Marg's Feminist Smear Tactics.

19 views
Skip to first unread message

J Shearer

unread,
Jun 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/18/97
to

John Mack <ta...@SPAMBLOCKER.ozemail.com.au> writes: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> --------------38AF194E3A44
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> J Shearer wrote:
>
> > > pe...@mail.idt.net (Per) wrote:
>
> > > >On 16 Jun 1997 11:09:52 -0700, god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen)
> > > >wrote:
>
> > > >Responding to a comment about false allegations of child abuse, Marg
> > > >Petersen fell back on a smear tactic that, while quite dirty, also is
> > > >quite prevalent. The original exchange.
> > > >[...]
>
> > > >>> Filing false allegations of child abuse/molestation is not
> > > >>>equality, but is the weapon of choice of many women in divorce cases.
>
> > > >>And filing true allegations of child abuse/molestation is a
> > > >>necessity for the safety of the children or would you prefer that
> > > >>child molestors/abusers get off and be able to continue. I didn't
> > > >>know that you were an advocate for child abuse/molestation now, Per.
> > > >>Pity about that.
>
> > > > This is one of the dirtiest tricks in the very dirty arsenal
> > > >of feminism. If someone objects to false accusations, you label them
> > > >as pro-abuse.
> > > > I would request an apology from Ms. Petersen, but in order for
> > > >her to apologize, she would have to understand that she did something
> > > >wrong, and that would require a conscience. As she is a feminist, I
> > > >have little hope for that.
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Oh, come ON! She was NOT "wrong"--she simply took a "cheap shot" at some-
> > one who __richly__ deserves it!! Get off your high horse!!! Jan
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Nobody deserves to be falsely accused of child molestation. Such
> accusations have been the source of too much institutional violence
> against men, for any of us to find it amusing or dismiss it as a "cheap
> shot". She did wrong, and you also are in the wrong for condoning this
> particularly nasty personal attack.
>
> I realise that, as it's only men's lives that are destroyed by people
> like Marg casually throwing around accusations, you probably don't care.
> In which case, consider that:
> - pressuring a child to falsely accuse a parent of child abuse;
> - denying a child access to a parent on the basis of false claims of
> abuse;
> - "poisoning" a child against a parent;
> - planting false memories of abuse in a child's mind;
> are all forms of child abuse, at least as damaging as any actual
> molestation.
>
> --------------38AF194E3A44
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="BLADE.SIG"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BLADE.SIG"
>
> John Mack
> Remove SPAMBLOCKER. from address to reply
>
> South-East Queensland Men's Issues Homepage:
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~tarim/men/menspage.htm
> Last Updated: April 30, 1997
>
> "You are women. Cunning ... deceit ... treachery ... manipulation ... guile ... these are your stock-in-trade. But, they make a poor shield against a hard blade and a murderous impulse." - Dave Sim, Reads.
>
> --------------38AF194E3A44--
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John, your "Sig" says a lot about you! Why do you think "all" women are
"Cunning, deceitful, treacherous, manipulative, guile-filled..."??? A
sad history?

I think Marg was just defending
the CHILD'S right to be free of abuse by its parents!!!!!! Which you ap-
parently think is of less importance than protecting the abusers!
At least, that's what it looks like! Should we just let them ruin child-
ren's lives, rather than attempt to make the system better????

I don't have the stats, but I'll bet that for every case of "false
accusation of abuse," there are 5 abusers getting away with it! Jan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Peter

unread,
Jun 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/19/97
to

J Shearer <@accessone.com> wrote:

So you choose not to care about the men who are falsely accused?
God if you care that little about men, don't expect any men to
care very much for you except for the emasculated type of course.
I think any woman who falsely accuses should do the same penaly
as the guy would of had to do if they were convicted of the
crime.


Peter

unread,
Jun 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/19/97
to

J Shearer <@accessone.com> wrote:


Well back in alt.feminism you wanted an example of how society
does not care about males. Well all you have to do is look into
the mirror. Right here your response to this is an example of a
person not caring about males. What you are saying is who cares
about the men falsely accused as long as the system is designed
to get the most amount of the guilty ones. You seem to be
adopting the men are expendable approach to this. And for this I
think you kind of suck, ya know??


J. Chapman

unread,
Jun 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/19/97
to

In message <5o9ndh$9o6$1...@kanga.accessone.com> - J Shearer <@accessone.com>
writes:

> I don't have the stats, but I'll bet that for every case of "false
>accusation of abuse," there are 5 abusers getting away with it! Jan
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think this is a perfect example of "feminist research"; "Let's see, I
don't know what the real numbers are so I'll just make some up that fit
my preconceptions". Wait, no, feminist research is more like "I know the real
data but it doesn't fit my preconceptions so I'll just make some new data
up..."


Eric Conrad

unread,
Jun 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/19/97
to

In article <5o9ndh$9o6$1...@kanga.accessone.com>,
J Shearer <@accessone.com> wrote:
> I don't have the stats, but [unsupported conclusions deleted]

Since you don't have any evidence for your beliefs, can you
consider the possibility that false accusations may be more
common and more serious than your prejudicial estimates would
indicate?

Eric
--
Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu)
http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~econrad/
Department of Mathematics
The Ohio State University

PangK

unread,
Jun 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/20/97
to

What Marg, the world's greatest expert on everything would have us believe
is that the popular allegations of sexual abuse in divorce cases are cases
of
deeply concerned moms protecting their children from dastardly dads trying
to screw the kids. What Marg doesn't acknowledge is that 65% or more of
those allegations are TOTALLY baseless and fabricated as a divorce tactic!

ANDS, is one the women's movement has promoted! Over the years women's
groups have printed materials encouraging the use of FALSE allegatisons
as a financial and emotional tactic of revenge!!!!

Again the point is that MOST such allegations are LIES!
Albeit that mentally disurbed women come to beleive their own
fabrications.
Thanks to the help of social workers!


PangK

unread,
Jun 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/20/97
to

As some folks shoot their mouths off making claims on the incidence of
incest and false allegations. WHy not ask Author Dean Tong who now
lurkes in this ng,?


PangK

unread,
Jun 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/20/97
to

Jan is worried about all the perverts "getting away with" molesting
children.
ANd believes that for every innocent there are 5 guilty. WRONG!!! You're
right Jan you DON'T have the stats! False allegations are the norm to the
tune of over 700,000 a year THAT WE KNOW are false. (According to the
National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.) And we don't know hopw many
of
the rest are false. That's only the number we can prove are false.

