Gentlemen, It Must Be Told! - RETRY
Anonymous
The largest demographic group doing the most damage to
American society and its economy is comprised of the white
females.
Two of the most glaring problems with females in positions
of power and responsibility are:
1.) They will not tolerate having capable male subordinates
working for them (at least not on a permanent or long-term
basis.) With this being the case, it does not take long for
performance, behavioral, and all other standards within the
female's realm of responsibility to hit rock bottom.
2.) They form very unhealthy and highly suspect sociological
relationships (i.e. alliances) with minority males and Jewish
males. Females are the operatives of the Jews. Believe it
or not, females have become the eyes, ears, and arms of Jews
even where Jews are nowhere near present. It is the abysmally
poor management on the part of females that leaves a company
wide open to acquisition by Jewish raiders. The bottom line is
that the females' mindset is such that they are more susceptible
to the Jew influence; this is why you have the Biblical fable
of Eve in the Garden being tempted by the snake in the grass.
The Jew domination of the fashion industry gives the whole swarm
a "legitimized" and reinforced "in" with the minds of white
females.
Female Management, a Case Study:
Roughly 20 years ago I was at a meeting where my group was
collaborating with a group of managers and systems analysts
from the data processing department on the development of
a new system, a very major one at that with many millions of
dollars at stake.
It was widely known BACK THEN that there was an issue with the
turn of the century and with the prevalent use of two digits for
the year in dates. So I offered a very simple suggestion for the
new system which would eliminate the turn-of-the-century problem
and all necessity for any conversion headaches down the road.
All that had to be done was to record dates in what I call
"absolute julian format." That is, take a past date and make it
the start date; count the number of days from that start date to
the date at hand; and assign that count to the date at hand as
its absolute julian date. The conversion from the absolute julian
date to a meaningful, readable gregorian date would be accomp-
lished by fairly simple arithmetic calculations. This scheme is as
simple as counting 1,2,3,... but these professional data process-
ing whiz kids had absolutely no idea what I was talking about.
Rather than admit their ignorance, those people slammed me saying
that they had other priorities, that two digit years did not
present a pressing concern, and on and on, and that they would
stick with the current convention for the new system. I had no
choice but to silence myself, as I had found myself doing on many
similar occasions.
I have since learned that certain airline reservation systems
use the date scheme which I suggested, as does the spreadsheet which
runs in my computer. Today's date, 12/25/96 A.D., is held as 33,962
which is simply the 33,962nd day relative to January 1, 1904 A.D.,
which is the start date and which is held as zero.
Anyway, the lead person of the data processing group was a female,
and her attitude was stereotypical of that gender. I have yet to
see the realm of a female executive or manager that can be termed
a "class act." This particular female manager had herself sur-
rounded with third-rate and lesser subordinates. This being
typically the case for female managers and executives, it is only
natural that approaches to problems will ALWAYS be far less than
optimal when females are in charge! (Look to Janet Reno, Christie
Whitman, and Hillary Clinton.)
The worst thing about all of this is that there are males, both
white and third worlders, who are feminists and who will not have
things any other way. These males will go right down to the
mat fighting to keep the current vile scheme of things in place.
These males are holding jobs and earning money which they never
could command in the absence of females' keeping them on as cronies.
BTW, the new computer system to which I alluded was a dismal
failure for many reasons not having to do with the date format
being used. Many millions of dollars were wasted, this by a
company which would not give a ten cent raise to a deserving
white male worker! Do not kid yourself; the cost of this type
of waste and inefficiency together with settlements such as the
$175,000,000 Texaco discrimination settlement is passed on to
society at large - that is, to YOU in the form of higher selling
prices!
Gentlemen, be assured that I would not be reporting on such senarios
unless I have witnessed such things with my very own eyes over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over again!
Larry Robison
Uh:
What has any of this got to do with computer consultants? Is there a
couple of more appropriate groups, like: rec.female.boss.haters or
rec.insecure.female.bosses ?
Bob Whitaker
Like every other Poltically Correct clone, Sandi knows damned well why
people who disagree with her had BETTER be anonymous. Nikor and all
the rest are essentially rats who report all heresy.
In Nazi Germany, Hitlerites could denounce any critic who was anonymous
as "cowards", just as Stalinists could denounce all ananymous criticism
of Communism as "cowardly". In the same tradition, these Politically
Correct clones denounce anybody who criticizes their beloved System as
"cowards" today.
There is nothing cheaper than denouncing critics as "cowards' when one
is safely with the establishment. It's a habit of those on the side of
the authorities that is as old as it is sickening.
Sandi wrote:
> Could it be that you have a bitter taste in your mouth or is it jealousy?
> Me thinks that you have a very very biased opinion. You must be a coward
> if you cannot even put you name to your post.
>
> sandi
>
> Anonymous <abc-...@mailmasher.com> wrote in article
> <1996122516...@mailmasher.com>...
Bill Silverthorn
Anonymous <abc-...@mailmasher.com> wrote:
>The largest demographic group doing the most damage to
>American society and its economy is comprised of the white
>females.
