California Passes Law Aimed at Controlling Spousal Support!
fr...@vix.com
We are very pleased to announce the passage of the below legislation in
the State of California.
F.R.E.E. was first approached by the original author of this bill,
then State Senator (now Federal Congressman) Tom Campbell, for our input and
assistance with respect to the wording of this bill. Executive Director
Anne Mitchell met with Senator Campbell, and both worked with him on the
wording, and provided suggestions as to how to anticipate and overcome
the onslaught of opposition which such a bill would clearly incite.
When Senator Campbell was elected to Congress, the bill (now known as SB509)
was sponsored by Senator Calderon. At that point in time our colleagues
at COPS got very actively involved, and in essence took the ball and ran
with it, working very hard to help ensure SB509's passage.
SB509 passed both the CA House and Senate, and was sent to Governor Wilson
to sign. By that point the opposition, which included both the women's lobby
and the Judicial Counsel of California, had grown to a heightened frenzy,
and it seemed quite possible that the Governor would not sign it.
A concerted effort by both COPS and F.R.E.E., and many 11th hour phone
calls and faxes from both memberships, as well as other concerned
individuals, made the difference.
Governor Wilson signed SB 509 into law late last night. Our last-minute
push was enough to overcome the women's lobby and objections from the
Judicial Counsel!
The new law requires ex-spouses to become self supporting in a reasonable
amount of time, rather than living off their former spouse for life. If
there is sufficient interest, I can post the text.
Thanks to everyone who sent in a fax, or who called the Governor's
office. Your voices were heard!
Kudos also the our fellow dadvocates at COPS and CRC-Sacramento; who says
dads can't work together?
For those of you keeping track of such things, the new law is Chapter
1163, Statutes of 1996, and should become effective 1/1/97, in California.
BILL NUMBER: SB 509 ENROLLED 08/29/96
BILL TEXT
PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 29, 1996
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 21, 1996
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 5, 1996
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 6, 1996
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 7, 1995
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 26, 1995
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 23, 1995
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 3, 1995
INTRODUCED BY Senator Calderon
FEBRUARY 17, 1995
An act to amend Sections 4320 and 4330 of the Family Code,
relating to family law.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 509, Calderon. Spousal support.
Under existing law, in a judgment of dissolution of marriage or
legal separation of the parties, the court is authorized to order a
party to pay spousal support, as the court determines is just and
reasonable, based on the standard of living established during the
marriage and taking into consideration specified circumstances.
This bill would require the court to consider additional specified
circumstances in ordering spousal support, including the goal that
the supported party shall be self-supporting within a reasonable
period of time, as provided. The bill would also require a court to
give the parties a specified admonition regarding these provisions
when making an order for spousal support, except as specified.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 4320 of the Family Code is amended to read:
4320. In ordering spousal support under this part, the court
shall consider all of the following circumstances:
(a) The extent to which the earning capacity of each party is
sufficient to maintain the standard of living established during the
marriage, taking into account all of the following:
(1) The marketable skills of the supported party; the job market
for those skills; the time and expenses required for the supported
party to acquire the appropriate education or training to develop
those skills; and the possible need for retraining or education to
acquire other, more marketable skills or employment.
(2) The extent to which the supported party's present or future
earning capacity is impaired by periods of unemployment that were
incurred during the marriage to permit the supported party to devote
time to domestic duties.
(b) The extent to which the supported party contributed to the
attainment of an education, training, a career position, or a license
by the supporting party.
(c) The ability to pay of the supporting party, taking into
account the supporting party's earning capacity, earned and unearned
income, assets, and standard of living.
(d) The needs of each party based on the standard of living
established during the marriage.
(e) The obligations and assets, including the separate property,
of each party.
(f) The duration of the marriage.
(g) The ability of the supported party to engage in gainful
employment without unduly interfering with the interests of dependent
children in the custody of the party.
(h) The age and health of the parties.
(i) The immediate and specific tax consequences to each party.
(j) The balance of the hardships to each party.
(k) The goal that the supported party shall be self-supporting
within a reasonable period of time. A "reasonable period of time"
for purposes of this section generally shall be one-half the length
of the marriage. However, nothing in this section is intended to
limit the court's discretion to order support for a greater or lesser
length of time, based on any of the other factors listed in this
section and the circumstances of the parties.
(l) Any other factors the court determines are just and equitable.
SEC. 2. Section 4330 of the Family Code is amended to read:
4330. (a) In a judgment of dissolution of marriage or legal
separation of the parties, the court may order a party to pay for the
support of the other party an amount, for a period of time, that the
court determines is just and reasonable, based on the standard of
living established during the marriage, taking into consideration the
circumstances as provided in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section
4320).
(b) When making an order for spousal support, whether the order is
for a specific amount or simply a reservation of jurisdiction, and
except in the limited number of cases where the court determines that
a party is unable to make such efforts, the court shall give the
parties the following admonition:
"It is the goal of this state that each party shall make
reasonable good faith efforts to become self-supporting as provided
for in Section 4320. The failure to make reasonable good faith
efforts, may be one of the factors considered by the court as a basis
for modifying or terminating support."
Patrick Tang
And now folks, for the Victory Party -
This Friday there will be a national wide protest on the movie "first
Wife Club" at 7pm. For Santa Clara Valley, it will be at the Century
theatres in San Jose at Winchester and 280.
Why "First Wife Club"?
1. Just saw a ClintOOn press release on chasing CS that was given out
on 9/28/96 - ".... irresponsible men deserting their families and
leaving the women and children in poverty..."
2. Today's San Jose Mercury newspaper has an editorial on the movie and
hit on Newt and dole at the same time - "... dole emotionally abandoned
his wife and daughter and moved down into the basement before filing for
divorce"
Folks, just more gender warfare through sterotyping men so they can beat
them up more. We need to let everybody know that this type of
propaganda would not be tolerated.
Patrick Tang Si Valley Chapter of COPS
Hurray for SB509 - this bill establishes that able bodied adults have
the responsibility to be financially self supporting, no more life time
support.
Now, onto getting our children back so we can call ourselves fathers
again!
fr...@vix.com wrote:
>
> SB509 passed both the CA House and Senate, and was sent to Governor Wilson
> to sign. By that point the opposition, which included both the women's lobby
> and the Judicial Counsel of California, had grown to a heightened frenzy,
> and it seemed quite possible that the Governor would not sign it.
>
> A concerted effort by both COPS and F.R.E.E., and many 11th hour phone
> calls and faxes from both memberships, as well as other concerned
> individuals, made the difference.
>
> Governor Wilson signed SB 509 into law late last night.
>
Mary Ratcliff
Wilson
>> to sign. By that point the opposition, which included both the
women's lobby
>> and the Judicial Counsel of California, had grown to a heightened
frenzy,
>> and it seemed quite possible that the Governor would not sign it.
>>
>> A concerted effort by both COPS and F.R.E.E., and many 11th hour
phone
>> calls and faxes from both memberships, as well as other concerned
>> individuals, made the difference.
>>
>> Governor Wilson signed SB 509 into law late last night.
>>
reasonable
>> amount of time, rather than living off their former spouse for life.
It's about damn time that ex-spouses became self-supporting in a limit-
ed amount of time!! I personally believe that there's one helluva big
percentage of the "LEECHES" that are only pretending to be a lily-white
lady in distress just for pure REVENGE!! Maybe these types of women
will do much better by getting the big boot to get them in gear to get
on with if for christ sake! But I do worry about the funding, and what
will happen if they continue the course of what they're doing now! The
agencies are pushing these drowning ladies under with all their might!
They need counselling, and the ones who've been out of the work force
need training to gain job skills! If there are children -- these
agencies need the big fat boot of the PUBLIC to use that money to get
them FREE childcare for awhile! For every dollar they get outta the
fathers out there -- they get a match from the feds? WHAT ARE THEY
DOING WITH IT??? BUYING CUSHY CHAIRS AND BMW CARS????!!! Did you
know that even a lady working at a McDonald's in California has to
pay a big fat portion of child care in California -- and that means
on the bottom line that they would have been better off being a
LEECH? That's SICK. I'm not one of them - but I know! Just call
ANY childcare facility in the book! Ask QUESTIONS! You can thank
those agencies and their GREED for all that! They don't want these
ladies to become independent! Our government does not offer any
incentive to the fatcat agents (and I mean $$$) to get people to be
truly independent. I don't have any faith in the new 'law'. What
kind of incentive is there for these welfare caseworkers to get the
recipients to a point where they are independent? I went to court
today to support my husband mentally in a case where they said he
owed $18,000 in 93, he paid $23,000 from 93-95, and now they
STILL say he owes over $18,000 with some statements being as high
as $40,000. Know what I got when the issue of "arrears" came up?
When the judge said "WHAT ARREARS??" the big agents drowned it out
by saying that the arrears wasn't the issue. Sweep, sweep, sweep.
No matter who you are, they will turn you into insignificant dust
they can just blow away. Now I've got to miss another day of work
on December 2nd so they can do more of the same. I don't have a
shred of faith in our system because they will steal your soul
and eat your heart no matter what you do or who you are. No
one gives a shit, either. They keep us too poor to do anything
about it. BOTH SIDES.
Pat Stephens
in no way a flame against most USA divorced men or women. It was
funny, upbeat, and really a divorce of THE RICH AND FAMOUS. It was
worth seeing!!!! It was funny!!!
Patty
Mark Evans
Mary Ratcliff (cdr...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
:
: It's about damn time that ex-spouses became self-supporting in a limit-
: ed amount of time!! I personally believe that there's one helluva big
I wonder what, in reality is a "reasonable" amount of time. Certainly it
must be less that 5 years. If a person has chosen to give up employment
that should mean that their reasonable time is considerably less than
someone who has never had a job.
: percentage of the "LEECHES" that are only pretending to be a lily-white
: lady in distress just for pure REVENGE!! Maybe these types of women
Is it revenge or is it lazyness? (or a combinatuion of both.)
: will do much better by getting the big boot to get them in gear to get
: on with if for christ sake! But I do worry about the funding, and what
IMHO a person who was married should be treated equally to any other
single person.
: will happen if they continue the course of what they're doing now! The
: agencies are pushing these drowning ladies under with all their might!
: They need counselling, and the ones who've been out of the work force
: need training to gain job skills! If there are children -- these
: agencies need the big fat boot of the PUBLIC to use that money to get
: them FREE childcare for awhile! For every dollar they get outta the
What if "free childcare" is available from the other parent? Should
not that be considered first?
: fathers out there -- they get a match from the feds? WHAT ARE THEY
: DOING WITH IT??? BUYING CUSHY CHAIRS AND BMW CARS????!!! Did you
: know that even a lady working at a McDonald's in California has to
: pay a big fat portion of child care in California -- and that means
: on the bottom line that they would have been better off being a
: LEECH? That's SICK. I'm not one of them - but I know! Just call
: ANY childcare facility in the book! Ask QUESTIONS! You can thank
: those agencies and their GREED for all that! They don't want these
: ladies to become independent! Our government does not offer any
: incentive to the fatcat agents (and I mean $$$) to get people to be
: truly independent. I don't have any faith in the new 'law'. What
: kind of incentive is there for these welfare caseworkers to get the
: recipients to a point where they are independent? I went to court
: today to support my husband mentally in a case where they said he
: owed $18,000 in 93, he paid $23,000 from 93-95, and now they
: STILL say he owes over $18,000 with some statements being as high
: as $40,000. Know what I got when the issue of "arrears" came up?
: When the judge said "WHAT ARREARS??" the big agents drowned it out
: by saying that the arrears wasn't the issue. Sweep, sweep, sweep.
There's something wrong here, "agents" drowning out a "judge" unless
this is some very strange type of court, the judge can have
such people booted out of the court room or imprisoned. (It's called
"contempt of court".)
Fowler_Barry
Mark Evans (ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Mary Ratcliff (cdr...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: :
: : It's about damn time that ex-spouses became self-supporting in a limit-
: : ed amount of time!! I personally believe that there's one helluva big
: I wonder what, in reality is a "reasonable" amount of time. Certainly it
: must be less that 5 years. If a person has chosen to give up employment
: that should mean that their reasonable time is considerably less than
someone who has never had a job.
I'm also curious, how this will affect "standard of living" vs. becoming
"self-sufficient".
If it's "standard of living", will the ex ever reach whatever is deemed
"acceptable" or "at parity" with that when married? What if they don't want
to expend the effort?
