Inclusiveness includes death
Guenever
> The feminazis demand that women are *allowed* to be in combat, that
> women are *allowed* to kill their unborn children right up to the
> moment of birth, that women are *allowed* to abandon their children.
> They also demand that the ability to have children should have *no*
> bearing whatsoever on the employment of women. Further, they demand
> that women should be *excused* if they kill their children. One
> should be careful of what one wishes for ...
>
> What if these things were to come to pass? The consequences might
> not be what the feminazis think. Let us have a look at one possible
> outcome of giving them what they wish:
>
> The implication of birth control and legalised abortion is that
> women's fertility is not as valuable as it might have been in the
> past: there have to be enough women to breed, but whether or not
> any particular woman can become pregnant or chooses to carry the
> child to term is of little importance. Even if she carries the
> child to term, it cannot be assumed to be of any importance to her,
> or indeed, to society, as she can abandon or kill it. Further,
> women tend to be weaker and slower than men and this means they are
> less flexible when it comes to work: while men tend to be able to
> do both heavy physical labour as well as more sedate work, women
> tend to be able only to do more sedate work. Therefore, unless a
> woman has some special skill, she is disposable, far more than any
> man has ever been.
>
> Since women make up just over half the population, this means that
> there is plenty of surplus, but as they require -- no, *demand* -- a
> greater level of state support than men, this makes them more
> expensive than men, so therefore such a surplus is uneconomic. One
> way of 'correcting' this surplus is to send women into combat, just
> as the feminazis have demanded. To prevent too many deaths among
> the valuable, flexible workers, that is, on the whole, men, women
> would be formed into women-only units. These would be sent into
> combat first, especially in the early days of a war when it is
> difficult to measure the enemy's strength and when all the weak
> points of a peacetime army are made manifest. They could also be
> sent on suicide missions, and to do very dangerous work, such as
> clearing minefields or sabotage. The upshot would be that they
> would die, and in great numbers. When the conditions were right,
> say, after the enemy had used up some of its ammo or was tired, the
> men could step in and fight, with possibly less loss of life.
>
> To ensure that there would be a large enough breeding population,
> men and women could be selected, perhaps by lottery, to be part of a
> breeding reserve. The valuable skilled workers, mainly men, would
> also have the benefit of reserved occupations. The rest would be
> sent into battle. Of course, women could not escape conscription or
> any form of military duty, including going into combat, by becoming
> pregnant, for, haven't the feminazis *demanded* that a woman's
> ability to bear a child and, indeed, whether or not she is pregnant,
> should have *no* bearing on a woman's employment? Given this, the
> government is free to employ women as it likes in combat. Further,
> since women are *allowed* to kill their children, and even insist
> that unborn children are not children, then the fate of a pregnant
> woman and the life she carries is of no matter: she can be injured
> or killed just like any other soldier.
>
> If there was some mishap that adversely affected the breeding
> reserve, then, in this overcrowded world, a nation could always
> replenish its population by allowing in more immigrants: this
> 'inclusiveness' of other peoples also fits in with feminazi
> *demands*. It is, after all, a very *politically-correct* way of
> maintaining a state's population.
>
> Of course, it would not do for this to remain theoretical, for there
> is the surplus of all these disposable but expensive beings with
> which to contend. The solution: start a war.
>
> With whom, though? For the UK, the matter would be easily settled
> by simply invading a traditional enemy such as France. However,
> since the feminazis are arguably more rabid in their demands in the
> States, in this case, the UK should give way to the colonies for
> their needs are greater. Besides, the US is behind Europe in
> military matters. Which country invented the most widely used
> weapon in the world? The answer is Russia and the weapon is the
> AK-47: over 30 million have been built and it is used in over one
> hundred countries. Which country started two world wars? Germany.
> Which country developed the first armoured track-laying vehicles?
> Britain. Of course, the US developed the nuclear bomb, but it was
> with the help of Europeans. It is *clear* from this then, that to
> solve its problems, the US must start a war, and, to make it an all-
> American affair, the war should be started with South and Central
> America. That's right, no more playing about with 'covert' CIA
> missions or simple violations of sovereignty such as the spraying of
> drug crops. No more mucking about bombarding the Vatican Embassy in
> Panama with rock music. The US should engage in a proper war, one
> that will last for years, and even if it should lose, as in the
> case of Vietnam, it can just call it a 'police action' to save
> its pride and since it will have rid itself of all these surplus
> women, count itself a winner of sorts.
>
> But what if the feminazis shriek, 'This isn't what we meant'? All
> one has to do is point out that they demanded inclusiveness and that
> inclusiveness includes death.
>
>
> Esther Summerson
>
> Necessity * Fortune * Virtue
>
> 'We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one
> object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become
> simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till
> their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than
> the first.'
> --Charles Mackay
> Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
>
First of all, who are you to decide what the whole feminist nation wants, or
doesn't want???? I'm a mother of two children and one on the way, and have
never had an abortion, nor ever would, but that doesn't mean I am closed to
the whole concept. NOT for birth control reasons either. For women in
distress who need it.
As for the military thing, who says men do it better, or would do it
better? We'll probably never know, because women don't get the same
treatment, even in the military.
Jobs????? Aside from me, most of my family(women) have worked in
factories, and have had higher positions then most men, My mother and sister
where both in management, and my sister was one of three women, and one man.
Who Lifted boxes, and such over 50lbs. My mother supported us by helping put
together garage doors, and installing them, as well as doing most of the
work needed for our car, etc. It's not rocket science, it's common, and
doesn't take the brain of a big straong MAN to do either. Some men, and
women have it inj them. I know alot of men who could not do that kind of
stuff. My husband for one, cannot work on cars, has never done MANUAL LABOR,
but can throw together a computer that works forever in less then two hours
from parts that he gathers up. I can't do that........ That doesn't make me
any less. He can't cook, and I can throw a big dinner together in less then
an hour, that doesn't make me better.
So as I said before, who are you to say what every feminist is like??????
NOBODY!
Esther Summerson
Esther Summerson
**Recommended websites**:
http://www.sealandgov.com/
http://www.socmen.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOgSi7+bwFRBuIUs9AQGc2Af/Sw0GMjClmyt5+F1jLsGLuB96ShH+p3xn
FXWmDqGcjsRrdx/7khziMYv/gPQNnePPnCWSwV9PLz0NJjghnFujBhoKQ1KcoYHq
9pGwLmY4j6Z+U8h0pVGKGWKCx5PbXXIlS1N1AI8PVRffAoZ1rzQqRsUSy4u5kdiQ
POBi6ImRo/MuGQ5RfqgWtD5bYwe2lzTOnhggHo8Ww7LXH+ndWp0Wl2U/+uhx44fe
9khws2msnklwUMJhFA4CUK3bhu2rQPFuhIVDeSQk/vO5gp/h9QsoxJabMFjzAdYg
8tjeI/0cbndMG9N2k02ypSh2bfdd7ZOnnpmJefznlpSQnokcdQ1jZA==
=glK/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stephen Morgan
wrote:
FEMINIST NATION!?!!???!
>wants, or doesn't want????
She's an observer. And a good one, at that.
>I'm a mother of two children and one on the
>way, and have never had an abortion, nor ever would, but that doesn't
>mean I am closed to the whole concept. NOT for birth control reasons
>either. For women in distress who need it.
Yeah, whenever I get distressed I always feel this uncontrollable urge to kill
a defenceless child.
> As for the military thing, who says men do it better,
Yes, who says bigger, stronger, faster people are better at fighting? Who says
people with better spatial accuity are better at aiming guns?
>or would do it
>better? We'll probably never know, because women don't get the same
>treatment, even in the military.
> Jobs????? Aside from me, most of my family(women) have worked in
>factories, and have had higher positions then most men, My mother and
>sister where both in management,
Management don't do heavy labour.
>and my sister was one of three women,
>and one man. Who Lifted boxes, and such over 50lbs.
Barp, anecdotal evidence, try again.
>My mother supported
>us by helping put together garage doors, and installing them, as well as
>doing most of the work needed for our car, etc. It's not rocket science,
>it's common, and doesn't take the brain of a big strong MAN to do
>either. Some men, and women have it in them. I know alot of men who
>could not do that kind of stuff. My husband for one, cannot work on
>cars, has never done MANUAL LABOR, but can throw together a computer
>that works forever in less then two hours from parts that he gathers up.
>I can't do that........ That doesn't make me any less. He can't cook,
>and I can throw a big dinner together in less then an hour, that doesn't
>make me better.
More anecdotal evidence. Feminists really do have a problem with abstract
thinking.
> So as I said before, who are you to say what every feminist is
> like??????
>NOBODY!
Yeah, feminists don't hate men and the Tories aren't a centre-right party.
--
This post brought to you by the treacherous fundamentalist meat eating Yiddish
militiamen of Markabia, igniters of the evil photon belt for six hundred and
sixty six billion trillion scudzillion galactic light periods, enemies of the
divine lords of the Annanuki.
http://www.crosswinds.net/~ncavalier - Updated: 1 November, 2000
Kavking
>
>The feminazis demand that women are *allowed* to be in combat,
Feminists want to know why we value men's lives so lightly, that we don't
demand to share the same burden that they do. Nobody demands to go into
combat, nobody wants war.
that
>women are *allowed* to kill their unborn children right up to the
>moment of birth,
No, actually they don't. Most feminists, most women, most reasonable people,
do not want late term abortion.
They do not advocate killing the fetus, they do advocate the government not
doing the choosing for us. We have too much government intervention in our
lives as it is.
that women are *allowed* to abandon their children.
Nobody advocates child abuse.
>They also demand that the ability to have children should have *no*
>bearing whatsoever on the employment of women.
It shouldn't. Being pregnant is not a disease, it is not a handicap, or a
disability. It is a fact of life.
We do not ask that fatherhood have any bearing on employment, we do have fmla,
which is federally mandated, and guarentees that men have the right to
paternity leave, for the birth or adoption of a child.
Why are you insisting that motherhood have an impact on employment, when
fatherhood does not?
Further, they demand
>that women should be *excused* if they kill their children. One
>should be careful of what one wishes for
Nobody demands child abuse. Feminists are just as horrified about infant
deaths as anybody else is, and there are mothers in prison for killing
children.
>
>What if these things were to come to pass? The consequences might
>not be what the feminazis think. Let us have a look at one possible
>outcome of giving them what they wish:
>
>The implication of birth control and legalised abortion is that
>women's fertility is not as valuable as it might have been in the
>past: there have to be enough women to breed, but whether or not
>any particular woman can become pregnant or chooses to carry the
>child to term is of little importance. Even if she carries the
>child to term, it cannot be assumed to be of any importance to her,
>or indeed, to society, as she can abandon or kill it.
Oh,bullshit. Sane women do not kill their children. Most women are sane. If
we had wanton killing of children, we wouldn't have a human race. Please try
to be logical here.
Further,
>women tend to be weaker and slower than men and this means they are
>less flexible when it comes to work:
Oh, are you talking about the guys with the fat butts because they sit in an
office all day?
while men tend to be able to
>do both heavy physical labour as well as more sedate work, women
>tend to be able only to do more sedate work.
Wrong again. Women have to be more adaptable about how they do their work,
when they do non-traditional, more physical work, but they certainly can do the
work and be productive.
You are also taking for granted that men always work at their best capability.
For your information, there are lazy men and women out there. Women don't have
a lock on sedentary, or on slower production.
Therefore, unless a
>woman has some special skill, she is disposable, far more than any
>man has ever been.
No, she is not. The world is becoming a lot more techinical, the job market is
better than it ever has been before, and the need to have skilled men and women
to fill these jobs is great. And this has been true on and off throughout
history.
In fact, we had a major problem during World War II, for the specific reasons
that you consider male assetts.
We had only men going to combat, and we taught our women that they couldn't do
physical work. Thus we had nobody to do the work that had to be done at
home--to build the tanks, ships, and planes, to fly those planes to where they
were needed, to keep up production at home, so we could win the war. The
federal government had to ADVERTISE to get women into the workplace, to support
the men we had in combat. Why? Because we spent generations telling women
they could not do this work. And now, you want to keep the stereotype going.
Why don't you join the 20th century? We're in the 21st, but at least you will
be out of the 19th.
K
.........we have plenty of youth, what we need is a fountain of
smart..............
(remove Q's, before replying)
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not even sure about the universe."
--Albert Einstein
Guenever
Guenever
Rich
Kavking wrote:
>
> >Esther Summerson wrote:
>
> >
> >The feminazis demand that women are *allowed* to be in combat,
>
> Feminists want to know why we value men's lives so lightly,
Excuse me, feminism does not value men's lives at all.
Feminist slogan: If they can send one man to the moon,
why can't they send em all.
Feminism thinks that the military is a way to power, including
power over men, feminism does not give a fuck about the lives
of any male, adult or child.
But you know that, that's why you are a feminist, ain't it?
Rich
Rich
Guenever wrote:
[]
> > Esther Summerson
> >
> > Necessity * Fortune * Virtue
> >
> > 'We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one
> > object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become
> > simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till
> > their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than
> > the first.'
> > --Charles Mackay
> > Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
> >
> First of all, who are you to decide what the whole feminist nation wants, or
> doesn't want????
The feminist nation? And you are looking for a place that excludes men.
Seems it's clear enough where you are coming from,, despite your
inability to answer a simple question.
> I'm a mother of two children and one on the way, and have
> never had an abortion, nor ever would, but that doesn't mean I am closed to
> the whole concept. NOT for birth control reasons either. For women in
> distress who need it.
Most abortion is for birth control, that's what abortion rights are
all about, since you don't seem to understand it.
> As for the military thing, who says men do it better, or would do it
> better?
Gee, when I was in the marines the BAMS claimed that they'd desert
before they'd fight. Course, women don't have to meet the same
standards as men, and can't even lift the soup pots in the kitchen
or change a tire, so the military has to send men to help
them out.
> We'll probably never know, because women don't get the same
> treatment, even in the military.
Women get superior treatment for doing a substandard job. We already
know how well women work under a load.
> Jobs????? Aside from me, most of my family(women) have worked in
> factories, and have had higher positions then most men,
Ain't AA great?
Rich
KEN
"Guenever" <guen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
(snip)
>
> First of all, who are you to decide what the whole feminist nation
wants, or doesn't want????
(snip)
Seems like NOW claims they talk for ALL women...have you asked who THEY
are for saying they do so?
And yes, we can find exceptions for every rule...however this post did
bring up some valid points..or are only feminist points of view valid?
--
ALL WE ARE ASKING IS FOR FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT FOR ALL
WITHOUT THE FEMINST MOVEMENT'S DOUBLE STANDARDS THEY WOULD NOT EXIST!
BOYCOTT KRAFT, MILLER AND PHILIP MORRIS:
http://www.angelfire.com/in3/BOYCOTT/index.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
KEN
kav...@aol.comQQQQQQQQ (Kavking) wrote:
> >Esther Summerson wrote:
>
> >
> >The feminazis demand that women are *allowed* to be in combat,
>
> Feminists want to know why we value men's lives so lightly, that we
don't demand to share the same burden that they do. Nobody demands to
go into combat, nobody wants war.
"Some" feminist may..but I have not heard and outcry when only Males
are killed in so many areas..even when the United Nations troops turned
over over 7,000 males to be tortured and killed in Bosian...These men
were IN refuge camps which was suppose to protect them. Where was the
outcry on this? What about the feminst that literally call for the
entire male population to be no more then 10% of the total...an idea
which more main stream feminst are adobting and working toward by
demonizing men...much as Hitler did the Jew prior to the Hollocost.
>
> that
> >women are *allowed* to kill their unborn children right up to the
> >moment of birth,
>
> No, actually they don't. Most feminists, most women, most reasonable
people, do not want late term abortion.
AHH KEY word...Reasonable...and yes feminst groups fought hard to KEEP
late term abortions and some groups are even wanting 30 days AFTER
birth to decide if the child should be allowed to live.
> They do not advocate killing the fetus, they do advocate the
government not doing the choosing for us. We have too much government
intervention in our lives as it is.
The right to "choice" IS to chose to kill a fetus..no other way around
it...they do adovate death.
>
> that women are *allowed* to abandon their children.
>
> Nobody advocates child abuse.
then why are more women only laws being passed to allow women to
abandon their children? Law only women can be protected from...there
are already over a dozen women only excuses for breaking laws..often
that would send a man to his death.
>
> >They also demand that the ability to have children should have *no*
> >bearing whatsoever on the employment of women.
>
> It shouldn't. Being pregnant is not a disease, it is not a handicap,
or a disability. It is a fact of life.
> We do not ask that fatherhood have any bearing on employment, we do
have fmla,
> which is federally mandated, and guarentees that men have the right to
> paternity leave, for the birth or adoption of a child.
> Why are you insisting that motherhood have an impact on employment,
when
> fatherhood does not?
OH it does have an impact...fathers have NO CHOICE. He can not chose
to be a father or not and that is not EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.
A woman can chose not to be a mother...even if the man wants to be a
father... A woman can chose to be a mother and thus get "even" with a
man for 20 plus years..and often the one she choses to get even with
many not even be the father.
>
> Further, they demand
> >that women should be *excused* if they kill their children. One
> >should be careful of what one wishes for
>
> Nobody demands child abuse. Feminists are just as horrified about
infant
> deaths as anybody else is, and there are mothers in prison for killing
> children.
They are? Is that why feminst groups are pushing for laws to prevent
women from going to prison if they have other minor children? Also
check out the thead SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE.. A woman WENT
and got a knife during a domestic dispute and when she attacked a man
whom defended himself she fell on her 3 y/o daugter and severed her
artery.. She would have died in 30 seconds be it not for two MEN who
saved her live. Mind you the woman GOT the knife and ATTACKED a man
with it..Yet the ONLY ones arrested were the two MEN....this is because
the state KNOWS it would have to fight feminist groups much harder then
any men's groups...after all she was only defending herself ....
> >
> >What if these things were to come to pass? The consequences might
> >not be what the feminazis think. Let us have a look at one possible
> >outcome of giving them what they wish:
> >
> >The implication of birth control and legalised abortion is that
> >women's fertility is not as valuable as it might have been in the
> >past: there have to be enough women to breed, but whether or not
> >any particular woman can become pregnant or chooses to carry the
> >child to term is of little importance. Even if she carries the
> >child to term, it cannot be assumed to be of any importance to her,
> >or indeed, to society, as she can abandon or kill it.
>
> Oh,bullshit. Sane women do not kill their children. Most women are
sane. If we had wanton killing of children, we wouldn't have a human
race. Please try to be logical here.
Where do you draw the line? at 10,000 abortions....100,000? a million?
--
Kavking
>Yes, who says bigger, stronger, faster people are better at fighting?
Who says that bigger is faster?
Surely you are aware of balance and leverage. I have you at a disadvantage,
sight unseen, if you do not.
Have we forgotten that more mass means less manueverability, and most combat is
not hand to hand? Have we forgotten that if we fire an 8" self-propelled
howitzer, for instance, we are usually shooting at a target that we may not
even be able to see, because it is probably a good 7 miles away?
> Who
>says
>people with better spatial accuity are better at aiming guns?
Who says that men have better spatial acuity?
I did a little research, found it interesting, (thanks) and discovered that
gender has nothing to do with spatial acuity. Based upon what I read, I
probably have better spatial acuity then some guys do, because I played
softball when I was a child, and some boys did not. Practise is a factor. You
learn the skills you need to be aware of what is around you. Did you know that
people who read, or use a computer a lot have less spatial acuity than those
who do not, because they tend to ignore the vertical plane? The tend to make
visual placements based upon the horizontal. Did you know that visual acuity
tends to improve with age-- the best acuity being at about 35 years of age,
and then going downhill from there.
Did you know that even having your preferred hand available for use has an
impact on spatial acuity? You may not even need it, but your brain is aware of
it anyway, even if you are not.
As to aiming--
Have we forgotten that some hand-held weapons, and even more, the big guns or
targeting controls in ships, boats, and aircraft are infrared, or computer
guided?
Have we forgotten that most of the aforementioned aircraft are flown 'fly by
wire' and that if these computers went down in these aircraft, even a stronger
man would have a poor chance of controlling said aircraft?
We are in an era when warcraft is fought as more by computers and brain power,
than by brute strength.
Stephen Morgan
wrote:
>> ncav...@crosswinds.net wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, who says bigger, stronger, faster people are better at fighting?
>
>Who says that bigger is faster?
I dunno, I certainly didn't.
>Surely you are aware of balance and leverage. I have you at a
>disadvantage, sight unseen, if you do not.
I know all about it.
>Have we forgotten that more mass means less manueverability,
I'd take strength over "manueverability" any day.
>and most
>combat is not hand to hand?
And what about the combat that is?
>Have we forgotten that if we fire an 8"
>self-propelled howitzer, for instance, we are usually shooting at a
>target that we may not even be able to see, because it is probably a
>good 7 miles away?
So? Some combat no longer requires the above as much as it did. So what?
>> Who
>>says
>>people with better spatial accuity are better at aiming guns?
>
>Who says that men have better spatial acuity?
Oh, you know, science. Oops, feminists don't like biology, sorry.
>I did a little research, found it interesting, (thanks) and discovered
>that gender has nothing to do with spatial acuity.
Feminist websites don't count as research.
>Based upon what I
>read, I probably have better spatial acuity then some guys do, because I
>played softball when I was a child, and some boys did not. Practise is
>a factor.
Yes, it's a factor. But, a 4'6" woman is never going to be as strong as a 5'6"
man. And, men on average are significantly taller than women on average. And
have less percentage body fat.
>You learn the skills you need to be aware of what is around
>you.
Yes, but you still can't exceed your potential.
>Did you know that people who read, or use a computer a lot have
>less spatial acuity than those who do not, because they tend to ignore
>the vertical plane? The tend to make visual placements based upon the
>horizontal. Did you know that visual acuity tends to improve with
>age-- the best acuity being at about 35 years of age, and then going
>downhill from there. Did you know that even having your preferred hand
>available for use has an impact on spatial acuity?
Yes, no, and yes, in that order.
>You may not even need
>it, but your brain is aware of it anyway, even if you are not.
>
>As to aiming--
>
>Have we forgotten that some hand-held weapons, and even more, the big
>guns or targeting controls in ships, boats, and aircraft are infrared,
>or computer guided?
No, we haven't.
>Have we forgotten that most of the aforementioned aircraft are flown
>'fly by wire' and that if these computers went down in these aircraft,
>even a stronger man would have a poor chance of controlling said
>aircraft? We are in an era when warcraft is fought as more by computers
>and brain power, than by brute strength.
It is fought by those two things, as it has always been, but strength is still
vital.
--
"Why were my visitors so secretive, hiding themselves behind my consciousness.
I could only conclude that they were using me and did not want me to know
why...What if they were dangerous? Then *I* was terribly dangerous because I
was playing a role in acclimatizing people to them." - Whitley Strieber,
"Transformation"
Kavking
>On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 06:52:10 GMT, Kavking <kav...@aol.comQQQQQQQQ>,
>wrote:
>
>>> ncav...@crosswinds.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes, who says bigger, stronger, faster people are better at fighting?
>>
>>Who says that bigger is faster?