>
>Two of the most glaring problems with females in positions
>of power and responsibility are:
>
>1.) They will not tolerate having capable male subordinates
>working for them (at least not on a permanent or long-term
>basis.) With this being the case, it does not take long for
>performance, behavioral, and all other standards within the
>female's realm of responsibility to hit rock bottom.
Uh, this sort of reckless acusations with no basis in any statistical facts
shows that the author pretty much has some sort of "ax to grind" ... I have
worked for men and women, and I can honestly say that they are pretty
evenly split in capabilities and my like or dislike of the "experience "
..... hmmm, evenly divided? Wow! That is pretty coincidental to the way
divided the genders on earth! What a coincidence ... the only dif' in my
stats and yours seems to be that you may have an "axe to grind" and I do
not ...
Your whole paragraph above reminds me the lies used to hold down Jews by
Nazi Germany, or slaves in the last century .... it is a shame that some
people will actually listen to this garbage ...
>2.) They form very unhealthy and highly suspect sociological
>relationships (i.e. alliances) with minority males and Jewish
>males. Females are the operatives of the Jews. Believe it
>or not, females have become the eyes, ears, and arms of Jews
>even where Jews are nowhere near present. It is the abysmally
>poor management on the part of females that leaves a company
>wide open to acquisition by Jewish raiders. The bottom line is
>that the females' mindset is such that they are more susceptible
>to the Jew influence; this is why you have the Biblical fable
>of Eve in the Garden being tempted by the snake in the grass.
>The Jew domination of the fashion industry gives the whole swarm
>a "legitimized" and reinforced "in" with the minds of white
>females.
Well, looks like your "true colors" are starting to show .... so those
dastardly "females" are in "cohoots" with the Jews .... please tell me more
.... I bet they also meet late at night with black people and every Thursday
with hispanics ... .... do you think they might be under the influence of
the Catholics as well? Tell me more ..... <sheesh ...>
I think I will just quit reading the rest of this .... perhaps there are
some good reruns on TV of I love Lucy instead .....
Merry Christmas to all ... and to all I wish you a discerning spirit so
that we can know "spam" when we see it ....
God loves you all,
Peace,
Bill
RainDanzer
<all garbage snipped for posterity from this anonymous troll>
Obviously, since it took two trys to get your message on the board, your
ineptitude must follow you in the workplace. You're right about one
thing, no female manager worth her salt would tolerate such poor
performance.
The last time I looked, the glass ceiling was still there. I thought it
was still a man's world, and I'd become comfortable and secure in it. I'm
so glad to hear it's not there anymore and what power it gives me to keep
my foot on people like you. (All other wonderful men in this newsgroup
graciously excepted).
Judy
"Trudge onward Mildred...we're getting somewhere!"
Richard Latker
Some frustrated idiot wrote:
>
> The largest demographic group doing the most damage to
> American society and its economy is comprised of the white
> females.
An excellent article in the Economist in October 1996 comes to the exact
opposite conclusion--ie, that it is men that are less flexible, less
trainable and even slightly less intelligent than women--and does so
through an exhaustive analysis of fact (rather than your petty sour
grapes). Women, on average, work harder, learn more quickly and tolerate
change more effectively than men do.
Managers of high-tech manufacturing operations often prefer women
labourers, if they are asked, because they are perceived to be more
meticulous than men. Women are thought to be better personnel managers,
teachers, doctors and researchers. It's only at the very top that women
are considered less desirable, because they have this habit of getting
pregnant and taking maternity leave.
> 1.) They will not tolerate having capable male subordinates
> working for them (at least not on a permanent or long-term
> basis.) With this being the case, it does not take long for
> performance, behavioral, and all other standards within the
> female's realm of responsibility to hit rock bottom.
What you mean is this: "My boss pissed me off. She was a women. Women
should be subordinate to men, damnit, not the other way around. The
whole fucking thing makes me feel inadequate, especially since I realise
my skills base isn't worth what it used to be."
> 2.) Females are the operatives of the Jews.
Translation: "The hottest babe in the office started started sleeping
with this *fucking* jewish guy. Damn, this pisses me off."
> Female Management, a Case Study:
<Long tirade about how unfair the world is to men of marginal talent
snipped>
Any successful, accomplished person does not blame others for their
failures -- this is a basic rule of life to which even some of your
white power buddies agree (not many, it's true. Most of them blame Jews
for their own inability to adapt and thrive in a changing world). The
most successful western institutions, corporate or otherwise, have both
men and women in positions of power throughout the management hierarchy.
> Many millions of dollars were wasted, this by a
> company which would not give a ten cent raise to a deserving
> white male worker!
Yep, you hold on to that resentment, buddy. While the rest of us white
male workers -- who a) work hard and smart with men and women of all
types b) have learned how to learn, and c) still manage to get laid now
and then -- prosper and enjoy ourselves, you can find yourself a
submissive little housewife to smack around. She'll wash your clothes
while you down Budweisers in front of the TV, and you can live out your
male-supremacist fantasies in blissful sloth.