When you are paranoid or appealing to mass paranoia you can state that
there
are these millions of pervertss molesting children every second. Feminism
loves
to play numbers like that. A woman is being battered somewhere in America
every 1.2 picoseconds. OPr 234,893,893 women per second are being raped.
(Forget there aren't that many women in America) At one time Feminists
had EVERY child in America being abducted by fathers, well actually about
10 million more children than existed in America at the time. <sigh>

No Jan, there are NOT hordes of perverted dads getting away with molesting
their kids. That kind of whacky thinking belings to whackos like SAA and
BA.


Carol Ann Hemingway

unread,
Jun 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/20/97
to

In <19970620112...@ladder01.news.aol.com> pa...@aol.com
(PangK) writes:

(edit)>

>ANDS, is one the women's movement has promoted! Over the years
women's>groups have printed materials encouraging the use of FALSE
allegatisons>as a financial and emotional tactic of revenge!!!!
>

--------
Where can I find a printed copy of those "materials" sponsored
by "women's groups"? :]

Lefty

_*The Navigator*_

unread,
Jun 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/20/97
to

PangK wrote:
>
> What Marg, the world's greatest expert on everything would have us believe
> is that the popular allegations of sexual abuse in divorce cases are cases
> of
> deeply concerned moms protecting their children from dastardly dads trying
> to screw the kids. What Marg doesn't acknowledge is that 65% or more of
> those allegations are TOTALLY baseless and fabricated as a divorce tactic!
>
> ANDS, is one the women's movement has promoted! Over the years women's
> groups have printed materials encouraging the use of FALSE allegatisons
> as a financial and emotional tactic of revenge!!!!
>
> Again the point is that MOST such allegations are LIES!
> Albeit that mentally disurbed women come to beleive their own
> fabrications.
> Thanks to the help of social workers!
***************************************************
Horse Latitudes.

Who was talking about mental states..?
You just have a problem with Marg..

get over it....

john.
***************************************************

As a male, I support Womens Rights.

As an employer, I waste little time on male female
disputes, In my employ you either accept Equality
and respect a womans view, or you hit the road...

_*The Navigator*_

unread,
Jun 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/20/97
to

John Mack wrote:

>
> J Shearer wrote:
>
> > John Mack <ta...@SPAMBLOCKER.ozemail.com.au> writes: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> > > J Shearer wrote:
>
> > > > > >On 16 Jun 1997 11:09:52 -0700, god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen) wrote:
>
> [In response to Per's discussion of false allegations of child abuse]

>
> > > > > >>And filing true allegations of child abuse/molestation is a
> > > > > >>necessity for the safety of the children or would you prefer that
> > > > > >>child molestors/abusers get off and be able to continue. I didn't
> > > > > >>know that you were an advocate for child abuse/molestation now, Per.
> > > > > >>Pity about that.
>
> [This earned her flames from Per and others]

>
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Oh, come ON! She was NOT "wrong"--she simply took a "cheap shot" at some-
> > > > one who __richly__ deserves it!! Get off your high horse!!! Jan
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Nobody deserves to be falsely accused of child molestation. Such
> > > accusations have been the source of too much institutional violence
> > > against men, for any of us to find it amusing or dismiss it as a "cheap
> > > shot". She did wrong, and you also are in the wrong for condoning this
> > > particularly nasty personal attack.
> > >
> > > I realise that, as it's only men's lives that are destroyed by people
> > > like Marg casually throwing around accusations, you probably don't care.
> > > In which case, consider that:
> > > - pressuring a child to falsely accuse a parent of child abuse;
> > > - denying a child access to a parent on the basis of false claims of
> > > abuse;
> > > - "poisoning" a child against a parent;
> > > - planting false memories of abuse in a child's mind;
> > > are all forms of child abuse, at least as damaging as any actual
> > > molestation.
> [SIG file:]

> > > "You are women. Cunning ... deceit ... treachery ... manipulation ... guile ... these are your stock-in-trade. But, they make a poor shield against a hard blade and a murderous impulse." - Dave Sim, Reads.
>
> > John, your "Sig" says a lot about you!
>
> Have you - honestly - any idea how presumptuous this statement is?

>
> > Why do you think "all" women are
> > "Cunning, deceitful, treacherous, manipulative, guile-filled..."???
>
> The quote is actually Dave Sim's, he justifies it at length.
>
> > A sad history?
>
> Enjoy fishing, Jan?

>
> > I think Marg was just defending
> > the CHILD'S right to be free of abuse by its parents!!!!!!
>
> Read it again. She wasn't _just_ doing any such thing. She was accusing
> Per of being complicit in child abuse, by virtue of the fact that he
> said not everyone accused of it is guilty.

>
> > Which you ap-
> > parently think is of less importance than protecting the abusers!
>
> Try, protecting those who have never committed abuse, who are accused
> anyway.

>
> > At least, that's what it looks like!
>
> Only if you assume that all the accused are guilty.

>
> > Should we just let them ruin child-
> > ren's lives, rather than attempt to make the system better????
>
> We should certainly stop people like you and Marg ruining children's
> (and their father's) lives by condoning false accusations; that would
> make the system vastly better.

>
> > I don't have the stats,
>
> Obviously.

>
> > but I'll bet that for every case of "false
> > accusation of abuse," there are 5 abusers getting away with it! Jan
>
> I'd take that bet; try it the other way round.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------

> John Mack
> Remove SPAMBLOCKER. from address to reply
>
> South-East Queensland Men's Issues Homepage:
> http://www.ozemail.com.au/~tarim/men/menspage.htm
> Last Updated: April 30, 1997
>
> "You are women. Cunning ... deceit ... treachery ... manipulation ... guile ... these are your stock-in-trade. But, they make a poor shield against a hard blade and a murderous impulse." - Dave Sim, Reads.
**************************************
Cunning, deceit, blaa blaa blaaa..

I looked into this home page, quite a
Phobia towards women. And naturally
there was the link for pers puke...

Another one kill filed...
See ya bye...

john.
**************************************

As a male I firmly support Women in all
their actions..
john.