>
>I dunno, I certainly didn't.
Excuse me. I rose to the point I thought you were making--that men who are
bigger are also faster, when you listed bigger and faster in the same
statement.
>
>>Surely you are aware of balance and leverage. I have you at a
>>disadvantage, sight unseen, if you do not.
>
>I know all about it.
Ah, all about it? That's rather arrogant.
Nobody knows all about anything, life is, or should be, an on-going learning
experience.
>
>>Have we forgotten that more mass means less manueverability,
>
>I'd take strength over "manueverability" any day.
I never said strength, I said mass. You said 'bigger', remember? Big is mass.
Big does not mean strength. Fat people certainly are big, but that does not
mean they are strong, that means they probably are in poor health.
>
>>and most
>>combat is not hand to hand?
>
>And what about the combat that is?
Then we go back to balance and leverage, remember? If you know all about
balance and leverage, then you know that even if I am weaker, that I can use
the force of your own blow against you, by positioning myself in the proper
position. Unfortunately, due to biology, men do have a weakness that women do
not, that women can, and have, used effectively against a male assailant. And
the force of a man's attack can be used to make that blow stronger. Of course,
you already know this.
>
>>Have we forgotten that if we fire an 8"
>>self-propelled howitzer, for instance, we are usually shooting at a
>>target that we may not even be able to see, because it is probably a
>>good 7 miles away?
>
>So? Some combat no longer requires the above as much as it did. So what?
Then what is your point? You mentioned spatial acuity.
>
>>> Who
>>>says
>>>people with better spatial accuity are better at aiming guns?
>>
>>Who says that men have better spatial acuity?
>
>Oh, you know, science. Oops, feminists don't like biology, sorry.
Please provide a cite for this. I did some checking, and could find no
correlation between gender and visual acuity. If I have missed something, I
would appreciate the correction.
>
>>I did a little research, found it interesting, (thanks) and discovered
>>that gender has nothing to do with spatial acuity.
>
>Feminist websites don't count as research.
I never used one feminist website. I don't use any feminist websites, as there
information is always suspect. I don't do this anymore than I would refer to
an antifeminist website.
>
>>Based upon what I
>>read, I probably have better spatial acuity then some guys do, because I
>>played softball when I was a child, and some boys did not. Practise is
>>a factor.
>
>Yes, it's a factor. But, a 4'6" woman is never going to be as strong as a
>5'6"
>man.
Visual acuity has nothing to do with strength. Visual acuity has to do with
vision, and how well your eye muscles work, whether you have any conditions,
for instance--macular degeneration would work against you, and it also has to
do with hand to eye coordination.
And, men on average are significantly taller than women on average. And
>have less percentage body fat.
Which also has nothing to do with visual acuity.
And which would work against your argument anyway. While men's percentages of
fat may be less, their total mass in fat will probably be more, it is just
distrubuted differently.
>
>>You learn the skills you need to be aware of what is around
>>you.
>
>Yes, but you still can't exceed your potential.
Sure you can, because potential has expanding limits. Potential depends upon
what you want it to be in various stages of your life. You can be more
educated, you can be stronger, you can be more limber.
>
>>Did you know that people who read, or use a computer a lot have
>>less spatial acuity than those who do not, because they tend to ignore
>>the vertical plane? The tend to make visual placements based upon the
>>horizontal. Did you know that visual acuity tends to improve with
>>age-- the best acuity being at about 35 years of age, and then going
>>downhill from there. Did you know that even having your preferred hand
>>available for use has an impact on spatial acuity?
>
>Yes, no, and yes, in that order.
Well, then we have both learned something. I find that satisfying.
>
>>You may not even need
>>it, but your brain is aware of it anyway, even if you are not.
>>
>>As to aiming--
>>
>>Have we forgotten that some hand-held weapons, and even more, the big
>>guns or targeting controls in ships, boats, and aircraft are infrared,
>>or computer guided?
>
>No, we haven't.
Good deal.
>
>>Have we forgotten that most of the aforementioned aircraft are flown
>>'fly by wire' and that if these computers went down in these aircraft,
>>even a stronger man would have a poor chance of controlling said
>>aircraft? We are in an era when warcraft is fought as more by computers
>>and brain power, than by brute strength.
>
>It is fought by those two things, as it has always been, but strength is
>still
>vital.
No,actually it is not. A weaker woman, who is a more effective pilot, for
instance, can take out a stronger man, who is not as good a pilot. His
strength may be much more than hers, but he is still dead.
There is no vitality in death.
Kavking
>In article <20001105004501...@ng-md1.aol.com>,
> kav...@aol.comQQQQQQQQ (Kavking) wrote:
>> >Esther Summerson wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >The feminazis demand that women are *allowed* to be in combat,
>>
>> Feminists want to know why we value men's lives so lightly, that we
>don't demand to share the same burden that they do. Nobody demands to
>go into combat, nobody wants war.
>
> "Some" feminist may..but I have not heard and outcry when only Males
>are killed in so many areas..even when the United Nations troops turned
>over over 7,000 males to be tortured and killed in Bosian...These men
>were IN refuge camps which was suppose to protect them.
A lot of things are SUPPOSED TO happen that do not happen. I'm not making
light of the deaths, I'm stating that we live in a fallible world, and the UN
fucked up.
Where was the
>outcry on this? What about the feminst that literally call for the
>entire male population to be no more then 10% of the total...an idea
>which more main stream feminst are adobting and working toward by
>demonizing men..
No, they aren't. Most women react to this the same way that most men react
when they hear the old 'keep 'em barefoot and pregnant' line. They understand
that just as there are female crackpots, there are also male crackpots.
Unfortunately for us, the female ones tend to gravitate toward feminism, and
there isn't much we can do about it.
We can't shut them up, because then we would be subverting their right to free
speech, and we know that if we start subverting one groups right to free
speech--crack pot women--then we make it easier to subver the next group's free
speech, which might even be our own.
We can't deny them the right to call themselves feminist, but we can disavow
them every chance we get.
I'm doing that now. There is no movement to limit the male population, never
has been, never will be. Feminists do not hate men, they don't hate anyone,
they just want the rights and obligations that come with being an adult. They
want the rights of choice, without the stigma, that comes from choosing a
non-traditional profession, or staying single. They want this for men, too.
.much as Hitler did the Jew prior to the Hollocost.
Tell me, did Hitler go to the Supreme Court and ask that the draft be changed
to allow women to be drafted? Feminists did.
Did the Supreme Court tell Hitler that the reason women couldn't be in combat
was tradition? That it had always been that way, the top officers in the
military liked it that way, and that was the way it was going to stay?
Did the Supreme Court tell Hitler that it would also cost too much to register
women for the draft, so they weren't going to do it?
The Supreme Court did tell all these things to the feminists who tried to end
the male only draft.
>
>
>>
>> that
>> >women are *allowed* to kill their unborn children right up to the
>> >moment of birth,
>>
>> No, actually they don't. Most feminists, most women, most reasonable
>people, do not want late term abortion.
>
>AHH KEY word...Reasonable...and yes feminst groups fought hard to KEEP
>late term abortions and some groups are even wanting 30 days AFTER
>birth to decide if the child should be allowed to live.
Which feminist groups?
I really need a straight answer to this one.
>
>
>> They do not advocate killing the fetus, they do advocate the
>government not doing the choosing for us. We have too much government
>intervention in our lives as it is.
>
>The right to "choice" IS to chose to kill a fetus..no other way around
>it...they do adovate death.
No, they advocate choice. They advocate keeping the government out of our
private lives. It is already in thier too much now.
It is none of the government's business.
>>
>> that women are *allowed* to abandon their children.
>>
>> Nobody advocates child abuse.
>
>then why are more women only laws being passed to allow women to
>abandon their children?
What law? Please explain this to me.
Law only women can be protected from...there
>are already over a dozen women only excuses for breaking laws..often
>that would send a man to his death.
What excuses?
>>
>> >They also demand that the ability to have children should have *no*
>> >bearing whatsoever on the employment of women.
>>
>> It shouldn't. Being pregnant is not a disease, it is not a handicap,
>or a disability. It is a fact of life.
>> We do not ask that fatherhood have any bearing on employment, we do
>have fmla,
>> which is federally mandated, and guarentees that men have the right to
>> paternity leave, for the birth or adoption of a child.
>> Why are you insisting that motherhood have an impact on employment,
>when
>> fatherhood does not?
>
>OH it does have an impact...fathers have NO CHOICE. He can not chose
>to be a father or not and that is not EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.
Two different things. Right now we are discussing the impact of women's being
capable of being pregnant, and the workplace.
You want to talk about chioce, please start a new thread, and tell me what the
title of said thread is.
>A woman can chose not to be a mother...even if the man wants to be a
>father... A woman can chose to be a mother and thus get "even" with a
>man for 20 plus years..and often the one she choses to get even with
>many not even be the father.
Once again, this is not the topic of this thread.
>>
>> Further, they demand
>> >that women should be *excused* if they kill their children. One
>> >should be careful of what one wishes for
>>
>> Nobody demands child abuse. Feminists are just as horrified about
>infant
>> deaths as anybody else is, and there are mothers in prison for killing
>> children.
>
>They are? Is that why feminst groups are pushing for laws to prevent
>women from going to prison if they have other minor children? Also
>check out the thead SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE.. A woman WENT
>and got a knife during a domestic dispute and when she attacked a man
>whom defended himself she fell on her 3 y/o daugter and severed her
>artery.. She would have died in 30 seconds be it not for two MEN who
>saved her live. Mind you the woman GOT the knife and ATTACKED a man
>with it..Yet the ONLY ones arrested were the two MEN....this is because
>the state KNOWS it would have to fight feminist groups much harder then
>any men's groups...after all she was only defending herself ....
First off, of course I agree this is wrong. Secondly, no, I do not think that
the state was thinking "oh my, now we'll have the feminists on our backs."
They made some crazy decsions, but we know the state doesn't bow to the wishes
of interest groups in matters like this. If they did, nobody would die on death
row, because there are always interest groups trying to prevent it.
And as long as you're asking, I want to know why the man in Saint Regis who
stabbed is wife 44 times while she was sleeping, got off scott free, because he
said HE was sleeping. He admitted to the crime, and said his defense was that
he did it while he was sleep walking.
We have a crazy sysytem of jurisprudence, but women aren't the only people
getting away with murder.
Rich
Kavking wrote:
>
> > KEN (tetra55) tet...@my-deja.com
[]
> >> They do not advocate killing the fetus, they do advocate the
> >government not doing the choosing for us. We have too much government
> >intervention in our lives as it is.
> >
> >The right to "choice" IS to chose to kill a fetus..no other way around
> >it...they do adovate death.
>
> No, they advocate choice. They advocate keeping the government out of our
> private lives.
Feminism is against men having any choices in life, and any rights.
> It is already in thier too much now.
And feminists want more govt intervention, especially where fathers are
concerned.
> It is none of the government's business.
It's "for the children" don't you know.
Rich
Esther Summerson
Never thinking, never looking beyond the feminazi doctrine, Guenever
<guen...@mindspring.com> never did anything but shriek:
:First of all, who are you to decide what the whole feminist
:nation wants, or doesn't want????
Feminist nation? <raises eyebrow> How many battalions does this
'feminist nation' have?
Where is this 'feminist nation' located? What is it called? Does
it issue passports? Does it have a flag? Is it, perhaps, located
at the bottom of the sea along with the mythical Atlantis?
:I'm a mother of two children
:and one on the way, and have never had an abortion, nor ever
:would, but that doesn't mean I am closed to the whole concept.
:NOT for birth control reasons either. For women in distress who
:need it.
Distress? You mean those women who *claim* they will commit suicide
or that their lives will be 'traumatised' because they are pregnant?
Pregnancy is natural -- women who are 'traumatised' by it,
therefore, need to be put into a institution where their *mental*
problems can be addressed. How, after all, can a
'traumatised','distressed' or 'suicidal' woman -- that is, one with
mental problems -- possibly give *informed* consent to kill an
unborn child? 'Distress' and 'need' are very *convenient*
'justifications' for the use of abortion as birth control.
:As for the military thing, who says men do it better, or would
:do it better? We'll probably never know, because women don't get
:the same treatment, even in the military.
Women are treated better than men in the military: they do not have
to meet the same standards and they do not have to face combat
except through choice.
:Jobs????? Aside from me, most of my family(women) have worked in
:factories, and have had higher positions then most men, My mother
:and sister where both in management, and my sister was one of
:three women, and one man. Who Lifted boxes, and such over 50lbs.
:My mother supported us by helping put together garage doors, and
:installing them, as well as doing most of the work needed for our
:car, etc. It's not rocket science, it's common, and doesn't take
:the brain of a big straong MAN to do either. Some men, and women
:have it inj them. I know alot of men who could not do that kind
:of stuff. My husband for one, cannot work on cars, has never done
:MANUAL LABOR, but can throw together a computer that works
:forever in less then two hours from parts that he gathers up. I
:can't do that........ That doesn't make me any less. He can't
:cook, and I can throw a big dinner together in less then an hour,
:that doesn't make me better.
As it has been pointed out to you, your anecdotal evidence is
irrelevant. Women on the whole tend to be unable to do hard
physical labour, and even those that can tend to be unwilling to do
it. Men on the whole can and do perform both physical labour as
well as more sedate jobs: that means men are more flexible workers
and therefore, more valuable than women.
:So as I said before, who are you to say what every feminist is
:like?????? NOBODY!
What you fail to understand is that a group is a distinct entity, of
which things can be said which do not necessarily apply to
individual members. Evidence about the beliefs and other qualities
of individual members, therefore, is irrelevant to a discussion of
the group.
Feminazis in the US and the UK have demanded that women be allowed
to be in combat. Feminazis in the US and UK have done everything to
make certain that they not only have abortion on demand, but, in the
US, late-term abortion as well. Feminazis have demanded and
obtained laws that make it impossible for employers to take account
of the fact that women bear children. They have demanded that women
who have killed their children not be sent to prison and in the UK
there is the Infanticide Act which allows women to kill their
children but not be done for murder. In the US, some states have
given into feminazi demands by making laws allowing women to abandon
their babies without any questions being asked. This is what the
group in question has demanded and in many cases, what the group has
obtained.
Now that I have come to the end of your emotional rant, I find that
you have addressed none of the points I made. You will note that I
have explored the possible consequences of these demands being met
in full. It is clear that reliable contraceptives and legalised
abortion mean that any particular woman's fertility is of no or
little value and therefore, since women tend to be less flexible as
workers, and women tend to demand more economic support, women tend
to be uneconomic therefore highly disposable. Having a surplus of
women is something to be avoided. Sending women to die in war would
solve the problem of the surplus and it would also mean that
feminazis get what they have demanded, that is, to go into combat.
Expanding upon feminazi demands further, since feminazis in the
States have demanded Title IX, the federal law mandating 'gender
equity' in high school and college athletics, then the same
principle should be applied to war: women make up just over half
the population, so, in order to ensure equality of outcome in
battle, just over half the deaths should be women. Indeed, since
women make up just over half of the population, this is does not
ensure 'gender equity', so the number of women should be decreased,
so that there are equal numbers of men and women in the population.
Men also have a shorter life span than women by seven years and this
inequality must also be addressed: war, again, would be a good
solution. Women who live too long and therefore upset equality of
outcome, should be sent on suicide missions straightaway. As I
said, inclusiveness includes death.
Oh, and this 'feminist nation' has many historical inequalities for
which it must apologise. For one, in the UK, 99.8% of all military
casualties in WWII were men: this blatant inequality is inexcusable
and the 'feminist nation' should apologise and further, in order to
make amends, it should promise to see to it that in the next war,
99.8% of all military casualties will be women. In WWI, women handed
out white feathers to men who would not join up to fight the war:
the 'feminist nation' should also apologise for this and make
monetary reparations to the families of those who were give such
feathers. It must also put into place a system whereby men can gain
all the cushy jobs while women have to fight and die in the
trenches: this 'affirmative action' law would give a 'helping hand'
to those labouring under long-standing discrimination. The list, of
course, is endless, but until the 'feminist nation' apologises and
accepts its guilt for every one of its past acts of oppression, it
will never break 'the cycle of abuse'.
Esther Summerson
Necessity * Fortune * Virtue
'We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one
object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become
simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till
their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than
the first.'
--Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
**Recommended websites**:
http://www.sealandgov.com/
http://www.socmen.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOgX5J+bwFRBuIUs9AQH2kQf/SLwhEZ7reh3aXO1fqfaU+2mMJUN4cic8
Gp8WKivOMpj1rtQmg0h2igPtErAqLfzA12dIsG/bSutpZGkpQEvuqujc9yzNYZVw
KwKAp6FYUMy+wAgIcmPclLoV/OdWLgJ64OLg2ZsBm8ofhc3FbXA6PbAced+HneWX
l9Fy0JNwyC3rrlamPPZp0P9FzoIBUhgyUN+nWUofprQhvXEIl3r44U81FUAQfMqo
qs77lojhr1oc7WRb0PGt2uYDOyP67iRWf0dh24toz9kurPmzDPcsP3v/BSSCY9y7
rluWxces1gjye1nz8PlgutnLtbYqVPfeYaekT8S1LtC8xK224vbfiQ==
=IVy8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stephen Morgan
wrote:
>>ncav...@crosswinds.net wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 06:52:10 GMT, Kavking <kav...@aol.comQQQQQQQQ>,
>>wrote:
>>
>>>> ncav...@crosswinds.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, who says bigger, stronger, faster people are better at fighting?
>>>
>>>Who says that bigger is faster?
>>
>>I dunno, I certainly didn't.
>
>Excuse me. I rose to the point I thought you were making--that men who
>are bigger are also faster, when you listed bigger and faster in the
>same statement.
I just meant that the average man is both bigger and faster than the average
woman, not that there is a link. Although a longer stride may help.
>>>Surely you are aware of balance and leverage. I have you at a
>>>disadvantage, sight unseen, if you do not.
>>
>>I know all about it.
>
>Ah, all about it?
Well, I know about it.
>That's rather arrogant.
I am.
>Nobody knows all about anything, life is, or should be, an on-going
>learning experience.
>
>>>Have we forgotten that more mass means less manueverability,
>>
>>I'd take strength over "manueverability" any day.
>
>I never said strength, I said mass. You said 'bigger', remember? Big
>is mass. Big does not mean strength. Fat people certainly are big, but
>that does not mean they are strong, that means they probably are in poor
>health.
True, but more mass will normally mean more muscle mass, too. Espescially when
"big" means "tall".
>>>and most
>>>combat is not hand to hand?
>>
>>And what about the combat that is?
>
>Then we go back to balance and leverage, remember? If you know all
>about balance and leverage, then you know that even if I am weaker, that
>I can use the force of your own blow against you, by positioning myself
>in the proper position.
Sure, if they're not prepared for it and you're very well trained.
>Unfortunately, due to biology, men do have a
>weakness that women do not, that women can, and have, used effectively
>against a male assailant. And the force of a man's attack can be used
>to make that blow stronger. Of course, you already know this.
Men can use that too.
It's amazing what you can find on the web, you know. And according to a
webpage called "The Cuntbusting Forum" you need to check your biology. It's
not exactly what it sounds like, either.
>>>Have we forgotten that if we fire an 8"
>>>self-propelled howitzer, for instance, we are usually shooting at a
>>>target that we may not even be able to see, because it is probably a
>>>good 7 miles away?
>>
>>So? Some combat no longer requires the above as much as it did. So
>>what?
>
>Then what is your point? You mentioned spatial acuity.
Yes. It's relevant sometimes, and soemtimes it isn't.
>>>> Who
>>>>says
>>>>people with better spatial accuity are better at aiming guns?
>>>
>>>Who says that men have better spatial acuity?
>>
>>Oh, you know, science. Oops, feminists don't like biology, sorry.
>
>Please provide a cite for this. I did some checking, and could find no
>correlation between gender and visual acuity. If I have missed
>something, I would appreciate the correction.
Okay, I'll take a look.
>>>I did a little research, found it interesting, (thanks) and discovered
>>>that gender has nothing to do with spatial acuity.
>>
>>Feminist websites don't count as research.
>
>I never used one feminist website. I don't use any feminist websites,
>as there information is always suspect. I don't do this anymore than I
>would refer to an antifeminist website.
>
>>>Based upon what I
>>>read, I probably have better spatial acuity then some guys do, because
>>>I played softball when I was a child, and some boys did not. Practise
>>>is a factor.
>>
>>Yes, it's a factor. But, a 4'6" woman is never going to be as strong as
>>a 5'6"
>>man.
>
>Visual acuity has nothing to do with strength.
So?
>Visual acuity has to do
>with vision, and how well your eye muscles work, whether you have any
>conditions, for instance--macular degeneration would work against you,
>and it also has to do with hand to eye coordination.
>
>
> And, men on average are significantly taller than women on average. And
>>have less percentage body fat.
>
>Which also has nothing to do with visual acuity.
Yeah, so?
>And which would work against your argument anyway. While men's
>percentages of fat may be less, their total mass in fat will probably be
>more, it is just distrubuted differently.
Whar is your point?
>>>Did you know that people who read, or use a computer a lot have
>>>less spatial acuity than those who do not, because they tend to ignore
>>>the vertical plane? The tend to make visual placements based upon the
>>>horizontal. Did you know that visual acuity tends to improve with
>>>age-- the best acuity being at about 35 years of age, and then going
>>>downhill from there. Did you know that even having your preferred hand
>>>available for use has an impact on spatial acuity?
>>
>>Yes, no, and yes, in that order.
>
>Well, then we have both learned something. I find that satisfying.
Good.
>>>You may not even need
>>>it, but your brain is aware of it anyway, even if you are not.
>>>
>>>As to aiming--
>>>
>>>Have we forgotten that some hand-held weapons, and even more, the
>>>big guns or targeting controls in ships, boats, and aircraft are
>>>infrared, or computer guided?
>>
>>No, we haven't.
>
>Good deal.
>
>>>Have we forgotten that most of the aforementioned aircraft are flown
>>>'fly by wire' and that if these computers went down in these aircraft,
>>>even a stronger man would have a poor chance of controlling said
>>>aircraft? We are in an era when warcraft is fought as more by
>>>computers and brain power, than by brute strength.
>>
>>It is fought by those two things, as it has always been, but strength
>>is still
>>vital.
>
>No,actually it is not. A weaker woman, who is a more effective pilot,
>for instance, can take out a stronger man, who is not as good a pilot.
>His strength may be much more than hers, but he is still dead.
>There is no vitality in death.
I was thinking more of the army. It's always better to load a tank faster. If
men can load 50% more at a time, they can load it faster.
--
"Look, we all have something to bring to this discussion. I think from now on,
what you should bring is silence." - Rimmer
http://www.crosswinds.net/~ncavalier - Updated: 5 November, 2000
kav...@my-deja.com
No, more mass does not always mean more muscle, althout muscle does
weigh more than fat does.
Big does not mean tall. They are two different concepts.
>
> >>>and most
> >>>combat is not hand to hand?
> >>
> >>And what about the combat that is?