RL
Sandi
Could it be that you have a bitter taste in your mouth or is it jealousy?
Me thinks that you have a very very biased opinion. You must be a coward
if you cannot even put you name to your post.
sandi
Anonymous <abc-...@mailmasher.com> wrote in article
<1996122516...@mailmasher.com>...
> The largest demographic group doing the most damage to
> American society and its economy is comprised of the white
> females.
>
> Two of the most glaring problems with females in positions
> of power and responsibility are:
>
> 1.) They will not tolerate having capable male subordinates
> working for them (at least not on a permanent or long-term
> basis.) With this being the case, it does not take long for
> performance, behavioral, and all other standards within the
> female's realm of responsibility to hit rock bottom.
>
> 2.) They form very unhealthy and highly suspect sociological
> relationships (i.e. alliances) with minority males and Jewish
> males. Females are the operatives of the Jews. Believe it
> or not, females have become the eyes, ears, and arms of Jews
> even where Jews are nowhere near present. It is the abysmally
> poor management on the part of females that leaves a company
> wide open to acquisition by Jewish raiders. The bottom line is
> that the females' mindset is such that they are more susceptible
> to the Jew influence; this is why you have the Biblical fable
> of Eve in the Garden being tempted by the snake in the grass.
> The Jew domination of the fashion industry gives the whole swarm
> a "legitimized" and reinforced "in" with the minds of white
> females.
>
> Female Management, a Case Study:
>
> being used. Many millions of dollars were wasted, this by a
> company which would not give a ten cent raise to a deserving
John Turco
Richard Latker wrote:
>
> Some frustrated idiot wrote:
> >
> > The largest demographic group doing the most damage to
> > American society and its economy is comprised of the white
> > females.
Some even MORE frustrated imbecile wrote:
> An excellent article in the Economist in October 1996 comes to the exact
> opposite conclusion--ie, that it is men that are less flexible, less
> trainable and even slightly less intelligent than women--and does so
> through an exhaustive analysis of fact (rather than your petty sour
> grapes). Women, on average, work harder, learn more quickly and tolerate
> change more effectively than men do.
Oh, so some magazine had an "excellent" article, and that article came to the
same sexist conclusion as the troll did...except that it was anti-male,
instead of anti-female. It's okay to say THAT, though, isn't it?
WHY?
Because the "Economist" said so, that's why! They made an "exhaustive
analysis of the fact", which is virtually impossible where such highly
subjective things like "flexible", "trainable", and even "intelligence" are
concerned. It's also interesting that their "exact opposite conclusion" just
happens to be politically correct, isn't it? It's ALWAYS safe to say women
are better at something than men are, but when you merely imply anything
different, you're immediately labeled a "Nazi".
This troll has succeeded in exposing the inferiority complexes and biases of
others, but I don't really believe he did it for noble reasons. I simply
think he has a malicious sense of humor, in true troll tradition.
> Managers of high-tech manufacturing operations often prefer women
> labourers, if they are asked, because they are perceived to be more
> meticulous than men. Women are thought to be better personnel managers,
> teachers, doctors and researchers. It's only at the very top that women
> are considered less desirable, because they have this habit of getting
> pregnant and taking maternity leave.
Alright, women are perfect, except for the fact that they get pregnant
sometimes- at least, according to YOUR asinine reasoning. Furthermore, you
said they are "perceived" to be more "meticulous", and "thought" to be
"better". As far as I know, "perceived", "thought", and "documented evidence"
aren't the same things. After all, the troll himself "perceived" females to
be inferior to males, didn't he?
Of course, I'm not at all surprised that "managers of high-tech manufacturing
operations" SAY they "prefer women labourers, if they are asked", since
that's the politically correct thing TO say, today. Whether their answers are
actually sincere is another matter altogether. (You have heard of "public
relations", haven't you)?
Personally, I doubt their honesty as much as I do that of the troll's.
> > 1.) They will not tolerate having capable male subordinates
> > working for them (at least not on a permanent or long-term
> > basis.) With this being the case, it does not take long for
> > performance, behavioral, and all other standards within the
> > female's realm of responsibility to hit rock bottom.
>
> What you mean is this: "My boss pissed me off. She was a women. Women
> should be subordinate to men, damnit, not the other way around. The
> whole fucking thing makes me feel inadequate, especially since I realise
> my skills base isn't worth what it used to be."
What YOU mean is this: "I'll engage in an obscenity-laced, personal attack
against the troll. I'll also resort to knee-jerk emotionalism, because that
way people will be impressed with what a liberal, open-minded person I am".
> > 2.) Females are the operatives of the Jews.
>
> Translation: "The hottest babe in the office started started sleeping
> with this *fucking* jewish guy. Damn, this pisses me off."
Translation: "I'll stoop to another emotional, obscenity-laced personal
attack against the troll. Dang, ain't I an intelligent debater"?