Paul A Laird

unread,
Jun 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/20/97
to
> > > John, your "Sig" says a lot about you!
> >
> > Have you - honestly - any idea how presumptuous this statement is?
> >
> > > Why do you think "all" women are
> > > "Cunning, deceitful, treacherous, manipulative, guile-filled..."???
> >
> > The quote is actually Dave Sim's, he justifies it at length.
> >
> > > A sad history?
> >
> > Enjoy fishing, Jan?
> >
> > > I think Marg was just defending
> > > the CHILD'S right to be free of abuse by its parents!!!!!!

If she was, then she is going after the wrong person. Moms, much more
than dads, are guilty of physical abuse of children, and almost equally
guilty of sexually abusing their children. She either is unaware of the
facts, in which case she shouldn't speak to the subject, or else ignores
the facts; making her guilty of perpetuating the myth that men abuse
their children more than women. Paul L


> >
> > Read it again. She wasn't _just_ doing any such thing. She was accusing
> > Per of being complicit in child abuse, by virtue of the fact that he
> > said not everyone accused of it is guilty.
> >
> > > Which you ap-
> > > parently think is of less importance than protecting the abusers!
> >
> > Try, protecting those who have never committed abuse, who are accused
> > anyway.
> >
> > > At least, that's what it looks like!
> >
> > Only if you assume that all the accused are guilty.
> >
> > > Should we just let them ruin child-
> > > ren's lives, rather than attempt to make the system better????

Are you suggesting is better to put innocent men in jail for abuse that
to root out false accusations before innocent people go to jail? What
ever happened to "I would rather 10 guilty men go free, than one
innocent man spend even one day in prison."? Paul L

> >
> > We should certainly stop people like you and Marg ruining children's
> > (and their father's) lives by condoning false accusations; that would
> > make the system vastly better.
> >
> > > I don't have the stats,
> >
> > Obviously.
> >
> > > but I'll bet that for every case of "false
> > > accusation of abuse," there are 5 abusers getting away with it! Jan

You are right; you don't have the stats. So don't say it unless you can
back it up! Paul L

Fraxis Vendalwats

unread,
Jun 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/20/97
to

On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:10:27 -0400, _*The Navigator*_
<sha...@thethirdstone.com> wrote:
!
>***************************************************
>Horse Latitudes.
>
> Who was talking about mental states..?
> You just have a problem with Marg..
>
>get over it....
>
>john.
>***************************************************
>
>As a male, I support Womens Rights.
>
>As an employer, I waste little time on male female
>disputes, In my employ you either accept Equality
>and respect a womans view, or you hit the road...


And when will you get over your problem with the other poster?


Frax

As a male, I support fairness for men and women. Not "equality". Not
separatism.

As an employer or an employee, I believe disputes between men and
women should be settled amicably, whenever possible.

As a human being, I get a laugh from peasants who let the "powers" of
being an "employer" go to their heads.

John Mack

unread,
Jun 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/21/97
to

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------2972452627E2


Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

J Shearer wrote:

> > J Shearer wrote:

> > "You are women. Cunning ... deceit ... treachery ... manipulation ... guile ... these are your stock-in-trade. But, they make a poor shield against a hard blade and a murderous impulse." - Dave Sim, Reads.

> John, your "Sig" says a lot about you!

Have you - honestly - any idea how presumptuous this statement is?

> Why do you think "all" women are
> "Cunning, deceitful, treacherous, manipulative, guile-filled..."???

The quote is actually Dave Sim's, he justifies it at length.

> A sad history?

Enjoy fishing, Jan?

> I think Marg was just defending
> the CHILD'S right to be free of abuse by its parents!!!!!!

Read it again. She wasn't _just_ doing any such thing. She was accusing


Per of being complicit in child abuse, by virtue of the fact that he
said not everyone accused of it is guilty.

> Which you ap-
> parently think is of less importance than protecting the abusers!

Try, protecting those who have never committed abuse, who are accused
anyway.

> At least, that's what it looks like!

Only if you assume that all the accused are guilty.

> Should we just let them ruin child-
> ren's lives, rather than attempt to make the system better????

We should certainly stop people like you and Marg ruining children's


(and their father's) lives by condoning false accusations; that would
make the system vastly better.

> I don't have the stats,

Obviously.

> but I'll bet that for every case of "false
> accusation of abuse," there are 5 abusers getting away with it! Jan

I'd take that bet; try it the other way round.

--------------2972452627E2


Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="BLADE.SIG"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BLADE.SIG"

John Mack


Remove SPAMBLOCKER. from address to reply

South-East Queensland Men's Issues Homepage:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~tarim/men/menspage.htm
Last Updated: April 30, 1997

"You are women. Cunning ... deceit ... treachery ... manipulation ... guile ... these are your stock-in-trade. But, they make a poor shield against a hard blade and a murderous impulse." - Dave Sim, Reads.

--------------2972452627E2--


Paul A Laird

unread,
Jun 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/21/97
to

Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>
> In <19970620112...@ladder01.news.aol.com> pa...@aol.com
> (PangK) writes:
>
> (edit)>
>
> >ANDS, is one the women's movement has promoted! Over the years
> women's>groups have printed materials encouraging the use of FALSE
> allegatisons>as a financial and emotional tactic of revenge!!!!
> >
> --------
> Where can I find a printed copy of those "materials" sponsored
> by "women's groups"? :]
>
> Lefty

Thanks for the challenge Lefty. Glad you asked. See list below:
Robyn Morgan - editor - Ms magazine
Marilyn French - author - "The Women's Room"
Andrea Dworkin - author - "Fire and Ice" and "Pornography: Men
Possessing Women"
Barbara Jordan - Congresswoman - N.O.W. national convention 1975
Susan Griffin - author - "Rape: The All Male All American Crime"
Ti-Grace Atkinson - author - "Amazon Odyssey"
Catherine Comin - Dean, Vasser College - "Men who are unjustly accused
of rape can gain from the experience. It would do all men well to be
thus accused."
Anonymous "Feminist" in the Boronia Herald-Sun,Melbourne,Australia, Feb
9, 1996 - "My only comment to men is, if you don't like it (false
accusations of rape), bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you
down."

Want any more? Paul L

PangK

unread,
Jun 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/21/97
to

As a male you support women in *ALL* their actions?

You support Susan Smith in her downing of her sons? You support Eileen
Wournos in her killing spree? Did you support Margaret Thatcher as well?