> >
> >Then we go back to balance and leverage, remember? If you know all
> >about balance and leverage, then you know that even if I am weaker,
that
> >I can use the force of your own blow against you, by positioning
myself
> >in the proper position.
>
> Sure, if they're not prepared for it and you're very well trained.
Not even very well trained. And even if they are prepared for it. If
I keep you from getting in too close, there is not much you can do to
stop me, short of wearing a suit of armor.
>
> >Unfortunately, due to biology, men do have a
> >weakness that women do not, that women can, and have, used
effectively
> >against a male assailant. And the force of a man's attack can be
used
> >to make that blow stronger. Of course, you already know this.
>
> Men can use that too.
> It's amazing what you can find on the web, you know. And according to
a
> webpage called "The Cuntbusting Forum" you need to check your
biology. It's
> not exactly what it sounds like, either.
I might just do that. Where do I find it?
>
> >>>Have we forgotten that if we fire an 8"
> >>>self-propelled howitzer, for instance, we are usually shooting at
a
> >>>target that we may not even be able to see, because it is probably
a
> >>>good 7 miles away?
> >>
> >>So? Some combat no longer requires the above as much as it did. So
> >>what?
> >
> >Then what is your point? You mentioned spatial acuity.
>
> Yes. It's relevant sometimes, and soemtimes it isn't.
Then why mention it is an advantage for some?
>
> >>>> Who
> >>>>says
> >>>>people with better spatial accuity are better at aiming guns?
> >>>
> >>>Who says that men have better spatial acuity?
> >>
> >>Oh, you know, science. Oops, feminists don't like biology, sorry.
> >
> >Please provide a cite for this. I did some checking, and could find
no
> >correlation between gender and visual acuity. If I have missed
> >something, I would appreciate the correction.
>
> Okay, I'll take a look.
Thank you.
>
> >>>I did a little research, found it interesting, (thanks) and
discovered
> >>>that gender has nothing to do with spatial acuity.
> >>
> >>Feminist websites don't count as research.
> >
> >I never used one feminist website. I don't use any feminist
websites,
> >as there information is always suspect. I don't do this anymore
than I
> >would refer to an antifeminist website.
> >
> >>>Based upon what I
> >>>read, I probably have better spatial acuity then some guys do,
because
> >>>I played softball when I was a child, and some boys did not.
Practise
> >>>is a factor.
> >>
> >>Yes, it's a factor. But, a 4'6" woman is never going to be as
strong as
> >>a 5'6"
> >>man.
> >
> >Visual acuity has nothing to do with strength.
>
> So?
So why did you reply to a remark about visual acuity, with a remark
about strength, if they have nothing to do with each other?
>
> >Visual acuity has to do
> >with vision, and how well your eye muscles work, whether you have any
> >conditions, for instance--macular degeneration would work against
you,
> >and it also has to do with hand to eye coordination.
> >
> >
> > And, men on average are significantly taller than women on average.
And
> >>have less percentage body fat.
> >
> >Which also has nothing to do with visual acuity.
>
> Yeah, so?
Again, so? You keep responding to statements about visual acuity with
remarks that have nothing to do with visual acuity.
>
> >And which would work against your argument anyway. While men's
> >percentages of fat may be less, their total mass in fat will
probably be
> >more, it is just distrubuted differently.
>
> Whar is your point?
What is your point? I'm just trying to respond in kind, to the remarks
that you are making.
Load a tank? Do you mean chamber a round?
--
K.
....we have plenty of youth, what we need is a fountain of smart.....
Stephen Morgan
I never said it always did, I said it would tend to.
>Big does not mean tall. They are two different concepts.
Stop that!
>> >>>and most
>> >>>combat is not hand to hand?
>> >>
>> >>And what about the combat that is?
>> >
>> >Then we go back to balance and leverage, remember? If you know all
>> >about balance and leverage, then you know that even if I am weaker,
>that
>> >I can use the force of your own blow against you, by positioning
>myself
>> >in the proper position.
>>
>> Sure, if they're not prepared for it and you're very well trained.
>
>Not even very well trained. And even if they are prepared for it. If
>I keep you from getting in too close, there is not much you can do to
>stop me, short of wearing a suit of armor.
What would a suit of armour do against this balance and leverage you're so
fond of?
>> >Unfortunately, due to biology, men do have a
>> >weakness that women do not, that women can, and have, used
>effectively
>> >against a male assailant. And the force of a man's attack can be
>used
>> >to make that blow stronger. Of course, you already know this.
>>
>> Men can use that too.
>> It's amazing what you can find on the web, you know. And according to
>a
>> webpage called "The Cuntbusting Forum" you need to check your
>biology. It's
>> not exactly what it sounds like, either.
>
>I might just do that. Where do I find it?
Can't find it. However there's always http://cbust.fsn.net/html/. "Cuntbusters
Anonymous". You wouldn't think such things would be so common.
>> >>>Have we forgotten that if we fire an 8"
>> >>>self-propelled howitzer, for instance, we are usually shooting at
>a
>> >>>target that we may not even be able to see, because it is probably
>a
>> >>>good 7 miles away?
>> >>
>> >>So? Some combat no longer requires the above as much as it did. So
>> >>what?
>> >
>> >Then what is your point? You mentioned spatial acuity.
>>
>> Yes. It's relevant sometimes, and soemtimes it isn't.
>
>Then why mention it is an advantage for some?
Because of the sometimes when it is relevant.
>> >>>> Who
>> >>>>says
>> >>>>people with better spatial accuity are better at aiming guns?
>> >>>
>> >>>Who says that men have better spatial acuity?
>> >>
>> >>Oh, you know, science. Oops, feminists don't like biology, sorry.
>> >
>> >Please provide a cite for this. I did some checking, and could find
>no
>> >correlation between gender and visual acuity. If I have missed
>> >something, I would appreciate the correction.
>>
>> Okay, I'll take a look.
>
>Thank you.
Later. I've done my websearching for the night to find Cuntbusters Anonymous.
>> >>>I did a little research, found it interesting, (thanks) and
>discovered
>> >>>that gender has nothing to do with spatial acuity.
>> >>
>> >>Feminist websites don't count as research.
>> >
>> >I never used one feminist website. I don't use any feminist
>websites,
>> >as there information is always suspect. I don't do this anymore
>than I
>> >would refer to an antifeminist website.
>> >
>> >>>Based upon what I
>> >>>read, I probably have better spatial acuity then some guys do,
>because
>> >>>I played softball when I was a child, and some boys did not.
>Practise
>> >>>is a factor.
>> >>
>> >>Yes, it's a factor. But, a 4'6" woman is never going to be as
>strong as
>> >>a 5'6"
>> >>man.
>> >
>> >Visual acuity has nothing to do with strength.
>>
>> So?
>
>So why did you reply to a remark about visual acuity, with a remark
>about strength, if they have nothing to do with each other?
I forget. SLAGIATT.
>> >Visual acuity has to do
>> >with vision, and how well your eye muscles work, whether you have any
>> >conditions, for instance--macular degeneration would work against
>you,
>> >and it also has to do with hand to eye coordination.
>> >
>> >
>> > And, men on average are significantly taller than women on average.
>And
>> >>have less percentage body fat.
>> >
>> >Which also has nothing to do with visual acuity.
>>
>> Yeah, so?
>
>Again, so? You keep responding to statements about visual acuity with
>remarks that have nothing to do with visual acuity.
I think I was saying something about potential.
>> >And which would work against your argument anyway. While men's
>> >percentages of fat may be less, their total mass in fat will
>probably be
>> >more, it is just distrubuted differently.
>>
>> Whar is your point?
>
>What is your point? I'm just trying to respond in kind, to the remarks
>that you are making.
Men have more body fat total, on average, but less proportiantely.
No, I mean load stuff onto a tank. Put boxes of stuff on it and that sort of
thing.
--
"Look, we all have something to bring to this discussion. I think from now on,
what you should bring is silence." - Rimmer
http://www.crosswinds.net/~ncavalier - Updated: 5 November, 2000
http://www.toptown.com/dorms/creedstonegate/they/they.htm - My favourite
movie, and the film with the longest fight scene in history.
kav...@my-deja.com
You said normally. Maybe two generations ago mass normally meant
muscle, but not today. Today mass normally means fat. Normally, we
have the fattest people the world has ever seen.
>
> >Big does not mean tall. They are two different concepts.
>
> Stop that!
Pardon me?
>
> >> >>>and most
> >> >>>combat is not hand to hand?
> >> >>
> >> >>And what about the combat that is?
> >> >
> >> >Then we go back to balance and leverage, remember? If you know
all
> >> >about balance and leverage, then you know that even if I am
weaker,
> >that
> >> >I can use the force of your own blow against you, by positioning
> >myself
> >> >in the proper position.
> >>
> >> Sure, if they're not prepared for it and you're very well trained.
> >
> >Not even very well trained. And even if they are prepared for it.
If
> >I keep you from getting in too close, there is not much you can do to
> >stop me, short of wearing a suit of armor.
>
> What would a suit of armour do against this balance and leverage
you're so
> fond of?
It would keep me from hurting you in vulnerable spots. If I can keep
you from getting in to close, I can hurt you in a variety of ways, that
could be prevented if you are wearing armour.
>
> >> >Unfortunately, due to biology, men do have a
> >> >weakness that women do not, that women can, and have, used
> >effectively
> >> >against a male assailant. And the force of a man's attack can be
> >used
> >> >to make that blow stronger. Of course, you already know this.
> >>
> >> Men can use that too.
> >> It's amazing what you can find on the web, you know. And according
to
> >a
> >> webpage called "The Cuntbusting Forum" you need to check your
> >biology. It's
> >> not exactly what it sounds like, either.
> >
> >I might just do that. Where do I find it?
>
> Can't find it. However there's always
http://cbust.fsn.net/html/. "Cuntbusters
> Anonymous". You wouldn't think such things would be so common.
I thought there would be self defense strategies there. There were
none. Go ahead, have a good laugh.
>
> >> >>>Have we forgotten that if we fire an 8"
> >> >>>self-propelled howitzer, for instance, we are usually shooting
at
> >a
> >> >>>target that we may not even be able to see, because it is
probably
> >a
> >> >>>good 7 miles away?
> >> >>
> >> >>So? Some combat no longer requires the above as much as it did.
So
> >> >>what?
> >> >
> >> >Then what is your point? You mentioned spatial acuity.
> >>
> >> Yes. It's relevant sometimes, and soemtimes it isn't.
> >
> >Then why mention it is an advantage for some?
>
> Because of the sometimes when it is relevant.
But it is not relevant to artillery combat.
well, dilligafai?
>
> >> >Visual acuity has to do
> >> >with vision, and how well your eye muscles work, whether you have
any
> >> >conditions, for instance--macular degeneration would work against
> >you,
> >> >and it also has to do with hand to eye coordination.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > And, men on average are significantly taller than women on
average.
> >And
> >> >>have less percentage body fat.
> >> >
> >> >Which also has nothing to do with visual acuity.
> >>
> >> Yeah, so?
> >
> >Again, so? You keep responding to statements about visual acuity
with
> >remarks that have nothing to do with visual acuity.
>
> I think I was saying something about potential.
Not yet, I think you mention that later in the post.
>
> >> >And which would work against your argument anyway. While men's
> >> >percentages of fat may be less, their total mass in fat will
> >probably be
> >> >more, it is just distrubuted differently.
> >>
> >> Whar is your point?
> >
> >What is your point? I'm just trying to respond in kind, to the
remarks
> >that you are making.
>
> Men have more body fat total, on average, but less proportiantely.
Which means nothing, because proportion is theory, it isn't how a
person really caries him/herself. When you are running, your body
doesn't stop and think to itself, "well, I have to do better (or worse)
because I am a man (or a woman) and my fat is proportionally different.
We are individuals, not all men are stronger than all women.
This has very little to do with actual combat. Those tanks don't carry
a whole lot of extraneous 'stuff', and what 'stuff' it does carry, is
already on it, put there in times when we don't have to count seconds.
Esther Summerson
What is this I see? Exuding the unmistakable odour of a red
herring, it is as substantial as a dried grass dummy, a straw man.
It has shifted ground so often that it is standing on its head at
the bottom of a pit, and look -- it is still digging. Why it must
be Kavking <kav...@aol.comQQQQQQQQ>, a typical example of the
feminazi species, who, in the usual fashion of its kind, has spewed
the following:
:>The feminazis demand that women are *allowed* to be in combat,
:
:Feminists want to know why we value men's lives so lightly, that
:we don't demand to share the same burden that they do. Nobody
:demands to go into combat, nobody wants war.
Whether anyone one wants a war is irrelevant.
Feminazis on both sides of the pond -- in the US and the UK -- are
demanding that women be allowed to be in combat roles. Now, if one
wishes to be in a combat role, then one is asking to be in combat
should a combat occur. If one is demanding to be in combat, then
one is saying that one is prepared to fight in a war, should one
happen.
As for how feminazis value men's lives: are they signing up for
selective service in the States so that they can fight alongside men
should there be a war in order to spare the lives of men who might
otherwise have to fight? No. Did feminazis in the States campaign
to be conscripted during the Vietnam War? No. In this country, in
WWI, feminists such as Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst pressed for
men to be conscripted while women, some feminazis, some feminazi
collaborators, handed out white feathers to men who would not
fight. In 1915, Charlotte Perkins Gilman wrote a novel, _Herland_,
about a 'female utopia' following a cataclysm fatal to all men.
During WWII, when the UK was being bombed, most women stayed at
home: 99.98% of all military casualties were men. And so it goes
.. Throughout history, women have tended to be happy to let men do
the fighting, to let men die.
Feminazis aren't demanding that women be in combat roles because
they want to share the responsibility of defending the community
with men: they are doing it so that women can gain power and
promotions in the military. As I said, though, if one is in a
combat role, then that role means that one will have to fight and
one just might *die*.
:that
:
:>women are *allowed* to kill their unborn children right up to the
:>moment of birth,
:
:No, actually they don't. Most feminists, most women, most
:reasonable people, do not want late term abortion. They do not
:advocate killing the fetus, they do advocate the government not
:doing the choosing for us. We have too much government
:intervention in our lives as it is.
As has been pointed out, the weasel word here is 'reasonable'. The
current system of de facto abortion on demand in the UK and abortion
on demand in the US means that women can kill their unborn children
on any pretext, reasonable or not. In this sphere, women are
dictators: they have supreme authority to kill their unborn
children; they are accountable to no one. These are the systems
that feminazis have demanded.
:that women are *allowed* to abandon their children.
:
:Nobody advocates child abuse.
In the US, some states have voted in or are in the process of voting
in laws that mean that women will be able to abandon their children
- -- just drop them off at a hospital -- without any questions being
asked. Feminazis have demanded this. They have also demanded that
women be excused when they abandon their children: there is always
some 'reason' such as 'stress', 'trauma', or it being Wednesday and
the woman just felt like it. Every now and again the newspapers in
this country run stories about newborn babies that have been found
abandoned in parks in the middle of winter, in rubbish skips, etc:
there is usually a call for the mother of the child to come forward
and it is stressed that she needs 'help' and 'sympathy'. Anyone who
abandons a baby should be put in prison for life -- that is all the
help and sympathy such a person requires.
:>They also demand that the ability to have children should have
*no*
:>bearing whatsoever on the employment of women.
:
:It shouldn't. Being pregnant is not a disease, it is not a
:handicap, or a disability. It is a fact of life. We do not ask
:that fatherhood have any bearing on employment, we do have fmla,
:which is federally mandated, and guarentees that men have the
:right to paternity leave, for the birth or adoption of a child.
:Why are you insisting that motherhood have an impact on
:employment, when fatherhood does not?
Comparing pregnant women to expectant fathers is not comparing like
with like. Women are pregnant for nine months: this condition
produces changes in the woman's body that makes it likely that it
will be difficult or impossible for her to do some jobs, and further
makes it more likely that she will take off more time than a non-
pregnant woman or a man. On top of all this, there is maternity
leave and requirements for employers to offer women who wish to
return to work after having a baby a part-time job. What this does
is make women more expensive to hire than men. Even where there is
paternity leave, men are still more productive because they do not
have all the physiological changes that come with pregnancy and,
because they are likely to be the main breadwinner, they will be
more likely to return to work sooner than women, and more likely to
wish to go back to full-time jobs for which they were hired.
What so called 'equal opportunity' laws have done is require that
employers ignore that women are more expensive workers: feminazis
have *demanded* that businesses act in a manner contrary to their
(the businesses) own economic interests.
Feminazis want such laws when it suits them, but, on the other hand,
they are very quiet about 'equality' when it comes to conscription.
They have demanded that women be put in combat roles, so women can
be conscripted. They have demanded that pregnancy be ignored, so
pregnant women can be conscripted. They have said that there is no
child until after birth, so, fine, pregnant women can be put into
battle and shot and killed just like any man.
:Further, they demand
:
:>that women should be *excused* if they kill their children. One
:>should be careful of what one wishes for
:
:Nobody demands child abuse. Feminists are just as horrified
:about infant deaths as anybody else is, and there are mothers in
:prison for killing children.
Which is why then they campaign for women who kill their children
to be let off. Further, in the UK, there is the Infanticide Act
1938:
QUOTE
1. -- (1) Where a woman by any willful act or omission causes the
death of her child being a child under the age of twelve months, but
at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind was
disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the
effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of
lactation consequent upon the birth of the child, then,
notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that but for this
Act the offence would have amounted to murder, she shall be guilty
of felony, to wit of infanticide, and may for such offence be dealt
with and punished as if she had been guilty of the offence of
manslaughter of the child.
(2) Where upon the trial of a woman for the murder of her child,
being a child under the age of twelve months, the jury are of the
opinion that she by any willful act or omission caused its death,
but that at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind
was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the
effect of giving birth or by reason of the effect of lactation
consequent upon the birth of the child, then the jury may,
notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that but for the
provisions of this Act they might have returned a verdict of murder,
return in lieu thereof a verdict of infanticide.
END QUOTE
[Source: Statutes in Force, Official Revised Edition, Revised to
June 1978, Her Majesty's Stationery Office.]
Feminazis have been happy to have this law on the statute book:
there are no calls from them for mothers who kill their children to
be put in prison. You will notice that the law is sexist: it only
applies to women. Men who kill children are done for murder.
:>What if these things were to come to pass? The consequences might
:>not be what the feminazis think. Let us have a look at one
possible
:>outcome of giving them what they wish:
:>
:>The implication of birth control and legalised abortion is that
:>women's fertility is not as valuable as it might have been in the
:>past: there have to be enough women to breed, but whether or not
:>any particular woman can become pregnant or chooses to carry the
:>child to term is of little importance. Even if she carries the
:>child to term, it cannot be assumed to be of any importance to
her,
:>or indeed, to society, as she can abandon or kill it.
:
:Oh,bullshit. Sane women do not kill their children. Most women
:are sane. If we had wanton killing of children, we wouldn't have
:a human race. Please try to be logical here.
Another weasel word: 'sane'. This is yet another fallacious attempt
to shift the ground.
In this same manner, feminazis have re-defined killing so that it
*excludes* women who kill their unborn children. Feminazis have re-
defined abandonment or killing of babies or, indeed, all children,
by women as a 'cry for help'.
And then there is yet another attempt by you to shift ground: you
bring up 'wanton killing' that would threaten the human race. No
one is talking about such killing being so widespread as to threaten
the species. What has been said is that some women kill their
children and that, as the law stands, women who kill their children
tend to get off lightly if they are punished at all. On the other
hand, men who kill children have none of the excuses that women
have, the excuses that the feminazis have *demanded* that women
have. Equality would mean that women who kill their children are
done for murder, just as men are now.
:Further,
:
:>women tend to be weaker and slower than men and this means they
are
:>less flexible when it comes to work:
:
:Oh, are you talking about the guys with the fat butts because
:they sit in an office all day?
This is fallacious: it fails to recognise that a group is a
distinct entity, of which things can be said which do not apply to
individuals within that group. Some men do sedentary jobs and some
men are out of condition and not able to perform well doing heavy
physical labour. Men, as a group, however, tend to be stronger and
faster than women as a group, and thus more able to do heavy
physical labour, and, since they can also do sedentary work, this
makes them more flexible workers than women.
:while men tend to be able to
:
:>do both heavy physical labour as well as more sedate work, women
:>tend to be able only to do more sedate work.
:
:Wrong again. Women have to be more adaptable about how they do
:their work, when they do non-traditional, more physical work, but
:they certainly can do the work and be productive. You are also
:taking for granted that men always work at their best capability.
:For your information, there are lazy men and women out there.
:Women don't have a lock on sedentary, or on slower production.
Another weasel word: 'non-traditional'. And here is another:
'they certainly can do the work and be productive' -- some may be
able to do the work, but will they tend to be as productive as men
doing the same jobs? No.
And then there is the straw man: you are trying to deliberately
overstate the position to weaken it. Did I say that men always
worked to their best capability? No. Did I say that there were no
lazy men out there? No. Did I say that men do not do sedentary
work or sometimes work slowly? No.
I said that women tend not to be able to do heavy physical labour.
This is because women tend to be weaker than men. Therefore, if one
wishes to have a worker who can do heavy physical labour and more
sedate jobs, then one will mostly find that it is men who are
capable of doing both, and it is this that means that men tend to be
more flexible workers than women.
:
:Therefore, unless a
:
:>woman has some special skill, she is disposable, far more than any
:>man has ever been.
:
:No, she is not. The world is becoming a lot more techinical, the
:job market is better than it ever has been before, and the need
:to have skilled men and women to fill these jobs is great. And
:this has been true on and off throughout history. In fact, we had
:a major problem during World War II, for the specific reasons
:that you consider male assetts. We had only men going to combat,
:and we taught our women that they couldn't do physical work. Thus
:we had nobody to do the work that had to be done at home--to
:build the tanks, ships, and planes, to fly those planes to where
:they were needed, to keep up production at home, so we could win
:the war. The federal government had to ADVERTISE to get women
:into the workplace, to support the men we had in combat. Why?
:Because we spent generations telling women they could not do this
:work. And now, you want to keep the stereotype going. Why don't
:you join the 20th century? We're in the 21st, but at least you
:will be out of the 19th.
Again, this is all irrelevant. The argument is that women tend not
to be as flexible of workers as men and therefore, unless a woman
has a special skill, she is more expendable than a man, because
there is less loss of productive potential when a woman dies than
when a man dies. In the past, when fertility was a concern, a
woman's potential fertility could be taken into account, but these
days, birth control and legalised abortion mean that any particular
woman's fertility, that is, her ability to produce children, is of
no account. Further, since women tend to require -- to *demand* --
more state support, women tend to be more expensive workers than
men. Therefore, having a surplus of women is uneconomic. So, if
one needs to send people on suicide missions or into other
situations in order to protect the more flexible and more economic
workers, one should logically send women. Further, since men tend
to be stronger and faster, they will tend to be better in combat,
making them more capable soldiers and thus it makes good sense,
especially in the early days of a war or in situations where one
cannot actually win a war but one needs to put up some sort of force
in order to save face, to protect one's capable soldiers by
sending out less capable soldiers and women tend to fit that bill
very nicely.
As to women being told they could not work, not only is it
irrelevant, but it is yet another feminazi double standard.