> > Female Management, a Case Study:
>
> <Long tirade about how unfair the world is to men of marginal talent
> snipped>
<if you say so, but I haven't cut any of YOUR own ridiculous, ad hominem
tirades against white, Christian men>
> Any successful, accomplished person does not blame others for their
> failures -- this is a basic rule of life to which even some of your
> white power buddies agree (not many, it's true. Most of them blame Jews
> for their own inability to adapt and thrive in a changing world). The
> most successful western institutions, corporate or otherwise, have both
> men and women in positions of power throughout the management hierarchy.
No, according to that magazine article you cited, women are clearly superior.
Now, would the "Economist" lie?
And you, yourself, certainly don't sound like you're blaming white, Christian
men for everything, do you?
> > Many millions of dollars were wasted, this by a
> > company which would not give a ten cent raise to a deserving
> > white male worker!
>
> Yep, you hold on to that resentment, buddy. While the rest of us white
> male workers -- who a) work hard and smart with men and women of all
> types b) have learned how to learn, and c) still manage to get laid now
> and then -- prosper and enjoy ourselves, you can find yourself a
> submissive little housewife to smack around. She'll wash your clothes
> while you down Budweisers in front of the TV, and you can live out your
> male-supremacist fantasies in blissful sloth.
>
> RL
Yeah, and you keep making the troll sound like a Rhodes Scholar in comparison
to yourself, buddy. Your statements (your final ones, especially) show
YOURSELF to be GENUINELY prejudiced in a non-troll-like manner.
The troll went fishin' with an OBVIOUS article he cross-posted to 10
newsgroups, and he landed a whopper when you took the bait. If it were April
Fools Day instead of the Christmas holidays, you might not of walked into it
so blindly.
Then again, it might not have mattered. Whatever the case, please try to
THINK before you reply to trolls in the future; otherwise, ignore them
entirely.
Happy holidays,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
Anonymous
Anonymous would like to make two points at this time:
1. The males who defend female management and equality are the
ones who are the third, fourth and fifth-rate males who will go
right down to the mat fighting to keep the current vile scheme
of things in place and who are holding jobs and earning money
which they never could command in the absence of females' keeping
them on as cronies.
2. If females are such wonderful workers and if female
management is such a wonderful thing, then how come females
couldn't make it on their own merit in the absence of equal
employment opportunity laws? It's been said that smart
employers don't discriminate and that smart employers hire
the best qualified. Why aren't smart employers smart in the
absence of equal employment opportunity laws? Why is it
that countries that have lagged behind us in passing such
laws are also lagging behind us with the sagging of their
economies and societies (most notably, Japan)?
John Turco
Anonymous wrote:
>
> Anonymous would like to make two points at this time:
I would like to counter the two "points" of this troll at this time:
> 1. The males who defend female management and equality are the
> ones who are the third, fourth and fifth-rate males who will go
> right down to the mat fighting to keep the current vile scheme
> of things in place and who are holding jobs and earning money
> which they never could command in the absence of females' keeping
> them on as cronies.
This is merely an unprovable assertion on your part.
> 2. If females are such wonderful workers and if female
> management is such a wonderful thing, then how come females
> couldn't make it on their own merit in the absence of equal
> employment opportunity laws? It's been said that smart
> employers don't discriminate and that smart employers hire
> the best qualified. Why aren't smart employers smart in the
> absence of equal employment opportunity laws? Why is it
> that countries that have lagged behind us in passing such
> laws are also lagging behind us with the sagging of their
> economies and societies (most notably, Japan)?
It's a fact that the biggest beneficiaries of the equal employment
opportunity laws have been white females (most notably Jewish ones). However,
that's primarily because they tend to be, on average, more qualified than
minority people of either sex. (Not for racial reasons, but rather, for
economic ones).
So, I don't agree that companies automatically hire the least qualified
persons simply in order to comply with affirmative action programs. They seem
to go after the best talent available, and the current laws force them to
favor white females over white males, in my opinion.
Conspiracy theories need not apply.
Bill Silverthorn
Bob Whitaker <bw...@conterra.com> wrote:
>Like every other Poltically Correct clone, Sandi knows damned well why
>people who disagree with her had BETTER be anonymous. Nikor and all
>the rest are essentially rats who report all heresy.
> In Nazi Germany, Hitlerites could denounce any critic who was anonymous
>as "cowards", just as Stalinists could denounce all ananymous criticism
>of Communism as "cowardly". In the same tradition, these Politically
>Correct clones denounce anybody who criticizes their beloved System as
>"cowards" today.
> There is nothing cheaper than denouncing critics as "cowards' when one
>is safely with the establishment. It's a habit of those on the side of
>the authorities that is as old as it is sickening.
OK, Bob, so knocking someone on the basis of being anomymous alone is not
enough ... but you actually agreeing with this female bashing "schtuff"????
Bill
Dan Nelson
Richard Latker wrote:
>
> Some frustrated idiot wrote:
> >
> > American society and its economy is comprised of the white
> > females.
>
> opposite conclusion--ie, that it is men that are less flexible, less
> trainable and even slightly less intelligent than women--and does so
> through an exhaustive analysis of fact (rather than your petty sour
> grapes). Women, on average, work harder, learn more quickly and tolerate
> change more effectively than men do.