That had to be one of the 10 stupidest statements made on the
internet this year. Hang in, you may win a pize at year's end.

PangK

unread,
Jun 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/21/97
to

Well Ms. Hemingway, the "Mother's Child Custody Combat Manual"
was a xeroxed typewritten manifeso that was circulated by women's
shelters starting in 1981 out of Connecticut and California. Later a
female
(Feminist) attorney in Arizona circulated a similar, albeit, more cleverly
worded
version encouraging the use of sexual abuse allegations as a divorce
tactic.
Wherether you could obtain one today is a question I can't answer. But I'd
suggest you read another feminist hysteria work... "The Courage To Heal""
by Bass and Davis. A collection of feminist bullshit!


Paul A Laird

unread,
Jun 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/21/97
to

Also Pang, that little manifesto was also on the NOW website about 10
months ago. Paul L

J. Chapman

unread,
Jun 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/22/97
to

In message <33AB50...@thethirdstone.com> - _*The Navigator*_
<sha...@thethirdstone.com>Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:54:11 -0400 writes:

>
>John Mack wrote:
>>
>
>john.
>**************************************
>
>As a male I firmly support Women in all
>their actions..
> john.

Here we have the archetype of male feminists; it doesn't matter what
"Women" do he'll support them. Mindlessly. No question of right or
wrong. Another member of the cult, hopelessly lost to humanity.


PangK

unread,
Jun 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/22/97
to

As a male he supports WOMEN's rights...................

Oh thou blind fool!


Per

unread,
Jun 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/22/97
to

On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:10:16 -0700, Paul A Laird
<THEL...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>_*The Navigator*_ wrote:
>>
>> John Mack wrote:
>> >

[...]


>> > > Should we just let them ruin child-
>> > > ren's lives, rather than attempt to make the system better????

.


>Are you suggesting is better to put innocent men in jail for abuse that
>to root out false accusations before innocent people go to jail? What
>ever happened to "I would rather 10 guilty men go free, than one
>innocent man spend even one day in prison."? Paul L

.
It has been replaced by the feminist slogans "why would she
lie," and "women don't lie about such things." As Marg, John and other
feminist demonstrate, extremist feminism has replaced the idea of
innocent until proven guilty with the idea of guilty at the moment of
accusation. And Marg, et al, are entirely willing to toss about false
accusations to suit their needs.
Feminism has replaced the idea of "it's better to let 10
guilty men go free ..." with the idea that it's better to jail 10, or
a hundred, or a thousand innocent men rather than letting one guilty
man go free. This is evident in their denials that false accusations
ever occur. If we were jailing suspected "communists" at this rate,
there would be an outcry.
-----
"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act,
that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class
that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, editor, Ms. Magazine
(For more on man-bashing, see Per's MANifesto Newsletter,
http://idt.net/~per2/manifest.htm)

Carol Ann Hemingway

unread,
Jun 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/22/97
to

In <33AC37...@worldnet.att.net> Paul A Laird

<THEL...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>PangK wrote:
>>
>> Well Ms. Hemingway, the "Mother's Child Custody Combat Manual"
>> was a xeroxed typewritten manifeso that was circulated by women's
>> shelters starting in 1981 out of Connecticut and California. Later a
>> female> (Feminist) attorney in Arizona circulated a similar, albeit,
more cleverly> worded> version encouraging the use of sexual abuse
allegations as a divorce>> tactic.>> Wherether you could obtain one
today is a question I can't answer. But I'd>> suggest you read another
feminist hysteria work... "The Courage To Heal""> by Bass and Davis. A
collection of feminist bullshit!

------------
I must have missed this Pango-trivia! That one lawyer and
one author write something you don't like hardly ascribes
an illegal view to feminism. I know Pango would like to
attach anything written by a woman to feminism, but it really
doesn't wash. If you have something in writing, WRITTEN by
a feminist "group", i.e. NOW, then we can talk.
---------------------


>
>Also Pang, that little manifesto was also on the NOW website about 10
>months ago. Paul L

------------------
Are you suggesting that NOW isn't free to show the work
of many, many authors on their website? I would think
that if they showed the work of Hitler that you would
assume they also support him. :]

Lefty


Per

unread,
Jun 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/22/97
to

On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:54:11 -0400, _*The Navigator*_
<sha...@thethirdstone.com> wrote:

>John Mack wrote:

>As a male I firmly support Women in all
>their actions..
> john.

Including false accusations of child abuse.
Including, it would appear, the hysteria over "satanic cults"
in daycare centers, which is promoted by feminists including Gloria
Steinem.
Including, it would appear, false accusations based on
so-called "recovered memories," which are supported by feminist lawyer
Gloria Allred.
And since you support women in all their actions, you
apparently support the women in New York who killed her five babies,
one after the other, and claimed it was Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.
We'll have to see how much you support them when a false
accusation is aimed at you.

MADDOG

unread,
Jun 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/22/97
to

On 19 Jun 1997 10:45:28 GMT, nojun...@tnrltd.com (J. Chapman) wrote:

>In message <5o9ndh$9o6$1...@kanga.accessone.com> - J Shearer <@accessone.com>
>writes:

> > I don't have the stats, but I'll bet that for every case of "false


> >accusation of abuse," there are 5 abusers getting away with it! Jan

> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>I think this is a perfect example of "feminist research"; "Let's see, I
>don't know what the real numbers are so I'll just make some up that fit
>my preconceptions". Wait, no, feminist research is more like "I know the real
>data but it doesn't fit my preconceptions so I'll just make some new data
>up..."
>

Not to mention that false accusations of rape AND undetected abuse
are BOTH undesireable. What is the point of comparing one to the
other, unless the suggestion is that one JUSTIFIES the other? Hardly!
______________ Yup! This'd be a SIGNATURE ______________

The opinions expressed herein are simply that: OPINIONS!

After all, WHAT do I know?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"We cannot direct the wind, but we CAN adjust our sails"
--------------------------------------------------------

Me: I'm 36, male, single, Canadian and straight.

