still think it should be both men and women who have to register
>(and be equally liable to be called up and sent into battle), or neither
>men nor women and leave it all to volunteers (who equally should be just
>as likely as each other to be sent into battle). Do you have a problem
>with that?
If you feel that way, then why ask the question? Women who
don't register are treated favorably while men who don't register are
treated unfavorably. If you really were equalitarian, then that inequality
should bother you. (Of course, as a poster from outside the U.S., you
might instead plead apathy on matters internal to the U.S -- but you
didn't.)
Eric
--
Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu)
http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~econrad/
Department of Mathematics
The Ohio State University
Paul
How about the ones who died in the Gulf War before they got out of the
service? I think THEIR ability to get a post-secondary education was
impaired by being in the service. Paul Laird
Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<kTK1tlAI...@pierless.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <bzajac-ya02408000...@news.tcsn.net>, Blair
> Zajac <bza...@tcsn.net> writes
> >In article <ZVBfREAL...@pierless.demon.co.uk>, Pat Winstanley
> ><pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <6cipta$rj...@fido.asd.sgi.com>, James Buster
> >><bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com> writes
> >>>In article <01bd3a27$ea3acea0$dd1d8ed1@b6700>, Society <mi...@jps.net>
wrote:
> >>>>Women today have access to almost all the opportunities open to men,
with
> >>>>the notable exception of Draft Registration.
> >>>
> >>>When did Draft Registration become an opportunity? It's not an
> >>>opportunity, it's a restriction. A teenage girl's opportunity
> >>>for post-secondary education is not impaired by her failure to
> >>>register for the draft, like it is for her brother.
> >>
> >>Could you point me to a teenage boy whose registration for the draft
> >>over the past then years or so has impaired his post-secondary
> >>education?
> >>
> >>Yes... if little boys have to register for the whispy possibility they
> >>may be drafted, so should little girls... far dos...
> >>
> >>Pat Winstanley
> >>http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html
> >
> >In the US, if a male does not register for the draft, he is unable to
> >receive any government benefits. This point is made in literature sent
out
> >by the government in soliciting draft registration by males when they
turn
> >18 years old.
> >
>
> So how does registering for the draft impair him in any way?
>
> How many draft registered men have been actually called up to serve in
> the past ten years or so? How many have been forced to forgo their
> education *because* they registered for the draft?
>
> And I still think it should be both men and women who have to register
> (and be equally liable to be called up and sent into battle), or neither
> men nor women and leave it all to volunteers (who equally should be just
> as likely as each other to be sent into battle). Do you have a problem
> with that?
>
Robert Huff
Paul wrote:
> How about the ones who died in the Gulf War before they got out
> of the service? I think THEIR ability to get a post-secondary
> education was impaired by being in the service.
All U.S. personel are volunteers, and have been for 25 years.
Robert Huff
Paul
Your reply has no bearing on the original question. The original question
asked one to give any example how men serving in the military lost the
chance at a post-secondary education. My answer was to the point and
correct. Now you want to throw another apple in the pie just so you can say
that serving in the military does not affect post-secondary education when,
in fact, it does have a significant impact.
Paul Laird
Robert Huff <rh...@cybercom.net> wrote in article
<34F5FF1C...@cybercom.net>...
James H. Sindberg
On 24 Feb 1998 22:21:00 GMT, eco...@math.ohio-state.edu (Eric
Conrad) wrote:
;Why should men be forced to register when women are not?
Because women are too incompetent to defend the nation according
to the US Supreme Court's judgement in 1980-81.
James H. Sindberg
sind...@pobox.com
James H. Sindberg
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 18:47:40 -0500, Robert Huff
<rh...@cybercom.net> wrote:
;Paul wrote:
;
;> How about the ones who died in the Gulf War before they got out
;> of the service? I think THEIR ability to get a post-secondary
;> education was impaired by being in the service.
;
; All U.S. personel are volunteers, and have been for 25 years.
When you take the number of male and the number of female US
troops in the Gulf War, divide by the number of deaths
respectively, you will find that the life expectancy of female
troops was 3 times better than male. Not much equality in the
Gulf War.
James H. Sindberg
sind...@pobox.com
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <34fdd80b...@news.get2net.dk> sind...@pobox.com (James H.
Sindberg) writes:
>
>On 24 Feb 1998 22:21:00 GMT, eco...@math.ohio-state.edu (Eric
>Conrad) wrote:
>
>
>;Why should men be forced to register when women are not?
>
>Because women are too incompetent to defend the nation according
>to the US Supreme Court's judgement in 1980-81.
---------
Actually, I don't remember reading those words in the
ruling. :] For men who forget, it is YOU who are
being discriminated against in a male only draft
registration. That would make it.....your fight.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <34fed8dc...@news.get2net.dk> sind...@pobox.com (James H.
---------
You shouldn't lose any sleep over it. The number of
men who have died in wars STILL doesn't equal the
number of women who have died in childbirth.
Lefty
webg...@javanet.com
In article <6dd6n4$m...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>
> In <34fdd80b...@news.get2net.dk> sind...@pobox.com (James H.
> Sindberg) writes:
> >
> >On 24 Feb 1998 22:21:00 GMT, eco...@math.ohio-state.edu (Eric
> >Conrad) wrote:
> >
> >
> >;Why should men be forced to register when women are not?
> >
> >Because women are too incompetent to defend the nation according
> >to the US Supreme Court's judgement in 1980-81.
>
> ---------
> Actually, I don't remember reading those words in the
> ruling. :] For men who forget, it is YOU who are
> being discriminated against in a male only draft
> registration. That would make it.....your fight.
>
> Lefty
>
Supreme Court than the rest of us! I don't remember reading those words in
the ruling either! Good thing a smart woman such as yourself brought to light
whose issue it is! Good to know who the players are. :-)
Stacy Alexander
Dennis
On 2 Mar 1998 02:50:18 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway)
wrote:
>In <34fed8dc...@news.get2net.dk> sind...@pobox.com (James H.
That is so much bullshit, Lefty. Get over it.