According to feminazi doctrine, women are equal to or superior to
men -- tell me, how is that 'equal' or 'superior' women could simply
just nod their heads like sheep when being 'told' that they could
not work? If they were so 'equal' or 'superior', one would expect
that they would notice that, indeed, they were working, just not in
the same jobs as men, either because they could not or would not.
As to being in the '21st century' -- you must have a time machine,
for it is still the twentieth. And as for the implication of your
words about centuries, you are again engaging in fallacious
thinking, if, indeed, you are engaging in thinking at all: you are
making the mistake of thinking because something is purportedly new,
that it is better simply because it is new. By this logic, a new
form of the plague would be better, after all it is *new*. The fact
is, though, feminazis are doing nothing more than perpetuating the
age-old tradition whereby women are not responsible for defending or
maintaining the community; what feminazis want is not *duty*, for
that would mean work, but rewards as if they had worked -- this is
what they have re-defined as 'equality'.
Esther Summerson
Necessity * Fortune * Virtue
'We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one
object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become
simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till
their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than
the first.'
--Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
**Recommended websites**:
http://www.sealandgov.com/
http://www.socmen.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEUAwUBOgioF+bwFRBuIUs9AQG0uAf4wFxURtaHekftfGVoAXT32k5cMKQKiLlT
tyldS1+2CgICd+I8Wrn4YH2diZkBWufOtCcB0+mwfS8hKZicYH1/TxljqnZNaMwL
WRne+9vP1ZiLaqeb6VXAQQ540AZBXwF6dFtHKagLeekrcn4rdfYtdFL5Xeti5+28
K7GbTTZGif585iDb+igypxP4bzJaRfhfsRskNM8Xim/xi4cT1yiPOuICy7SRQq/K
v5Aqd9kExFDNedW9pvY/Btt8gVn5sTKfNqLcJHUfSu2VvXZbbniSvVxDzooY+DJK
7nik0HJPvN9w1U9nyBOZzffqCFQ0sk2MtzgDLeD877oR/XmYOm7t
=8XLQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stephen Morgan
Doesn't America have a 33% obesity rate?
>> >Big does not mean tall. They are two different concepts.
>>
>> Stop that!
>
>Pardon me?
That's alright.
>> >> >>>and most
>> >> >>>combat is not hand to hand?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>And what about the combat that is?
>> >> >
>> >> >Then we go back to balance and leverage, remember? If you know
>all
>> >> >about balance and leverage, then you know that even if I am
>weaker,
>> >that
>> >> >I can use the force of your own blow against you, by positioning
>> >myself
>> >> >in the proper position.
>> >>
>> >> Sure, if they're not prepared for it and you're very well trained.
>> >
>> >Not even very well trained. And even if they are prepared for it.
>If
>> >I keep you from getting in too close, there is not much you can do to
>> >stop me, short of wearing a suit of armor.
>>
>> What would a suit of armour do against this balance and leverage
>you're so
>> fond of?
>
>It would keep me from hurting you in vulnerable spots.
Which is discussed further down the message.
>If I can keep
>you from getting in to close, I can hurt you in a variety of ways, that
>could be prevented if you are wearing armour.
Or if I just stay away and shoot at you.
>> >> >Unfortunately, due to biology, men do have a
>> >> >weakness that women do not, that women can, and have, used
>> >effectively
>> >> >against a male assailant. And the force of a man's attack can be
>> >used
>> >> >to make that blow stronger. Of course, you already know this.
>> >>
>> >> Men can use that too.
>> >> It's amazing what you can find on the web, you know. And according
>to
>> >a
>> >> webpage called "The Cuntbusting Forum" you need to check your
>> >biology. It's
>> >> not exactly what it sounds like, either.
>> >
>> >I might just do that. Where do I find it?
>>
>> Can't find it. However there's always
>http://cbust.fsn.net/html/. "Cuntbusters
>> Anonymous". You wouldn't think such things would be so common.
>
>I thought there would be self defense strategies there. There were
>none. Go ahead, have a good laugh.
It is quite funny, yes.
>> >> >>>Have we forgotten that if we fire an 8"
>> >> >>>self-propelled howitzer, for instance, we are usually shooting
>at
>> >a
>> >> >>>target that we may not even be able to see, because it is
>probably
>> >a
>> >> >>>good 7 miles away?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>So? Some combat no longer requires the above as much as it did.
>So
>> >> >>what?
>> >> >
>> >> >Then what is your point? You mentioned spatial acuity.
>> >>
>> >> Yes. It's relevant sometimes, and soemtimes it isn't.
>> >
>> >Then why mention it is an advantage for some?
>>
>> Because of the sometimes when it is relevant.
>
>But it is not relevant to artillery combat.
Don't you have to quickly load big, heavy shells?
Do what?
>> >> >Visual acuity has to do
>> >> >with vision, and how well your eye muscles work, whether you have
>any
>> >> >conditions, for instance--macular degeneration would work against
>> >you,
>> >> >and it also has to do with hand to eye coordination.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > And, men on average are significantly taller than women on
>average.
>> >And
>> >> >>have less percentage body fat.
>> >> >
>> >> >Which also has nothing to do with visual acuity.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, so?
>> >
>> >Again, so? You keep responding to statements about visual acuity
>with
>> >remarks that have nothing to do with visual acuity.
>>
>> I think I was saying something about potential.
>
>Not yet, I think you mention that later in the post.
Oh.
>> >> >And which would work against your argument anyway. While men's
>> >> >percentages of fat may be less, their total mass in fat will
>> >probably be
>> >> >more, it is just distrubuted differently.
>> >>
>> >> Whar is your point?
>> >
>> >What is your point? I'm just trying to respond in kind, to the
>remarks
>> >that you are making.
>>
>> Men have more body fat total, on average, but less proportiantely.
>
>Which means nothing, because proportion is theory, it isn't how a
>person really caries him/herself. When you are running, your body
>doesn't stop and think to itself, "well, I have to do better (or worse)
>because I am a man (or a woman) and my fat is proportionally different.
>We are individuals, not all men are stronger than all women.
True, but we're speaking averages.
I was speaking of fuel, ammo and so on with "stuff".
And aeroplanes on aircraft carriers that need to be loaded quickly.
--
"...You must recruit every agency of the Nation marked for slaughter into
foaming hatred of religious healing... that any religious practice which might
devote itself to MENTAL HEALING is vicious, bad, insanity causing, publicly
hated and intolerable. You must suborn and recruit any medical healing
organization into collusion in this campaign." - Campaign for your
Destruction.
Yury Donskoy
<20001105015210...@ng-md1.aol.com> that:
>> ncav...@crosswinds.net wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, who says bigger, stronger, faster people are better at fighting?
>
>
>Who says that bigger is faster?
>Surely you are aware of balance and leverage. I have you at a
>disadvantage, sight unseen, if you do not.
>Have we forgotten that more mass means less manueverability, and most
>combat is not hand to hand? Have we forgotten that if we fire an 8"
>self-propelled howitzer, for instance, we are usually shooting at a
>target that we may not even be able to see, because it is probably a
>good 7 miles away?
Yes, but who can lift and load the shell? I guess "more mass means less
manueverability" explains why wrestlers always wrestle competitors of the
same sex.
>
>> Who
>>says
>>people with better spatial accuity are better at aiming guns?
>
>Who says that men have better spatial acuity?
>I did a little research, found it interesting, (thanks) and discovered
>that gender has nothing to do with spatial acuity. Based upon what I
>read, I probably have better spatial acuity then some guys do, because I
>played softball when I was a child, and some boys did not. Practise is
>a factor. You learn the skills you need to be aware of what is around
>you. Did you know that people who read, or use a computer a lot have
>less spatial acuity than those who do not, because they tend to ignore
>the vertical plane? The tend to make visual placements based upon the
>horizontal. Did you know that visual acuity tends to improve with
>age-- the best acuity being at about 35 years of age, and then going
>downhill from there. Did you know that even having your preferred hand
>available for use has an impact on spatial acuity? You may not even need
>it, but your brain is aware of it anyway, even if you are not.
Where'd you read it?
>
>As to aiming--
>
>Have we forgotten that some hand-held weapons, and even more, the big
>guns or targeting controls in ships, boats, and aircraft are infrared,
>or computer guided?
Right. And the next time you need to take out a single enemy(and only that
single enemy), you'll obliterate his entire camp and three villages around
it with battleship batteries.
>
>Have we forgotten that most of the aforementioned aircraft are flown
>'fly by wire' and that if these computers went down in these aircraft,
>even a stronger man would have a poor chance of controlling said
>aircraft? We are in an era when warcraft is fought as more by computers
>and brain power, than by brute strength.
True. But strength and endurance become a factor when said aircraft gets
shot down and pilot bails out. By the way, we aren't talking about a
computer game.
Yury Donskoy
If that's true, and it's such a glaring weakness, how come there are so
many rapes? How come all those women do not use this tactic, when they
obviously must know about it.
>>
>>>Have we forgotten that if we fire an 8"
>>>self-propelled howitzer, for instance, we are usually shooting at a
>>>target that we may not even be able to see, because it is probably a
>>>good 7 miles away?
>>
>>So? Some combat no longer requires the above as much as it did. So
>>what?
>
>Then what is your point? You mentioned spatial acuity.
>>
>>>> Who
>>>>says
>>>>people with better spatial accuity are better at aiming guns?
>>>
>>>Who says that men have better spatial acuity?
>>
>>Oh, you know, science. Oops, feminists don't like biology, sorry.
>
>Please provide a cite for this. I did some checking, and could find no
>correlation between gender and visual acuity. If I have missed
>something, I would appreciate the correction.
How can you get a correction when you have not posted the studies that you
read.
No, it doesn't. Here's the definition of potential:
Main Entry: 1po·ten·tial
Pronunciation: p&-'ten(t)-sh&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English potencial, from Late
Latin potentialis, from potentia potentiality, from
Latin, power, from potent-, potens
Date: 14th century
1 : existing in possibility : capable of development
into actuality <potential benefits>
2 : expressing possibility; specifically : of, relating
to, or constituting a verb phrase expressing
possibility, liberty, or power by the use of an
auxiliary with the infinitive of the verb (as in "it may
rain")
synonym see LATENT
- po·ten·tial·ly /-'ten(t)-sh(&-)lE/ adverb
And here's LATENT:
Main Entry: 1la·tent
Pronunciation: 'lA-t&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin latent-,
latens, from present participle of latEre to lie hidden;
akin to Greek lanthanein to escape notice
Date: 15th century
: present and capable of becoming though not now
visible, obvious, or active <a latent infection>
- la·tent·ly adverb
synonyms LATENT, DORMANT, QUIESCENT, POTENTIAL
mean not now showing signs of activity or existence.
LATENT applies to a power or quality that has not yet
come forth but may emerge and develop <a latent
desire for success>. DORMANT suggests the inactivity
of something (as a feeling or power) as though
sleeping <their passion had lain dormant>.
QUIESCENT suggests a usually temporary cessation of
activity <the disease was quiescent>. POTENTIAL
applies to what does not yet have existence or effect
but is likely soon to have <a potential disaster>.
You see, Kavking, the upshot of this is that while you can grow, if you
choose, to your potential, you cannot exceed it. If potential had
expanding limits, as you claim, women bodybuilders would *all* be as big as
the men bodybuilders, and you could cram 10 terrabytes of data into a 10
gigabyte disk drive.
But if she is shot down, what then?
Yury Donskoy
<3A04F862...@home.removeme.com> that:
Out of curiosity, what's BAMS?
Yury Donskoy
by writing in <2000110600383...@gacracker.org> that:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>
>Never thinking, never looking beyond the feminazi doctrine, Guenever
><guen...@mindspring.com> never did anything but shriek:
>
>
>:First of all, who are you to decide what the whole feminist
>:nation wants, or doesn't want????
>
>Feminist nation? <raises eyebrow> How many battalions does this
>'feminist nation' have?
>
>Where is this 'feminist nation' located? What is it called? Does
>it issue passports? Does it have a flag? Is it, perhaps, located
>at the bottom of the sea along with the mythical Atlantis?
Now, now. Atlantis isn't mythical<g>.
Rich
Broad Assed Marines.
Perhaps this slang is a bit dated. :^}
Rich
Yury Donskoy
<20001105004501...@ng-md1.aol.com> that:
>>Esther Summerson wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>The feminazis demand that women are *allowed* to be in combat,
>
>Feminists want to know why we value men's lives so lightly, that we
>don't demand to share the same burden that they do. Nobody demands to
>go into combat, nobody wants war.
They don't demand to know. They *already* know.
>
> that
>>women are *allowed* to kill their unborn children right up to the
>>moment of birth,
>
>No, actually they don't. Most feminists, most women, most reasonable
>people, do not want late term abortion.
>They do not advocate killing the fetus, they do advocate the government
>not doing the choosing for us. We have too much government intervention
>in our lives as it is.
Yeah, I guess all that AA and VAWA gets even on *women's* nerves after
awhile.
>
>
> that women are *allowed* to abandon their children.
>
>Nobody advocates child abuse.
Nobody said *abuse*.
>
>>They also demand that the ability to have children should have *no*
>>bearing whatsoever on the employment of women.
>
>It shouldn't. Being pregnant is not a disease, it is not a handicap, or
>a disability. It is a fact of life.
Yeah, tell that to all those on this NG who claim that it's a parasite.
>We do not ask that fatherhood have any bearing on employment, we do have
>fmla, which is federally mandated, and guarentees that men have the
>right to paternity leave, for the birth or adoption of a child.
>Why are you insisting that motherhood have an impact on employment, when
>fatherhood does not?
Because, in the end, it is *women* who can choose unilateraly to not return
to work after their mandated leave of absense.
>
>
> Further, they demand
>>that women should be *excused* if they kill their children. One
>>should be careful of what one wishes for
>
>Nobody demands child abuse. Feminists are just as horrified about
>infant deaths as anybody else is, and there are mothers in prison for
>killing children.
A while ago, someone posted a list of all the women sent to prison for
killing their children. The listed also included women not sent to prison
for killing their children. The ones that went, killed girls; the ones who
didn't, killed boys.
>>
>>What if these things were to come to pass? The consequences might
>>not be what the feminazis think. Let us have a look at one possible
>>outcome of giving them what they wish:
>>
>>The implication of birth control and legalised abortion is that
>>women's fertility is not as valuable as it might have been in the
>>past: there have to be enough women to breed, but whether or not
>>any particular woman can become pregnant or chooses to carry the
>>child to term is of little importance. Even if she carries the
>>child to term, it cannot be assumed to be of any importance to her,
>>or indeed, to society, as she can abandon or kill it.
>
>Oh,bullshit. Sane women do not kill their children. Most women are
>sane. If we had wanton killing of children, we wouldn't have a human
>race. Please try to be logical here.
We never had the ability to do this before. Try not to look at world
history through a hightech prism.
>
> Further,
>>women tend to be weaker and slower than men and this means they are
>>less flexible when it comes to work:
>
>Oh, are you talking about the guys with the fat butts because they sit
>in an office all day?
No, she means the women in an office who aren't ever asked to move
furniture around.
>
>
>while men tend to be able to
>>do both heavy physical labour as well as more sedate work, women
>>tend to be able only to do more sedate work.
>
>Wrong again. Women have to be more adaptable about how they do their
>work, when they do non-traditional, more physical work, but they
>certainly can do the work and be productive.
>You are also taking for granted that men always work at their best
>capability. For your information, there are lazy men and women out
>there. Women don't have a lock on sedentary, or on slower production.
>
>
> Therefore, unless a
>>woman has some special skill, she is disposable, far more than any
>>man has ever been.
>
>No, she is not. The world is becoming a lot more techinical, the job
>market is better than it ever has been before, and the need to have
>skilled men and women to fill these jobs is great. And this has been
>true on and off throughout history.
No, it hasn't. The world before was mostly physical, not technical.
>In fact, we had a major problem during World War II, for the specific
>reasons that you consider male assetts.
>We had only men going to combat, and we taught our women that they
>couldn't do physical work. Thus we had nobody to do the work that had
>to be done at home--to build the tanks, ships, and planes, to fly those
>planes to where they were needed, to keep up production at home, so we
>could win the war. The federal government had to ADVERTISE to get women
>into the workplace, to support the men we had in combat. Why? Because
>we spent generations telling women they could not do this work. And
>now, you want to keep the stereotype going. Why don't you join the 20th
>century? We're in the 21st, but at least you will be out of the 19th.
Yes, I'm sure it took a lot more strength, courage and dexterity to build
tanks in the safety of an uninvadeable country than it did to dodge shells,
bullets and mines on a battlefield on the other side of the world.
Yury Donskoy
Like timelines in Star Trek, I see multiple possibilities before me, but
don't know which is correct<g>.
<Snip>
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <8FE5FF7B2yury...@24.2.9.61>, yu...@spamwazat.com
(Yury Donskoy) wrote:
Spiritual Poison = Esther Summerson... _always_ her words end up including
the death of women.
"All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is
everything. What we think, we become." _Buddha.
Jennifer Larson
Deborah Terreson wrote:
> In article <8FE5FF7B2yury...@24.2.9.61>, yu...@spamwazat.com
> (Yury Donskoy) wrote:
> Spiritual Poison = Esther Summerson... _always_ her words end up including
> the death of women.
No shit. She is one fucked up bitch.
Shawn T Pickrell
: Deborah Terreson wrote:
:> Spiritual Poison = Esther Summerson... _always_ her words end up including
:> the death of women.
:
: No shit. She is one fucked up bitch.
has she EVER said anything good about any woman?
--
Shawn Pickrell
Champ Man 00/01, AE Larissa
Greek Cup Group 5, W4 D0 L1 F4 A3 Pts10, 1st place -- on to round 3!
Greek A Division, W4 D3 L2 Pts15, 6th place -- 4 behind the promotion chase
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <8ucpeh$1fh84$1...@ID-46339.news.dfncis.de>, "Moon Shyne"
<moons...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Shawn T Pickrell" <spic...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote in message
> news:8uch79$k...@portal.gmu.edu...
>> In soc.men Jennifer Larson <stra...@udel.edu> wrote:
>>
>> : Deborah Terreson wrote:
>>
>> :> Spiritual Poison = Esther Summerson... _always_ her words end up
> including
>> :> the death of women.
>> :
>> : No shit. She is one fucked up bitch.
>>
>> has she EVER said anything good about any woman?
>
> Not that I've ever noticed.
I generally avoid her posts and try to keep well away from the threads she
posts to. The only reason I replied was that the NG server here dropped a
stitch two days ago and all that I got was Yury's post. I started reading it
then I realised who it was from - it didn't take long. I was bent out of
shape that I read some of it. Stuff like that is dangerous to any inner
state of grace. Such venom from a woman that claims to be a religious,
conservative, stay-at-home mom. Bad, bad, bad. :(
"All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is
everything. What we think, we become." _Buddha.
Deb.
Yury Donskoy
<3A090CE0...@udel.edu> that:
>
>
>Deborah Terreson wrote:
>
>> In article <8FE5FF7B2yury...@24.2.9.61>,
>> yu...@spamwazat.com (Yury Donskoy) wrote:
>
>> Spiritual Poison = Esther Summerson... _always_ her words end up
>> including the death of women.
>
>No shit. She is one fucked up bitch.
Takes one to know one. Lest we forget, here are some of Jen's more
memorable quotes:
> Listen dick head jumping in with foot in mouth: WOMEN and ONLY WOMEN
were by
> birth subjected to men all men. All women. Now shut the fuck up.
##
> This is true Rich. They like to fuck women, but women as people, they
hate.
##
> All men hate women.
##
> All proven and documented is the sheer hatred and distrust of women by
men
> throughout history, and it continues to thrive today. All men hate
women.
##
> Sorry John O., BUT - the fact remains that WOMEN were targeted as
inferior,
> incompetent, not human, etc... BY MEN throughout history.
##
> Not considering how BADLY men want a nice pussy all to themselves and a
domestic
> breeder and slave. This would be completely rational and beneficial to
ALL men.
##
> All men hate women.
##
> I'm a Jen supremecist, and I hate the fact that all men hate women.
Nothing more.
##
---------
Men are brutal killing machines. Have a look at that history that you
ignore so. The
problem with brutalizing women is it is of course "cutting off your nose
despite your face"
type of dillema. They chose more underhanded ways to keep women where they
wanted them.
----------
Men have shown through action and acceptance of female subsurvience to have
little
respect for women, their abilites, and feelings. They have shown through
action and
acceptance of second-class citizenship for women, and exclusion of women
from being
autonomous adults, which they embraced for themselves. They have demonized
women and
their bodily functions for a long time and acted on that hate to integrate
that hate
into a sexist society.
----------
>
Yury Donskoy
<jjnO5.143$_07.3...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net> that:
>
>
>----------
>In article <8ucpeh$1fh84$1...@ID-46339.news.dfncis.de>, "Moon Shyne"
><moons...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> "Shawn T Pickrell" <spic...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:8uch79$k...@portal.gmu.edu...
>>> In soc.men Jennifer Larson <stra...@udel.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> : Deborah Terreson wrote:
>>>
>>> :> Spiritual Poison = Esther Summerson... _always_ her words end up
>> including
>>> :> the death of women.
>>> :
>>> : No shit. She is one fucked up bitch.
>>>
>>> has she EVER said anything good about any woman?
>>
>> Not that I've ever noticed.
>
>I generally avoid her posts and try to keep well away from the threads
>she posts to. The only reason I replied was that the NG server here
>dropped a stitch two days ago and all that I got was Yury's post. I
>started reading it then I realised who it was from - it didn't take
>long. I was bent out of shape that I read some of it. Stuff like that is
>dangerous to any inner state of grace. Such venom from a woman that
>claims to be a religious, conservative, stay-at-home mom. Bad, bad, bad.
> :(
It's no worse than "All heterosexual sex is rape."
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <8FE6DB63Ayury...@24.2.9.61>, yu...@spamwazat.com
(Yury Donskoy) wrote:
Rich mentioned that phrase also.. Is it Andera Dworkin? I don't read her
missives either.
Deb.
BrettG
"Goddess" <hl-go...@home.com> wrote in message
news:i6pO5.2336$U46.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Moon Shyne" <moons...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8ucpeh$1fh84$1...@ID-46339.news.dfncis.de...
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> > "Shawn T Pickrell" <spic...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:8uch79$k...@portal.gmu.edu...
> > > In soc.men Jennifer Larson <stra...@udel.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > :> Spiritual Poison = Esther Summerson... _always_ her words end up
> > including
> > > :> the death of women.
> > > : No shit. She is one fucked up bitch.
> > >
> > > has she EVER said anything good about any woman?
> >
> > Not that I've ever noticed.
>
Problem is mange baby, neither have you. All you do
is excuse any and all behaviour by women no matter
how appalling it may be. It's certainly not a positive
advertisment for your gender.
Yury Donskoy
Yes, I believe it is. Yet that's what defines feminism, not what some
third-wave feminists like to believe.
Shawn T Pickrell
: Problem is mange baby, neither have you. All you do
: is excuse any and all behaviour by women no matter
: how appalling it may be. It's certainly not a positive
: advertisment for your gender.
the question is about esther's behaviour on this ng, not marg's.