SEND E-MAIL TO: rmad...@bigfoot.com

_____________________ GO FOR IT! _______________________

Paul A Laird

unread,
Jun 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/22/97
to

No, I'm suggesting, based upon yours and their previous history, that
there exists in this country a concentrated effort to label every man as
a rapist, molestor, abuser, you name it; so as to propogate feministic
agendas. Paul L

PangK

unread,
Jun 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/22/97
to

Carol Ann Hemingway FEMINIST says:

CAH> I must have missed this Pango-trivia! That one lawyer and one author
CAH> write something you don't like hardly ascribes an illegal view to
femiinism.

Ms. Hemingway, you demanded "ONE" example. I gave several. Others
now have provided about a dozen. The "Mother's Child Custody Combat
Manual"
was distributed through women's shelters. We *know* that they were sent
out
through centers in California and Coinnecticut and Wisconsin. In those
typewritten xeroxed pamphlets they openly advocated making FALSE
allegations to negate father custody cases. Now what of that don't you
seem to understand
Carol? And they told HOW to do it. How to locate willing social workers
who
would confirm the abuse and aid them by giving false testimony in courts.
And
those pamphlets were vaguely referenced in the NOW Times some years ago.
By being described as "booklets helpful to women facing a custody battle."
And
the Book "Courage To Heal" was written by TWO women. (Both claimed to be
lesbians.)

CAH> I know Pango would like to attach anything written by a woman to CAH>


feminism, but it really doesn't wash.

It does when it is referenced in the NOW Times Carol.

PL> Also, Pang, that little manifesto was also on the NOW website about 10
PL> months ago.

CAH> Are you suggesting that NOW isn't free to show the work of many,
CAH> many authors on their website?

No Carol, I think he was referring to your, and Feminism's hypocricy
in rationalizing the distribution of such material whilst trying to claim
that
they have no role in it. Which goes back to an old comment of mine,
"A feminist can do anything a man can do, EXCEPT tell the truth! And you,
Carol,
are famous for bullshitting. You just make up claims as you go along. You
and a few of your feminist friends seem to think that hyping statistics,
and lying of the whole cloth enhances your position. Yopu've gotten to the
point where you are
incapable of telling what is real and your manufactured bullshit. I think
you come
tto believe in things like the little card given to Gayla Zigo and the
General having a gun to the back of her head MAKING her say all those
nasty things about
Saint Flinn! Poor little Kelli Flinn! POOR BABY! Poor HELPLESS little
girl! Hey, weren't you the one SCREAMING about how she graduated at
the TOP of the Air Force academy class last year?????????????????? Huh?
Now poor girl, she just didn't understand! Poor helpless Kelli!
Awwwwwwwww!

The simple fact is that there ARE over 700,000 FALSE allegations of
abuse
made everyu year in America. And I really don't give a rats ass for all
your
idiotic rationalizations. I don't like false allegations made against
women.
And I don't like the ones made against men. YOU on the other hand have
such a CLOSED mind and so lop sided that you *rationalize* everything
that is even slightly negtaive about women. You see disagreement with ONE
woman as an attack on ALL women! In short, Carol, you are PSYCHOTIC!
As are SAA and BA.


PangK

unread,
Jun 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/23/97
to

The following interesting exchange took place..

The Navigator said:

Na> As a male I firmly support support in all their actions..

And the reply

JC> Here we have the archetype of male feminists; it doesn't matter what
JC> "Women" do he'll support them. Mindlessly. No question of right or
wrong.

No what isn't spoken int he subtext. Which is... " If I cut my balls
off in
public an I have a little pussy, huh, huh, can I, can I huh?" We see these
clowns
clutching at women's skirts BEGGING to be laid! Desperately seeking
women's
approval and willing to humiliate themselves and prostitute their
intellect
in any way so as tyo earn a momen's approval from mommy! These males
didn't get adequate breast feeding as infants. They were rejected by their
own mothers so they try to win approval by doing what they think women
want! But
here is the fun part, women do NOT want this kind of testiclular deprived
individual. They still want a MAN, well except for those who want a WOMAN,
in which case the Navigator is left out in both cases. He could, however,
see
a doctor and get THE "operation." But somehow I think even then he'd not
appeal to lesbians. Poor fellow. Has to prove his manhood by *trying* to
appear
a new age sensitive guy. Want to bet that EVERY secretary in his business
has his fingerprints on their boobs and ass?

Bobby Packwood?????


Eric Conrad

unread,
Jun 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/23/97
to

In article <33AB50...@thethirdstone.com>,

_*The Navigator*_ <sha...@thethirdstone.com> wrote:
>As a male I firmly support Women in all
>their actions..

You said ``all''...

Are you saying that you support women who make
false allegations of rape and abuse? Are you
saying that you support women who commit murder --
even when they murder other women?

J Shearer

unread,
Jun 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/23/97
to

eco...@math.ohio-state.edu (Eric Conrad) writes: > In article <33AB50...@thethirdstone.com>,

> _*The Navigator*_ <sha...@thethirdstone.com> wrote:
> >As a male I firmly support Women in all
> >their actions..
>
> You said ``all''...
>
> Are you saying that you support women who make
> false allegations of rape and abuse? Are you
> saying that you support women who commit murder --
> even when they murder other women?
>

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gawd, Eric, you are SO literal!! Do you actually BELIEVE that by his
statement, John meant he supports the WORST-CASE SCENARIO of criminal
activity??? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you
were just being sarcastic! Jan
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Per

unread,
Jun 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/23/97
to

On 22 Jun 1997 14:09:28 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway) wrote:
[...]
.
. ------------
> That one lawyer and
> one author write something you don't like hardly ascribes
> an illegal view to feminism.
.

> I know Pango would like to
> attach anything written by a woman to feminism, but it really
> doesn't wash.
.
That's true, Lefty. Many people try to ascribe anything
negative to feminism. Some people will go as far as to try to claim
that Gloria Steinem and Andrea Dworkin are feminists! But where is
their proof? Steinem may at one time have been connected with Ms.
Magazine. But we are beyond the stage where we believe in guilt by
association. As for Dworkin, she has never been elected to any post
with NOW or any other feminist organization. So how in the world can
people call her a feminist? Other people who have advocated
man-bashing and false accusations may have called themselves
feminists. But this is merely their own description. Who gave them the
right to call themselves feminists? Indeed, they may have been
backlashers intent on hurting feminism.
[...]
> ------------------

> Are you suggesting that NOW isn't free to show the work
> of many, many authors on their website? I would think
> that if they showed the work of Hitler that you would
> assume they also support him. :]

> Lefty

Eeeee-yep. As did enough German women to put him into office.
Per.