Dennis
>
> Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <6ddvh9$26$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> webg...@javanet.com writes:
>
>In article <6dd6n4$m...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
> lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>>
>> In <34fdd80b...@news.get2net.dk> sind...@pobox.com (James H.
>> Sindberg) writes:
>> >
>> >On 24 Feb 1998 22:21:00 GMT, eco...@math.ohio-state.edu (Eric
>> >Conrad) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >;Why should men be forced to register when women are not?
>> >
>> >Because women are too incompetent to defend the nation according
>> >to the US Supreme Court's judgement in 1980-81.
>>
>> ---------
>> Actually, I don't remember reading those words in the
>> ruling. :] For men who forget, it is YOU who are
>> being discriminated against in a male only draft
>> registration. That would make it.....your fight.
>>
>> Lefty
>>
>Yes, perhaps that person is living under the jurisdiction of a
DIFFERENT U.S.>Supreme Court than the rest of us! I don't remember
reading those words in>the ruling either! Good thing a smart woman
such as yourself brought to light>whose issue it is! Good to know who
the players are. :-)
>
>Stacy Alexander
------------
Little boys will always prefer MOTHER to do their fighting
for them. Non-sexist men, otoh, realize the complexity
of the issue and don't demand what they can't legally HAVE.
In order for women to be drafted, they would first, have to
be assured equal miltary rights. It would become a due
process problem. " To everything there is a season....."
Lefty
C.V. Compton Shaw
North American women, and, perhaps all women, have a psychological
personality disorder called " nascissistic personality disorder". Some
of the characteristics of this disorder are 1. Demand for and belief in
entitlement (privileged treatment) 2. The need and the perceived right
to exploit others (men) and, amongst other characteristics, 3. A belief
that they (females) should not be responsible nor accountable for their
actions nor their lives. Although many men may have this disorder, it
doesn't take much of an imagination to see that most, if not all, women
have this disorder. Women's exemption from the military draft and other
social responsibilities are other examples of this disorder as they
reflect some of the signs and symptoms of this personality disorder. To
understand narcissim is to understand women.
Paul
That is the first half-sane decisions that body has made in 100 years.
paul laird
James H. Sindberg <sind...@pobox.com> wrote in article
<34fdd80b...@news.get2net.dk>...
> On 24 Feb 1998 22:21:00 GMT, eco...@math.ohio-state.edu (Eric
> Conrad) wrote:
>
>
> ;Why should men be forced to register when women are not?
>
> Because women are too incompetent to defend the nation according
> to the US Supreme Court's judgement in 1980-81.
>
>
>
> James H. Sindberg
> sind...@pobox.com
>
human
On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 19:18:14 -0800, C.V. Compton Shaw wrote:
:>North American women, and, perhaps all women, have a psychological
I always find it interesting to see how large the "self help" section of
bookstores is in comparison to other sections. My experience is that
in shopping mall type bookstores most of the books in this section are
for women and the section is the largest section in the store. It seems
telling women that they are the center of the universe and that any
problems they may have are the fault of someone else is a surefire
way to make money - of course feminists have always known that.
Connie Carver
I believe it is men NOT wowen making the rules here, ie-female exclusion
from warfare!
C.V. Compton Shaw <mis...@swbell.net> wrote in article
<34FB76...@swbell.net>...
averti
C.V. Compton Shaw wrote:
[...]
> To
> understand narcissim is to understand women.
To be able to spell narcissism is to understand
orthography.
Steen Goddik
On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, C.V. Compton Shaw wrote:
> North American women, and, perhaps all women, have a psychological
> personality disorder called " nascissistic personality disorder".
Incorrect. NPD has a specific diagnosis with distinct symptoms, which
trained psychologists and psychiatrists are good at diagnosing. YOU,
however, are not, so please don't practice medicine without a license.
[]
> have this disorder. Women's exemption from the military draft and other
> social responsibilities are other examples of this disorder as they
> reflect some of the signs and symptoms of this personality disorder.
The exclusion from the draft was NOT instituted by women. If you
claim that ALL members of the gender that instituted the male-only
draft are narcissistic, then look at one in the mirror.
To > understand narcissim is to understand women.
How VERY stupid. It would be nice if the quality of the posts (and
posters?) could increase a bit. Otherwise, replying is more like
shooting sparrows with cannons.
Steen Goddik sgo...@sunflowr.edu.com
Sacred cows make the best hamburger. -- Mark Twain
Julie Haugh
In article <34FB76...@swbell.net>,
C.V. Compton Shaw <mis...@swbell.net> wrote:
>North American women, and, perhaps all women, have a psychological
>of the characteristics of this disorder are 1. Demand for and belief in
>entitlement (privileged treatment) 2. The need and the perceived right
>to exploit others (men) and, amongst other characteristics, 3. A belief
>that they (females) should not be responsible nor accountable for their
>actions nor their lives. Although many men may have this disorder, it
>doesn't take much of an imagination to see that most, if not all, women
>social responsibilities are other examples of this disorder as they
>understand narcissim is to understand women.
The only problem with this is that the APA already has a definition
for Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Of course =that= definition includes the statement
| Epidemiology of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
| 1.The disorder is more common in men than women.
Thanks for playing ;-)
--
Julianne Frances Haugh
RS/6000 Security Development, C2 Tech Lead "Resistance is futile!
Bldg 905/2F002, 512-823-8817 (Tie 793) You will be evaluated!"
I-net: j...@austin.ibm.com -- C2 of Borg
Rich
Steen Goddik wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, C.V. Compton Shaw wrote:
> > North American women, and, perhaps all women, have a psychological
> > personality disorder called " nascissistic personality disorder".
>
> trained psychologists and psychiatrists are good at diagnosing. YOU,
> however, are not, so please don't practice medicine without a license.
Neither is Julie Haugh, in fact, her ignorance is as wide and deep as
her misandry.
And you have not seen fit to advise her to stop giving the hate speech
she seems to consider medical advice.
Pray tell, how is this? You have responded to the thread.
Rich
mxb...@ix.netcom.com
I
> I always find it interesting to see how large the "self help" section of
> bookstores is in comparison to other sections. My experience is that
> in shopping mall type bookstores most of the books in this section are
> for women and the section is the largest section in the store. It seems
> telling women that they are the center of the universe and that any
> problems they may have are the fault of someone else is a surefire
> way to make money - of course feminists have always known that.