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <8FE75F7B2yury...@24.2.9.61>, yu...@spamwazat.com
(Yury Donskoy) wrote:
> fooda...@mediaone.net (Deborah Terreson) delighted us by writing in
> <97rO5.261$_07.8...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net> that:
> Yes, I believe it is. Yet that's what defines feminism, not what some
> third-wave feminists like to believe.
I find it interesting that many anti-feminists latch onto her writing as
some form of example of to what all feminists think. From what I've read
about A. Dworkin, she seems to be a very screwed-up woman. I wonder if she
was a spoiled little princess when she was growing up.
Deb.
Rich
Goddess wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Moon Shyne" <moons...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8ucpeh$1fh84$1...@ID-46339.news.dfncis.de...
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> > "Shawn T Pickrell" <spic...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:8uch79$k...@portal.gmu.edu...
> > > In soc.men Jennifer Larson <stra...@udel.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > : Deborah Terreson wrote:
> > >
> > > :> Spiritual Poison = Esther Summerson... _always_ her words end up
> > including
> > > :> the death of women.
> > > :
> > > : No shit. She is one fucked up bitch.
> > >
> > > has she EVER said anything good about any woman?
> >
> > Not that I've ever noticed.
>
> Nor I.
And has feminism ever said anything good about men? Not on your
life, feminism paints men as rapists, batterers, selfish and
immature. A lot like Marg. And Marg is a feminist. Hypocrite.
Rich
> Marg
Kavking
wrote:
>And has feminism ever said anything good about men? Not on your
>life, feminism paints men as rapists, batterers, selfish and
>immature.
Then explain this, Rich:
In article <39CF8253...@erols.com>,
Underground Panther <fur...@erols.com> wrote:
> Question:
> Why do you feel this need rettig, to open your mouth in a place where
it
> is not welcome,
> and say watever comment gets you in straights to begin with??
Because this is the internet, where one can write just about whatever one
chooses to.
> What drives you to say these things?You do not HAVE to say it or you
> will die do you?
Why not say these things? Why not write what you feel, and get answers to your
questions, and make chioces about the answers that you get? Why not ask,
because if you never ask, you may live with misconceptions all your life?
>
> SureSexual Harrasment laws are a bit fierce,but guess what,guys you
> bought in the conditioning you guys never asked how to cook clean sew
or
> raise kids,
You're making unfair judgements. Some of the best moms I know are called Dad.
Some of the worst slobs I know are called mom.
You want to tell women how to look act,respond and dress
> based in some fantasy in your heads culture conditioning created to
like
> someones pocket!Why do,you feel yourselves Superior? Women have been
> dominated by men for many years it was only the 1920's women could
> VOTE!Women could not own land in the days where all MEN were declared
> Equal!! So is it so EVIL for women to be disgusted at crass jokes or
be
> ooogled at by a man she has no interest in,why be so offended..
Why should she be offended? It's human nature to look. Some of the most
detailed examinations of other human bodies I've witnessed have come from
women. What's wrong with looking? Sure guys look at tits and ass.
Women discuss boxers vs. briefs, which do you suppose THAT guy is wearing?
What's the difference?
As long as it's look, and talking among your peers, and you aren't hurting
anyone, what is the problem?
As long as it's a look, and not a grope, what is the big deal?
I'll
> point out this,What if all women in this world,refused to care about
> men's problems ,what if they all refused to let them oogle,drool and
> fondle them like toys what if porn was no longer made what if we said
NO
> to sex until we felt like it,or used dildoes and related to women and
> left you guys out in the cold?..
It happens now. Life goes on. No big deal.
what if women gave you no children,and
> no care when you were sick and pathetic, ,no housecleaning,or the
other
> countless tasks men never were taught by thier well conditioned old
tyme
> mothers.
This, too, happens now. Life goes on.
Simple skills mny men freak over like not putting dark and
> light clothes together in a washload?
Then they get funky clothes, and learn not to do that again. This is not a
world crisis.
>
> Many men feel fine demanding that dinner be cooked by the woman who
is
> just as tired as he is
> coming home from work and think nothing of it and then demand sex
later
> that night.
And many men cook. Many men share the chores, and many men trade off. There
are women who do something unique--they talk to their husbands, they don't
expect men to just know what the compromises should be.
>
> Men moan when thier pants lose a button because of the beer gut but
> can't learn to sew it back on by themselves.For this stupidity,I blame
> thier MOTHERS.
You blame an adult man's mother? Excuse me? Mothers are not making an adult
persons decisions for them, and if men are presented with a problem, a man
should be solving it for himself, and we should not be blaminig his mother.
Mothers as a duty need to train boys to take care of
> domestic things and to respect all human beings as worthy members of
the
> living like they see themselves.
Yep, she should be making sure all her children are well and equally equipped
to face the world. Dad should too. Do you rail at dad for not teaching
daughter how to fix her car? Do you rail at dad if he makes the attempt and
daughter just doesn't have the talent, or isn't interested? Do you rail at dad
for not forcing mom to teach her sons how to sew?
Why do you devide the family unit into mom, and then husband and children?
Where is family in your world?
>..Men in our culture are still fascinated with female boobs,yet
> many women I know would reduce them if they were not so fetishized by
> men and are led to think by males they are involved with that it keeps
> hubby interested..
I don't think so. Breasts are as important to women as they are to men.
Breasts are part of being female. Why do you think there is such a loss of
self esteem faced by women who have to have mastectomy?
>
> Men make ALOT of mundane demands of women's time and efforts in thier
> lives without realizing how much they do this.Keeping your trap shut
> when a woman does not want to be verbally fondeled isn't a BIG
request.
Women make a lot of requests, too. But right now we are in transition, the old
'men's work' as opposed to 'women's work' isn't so straight forward anymore.
Maybe keeping your trap shut isn't such a big request when you are obviously
making the other person uncomfortable, but understanding that men aren't the
enemy is. There are men out there who would not dream of making uncomfortable
remarks to women out there, and there are women out there who don't care about
boundaries, either. There is no black and white, no only men's or only women's
any more.
There are no nevers, no always, just human beings with the foibles we are all
subject to.
>
> Many women work just as hard as thier male partners but STILL get paid
> less and it is NOT the victorian ages..,WHY why arent' as many men as
> women working to ease this burden on women who take care of the
house ,
You honestly think that most men don't care about their wives and children?
Yes, there are still women who face discrimination and frustration in the
workplace.
Yes, there are still men who face discrimination and frustration in the
workplace.
Yes, there are men who do pull more weight around the house than their wives
do.
And yes, there are work-driven women who come home from work exhausted, and
leave it up to husband to take care of home and children.
>
> Men want mommies, a porn star and a gullible little girl all in one
> person.
Men want as many different things from their wives as there are wives. Not all
men relate to little girl wives, not all men want porno wives, and some, (gasp)
even want a wife who is smart, suppportive, and is looking for smart and
supportive in return.
> Golddigger women need to get some therapy and find out why they need
to
> steal to feel dominating over men.
Nah, they just need a real work ethic.
Same for gigilos.
WE all need to stop dominating each
> other and taking each other for granted as a human race on a planet we
> take for granted and dominate until it rebels and we all get sick or
> starve..
Well, this I can agree with.
>
> And I will tell you right now any interaction between human beings is
a
> relationship. If women want to be respected in the culture-
relationship
> like a man is in our culture,then they will have to step on some egos
> and stand up for what they need insdividually and use whatever helps
> them be it law or otherwise...Even if it inconveinences some men as to
> where men want wave thier dicks around.
Nope, they don't. You can be respected in your culture by maintaining high
standards, by working hard and working smart, and sticking to your guns. You
don't have to smash any waving dicks to do this.
--
K.
....we have plenty of youth, what we need is a fountain of smart.....
END QUOTE
K
.........we have plenty of youth, what we need is a fountain of
smart..............
(remove Q's, before replying)
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not even sure about the universe."
--Albert Einstein
Yury Donskoy
>
>
>----------
>In article <8FE75F7B2yury...@24.2.9.61>, yu...@spamwazat.com
>(Yury Donskoy) wrote:
>
>
>> fooda...@mediaone.net (Deborah Terreson) delighted us by writing in
>> <97rO5.261$_07.8...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net> that:
>> Yes, I believe it is. Yet that's what defines feminism, not what some
>> third-wave feminists like to believe.
>
>I find it interesting that many anti-feminists latch onto her writing as
>some form of example of to what all feminists think. From what I've read
>about A. Dworkin, she seems to be a very screwed-up woman. I wonder if
>she was a spoiled little princess when she was growing up.
Possibly. But that doesn't really matter. So long as she is associated
with feminism, her writings will be used for this purpose.
Rich
Kavking wrote:
>
> >Rich rpa...@home.removeme.com
> wrote:
>
> >And has feminism ever said anything good about men? Not on your
> >life, feminism paints men as rapists, batterers, selfish and
> >immature.
>
> Then explain this, Rich:
I don't see anything /by/ feminism. You seem to think that feminism
is whatever you say it is, it ain't. Feminism, as a movement, was
totally opposed to Prop 209, equal treatment under the law. They
sued, filed friend of the court briefs, they did everything they
could to to keep me deprived of my Civil rights, and everything
feminism does, such as the VAWA and VAWA II opposes my rights under
the law.
My explanation is that since you support the feminist movement,
you in fact support all the sexism of the feminist movement, which
makes your words below suspect at very best, as you support a
movement which does the exact opposite of what you claim to believe.
You can always stop calling yourself a feminist, but to do that
you'd actually have to oppose the things the feminist movement
does, and you do not.
As long as you support the feminist movement, any claims to
contradictory beliefs will be suspect at best, and much more
likely lies in order to convince others to support feminist
sexism. Not everyone is that blind and stupid Kavking.
tewins
Frankly, I don't see why women would WANT to be assigned combat
roles in the military. Sometimes military action is necessary and just,
but often there are hidden ulterior motives which rule out diplomacy
before it is even given a chance of succeeding. As a soldier, sailor,
officer etc it is your duty to DO YOUR JOB regardless of conscience,
and it certainly isn't something *I* would want to do. But just assuming
a woman is absolutely determined to have a career in the military with
a combat role - what are the REAL issues? Well, physically women are
not generally as strong as men, even though there are exceptions to the
rule. There are some combat roles, therefore, that women would not
generally be suited for. Secondly, there is the question of morale, and
the consequences of a situation where, despite the most professional of
intentions, male and female military personnel might become so attached
as to affect their performance in combat. Nevertheless, women are probably
as capable as men in their potential to be fighter pilots, naval personell,
and
in such roles that are not demanding in the SAME SENSE that ground combat
is demanding. Hence there are some combat roles that women might be as
capable as performing as men.
Frankly, however, I must say that this ought not be a priority for the
womens
movement. Like the title of this thread says, 'inclusiveness includes
death' - and it also means discipline and obedience regardless of
personal conscience. I think lobbying for public child care and welfare
for instance,are much more worthwhile objectives.
Kavking
>Frankly, I don't see why women would WANT to be assigned combat
>roles in the military. Sometimes military action is necessary and just,
>but often there are hidden ulterior motives which rule out diplomacy
>before it is even given a chance of succeeding. As a soldier, sailor,
>officer etc it is your duty to DO YOUR JOB regardless of conscience,
>and it certainly isn't something *I* would want to do. But just assuming
>a woman is absolutely determined to have a career in the military with
>a combat role - what are the REAL issues?
The real issues are that the issues change when faced with real war. Nobody
wants to go into combat.
But due to the nature of the military, if you want genuine advancement, with
the respect that goes with it, you have to be in some kind of combat mos to get
there.
You have to prove your worth.
Combat mos is where the fast track is and where the real repsect is.
>Nevertheless, women are probably
>as capable as men in their potential to be fighter pilots, naval personell,
>and
>in such roles that are not demanding in the SAME SENSE that ground combat
>is demanding.
You seem to forget that ground combat is changing. It does not have the
physica demands that the cavalry once demanded.
Ground combat is supported by new technology that doesn't allow for sneak
attacks, we now know where the enemy is, we have night scope technology,and
ifrared aiming technology, even for hand-held weapons. With certain
exceptions, we don't even have much hand-to-hand combat, anymore.
We had enemy soldiers surrendering to tv jounalists during Desert Storm.
>I think lobbying for public child care and welfare
> for instance,are much more worthwhile objectives.
I think lobbying to make it acceptable for mothers or fathers who want to stay
home and take care of their own children is a worthwhile endeavor. We should be
looking to have qualified employees in the work place, who make enough money,
that we don't have to have two parent wage-earners, unless they both really
want to work outside the home.
I think that public child care and welfare are demeaning goals, and that we
should be looking to welfare to work, and
making families self-sufficient is a better objective.
We have more than enough government intervention, and more than enough public
welfare, thank you.
kav...@my-deja.com
Rich <rpa...@home.removeme.com> wrote:
>
>
> Kavking wrote:
> >
> > >Rich rpa...@home.removeme.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > >And has feminism ever said anything good about men? Not on your
> > >life, feminism paints men as rapists, batterers, selfish and
> > >immature.
> >
> > Then explain this, Rich:
>
> I don't see anything /by/ feminism.
The whole thing is _by_ femiminism. It's what I believe, down in my
very soul. How dare you accuse me of lying about my opinion. I'm not
psychotic, there is no value in lying in the post below, it gained me
nothing. So why would I lie? Nobody even read it but the original
author, and me. There is no prosylitizing below.
You should appreciate that not everyone is your enemy, instead of
turning those who might be helpful to your own case against you.
You seem to think that feminism
> is whatever you say it is, it ain't.
Yes, that's exactly what it is. It is the way I perceive my belief.
Do you have a group or organization that you belong to? Do you have an
parts of that group that you don't espouse? If you don't, you aren't
human. This is the way that life works.
Human beings really do not fit into molds, as much as you would like to
shove them there, and they get testy when you try to.
Stop doing this, and you might find some unexpected allies.
>
> My explanation is
wrong, of course.
that since you support the feminist movement,
> you in fact support all the sexism of the feminist movement,
wrong again. I understand that there is discrimination in the feminist
movement. People can understand things without supporting them.
People can and do take the best from that which they have, and join it
with new ideas to make it better.
That's how we have a country that is based on both the beliefs of that
which came before, (Europe), and that which is purely American.
which
> makes your words below suspect at very best, as you support a
> movement which does the exact opposite of what you claim to believe.
> You can always stop calling yourself a feminist, but to do that
> you'd actually have to oppose the things the feminist movement
> does, and you do not.
Oh, back to the old mind games, again, Rich? "I know what you think,
even when you don't think you think it"
I know you have given everyone the privilege of individuality but
organizations and people you don't like. I know this kind of blindness
is short-sighted, and will hurt you in the long run.
>
> As long as you support the feminist movement, any claims to
> contradictory beliefs will be suspect at best, and much more
> likely lies in order to convince others to support feminist
> sexism. Not everyone is that blind and stupid Kavking.
Nope, only you.
>
> Rich,
only you.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Rich
kav...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <3A0DF09B...@home.removeme.com>,
> Rich <rpa...@home.removeme.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Kavking wrote:
> > >
> > > >Rich rpa...@home.removeme.com
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >And has feminism ever said anything good about men? Not on your
> > > >life, feminism paints men as rapists, batterers, selfish and
> > > >immature.
> > >
> > > Then explain this, Rich:
> >
> > I don't see anything /by/ feminism.
>
> The whole thing is _by_ femiminism.
So you are claiming that /you/, personally are feminism? ROTFL.
> It's what I believe, down in my very soul.
Then you should be an extremist anti-feminist as feminism is
opposed to everything you /claim/ to believe. And yet you
continue to call yourself a feminist and will not gainsay the
most blatant feminist sexism. And you've never even tried to
address this contradiction.
> How dare you accuse me of lying about my opinion.
Where have I done this? You are lying when you say that /you/
are the feminist movement however.
> I'm not psychotic, there is no value in lying in the post
> below, it gained me nothing.
Your fraudulent claim is about the feminist movement, which seems
to be what you think you see when you look in the mirror.
> So why would I lie?
I have no idea why you lie about feminism, none whatsoever, but
you do.
> Nobody even read it but the original author, and me.
Which you seem to have confused with the topic of the discussion,
your support for the most sexist movement ever.
> There is no prosylitizing below.
There is nothing by the feminist movement below. Shall I post
something by N.O.W. on fathers?
> You should appreciate that not everyone is your enemy, instead of
> turning those who might be helpful to your own case against you.
You support are lie about the feminism movement, which has declared
me the enemy, and you call yourself one of them. You support my
enemies and lie about them. As long as you do this you are not
my friend and all your other claims remain disjoint, suspect, or
simply outright lies.
> > You seem to think that feminism
> > is whatever you say it is, it ain't.
>
> Yes, that's exactly what it is.
It is what it is. Millions of sexist women who demand all sorts of
sexist perks, preferences, and programs, all of which discriminate
against men in some fashion.
> It is the way I perceive my belief.
As long as you keep your eyes closed and refuse to ever address the
most blatant feminist sexism, you can keep your ridiculous belief.
But when you claim your delusions as fact, then you are telling lies.
> Do you have a group or organization that you belong to?
I am not even registered as a democrat or republican. I am not a
"joiner".
> Do you have an parts of that group that you don't espouse?
There are no parts of the feminist movement to which you have
objected, not that there is a single part which is not blatantly
sexist and anti-male.
> If you don't, you aren't human.
And this makes /you/ the feminist movement somehow?
> This is the way that life works.
There is no part of feminism which is not blatantly sexist and
blatantly anti-male. Tell me which parts you support and why.
> Human beings really do not fit into molds, as much as you
> would like to shove them there,
Christians believe in god, that's what the word means, and feminism
is all about women. All feminists voluntarily join a sexist movement
and can quit at any time, all are sexist voluntarily. I cannot stop
being a man, you can stop supporting a movement opposed to men, boys,
and especially fathers.
> and they get testy when you try to.
You are the one who calls yourself a feminist, you get bitchy when
men object to your support for a sexist anti-male movement. Deal
with it, it's gonna get worse as time goes by.
> Stop doing this, and you might find some unexpected allies.
You are not my ally, you support those who call all men their
enemy.
> > My explanation is
>
> wrong, of course.
No, it ain't.
> that since you support the feminist movement,
> > you in fact support all the sexism of the feminist movement,
>
> wrong again.
Like you've ever even addressed any feminist sexism, or even
acknowledged it. I think you think that if you ignore it, it
ain't there.
> I understand that there is discrimination in the feminist
> movement.
What the hell does this mean?
> People can understand things without supporting them.
But you do support feminist sexism, and everything the feminist
movement /does/ is sexist, feminism is, after all, about women
and only women. Men are often excluded and many feminists hate
boy babies for heaven's sake. It remains a fact that you neither
acknowledge or object to any posted feminist sexism or hate.
And you continue to support the movement.
> People can and do take the best from that which they have, and join it
> with new ideas to make it better.
What best? The best sexism?
> That's how we have a country that is based on both the beliefs of that
> which came before, (Europe), and that which is purely American.
Feminism is opposed to American culture, and specifically to
white men. Feminism wants a rainbow America, when there are
as few white men as possible.
> > which
> > makes your words below suspect at very best, as you support a
> > movement which does the exact opposite of what you claim to believe.
> > You can always stop calling yourself a feminist, but to do that
> > you'd actually have to oppose the things the feminist movement
> > does, and you do not.
>
> Oh, back to the old mind games, again, Rich? "I know what you think,
> even when you don't think you think it"
I know what you support, stop lying about what I've claimed, the words
are still above.
> I know you have given everyone the privilege of individuality but
> organizations and people you don't like. I know this kind of blindness
> is short-sighted, and will hurt you in the long run.
Feminism has hurt me all my life, and you support the feminist war
on men by your support of feminism. And you do not object to any of
it, never have, and I don't think you ever will.
> > As long as you support the feminist movement, any claims to
> > contradictory beliefs will be suspect at best, and much more
> > likely lies in order to convince others to support feminist
> > sexism. Not everyone is that blind and stupid Kavking.
>
> Nope, only you.
You keep believing that Kavking, as long as you call yourself a
feminist and support the movement, you have declared me the enemy
and you support the feminist war on all men. Do not expect me
to call you a friend.
Rich
Angilion
<fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>In article <8FE6DB63Ayury...@24.2.9.61>, yu...@spamwazat.com
>(Yury Donskoy) wrote:
[..]
>> It's no worse than "All heterosexual sex is rape."
>
>Rich mentioned that phrase also.. Is it Andera Dworkin? I don't read her
>missives either.
It's attributed to Andrea Dworkin (or sometimes Catherine MacKinnon
or even Robin Morgan IIRC), but none of them actually said it AFAIK.
They've all come close to doing so though, particularly Dworkin.
Dworkin has rather strongly implied that consensual PIV sex is *worse*
than rape, because the woman is obviously so beaten down that she
becomes complicit in her own oppression. It's even worse if the woman
has an orgasm(*). She wrote an entire book against heterosexual
vaginal intercourse, which she regards as a form of misogyny and pure,
formalised contempt for women. That's just ordinary PIV sex in and of
itself without even considering position, let alone any of the vile
atroctities perpetrated on women by men, like consensual oral sex or a
bit of consensual spanking and similar kinkiness.
It's possible that she might approve of some kind of heterosex, but
it seems very unlikely. Maybe non-penetrative masturbation, but
I doubt if even that would be acceptable to her.
She has a male partner, but he's pretty much as misandric as she is.
* Talking of orgasms, one of the wierdest antisex feminists has said that
orgasms are themselves part of women's oppression under the patriarchy.
I could dig up who said it, I suppose. The logic seems to be as follows;
Premise: As a general rule, a man likes it when a woman he's having sex
with has an orgasm.
Premise: The only thing men like about women is oppressing and abusing
them as part of the patriarchy.
Conclusion: A woman having an orgasm during sex with a man is being
oppressed and abused by him in his role as an agent of the patriarchy.
I expect you can see the flaw in that logic.
--
Always remember you're unique.
Just like everyone else.
BrettG
"Rich" <rpa...@home.removeme.com> wrote in message
news:3A0D870B...@home.removeme.com...
>
>
> Goddess wrote:
> >
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" <moons...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:8ucpeh$1fh84$1...@ID-46339.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > "Shawn T Pickrell" <spic...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:8uch79$k...@portal.gmu.edu...
> > > > In soc.men Jennifer Larson <stra...@udel.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > :> Spiritual Poison = Esther Summerson... _always_ her words end up
> > > including
> > > > :> the death of women.
> > > > : No shit. She is one fucked up bitch.
> > > >
> > > > has she EVER said anything good about any woman?
> > >
> > > Not that I've ever noticed.
> >
>
> And has feminism ever said anything good about men? Not on your
> life, feminism paints men as rapists, batterers, selfish and
Feminism says nary a good thing about either sex.
Men are all abusive and rapists.
Women are all pathetic and helpless.
BrettG
"Shawn T Pickrell" <spic...@mason2.gmu.edu> wrote in message
news:8uem1n$v...@portal.gmu.edu...