And, in the U.S. at least, do it all for significantly less money than
men do (I make more than twice as much money as my wife for a job
comparable in frustration, etc.). Curious.
> Managers of high-tech manufacturing operations often prefer women
> labourers, if they are asked, because they are perceived to be more
> meticulous than men. Women are thought to be better personnel managers,
> teachers, doctors and researchers. It's only at the very top that women
> are considered less desirable, because they have this habit of getting
> pregnant and taking maternity leave.
True, all of it. Women, in my experience, are (generally) better
teachers and personnel managers. I can't speak to the others, but don't
doubt its truth.
> > 1.) They will not tolerate having capable male subordinates
> > working for them (at least not on a permanent or long-term
> > basis.)
Complete bull****. I have worked for several women, and they ALL
WITHOUT EXCEPTION recognized my strengths, were more honest than the men
I have worked for in recognizing my weaknesses, and helped me work on
them better.
> > With this being the case, it does not take long for
> > performance, behavioral, and all other standards within the
> > female's realm of responsibility to hit rock bottom.
>
> What you mean is this: "My boss pissed me off. She was a woman. Women
> should be subordinate to men, damnit, not the other way around. The
> whole fucking thing makes me feel inadequate, especially since I realise
> my skills base isn't worth what it used to be."
Exactly.
> > 2.) Females are the operatives of the Jews.
>
> Translation: "The hottest babe in the office started started sleeping
> with this *fucking* jewish guy. Damn, this pisses me off."
Hee hee! Another would-be office Romeo shot down. I **love** it!
> > Female Management, a Case Study:
>
> <Long tirade about how unfair the world is to men of marginal talent
> snipped>
<And a worthy snip, at that>
> Any successful, accomplished person does not blame others for their
> failures -- this is a basic rule of life to which even some of your
> white power buddies agree (not many, it's true. Most of them blame Jews
> for their own inability to adapt and thrive in a changing world). The
> most successful western institutions, corporate or otherwise, have both
> men and women in positions of power throughout the management hierarchy.
>
> > Many millions of dollars were wasted, this by a
> > company which would not give a ten cent raise to a deserving
> > white male worker!
>
> Yep, you hold on to that resentment, buddy. While the rest of us white
> male workers -- who a) work hard and smart with men and women of all
> types b) have learned how to learn, and c) still manage to get laid now
> and then -- prosper and enjoy ourselves, you can find yourself a
> submissive little housewife to smack around. She'll wash your clothes
> while you down Budweisers in front of the TV, and you can live out your
> male-supremacist fantasies in blissful sloth.
MY wife is not submissive. Right now she's pissed off about much of
what the original poster's buddies have done to her. She's thinking
about leaving her company for one who will pay her in a manner more
commensurate with the MILLIONS she saves her company yearly. In a fair
society, she'd easily be making IN THE RANGE of what I'm making, if not
much more. I'd prefer more, because I'd likely be able to retire soon,
cleaning the house and weeding the garden. More likely it'll be the
other way around, more's the pity for a thinking manager.
> RL
Dan
Me
What's going on here!! Is the American male waking up??
An accurate assessment of the women in American society--and the
pusillanimous men who worship at their feet.
The women in America elected Bill Clinton, and we shall suffer for this.
It is only when the American male, in toto, realizes they have given up
their birthright, and reassert themselves to make this country strong
and great.
The founding fathers knew the capabilities and inability's of women,
that's why they did not get the right to vote. We, enlightened ones,
gave it to them, and we have been on a downhill spiral ever since.
By and large, woman belong at home; taking care of her family and her
man. She cannot handle academic things, i.e., logic, and the basic
reasoning powers that brings men to a natural conclusion of right and
wrong. Men will vote for a President, not because he is cute, but
rather whether the candidate is right in his judgments, places the
country above self and in fact, will do those things for which this
nation once stood. Women vote with their hearts and emotions--men vote
with intelligence and logic.
It is good to hear one speak truth and reality, thank you.
Mr. Insight
Anonymous wrote:
>
> Anonymous would like to make two points at this time:
>
> right down to the mat fighting to keep the current vile scheme
> which they never could command in the absence of females' keeping
> them on as cronies.
>
> management is such a wonderful thing, then how come females
> couldn't make it on their own merit in the absence of equal
> employment opportunity laws? It's been said that smart
> employers don't discriminate and that smart employers hire
> the best qualified. Why aren't smart employers smart in the
> absence of equal employment opportunity laws? Why is it
> that countries that have lagged behind us in passing such
> laws are also lagging behind us with the sagging of their
> economies and societies (most notably, Japan)?
I regard the use of anonymous posts, such as this, as an act of
incredible cowardice. If one surveys the most venomous messages, they
seem to come primarily from unidentified contributors.
Dr. Martine RoBards
Bill Silverthorn
Anonymous <no-...@mailmasher.com> wrote:
>Anonymous would like to make two points at this time:
>
>1. The males who defend female management and equality are the
>ones who are the third, fourth and fifth-rate males who will go
>right down to the mat fighting to keep the current vile scheme
>of things in place and who are holding jobs and earning money
>which they never could command in the absence of females' keeping
>them on as cronies.