>
Hell,
Talk about narcissism..just go into any Walgreens or Thrifty's Pharmacy..
and try to find a hairbrush for a man. If you are lucky you will find one
very cheap brand, if that..but dozens for women.
Women have been weened to believe they are the social center of society..
and until men wise up, this is currently true. Men have been brainwashed
into believing that they owe it to women to do first askout along with
payout...just to have the blessing of having the woman..just maybe..like
them. This is crap. It is oneway. And it is men who are suffering because
of it.
Ges Hu
Paul
Actually, Julie, according to the American Journal of Psychology, women
outnumber men 2-1 in receiving treatment for this disorder. Please have the
facts at hand before you post. You will avoid showing off your ignorance.
Paul Laird
Julie Haugh <j...@austin.ibm.com> wrote in article
<6dkk2f$htq$1...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com>...
> In article <34FB76...@swbell.net>,
> C.V. Compton Shaw <mis...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >North American women, and, perhaps all women, have a psychological
Steen Goddik
On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, human wrote:
> I always find it interesting to see how large the "self help" section of
> bookstores is in comparison to other sections. My experience is that
> in shopping mall type bookstores most of the books in this section are
> for women and the section is the largest section in the store. It seems
> telling women that they are the center of the universe and that any
> problems they may have are the fault of someone else is a surefire
> way to make money - of course feminists have always known that.
So are you saying that the reason these junk-books sell is, that the
buyers show feminist tendencies? Or what exactly is your tie-in to
feminists in this example?
Sincerely,
Steen Goddik
On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Rich wrote:
> Steen Goddik wrote:
> > Incorrect. NPD has a specific diagnosis with distinct symptoms, which
> > trained psychologists and psychiatrists are good at diagnosing. YOU,
> > however, are not, so please don't practice medicine without a license.
> Neither is Julie Haugh, in fact, her ignorance is as wide and deep as
> her misandry.
>
> And you have not seen fit to advise her to stop giving the hate speech
> she seems to consider medical advice.
>
> Pray tell, how is this? You have responded to the thread.
It would be soo much nicer if you could indicate exactly WHAT examples
you are refering to. If it is the ones about annual physicals, then
she is absolutely right. If it is the one about the feasibility of
self-rectal exams, then she is wrong. If it is the one about how your
insistance that women should get checked for "whatever men get checked
for," is misdirected, then she is right again. And her point IS
valid. Have you decided to get a physical, or are you still resisting
this? If you won't go in to regular check-ups, how is any amount of
medical research going to help you?
Rich
Julie Simpson wrote:
>
> In article <34FDF775...@earthlink.net>, Anonymous, Payne wrote:
>
> > Neither is Julie Haugh, in fact, her ignorance is as wide and deep as
> > her misandry.
> >
> > And you have not seen fit to advise her to stop giving the hate speech
> > she seems to consider medical advice.
> >
> > Pray tell, how is this? You have responded to the thread.
>
> post appeared on _my_ news server a day before Julie's post on the subject
> appeared. I believe Steen's post may not have addressed Julie's because
> Julie's was not available to respond to.
>
> You might want to calm down a little before you start imputing motives to
> others.
There is zero need to "impute" Steen's motives, in fact, I could care less
what his motives are. I object to his sexism no matter what the source.
And there is no anti-male bigotry or feminist anti-male stereotype which he
does not support 100%, and he has done so oven and over.
Rich
> Cheers
>
> Julie
>
> --
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ghostv/JuliesHomePage.htm
mxb...@ix.netcom.com
In article <34FEAF34...@bga.com>,
Julie Haugh <j...@bga.com> wrote:
>
> Seeking treatment and having a disorder are =not= related. However,
> quoting from the DSM IV, page 660
>
> Specific Age and Gender Features
>
> Narcissistic traits may be particularly common in adolescents
> and do not necessarily indicate that the individual will go
> on to have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Individuals
> with Narcissistic Personality Disorders may have special
> difficulties adjust to the onset of physical and occupational
> limitations that are inherent in the aging process. Of those
> diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, 50% - 75%
> are male.
>
> More women than men seek help from mental health professionals, just
> as more women than men use other health care professionals.
> --
> Julianne Frances Haugh Life is either a daring adventure
> Mail: jfh AT bga.com or nothing at all.
> -- Helen Keller
>
Ms. Julianne Frances Haugh,
First please note that I am not a syke major and now little of the
above. However, I am familiar with statistics...and know enough math
to realize that your statement above means nothing regarding who
has more narcissism..men or women.
Why?
Because if so many more women 'seek' help... the sample is much more
diluted than is the sample of men who finally seek help because they
really need it. You are dealing with disparate sample types here..apples
and oranges. If women have a lower 'threshold' for seeking help...than
naturally, I would expect a smaller percentage of them to be positively
diagnosed. See my point.
And of course, in society, women are GIVEN much more freedom to complain
about what ails them. They are not penalized as are men..for doing so.
It has often been said that women express feelings easier than men. I agree..
but only regarding complaining about things. It it were really true, then
they would share more in onewayaskout..which really is putting your
ego on the line. In this case, of course, most refrain.
Paul
Why would a psychologist treat a woman for a disorder she didn't have? Good
try. The DSM IV (1997 edition) does not show what you claim. On page 683 it
says more than half of those diagnosed with this disorder are women. What
version are you using: 1993 or 1988? Paul Laird
Julie Haugh <j...@bga.com> wrote in article <34FEAF34...@bga.com>...
> Paul wrote:
> >
> > Actually, Julie, according to the American Journal of Psychology, women
> > outnumber men 2-1 in receiving treatment for this disorder. Please have
the
> > facts at hand before you post. You will avoid showing off your
ignorance.
>
Julie Haugh
In article <34FF4386...@earthlink.net>, Rich <Anonymous, Payne> wrote:
>Julie Simpson wrote:
>> In article <34FDF775...@earthlink.net>, Anonymous, Payne wrote:
>> > Neither is Julie Haugh, in fact, her ignorance is as wide and deep as
>> > her misandry.