> In soc.men BrettG <bre...@work.com.au> wrote:
> : Problem is mange baby, neither have you. All you do
> : is excuse any and all behaviour by women no matter
> : how appalling it may be. It's certainly not a positive
> : advertisment for your gender.
>
> the question is about esther's behaviour on this ng, not marg's.
Since when do you determine the form of discussion
here shawn?
I see marg accusing Esther of portraying women in
a bad light. I pointed out that marg does exactly the
same thing. The only difference between the two is
style and honesty, or lack thereof.
Shawn T Pickrell
: Since when do you determine the form of discussion
: here shawn?
i don't know. i ask a question about esther. marg answers it.
instead of answering it yourself, you use this as another
opportunity to attack marg.
: I see marg accusing Esther of portraying women in
: a bad light. I pointed out that marg does exactly the
: same thing. The only difference between the two is
: style and honesty, or lack thereof.
iactually i was the first person to ask that question. back in jill's
initial attack on esther i asked the same question.
Paul R
BrettG <bre...@work.com.au> wrote in message
news:00111309...@zeus-news.dyndns.org...
>
> Feminism says nary a good thing about either sex.
>
> Men are all abusive and rapists.
>
> Women are all pathetic and helpless.
Good point.
Feminism is an entitlement philosophy. Women are entitled because they have
wombs. It's okay to take from men to give to these life-support systems for
wombs because men are all rapists and abusers. And it's okay to give to
these women because they're pathetic and helpless and, well, the sympathetic
underdog.
In the end, it's a philosophy of "I'm not okay--and neither are you."
Small wonder it has no brought forth paradise.
Paul R
tewins
Kavking wrote in message <20001112105223...@ng-cs1.aol.com>...
>You seem to forget that ground combat is changing. It does not have the
>physica demands that the cavalry once demanded.
>Ground combat is supported by new technology that doesn't allow for sneak
>attacks, we now know where the enemy is, we have night scope technology,and
>ifrared aiming technology, even for hand-held weapons. With certain
>exceptions, we don't even have much hand-to-hand combat, anymore.
>We had enemy soldiers surrendering to tv jounalists during Desert Storm.
Tell that to veterans of the ill-fated UN operation in Somalia - not exactly
the most
technically advanced nation in the world either.
>>I think lobbying for public child care and welfare
>> for instance,are much more worthwhile objectives.
>
> I think that public child care and welfare are demeaning goals, and that
we
>should be looking to welfare to work, and
>making families self-sufficient is a better objective.
>We have more than enough government intervention, and more than enough
public
>welfare, thank you.
Presuming you live in the US, you have one of the worst public welfare
systems in the
Western world. And what is demeaning about public child care?
Kavking
>
>
>> I think that public child care and welfare are demeaning goals, and that
>we
>>should be looking to welfare to work, and
>>making families self-sufficient is a better objective.
>>We have more than enough government intervention, and more than enough
>public
>>welfare, thank you.
>
>
>
>Presuming you live in the US, you have one of the worst public welfare
>systems in the
>Western world.
Exactly. When you already have something that is bad, why would you want more
of it?
And what is demeaning about public child care?
Public child care is not the best child care. Public child care is too many
children getting too little attention. You don't find this demeaning, having
children waiting around for decent care?
what we need are small groups of private child care, preferably near home or
work, so children have some continuity with mom and dad.
Kavking
>
>kav...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <3A0DF09B...@home.removeme.com>,
>> Rich <rpa...@home.removeme.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Kavking wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Rich rpa...@home.removeme.com
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >And has feminism ever said anything good about men? Not on your
>> > > >life, feminism paints men as rapists, batterers, selfish and
>> > > >immature.
>> > >
>> > > Then explain this, Rich:
>> >
>> > I don't see anything /by/ feminism.
>>
>> The whole thing is _by_ femiminism.
>
>So you are claiming that /you/, personally are feminism? ROTFL.
GOTCHA!!!!!
You are proving my point right here. I'm the one who says that feminists are
individuals, your contradicting me above is proof that somewhere in your brain,
you understand this.
You should let that part come out more often.
>
>> It's what I believe, down in my very soul.
>
>Then you should be an extremist anti-feminist as feminism is
>opposed to everything you /claim/ to believe.
No, i'ts not. My whole group tries very hard to impress women with the
repsonsibility that comes with equal rights. Let's face it, equal rights are
here. The united States has the government boondoggled with shit like
afirmative action, and now somebody has to teach women how not to take
advantage of a society that is in it's adolescense.
Who should be teaching women to be responsible, that they can ask men out, they
can pay for dates, they can change their own tires, and they can unstop thier
own toilets? Why women should, of course. Thus feminism.
And yet you
>continue to call yourself a feminist and will not gainsay the
>most blatant feminist sexism. And you've never even tried to
>address this contradiction.
I admit to, and try to end discrimination. You just sit there and pound on a
keyboard.
Who really is doing more for men?
>
>> How dare you accuse me of lying about my opinion.
>
>Where have I done this? You are lying when you say that /you/
>are the feminist movement however.
Except that this is USUALLY your line. Gotcha', remember?
You're the one who says that any feminist has to believe everything every other
feminist believes. You're the one who won't allow for indivuduality.
>
>> I'm not psychotic, there is no value in lying in the post
>> below, it gained me nothing.
>
>Your fraudulent claim is about the feminist movement, which seems
>to be what you think you see when you look in the mirror.
No, it's what you think I see when I look in the mirror, because you never
allow for individuality.
Make up your mind here, either we are all exactly alike, or we are individuals.
>
>> So why would I lie?
>
>I have no idea why you lie about feminism, none whatsoever, but
>you do.
Except that you cannot prove any inconsistencies in what I write. Only by
proving inconsistencies can you call somebody I liar.
people's opinions are there own, and are not lies.
Why can't you ever understand this?
>
>> Nobody even read it but the original author, and me.
>
>Which you seem to have confused with the topic of the discussion,
>your support for the most sexist movement ever.
Actually no. The most sexist organization I've ever heard of was the KKK. Not
only did they hate blacks, they also had very stringent ideas about women.
>
>> There is no prosylitizing below.
>
>There is nothing by the feminist movement below. Shall I post
>something by N.O.W. on fathers?
Why, that is not what I believe.
You said no feminsts support men.
I am a feminist.
I support men.
Therefore, you are wrong.
This is very simple, why can't you understand it?
>
>> You should appreciate that not everyone is your enemy, instead of
>> turning those who might be helpful to your own case against you.
>
>You support are lie about the feminism movement, which has declared
>me the enemy, and you call yourself one of them.
I have never read anything, even the spoutings of NOW, which ever said WE HATE
RICH.
You do have some ego.
You support my
>enemies and lie about them.
I don't support your enemies, I don't know your enemies.
> As long as you do this you are not
>my friend and all your other claims remain disjoint, suspect, or
>simply outright lies.
I don't ask to be your friend, all I ask is that you understand that I have my
opinions, and you respect them as opinions, and do not call them lies, because
they are not.
They are what I believe, and what I carry with a great deal of conviction.
>
>> > You seem to think that feminism
>> > is whatever you say it is, it ain't.
>>
>> Yes, that's exactly what it is.
>
>It is what it is. Millions of sexist women who demand all sorts of
>sexist perks, preferences, and programs, all of which discriminate
>against men in some fashion.
And millions of women do not.
I am one of them.
>
>> It is the way I perceive my belief.
>
>As long as you keep your eyes closed and refuse to ever address the
>most blatant feminist sexism, you can keep your ridiculous belief.
>But when you claim your delusions as fact, then you are telling lies.
>
>> Do you have a group or organization that you belong to?
>
>I am not even registered as a democrat or republican. I am not a
>"joiner".
>
I certainly believe this.
>> Do you have an parts of that group that you don't espouse?
>
>There are no parts of the feminist movement to which you have
>objected, not that there is a single part which is not blatantly
>sexist and anti-male.
Oh, of course there are. I"m number one on the afirmative action hit parade,
and you know it, you've read enough of my posts to know that I believe it is
bad policy.
No matter how hard you claim I support it.
I don't support women always getting custody of children in divorce situations.
I don't support men being forced to be fathers.
I don't support male only draft.
and the list goes on.
>
>> If you don't, you aren't human.
>
>And this makes /you/ the feminist movement somehow?
No, but it sure doesn't puts you between a rock and a hard place.
K
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <3a0ef4e6...@news.freeserve.net>,
angi...@yinyang.enterprise-plc.com (Angilion) wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 06:03:49 GMT, "Deborah Terreson"
> <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <8FE6DB63Ayury...@24.2.9.61>, yu...@spamwazat.com
>>(Yury Donskoy) wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>> It's no worse than "All heterosexual sex is rape."
>>
>>Rich mentioned that phrase also.. Is it Andera Dworkin? I don't read her
>>missives either.
>
> It's attributed to Andrea Dworkin (or sometimes Catherine MacKinnon
> or even Robin Morgan IIRC), but none of them actually said it AFAIK.
> They've all come close to doing so though, particularly Dworkin
>
> Dworkin has rather strongly implied that consensual PIV sex is *worse*
> than rape, because the woman is obviously so beaten down that she
> becomes complicit in her own oppression.
?????
> It's even worse if the woman
> has an orgasm(*). She wrote an entire book against heterosexual
> vaginal intercourse, which she regards as a form of misogyny and pure,
> formalised contempt for women.
Oh get out of town! This woman obviously can't get a good fuck and probably
has been laid by some piss poor lovers in the past and assumes that since
her experiences sucked, so it must go for all women. Is she fat? I'm not
busting on the overweight here, but I have known some heavy chicks that
sniped about the things that other women got to do... This just seems to be
more of the same.
>That's just ordinary PIV sex in and of
> itself without even considering position, let alone any of the vile
> atroctities perpetrated on women by men, like consensual oral sex or a
> bit of consensual spanking and similar kinkiness.
That's the best kind! <evil grin>
>
> It's possible that she might approve of some kind of heterosex, but
> it seems very unlikely. Maybe non-penetrative masturbation, but
> I doubt if even that would be acceptable to her.
She should just pack it in and move to Sabbathday Lake in Maine and become a
Shaker... They live in sexually segregated dorms and believe in total
abstinence.
>
> She has a male partner, but he's pretty much as misandric as she is.
I bet he's 'whipped'
>
> * Talking of orgasms, one of the wierdest antisex feminists has said that
> orgasms are themselves part of women's oppression under the patriarchy.
> I could dig up who said it, I suppose. The logic seems to be as follows;
>
> Premise: As a general rule, a man likes it when a woman he's having sex
> with has an orgasm.
>
> Premise: The only thing men like about women is oppressing and abusing
> them as part of the patriarchy.
>
> Conclusion: A woman having an orgasm during sex with a man is being
> oppressed and abused by him in his role as an agent of the patriarchy.
>
> I expect you can see the flaw in that logic.
Uhhh. Now I'm certain that whoever wrote that has beyond a shadow of a doubt
_never_ had her sex partner bring her to orgasm.. If that isn't an issue of
applying "sour grapes" onto another person, I don't know what is.
...Hey, why do you guys waste your time with this misearble rot?
Deb.
Yury Donskoy
Oh yes, a woman hates men and it must be some men's fault.
>
>>That's just ordinary PIV sex in and of
>> itself without even considering position, let alone any of the vile
>> atroctities perpetrated on women by men, like consensual oral sex or a
>> bit of consensual spanking and similar kinkiness.
>
>That's the best kind! <evil grin>
>>
>> It's possible that she might approve of some kind of heterosex, but
>> it seems very unlikely. Maybe non-penetrative masturbation, but
>> I doubt if even that would be acceptable to her.
>
>She should just pack it in and move to Sabbathday Lake in Maine and
>become a Shaker... They live in sexually segregated dorms and believe in
>total abstinence.
The probably won't last the generation, then.
>>
>> She has a male partner, but he's pretty much as misandric as she is.
>
>I bet he's 'whipped'
>>
>> * Talking of orgasms, one of the wierdest antisex feminists has said
>> that orgasms are themselves part of women's oppression under the
>> patriarchy. I could dig up who said it, I suppose. The logic seems to
>> be as follows;
>>
>> Premise: As a general rule, a man likes it when a woman he's having
>> sex with has an orgasm.
>>
>> Premise: The only thing men like about women is oppressing and abusing
>> them as part of the patriarchy.
>>
>> Conclusion: A woman having an orgasm during sex with a man is being
>> oppressed and abused by him in his role as an agent of the patriarchy.
>>
>> I expect you can see the flaw in that logic.
>
>Uhhh. Now I'm certain that whoever wrote that has beyond a shadow of a
>doubt _never_ had her sex partner bring her to orgasm.. If that isn't an
>issue of applying "sour grapes" onto another person, I don't know what
>is.
So, men are then directly responsible for it. Damn the men! They're
responsible for everything! It's the EMP(tm) at work again!
>
>...Hey, why do you guys waste your time with this misearble rot?
Don't tell me that after all this time here you've never heard of this
before.
Gallery Gold Ltd
Deborah Terreson wrote in message ...
I cringe, but here goes..... I saw my first picture of Andrea a couple of
months ago. Ick, she looked dirty, unkempt, slovenly and ugly as a
hatful!!!! How could she be anything but ugly, with the ugliness of her
thoughts and beliefs.
JB
<snip>
Angilion
>"tewins" tew...@bigpond.com wrote:
>
>>Frankly, I don't see why women would WANT to be assigned combat
>>roles in the military.
For the same reasons that men are. I expect that few male soldiers
*want* to go into combat, especially amongst those who have done
so before. They may want roles which may put them in combat
because it will help their career. They may want those roles because
they believe that the military force they fight in is a force for good.
They may want those roles because they believe that it is necessary for
those roles to be filled and that they are capable of filling them, and
they therefore feel a moral duty to do so. They may want those roles
because they feel it is their duty to their country. Could be all sorts
of reasons.
>>Sometimes military action is necessary and just,
>>but often there are hidden ulterior motives which rule out diplomacy
>>before it is even given a chance of succeeding. As a soldier, sailor,
>>officer etc it is your duty to DO YOUR JOB regardless of conscience,
>>and it certainly isn't something *I* would want to do. But just assuming
>>a woman is absolutely determined to have a career in the military with
>>a combat role - what are the REAL issues?
>
>The real issues are that the issues change when faced with real war. Nobody
>wants to go into combat.
>But due to the nature of the military, if you want genuine advancement, with
>the respect that goes with it, you have to be in some kind of combat mos to get
>there.
>You have to prove your worth.
>Combat mos is where the fast track is and where the real repsect is.
>
>>Nevertheless, women are probably
>>as capable as men in their potential to be fighter pilots, naval personell,
>>and
>>in such roles that are not demanding in the SAME SENSE that ground combat
>>is demanding.
>
>You seem to forget that ground combat is changing. It does not have the
>physica demands that the cavalry once demanded.
Your comparison is undermined by the fact that you are comparing the
wrong type of military units. Or was "cavalry" just a typo?
>Ground combat is supported by new technology that doesn't allow for sneak
>attacks, we now know where the enemy is, we have night scope technology,and
>ifrared aiming technology, even for hand-held weapons.
Technology which has to be carried. You *may* be right in that soldiers
fighting from tanks and support vehicles don't need the strength that
soldiers fighting from horseback did the in the past, but infantry
soldiers still do. Compare the weight of a modern infantry soldier's
gear with a Roman soldier's gear and you'll find it's much the same.
Infantry soldiers are not trained to expect comfy transport to a
conveniently flat battlefield in which they fight an enemy they
can only see through telescopic sights, if at all, and finish up
in time to return to base for a nice shower and dinner. They're
trained for any circumstances they may have to put up with
and fight in.
>With certain
>exceptions, we don't even have much hand-to-hand combat, anymore.
Not for the normal infantry, no. However, any infantry soldier might
be suddenly called up to fight hand-to-hand. Real combat rarely
goes according to plan.
>We had enemy soldiers surrendering to tv jounalists during Desert Storm.
Enemy soldiers who wanted to surrender and thus did so to the first
people they could surrender to.
To address one of the original points from tewins, the issue of morale
is not solely connected with sex. The biggest problem wrt morale is
not the presence of women in the military. It is the preferential
treatment given to women in the military. Most of the morale problems
would disappear if soldiers were held to the same standards regardless
of their sex (standards based on roles are fine, standards based on
sex are not). The British Army is particularly bad for that. Morale
issues connected with relationships are also less clear-cut than they
might first seem, because there are strong relationships formed between
soldiers anyway. The only difference is that you would have more sexual
relationships, but I don't think that would make as much difference as
is often thought.
[..]
Angilion
<fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>In article <3a0ef4e6...@news.freeserve.net>,
>angi...@yinyang.enterprise-plc.com (Angilion) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 06:03:49 GMT, "Deborah Terreson"
>> <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <8FE6DB63Ayury...@24.2.9.61>, yu...@spamwazat.com
>>>(Yury Donskoy) wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>>> It's no worse than "All heterosexual sex is rape."
>>>
>>>Rich mentioned that phrase also.. Is it Andera Dworkin? I don't read her
>>>missives either.
>>
>> It's attributed to Andrea Dworkin (or sometimes Catherine MacKinnon
>> or even Robin Morgan IIRC), but none of them actually said it AFAIK.
>> They've all come close to doing so though, particularly Dworkin
>>
>> Dworkin has rather strongly implied that consensual PIV sex is *worse*
>> than rape, because the woman is obviously so beaten down that she
>> becomes complicit in her own oppression.
>
>?????
No shit. Read the book, but make sure you have a sickbag, a
punchbag and a good friend to ring who can provide a link
to reality to rescue you in case you start believing any of the book 8-)
>> It's even worse if the woman
>> has an orgasm(*). She wrote an entire book against heterosexual
>> vaginal intercourse, which she regards as a form of misogyny and pure,
>> formalised contempt for women.
>
>Oh get out of town! This woman obviously can't get a good fuck and probably
>has been laid by some piss poor lovers in the past and assumes that since
>her experiences sucked, so it must go for all women.
She does seem to have had some shitty past experiences, AFAIK.
>Is she fat? I'm not
>busting on the overweight here, but I have known some heavy chicks that
>sniped about the things that other women got to do... This just seems to be
>more of the same.
I've known plenty of fat women who get plenty of good fucks because
they're very sexy women.
>>That's just ordinary PIV sex in and of
>> itself without even considering position, let alone any of the vile
>> atroctities perpetrated on women by men, like consensual oral sex or a
>> bit of consensual spanking and similar kinkiness.
>
>That's the best kind! <evil grin>
You see? You prove that the evil men (a tautology, of course) control
your mind through violence and oppression to such an extent that you
buy into it yourself! You have eroticised your oppression under the
patriarchy!
The weirdest thing is that the above phrase is not just satire. It's
a genuine statement concerning the beliefs of some feminists.
My theory is that Dworkin et al are het femsubs in furious denial.
>> It's possible that she might approve of some kind of heterosex, but
>> it seems very unlikely. Maybe non-penetrative masturbation, but
>> I doubt if even that would be acceptable to her.
>
>She should just pack it in and move to Sabbathday Lake in Maine and become a
>Shaker... They live in sexually segregated dorms and believe in total
>abstinence.
>>
>> She has a male partner, but he's pretty much as misandric as she is.
>
>I bet he's 'whipped'
That would be taking on the "male" role of oppressor!
>> * Talking of orgasms, one of the wierdest antisex feminists has said that
>> orgasms are themselves part of women's oppression under the patriarchy.
>> I could dig up who said it, I suppose. The logic seems to be as follows;
>>
>> Premise: As a general rule, a man likes it when a woman he's having sex
>> with has an orgasm.
>>
>> Premise: The only thing men like about women is oppressing and abusing
>> them as part of the patriarchy.
>>
>> Conclusion: A woman having an orgasm during sex with a man is being
>> oppressed and abused by him in his role as an agent of the patriarchy.
>>
>> I expect you can see the flaw in that logic.
>
>Uhhh. Now I'm certain that whoever wrote that has beyond a shadow of a doubt
>_never_ had her sex partner bring her to orgasm.. If that isn't an issue of
>applying "sour grapes" onto another person, I don't know what is.
IIRC the woman in question was a political lesbian. It's different
between women, of course.
Strange thing though......all the lesbians I've ever known think she
is full of shit. Maybe that's because they're lesbians because of
how they feel about women rather than taking women as a second
choice only because men are such scum (which says a great deal
about how women like the above view women).
>...Hey, why do you guys waste your time with this misearble rot?
Unfortunately, that miserable rot has influence.
Angilion
<gal...@wantree.com.au> wrote:
[..]
>I cringe, but here goes..... I saw my first picture of Andrea a couple of
>months ago. Ick, she looked dirty, unkempt, slovenly and ugly as a
>hatful!!!! How could she be anything but ugly, with the ugliness of her
>thoughts and beliefs.
Easily. Catherine MacKinnon isn't exactly physically ugly, for
example, but her thoughts and beliefs aren't much different
to Dworkin's (they work together quite a lot).
J.Young
"Esther Summerson" wrote
>
> What is this I see? Exuding the unmistakable odour of a red
> herring, it is as substantial as a dried grass dummy, a straw man.
> It has shifted ground so often that it is standing on its head at
> the bottom of a pit, and look -- it is still digging. Why it must
> be Kavking <kav...@aol.comQQQQQQQQ>, a typical example of the
> feminazi species, who, in the usual fashion of its kind, has spewed
> the following:
>
<snip>
> with like. Women are pregnant for nine months: this condition
> produces changes in the woman's body that makes it likely that it
> will be difficult or impossible for her to do some jobs, and further
> makes it more likely that she will take off more time than a non-
> pregnant woman or a man. On top of all this, there is maternity
> leave and requirements for employers to offer women who wish to
> return to work after having a baby a part-time job.
Crikey, when did this become law?
My husband won't allow women to return to work
part-time after having a baby, I'd better tell him he's
breaking the law. Does anyone have any cites for
this information so that I can check?
<more snippage>
> woman's fertility, that is, her ability to produce children, is of
> no account. Further, since women tend to require -- to *demand* --
> more state support, women tend to be more expensive workers than
> men. Therefore, having a surplus of women is uneconomic. So, if
> one needs to send people on suicide missions or into other
> situations in order to protect the more flexible and more economic
> workers, one should logically send women. Further, since men tend
> to be stronger and faster, they will tend to be better in combat,
> making them more capable soldiers and thus it makes good sense,
> especially in the early days of a war or in situations where one
> cannot actually win a war but one needs to put up some sort of force
> in order to save face, to protect one's capable soldiers by
> sending out less capable soldiers and women tend to fit that bill
> very nicely.
As do the disabled, children, prisoners, the unemployed,
the infirm and the elderly.
They are all much more of a drain on society than women.
Why not send them out first? Heck, we could send out
the children of those evil spongeing layabout lazy welfare
moms *with* their moms, and get rid of the scourge of
modern society (all those poor men who didn't want to be
fathers will be jumping for joy to be able to be rid of their
unwanted progeny). Now we just need an excuse to start
a war. Any ideas?