John Mack

unread,
Jun 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/24/97
to

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------3BD8A064A00


Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Per wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:54:11 -0400, _*The Navigator*_
> <sha...@thethirdstone.com> wrote:
>

> >John Mack wrote:
>
> >As a male I firmly support Women in all
> >their actions..

> > john.
>
> Including false accusations of child abuse.
> Including, it would appear, the hysteria over "satanic cults"
> in daycare centers, which is promoted by feminists including Gloria
> Steinem.
> Including, it would appear, false accusations based on
> so-called "recovered memories," which are supported by feminist lawyer
> Gloria Allred.
> And since you support women in all their actions, you
> apparently support the women in New York who killed her five babies,
> one after the other, and claimed it was Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.
> We'll have to see how much you support them when a false
> accusation is aimed at you.

H'mmm ... that false accusation thing happened to me sooner than you
thought ;-) ...
Check your attributions - I didn't make the above comment, or the one
you accused me of elsewhere in this thread. Come on! I offend enough
people as it is, without you misquoting me ;-).

--------------3BD8A064A00


Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="BLADE.SIG"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="BLADE.SIG"

John Mack
Remove SPAMBLOCKER. from address to reply

South-East Queensland Men's Issues Homepage:
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~tarim/men/menspage.htm
Last Updated: April 30, 1997

"You are women. Cunning ... deceit ... treachery ... manipulation ... guile ... these are your stock-in-trade. But, they make a poor shield against a hard blade and a murderous impulse." - Dave Sim, Reads.

--------------3BD8A064A00--


J. Chapman

unread,
Jun 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/24/97
to

In message <33AA81...@thethirdstone.com> - _*The Navigator*_

<sha...@thethirdstone.com>Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:10:27 -0400 writes:
>***************************************************
>

>As a male, I support Womens Rights.
>
>As an employer, I waste little time on male female
>disputes, In my employ you either accept Equality
>and respect a womans view, or you hit the road...

As a male, I support Men's Rights.

As an employer, I waste little time on male female
disputes, In my employ you either accept Equality

and respect a man's view, or you hit the road...

Carol Ann Hemingway

unread,
Jun 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/24/97
to

In <33ADCA...@worldnet.att.net> Paul A Laird

<THEL...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:
>>
>> In <33AC37...@worldnet.att.net> Paul A Laird
>> <THEL...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> >
>> >PangK wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Well Ms. Hemingway, the "Mother's Child Custody Combat Manual"
>> >> was a xeroxed typewritten manifeso that was circulated by women's
>> >> shelters starting in 1981 out of Connecticut and California.
Later a
>> >> female> (Feminist) attorney in Arizona circulated a similar,
albeit,
>> more cleverly> worded> version encouraging the use of sexual abuse
>> allegations as a divorce>> tactic.>> Wherether you could obtain one
>> today is a question I can't answer. But I'd>> suggest you read
another
>> feminist hysteria work... "The Courage To Heal""> by Bass and Davis.
A
>> collection of feminist bullshit!
>>
>> ------------
>> I must have missed this Pango-trivia! That one lawyer and

>> one author write something you don't like hardly ascribes
>> an illegal view to feminism. I know Pango would like to

>> attach anything written by a woman to feminism, but it
really
>> doesn't wash. If you have something in writing, WRITTEN by
>> a feminist "group", i.e. NOW, then we can talk.
>> ---------------------
>> >
>> >Also Pang, that little manifesto was also on the NOW website about
10
>> >months ago. Paul L

>>
>> ------------------
>> Are you suggesting that NOW isn't free to show the work
>> of many, many authors on their website? I would think
>> that if they showed the work of Hitler that you would
>> assume they also support him. :]
>>
>> Lefty
>
>No, I'm suggesting, based upon yours and their previous history, that
>there exists in this country a concentrated effort to label every man
as >a rapist, molestor, abuser, you name it; so as to propogate
feministic >agendas. Paul L

-------------------
Suggest away; a "bucket" labeled feminist doesn't hold
any water when it has more holes than a swiss cheese.

Lefty


J. Chapman

unread,
Jun 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/24/97
to

In message <19970622191...@ladder02.news.aol.com> - pa...@aol.com

(PangK)22 Jun 1997 19:14:46 GMT writes:
>
>Carol Ann Hemingway FEMINIST says:
>
>CAH> I must have missed this Pango-trivia! That one lawyer and one author
>CAH> write something you don't like hardly ascribes an illegal view to
>femiinism.
>
> Ms. Hemingway, you demanded "ONE" example. I gave several. Others
>now have provided about a dozen. The "Mother's Child Custody Combat
>Manual"

>was distributed through women's shelters. We *know* that they were sent
>out
>through centers in California and Coinnecticut and Wisconsin. In those
>typewritten xeroxed pamphlets they openly advocated making FALSE
>allegations to negate father custody cases. Now what of that don't you
>seem to understand

If someone has access to a copy of this I'll be glad to digitize the
relevant sections and post them so we can see what men are up against.


MADDOG

unread,
Jun 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/24/97
to

On 22 Jun 1997 11:52:07 GMT, pa...@aol.com (PangK) wrote:

>As a male he supports WOMEN's rights...................
>
>Oh thou blind fool!
>

In a previous posting, I think I heard the term "women's rights
advocates and their doe-eyed followers". Got a charge out of that!
Rick.

J. Chapman

unread,
Jun 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/24/97
to

In message <33AB50...@thethirdstone.com> - _*The Navigator*_
<sha...@thethirdstone.com>Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:54:11 -0400 writes:
>
>John Mack wrote:
>>
>**************************************

>
>As a male I firmly support Women in all
>their actions..
> john.

Here we have the archetype of male feminists; it doesn't matter what

"Women" do he'll support them. Mindlessly. No question of right or

PangK

unread,
Jun 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/24/97
to

Carol Ann Hemingway spews:

CAH> a "bucket" labeled feminist doesn't hold any water when it has more
holes
CAH> than a swiss cheese.

Jesus Christ Carol, you're finally catching on to feminism huh?

PangK

unread,
Jun 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/24/97
to

Feminists and their male ZOMBIE supporters!