>> >
>> > And you have not seen fit to advise her to stop giving the hate speech
>> > she seems to consider medical advice.
>> >
>> > Pray tell, how is this? You have responded to the thread.
>>
>> Without buying into your slander of Julie, please consider that Steen's
>> post appeared on _my_ news server a day before Julie's post on the subject
>> appeared. I believe Steen's post may not have addressed Julie's because
>> Julie's was not available to respond to.
>>
>> You might want to calm down a little before you start imputing motives to
>> others.
>
>There is zero need to "impute" Steen's motives, in fact, I could care less
>what his motives are. I object to his sexism no matter what the source.
You've yet to demonstrate that either Steen or myself are practicing
"sexism". So far Steen seems to be saying that on 3 out of 4 remarks
I'm right you're, well, =wrong=.
This isn't sexism. And were he feminisms lap-dog I imagine he'd be
saying how wonderful I am for being right 4 out of 4 times.
Julie Haugh
In article <6dnk80$p...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
Paul <THEL...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Why would a psychologist treat a woman for a disorder she didn't have? Good
>try. The DSM IV (1997 edition) does not show what you claim. On page 683 it
>says more than half of those diagnosed with this disorder are women. What
>version are you using: 1993 or 1988? Paul Laird
There is only one DSM IV -- the next thing after the DSM IV would be
the ... DSM V. So whatever "Edition" of the DSM you are using, if it
says "DSM Fourth Edition" on the cover, that's what I've got too. If
you'd care to post the ISBN of this "1997 DSM IV" I'd be more than
happy to either locate it or retract my comment.
And anyone who'd like to see which one of us is lying is more than
welcome to examine amazon.com and see if there is a "1997 edition".
There isn't -- the DSM IV was published in 1994. Reprinted in '97
perhaps, but there isn't a new DSM IV pubished in '97.
As regards 1988 or 1993, without being certain my feeling is that the
1988 DSM would be the DSM III-R, not the DSM IV (or the DSM III, which
was published in the early 80's).
Rich
Julie Simpson wrote:
>
> In article <34FF4386...@earthlink.net>, Anonymous, Payne wrote:
>
> > There is zero need to "impute" Steen's motives, in fact, I could care less
> > what his motives are. I object to his sexism no matter what the source.
> >
> > does not support 100%, and he has done so oven and over.
>
> something deliberately.
Steen is as biased and sexist as they get. In fact, Steen is as biased as
Lefty or Meri, and as proud of it.
> Your response does raise a question, though - If it doesn't matter to you
> what Steen says, why on earth argue?
The question is "what the fuck are you talking about?" I don't give a fuck what
his motives are, they are irrelevant, I object in the strongest terms to Steen's
blatant misandry, as should any non-feminist. As for feminists, they invented all
the misandry Steen defends.
Haven't you ever heard of a
> killfile?
Never used one, and learn to read. Do not confuse your prejudices for my
thoughts and opinions.
> Or is there some reason you like to argue with people?
Ask yourself the same question Julie.
Rich
Julie Haugh wrote:
> >> > Neither is Julie Haugh, in fact, her ignorance is as wide and deep as
> >> > her misandry.
> >> >
> >> > And you have not seen fit to advise her to stop giving the hate speech
> >> > she seems to consider medical advice.
> >> >
> >> > Pray tell, how is this? You have responded to the thread.
> >>
> >> Without buying into your slander of Julie, please consider that Steen's
> >> post appeared on _my_ news server a day before Julie's post on the subject
> >> appeared. I believe Steen's post may not have addressed Julie's because
> >> Julie's was not available to respond to.
> >>
> >> You might want to calm down a little before you start imputing motives to
> >> others.
> >
> >what his motives are. I object to his sexism no matter what the source.
>
> "sexism". So far Steen seems to be saying that on 3 out of 4 remarks
> I'm right you're, well, =wrong=.
So? Sexist bigots agreeing with each other is hardly front page news.
> This isn't sexism.
Steen's claim that *all* sexism against me is right and justified *is* clear
blatant sexism however. Ask Seen about Affirmative Discrimination. But no
doubt you agree with him that white men have no right to not be discriminated
against in the workplace.
> And were he feminisms lap-dog I imagine he'd be
> saying how wonderful I am for being right 4 out of 4 times.
That you and Steen may agree is one thing, that either of you is right
another.
Rich
Nick Danger
On Fri, 06 Mar 1998 23:00:43 +1100, Julie Simpson wrote:
[to Anonymous, Payne]
:>Your response does raise a question, though - If it doesn't matter to you
:>what Steen says, why on earth argue? Haven't you ever heard of a
:>killfile? Or is there some reason you like to argue with people?
For most of my life I could not understand why many road signs
in the rural US are peppered with buckshot. "What comes over
somebody," I used to think, "that they can't drive by a stop sign
without pulling out a shotgun and blasting a stupid sign? What
about that is fun?"
And then, as if in answer to my question, Steen Goddik began
posting to this newsgroup. Now, when I think of some
young redneck in a pickup truck, grinning from ear to ear
as he pulls the trigger on that 12-gauge, I sort of understand.
I recognize that this might still seem unclear to you, so I will leave
you with the words of Sir Edmund Hillary: "Because it's there".
---------------------------
Your source for irritainment.
---------------------------
Steen Goddik
On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Rich wrote:
> Julie Simpson wrote:
> > In article <34FDF775...@earthlink.net>, Anonymous, Payne wrote:
> > > Neither is Julie Haugh, in fact, her ignorance is as wide and deep as
> > > her misandry.
> > >
> > > And you have not seen fit to advise her to stop giving the hate speech
> > > she seems to consider medical advice.
> > >
> > > Pray tell, how is this? You have responded to the thread.
> > Without buying into your slander of Julie, please consider that Steen's
> > post appeared on _my_ news server a day before Julie's post on the subject
> > appeared. I believe Steen's post may not have addressed Julie's because
> > Julie's was not available to respond to.
> >
> > You might want to calm down a little before you start imputing motives to
> > others.