If it's "self-sufficiency", then (in my selfish case), she was and is self
sufficient before, during, and after the marriage.
So.... would spousal support for reasons of standard of living maintenance
be eliminated? If not immediately, then under what criterea? If that
person never achieves parity with standard of living during the marriage,
out of choice, then would support continue to be indefinite?
patrick tang
Pat Stephens wrote:
> >Folks: Do what you want but the movie First Wives Club was a hoot and
> in no way a flame against most USA divorced men or women. It was
> funny, upbeat, and really a divorce of THE RICH AND FAMOUS. It was
> worth seeing!!!! It was funny!!!
Folks, I don't give a flying hoot whether this movie is well-done and
funny. It uses sterotypes to beat up on men. This is NOT RIGHT.
That this is really the kind of stuff used by our government to beat up
on the fathers make it even worse. Ref. my post on "Clint00n on CS".
For a really good comedy but tell it like it is, see Robin William's
"Mrs Doubtfire".
patrick tang
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <325300...@xlinkusa.com> patrick tang <pt...@xlinkusa.com>
writes:
>For a really good comedy but tell it like it is, see Robin William's
>"Mrs Doubtfire".
>
>patrick tang
-----
I LOVED Mrs. Doubtfire. I'm a feminist. I thought this movie had
quite a lot to say about love, about this father who did everything
to love his children. This is one of my favs!
However, I also enjoyed First Wives Club.
Lefty
Michael Koster
ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>Mary Ratcliff (cdr...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
(...)
>: kind of incentive is there for these welfare caseworkers to get the
>: recipients to a point where they are independent? I went to court
>: today to support my husband mentally in a case where they said he
>: owed $18,000 in 93, he paid $23,000 from 93-95, and now they
>: STILL say he owes over $18,000 with some statements being as high
>: as $40,000. Know what I got when the issue of "arrears" came up?
>: When the judge said "WHAT ARREARS??" the big agents drowned it out
>: by saying that the arrears wasn't the issue. Sweep, sweep, sweep.
>There's something wrong here, "agents" drowning out a "judge" unless
>this is some very strange type of court, the judge can have
>such people booted out of the court room or imprisoned. (It's called
>"contempt of court".)
That's what I thought too, until I saw it firsthand. When it comes
to child support cases, the DA's office seems to have judges
buffaloed. The judge complains on the record that his hands are tied
from exercising judgement, and that he is expected to follow the
guidelines. That seems to include implicit acceptance of any "facts"
the DA presents.
Funny thing, my case involved trying to get a break for a second
family... Multiplying the CS I pay by 4X to get first wife off
AFDC was #1 priority. At least she used the money to finance her
husband's education so they'll have something when the CS runs out.
Just say I know just how you feel.
Michael.
Michael.
qui...@ally.ios.com
ba...@rose.hp.com (Fowler_Barry) wrote:
>
>So.... would spousal support for reasons of standard of living maintenance
>be eliminated? If not immediately, then under what criterea? If that
>person never achieves parity with standard of living during the marriage,
>out of choice, then would support continue to be indefinite?
Support for reasons of standard of living maintenance never should have
been started in the first place. There is absolutely no earthly reason
why a spouse should have to support an ex. Quitting a marriage is just
like quitting a job: you take your chances when you do. Child support:
yes, maintenance support: b.s.
Zenoink
In <52tkrt$j...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> pat...@ix.netcom.com(Pat
Stephens) writes:
>>
>>Folks: Do what you want but the movie First Wives Club was a hoot and
>in no way a flame against most USA divorced men or women. It was
>funny, upbeat, and really a divorce of THE RICH AND FAMOUS. It was
>worth seeing!!!! It was funny!!!
>
>Patty
Haven't seen it, probably won't. But the women left in poverty and
struggling with a couple of kids and a lousy job are done a diservice
by this kind of "cutsey" stuff about the rich. It helps the issue in
the "not thinking this week" category.
Kay
patrick wharton
In article <3251D7...@ptang.com>, pat...@ptang.com wrote:
Patrick,
Is the law retroactive? For those paying spousal support can we now go
back and have it stopped? In 92 SB370 created a gold rush no change of
circumstance had to be presented to raise CS.
best regards,
Patrick Wharton
> Hurray for SB509 - this bill establishes that able bodied adults have
> the responsibility to be financially self supporting, no more life time
> support.
>
> Now, onto getting our children back so we can call ourselves fathers
> again!
>
> fr...@vix.com wrote:
>
> >
> > SB509 passed both the CA House and Senate, and was sent to Governor Wilson
> > to sign. By that point the opposition, which included both the
women's lobby
> > and the Judicial Counsel of California, had grown to a heightened frenzy,
> > and it seemed quite possible that the Governor would not sign it.
> >
> > A concerted effort by both COPS and F.R.E.E., and many 11th hour phone
> > calls and faxes from both memberships, as well as other concerned
> > individuals, made the difference.
> >
> > Governor Wilson signed SB 509 into law late last night.
> >
> > The new law requires ex-spouses to become self supporting in a reasonable
> > amount of time, rather than living off their former spouse for life.
--
Tilting windmills is fine as long as they don't fall on you.
Wharton de la Mancha - Sancho call my lawyer
Julie Sommers
patrick tang wrote:
>
> Pat Stephens wrote:
>
> > >Folks: Do what you want but the movie First Wives Club was a hoot and
> > in no way a flame against most USA divorced men or women. It was
> > funny, upbeat, and really a divorce of THE RICH AND FAMOUS. It was
> > worth seeing!!!! It was funny!!!
>
> funny. It uses sterotypes to beat up on men. This is NOT RIGHT.
>
> That this is really the kind of stuff used by our government to beat up
> on the fathers make it even worse. Ref. my post on "Clint00n on CS".
>
> "Mrs Doubtfire".
>
> patrick tang
I read a columnist today that seems to make light of the idea of women
leaving husbands for a lover and taking their kids with them. Yet there
is a movie putting down men for doing the same thing (minus the kids).
Talk about double standard.
Jok...@no.mail
Julie Sommers <lil...@asd.com> wrote:
Double standard? The columnist was not entitled to hir opinion? Was
the columnist against making light of the idea of men leaving women
for younger lovers? THAT would connote a double standard. Maybe that
columnist thinks its great fodder for making fun when women do the
leaving,and pretty damned funny when men do it! I could poke a lot of
fun at the old ram/goat/nanny who thinks they can borrow youth by
marrying it, but that doesn't mean I think it's funny for the victims
of its practice. Still that columnist's opinion and my own don't make
hypocrits of anyone in this newsgroup.
Eric Pepke
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the movie. It's a farce.
Pretty funny, too.
However, as to the man-bashing. If I actually had to be MARRIED to one of
those women in the movie, I'd seriously consider uxoricide. It isn't a
matter of trading in an older woman for a younger; it's a matter of
trading in a mean-spirited, privileged borderline for someone who might
one day grow up to be a human being.
--
Eric Pepke
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute
Florida State University
pe...@scri.fsu.edu
Unknown
I'm not sure which movie you're talking about, but I agree with your concept.
It seems like the older they get, the meaner and more selfish they get.
pe...@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) wrote:
:Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the movie. It's a farce.
Richard Bennett
Calvin (cle...@link.com) wrote:
>I'm not sure which movie you're talking about, but I agree with your concept.
>It seems like the older they get, the meaner and more selfish they get.
>pe...@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) wrote:
>:Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the movie. It's a farce.
>:Pretty funny, too.
>:However, as to the man-bashing. If I actually had to be MARRIED to one of
>:those women in the movie, I'd seriously consider uxoricide. It isn't a
>:matter of trading in an older woman for a younger; it's a matter of
>:trading in a mean-spirited, privileged borderline for someone who might
>:one day grow up to be a human being.
The First Wives Club certainly built up a huge reservoir of
bitterness, even going so far as the turn one of their daughters into
a spy against her dad.
Child abuse is real funny, isn't it?
RB
--
Richard Bennett Cupertino, CA
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <53nf1f$o...@paraguay.earthlink.net> Calvin (cle...@link.com)
writes:
>I'm not sure which movie you're talking about, but I agree with your
concept.>It seems like the older they get, the meaner and more selfish
they get.
>
>pe...@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) wrote:
>
>:Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the movie. It's a farce.
>:Pretty funny, too.
>
>:However, as to the man-bashing. If I actually had to be MARRIED to
one of>:those women in the movie, I'd seriously consider uxoricide. It
isn't a>:matter of trading in an older woman for a younger; it's a
matter of>:trading in a mean-spirited, privileged borderline for
someone who might>:one day grow up to be a human being.
-----
I think this movie wasn't about men at all; I think it was about
three women who were growing up. They all had unrealistic ex-
pectations that the men in their lives would remain true to them.
It took the divorces to get them to see that their lives shouldn't
be put on hold for men. They were finally, at an older age, becom
ing the women they should have been all along, married or not.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <53nvaq$h...@nntp1.best.com> Ric...@Bennett.com (Richard Bennett)
writes:
>Calvin (cle...@link.com) wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure which movie you're talking about, but I agree with your
concept.>>It seems like the older they get, the meaner and more selfish
they get.
>
>>pe...@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) wrote:
>
>>:Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the movie. It's a
farce. >>:Pretty funny, too.
>
>>:However, as to the man-bashing. If I actually had to be MARRIED to
one of>:those women in the movie, I'd seriously consider uxoricide. It
isn't a>>:matter of trading in an older woman for a younger; it's a
matter of>>:trading in a mean-spirited, privileged borderline for
someone who might>>:one day grow up to be a human being.
>
>bitterness, even going so far as the turn one of their daughters into
>a spy against her dad.
>
>Child abuse is real funny, isn't it?
-----
The "child" was an adult woman, who had chosen lesbianism as her
life-style; she wanted her mother to start being an adult, and
was only too happy to help her mom get her just desserts from a
man who was trying to keep those from her....she (up until that
time) viewed her mother as weak and ineffectual.
Lefty
smith
Ric...@Bennett.com (Richard Bennett) wrote:
:Calvin (cle...@link.com) wrote:
:>I'm not sure which movie you're talking about, but I agree with your concept.
:>It seems like the older they get, the meaner and more selfish they get.
:>pe...@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) wrote:
:>:Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the movie. It's a farce.
:>:Pretty funny, too.
:>:However, as to the man-bashing. If I actually had to be MARRIED to one of
:>:those women in the movie, I'd seriously consider uxoricide. It isn't a
:>:matter of trading in an older woman for a younger; it's a matter of
:>:trading in a mean-spirited, privileged borderline for someone who might
:>:one day grow up to be a human being.
:The First Wives Club certainly built up a huge reservoir of
:bitterness, even going so far as the turn one of their daughters into
:a spy against her dad.
:Child abuse is real funny, isn't it?
I think FWC has potently shown the grossly irresponsible, selfish and destructive
behavior that women are capable of much more than our posts. It demostrates
just how truly capable of domestic violence women actually are. As far as I'm
concerned, the movie, and its feminine cheerers prove that women truly are
much more domestically violent than men. Thank FWC for helping us men
to prove female violence beyond a shadow of a doubt.
From Eve to today has been one long horrendous fall from grace for women.
Jok...@no.mail
smith wrote:
>Ric...@Bennett.com (Richard Bennett) wrote:
>:Calvin (cle...@link.com) wrote:
>:>I'm not sure which movie you're talking about, but I agree with your concept.
>:>It seems like the older they get, the meaner and more selfish they get.
>:>pe...@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) wrote:
>:>:Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the movie. It's a farce.
>:>:Pretty funny, too.
>I think FWC has potently shown the grossly irresponsible, selfish and destructive
>behavior that women are capable of much more than our posts. It demostrates
>just how truly capable of domestic violence women actually are. As far as I'm
>concerned, the movie, and its feminine cheerers prove that women truly are
>much more domestically violent than men. Thank FWC for helping us men
>to prove female violence beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You blame women? Who are the producers, directors of this thing?
Don't rush to blame women. And at risk of bursting your bubble of
indignance, this movie is a fiction, not real. It scarcely can prove
anything. "Shadow of a doubt." <Snort>
>From Eve to today has been one long horrendous fall from grace for women.
And your mother is a woman. Don't have any daughters.
Leigh
A victim is as a victim does. My self-worth is not so low as to crush
me if that happened. And I damned sure won't rely on another human
financially to the point of becoming a self-imposed victim with that
happened.
Additionally, the movie also depicted the bitter ex using her daugher
to hurt the ex-husband.