MADDOG

unread,
Jun 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/24/97
to

Anne

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

MADDOG wrote:
>
> On 22 Jun 1997 11:52:07 GMT, pa...@aol.com (PangK) wrote:
>
> >As a male he supports WOMEN's rights...................
> >
> >Oh thou blind fool!
> >
> In a previous posting, I think I heard the term "women's rights
> advocates and their doe-eyed followers". Got a charge out of that!
> Rick.

Why am I not surprised at this comment? It appears to inflame - but
really Rick, what does it mean? Are you so angry that you can not
longer express yourself properly?

Anne

Anne

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

PangK wrote:
>
> Feminists and their male ZOMBIE supporters!


My previous statement - 'this is a bright comment' was intended to be
sarcastic - you zombie
Anne

Anne

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

PangK wrote:
>
> Feminists and their male ZOMBIE supporters!


Oh this is bright - well done!

Anne

Carol Ann Hemingway

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

In <19970624135...@ladder02.news.aol.com> pa...@aol.com

--------
You mean YOUR INTERPRETATION of such, don't you?

Lefty
>


PangK

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

Well let's say that the zoombie like male-feminists aren't "well done"
they're half baked. Just remember, Ted Bundy was a "feminist male" and
even worked in a rape crisis center as a counsellor. (Aussies should study
a little
American history.) (Ted Bundy was a serial killer and he raped and
murdered
more than a dozen women that we know about.)

I would also point out other male Zombie feminist males of note, Ted
Kennedy,
Dan Inouye, and Bobby Packwood to name a few.


Gerard S. Harbison

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

J Shearer wrote:

:> eco...@math.ohio-state.edu (Eric Conrad) writes: > In article
<33AB50...@thethirdstone.com>,
:> > _*The Navigator*_ <sha...@thethirdstone.com> wrote:
:> > >As a male I firmly support Women in all
:> > >their actions..

:> > You said ``all''...

:> > Are you saying that you support women who make
:> > false allegations of rape and abuse? Are you
:> > saying that you support women who commit murder --
:> > even when they murder other women?


:> Gawd, Eric, you are SO literal!! Do you actually BELIEVE that by his


:> statement, John meant he supports the WORST-CASE SCENARIO of
criminal
> activity??? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you
> were just being sarcastic! Jan


What part of the word 'all' don't you understand?

Carol Ann Hemingway

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

In <pepke_NO_SPAM-2...@pepkemac.scri.fsu.edu>
pepke_...@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
>
>In article <5ojbmo$1...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
>lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:

>> Are you suggesting that NOW isn't free to show the work
>> of many, many authors on their website? I would think
>> that if they showed the work of Hitler that you would
>> assume they also support him. :]
>

>Yup.

---------
That seems fairly limited to me. For example, I have
been known to listen to a rabid hate-speech host named
Michael Savage; I might (if I had a home page) quote
him from time to time to express views that oppose or
compare with mine.
------------------------
>
>If any other political and/or lobbying organization "showed the work"
of>Hitler on their official website, it would be quite reasonable to
assume>that they supported him, and just about everyone would do so.

--------
Nah! It would depend upon HOW it was used. Showing the
words of Hitler might provide a valid education. If, for
example, we used some of his political theory to show how
the German folk started to admire him, that would indeed
prove to be educational. For feminists to show how various
groups have approached child custody issues would hardly be
a "support" of that unless they come out and SUPPORT IT.

----------
>
>Why is NOW exempt? Do women have some sort of special dispensation
>against being held responsible for their actions?

-----------
Well, let's see....one politician sits on the same podium
as another politician, does that mean they SUPPORT one another?
I'm afraid you have painted with too broad a brush. The term
"support" is very limited. Certainly NOW is free to post many,
many pieces of information without it being considered
"support" of a particular policy.

Lefty
>

Gerard S. Harbison

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

Anne wrote:
>

> > In message <33AB50...@thethirdstone.com> - _*The Navigator*_

> > >As a male I firmly support Women in all
> > >their actions..

> Actually whoever wrote the above para - is the lost one. John did not
> say 'it doesn't matter what women do - he'll support them, he actually
> said - he 'supported women in their actions'.

The word *all* looks clear enough to me. Why'd you leave it out?

I think there is a
> different meaning there. And what is this garbage about 'cult'? Gosh
> you are paranoid. We are no where near having a matriarchy yet - I hope
> you aren't around the day it comes down, though - because you'll never
> be able to exist in a system where this sort of rhetorical garbage would
> hopefully be banned.

And deliberately rewriting what has been written will be a necessary
social skill?

Rich

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

John Cooper wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:01:06 +1000, Anne <q952...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au>,
> a shameless apologist for feminism, wrote:

>
> > J. Chapman wrote:
> > >
> > > In message <33AB50...@thethirdstone.com> - _*The Navigator*_
> > > <sha...@thethirdstone.com>Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:54:11 -0400 writes:
> > > >
> > > >John Mack wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >**************************************
> > > >
> > > >As a male I firmly support Women in all
> > > >their actions..
> > > > john.
> > >
> > > Here we have the archetype of male feminists; it doesn't matter what
> > > "Women" do he'll support them. Mindlessly. No question of right or
> > > wrong. Another member of the cult, hopelessly lost to humanity.
> >
> > Actually whoever wrote the above para - is the lost one. John did not
> > say 'it doesn't matter what women do - he'll support them, he actually
> > said - he 'supported women in their actions'. I think there is a
> > different meaning there.
>
> It's incredible that Anne kept John Mack's original quote and
> ATTEMPTS to correct J. Chapman for his own observation. John
> Mack didn't just say he "supported women in their actions."
> John Mack said he "firmly support(s) Women in ALL their
> actions." (Emphasis added.) Has whiny feminist rhetoric so
> blinded Anne that she can't even correctly read what someone
> wrote in FULL?

Say, wasn't John Mack the guy that admitted to <gasp> -telemarketing-?
If so it's clear that he is capable of anything. :^}

I mean, isn't that one of the few things worse than rape?

Rich

Fraxis Vendalwats

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:01:06 +1000, Anne wrote:

>J. Chapman wrote:
>>
>> >John Mack wrote:
>> >>
>> >**************************************
>> >
>> >As a male I firmly support Women in all
>> >their actions..
>> > john.
>>
>> Here we have the archetype of male feminists; it doesn't matter what
>> "Women" do he'll support them. Mindlessly. No question of right or
>> wrong. Another member of the cult, hopelessly lost to humanity.
>
>Actually whoever wrote the above para - is the lost one. John did not
>say 'it doesn't matter what women do - he'll support them, he actually
>said - he 'supported women in their actions'.