> There is zero need to "impute" Steen's motives, in fact, I could care less
> what his motives are. I object to his sexism no matter what the source.
>
> And there is no anti-male bigotry or feminist anti-male stereotype which he
> does not support 100%, and he has done so oven and over.
So, Rich. Now that I have responded to the tread last night, how come
that you are now posting the above drivel? Are you at fault?
Pray tell, how is this? You have responded to this tread?
Do you now see how stupid this tread is? I am still getting posts on
my server dated 2/26, so if you expect INSTANT reply, then send the
note to me as e-mail as well, and I will get to it within a copule of
days (except for next week). It might suprise you to know that some
people do NOT have time to sit by the computer all day and live for
the chance to provide instant replies. If you want this, you can
e-mail me for my phone number, and I will be happy to talk on the
phone. Just be prepared to do so at odd hours, as I am in school most
of the time.
Steen Goddik
On Thu, 5 Mar 1998 mxb...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Because if so many more women 'seek' help... the sample is much more
> diluted than is the sample of men who finally seek help because they
> really need it. You are dealing with disparate sample types here..apples
> and oranges. If women have a lower 'threshold' for seeking help...than
> naturally, I would expect a smaller percentage of them to be positively
> diagnosed. See my point.
NPD is not something that gradually becomes more severe. It is not
like seeking treatment for a cold, so it won't develop into
bronchitis. It starts out like NPD, and it continues as such. You
either have it or not, and you either seek treatment for it or not.
The DSM-IV is a medical diagnostic tool that does NOT worry about the
rate of people that have recovered, except in prognostic ways. The
main purpose of the DSM-IV is DIAGNOSIS. Thus, when it reports that
more men than women are suffering from NPD, that is exactly what it
means. The issue of who seeks treatment and in what numbers are
irrelevant to the occurance of the disease. It only have an impact on
the treatment, NOT the diagnosis.
> And of course, in society, women are GIVEN much more freedom to complain
> about what ails them. They are not penalized as are men..for doing so.
> It has often been said that women express feelings easier than men. I agree..
> but only regarding complaining about things. It it were really true, then
> they would share more in onewayaskout..which really is putting your
> ego on the line. In this case, of course, most refrain.
(And what has this to do with NPD? Is this your macro, as Rich's is
the prop. 209? Haven't we addressed this many months ago?)
Everybody can complain about what ails them. That men feel
constricted by the genderarchy to not show "weakness" is irrelevant to
the stupid claim that women are mostly suffering from NPD
Steen Goddik
On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, Rich wrote:
> There is zero need to "impute" Steen's motives, in fact, I could
care less> what his motives are.
Well. I strangely enough DO care about your motivations, as they
could possibly help me understand your posts better sometimes.
> I object to his sexism no matter what the source.
Likewise for your sexism, Rich.
> And there is no anti-male bigotry or feminist anti-male stereotype
which he> does not support 100%, and he has done so oven and over.
And likewise to you, off course. Which reminds me: Do you ever have
an interest in answering some of the questions I have ever posed to
you, or do you just prefer to ignore them when you can't answer? I
have posted in many treads, where you suddenly stop answering (and
then, off course, you later claim that I don't address the issues, but
that is another story).
Let me know if you ever have any interest in actually debating issues,
rather than just trying to score cheap tricks against feminism.
James H. Sindberg
On 2 Mar 1998 16:13:27 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway) wrote:
;In <6ddvh9$26$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> webg...@javanet.com writes:
;>In article <6dd6n4$m...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
;> lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
;>> In <34fdd80b...@news.get2net.dk> sind...@pobox.com (James H.
;>> Sindberg) writes:
;>> >On 24 Feb 1998 22:21:00 GMT, eco...@math.ohio-state.edu (Eric
;>> >Conrad) wrote:
;>> >;Why should men be forced to register when women are not?
;>> >Because women are too incompetent to defend the nation according
;>> >to the US Supreme Court's judgement in 1980-81.
;>> Actually, I don't remember reading those words in the
;>> ruling. :] For men who forget, it is YOU who are
;>> being discriminated against in a male only draft
;>> registration. That would make it.....your fight.
;>Yes, perhaps that person is living under the jurisdiction of a
;DIFFERENT U.S.>Supreme Court than the rest of us! I don't remember
;reading those words in>the ruling either! Good thing a smart woman
;such as yourself brought to light>whose issue it is! Good to know who
;the players are. :-)
; Little boys will always prefer MOTHER to do their fighting
; for them.
And likewise little girls will always prefer Daddy to do their
fighting for them. And Daddies are more willing to fight to the
death than Mommies.
; Non-sexist men, otoh, realize the complexity
; of the issue and don't demand what they can't legally HAVE.
Now if you could also realize the complexity...
; In order for women to be drafted, they would first, have to
; be assured equal miltary rights. It would become a due
; process problem. " To everything there is a season....."
The USA still doesn't assure equal military rights, so what makes
you think that females are any more entitled than males? There
is a definite lack of due process in this area.
James H. Sindberg
sind...@pobox.com
James H. Sindberg
On 2 Mar 1998 02:50:18 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway) wrote:
;sind...@pobox.com (James H. Sindberg) writes:
;>Robert Huff<rh...@cybercom.net> wrote:
;>;Paul wrote:
;>;> How about the ones who died in the Gulf War before they got out
;>;> of the service? I think THEIR ability to get a post-secondary
;>;> education was impaired by being in the service.
;>; All U.S. personel are volunteers, and have been for 25 years.
;>When you take the number of male and the number of female US
;>troops in the Gulf War, divide by the number of deaths
;>respectively, you will find that the life expectancy of female
;>troops was 3 times better than male. Not much equality in the
;>Gulf War.
; You shouldn't lose any sleep over it. The number of
; men who have died in wars STILL doesn't equal the
; number of women who have died in childbirth.
You are being unfair. Childbirth is a dissimilar situation.
Only women may die in childbirth. But both men and women are
able to fight and die in wars. Women are just not as competent
to do so as well as men. Don't women feel that they should fight
for that entitlement? Yellow?