That has a name - it's called Parential Alienation. It is the bottom
of the pit for a grown adult to wallow in such self-pity and
selfishness that they would abuse their own child for revenge's sake.
It's normal to be hurt - it's not normal to wallow in it for the rest
of your life, and destroy others in the process, particularly your
own children.
arm...@livenet.net
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
>In <53nvaq$h...@nntp1.best.com> Ric...@Bennett.com (Richard Bennett)
>writes:
>>
>>Calvin (cle...@link.com) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>pe...@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) wrote:
>>
>>>:Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the movie. It's a
>farce. >>:Pretty funny, too.
>>
>>>:However, as to the man-bashing. If I actually had to be MARRIED to
>one of>:those women in the movie, I'd seriously consider uxoricide. It
>isn't a>>:matter of trading in an older woman for a younger; it's a
>matter of>>:trading in a mean-spirited, privileged borderline for
>someone who might>>:one day grow up to be a human being.
>>
>>The First Wives Club certainly built up a huge reservoir of
>>bitterness, even going so far as the turn one of their daughters into
>>a spy against her dad.
>>
>>Child abuse is real funny, isn't it?
> -----
> The "child" was an adult woman, who had chosen lesbianism as her
> life-style; she wanted her mother to start being an adult, and
> was only too happy to help her mom get her just desserts from a
> man who was trying to keep those from her....she (up until that
> time) viewed her mother as weak and ineffectual.
> Lefty
Oh my goodness.. such a to-do over a movie. It was a very funny
movie. But if you watched to the end, one of the women re-united with
her hubby (Bette), one was a very sweet woman who really had been
mistreated by her husband and he deserved what he got (Diane), and the
third, selfish and self-serving tho she may have been was married to a
man who was equally selfish and self-serving.(Goldie) And they all
ended up in the end giving something back to society at least.
And Lefty is right-on in her assessment of the daughter's role.
So there's my 2 cents. :-Ş
--'Mina--
As the Wind blows,
So the living tree bends..
http://www.livenet.net/~armina
jchapman
Yep, my mother did this to me from a very young age. Fortunately I
figured it out as an adult and was able to re-establish a relationship
with my father before he died. She was still trying to do it even
after he died and doesn't understand wy no one wants to listen to
it. But perhaps I was the lucky child - she used to bounce my sister
off the walls until my sister ran away from home and just disappeared
in her teens.
Patrick Tang
Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> I think this movie wasn't about men at all; I think it was about
> three women who were growing up. They all had unrealistic ex-
> pectations that the men in their lives would remain true to them.
> It took the divorces to get them to see that their lives shouldn't
> be put on hold for men. They were finally, at an older age, becom
> ing the women they should have been all along, married or not.
>
> Lefty
And they all turned into men hating, greedy, vengeful bitches. That
must be what Lefty is like too, come to think of it.
patrick tang
jones
Leigh <TZ...@foto.infi.net> wrote:
Absolutely. Yet another demostration of the irresponsible ways women
express themselves, destroying anyone and everyone, including their
children for the own self-satisfaction. This is why I say most women
are selfish and self-centered, and incapable of healthy relationships.
Women have gotten so used to men taking care of them that they
become violent when their wants and needs aren't placed ahead of
everyone else's in the world, as if they should be deified, and everyone
else subordinate their needs to a woman's needs.
I thank the feminist movement for alienating men from women, and, with
their hatred and hostility, fueling a movement of men away from the role
of care takers, leaving women to provide for themselves (now there's a
novel idea, women being responsible for themselves.)
Fortunately, rare gems like Leigh exist who reaffirm my faith in humanity
and hope for the human race. Thank you, God, for making Leigh.
jones
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
:In <53nf1f$o...@paraguay.earthlink.net> Calvin (cle...@link.com)
:writes:
:>
:>I'm not sure which movie you're talking about, but I agree with your
:concept.>It seems like the older they get, the meaner and more selfish
:they get.
:>
:>pe...@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) wrote:
:>
:>:Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the movie. It's a farce.
:>:Pretty funny, too.
:>
:>:However, as to the man-bashing. If I actually had to be MARRIED to
:one of>:those women in the movie, I'd seriously consider uxoricide. It
:isn't a>:matter of trading in an older woman for a younger; it's a
:matter of>:trading in a mean-spirited, privileged borderline for
:someone who might>:one day grow up to be a human being.
: -----
: I think this movie wasn't about men at all; I think it was about
: three women who were growing up. They all had unrealistic ex-
: pectations that the men in their lives would remain true to them.
: It took the divorces to get them to see that their lives shouldn't
: be put on hold for men. They were finally, at an older age, becom
: ing the women they should have been all along, married or not.
Now that's an interpretation I can live with. There is absolutely no way
I would ever see that movie, nor any other movie that bashes men,
including Thelma and Louise.
jones
Jok...@no.mail wrote:
:smith wrote:
:>Ric...@Bennett.com (Richard Bennett) wrote:
:>:Calvin (cle...@link.com) wrote:
:>:>I'm not sure which movie you're talking about, but I agree with your concept.
:>:>It seems like the older they get, the meaner and more selfish they get.
:>:>pe...@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) wrote:
:>:>:Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the movie. It's a farce.
:>:>:Pretty funny, too.
:>I think FWC has potently shown the grossly irresponsible, selfish and destructive
:>behavior that women are capable of much more than our posts. It demostrates
:>just how truly capable of domestic violence women actually are. As far as I'm
:>concerned, the movie, and its feminine cheerers prove that women truly are
:>much more domestically violent than men. Thank FWC for helping us men
:>to prove female violence beyond a shadow of a doubt.
:You blame women?
A movie like this would never have been made if the anti-male hysteria
(as in hysteronomy) didn't exist. Women are the blame. Given the overwhelming
preponderance of domestic violence committed by women and women's verbal
abuse of men, children and any form of life, I hold women larglely responsible for
the level of violence in the world. The only positive outcome of the feminist
movement is the inevitable collapse of the matriarchal oppression that exists in
this world. Feminism is matriarchy in the act of self-implosion. The bitter irony that
women will eventually encounter is the equality that women demand will have
ultimately imposed equal responsibility upon women, a reality that most women
find very unpleasant. There are only a handful of real women, like Leigh, who
are self-responsible. The rest are little girls who never grew up, and are
desperately looking for "daddies" to take care of them, i.e. Maternal Welfare.
To the feminists I say, grow up.
:>From Eve to today has been one long horrendous fall from grace for women.
:And your mother is a woman.
My mother taught me first hand just how domestically violent women can be
toward men. Thanks for the reminder of just how much evil women are capable
of.
westel
jchapman <jcha...@tnrltd.com> wrote:
:Yep, my mother did this to me from a very young age. Fortunately I
:figured it out as an adult and was able to re-establish a relationship
:with my father before he died. She was still trying to do it even
:after he died and doesn't understand wy no one wants to listen to
:it. But perhaps I was the lucky child - she used to bounce my sister
:off the walls until my sister ran away from home and just disappeared
:in her teens.
All feminists' talk about a woman's superior ability to identify and express
their feelings is just that, TALK. It's just more femismo designed to inflate
the deflated self-esteems of mean spirited women.
Tonda
Eric Pepke wrote:
>
> Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the movie. It's a farce.
> Pretty funny, too.
>
> those women in the movie, I'd seriously consider uxoricide. It isn't a
> matter of trading in an older woman for a younger; it's a matter of
> trading in a mean-spirited, privileged borderline for someone who might
> one day grow up to be a human being.
> Eric Pepke
I think you come the closest to seeing this movie as I saw it. I enjoyed
both it and the book immensely. It was entertaining but also set out to
prove a point --or many points. I think all 6 of the characters did a
whole lot of growing up. Don't you think the wives realized that they
played a major role in their husbands' infidelity? --by becoming
consummed by either themselves or their lives and not being true to
themselves, thereby not being able to give of themselves to their
husbands? Wasn't this maybe the point of their giving back all their
'ill-gotten gains' to the people that really needed it? Those women were
victimized by themselves --the author just used the men to carry the
story.
Just an honest opinion! -----Tonda
redstormappp
jones wrote:
This is why I say most women
> are selfish and self-centered, and incapable of healthy relationships.
> Women have gotten so used to men taking care of them that they
> become violent when their wants and needs aren't placed ahead of
> everyone else's in the world, as if they should be deified, and everyone
> else subordinate their needs to a woman's needs.
>
> I thank the feminist movement for alienating men from women, and, with
> their hatred and hostility, fueling a movement of men away from the role
> of care takers, leaving women to provide for themselves (now there's a
> novel idea, women being responsible for themselves.)
I know, I know...I wasn't going to come back to this noise! But this makes me
think fondly of the bad ol' days, when Burt was Burt and intelligent
people were insulted.
I don't know who you are, Jones, but I take extreme issue at any 'lumping'
activity that starts with, "All (or most) men..." or "All (or most) women."
When you've dated a majority of women (and I mean over 50% of the women of
age--we'll give you a break, in the continental U.S.) check back with your
figures.
I also take further issue with your blaming the feminist movement for any
alienation. Number one, I am perfectly capable of being alienated without
anyone telling me how or why I should be, and I am personally insulted by
your assertion that I can only develop an idea if someone else hands it to me
on a silver platter.
I really think this group needs to adopt a code that shuns statements like,
"This is why I say most women
> are selfish and self-centered, and incapable of healthy relationships."
And CUT OUT THE CROSSPOSTING!!!
Urgh.
Bess
ke...@southeast.lib.sk.ca
> Absolutely. Yet another demostration of the irresponsible ways women
> express themselves, destroying anyone and everyone, including their
> children for the own self-satisfaction. This is why I say most women
> are selfish and self-centered, and incapable of healthy relationships.
> Women have gotten so used to men taking care of them that they
> become violent when their wants and needs aren't placed ahead of
> everyone else's in the world, as if they should be deified, and everyone
> else subordinate their needs to a woman's needs.
>
> I thank the feminist movement for alienating men from women, and, with
> their hatred and hostility, fueling a movement of men away from the role
> of care takers, leaving women to provide for themselves (now there's a
> novel idea, women being responsible for themselves.)
>
>
Hey, guys -- not all women out there are feminists! Aren't you being a bit of
a hypocrite? Aren't you bashing women? You don't want women to bash men, but
aren't you bashing women? Is this not a double standard?
Just as there are good men out there, there are still good women. Let's hope
the good ones can get together and have healthy relationships. I still have
hope for that!
Hopriel
ke...@southeast.lib.sk.ca wrote:
:> Absolutely. Yet another demostration of the irresponsible ways women
:> express themselves, destroying anyone and everyone, including their
:> children for the own self-satisfaction. This is why I say most women
:> are selfish and self-centered, and incapable of healthy relationships.
:> Women have gotten so used to men taking care of them that they
:> become violent when their wants and needs aren't placed ahead of
:> everyone else's in the world, as if they should be deified, and everyone
:> else subordinate their needs to a woman's needs.
:> I thank the feminist movement for alienating men from women, and, with
:> their hatred and hostility, fueling a movement of men away from the role
:> of care takers, leaving women to provide for themselves (now there's a
:> novel idea, women being responsible for themselves.)
:Hey, guys -- not all women out there are feminists! Aren't you being a bit of
:a hypocrite? Aren't you bashing women? You don't want women to bash men, but
:aren't you bashing women? Is this not a double standard?
No. If men didn't bash women, THEN there would be a double standard.
:Just as there are good men out there, there are still good women.
I realize there are a few rare gems among women. In my opinion, though, such
women are very, very few.
:Let's hope the good ones can get together and have healthy relationships. I still have
:hope for that!
Good luck.
dg...@gateway.ecn.com
Julie Sommers (lil...@asd.com) wrote:
: I read a columnist today that seems to make light of the idea of women
: leaving husbands for a lover and taking their kids with them. Yet there
: is a movie putting down men for doing the same thing (minus the kids).
: Talk about double standard.
As stupid as it is to debate this movie, I think it would be IMPOSSIBLE
for Hollywood to make a film which had the opposite premise (men get
revenge on the women who divorce them). Of course there are double
standards here. Double standards run throughout Hollywood and the
larger culture (here's a bigger one, when a character gets hurt
physically in a scene which is played for laughs, it's always a man,
noticed this six months ago and it's incredible, I have yet to find
a single exception, it's almost like there's a censorship office out
there, which there isn't, but in the present society who needs one?).
dg...@gateway.ecn.com
Eric Pepke (pe...@scri.fsu.edu) wrote:
: Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the movie. It's a farce.