But of course! They must be "in cohoots" with the 'fems! Why else would
they preach equal pay for equal work and all that male threatening tripe!
Absolutely agree with you !!!! .................. NOT!!!
>2. If females are such wonderful workers and if female
>management is such a wonderful thing, then how come females
>couldn't make it on their own merit in the absence of equal
>employment opportunity laws?
Maybe because men have the "employment" and have had it since the beginning
of time? Are you perhaps suggesting that since women can't leave this
planet and start a society on their own on another planet they are
obviously inferior to men? Another sensical suggestion .... now I see why
you use the unique name of anonymous!!
>It's been said that smart
>employers don't discriminate and that smart employers hire
>the best qualified. Why aren't smart employers smart in the
>absence of equal employment opportunity laws?
Many are ... but many are not .. or were not ... the same can be said for
why we needed a civil rights movement to stop discrimination among races
.... but I will NOT dare ask YOUR position on that topic .... trust me!!!
;-)
> Why is it
>that countries that have lagged behind us in passing such
>laws are also lagging behind us with the sagging of their
>economies and societies (most notably, Japan)?
So the success of Japan is based on the male domination of the society? It
couldn't be work ethic? the Marshall plan? morals? etc.? It is
strictly "testosterone"? You really have got to expand your reading
material a bit, brother. But I will support any vote that gives men like
you your own planet or island to make a go of it .... without women.
God bless you and don't quit your day job!!! ;-)
In His Name,
Bill
Druid+
OK Mr. Pusillanimous.
bob jackson
Me wrote:
>
> What's going on here!! Is the American male waking up??
>
> An accurate assessment of the women in American society--and the
> pusillanimous men who worship at their feet.
>
> The women in America elected Bill Clinton, and we shall suffer for this.
Here's a clue for you, doorknob. With the political situation in this
country we shall suffer if the cats get together and elect a dog. I'm
not sure which iss dumber, Democrats, Republicans, or those who think
that there's a difference.
>
> It is only when the American male, in toto, realizes they have given up
> their birthright, and reassert themselves to make this country strong
> and great.
>
> The founding fathers knew the capabilities and inability's of women,
> that's why they did not get the right to vote. We, enlightened ones,
Smirk. Snicker. Giggle. Roar. Roll on the floor! You? Enlightened?
Muhahahahahahahaha.....
Sorry 'bout the delay, had to get control of my breathing. The only
way you'll _ever_ be enlightened is with a gallon of gas and a match.
> gave it to them, and we have been on a downhill spiral ever since.
>
> By and large, woman belong at home; taking care of her family and her
> man. She cannot handle academic things, i.e., logic, and the basic
> reasoning powers that brings men to a natural conclusion of right and
> wrong. Men will vote for a President, not because he is cute, but
If you had basic reasoning powers you wholdn't have posted this whiny
drivel. Run along nitwit and ask your mommy to show you how to tie
your shoes. (if you wear shoes)
> rather whether the candidate is right in his judgments, places the
> country above self and in fact, will do those things for which this
> nation once stood. Women vote with their hearts and emotions--men
> vote with intelligence and logic.
Oh yeah, and don't we have a _great_ record to proove it. Tricky Dick,
good ol' Spiro, Boss Daly, Ted the drunk, some real dandies.
>
> It is good to hear one speak truth and reality, thank you.
In your dreams.
--
Bob Jackson be...@No.Spam.juno.com rlj...@No.Spam.sierratel.com
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain
bob jackson
Bob Whitaker wrote:
>
> Like every other Poltically Correct clone, Sandi knows damned well why
> people who disagree with her had BETTER be anonymous. Nikor and all
> the rest are essentially rats who report all heresy.
>
Then you are a politicly correct clone? You have a name and an address
on your post. You don't side with Sandi, aren't the rats going to
report you as well? If you cant be coherent at least try to be
consistant.
John Turco
Dan Nelson wrote:
>
> Richard Latker wrote:
> >
> > Some frustrated idiot wrote:
> > >
> > > The largest demographic group doing the most damage to
> > > American society and its economy is comprised of the white
> > > females.
> >
> > An excellent article in the Economist in October 1996 comes to the exact
> > opposite conclusion--ie, that it is men that are less flexible, less
> > trainable and even slightly less intelligent than women--and does so
> > through an exhaustive analysis of fact (rather than your petty sour
> > grapes). Women, on average, work harder, learn more quickly and tolerate
> > change more effectively than men do.
>
> And, in the U.S. at least, do it all for significantly less money than
> men do (I make more than twice as much money as my wife for a job
> comparable in frustration, etc.). Curious.
Yes, it's curious that virtually all the respondents to this unimaginative
troll engage in white man-bashing. They all seem to subscribe to the feminist
tripe that only women work hard, and that only women have feelings, and that
only women have a raw deal in life.