James H. Sindberg
sind...@pobox.com
James Buster
In article <3501352f...@news.get2net.dk>,
James H. Sindberg <sind...@pobox.com> wrote:
>On 2 Mar 1998 16:13:27 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
>Hemingway) wrote:
>; In order for women to be drafted, they would first, have to
>; be assured equal miltary rights. It would become a due
>; process problem. " To everything there is a season....."
>
>The USA still doesn't assure equal military rights, so what makes
>you think that females are any more entitled than males? There
>is a definite lack of due process in this area.
Lefty's error is in thinking that "full military participation" necessarily
follows from "becoming draft eligible". This is an obviously absurd
statement. Women can be drafted into any position the military sees fit.
That these positions are a subset (indeed, a much less dangerous subset)
of positions men may fill is irrelevant.
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
much like Earth.
Nick Danger
On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 02:40:46 GMT, Jonathan Magnus wrote:
:>Women claim to be 'great communicators' it is my experience that women
:>are great 'talkers' and leave their men to 'guess' at what they really
:>mean as if the accuracy of the 'guesses' will indicate how much their
:>men care for them.
We owe the FTD people a favor for taking down their insulting
men-women quotes page. Perhaps we could reward them by
giving them the quote above, which is a thought that has sold
one hell of a lot of flowers over the years.
-------------------------------
Not tonight dear, I have a modem.
-------------------------------
Jonathan Magnus
Steen Goddik <sgo...@usd.edu> wrote:
Ans constrained by a desire to count work above self. Men sometimes
feel that if they are absent too much from work they will not do as
well and if they do not do well at work their entire family will
suffer. It is an unintended sacrifice for the benefit of women.
If women do not like this it is up to them to make their opinons known
to their husbands, not just to complain about them to others.
Women claim to be 'great communicators' it is my experience that women
are great 'talkers' and leave their men to 'guess' at what they really
mean as if the accuracy of the 'guesses' will indicate how much their
men care for them.
If you don't like something, *do* something about it.
Hot air helps no one.
>Steen Goddik sgo...@sunflowr.edu.com
Jonathan
Scott A.Renner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> [Carol Ann Hemingway]:
>> In order for women to be drafted, they would first, have to be assured
>> equal miltary rights. It would become a due process problem. " To
>> everything there is a season....."
> [James Buster]:
> Lefty's error is in thinking that "full military participation" necessarily
> follows from "becoming draft eligible". This is an obviously absurd
> statement. Women can be drafted into any position the military sees fit.
> That these positions are a subset (indeed, a much less dangerous subset)
> of positions men may fill is irrelevant.
Lefty just doesn't have a clue about things military.
Equal military rights here means the right to go where you're told and do
what you're told. Male conscripts don't choose their assignments. Neither
would female conscripts, if there ever are any.
Anyway, women already have *superior* rights in the US military. They
can't be ordered to the more dangerous, dirty combat jobs. They receive
preferential treatment in courts martial. For example, if a male sailor
makes himself unfit for duty -- say, by carelessly getting a serious
sunburn at the beach -- that's a punishable offense. If a female sailor
makes herself unfit for duty -- say, by becoming pregnant -- that's a free
ticket to a better shore posting.
This sort of preferential treatment is bad for morale, of course. Not that
feminists care about morale in the military...
- --
Scott A. Renner <s...@nym.alias.net> | If you cannot answer a man's
My organization doesn't want their name | argument, do not panic.
on my articles, disclaimer or no. The | You can always call him names.
mail alias is to hide them, not me. | -- Oscar Wilde
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBNQQGfYVBFApc9BZNAQEMtwH8D4vupJI1N7DE4G+QSMo/+WQjqOYHc9l/
y04myZSFBpjMa8fF9JZUmkqTMFbfSWZG6uB6WrnxE2rvUE4LdT+Ppw==
=hneT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <1998030915140...@nym.alias.net> Scott A.Renner
<s...@nym.alias.net> writes:
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>> [Carol Ann Hemingway]:
>>> In order for women to be drafted, they would first, have to be
assured
>>> equal miltary rights. It would become a due process problem. " To
>>> everything there is a season....."
>
>> [James Buster]:
>> Lefty's error is in thinking that "full military participation"
necessarily> follows from "becoming draft eligible". This is an
obviously absurd> statement. Women can be drafted into any position the
military sees fit.> That these positions are a subset (indeed, a much
less dangerous subset)> of positions men may fill is irrelevant.
------
No, actually they can't.
>
>Lefty just doesn't have a clue about things military.
I do have a clue about the Constitution, however, and
even the military can't rise above that.
--------------
>
>Equal military rights here means the right to go where you're told and
do>what you're told. Male conscripts don't choose their assignments.
Neither>would female conscripts, if there ever are any.
--------
That's true, but they would have the right to equal
opportunity, which is a tad different.
------------
>
>Anyway, women already have *superior* rights in the US military. They
>can't be ordered to the more dangerous, dirty combat jobs. They
receive>preferential treatment in courts martial. For example, if a
male sailor>makes himself unfit for duty -- say, by carelessly getting
a serious>sunburn at the beach -- that's a punishable offense. If a
female sailor>makes herself unfit for duty -- say, by becoming pregnant
-- that's a freeticket to a better shore posting.
--------
Well, when a male makes himself pregnant he will get
the same treatment, just like he does when he gives
himself a venereal disease. I assume a female who
sunburns herself is subject to the same retribution.
:]
----------
>
>This sort of preferential treatment is bad for morale, of course. Not
that>feminists care about morale in the military...
----------
It's not a feminist's duty to care about morale, only
to make certain that women are getting equal opportunity.
Lefty
Kevin S. Douglas
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message <6e1r90$8...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>...
> I do have a clue about the Constitution, however, and
> even the military can't rise above that.
The military, at least insofar as it comes to organizing it's own affairs,
is above the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. When a
soldier is court martialed, for instance, they have few of the protections
that the constitution mandates in a regular trials (trial before a jury of
one's peers is the most obvious, but I think it extends to the military not
having to offer presumption of innocence before they can slam someone in
jail, I know speech rights aren't the same, military law is a different
field, it's why adultery can be a crime, gays can be tossed out of the
military, a whole host of things).