: Pretty funny, too.
: However, as to the man-bashing. If I actually had to be MARRIED to one of
: those women in the movie, I'd seriously consider uxoricide. It isn't a
: matter of trading in an older woman for a younger; it's a matter of
: trading in a mean-spirited, privileged borderline for someone who might
: one day grow up to be a human being.
Hahaha. I was waiting for someone to see this. Is it really that
difficult to see why a man might leave any of those three women?
Julie Sommers
Jok...@no.mail wrote:
>
> Julie Sommers <lil...@asd.com> wrote:
>
> >patrick tang wrote:
> >>
> >> Pat Stephens wrote:
> >>
> >> > >Folks: Do what you want but the movie First Wives Club was a hoot and
> > >> in no way a flame against most USA divorced men or women. It was
> > >> funny, upbeat, and really a divorce of THE RICH AND FAMOUS. It was
> > >> worth seeing!!!! It was funny!!!
> >
> > Folks, I don't give a flying hoot whether this movie is well-done and
> > funny. It uses sterotypes to beat up on men. This is NOT RIGHT.
> >
> > That this is really the kind of stuff used by our government to beat up
> > on the fathers make it even worse. Ref. my post on "Clint00n on CS".
> >
> > For a really good comedy but tell it like it is, see Robin William's
> > >> "Mrs Doubtfire".
> > >>
> > >> patrick tang
> >
> >leaving husbands for a lover and taking their kids with them. Yet there
> >is a movie putting down men for doing the same thing (minus the kids).
> >Talk about double standard.
>
> the columnist against making light of the idea of men leaving women
> for younger lovers? THAT would connote a double standard. Maybe that
> columnist thinks its great fodder for making fun when women do the
> leaving,and pretty damned funny when men do it! I could poke a lot of
> fun at the old ram/goat/nanny who thinks they can borrow youth by
> marrying it, but that doesn't mean I think it's funny for the victims
> of its practice. Still that columnist's opinion and my own don't make
> hypocrits of anyone in this newsgroup.
Who said anything about double standards in this ng? Or double standards
where the columnist's thoughts were? The reference was to the movie and
the columnist. Period.
Jok...@no.mail
Julie Sommers <lil...@asd.com> wrote:
Here:
>> >I read a columnist today that seems to make light of the idea of women
>> >leaving husbands for a lover and taking their kids with them. Yet there
>> >is a movie putting down men for doing the same thing (minus the kids).
Note:
>> >Talk about double standard.
Doug Budzak
In article <pepke-11109...@pepkemac.scri.fsu.edu>, pe...@scri.fsu.edu
says...
>
>Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the movie. It's a farce.
>Pretty funny, too.
>
>However, as to the man-bashing. If I actually had to be MARRIED to one of
>those women in the movie, I'd seriously consider uxoricide. It isn't a
>matter of trading in an older woman for a younger; it's a matter of
>trading in a mean-spirited, privileged borderline for someone who might
>one day grow up to be a human being.
Eric - can you go into a little more detail here? I'm especially interested
in your use of the word "borderline". I've been doing a lot of research into
this in the past half-year, am a member of a few borderline listservs and
newsgroups, and am trying to learn all that I can.
I haven't seen the movie (yet), but was one of the women in it diagnosed as
being borderline?
Also, IMNSHO, altho BPs don't usually get totally 'cured', they definitely do
get better, and they most certainly can grow up to be a human being. I know
what it's like to be involved with a BP, and it's no picnic, that much is for
sure, but the pain and frustration I felt are only a drop in the bucket to
what most BPs feel.
I could go on and on, but I'll stop - for now. :-)
-Doug
http://www.iquest.net/~dbudzak
Doug Budzak
In article <53q4o5$g...@chile.earthlink.net>, jones says...
>Absolutely. Yet another demostration of the irresponsible ways women
>express themselves, destroying anyone and everyone, including their
>children for the own self-satisfaction. This is why I say most women
>are selfish and self-centered, and incapable of healthy relationships.
>Women have gotten so used to men taking care of them that they
>become violent when their wants and needs aren't placed ahead of
>everyone else's in the world, as if they should be deified, and everyone
>else subordinate their needs to a woman's needs.
Around a month ago, when I was still allowing my ex-wife come into my
apartment (not anymore!), we were discussing some of the aspects of raising
our two kids. The conversation got heated, then turned ugly. I asked her to
leave, and she shouted "NO!" Now, my son was sitting 15' feet away. I was in
a no-win situation; I could call the police to have her removed, but my son
would be witness to that. I could have picked her up and tossed her out (I'm
a foot taller and weigh almost twice as much as she does; a good wind could
knock her down), but again my son would've witnessed that. So I asked her to
stop her yelling and screaming....she calmed down a little, but you could
just feel the hate and venom pulsating from within her. My son even came in
and asked us to stop. I pointed out to her that a 9-yr-old had more sense
than we did, and why did she keep this up even after I asked her to stop? Her
reply? "Because then I know you're down, Doug, and that's your moment of
weakness when I can pounce on you and win."
I was flabbergasted; she did all this, even alienating her son, in order to
WIN? Win *what*? All she got was more ill will between herself and me, she's
not allowed in my place anymore, my parents have as little to do with her as
possible, neither of our kids respect her (she's done the same kind of crap
in front of my daughter), our mutual friends don't talk to her anymore, etc.
Yet she feels that she's _won_.
Even her own twin sister says that she's the most selfish and self-centered
person she knows, and it hurts her to say that. But it's true.
-Doug
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <326071...@ptang.com> Patrick Tang <pat...@ptang.com> writes:
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
>> I think this movie wasn't about men at all; I think it was
about>> three women who were growing up. They all had unrealistic
put on hold for men. They were finally, at an older age, becom ing
the women they should have been all along, married or not.
>>
>
>And they all turned into men hating, greedy, vengeful bitches. That
>must be what Lefty is like too, come to think of it.
>
>patrick tang
------
Hehehehe....yes patrick, and I'm also as ugly as "a junkyard
dog"...feel better now?
Lefty
640...@anon.penet.fi
Patrick Tang <kpang@aolcom> wrote:
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>> I think this movie wasn't about men at all; I think it was about
>> three women who were growing up. They all had unrealistic ex-
>> pectations that the men in their lives would remain true to them.
>> It took the divorces to get them to see that their lives shouldn't
>> be put on hold for men. They were finally, at an older age, becom
>> ing the women they should have been all along, married or not.
>>
>> Lefty
>And they all turned into men hating, greedy, vengeful bitches.
>patrick tang
Powerful, aren't we? And we reduced you to a name-calling boy
spitting his fury and throwing his fists around.
Roger J. Ruby
Thanks for sharing this story, Doug. Even the most ardent female flamers
in these n-g's (why name names, we know who they are), will say: "well
you made the choice to marry her, so deal with it;" the same thing my
lawyer said to me. It's just so interesting that a GOOD man who made a
bad choice is condemned to this type of garbage and can only fend it off
with the utmost of diplomacy, without looking like the bully. A GOOD
woman, on the other hand, has many more socially acceptable avenues of
recourse at her disposal when she is on the receiving end of similar
diatribes from her ex. For example: a call to 911 and claim abuse,
obtain a TRO, petition the court to move out of the area with the child,
etc.
Men do need to see that the future choices they make in S.O's have to be
done with the utmost of care and scrutiny. There is just too much at
stake with very little recourse for recovery!
RJ Ruby
Lsn001
Doug, she sounds like she has the same kind of problem as my ex-husband. Get
this.
Just to give you the setting: My husbands's current wife is so blatantly
resentful of his being expected to pay child support. ( which is kind of funny
since she pays the bills and refuses to allow him to pay me. He, of course
is too cowardly to stand up and tell her his child support needs to be paid )
Anyway, she gets her jollies out of calling me in the wee hours of the morning,
sometimes 10 times in a row and hanging up. He and I have not had a
conversation about our child since he remarried. Whenever I call and try to
reach him to discuss something going on with our daughter, or to confirm
visitation plans, they never answer the phone, so I leave a message. Then she
calls me and as soon as I say Hello, she starts screaming about how if I have
something to say I should talk to her!!!! So I finally told him that I would
take no more calls from his wife, and to grow up and be a man and handle his
own affairs with his daughter. Well, the next time she called and started her
screaming, I told her the same thing.
Next thing I know, he shows up at my apt, storms in the door uninvited and
starts yelling about How Dare I talk to his Wife like that! I just kept my
cool and told him to get out. He kept screaming ( my daughter too, was in the
room ), and he kept it up. I took him by the elbow and led him to the door, he
was still yelling about if I would just let his wife have it her way, things
would be okay!?! ( can you believe that? ). Anyway, he put his face about 3
inches from mine and literally screamed enough to make our daughter, who was
already crying, scream. I gripped his arm tighter and opened the door and led
him out, telling him that when he was ready to grow up, then we can talk about
our daughter.
Well, 3 days later, I got served with a warrant for assault and battery! My ex
is 5'10'. I am 5' 1 3/4 " and weigh 110 lbs.! He comes to my house storms in
uninvited, refuses to leave and I take him by the elbow and lead him out the
door and he charges me with assault and battery.
My attorney laughed and said the hearing is going to be a hoot!
When he was supposed to pick her up at my house the following Sunday morning
for his one day a week, I called and left him a message telling him that she
and I would be at my Dad's and he could pick her up there. I told him I
thought it would be best to have a witness and chaperone, least he be afraid I
may beat him up again! <GRIN>
Go figure some people...
Us and the irrational...
LSN
rt...@net.com
You should have called the police because then you would have been
teaching your son to hold women accountable for their violations. Still,
I think you handled the situation very well, placing your sons welfare
first. Now if only we can teach feminists responsibility.
phyr...@usa.net
rt...@net.com wrote:
>You should have called the police because then you would have been
>teaching your son to hold women accountable for their violations. Still,
>I think you handled the situation very well, placing your sons welfare
>first. Now if only we can teach feminists responsibility.
That he handeled things clearly with his son's welfare in mind is
commendable. That you use that incident to suggest men do this and
feminists do not is ridiculous bias. Many parents of a wide range of
political social beliefs, religious ideologies, and socio-economic
levels put their children's welfare first, above all else. Notice
that I did not exempt women nor feminists from that statement. If you
were interested in fairness or equality, neither would you, but your
goal here is bashing. It is as repulsive in you as in any other.
arm...@livenet.net
Patrick Tang <pat...@ptang.com> wrote:
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>> I think this movie wasn't about men at all; I think it was about
>> three women who were growing up. They all had unrealistic ex-
>> pectations that the men in their lives would remain true to them.
>> It took the divorces to get them to see that their lives shouldn't
>> be put on hold for men. They were finally, at an older age, becom
>> ing the women they should have been all along, married or not.
>>
>> Lefty
>And they all turned into men hating, greedy, vengeful bitches. That
>must be what Lefty is like too, come to think of it.
>patrick tang
Patrick! Did you see the movie? That's not what they became. They
went through a period of anger, yes, but they came through it better
off. One of them re-united with her hubby. And I might add, that
none of the men portrayed were any better...
But it is only a movie. Meant for entertainment. I do find it
interesting that if people complained about sex, violence etc on the
tv that our children see, they're jumped on with "just turn it off"
(like we shouldn't be able to have quality shows in our home) yet this
movie that certainly no one has to go and see (the theme is obvious)
is going to assault our adult minds with the wrong idea of men, women,
divorce, etc. :-)
Rick Jones
No, I think you read it wrong. The two together make a double standard-
the columnist and the movie put together. That's what I got from it.
Rick Jones
640...@anon.penet.fi wrote:
>
> Patrick Tang <kpang@aolcom> wrote:
>
> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> >> I think this movie wasn't about men at all; I think it was about
> >> three women who were growing up. They all had unrealistic ex-
> >> pectations that the men in their lives would remain true to them.
> >> It took the divorces to get them to see that their lives shouldn't
> >> be put on hold for men. They were finally, at an older age, becom
> >> ing the women they should have been all along, married or not.
> >>
> >> Lefty
>
> >And they all turned into men hating, greedy, vengeful bitches.
>
>
> Powerful, aren't we? And we reduced you to a name-calling boy
> spitting his fury and throwing his fists around.
Like little 'girls' here don't use name calling (such as asshole) and
'throw their fists around'? Why have I never seen you post this where
they were concerned?