They forget certain facts, such as: Females don't have to worry about being
drafted. [The familiar retort from the feminists and their supporters is
usually something to the effect that, "since men are the ones who cause wars,
they're the ones who should fight them". They simply ignore the obvious
reality that the AVERAGE man (i.e., the likely draftee) is no more
responsible for war than the typical woman is. Even more hypocritically, the
feminists are the group most vehemently aggressive in seeking combat roles
for female soldiers]. It's also socially acceptable for them to whine
excessively and to blame men for ALL their problems and their own
inadequacies.
You see, according to feminist myth, when women are under-represented in a
particular profession, it's ONLY because they're (reputedly) discriminated
against by men. However, when women dominate a specific area, it's SOLELY due
to their (alleged) "natural superiority".
In other words, women can do no wrong, and men can do no right. When a man is
successful, it's because everything is handed to him on a silver platter. But
when a woman is successful, it's because she's such a hard worker AND a
perfect human being.
At least, that's the way it is in the feminists' never-never land.
> > Managers of high-tech manufacturing operations often prefer women
> > labourers, if they are asked, because they are perceived to be more
> > meticulous than men. Women are thought to be better personnel managers,
> > teachers, doctors and researchers. It's only at the very top that women
> > are considered less desirable, because they have this habit of getting
> > pregnant and taking maternity leave.
>
> True, all of it. Women, in my experience, are (generally) better
> teachers and personnel managers. I can't speak to the others, but don't
> doubt its truth.
True, only in YOUR inevitably narrow experience. One person's anecdotal
"evidence" is of very limited scientific value.
> > > 1.) They will not tolerate having capable male subordinates
> > > working for them (at least not on a permanent or long-term
> > > basis.)
>
> Complete bull****. I have worked for several women, and they ALL
> WITHOUT EXCEPTION recognized my strengths, were more honest than the men
> I have worked for in recognizing my weaknesses, and helped me work on
> them better.
On the other hand, if someone else said (from his own experiences) that men
"ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION" were better than women at ANYTHING, everyone would
jump down his throat.
I guarantee it.
> > > With this being the case, it does not take long for
> > > performance, behavioral, and all other standards within the
> > > female's realm of responsibility to hit rock bottom.
> >
> > What you mean is this: "My boss pissed me off. She was a woman. Women
> > should be subordinate to men, damnit, not the other way around. The
> > whole fucking thing makes me feel inadequate, especially since I realise
> > my skills base isn't worth what it used to be."
>
> Exactly.
Exactly NOT. The poster is arguing by assertion, just as the troll did.
> > > 2.) Females are the operatives of the Jews.
> >
> > Translation: "The hottest babe in the office started started sleeping
> > with this *fucking* jewish guy. Damn, this pisses me off."
>
> Hee hee! Another would-be office Romeo shot down. I **love** it!
You love WHAT? It's merely a fictional story made up by the poster!
> > > Female Management, a Case Study:
> >
> > <Long tirade about how unfair the world is to men of marginal talent
> > snipped>
>
> <And a worthy snip, at that>
>
> > Any successful, accomplished person does not blame others for their
> > failures -- this is a basic rule of life to which even some of your
> > white power buddies agree (not many, it's true. Most of them blame Jews
> > for their own inability to adapt and thrive in a changing world). The
> > most successful western institutions, corporate or otherwise, have both
> > men and women in positions of power throughout the management hierarchy.
> >
> > > Many millions of dollars were wasted, this by a
> > > company which would not give a ten cent raise to a deserving
> > > white male worker!
> >
> > Yep, you hold on to that resentment, buddy. While the rest of us white
> > male workers -- who a) work hard and smart with men and women of all
> > types b) have learned how to learn, and c) still manage to get laid now
> > and then -- prosper and enjoy ourselves, you can find yourself a
> > submissive little housewife to smack around. She'll wash your clothes
> > while you down Budweisers in front of the TV, and you can live out your
> > male-supremacist fantasies in blissful sloth.
>
> MY wife is not submissive. Right now she's pissed off about much of
> what the original poster's buddies have done to her. She's thinking
> about leaving her company for one who will pay her in a manner more
> commensurate with the MILLIONS she saves her company yearly.
Of course, you can PROVE (unlike the troll in his fantasy) that she's saved
her company "MILLIONS" of dollars a year, can't you?
In a fair
> society, she'd easily be making IN THE RANGE of what I'm making, if not
> much more. I'd prefer more, because I'd likely be able to retire soon,
> cleaning the house and weeding the garden. More likely it'll be the
> other way around, more's the pity for a thinking manager.
>
> > RL
>
> Dan
In a "fair society", ALL people would be treated justly and with respect,
regardless of sex, race, religion, creed, or whatever. White, Christian men
("WCM", how do you like like that acronym I just coined? <g>) have problems
(and good and bad points) as everyone else does. I'm a member of that group
and MY conscience is clear. Go ahead and blame them for everything if it
frees YOU from some sort of "collective, WCM retroactive guilt trip".
(And don't worry, you're probably gonna "get some" tonight, after your wife
reads your boot-licking post. (Or, should I say, "high heel-licking post")?