And here's why. The Supreme Court has found that if the military can
present an argument that some particular practice which would violate the
constitution for civilians is necessary or even desirable for reasons of
effectiveness it can do so. End of story. And the Supreme Court gives the
military a lot of leeway in deciding that. It's why all of the efforts made
to desegregate the military (here referring to blacks) and include women
(the present situation) come in the form of executive orders from the
presidency. The president is commander and chief and pretty much gets final
say.
I'm sure this could veer off into another one of these topics which involves
people restating their position ad nauseum so I'll bow out. There is no
constitutional challenge that's going to decide this question of the one
which involves gays in the military (every few years a district court rules
that gays have the right to serve and the Supreme Court always tosses out
those rulings unanimously).
My own guess is it is going to come down to effectiveness. If women can
serve in combat roles and that doesn't reduce the efficiency of the military
I suspect that's just a decade or two away. And if it turns out that women
in combat roles reduces the effectiveness of the military? Have no doubt
that particular women are up to the job but what about all women who serve
and how does that affect men? If there's a problem I have no doubt, women
will be booted out of combat roles in a New York minute and the Supreme
Court will put its stamp on that decision.
Mitchell Holman
}>
}>Lefty just doesn't have a clue about things military.
}
} I do have a clue about the Constitution, however, and
} even the military can't rise above that.
Wrong. The military *does* rise above the Constitution,
esp for military personel, who do not enjoy the contitutional
freedoms civilians do.
}>
}>This sort of preferential treatment is bad for morale, of course. Not
}that>feminists care about morale in the military...
}
} ----------
} It's not a feminist's duty to care about morale, only
} to make certain that women are getting equal opportunity.
}
} Lefty
Feminists gave up looking for "equal opportunity" a long
time ago. Now the quest is for "preferential treatment".
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <6e2563$i...@ecuador.earthlink.net> "Kevin S. Douglas"
<kev...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote in message
<6e1r90$8...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>> even the military can't rise above that.
>
affairs,>is above the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
--------
...and as long as it the military does not take away
the equal protection rights of citizens, it will
remain their foray.... Classifying some folks
within the military as having more opportunities
than others will not be something overlooked,
even though it might make you more comfortable
to think that.
-----------------------
When a>soldier is court martialed, for instance, they have few of the
protections>that the constitution mandates in a regular trials (trial
before a jury of>one's peers is the most obvious, but I think it
extends to the military not>having to offer presumption of innocence
before they can slam someone in jail, I know speech rights aren't the
same, military law is a differentfield, it's why adultery can be a
crime, gays can be tossed out of the>military, a whole host of things).
----------
For now, there are SOME inequities permitted in military
life that are not permitted in the rest of society. How,
ever, the military cannot take away FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
.....they can only channel them. For example, while
a military person might not have the right to speak
freely in their capacity as military, a soldier can
indeed speak freely in a public park. He may suffer
some miliatry condemnation for it, but will not be
punished civilly. When that happens, however, it doesn't
make the military look good....or fair...and they don't
need any more bad press.
>
>And here's why. The Supreme Court has found that if the military can
>present an argument that some particular practice which would violate
the>constitution for civilians is necessary or even desirable for
reasons of>effectiveness it can do so.
==========
Not exactly. The military may provide a stricter code
for behavior of personnel, but even then they cannot
TAKE AWAY FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS. So, when someone
AGREES (operative word) to join, they must also be
willing to abide a higher standard of conduct, like
any other contract. When someone is DRAFTED he might
be coerced into compliance. However, no one is going
to be willing to draft women UNLESS they have the
same opportunities men have in advancement. It would
be a lot like drafting black soldiers and limiting
their opportunities. As you know, that isn't allowed.
------------------
End of story.
It sure is....the end of YOUR STORY.
---------------------
And the Supreme Court gives the>military a lot of leeway in deciding
that.
I have no problem with military leeway as long as
the military doesn't forget it must ACCOUNT to the
President, and/or Congress...to some degree.
In that regard, just who, in Congress do you think
would recomment drafting women, when women don't have
equal opportunity in the military?
-----------------
It's why all of the efforts made>to desegregate the military (here
referring to blacks) and include women(the present situation) come in
the form of executive orders from the>presidency. The president is
commander and chief and pretty much gets final>say.
--------
So, you DID notice that blacks can be drafted when they
have equal opportunity (see Colin Powell).
-----------------
>
>I'm sure this could veer off into another one of these topics which
involves>people restating their position ad nauseum so I'll bow out.
There is no constitutional challenge that's going to decide this
question of the one>which involves gays in the military (every few
years a district court rules>that gays have the right to serve and the
Supreme Court always tosses out those rulings unanimously).
----------
Evolution is a wonderful thing; today we get "don't
ask don't tell' tomorrow we'll get the rest of the
equity. President Clinton went as far as he could go,
scaring the boys to death to have it outed that the
military is already the biggest gay club going.
---------------------
>
>My own guess is it is going to come down to effectiveness. If women
can>serve in combat roles and that doesn't reduce the efficiency of the
military I suspect that's just a decade or two away.
I agree, and until then they won't be drafted.
And if it turns out that womenin combat roles reduces the
effectiveness of the military? Have no doubt>that particular women are
up to the job but what about all women who serve>and how does that
affect men?
I agree that women will have to prove their own effectiveness;
I don't agree with how men feel about it will effect that.
Men will just have to get used to the fact that women are
there the same way they had to get used to it in business.
--------------------------
If there's a problem I have no doubt, women
>will be booted out of combat roles in a New York minute and the
Supreme Court will put its stamp on that decision.
----------
If there is a problem, the problem will have to be
solved. Men's problems are not going to thwart women
......It's just that simple.
Lefty
>
>
>
Groon
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
(snipped discussion re: US Military's relationship to US Constitution)
From the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court, p.546:
"The U.S. Supreme Court can hear certain cases on appeal from the Court
of Military Appeals, but for the most part military justice and the
courts that dispense it remain free from intervention by their civilian
counterparts."
P.745: "The exclusion of females from registration for a potential
draft substantially furthered (military flexibility), since women,
unlike men, could not be rotated from combat into noncombat positions.