640...@anon.penet.fi
Rick Jones <b...@dw.com> wrote:
Back to the "all the other kids are doing it" argument, huh? "How
come Johnny can do it but I can't?"
Don't try to make it my fault for not pointing it out sooner rather
than the participants' fault for participating.
susan.evans-davies
In article <326071...@ptang.com>, pat...@ptang.com says...
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
>> I think this movie wasn't about men at all; I think it was about
>> three women who were growing up. They all had unrealistic ex-
>> pectations that the men in their lives would remain true to them.
>> It took the divorces to get them to see that their lives shouldn't
>> be put on hold for men. They were finally, at an older age, becom
>> ing the women they should have been all along, married or not.
>>
>> Lefty
>
>must be what Lefty is like too, come to think of it.
>
>patrick tang
Well, there's really no need to be personal. Everyone is entitled to
their opinion. I happen to think the movie was stupid and did nothing to
advance the state of divorced women, and it made men look generally like
hormone-driven idiots. It was a pointless movie. If you went to it and
left the theatre and told yourself you would file it in your brain under
"entertainment only", then you'll be OK. If you actually tried to
"learn" anything from this movie, then that's where the gender-bashing
and angst is going to start. It was a typical, stupid Hollywood
exaggeration of a very stressful subject. But, like talk shows and
tabloid papers, the movies do their very best to bring out the worst in
people. In this case, they've succeeded. Watch the movie, have a laugh
and then forget about it. It's just more garbage.
Byron Bollas
rt...@net.com wrote:
>
> You should have called the police because then you would have been
> teaching your son to hold women accountable for their violations. Still,
> I think you handled the situation very well, placing your sons welfare
> first. Now if only we can teach feminists responsibility.
Absolutely, the police should have been called. It was your apartment
and she was being disruptive. It would have taught both your son and
your ex wife that she must be held accountable for her actions.
Of course in doing so you raise the risk of doing harm to yourself...
Given the current mood in the country today all your ex wife would need
to do is *say* you hit her, touched her, whatever...and despite the fact
she was in your apartment and you in actually did nothing... YOU'D be
the one who got arrested and taken to court...
Men need to be very careful in this area... the playing field is
completely uneven... I speak from experience. Once when I had a
restraining order against my ex wife, she showed up at my house and
tried to hit me with her car in MY yard (yes my two kids witnessed it
all). I called the police and when they arrived they told me that they
wouldn't arrest her, because it was my word against hers ...BUT that
they were going to talk to her ...and if she *told* them I did anything
to her... they'd be back to arrest ME...
I was being held to a completely different standard than she was... by
all rights she had violated an existing restraining order and should
have been arrested on the spot (if she were a man she would have
been)... but she got away with it... men need to be extremely careful.
Femi...@equals.hate
susan.eva...@ualberta.ca (susan.evans-davies) wrote:
:In article <326071...@ptang.com>, pat...@ptang.com says...
:>
:>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
:>
:>> I think this movie wasn't about men at all; I think it was about
:>> three women who were growing up. They all had unrealistic ex-
:>> pectations that the men in their lives would remain true to them.
:>> It took the divorces to get them to see that their lives shouldn't
:>> be put on hold for men. They were finally, at an older age, becom
:>> ing the women they should have been all along, married or not.
:>>
:>> Lefty
:>
:>And they all turned into men hating, greedy, vengeful bitches. That
:>must be what Lefty is like too, come to think of it.
:>
:>patrick tang
:Well, there's really no need to be personal. Everyone is entitled to
:their opinion.
Which is why he expressed his opinions.
:I happen to think the movie was stupid and did nothing to
:advance the state of divorced women, and it made men look generally like
:hormone-driven idiots.
No. It made women look like hormone driven idiots.
:"It was a pointless movie. If you went to it and
:left the theatre and told yourself you would file it in your brain under
:"entertainment only", then you'll be OK.
Ditto with movies that portray the serial rape and murder of women.
:If you actually tried to
:"learn" anything from this movie, then that's where the gender-bashing
:and angst is going to start.
We men learned from the movie that the women are still entertained by
male bashing, derogatory hate-filled movies. As to learning anything from
the substance of the movie, no! I don't consider "movies" an authority
on the issue of gender equality.
:It was a typical, stupid Hollywood
:exaggeration of a very stressful subject. But, like talk shows and
:tabloid papers, the movies do their very best to bring out the worst in
:people. In this case, they've succeeded. Watch the movie, have a laugh
:and then forget about it. It's just more garbage.
Try watching a serial rape movie, have a laugh, and then forget about it.
Rick Jones
susan.evans-davies wrote:
>
> In article <326071...@ptang.com>, pat...@ptang.com says...
> >
> >Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
> >
> >> I think this movie wasn't about men at all; I think it was about
> >> three women who were growing up. They all had unrealistic ex-
> >> pectations that the men in their lives would remain true to them.
> >> It took the divorces to get them to see that their lives shouldn't
> >> be put on hold for men. They were finally, at an older age, becom
> >> ing the women they should have been all along, married or not.
> >>
> >> Lefty
> >
> >And they all turned into men hating, greedy, vengeful bitches. That
> >must be what Lefty is like too, come to think of it.
> >
> >patrick tang
>
> Well, there's really no need to be personal. Everyone is entitled to
> advance the state of divorced women, and it made men look generally like
> left the theatre and told yourself you would file it in your brain under
> "learn" anything from this movie, then that's where the gender-bashing
> exaggeration of a very stressful subject. But, like talk shows and
> tabloid papers, the movies do their very best to bring out the worst in
> people. In this case, they've succeeded. Watch the movie, have a laugh
> and then forget about it. It's just more garbage.
Very good advice. I only wish more people would see it that way, but
they won't.
Rick Jones
640...@anon.penet.fi wrote:
>
> Rick Jones <b...@dw.com> wrote:
>
> >640...@anon.penet.fi wrote:
> >>
> >> Patrick Tang <kpang@aolcom> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> I think this movie wasn't about men at all; I think it was about
> >> >> three women who were growing up. They all had unrealistic ex-
> >> >> pectations that the men in their lives would remain true to them.
> >> >> It took the divorces to get them to see that their lives shouldn't
> >> >> be put on hold for men. They were finally, at an older age, becom
> >> >> ing the women they should have been all along, married or not.
> >> >>
> >> >> Lefty
> >>
> >> >And they all turned into men hating, greedy, vengeful bitches.
> >>
> >>
> >> Powerful, aren't we? And we reduced you to a name-calling boy
> >> spitting his fury and throwing his fists around.
>
> >Like little 'girls' here don't use name calling (such as asshole) and
> >'throw their fists around'? Why have I never seen you post this where
> >they were concerned?
>
> Back to the "all the other kids are doing it" argument, huh? "How
> come Johnny can do it but I can't?"
>
> Don't try to make it my fault for not pointing it out sooner rather
> than the participants' fault for participating.
So let's call *EVERYONE* on it, not one particular gender. Things here
are biased enough without adding to it.
Rick Jones
that you must've seen it before. Surely you don't have to be biased in
everything you post.
640...@anon.penet.fi
Rick Jones <s...@what.com> wrote:
Rick, of course I've seen it before. I reached my saturation point.
Never been there? I didn't call a whole gender on it. I called Tang
on it, if you choose to be accurate.
I am biased about nearly everything I post, because I post my
opinions, as do you and does everyone here. What is not factual is
biased. Opinion is bias, hopefully predicated upon fact. Even
interpretation of facts is biased. So while you're adding, please sum
up. What is your problem with me?
Patrick Tang
susan.evans-davies wrote:
But, like talk shows and
> tabloid papers, the movies do their very best to bring out the worst in
> people. In this case, they've succeeded. Watch the movie, have a laugh
> and then forget about it. It's just more garbage.
Susan,
Your way of looking at the situation is the one that most of us would
rather look at things, why bother?!
BUT, like when I made that post, I also posted Clintoon's press release
on CS. And I also mentioned in this FWC post that I just cannot laugh
this movie off because if you read the Clintoon press release, it read
just like the script from FWC. And of course all that men bashing was
used by Clintoon to justify even more extreme measures to persecute
fathers. Translated, Clintoon want to propose national policies based
on this kind of movie scripts! Or, in your word, we are going to have
national policies based on this type of 'garbage'.
patrick tang
susan.evans-davies
In article <544b9e$5...@uruguay.earthlink.net>, Femi...@equals.hate
says...
>
:>
>:
>:>> I think this movie wasn't about men at all; I think it was ab
>:>And they all turned into men hating, greedy, vengeful bitches. That
>:>must be what Lefty is like too, come to think of it.
>:>
>:>patrick tang
>
>
>:Well, there's really no need to be personal. Everyone is entitled to
>:their opinion.
>
Opinions are fine - but there's no need for him to call her a "vengeful
bitch" just because she voiced her opinions.
>No. It made women look like hormone driven idiots.
It wasn't the women
who were leaving the men for "younger models". Maybe you should watch it
again.
>Ditto with movies that portray the serial rape and murder of women.
>
Interesting. How you lump divorce and rape into the same category just
escapes me.
>We men learned from the movie that the women are still entertained by
>male bashing, derogatory hate-filled movies. As to learning anything
from
>the substance of the movie, no! I don't consider "movies" an authority
>on the issue of gender equality.
>
Sorry, but you're speaking in generalizations which does nothing to
advance your cause or to make people sit up and listen. If you want to
have a "discussion" at least be mature about it. Some of us women (many,
I would venture to say), are not in the least bit entertained by male
bashing movies or by attitudes like yours. When the day comes that women
and men can sit down together and discuss these issues in a mature way,
then maybe we'll make some progress. You certainly have a lot of hate
bottled up inside - were you the victim of a bad divorce or something?
>Try watching a serial rape movie, have a laugh, and then forget about
it.
>It's just more garbage.
>
Again, I'm not quite sure how you come to the conclusion that rape and
divorce are on an equal par.
>
Some...@somewhere.sometime
susan.eva...@ualberta.ca (susan.evans-davies) wrote:
:>:>> I think this movie wasn't about men at all; I think it was ab
:>:>And they all turned into men hating, greedy, vengeful bitches. That
:>:>must be what Lefty is like too, come to think of it.
:>:>
:>:>patrick tang
susan.eva...@ualberta.ca (susan.evans-davies) wrote:
:>:Well, there's really no need to be personal. Everyone is entitled to
:>:their opinion.
:In article <544b9e$5...@uruguay.earthlink.net>, Femi...@equals.hate
:>Which is why he expressed his opinions.
:susan.eva...@ualberta.ca (susan.evans-davies) wrote:
:Opinions are fine - but there's no need for him to call her a "vengeful
:bitch" just because she voiced her opinions.
No need to criticize him just because he expressed his feelings.
:susan.eva...@ualberta.ca (susan.evans-davies) wrote:
::I happen to think the movie was stupid and did nothing to
::advance the state of divorced women, and it made men look generally like
::hormone-driven idiots.
:In article <544b9e$5...@uruguay.earthlink.net>, Femi...@equals.hate
:>No. It made women look like hormone driven idiots.
susan.eva...@ualberta.ca (susan.evans-davies) wrote:
:It wasn't the women
:who were leaving the men for "younger models". Maybe you should watch it
:again.
It wasn't the men using their children to punish their ex. Maybe YOU should
watch it the first time. Talk about estrogen poisoning.
:susan.eva...@ualberta.ca (susan.evans-davies) wrote:
::"It was a pointless movie. If you went to it and
::left the theatre and told yourself you would file it in your brain under
::"entertainment only", then you'll be OK.
:In article <544b9e$5...@uruguay.earthlink.net>, Femi...@equals.hate
:Ditto with movies that portray the serial rape and murder of women.
susan.eva...@ualberta.ca (susan.evans-davies) wrote:
:Interesting. How you lump divorce and rape into the same category just
:escapes me.
If you expect men to be able to label movies depicting destructive behavior
toward men as "entertainment only," then, by equality, you should be able to
label movies depicting desctructive behavior toward women as "entertainment
only." What's advised for the goose is advised for the gander.
:>We men learned from the movie that the women are still entertained by
:>male bashing, derogatory hate-filled movies. As to learning anything
:from
:>the substance of the movie, no! I don't consider "movies" an authority
:>on the issue of gender equality.
:>
:Sorry, but you're speaking in generalizations which does nothing to
:advance your cause or to make people sit up and listen.