:)
Anonymous
In article <32C30B...@mailmasher.com>, Me
<dr...@mailmasher.com> wrote:
> What's going on here!! Is the American male waking up??
>
> An accurate assessment of the women in American society--and the
> pusillanimous men who worship at their feet.
>
> The women in America elected Bill Clinton, and we shall suffer for this.
> It is good to hear one speak truth and reality, thank you.
Anonymous responds:
Thank you, Me, for your vote of confidence.
What you wrote about the election lends support for my premise
that white females have become the eyes, ears, and arms of Jews
even where no Jews are present.
White females voted for Clinton who has been characterized as
the best president Israel ever had!
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Re: Gentlemen, It Must Be Told! - RETRY
In article <32C30B...@mailmasher.com>, Me
<dr...@mailmasher.com> wrote:
> What's going on here!! Is the American male waking up??
>
> An accurate assessment of the women in American society--and the
> pusillanimous men who worship at their feet.
>
> The women in America elected Bill Clinton, and we shall suffer for this.
> It is good to hear one speak truth and reality, thank you.
Anonymous responds:
Thank you, Me, for your vote of confidence.
What you wrote about the election lends supports for my premise
Anonymous
Apocalyptic Aardvark
Me wrote:
>
> What's going on here!! Is the American male waking up??
>
> An accurate assessment of the women in American society--and the
> pusillanimous men who worship at their feet.
>
> The women in America elected Bill Clinton, and we shall suffer for this.
>
> their birthright, and reassert themselves to make this country strong
> and great.
>
> The founding fathers knew the capabilities and inability's of women,
> that's why they did not get the right to vote. We, enlightened ones,
>
> By and large, woman belong at home; taking care of her family and her
> man. She cannot handle academic things, i.e., logic, and the basic
> reasoning powers that brings men to a natural conclusion of right and
> wrong. Men will vote for a President, not because he is cute, but
> country above self and in fact, will do those things for which this
> nation once stood. Women vote with their hearts and emotions--men vote
> with intelligence and logic.
>
Thank God someone finally spoke out! It's about time someone finally
put those awful, nasty, dirty women in their place and told those men
who voted for Clinton where to go!
But you forgot the most important part: all black people, Jewish
people, and anyone else who is not white, protestant, and American will
be sentenced to eternal hell and damnation. Good work! I only hope
someone strangles or shoots you before you cause any more damage, you
dumb moron.
Dan
Bob Whitaker
No, I don't agree in general, with the following caveats:
He may have a point here. But white sellouts certainly include both
sexes.
There is a tendency for "movement women" to be part of the minority
coalition, and I think white men are all feeling a bit betrayed right
now, so I can see where he's coming from.
Anonymous
Re: Gentlemen, It Must Be Told! - RETRY
In article <32C30B...@mailmasher.com>, Me
<dr...@mailmasher.com> wrote:
> What's going on here!! Is the American male waking up??
>
> An accurate assessment of the women in American society--and the
> pusillanimous men who worship at their feet.
>
> The women in America elected Bill Clinton, and we shall suffer for this.
> It is good to hear one speak truth and reality, thank you.
LilChica
Mr. Insight wrote:
>
> Anonymous wrote:
> >
> > Anonymous would like to make two points at this time:
> >
> > 1. The males who defend female management and equality are the
> > right down to the mat fighting to keep the current vile scheme
> > which they never could command in the absence of females' keeping
> > them on as cronies.
> >
> > management is such a wonderful thing, then how come females
> > couldn't make it on their own merit in the absence of equal
> > employers don't discriminate and that smart employers hire
> > the best qualified. Why aren't smart employers smart in the
> > that countries that have lagged behind us in passing such
> > laws are also lagging behind us with the sagging of their
> > economies and societies (most notably, Japan)?
>
> incredible cowardice. If one surveys the most venomous messages, they
> seem to come primarily from unidentified contributors.
>
> Dr. Martine RoBards
And the stupidist ones! I know I would be embarassed if I was a man
with self-esteem was so low as to blame all my failures on women!
dckom
On Fri, 27 Dec 1996 14:43:22 -0800 c.e., Anonymous
<mailm...@mailmasher.com> wrote :
Yo Boyz,
Characterized by who? and why should women or anyone else care? Most
American voters are not anti-Semitic so why should they care what some
rabid Clinton/Israel hater says? Oh thats right, I forgot. Your the guy
with all the answers, so its because you say so isn't it. Gee, I guess if
we don't accept your whining as gospel we'll be just as stupid as that,
that... WOMAN, who had the job YOU shoulda had. Tsk, tsk, whats the world
coming to?
Weisse Rosen
Did you ever consider that a man would have to be a pretty miserable
specimen to want to set up housekeeping with the sort of dimwitted drudge
you describe? The fact that this is the only sort woman you find acceptable
tells us all we need know about the value of your judgements.
Weisse Rosen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Free thought, neccessarily involving freedom of
speech and press, I may tersely define thus:no
opinion a law-no opinion a crime.
Alexander Berkman