The Court did not consider the possibility that women could occupy
combat roles."
The preceding passage was lifted from the entry on "Rostker b.
Goldberg", 453 U.S. 57 (1981), in which the Court decided in a 6-3
decision that male-only conscription was not discriminatory. However,
P.334: "Given the increasingly conservative nature of the Court...and
the increasingly complex patterns of discrimination that are being
presented to it, it is unlikely that the scope of constitutional
protections for women will grow unless other societal changes take
place. The active-combat roles played by women in the Gulf War in early
1991, for example, could prompt the Court to uphold a new challenge to
the discriminatory provisions of the Military and Selective Service Act
previously held constitutional in 'Rostker'."
>
> I agree that women will have to prove their own effectiveness;
> I don't agree with how men feel about it will effect that.
> Men will just have to get used to the fact that women are
> there the same way they had to get used to it in business.
> --------------------------
>
> If there's a problem I have no doubt, women
> >will be booted out of combat roles in a New York minute and the
> Supreme Court will put its stamp on that decision.
>
> ----------
> If there is a problem, the problem will have to be
> solved. Men's problems are not going to thwart women
> ......It's just that simple.
>
I agree entirely, we men must overcome our prejudices in this matter.
But as for the intervening time between "then" (future) and now; if
there is too much instability in terms of morale for too long a period,
this could be devastating. I don't think this will happen (I hope not),
but if it does (and history is full of examples of great armies falling
into disrepair), we will long for simple basic military unity, which we
take for granted now. The pursuit of more progressive goals will be
peripheral, the backlash against them will be nearly insurmountable.
So, let's continue to push for progress, but don't take lightly the
affect on military morale. Without it, we will be fighting for survival
first, basic human rights next, then progressive human rights. This
will take generations (again). All that has come will be for naught;
in anarchy, every society will revert to brute patriarchy, to every
thinking person's chagrin.
I'm aware this is a worst-case scenario which seems far-fetched now.
But in a moment of perceived national disunity, we would quickly have a
Commander-in-Chief who is not as progressively-minded as Clinton, and
that President would make more conservative (and popular) military
decisions, and would quickly appoint even more Draconian Justices than
the ones we have now. The decline would be fast. I consider myself to
be extremely liberal, but such a luxury would not be tolerated if the
morale (read: preparedness) of the military declined too much too
quickly. I believe it won't happen, I've got my fingers crossed. But
military thinking requires constant vigilance and preparation for every
possibility. This is not the area where we need the quickest change.
Scott A.Renner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> At 22:42 3/9, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) said:
>
> Well, when a male makes himself pregnant he will get the same treatment,
> just like he does when he gives himself a venereal disease. I assume a
> female who sunburns herself is subject to the same retribution.
I understand that in the heyday of the Patriarchy, there were businesses
that ran on Carol's principle of exactly equal treatment. They treated men
and women exactly the same. They treated men who got pregnant the same way
they treated women who got pregnant. They fired them all.
[I have no idea why Carol thinks VD is relevant, BTW.]
> It's not a feminist's duty to care about morale [in the military], only
> to make certain that women are getting equal opportunity.
A clear statement from an authorative source. Feminists are interested in
making sure that Women Get Theirs, and nothing else counts at all. Of
course, most of us had already figured this out, which is why "feminism"
has become another word for "female chauvinist".
- --
Scott A. Renner <s...@nym.alias.net> | If you cannot answer a man's
My organization doesn't want their name | argument, do not panic.
on my articles, disclaimer or no. The | You can always call him names.
mail alias is to hide them, not me. | -- Oscar Wilde
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBNQWmSoVBFApc9BZNAQGj3QH9FjJGIslbTjDKVWApgCunxVxgyAKj/Auh
IUnPdYIXSGWTzTsuPjLaZDYYbeH5LsEZM29I10pvg31C9O4b1WkYiQ==
=c8rP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <199803102103...@nym.alias.net> Scott A.Renner
<s...@nym.alias.net> writes:
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> At 22:42 3/9, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) said:
>>
>> Well, when a male makes himself pregnant he will get the same
treatment, just like he does when he gives himself a venereal disease.
I assume a> female who sunburns herself is subject to the same
retribution.
>
>I understand that in the heyday of the Patriarchy, there were
They treated menand women exactly the same. They treated men who got
pregnant the same way>they treated women who got pregnant. They fired
them all.
--------
Actually they fired the women who got pregnant, but
NOT the men who had prostate problems. Some folks
had a real problem with that sort of unequal treatment.
Yet TODAY any man or woman who gets pregnant or
has prostate problems is handled in a simlar fashion.
BTW during Desert Storm there were still a greater
percentage of male absences than female absences,
pregnancy included. That has been attributed to
a greater male drug and alcohol use, etc.
-------------------------
>
>[I have no idea why Carol thinks VD is relevant, BTW.]
It is relevant because both men and women get
treated the SAME where they CAN be treated the
same....just like the 14th Amendment holds.
------------------------
>
>> It's not a feminist's duty to care about morale [in the military],
only>> to make certain that women are getting equal opportunity.
>
>A clear statement from an authorative source. Feminists are
interested in>making sure that Women Get Theirs, and nothing else
counts at all.
Many things "count", but you should make sure you
wear the right hat for the right job. It is not
the job of feminism to make boys feel good. That
takes a mothers hat.
------------------
Lefty
r.so...@worldnet.att.net
If that soldier is an officer he cannot speak politically in a public
park or anywhere else.
> He may suffer
> some miliatry condemnation for it, but will not be
> punished civilly. When that happens, however, it doesn't
> make the military look good....or fair...and they don't
> need any more bad press.
> >
> >And here's why. The Supreme Court has found that if the military can
> >present an argument that some particular practice which would violate
> the>constitution for civilians is necessary or even desirable for
> reasons of>effectiveness it can do so.
>
> ==========
> Not exactly. The military may provide a stricter code
> for behavior of personnel, but even then they cannot
> TAKE AWAY FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS.
In the military a soldier can be ordered to do something that will
result in his being killed and be court marshalled and executed if
he refuses. I would say that this violates a pretty basic fundamental
human right.