<quoting from your above text>
::advance the state of divorced women, and it made men look generally like
::hormone-driven idiots.
I guess your motto is: "Don't do as I do, do as I say." You must be a feminist.
:If you want to have a "discussion" at least be mature about it.
See above.
: Some of us women (many, I would venture to say), are not in the least bit entertained by male
:bashing movies or by attitudes like yours.
That must be why the movie drew the most box office reciepts its first week out.
: When the day comes that women and men can sit down together and discuss
:these issues in a mature way, then maybe we'll make some progress.
Translation of "in a mature way:" when men express the opinions YOU approve of.
:You certainly have a lot of hate bottled up inside - were you the victim of a bad
:divorce or something?
Feminism and decades of open, naked, hateful male-bashing, double standards, like
the ones you've professed in this post, in a matriarchal society that for centuries has
degraded men might possibly be the problem.
:>Try watching a serial rape movie, have a laugh, and then forget about it.
:>It's just more garbage.
Just like FWC.
:Again, I'm not quite sure how you come to the conclusion that rape and
:divorce are on an equal par.
Destructive behavior toward men vs destructive behavior toward women.
Of course, I don't expect YOU to see FWC as destructive toward men.
It's just "entertainment."
George A Booth
In article <5474c9$n...@venezuela.earthlink.net>,
Some...@somewhere.sometime wrote:
> Byron Bollas <by...@nombas.com> wrote:
>
> :rt...@net.com wrote:
> :>
> :> You should have called the police because then you would have been
> :> teaching your son to hold women accountable for their violations. Still,
> :> I think you handled the situation very well, placing your sons welfare
> :> first. Now if only we can teach feminists responsibility.
>
<snip>
> :Men need to be very careful in this area... the playing field is
> :completely uneven... I speak from experience. Once when I had a
> :restraining order against my ex wife, she showed up at my house and
> :tried to hit me with her car in MY yard (yes my two kids witnessed it
> :all). I called the police and when they arrived they told me that they
> :wouldn't arrest her, because it was my word against hers ...BUT that
> :they were going to talk to her ...and if she *told* them I did anything
> :to her... they'd be back to arrest ME...
>
> :I was being held to a completely different standard than she was... by
> :all rights she had violated an existing restraining order and should
> :have been arrested on the spot (if she were a man she would have
> :been)... but she got away with it... men need to be extremely careful.
>
> Excellent point. It sounds like you have a basis for a lawsuit against
> the police department for sexual discrimination and failure to act on
> a violation of the restraining order. Could be big bucks there! :)
I hope that :) means that you're saying this in jest.
Some...@somewhere.sometime
Byron Bollas <by...@nombas.com> wrote:
:rt...@net.com wrote:
:>
:> You should have called the police because then you would have been
:> teaching your son to hold women accountable for their violations. Still,
:> I think you handled the situation very well, placing your sons welfare
:> first. Now if only we can teach feminists responsibility.
:Absolutely, the police should have been called. It was your apartment
:and she was being disruptive. It would have taught both your son and
:your ex wife that she must be held accountable for her actions.
:Of course in doing so you raise the risk of doing harm to yourself...
:Given the current mood in the country today all your ex wife would need
:to do is *say* you hit her, touched her, whatever...and despite the fact
:she was in your apartment and you in actually did nothing... YOU'D be
:the one who got arrested and taken to court...
:Men need to be very careful in this area... the playing field is
bill! bill! bill!
I hope he pursues it.
Jok...@no.mail
Some...@somewhere.sometime wrote:
>susan.eva...@ualberta.ca (susan.evans-davies) wrote:
>See above.
>Just like FWC.
Damn. Now I've got to go see it.
dg...@gateway.ecn.com
susan.evans-davies (susan.eva...@ualberta.ca) wrote:
: But, like talk shows and
: tabloid papers, the movies do their very best to bring out the worst in
: p0eople. In this case, they've succeeded. Watch the movie, have a laugh
: and then forget about it. It's just more garbage.
While I agree with you, I think movies do reveal things about the culture
(at the very least when they're successful it means the audience is
responding to something). In this case it's hard to imagine any film
being made in the opposite way (three guys are divorced and then take
on their ex-wives). What's the difference? Hard to put my finger
on it. Part of it might be the carry over from the time not so long
ago when a woman who was divorced in her 40s and 50s really had few
options (not the same situation today for most women since they're
already in the workforce, but society is slow to pick up on such
things). Also, and this is just coming from a guy's pov, it might
reflect some anxiety women still have that as they get older they
become less attractive to men (a very touchy subject most people
won't even talk about, guys might be missing that this is part of
what makes the three characters automatically sympathetic to mos
women, they're asserting their value).
I remember Norman Lear produced a tv show a few years ago about a
successful man who divorces his wife (oops, maybe she died), marries
this much younger woman, and the sitcom is about how the new "blended
family copes". Lasted for four weeks I think. The funny thing is
Lear based the show on his own life (he'd divorced an older wife
and married someone much younger, not exactly uncommon in Hollywood)
and I'm sure he thought he could include some of the humor he saw
around him in the show. Does anyone think this show deserved a
longer life? I can see why Lear might have been interested, but
let's face it a man who marries a younger woman is probably doing
pretty well to begin with and that's not the stuff of drama. The
real life situation is that men and women divorce for all kinds of
reasons and I'm not sure it's right to criticize something which
is so personal (aren't people entitled to live their own lives?
people don't leave happy marriage, we only go around once so why
stay in a situation which is mediocre or worse?). But drama is
very much about triumphing over adversity, winning as the underdog,
finding your own personal power. Absent that there's no story
to begin with (and, uh, in case anyone hasn't noticed, Hollywood
doesn't really devote itself to making mature films).
Maybe
"bill! bill! bill!" <1...@2.com> wrote:
Me too. Go for it, Byron. Contact a lawyer who works on commision.
That way you don't have to be able to pay the legal expenses. Such
a lawyer pays himself from the money you win. You don't have to pay
anything if he doesn't win.
Maybe
p...@datasync.com (George A Booth) wrote:
:In article <5474c9$n...@venezuela.earthlink.net>,
:Some...@somewhere.sometime wrote:
:> Byron Bollas <by...@nombas.com> wrote:
:>
:> :rt...@net.com wrote:
:> :>
:> :> You should have called the police because then you would have been
:> :> teaching your son to hold women accountable for their violations. Still,
:> :> I think you handled the situation very well, placing your sons welfare
:> :> first. Now if only we can teach feminists responsibility.
:>
:<snip>
:> :Men need to be very careful in this area... the playing field is
:> :completely uneven... I speak from experience. Once when I had a
:> :restraining order against my ex wife, she showed up at my house and
:> :tried to hit me with her car in MY yard (yes my two kids witnessed it
:> :all). I called the police and when they arrived they told me that they
:> :wouldn't arrest her, because it was my word against hers ...BUT that
:> :they were going to talk to her ...and if she *told* them I did anything
:> :to her... they'd be back to arrest ME...
:>
:> :I was being held to a completely different standard than she was... by
:> :all rights she had violated an existing restraining order and should
:> :have been arrested on the spot (if she were a man she would have
:> :been)... but she got away with it... men need to be extremely careful.
:>
:> Excellent point. It sounds like you have a basis for a lawsuit against
:> the police department for sexual discrimination and failure to act on
:> a violation of the restraining order. Could be big bucks there! :)
: I hope that :) means that you're saying this in jest.
Why? Civil justice is a very powerful alternative for those who have been
abandoned by the criminal justice system. Financial penalty can be a very
powerful tool for enforcing legal protections.
Byron Bollas
George A Booth wrote:
>
> In article <5474c9$n...@venezuela.earthlink.net>,
> Some...@somewhere.sometime wrote:
>
> > Byron Bollas <by...@nombas.com> wrote
> >
> > the police department for sexual discrimination and failure to act on
> > a violation of the restraining order. Could be big bucks there! :)
>
> I hope that :) means that you're saying this in jest.
Well actually I didn't write that... someone else did... but it DID cross MY
mind when it happened to me... but I've learned that police can lie just as
easy as anyone to protect themselves, and it would have been my word against his...
it would have been a losing battle...
But it was enlightening... As a white heterosexual male I've certainly learned
what's its like to be discriminated against simply because of who I am.
Byron
phyr...@usa.net
Maybe wrote:
>"bill! bill! bill!" <1...@2.com> wrote:
>:Some...@somewhere.sometime wrote:
>:>
>:> Byron Bollas <by...@nombas.com> wrote:
>:>
>:> :rt...@net.com wrote:
>:> :>
>:>
>:> Excellent point. It sounds like you have a basis for a lawsuit against
>:> the police department for sexual discrimination and failure to act on
>:> a violation of the restraining order. Could be big bucks there! :)
>:I hope he pursues it.
>Me too. Go for it, Byron. Contact a lawyer who works on commision.
>That way you don't have to be able to pay the legal expenses. Such
>a lawyer pays himself from the money you win. You don't have to pay
>anything if he doesn't win.
You realize of course that *we* pay his court costs and any award?
You feel that strongly? I understand a victim wanting to yell about
his injustice. I'm not sure about profiting by it (though neither
should the victim lose money) and I'm tired of throwing taxpayer money
at mistakes we had no control over. Court awards do less to
discourage mistakes than they do to encourage suits.
susan.evans-davies
In article <5474ap$n...@venezuela.earthlink.net>,
Some...@somewhere.sometime says...
>
ons are fine - but there's no need for him to call her a "vengeful
>:bitch" just because she voiced her opinions.
>
>No need to criticize him just because he expressed his feelings.
>
What's wrong is using terms like "vengeful bitch".
>:susan.eva...@ualberta.ca (susan.evans-davies) wrote:
>:ho were leaving the men for "younger models". Maybe you should watch
it
>:again.
>
>It wasn't the men using their children to punish their ex. Maybe YOU
should
>watch it the first time. Talk about estrogen poisoning.
Estrogen poisoning? Interesting term. Is it medically possible? And
the woman using her daughter to get at her ex disturbed many of us women
the same way it disturbed the men. This is not something that is
acceptable, not something I would do, and not something I find
"entertaining". However, it was a small part of the movie. You appear
to have chosen to focus on that as the entire plot. Rather a limited
view, don't you think?
>
>If you expect men to be able to label movies depicting destructive
behavior
>toward men as "entertainment only," then, by equality, you should be
able to
>label movies depicting desctructive behavior toward women as
"entertainment
>only." What's advised for the goose is advised for the gander.
>
Yes, well men get raped too or weren't you aware of that? And I still
cannot consider rape and divorce aftermath in the same light.
>I guess your motto is: "Don't do as I do, do as I say." You must be a
feminist.
>
I just love how you come to conclusions that are so off the wall. I have
never heard anyone quite as violently angry inside as you are - you are
obviously the victim of a FWC-type of situation. Sorry for that, but why
don't you come to terms with something in yourself and become a nicer
person. Can't you "DISCUSS" anything? Is everything a murderous shot
from the hip with you? You should do something about your anger before
it poisons you - would that be testosterone poisoning perhaps?
>:If you want to have a "discussion" at least be mature about it.
>
>See above.
>
Where? I still haven't heard a mature word from you yet.
>: Some of us women (many, I would venture to say), are not in the least
bit entertained by male
>:bashing movies or by attitudes like yours.
>
>That must be why the movie drew the most box office reciepts its first
week out.
>
Oh? Well when I saw it, the population in the theatre was 50% women and
50% men. If men are so honestly put out about this stuff, why are they
sitting through the movie? And laughing? Guess maybe some of us can go
to a movie and leave it behind when we go home and not take every single
scene and word to heart. It was junk - Hollywood junk. Nothing more.
>: When the day comes that women and men can sit down together and
discuss
>:these issues in a mature way, then maybe we'll make some progress.
>
>Translation of "in a mature way:" when men express the opinions YOU
approve of.
>
No, and again you have nothing to base that on. I did not demand that
you express MY opinions. I just can't see where your level of hate is
going to get you. It's made it physically impossible for you to sit and
have a discussion about anything. You're angry before anybody even opens
their mouth. Maybe that explains your dead marriage, huh? Good
communication was probably an expendable commodity in your house.
>:You certainly have a lot of hate bottled up inside - were you the
victim of a bad
>:divorce or something?
>
>Feminism and decades of open, naked, hateful male-bashing, double
standards, like
>the ones you've professed in this post, in a matriarchal society that
for centuries has
>degraded men might possibly be the problem.