> Esther Summerson
J.Young
"Deborah Terreson" wrote
> "Moon Shyne" wrote:
> > "Shawn T Pickrell" wrote
> >> Jennifer Larson wrote:
> >>> : Deborah Terreson wrote:
> >>
> >> :> Spiritual Poison = Esther Summerson... _always_ her words end up
> > including
> >> :> the death of women.
> >> :
> >> : No shit. She is one fucked up bitch.
> >>
> >> has she EVER said anything good about any woman?
> >
> > Not that I've ever noticed.
>
she
> posts to. The only reason I replied was that the NG server here
dropped a
> stitch two days ago and all that I got was Yury's post. I started
reading it
> then I realised who it was from - it didn't take long. I was bent out
of
> shape that I read some of it. Stuff like that is dangerous to any
inner
> state of grace. Such venom from a woman that claims to be a religious,
> conservative, stay-at-home mom. Bad, bad, bad. :(
Hey, when did she post anything about her personal life?
I didn't know she was a stay-at-home mom. Where did
she post that she was? I'm curious as to why she is so
anti-woman; she doesn't give anything away as far as I
can tell. I can understand men having attitudes but women
need a reason, e.g. Jill has explained her animosity towards
feminism, Esther never has (that I've noticed).
The most peculiar thing is that she appears to have appointed
herself judge and jury about women's motives for being anti-
feminist. She writes that they should be tested for their
loyalty, and used and discarded as necessary. She appears
to have delusions of omnipotence, ingratiating herself with
all the anti-feminist men, even those who are quite traditional
in outlook, such as Tom Campbell. The weirdest thing of all
is that she seems convinced that there's gonna be an all-out
'gender war'; it reminds me somewhat of those men walking
around with sandwich boards proclaiming 'The end of the world
is nigh'. As such, I find it hard to take her seriously at all, and
it's rather sad that she spends a lot of time and money
(apparently her 'proof' that she's on the 'correct' side of this
'war', along with her sanctimonious declarations of 'duty')
'researching' to aid the cause. Her choice, of course. I can
only imagine that her mother was an utter bitch (or something)
to have made her so full of animosity towards all women.
Or maybe her daddy doted on her so she thinks all men are
wonderful? Who knows? It could be anything.
>
> "All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is
> everything. What we think, we become." _Buddha.
>
> Deb.
Jennifer Larson
Esther Summerson wrote:
> I have said little if anything about my personal life and that is the
> way it is going to stay.
That's cool, we'll start hearing more after the ATF shuts down your
compound.
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <8FEAE5197yury...@24.2.9.61>, yu...@spamwazat.com
(Yury Donskoy) wrote:
> fooda...@mediaone.net (Deborah Terreson) delighted us by writing in
> <UeJP5.4710$M51.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net> that:
>
>>
>>...Hey, why do you guys waste your time with this misearble rot?
>
> Don't tell me that after all this time here you've never heard of this
> before.
God's Honest, Yury... I don't pay attention to this drivel. This is inane!
How can anyone with half a mind take this seriously. Oh good Lord!
Deb.
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <3a0f8e41$0$30...@motown.iinet.net.au>, "Gallery Gold Ltd"
<gal...@wantree.com.au> wrote:
YES, YES, YES!!!!! I KNEW IT!!!! YAAAHHH!! Can I see through bullshitters or
what?
>How could she be anything but ugly, with the ugliness of her
> thoughts and beliefs.
I honestly didn't know as I'd only heard rumors of what she'd written and it
seems I hit the nail on the head. In all humility, sometimes I really do
surprise myself. Wow (sometimes it doesn't take alot, so don't put too much
weight on this, I certainly don't)!
Deb.
Esther Summerson
Revelling in her inability to understand even simple logic, J.Young
<jenni.no...@virgin.net>, burbbled the following mixture of
ignorance and psychobabble:
:"Deborah Terreson" wrote
I didn't . Deborah Terreson has confused me with Lea Hartline
<rhar...@bellsouth.net> of Georgia: this is the woman who, while
claiming to be a non-feminist, probably 'oopsed' her husband.
I have said little if anything about my personal life and that is the
way it is going to stay.
:I'm curious as to why she is so anti-woman; she doesn't
:give anything away as far as I can tell. I can understand men
:having attitudes but women need a reason, e.g. Jill has explained
:her animosity towards feminism, Esther never has (that I've
:noticed).
I am not anti-woman but anti-feminist -- the two are not the same thing.
Feminist does not equal woman. My reasons for opposing feminism are
simple: it is illogical and it is destroying the rule of law.
Therefore, it is my duty to oppose it.
Oh yes, that's right, according to feminazi doctrine, anyone who
criticises women is anti-woman. According to the feminazi
collaborators, the poster girls and boys, women have to be treated with
respect and accommodated. Rubbish! Women do not have an entitlement to
anything. Logically, no one has an entitlement to anything, not even
life itself. Anyone, therefore, who argues on the basis that women
'deserve' respect is engaging in fallacious thinking: they have decided
a priori, that women are 'entitled' to something, simply for being
women.
The poster girls and boys in particular cannot stand it when someone
examines the behaviour of women with a critical eye. The poster boys
still retain their oh-so-chivalrous rose-tinted glasses: they put forth
the view that when the 'few' feminazis are pushed out of the way,
everything will go back to 'normal'. They engage, at the very least, in
wishful thinking. The poster girls thought that by *claiming* to oppose
feminism, they would be safe -- 'part of the team' -- and no one would
ever examine their behaviour or question their beliefs. They *preach*
moderation, often in the name of the children, to save their own skins.
:The most peculiar thing is that she appears to have appointed
:herself judge and jury about women's motives for being anti-
:feminist. She writes that they should be tested for their
:loyalty, and used and discarded as necessary.
If one wants x, one must do y and z: that is necessity. Therefore, if
one wants to be as certain as possible of one's supporters, one must
test them. If one has unreliable supporters, one should take what one
can from them -- money and other resources -- and then abandon them.
This is logical. This is the way the war will be won.
:She appears to have
:delusions of omnipotence, ingratiating herself with all the
:anti-feminist men, even those who are quite traditional in
:outlook, such as Tom Campbell. The weirdest thing of all is that
:she seems convinced that there's gonna be an all-out 'gender
:war'; it reminds me somewhat of those men walking around with
:sandwich boards proclaiming 'The end of the world is nigh'. As
:such, I find it hard to take her seriously at all, and it's
:rather sad that she spends a lot of time and money (apparently
:her 'proof' that she's on the 'correct' side of this 'war', along
:with her sanctimonious declarations of 'duty') 'researching' to
:aid the cause.
How far society has fallen when to talk of duty is seen to be
'sanctimonious'. Oh, that's right -- feminism preaches that one can
have 'rights' without responsibility and that duty is oppression, that
is, if one is a woman. It is my duty, as I have said, to oppose
feminism. I aim to destroy it. If the feminazis do not back down then
there will be a war, not a 'gender war' but a war between feminists and
anti-feminists. How will *you* survive when your protectors have
deserted you?
As for my research: it tears down the myths and lies of the feminazis.
There was no world-wide double standard in which women's crimes and
failures were judged harsher than men's. Women were not sold as
property in wife sales. Oh, but that's right: feminazi doctrine
*asserts* that emotions are 'more valid' than logic, and indeed, that
logic is oppressive. The feminazis *assert* that women were oppressed
by a world-wide patriarchy for centuries and therefore, according to
their 'logic', it must be true. When one looks at it logically,
however, one sees that it all is just a religious myth.
:Her choice, of course. I can only imagine that her
:mother was an utter bitch (or something) to have made her so full
:of animosity towards all women. Or maybe her daddy doted on her
:so she thinks all men are wonderful? Who knows? It could be
:anything.
Psychobabble codswallop. While you're reading tea leaves, why don't you
predict the winner of the next Grand National? You'll have more
success.
Esther Summerson
Necessity * Fortune * Virtue
'We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one
object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become
simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their
attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.'
-- Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
**Recommended websites**:
http://www.sealandgov.com/
http://www.socmen.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBOhB6IubwFRBuIUs9AQE9DQf+P1nygBxF+6yMWU3q/sA3IbQgnRz41CW4
59fwXId5MZlo33xUh84dxJsoEeJ0rGf+sWoTTkMxLxKy5k3jqtPDqGrb19wT7o84
16KmOK5+BI8dTN2j53aFnIgFauLjufFD3RPp556gomXvRa2SaehOzLm3WUASV8Y6
Ts4qF7+dvcWcNlwr49/NBsdzRxwo/l4tBMETelWY65yRNvO7lhhqhOQCx0x6zlE8
9NNOJxKY9NdruXiMLBdakEv7a24QBn9G+yBRc4h3zP7T4qaVPrsA5rytnPHFljZx
gIgKulW/mDReKW/CK8K9jZhodQR5y/Ch1u2A0oOPUBMgXpJGJ9ms8g==
=bjg0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Yury Donskoy
Well, I suppose as a woman, it wouldn't really matter to you. But when *I*
hear it on TV or radio programs, then hear women in offices parrot the same
line while in the same breath complaining that they can't find men, it's a
little upsetting.
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <3a104af1...@news.freeserve.net>,
angi...@yinyang.enterprise-plc.com (Angilion) wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 03:29:56 GMT, "Deborah Terreson"
> <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <3a0ef4e6...@news.freeserve.net>,
>>angi...@yinyang.enterprise-plc.com (Angilion) wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 06:03:49 GMT, "Deborah Terreson"
>>> <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <8FE6DB63Ayury...@24.2.9.61>, yu...@spamwazat.com
>>>>(Yury Donskoy) wrote:
>>>
>>> [..]
>>>
>>>>> It's no worse than "All heterosexual sex is rape."
>>>>
>>>>Rich mentioned that phrase also.. Is it Andera Dworkin? I don't read her
>>>>missives either.
>>>
>>> It's attributed to Andrea Dworkin (or sometimes Catherine MacKinnon
>>> or even Robin Morgan IIRC), but none of them actually said it AFAIK.
>>> They've all come close to doing so though, particularly Dworkin
>>>
>>> Dworkin has rather strongly implied that consensual PIV sex is *worse*
>>> than rape, because the woman is obviously so beaten down that she
>>> becomes complicit in her own oppression.
>>
>>?????
>
> No shit. Read the book, but make sure you have a sickbag, a
> punchbag and a good friend to ring who can provide a link
> to reality to rescue you in case you start believing any of the book 8-)
No, no, no... I'll read Proust first. Or perhaps 'Frank Zappa: The Negative
Dialectics of Poodle Play' (one of the hardest reads I have ever
encountered! I'll get through it some day.), but no greivously miserable
rot.
>
>>> It's even worse if the woman
>>> has an orgasm(*). She wrote an entire book against heterosexual
>>> vaginal intercourse, which she regards as a form of misogyny and pure,
>>> formalised contempt for women.
>>
>>Oh get out of town! This woman obviously can't get a good fuck and probably
>>has been laid by some piss poor lovers in the past and assumes that since
>>her experiences sucked, so it must go for all women.
>
> She does seem to have had some shitty past experiences, AFAIK.
Well there you go. End of Story.
>
>>Is she fat? I'm not
>>busting on the overweight here, but I have known some heavy chicks that
>>sniped about the things that other women got to do... This just seems to be
>>more of the same.
>
> I've known plenty of fat women who get plenty of good fucks because
> they're very sexy women.
>
>>>That's just ordinary PIV sex in and of
>>> itself without even considering position, let alone any of the vile
>>> atroctities perpetrated on women by men, like consensual oral sex or a
>>> bit of consensual spanking and similar kinkiness.
>>
>>That's the best kind! <evil grin>
>
> You see? You prove that the evil men (a tautology, of course) control
> your mind through violence and oppression to such an extent that you
> buy into it yourself! You have eroticised your oppression under the
> patriarchy!
*LOL* What makes you think I was referring to _getting_ spanked? <eviller
grin> ;-)
>
> The weirdest thing is that the above phrase is not just satire. It's
> a genuine statement concerning the beliefs of some feminists.
I think any woman that would take that philosophy as some sort of cant is
probably pretty fucked up irregardless.
>
> My theory is that Dworkin et al are het femsubs in furious denial.
Sounds more like they're frigid.
>
>>> It's possible that she might approve of some kind of heterosex, but
>>> it seems very unlikely. Maybe non-penetrative masturbation, but
>>> I doubt if even that would be acceptable to her.
>>
>>She should just pack it in and move to Sabbathday Lake in Maine and become a
>>Shaker... They live in sexually segregated dorms and believe in total
>>abstinence.
>>>
>>> She has a male partner, but he's pretty much as misandric as she is.
>>
>>I bet he's 'whipped'
>
> That would be taking on the "male" role of oppressor!
It fits for a pretty opressing person, does it not?
>
>>> * Talking of orgasms, one of the wierdest antisex feminists has said that
>>> orgasms are themselves part of women's oppression under the patriarchy.
>>> I could dig up who said it, I suppose. The logic seems to be as follows;
>>>
>>> Premise: As a general rule, a man likes it when a woman he's having sex
>>> with has an orgasm.
>>>
>>> Premise: The only thing men like about women is oppressing and abusing
>>> them as part of the patriarchy.
>>>
>>> Conclusion: A woman having an orgasm during sex with a man is being
>>> oppressed and abused by him in his role as an agent of the patriarchy.
>>>
>>> I expect you can see the flaw in that logic.
>>
>>Uhhh. Now I'm certain that whoever wrote that has beyond a shadow of a doubt
>>_never_ had her sex partner bring her to orgasm.. If that isn't an issue of
>>applying "sour grapes" onto another person, I don't know what is.
>
> IIRC the woman in question was a political lesbian. It's different
> between women, of course.
>
> Strange thing though......all the lesbians I've ever known think she
> is full of shit. Maybe that's because they're lesbians because of
> how they feel about women rather than taking women as a second
> choice only because men are such scum (which says a great deal
> about how women like the above view women).
The proper term is misanthrope. As my sex-slave <g> says, of some people;
"Nothing's right until everything's wrong."
>
>>...Hey, why do you guys waste your time with this misearble rot?
>
> Unfortunately, that miserable rot has influence.
It will in the long run be undone by it's own ludicrousness.
Deb.
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <lHZP5.9844$f12.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "J.Young"
<jenni.no...@virgin.net> wrote:
> she post that she was? I'm curious as to why she is so
> anti-woman; she doesn't give anything away as far as I
> can tell. I can understand men having attitudes but women
> need a reason, e.g. Jill has explained her animosity towards
> feminism, Esther never has (that I've noticed).
I don't know where it was. I stumbled onto it, it was fairly recently
posted, within the last two weeks I'd guess. Try running her name through
Deja and see what you get. the damned thing is that alot of posts are
replies to her and there's just chunks of her missives in them, and it hard
to say what thread they came off of.
J.Young
"Goddess" wrote
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Esther Summerson" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]>
showing once
> again her true colors spewed:
> news:2000111400414...@gacracker.org...
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> >
> > Revelling in her inability to understand even simple logic, J.Young
> > <jenni.no...@virgin.net>, burbbled the following mixture of
> > ignorance and psychobabble:
I can understand even simple logic, thanks.
However, I don't believe it is appropriate on all
possible occasions, as you do.
> Says a whole lot right there.
>
> > :I'm curious as to why she is so anti-woman; she doesn't
> > :give anything away as far as I can tell. I can understand men
> > :having attitudes but women need a reason, e.g. Jill has explained
> > :her animosity towards feminism, Esther never has (that I've
> > :noticed).
> >
> > I am not anti-woman but anti-feminist -- the two are not the same
thing.
>
No, why then suggest sending only women off to be
massacred at the start of a war? What about sending
other people who are less than perfect soldiers?
> So you say and yet in every post you denigrate and attempt to demean
women,
> even those who would be your allies.
>
> > Feminist does not equal woman. My reasons for opposing feminism
are
> > simple: it is illogical and it is destroying the rule of law.
>
> Not at all. Without laws, feminism wouldn't/couldn't exist.
>
> > Therefore, it is my duty to oppose it.
Most people feel (yes, feel) that it is their duty to to aid
the people closest to them; children, elderly relatives,
neighbours, etc. Charity begins at home and all...
Why you choose one duty over another is up to you.
Until you explain your reasons we are left speculating.
This is natural thing to do, even if it is illogical.
>
> You oppose anything that is of any benefit to women under the law.
>
> > Oh yes, that's right, according to feminazi doctrine, anyone who
> > criticises women is anti-woman. According to the feminazi
> > collaborators, the poster girls and boys, women have to be treated
with
> > respect and accommodated. Rubbish!
>
> Yes, I would say that is indeed rubbish. NO ONE is to be treated with
> respect or accomodated based on their sex. There are merely to be
treated
> equally under the law. You DO understand about laws, don't you?
>
> Women do not have an entitlement to
> > anything. Logically, no one has an entitlement to anything, not
even
> > life itself. Anyone, therefore, who argues on the basis that women
> > 'deserve' respect is engaging in fallacious thinking:
>
> Only what "respect" each individual is accorded under the law; that
is,
> individual liberty and rights.
>
> they have decided
> > a priori, that women are 'entitled' to something, simply for being
> > women.
>
> Who says that?
>
> > The poster girls and boys in particular cannot stand it when someone
> > examines the behaviour of women with a critical eye.
>
> Examine away. No problem. YOU just don't get to take or even to
suggest to
> take freedom from women just because you don't like them.
>
> The poster boys
> > still retain their oh-so-chivalrous rose-tinted glasses: they put
forth
> > the view that when the 'few' feminazis are pushed out of the way,
> > everything will go back to 'normal'.
>
> There are no feminazis except in your own befuddled and sick mind.
>
> They engage, at the very least, in
> > wishful thinking. The poster girls thought that by *claiming* to
oppose
> > feminism, they would be safe -- 'part of the team' -- and no one
would
> > ever examine their behaviour or question their beliefs.
>
> And so, YOU have decided to be their judge and jury, eh? How special
for
> you. And you are? What are your credentials?
>
> They *preach*
> > moderation, often in the name of the children, to save their own
skins.
>
> How about just taking the word of those who profess to believe in
equality?
>
> > :The most peculiar thing is that she appears to have appointed
> > :herself judge and jury about women's motives for being anti-
> > :feminist. She writes that they should be tested for their
> > :loyalty, and used and discarded as necessary.
> >
> > If one wants x, one must do y and z: that is necessity. Therefore,
if
> > one wants to be as certain as possible of one's supporters, one must
> > test them. If one has unreliable supporters, one should take what
one
> > can from them -- money and other resources -- and then abandon them.
> > This is logical. This is the way the war will be won.
>
> Again with the war. Sheesh!!! If there isn't one, you'll try to make
one,
> eh? How special for you. Even against those who would be in the same
camp?
I think there must be a psychiatric term for her
delusions but it escapes me. What was it that
Napoleon had?
>
> > :She appears to have
> > :delusions of omnipotence, ingratiating herself with all the
> > :anti-feminist men, even those who are quite traditional in
> > :outlook, such as Tom Campbell. The weirdest thing of all is that
> > :she seems convinced that there's gonna be an all-out 'gender
> > :war'; it reminds me somewhat of those men walking around with
> > :sandwich boards proclaiming 'The end of the world is nigh'. As
> > :such, I find it hard to take her seriously at all, and it's
> > :rather sad that she spends a lot of time and money (apparently
> > :her 'proof' that she's on the 'correct' side of this 'war', along
> > :with her sanctimonious declarations of 'duty') 'researching' to
> > :aid the cause.
> >
> > How far society has fallen when to talk of duty is seen to be
> > 'sanctimonious'.
>
> Sanctimonious ONLY because you are what you profess to despise and you
> demand they be tested but YOU are sacrosanct, right? Who tests the
tester?
Other people also get on with their duties
without bleating constantly about it. I wonder
if Esther has the same feelings of duty towards
elderly parents? Or anyone other than men?
>
> Oh, that's right -- feminism preaches that one can
> > have 'rights' without responsibility and that duty is oppression,
that
> > is, if one is a woman.
>
> Nope, but thanks for playing. You are one sick, deluded fool.
>
> It is my duty, as I have said, to oppose
> > feminism. I aim to destroy it. If the feminazis do not back down
then
> > there will be a war, not a 'gender war' but a war between feminists
and
> > anti-feminists.
>
> There is already a war between sexists and non sexists. Sexists are
losing.
> Is that the burr that's under your saddle? :-)
>
> How will *you* survive when your protectors have
> > deserted you?
I will survive perfectly well without feminist laws thank-you.
In fact, I'd probably be better off. To oppose feminism for
selfish reasons may not look as saintly as doing so for
altruistic reasons, but it is more credible, IMO. Being
dutiful can only be credible if there are reasons given,
*or* if the person claiming to be 'doing their duty' has a
personality which accomodates this 'dutiful' nature.
>
> What protectors? Oh, you mean THE LAW?
>
> > As for my research: it tears down the myths and lies of the
feminazis.
>
> Not at all. It merely makes you look silly.
>
> > There was no world-wide double standard in which women's crimes and
> > failures were judged harsher than men's. Women were not sold as
> > property in wife sales. Oh, but that's right: feminazi doctrine
> > *asserts* that emotions are 'more valid' than logic, and indeed,
that
> > logic is oppressive.
>
> Who says so? I certainly don't. Logic trumps emotion every time.
You
> might want to look into trying it sometime. Your emotional rants are
quite
> pathetic.
LOL!
I disagree that logic trumps emotions 'every time'. Emotions
*do* have their place, they are extremely important. It's when
they are abused that they are suspect, e.g. the 'what about
the children?' wail. I saw a very interesting t.v. programme a
few months ago called 'Phantoms in the Brain' on Channel 4.
This psychiatrist was explaining all sorts of different problems
which were psychiatric in source. Most of the patients were
brain damaged either through injury or stroke. One of them
failed to recognise his parents. Every time he saw them he
thought that they were imposters. He recognised them but
wouldn't accept that they were his parents. The explanation
for this was that he failed to have the appropriate emotional
response to seeing them. Fortunately he recovered. Emotions
such as these play a very important part in our everyday lives
without our even noticing. It's only when things go wrong that
we notice. And what would life be without emotion? We'd all
be automatons. It's the reason we have children, pets or
holidays. It's part of what makes us human, the most important
part when it comes to quality of life. It just isn't a valid tool for
debating, although it works all too often.
>
> The feminazis *assert* that women were oppressed
> > by a world-wide patriarchy for centuries and therefore, according to
> > their 'logic', it must be true. When one looks at it logically,
> > however, one sees that it all is just a religious myth.
>
> Yeah, gotta love those religious myths. :-)
>
> > :Her choice, of course. I can only imagine that her
> > :mother was an utter bitch (or something) to have made her so full
> > :of animosity towards all women. Or maybe her daddy doted on her
> > :so she thinks all men are wonderful? Who knows? It could be
> > :anything.
> >
> > Psychobabble codswallop. While you're reading tea leaves, why don't
you
> > predict the winner of the next Grand National? You'll have more
> > success.
>
> Musta hit a hot button with one of the above. Maybe both.
Perhaps. I was only speculating, after all.
I don't think she can possibly be a mother.
Just using the old emotions here ;-)
Men love to belittle 'women's way of knowing',but I do think it
has some merit. Intuition is, apparently, nothing more than
learning from experience. There have been countless instances
where I just 'feel' that it is a bad idea to follow a certain course
of action, but cannot explain why. After a time, I can explain.