>
WOW! Quoted right from a textbook! So you had an overbearing mother and
five overbearing sisters and an overbearing wife? Never met an honest or
kind woman in your life? Too bad.
>:>Try watching a serial rape movie, have a laugh, and then forget about
it.
>:>It's just more garbage.
>
>Just like FWC.
>
Absolutely! If you go back to my first post - you'll see that that is
exactly what I said wayyyyyyyy back then! If you'd read it the first
time you could have spared yourself all this anger.
>:Again, I'm not quite sure how you come to the conclusion that rape and
>:divorce are on an equal par.
>
>Destructive behavior toward men vs destructive behavior toward women.
>Of course, I don't expect YOU to see FWC as destructive toward men.
>It's just "entertainment."
>
Of course I don't expect YOU to see FWC as a stupid Hollywood movie - for
you' it's full of truisms and just another example of how the world is
filled with hate-mongering women. It was a script - a figment of
someone's imagination (maybe yours). Too bad you can't collect the
rights to it - you could have gotten mega-rich off of your attitude.
>
Byron Bollas
> :>
> :> Excellent point. It sounds like you have a basis for a lawsuit against
> :> the police department for sexual discrimination and failure to act on
> :> a violation of the restraining order. Could be big bucks there! :)
>
> :I hope he pursues it.
>
> Me too. Go for it, Byron. Contact a lawyer who works on commision.
> That way you don't have to be able to pay the legal expenses. Such
> a lawyer pays himself from the money you win. You don't have to pay
> anything if he doesn't win.
I certainly appreciate the support on this but it was over 6 years
ago that it happened... its a little late now for me to pursue it
legally I think...
George A Booth
In article <54ahmp$f...@bolivia.earthlink.net>, Maybe wrote:
> p...@datasync.com (George A Booth) wrote:
>
> :In article <5474c9$n...@venezuela.earthlink.net>,
> :Some...@somewhere.sometime wrote:
>
> :> Byron Bollas <by...@nombas.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :rt...@net.com wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> You should have called the police because then you would have been
> :> :> teaching your son to hold women accountable for their violations. Still,
> :> :> I think you handled the situation very well, placing your sons welfare
> :> :> first. Now if only we can teach feminists responsibility.
> :>
> :<snip>
> :> :Men need to be very careful in this area... the playing field is
> :> :completely uneven... I speak from experience. Once when I had a
> :> :restraining order against my ex wife, she showed up at my house and
> :> :tried to hit me with her car in MY yard (yes my two kids witnessed it
> :> :all). I called the police and when they arrived they told me that they
> :> :wouldn't arrest her, because it was my word against hers ...BUT that
> :> :they were going to talk to her ...and if she *told* them I did anything
> :> :to her... they'd be back to arrest ME...
> :>
> :> :I was being held to a completely different standard than she was... by
> :> :all rights she had violated an existing restraining order and should
> :> :have been arrested on the spot (if she were a man she would have
> :> :been)... but she got away with it... men need to be extremely careful.
> :>
> :> Excellent point. It sounds like you have a basis for a lawsuit against
> :> the police department for sexual discrimination and failure to act on
> :> a violation of the restraining order. Could be big bucks there! :)
>
> : I hope that :) means that you're saying this in jest.
>
> Why? Civil justice is a very powerful alternative for those who have been
> abandoned by the criminal justice system. Financial penalty can be a very
> powerful tool for enforcing legal protections.
Well, first, the attitude of the police is going to carry over into the
court. You *know* because he's a man that he'll get hammered. Second, it's
a real good way to piss off the police and make your name very
recognizable to them, again not good. In adjunct to the first and second
points, one would be placing the care of one's child at risk, and to do
that for only speculative advantage seems irresponsible to me. Third, I
don't see how running to the legal system with his problems is the act of
a man who is going to be able to set a strong, honorable, self-reliant
example for his children to follow.
It's a woman's ploy to whine to mommy/daddy government and look what
kind of people they are that *do* that. Do you really respect and admire
someone like that?
It's a fun idea, I admit. :)
lij...@werin.com
p...@datasync.com (George A Booth) wrote:
I disagree. Civil court is different from criminal court. Criminal court
is driven by the district attorney, who has a job to keep, by popular
election. It might not be politically expedient to pursue antimale crimes.
In civil court, though, judges, especially female judges, don't have to
buy that feminist "victim" crap. Female judges are particularly good
at glaring down feminists who try to impose that agenda on the
outcome.
:Second, it's
:a real good way to piss off the police and make your name very
:recognizable to them, again not good.
Again, I disagree. My brother-in-law is a deputy police chief. There is
a constant influx and outflux of officers on the patrol level. The attitudes
represented there are the same cross-section of attitudes represented
here in this newsgroup. Unfortunately, though some officers would like
to be more aggressive against antimale crime, political agendas shape
the handling of various violations of law. Also, if anything, as a result of
such a lawsuit, the police would be more likely to handle your future calls
with extra care for fear of futher legal consequences and demerits on
their records.
:In adjunct to the first and second
:points, one would be placing the care of one's child at risk, and to do
:that for only speculative advantage seems irresponsible to me.
Once again, I disagree. I think the immediate and long term benefit of
responsibly handling violations of rights will be positive. The immediate
term benefit is teaching the child responsible ways to resolve violations
and conflict. The long term benefit would be to create change in the
system of justice that improves equality and fairplay for all, including
men.
:Third, I
:don't see how running to the legal system with his problems is the act of
:a man who is going to be able to set a strong, honorable, self-reliant
:example for his children to follow.
See above. Responsible behavior is honorable. Self-reliance should not
include taking the law into one's own hands, but working within the laws
to responsibly and honorably meet one's needs. That is healthy self-reliance,
in my opinion.
: It's a woman's ploy to whine to mommy/daddy government and look what
:kind of people they are that *do* that. Do you really respect and admire
:someone like that?
I don't admire those who coerce unjust agendas on the government, and use
untrue characterizations of their experiences to accomplish that end. A valid
issue presented in a fair way, though, is precisely what the purpose of our
government is. Our government exists to create rules of interaction between
people.
: It's a fun idea, I admit. :)
Fun, responsible, and good instruction in healthy conflict resolution for his child.:)
lij...@werin.com
susan.eva...@ualberta.ca (susan.evans-davies) wrote:
:In article <5474ap$n...@venezuela.earthlink.net>,
:Some...@somewhere.sometime says...
:>
:ons are fine - but there's no need for him to call her a "vengeful
:>:bitch" just because she voiced her opinions.
:>
:>No need to criticize him just because he expressed his feelings.
:>
:As I stated before, several times, there's nothing wrong with opinions.
:What's wrong is using terms like "vengeful bitch".
:>:susan.eva...@ualberta.ca (susan.evans-davies) wrote:
:>:ho were leaving the men for "younger models". Maybe you should watch
:it
:>:again.
:>
:>It wasn't the men using their children to punish their ex. Maybe YOU
:should
:>watch it the first time. Talk about estrogen poisoning.
:Estrogen poisoning? Interesting term. Is it medically possible? And
:the woman using her daughter to get at her ex disturbed many of us women
:the same way it disturbed the men. This is not something that is
:acceptable, not something I would do, and not something I find
:"entertaining". However, it was a small part of the movie. You appear
:to have chosen to focus on that as the entire plot. Rather a limited
:view, don't you think?
Seems to me you're focusing on one small part of the original post;
"vengeful bitch." Rather limited view, don't you think?
Isn't it obvious why men sit through this stuff? Men have been domesticated
by women to subordinate their needs to women for millenia.
As for the "it was just Hollywood junk," perhaps you can take the satirical
posts in this group in the same light. It's just entertainment.
:>: When the day comes that women and men can sit down together and
:discuss
:>:these issues in a mature way, then maybe we'll make some progress.
:>
:>Translation of "in a mature way:" when men express the opinions YOU
:approve of.
:>
:No, and again you have nothing to base that on. I did not demand that
:you express MY opinions. I just can't see where your level of hate is
:going to get you. It's made it physically impossible for you to sit and
:have a discussion about anything. You're angry before anybody even opens
:their mouth. Maybe that explains your dead marriage, huh? Good
:communication was probably an expendable commodity in your house.
Finally. Now you're beginning to understand my implicit message. This is
exactly how we men feel about discussing things with feminists. They have
already made up their minds and resort to any irrational arguments and
obfuscations to harbor their beliefs. They lead off with hostility, then express
outrage that men cannot express their beliefs calmly.
:>:You certainly have a lot of hate bottled up inside - were you the
:victim of a bad
:>:divorce or something?
:>
:>Feminism and decades of open, naked, hateful male-bashing, double
:standards, like
:>the ones you've professed in this post, in a matriarchal society that
:for centuries has
:>degraded men might possibly be the problem.
:>
:WOW! Quoted right from a textbook! So you had an overbearing mother and
:five overbearing sisters and an overbearing wife? Never met an honest or
:kind woman in your life? Too bad.
Actually, I have, but the preponderance of egocentric, selfish women make the
culture of womanhood seem extremely hostile and unsafe. Those are my experiences.
Like them or not, agree with them or not, those are my experiences.
:>:>Try watching a serial rape movie, have a laugh, and then forget about
:it.
:>:>It's just more garbage.
:>
:>Just like FWC.
:>
:Absolutely! If you go back to my first post - you'll see that that is
:exactly what I said wayyyyyyyy back then! If you'd read it the first
:time you could have spared yourself all this anger.
:>:Again, I'm not quite sure how you come to the conclusion that rape and
:>:divorce are on an equal par.
Hostility is hostility. If you can laugh at it, you can laugh at it. The only difference
is who the victim is.
:>Destructive behavior toward men vs destructive behavior toward women.
:>Of course, I don't expect YOU to see FWC as destructive toward men.
:>It's just "entertainment."
:>
:Of course I don't expect YOU to see FWC as a stupid Hollywood movie - for
:you' it's full of truisms
Damn right it is. I happen to be a man, not a coddled, pampered feminist.
:and just another example of how the world is
:filled with hate-mongering women.
You got it. As well as women who are entertained by violence against men.
That isn't surprising, though, since women are the most violent segment of
the population.
:It was a script - a figment of
:someone's imagination (maybe yours). Too bad you can't collect the
:rights to it - you could have gotten mega-rich off of your attitude.
Money's okay, but respect is better. I wouldn't mind writing a wildly
successful movie script, but I wouldn't write an irresponsible, hostile
script that degrades anyone. I wouldn't pander to the feminist hysteria
of male-bashing. Now, female-bashing, that's another thing.
lij...@werin.com
Check with a lawyer. Maybe not. You have nothing to lose and everything
to gain, including financial compensation for your suffering, and a change
in the way law enforcement treats your problems.
Byron Bollas <by...@nombas.com> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> Excellent point. It sounds like you have a basis for a lawsuit against
:> :> the police department for sexual discrimination and failure to act on
:> :> a violation of the restraining order. Could be big bucks there! :)
:>
:> :I hope he pursues it.
lij...@werin.com
phyr...@usa.net wrote:
:Maybe wrote:
:>"bill! bill! bill!" <1...@2.com> wrote:
:>:Some...@somewhere.sometime wrote:
:>:>
:>:> Byron Bollas <by...@nombas.com> wrote:
:>:>
:>:> :rt...@net.com wrote:
:>:> :>
:>:>
:>:> Excellent point. It sounds like you have a basis for a lawsuit against
:>:> the police department for sexual discrimination and failure to act on
:>:> a violation of the restraining order. Could be big bucks there! :)
:>:I hope he pursues it.
:>Me too. Go for it, Byron. Contact a lawyer who works on commision.
:>That way you don't have to be able to pay the legal expenses. Such
:>a lawyer pays himself from the money you win. You don't have to pay
:>anything if he doesn't win.
:You realize of course that *we* pay his court costs and any award?
:You feel that strongly? I understand a victim wanting to yell about
:his injustice. I'm not sure about profiting by it (though neither
:should the victim lose money) and I'm tired of throwing taxpayer money
:at mistakes we had no control over. Court awards do less to
:discourage mistakes than they do to encourage suits.
Yes, I realize that. If *we*, as a society, condone unjust laws and enforcement
of laws, *we* should be held accountable for just injustice. Or don't you believe
in accountability unless it favors you?
Any profit awarded to a victim of abuse is just, since anyone violated is entitled to
compensation for their suffering. We *do* have control over it. If we promote an
agenda that is sexist and anti-male, we are responsible.
I think court awards do a tremendous amount to discourage mistakes. I've seen
many cities abruptly change their policies as a result of civil suit awards. One
such type of change, ironically, concerned domestic violence of a woman at the
hands of her estranged husband. As her husband kicked, stabbed, and beat her,
the local police stood by and watched. You might have heard about her. She was
an aspiring model. She suffered partial paralysis, and her face was scarred. The
district attorney refused to pursue the case legally, so she sued civilly and won
big time. The result, almost overnight, was a change in police policy concerning
domestic abuse runs. Police were REQUIRED to intervene, and failure to do so
would result in disciplinary action, usually termination.
George A Booth
I tried mailing this... it bounced.
I have *got* to cut this down a bit. Please excuse the <snip>s.
In article <54cndf$7...@guyana.earthlink.net>, lij...@werin.com wrote:
> p...@datasync.com (George A Booth) wrote:
>
> :In article <54ahmp$f...@bolivia.earthlink.net>, Maybe wrote:
>
> :> p...@datasync.com (George A Booth) wrote:
<big context snip>
> : Well, first, the attitude of the police is going to carry over into the
> :court. You *know* because he's a man that he'll get hammered.
>
> I disagree. Civil court is different from criminal court.
<snip>
Same society, same prejudices. and I know the DA - Cono Carana - and I
STILL wouldn't recommend it here.
> :Second, it's
> :a real good way to piss off the police and make your name very
> :recognizable to them, again not good.
>
> Again, I disagree. My brother-in-law is a deputy police chief. There is
> a constant influx and outflux of officers on the patrol level.
<snip>
You must live in a far larger town than I. Not here.
> :In adjunct to the first and second
> :points, one would be placing the care of one's child at risk, and to do
> :that for only speculative advantage seems irresponsible to me.
>
> Once again, I disagree. I think the immediate and long term benefit of
> responsibly handling violations of rights will be positive.
I don't think we disagree in principle on this.
> The immediate
> term benefit is teaching the child responsible ways to resolve violations
> and conflict.The long term benefit would be to create change in the
> system of justice that improves equality and fairplay for all, including
> men.
You understand that this involves trying to create a change in the
system of justice. You, then, also understand that equality and fairplay
is *not* how it is now. I am all for the idea of changing the system on
this, but putting the custody and care of my child at risk unless
absolutely necessary is *not* responsible.
> :Third, I
> :don't see how running to the legal system with his problems is the act of
> :a man who is going to be able to set a strong, honorable, self-reliant
> :example for his children to follow.
>
> See above. Responsible behavior is honorable. Self-reliance should not
> include taking the law into one's own hands, but working within the laws
> to responsibly and honorably meet one's needs. That is healthy self-reliance,
> in my opinion.
Were we to have worked entirely within the spirit of the law, none of
us would have custody! The spirit of the law is that women are the
paramount parent and that the father pays the bills. The spirit of the law
is that the woman is smaller, more honest, a victim to men, and deserves
greater protection - you can see this from the original post.
I love my children and I will *not* lay down and die for the "law". My
children deserve better than that from me. The "law" can take care of
itself, my kids can't.
> : It's a woman's ploy to whine to mommy/daddy government and look what
> :kind of people they are that *do* that. Do you really respect and admire
> :someone like that?
>
> I don't admire ...
I don't admire all that either. That _wasn't_ the question though, and
it _wasn't_ the question *on purpose*.
Be fair to yourself and answer the question. What kind of person do you
respect and admire?
I respect and admire a man who takes his responsibilities for his
family seriously not because the "law" says so, but because it is RIGHT. I
respect and admire a man who trys to do RIGHT, not just work within the
"law". I see that RIGHT is *against* the "law" in enough cases that I no
longer equate the two. Being lawful is RIGHT, but I have priorities.
dg...@gateway.ecn.com
susan.evans-davies (susan.eva...@ualberta.ca) wrote:
: In article <544b9e$5...@uruguay.earthlink.net>, Femi...@equals.hate
: says...
: >No. It made women look like hormone driven idiots.
: It wasn't the women
: who were leaving the men for "younger models". Maybe you should watch it
: again.
Did you ever see the play "Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead?" I
don't think FWC is a man bashing film in the way some of these guys
do, but I think there is a premise in the film which is unchallenged.
Why wouldn't any guy in his right mind leave the three women in this
film for younger women? Not expecting women to have too much sympathy
for this point of view at first glance, but think about it. These
men had an obligation to stay married? Their wives were so great to
begin with? I never expected this film to do well because when I
saw the poster of Bette, Dianne, and Goldie smoking cigars my first
thought was, "You know, if I could trade one of these women for
Sarah Jessica Parker I'd do it in a second". Just shows how much
povs can differ.
: Sorry, but you're speaking in generalizations which does nothing to
: advance your cause or to make people sit up and listen. If you want to
: have a "discussion" at least be mature about it. Some of us women (many,
: I would venture to say), are not in the least bit entertained by male
: bashing movies or by attitudes like yours. When the day comes that women
: and men can sit down together and discuss these issues in a mature way,
: then maybe we'll make some progress. You certainly have a lot of hate
: bottled up inside - were you the victim of a bad divorce or something?
I agree, the guy was taking the movie much too seriously (not exactly
a new phenomenon in this newsgroup). I'd look forward to the day when
men and women can discuss these issues maturely, but I think that already
happens all the time over breakfest tables and at work between mature
people. There's no larger "collective" conversation which is waiting
to happen, in my opinion, because individuals are different and
everyone will have their own answers about what's right to do.
There is no "correct" position on many of these things, just what
individuals decide in their own lives (which is what turns some of
these issues into false debates).
Having said that, I think there is some room to express the frustrations
men and women have with each other, and that is going to take up some
of the collective conversation. Women who see First Wives Club don't
hate guys, but I think the film probably taps into some frustration
that's real (Waiting To Exhale did this too, although I think that
was the better movie). Men have their issues as well. Suppose someone
put out a film called Skanky Wives Club about three guys who were
married to controlling, unattractive, and not very pleasant women
and they got together to take control of their own lives? (get
a divorce, buy a red sports car, start dating Sarah Jessica Parker).
Couldn't one put together a story which had the same issues of
empowerment? I wouldn't expect most women to identify with it,
but then films don't have to appeal to everybody.
Marg Petersen
In article <54fuci$8...@gateway.ecn.com>, <dg...@gateway.ecn.com> wrote:
>susan.evans-davies (susan.eva...@ualberta.ca) wrote:
>: In article <544b9e$5...@uruguay.earthlink.net>, Femi...@equals.hate
>: says...
>
>: >No. It made women look like hormone driven idiots.
>
>: It wasn't the women
>: who were leaving the men for "younger models". Maybe you should watch it
>: again.
>
>Did you ever see the play "Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead?" I
>don't think FWC is a man bashing film in the way some of these guys
>do, but I think there is a premise in the film which is unchallenged.
>Why wouldn't any guy in his right mind leave the three women in this
>film for younger women? Not expecting women to have too much sympathy
>for this point of view at first glance, but think about it.
I already made this point so, yes, *I* DID not only notice it, but
thought about it as well. (The post I made either got ignored or
lost somewhere. Our server *has* been flakey.) Anyway, I agree with
you. The point I made in my other post was that these women weren't
all that terrific examples of "peoplehood" to begin with (the men
weren't either.)
These
>men had an obligation to stay married? Their wives were so great to
>begin with?
Well, I think that these *particular* women (and men) were operating
under the assumption that they *did* have an obligation to stay
married. Rather like the assumption of marriage as "til death do us
part", and of course without any real work on the marriage along the
way. Neither the men nor the women were communicating, they were
just married to each other. And as the individual couples lost
interest in each other (and *forgot* to work at their marriage),
other things (people) became more interesting to them.
I never expected this film to do well because when I
>saw the poster of Bette, Dianne, and Goldie smoking cigars my first
>thought was, "You know, if I could trade one of these women for
>Sarah Jessica Parker I'd do it in a second". Just shows how much
>povs can differ.
Well, *I* didn't feel that way. :-) But I certainly understand
what you are saying. The men weren't exactly being wonderful
examples of humans, BUT the women (their wives) weren't all that
wonderful either. Slowly, over a period of years, with each of
them working under certain assumptions, they drifted apart and
became less interested in each other.
>: Sorry, but you're speaking in generalizations which does nothing to
>: advance your cause or to make people sit up and listen. If you want to
>: have a "discussion" at least be mature about it. Some of us women (many,
>: I would venture to say), are not in the least bit entertained by male
>: bashing movies or by attitudes like yours. When the day comes that women
>: and men can sit down together and discuss these issues in a mature way,
>: then maybe we'll make some progress. You certainly have a lot of hate
>: bottled up inside - were you the victim of a bad divorce or something?
>
>I agree, the guy was taking the movie much too seriously (not exactly
>a new phenomenon in this newsgroup). I'd look forward to the day when
>men and women can discuss these issues maturely, but I think that already
>happens all the time over breakfest tables and at work between mature
>people. There's no larger "collective" conversation which is waiting
>to happen, in my opinion, because individuals are different and
>everyone will have their own answers about what's right to do.
>There is no "correct" position on many of these things, just what
>individuals decide in their own lives (which is what turns some of
>these issues into false debates).
Agreed! The outcome (in this movie) wasn't, to me, a statement of
how "women should behave" (or men for that matter), but was instead
simply what *these* women's solution to their *problem* was. And
in the process, they *grew*; took more responsibility for their *own*
lives and became more independent. Perhaps it is this aspect that
bothers some.
>Having said that, I think there is some room to express the frustrations
>men and women have with each other, and that is going to take up some
>of the collective conversation. Women who see First Wives Club don't
>hate guys, but I think the film probably taps into some frustration
>that's real (Waiting To Exhale did this too, although I think that
>was the better movie). Men have their issues as well. Suppose someone
>put out a film called Skanky Wives Club about three guys who were
>married to controlling, unattractive, and not very pleasant women
>and they got together to take control of their own lives? (get
>a divorce, buy a red sports car, start dating Sarah Jessica Parker).
>Couldn't one put together a story which had the same issues of
>empowerment? I wouldn't expect most women to identify with it,
>but then films don't have to appeal to everybody.
I have watched (and enjoyed) many movies that don't necessarily
have an *appeal* to me personally (coming-of-age-teen-movies,
for example). That doesn't mean that I can't enjoy them or
get a message from them. By the way, I believe the above premise
HAS been made into several movies wherein the men sought their
own empowerment through leaving their current situation. For the
women in THIS movie (FWC), divorce was NOT the end of their lives
and actually led to personal *growth* for them, even though the
divorce was not instigated by them (in this particular situation.)
Marg
--
Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~petersm
"At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
Andy Taylor
Jok...@no.mail wrote:
>
> smith wrote:
>
> >Ric...@Bennett.com (Richard Bennett) wrote:
>
> >:Calvin (cle...@link.com) wrote:
>
> >:>I'm not sure which movie you're talking about, but I agree with your concept.
> >:>It seems like the older they get, the meaner and more selfish they get.
>
> >:>pe...@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) wrote:
>
> >:>:Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the movie. It's a farce.
> >:>:Pretty funny, too.
> >I think FWC has potently shown the grossly irresponsible, selfish and destructive
> >behavior that women are capable of much more than our posts. It demostrates
> >just how truly capable of domestic violence women actually are. As far as I'm
> >concerned, the movie, and its feminine cheerers prove that women truly are
> >much more domestically violent than men. Thank FWC for helping us men
> >to prove female violence beyond a shadow of a doubt.
>
> You blame women? Who are the producers, directors of this thing?
> Don't rush to blame women. And at risk of bursting your bubble of
> indignance, this movie is a fiction, not real. It scarcely can prove
> anything. "Shadow of a doubt." <Snort>
>
> >From Eve to today has been one long horrendous fall from grace for women.
>
> And your mother is a woman. Don't have any daughters.
If the movie would have portrayed anything else, women like you would
have said that it mirrored life. That phrase sounds familiar, eh? Notice
I didn't say you, but women like you.
Jok...@no.mail
Andy Taylor <1@2.3> wrote:
I noticed. Not me, but women like me? Like me in what way? Of
Afron-European descent? Green-eyed? Overweight? Tall? Intelligent?
Sloppy? Charismatic? If the movie had mirrored life it might not
have gotten your box office dollar. I'll bet the producers gave it a
little thought.