I think that this is merely a 'shortcut' in thinking that doesn't
involve logic at all. It is not superior or inferior to logic, just
different, but inappropriate when debating here in alt.fem.
It is more appropriate when dealing with life and people,
particularly children.
>
> >
> > Esther Summerson
>
> Marg
> .>
>
>
Goddess
"J.Young" <jenni.no...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:f78Q5.155$IF....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> "Goddess" wrote
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> > "Esther Summerson" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]>
> showing once
> > again her true colors spewed:
> > news:2000111400414...@gacracker.org...
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > >
> > >
> > > Revelling in her inability to understand even simple logic, J.Young
> > > <jenni.no...@virgin.net>, burbbled the following mixture of
> > > ignorance and psychobabble:
>
> I can understand even simple logic, thanks.
> However, I don't believe it is appropriate on all
> possible occasions, as you do.
>
Well, since "Esther" feels that women have gotten (and are getting
presumably) a FREE ride, she feels they have to make up for it. Whatever.
> > So you say and yet in every post you denigrate and attempt to demean
> women,
> > even those who would be your allies.
> >
> > > Feminist does not equal woman. My reasons for opposing feminism
> are
> > > simple: it is illogical and it is destroying the rule of law.
> >
> > Not at all. Without laws, feminism wouldn't/couldn't exist.
> >
> > > Therefore, it is my duty to oppose it.
>
> Most people feel (yes, feel) that it is their duty to to aid
> the people closest to them; children, elderly relatives,
> neighbours, etc. Charity begins at home and all...
> Why you choose one duty over another is up to you.
> Until you explain your reasons we are left speculating.
> This is natural thing to do, even if it is illogical.
It is actually *quite* logical IMO. Women just like men, choose the *duty*
they wish to perform or not.
Delusions of grandeur? :-)
> >
> > > :She appears to have
> > > :delusions of omnipotence, ingratiating herself with all the
> > > :anti-feminist men, even those who are quite traditional in
> > > :outlook, such as Tom Campbell. The weirdest thing of all is that
> > > :she seems convinced that there's gonna be an all-out 'gender
> > > :war'; it reminds me somewhat of those men walking around with
> > > :sandwich boards proclaiming 'The end of the world is nigh'. As
> > > :such, I find it hard to take her seriously at all, and it's
> > > :rather sad that she spends a lot of time and money (apparently
> > > :her 'proof' that she's on the 'correct' side of this 'war', along
> > > :with her sanctimonious declarations of 'duty') 'researching' to
> > > :aid the cause.
> > >
> > > How far society has fallen when to talk of duty is seen to be
> > > 'sanctimonious'.
> >
> > Sanctimonious ONLY because you are what you profess to despise and you
> > demand they be tested but YOU are sacrosanct, right? Who tests the
> tester?
>
> Other people also get on with their duties
> without bleating constantly about it. I wonder
> if Esther has the same feelings of duty towards
> elderly parents? Or anyone other than men?
I don't think "she" even feels much duty toward anyone in truth, merely a
deep hatred of women.
> >
> > Oh, that's right -- feminism preaches that one can
> > > have 'rights' without responsibility and that duty is oppression,
> that
> > > is, if one is a woman.
> >
> > Nope, but thanks for playing. You are one sick, deluded fool.
> >
> > It is my duty, as I have said, to oppose
> > > feminism. I aim to destroy it. If the feminazis do not back down
> then
> > > there will be a war, not a 'gender war' but a war between feminists
> and
> > > anti-feminists.
> >
> > There is already a war between sexists and non sexists. Sexists are
> losing.
> > Is that the burr that's under your saddle? :-)
> >
> > How will *you* survive when your protectors have
> > > deserted you?
>
> I will survive perfectly well without feminist laws thank-you.
> In fact, I'd probably be better off. To oppose feminism for
> selfish reasons may not look as saintly as doing so for
> altruistic reasons, but it is more credible, IMO. Being
> dutiful can only be credible if there are reasons given,
> *or* if the person claiming to be 'doing their duty' has a
> personality which accomodates this 'dutiful' nature.
Equality allows individuals to choose that which they wish to do and are
personally best suited to do without anyone else hampering their choice(s).
I think that works for everyone myself.
Agreed. I WAS referring to debating however. Emotions are pretty basic for
most humans. We all have them.
> > The feminazis *assert* that women were oppressed
> > > by a world-wide patriarchy for centuries and therefore, according to
> > > their 'logic', it must be true. When one looks at it logically,
> > > however, one sees that it all is just a religious myth.
> >
> > Yeah, gotta love those religious myths. :-)
> >
> > > :Her choice, of course. I can only imagine that her
> > > :mother was an utter bitch (or something) to have made her so full
> > > :of animosity towards all women. Or maybe her daddy doted on her
> > > :so she thinks all men are wonderful? Who knows? It could be
> > > :anything.
> > >
> > > Psychobabble codswallop. While you're reading tea leaves, why don't
> you
> > > predict the winner of the next Grand National? You'll have more
> > > success.
> >
> > Musta hit a hot button with one of the above. Maybe both.
>
> Perhaps. I was only speculating, after all.
> I don't think she can possibly be a mother.
> Just using the old emotions here ;-)
No, actually that would be using *logic* based on the posts of *hers* that
have appeared here.
> Men love to belittle 'women's way of knowing',but I do think it
> has some merit. Intuition is, apparently, nothing more than
> learning from experience.
Intuition can be useful and yes in most instances it is the result of
learned experiences.
There have been countless instances
> where I just 'feel' that it is a bad idea to follow a certain course
> of action, but cannot explain why. After a time, I can explain.
> I think that this is merely a 'shortcut' in thinking that doesn't
> involve logic at all. It is not superior or inferior to logic, just
> different, but inappropriate when debating here in alt.fem.
Intuition isn't a very useful tool in debating, although MY intuition says
that "Esther" isn't a woman. :-)
> It is more appropriate when dealing with life and people,
> particularly children.
Most of what many parents (not just mothers) use when dealing with their
children or other family members is learned by their interactions *with*
those individuals. It may seem like intuition, but actually, in most cases,
has a basis in fact. Sometimes the fact(s) aren't always discernable
consciously, but they exist from previous experience and manifest as
intuition. I always *know* when one of my kids or my husband is
worried/concerned or upset even if they don't say anything.
Marg
Stephen Morgan
wrote:
>
>"Goddess" wrote
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> "Esther Summerson" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]>
>showing once
>> again her true colors spewed:
>> news:2000111400414...@gacracker.org...
>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >
>> >
>> > Revelling in her inability to understand even simple logic, J.Young
>> > <jenni.no...@virgin.net>, burbbled the following mixture of
>> > ignorance and psychobabble:
>
>I can understand even simple logic, thanks.
>However, I don't believe it is appropriate on all
>possible occasions, as you do.
When is logic not appropriate?
She was merely pointing out how stupid feminism is, not saying we should start
wiping out hordes of women...
>> Oh, that's right -- feminism preaches that one can
>> > have 'rights' without responsibility and that duty is oppression,
>that
>> > is, if one is a woman.
>>
>> Nope, but thanks for playing. You are one sick, deluded fool.
>>
>> It is my duty, as I have said, to oppose
>> > feminism. I aim to destroy it. If the feminazis do not back down
>then
>> > there will be a war, not a 'gender war' but a war between feminists
>and
>> > anti-feminists.
>>
>> There is already a war between sexists and non sexists. Sexists are
>losing.
>> Is that the burr that's under your saddle? :-)
>>
>> How will *you* survive when your protectors have
>> > deserted you?
>
>I will survive perfectly well without feminist laws thank-you.
>In fact, I'd probably be better off.
In what way?
>To oppose feminism for
>selfish reasons may not look as saintly as doing so for
>altruistic reasons, but it is more credible, IMO. Being
>dutiful can only be credible if there are reasons given,
>*or* if the person claiming to be 'doing their duty' has a
>personality which accomodates this 'dutiful' nature.
>
>>
>> What protectors? Oh, you mean THE LAW?
>>
>> > As for my research: it tears down the myths and lies of the
>feminazis.
>>
>> Not at all. It merely makes you look silly.
Nope.
>> > There was no world-wide double standard in which women's crimes and
>> > failures were judged harsher than men's. Women were not sold as
>> > property in wife sales. Oh, but that's right: feminazi doctrine
>> > *asserts* that emotions are 'more valid' than logic, and indeed,
>that
>> > logic is oppressive.
>>
>> Who says so? I certainly don't. Logic trumps emotion every time.
A strange statement coming from someone who wouldn't know logic if it beat her
to death with a rotten banana.
Other species have children. Emotion and debate don't go together.
>> The feminazis *assert* that women were oppressed
>> > by a world-wide patriarchy for centuries and therefore, according to
>> > their 'logic', it must be true. When one looks at it logically,
>> > however, one sees that it all is just a religious myth.
>>
>> Yeah, gotta love those religious myths. :-)
>>
>> > :Her choice, of course. I can only imagine that her
>> > :mother was an utter bitch (or something) to have made her so full
>> > :of animosity towards all women. Or maybe her daddy doted on her
>> > :so she thinks all men are wonderful? Who knows? It could be
>> > :anything.
>> >
>> > Psychobabble codswallop. While you're reading tea leaves, why don't
>you
>> > predict the winner of the next Grand National? You'll have more
>> > success.
>>
>> Musta hit a hot button with one of the above. Maybe both.
>
>Perhaps. I was only speculating, after all.
>I don't think she can possibly be a mother.
>Just using the old emotions here ;-)
>Men love to belittle 'women's way of knowing',
SEXIST! RATIONAL PEOPLE belittle "Women's way of knowing", it's just a filler
for the void where there should be reasonable thought.
>but I do think it
>has some merit. Intuition is, apparently, nothing more than
>learning from experience.
Rational people call that experience.
>There have been countless instances
>where I just 'feel' that it is a bad idea to follow a certain course
>of action, but cannot explain why. After a time, I can explain.
>I think that this is merely a 'shortcut' in thinking that doesn't
>involve logic at all. It is not superior or inferior to logic, just
>different, but inappropriate when debating here in alt.fem.
>It is more appropriate when dealing with life and people,
>particularly children.
I get along perfectly well with logic, observation and experience. WWOK is
obviously incorrect, at best, as it resides up the arse of the feminist hive.
>> > Esther Summerson
>>
>> Marg
To quote Homer Simpson: "Argh! Burn it! Send it to hell!"
--
Populus vul decipi.
http://ncavalier.port5.com/ - Updated 13th November!
http://www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk/
http://ncavalier.port5.com/thwop.html
Shawn T Pickrell
: I didn't . Deborah Terreson has confused me with Lea Hartline
: <rhar...@bellsouth.net> of Georgia: this is the woman who, while
: claiming to be a non-feminist, probably 'oopsed' her husband.
what evidence have you for this claim?
: I have said little if anything about my personal life and that is the
: way it is going to stay.
i.e. the truth would not be pleasant.
: :I'm curious as to why she is so anti-woman; she doesn't
: :give anything away as far as I can tell. I can understand men
: :having attitudes but women need a reason, e.g. Jill has explained
: :her animosity towards feminism, Esther never has (that I've
: :noticed).
: I am not anti-woman but anti-feminist -- the two are not the same thing.
it seems none of the anti-feminist women here are anti-feminist enough
for you. i have yet to see you say anything complimentary or even
conciliatory toward a woman, esther. whereas marg, parg, et al. have been
such towards men. not often, but on occasion. marg seems to even
demonstrate a sense of humour with regard to non-gender related issues.
the fact that marg has remained married for 37 years and has four
children seems to indicate an allegiance to something other than an
ideology that places her (as woman) as the #1 thing.
: Feminist does not equal woman. My reasons for opposing feminism are
: simple: it is illogical and it is destroying the rule of law.
: Therefore, it is my duty to oppose it.
: Oh yes, that's right, according to feminazi doctrine, anyone who
: criticises women is anti-woman. According to the feminazi
no, anyone who only criticises women (and says nary a good word about
any woman, anywhere) is anti-woman. even aaron kulkis and mark sobolewski
have said good things about women. and they get slammed here for being
misogynists.
: collaborators, the poster girls and boys, women have to be treated with
: respect and accommodated. Rubbish! Women do not have an entitlement to
: anything. Logically, no one has an entitlement to anything, not even
: life itself. Anyone, therefore, who argues on the basis that women
: 'deserve' respect is engaging in fallacious thinking: they have decided
: a priori, that women are 'entitled' to something, simply for being
: women.
and so where does this entail attacking jill for not being ideologically
pure enough?
: The poster girls and boys in particular cannot stand it when someone
: examines the behaviour of women with a critical eye. The poster boys
: still retain their oh-so-chivalrous rose-tinted glasses: they put forth
: the view that when the 'few' feminazis are pushed out of the way,
: everything will go back to 'normal'. They engage, at the very least, in
: wishful thinking. The poster girls thought that by *claiming* to oppose
: feminism, they would be safe -- 'part of the team' -- and no one would
: ever examine their behaviour or question their beliefs. They *preach*
: moderation, often in the name of the children, to save their own skins.
why are you convinced there will be a gender war? has it not occurred
to you that men and women probably have more in common than different,
and that every grudge need not be reacted upon, violently?
: :The most peculiar thing is that she appears to have appointed
: :herself judge and jury about women's motives for being anti-
: :feminist. She writes that they should be tested for their
: :loyalty, and used and discarded as necessary.
: If one wants x, one must do y and z: that is necessity. Therefore, if
: one wants to be as certain as possible of one's supporters, one must
: test them. If one has unreliable supporters, one should take what one
: can from them -- money and other resources -- and then abandon them.
: This is logical. This is the way the war will be won.
ok, esther. you want a war, go and start it. for all we know you could
just be a parlour pinko, willing to talk a good game but not willing to
fight it. what have you done to further your causes other than posting
long screeds on here?
: :She appears to have
: :delusions of omnipotence, ingratiating herself with all the
: :anti-feminist men, even those who are quite traditional in
: :outlook, such as Tom Campbell. The weirdest thing of all is that
: :she seems convinced that there's gonna be an all-out 'gender
: :war'; it reminds me somewhat of those men walking around with
: :sandwich boards proclaiming 'The end of the world is nigh'. As
: :such, I find it hard to take her seriously at all, and it's
: :rather sad that she spends a lot of time and money (apparently
: :her 'proof' that she's on the 'correct' side of this 'war', along
: :with her sanctimonious declarations of 'duty') 'researching' to
: :aid the cause.
: How far society has fallen when to talk of duty is seen to be
: 'sanctimonious'. Oh, that's right -- feminism preaches that one can
: have 'rights' without responsibility and that duty is oppression, that
: is, if one is a woman. It is my duty, as I have said, to oppose
: feminism. I aim to destroy it. If the feminazis do not back down then
: there will be a war, not a 'gender war' but a war between feminists and
: anti-feminists. How will *you* survive when your protectors have
: deserted you?
just how will this war be carried out, esther? do you intend for husbands
to desert their wives, and wives to do likewise?
: As for my research: it tears down the myths and lies of the feminazis.
: There was no world-wide double standard in which women's crimes and
: failures were judged harsher than men's. Women were not sold as
: property in wife sales. Oh, but that's right: feminazi doctrine
: *asserts* that emotions are 'more valid' than logic, and indeed, that
: logic is oppressive. The feminazis *assert* that women were oppressed
: by a world-wide patriarchy for centuries and therefore, according to
: their 'logic', it must be true. When one looks at it logically,
: however, one sees that it all is just a religious myth.
selective research, lady.
: :Her choice, of course. I can only imagine that her
: :mother was an utter bitch (or something) to have made her so full
: :of animosity towards all women. Or maybe her daddy doted on her
: :so she thinks all men are wonderful? Who knows? It could be
: :anything.
: Psychobabble codswallop. While you're reading tea leaves, why don't you
: predict the winner of the next Grand National? You'll have more
: success.
i go for flat racing myself. nothing more boring than to see your horse
leading by 20 lengths only to take a tumble at the last fence.
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <f78Q5.155$IF....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "J.Young"
<jenni.no...@virgin.net> wrote:
> I think there must be a psychiatric term for her
> delusions but it escapes me. What was it that
> Napoleon had?
"Little Man's disease?" <g>
Deb.
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <8FEBD76E9yury...@24.2.9.61>, yu...@spamwazat.com
(Yury Donskoy) wrote:
> fooda...@mediaone.net (Deborah Terreson) delighted us by writing in
> <Vj%P5.6239$M51.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net> that:
>
>>
>>
>>----------
>>In article <8FEAE5197yury...@24.2.9.61>, yu...@spamwazat.com
>>(Yury Donskoy) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> fooda...@mediaone.net (Deborah Terreson) delighted us by writing in
>>> <UeJP5.4710$M51.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net> that:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>...Hey, why do you guys waste your time with this misearble rot?
>>>
>>> Don't tell me that after all this time here you've never heard of this
>>> before.
>>
>>God's Honest, Yury... I don't pay attention to this drivel. This is inane!
>>How can anyone with half a mind take this seriously. Oh good Lord!
>
> Well, I suppose as a woman, it wouldn't really matter to you. But when *I*
> hear it on TV or radio programs, then hear women in offices parrot the same
> line while in the same breath complaining that they can't find men, it's a
> little upsetting.
No doubt! Man that sucks.
Yury, all you have to point out that if they want to get a decent man, maybe
they should pay less attention to a man hater. Tell them it's their fault
for believing this nonsense and setting themselves up to fail.
As the Buddha said... "All that we are is the result of what we have
thought. The mind is everything. What we think, we become." ..and think of
what these women have swallowed.
Deb.
Yury Donskoy
Unfortunately, a man in an office does not comment on a woman's behaviour;
that way lie sexual harrassment suits.
>
>As the Buddha said... "All that we are is the result of what we have
>thought. The mind is everything. What we think, we become." ..and think
>of what these women have swallowed.
Exactly. Or, put another way, you attract that which you expect.
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <8FEDD4DB1yury...@24.2.9.61>, yu...@spamwazat.com
(Yury Donskoy) wrote:
Maybe I'm ignorant of the prissyness of office-type women (I would rather
shovel shit than work any place where I'd have to wear a suit or heels), but
there has _got_ to be a way to get that across without doing it in a fashion
that gets them all het up at you.
>
>>
>>As the Buddha said... "All that we are is the result of what we have
>>thought. The mind is everything. What we think, we become." ..and think
>>of what these women have swallowed.
>
> Exactly. Or, put another way, you attract that which you expect.
All I get are the cool, creative guys around me. <g> Too bad for the office
whiners, eh?
Deb.
Yury Donskoy
Certainly not to suggest that all women in offices are like that. There
are some few gems that you can talk about anything with; you keep those.
The rest, well, office equipment is all they are. Use them to get your job
done, ignore them thereafter. Of course, that way lie hostile work
environment suits, but women are never satisfied.
>>
>>>
>>>As the Buddha said... "All that we are is the result of what we have
>>>thought. The mind is everything. What we think, we become." ..and
>>>think of what these women have swallowed.
>>
>> Exactly. Or, put another way, you attract that which you expect.
>
>All I get are the cool, creative guys around me. <g> Too bad for the
>office whiners, eh?
Yeah, too bad. I wonder if they women's magazines are still running
articles about offices being among the best places to meet men? Anyone?
Deborah Terreson
----------
In article <8FEE9090yuryd...@24.2.9.61>, yu...@spamwazat.com (Yury
Donskoy) wrote:
Offices? No way. Maybe if you want Mr.Six-Digit-Salary, but I honestly don't
know that one. I met my man in a bar. _That's_ the best place to meet men!!
<g>
Deb.
Kavking
>
>Offices? No way. Maybe if you want Mr.Six-Digit-Salary, but I honestly don't
>know that one. I met my man in a bar. _That's_ the best place to meet men!!
Hey, I met my man in a bar!
It is the best place to meet a man.
K,
(who's been married to "her'' man for 22 years)
K
.........we have plenty of youth, what we need is a fountain of
smart..............
(remove Q's, before replying)
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not even sure about the universe."
--Albert Einstein
Mark Evans
> IIRC the woman in question was a political lesbian. It's different
> between women, of course.
> Strange thing though......all the lesbians I've ever known think she
> is full of shit. Maybe that's because they're lesbians because of
> how they feel about women rather than taking women as a second
> choice only because men are such scum (which says a great deal
> about how women like the above view women).
I wonder if there are enough such "political lesbians" to skew
the figures in domestic violence incidence. After all someone
with that kind of attitude appears to be predisposed to bullying
other people.
Angilion
Maybe, but I don't have any data on the matter. I only have a sample
size of a couple of dozen, which is neither random nor large enough
to make meaningful extrapolations from.
Angilion
<fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>In article <3a104af1...@news.freeserve.net>,
>angi...@yinyang.enterprise-plc.com (Angilion) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 03:29:56 GMT, "Deborah Terreson"
>> <fooda...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3a0ef4e6...@news.freeserve.net>,
>>>angi...@yinyang.enterprise-plc.com (Angilion) wrote:
[..]
>>>>That's just ordinary PIV sex in and of
>>>> itself without even considering position, let alone any of the vile
>>>> atroctities perpetrated on women by men, like consensual oral sex or a
>>>> bit of consensual spanking and similar kinkiness.
>>>
>>>That's the best kind! <evil grin>
>>
>> You see? You prove that the evil men (a tautology, of course) control
>> your mind through violence and oppression to such an extent that you
>> buy into it yourself! You have eroticised your oppression under the
>> patriarchy!
>
>*LOL* What makes you think I was referring to _getting_ spanked? <eviller
>grin> ;-)
It doesn't matter. To these people, anyone being spanked is a woman
and anyone doing the spanking is a man. If a woman spanks anyone, she
is doubly oppressed or something. She has to deny her own femaleness
and take on the male role (i..e. abuser and oppressor) because she is
so oppressed, blah blah.
This is from the people who argue that when two men have sex, one
of them is a woman (that's the reason why porn with only men in it is
still the abuse and oppression of women).
>> The weirdest thing is that the above phrase is not just satire. It's
>> a genuine statement concerning the beliefs of some feminists.
>
>I think any woman that would take that philosophy as some sort of cant is
>probably pretty fucked up irregardless.
You'll get no argument from me there.
>> My theory is that Dworkin et al are het femsubs in furious denial.
>
>Sounds more like they're frigid.
No, I don't think so. The wholly antisex ones, maybe, but most of
them are utterly obsessed with men dominating women in a sexual
context, so much so that they even see men dominating women
when a malesub is kissing his Mistress' boots. I think it's the same
process as with some of the people who hate homosexuality, to
give a more commonly considered example.
[..]
>>>...Hey, why do you guys waste your time with this misearble rot?
>>
>> Unfortunately, that miserable rot has influence.
>
>It will in the long run be undone by it's own ludicrousness.
I am less optimistic. Some ludicrous shit has become commonly
accepted, or at least powerful, in the past.
michael price
Angilion wrote:
Just like Nazism, Stalinism, "Manifest Destiny", and all that other rot? Don't
count
on it happening soon or without the effort of honest men (and women).