Practicing your speed-reading, are you? Or is it just feminist
selective reading techinques? Let me repeat the infamous phrase for
you to read more carefully:

_>> >As a male I firmly support Women in all
_>> >their actions..
_>> > john.

Notice a little three-letter word beginning with "a" and ending with
"ll" in there? You missed it in your feminist repackaging of the
phrase; however, those three letters do have a significant effect on
the meaning.

> I think there is a

>different meaning there. And what is this garbage about 'cult'?

The "cult" remark is a workable description of feminism, which is
nothing more than a religion, complete with dogma, saints, fallen
angels, rituals, mantras, temples and holy books.

> Gosh
>you are paranoid. We are no where near having a matriarchy yet - I hope
>you aren't around the day it comes down, though - because you'll never
>be able to exist in a system where this sort of rhetorical garbage would
>hopefully be banned.

What a perfect example of modern feminism: revenge and censorship.
Please tell us more!

>Anne

Frax


Southern Man

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

In article <33AF89...@SPAMBLOCKER.ozemail.com.au>,
ta...@SPAMBLOCKER.ozemail.com.au says...

> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> --------------3BD8A064A00
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Per wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:54:11 -0400, _*The Navigator*_
> > <sha...@thethirdstone.com> wrote:
> >
> > >John Mack wrote:
> >
> > >As a male I firmly support Women in all
> > >their actions..
> > > john.
> >
> John Mack you are henceforth forbidden to refer to yourself as a man.

Eric Pepke

unread,
Jun 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/25/97
to

In article <5ojbmo$1...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
> Are you suggesting that NOW isn't free to show the work
> of many, many authors on their website? I would think
> that if they showed the work of Hitler that you would
> assume they also support him. :]

Yup.

If any other political and/or lobbying organization "showed the work" of


Hitler on their official website, it would be quite reasonable to assume
that they supported him, and just about everyone would do so.

Why is NOW exempt? Do women have some sort of special dispensation


against being held responsible for their actions?

Eric Pepke | Everyone's dream
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute | Is to unstep
Florida State University | The butterfly.
pe...@scri.fsu.edu | -EP

Anne

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to

J. Chapman wrote:
>
> In message <33AB50...@thethirdstone.com> - _*The Navigator*_
> <sha...@thethirdstone.com>Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:54:11 -0400 writes:
> >
> >John Mack wrote:
> >>
> >**************************************
> >
> >As a male I firmly support Women in all
> >their actions..
> > john.
>
> Here we have the archetype of male feminists; it doesn't matter what
> "Women" do he'll support them. Mindlessly. No question of right or
> wrong. Another member of the cult, hopelessly lost to humanity.

Actually whoever wrote the above para - is the lost one. John did not
say 'it doesn't matter what women do - he'll support them, he actually

said - he 'supported women in their actions'. I think there is a
different meaning there. And what is this garbage about 'cult'? Gosh


you are paranoid. We are no where near having a matriarchy yet - I hope
you aren't around the day it comes down, though - because you'll never
be able to exist in a system where this sort of rhetorical garbage would
hopefully be banned.

Anne

Cheryl

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to

Teddi Wight Light wrote:

Anne wrote:>

Good on you Anne,
I'm really tired and frustrated as seeing only the radical feminists
arguing (different from discussing) in these ngs!!! It's about time
some of us who espouse feminism from a more mature and all emcompassing
angle got on here & introduced others to a way of thinking that is a
non-sexist contemporary alternative. This alternative espouses
empowerment for ALL rather than subjugation of the weaker. Lets try
using an ideology that embodies a value & action orientation to problem
solving, and self empowerment for both males & females.

Teddi Wight Light -
"May Light Shine upon You
May Love be your Guide
May Peace always walk at your Side."


Anne

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to

Yes Teddi
One can only try. And I refuse to keep quiet when I see that sort of
rhetoric posted - keep challenging - keep debating - the net has become
an important tool for women to express their opinions. This form of
communication needs to be made available to as many people as possible
in order for that to occur.

Recent govt policies in Australia regarding child care funding smack of
'let's get women back in the kitchen' sentiment. I wonder what policies
will be brought out to 'restrict access to women on the net' (and other
minority groups). Hopefully it will be too late for the 'policy makers'
to change anything by the time they realise what's going down.

Anne

PangK

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to

Anne -

And just what is "going down" on the net?


PangK

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to

Therre is a good article available somewhere on the netg entitled.
"Nation Without Fathers" which describes the feminst utopia where the male
gender
is banned. And the totalitarian system that enforces it.

DOn't know where it can be found now.


PangK

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to

As the "ladies" of the net hail their Hero John.... I would reminf
them that
another Feminist HERO was no less than TED BUNDY! Yes, that's right,
THEODORE BUNDY, the guy the State of Florida erased from the human
community for the murders of more than a dozen women following brutal
rapes.

Ted Bundy was a "rape counsellor" at a women's crisis center and a
frequent
speaker on women's rights. What I found amusing was some of the video
footage of Bundy on TV talk shows. Oh golly, how much he sounded like
Johnny boy
and little AL Fresco. Good little boys. (Dan Innouye, Bobby Packwood,
Teddy Kennedy etc.) ALl loudly in favor of women's rights. All "feminist"
men.
All hanging out by women's groups. All sexual predators.

Sometimes I swear women aren't all that bright. Reminds me of the
lady here
in Florida who let a guy who sold telephones (The Phone doctor) do a gynno
exam on her, and didn't catch on that this clown didn't know a damn thing
about medicine and then had him examine her 17 year old daughter!!!!!

HELLO! GIRLS!??? Anybody home??????


Carol Ann Hemingway

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to

In <19970626032...@ladder01.news.aol.com> pa...@aol.com
(PangK) writes:
>
> Carol, *YOU* described feminism as a bucket that won't hold water.
I>just went along with you.

---------
No I didn't "ignorito" (if it were a word in Spanish,
it would mean little ignorant one). I said that the
buket (labled as feminism) that you bigots created
couldn't hold water. Re-read time!
---------------------

It's an intellectually pretty lame concept. So
>lamethat it must be predicated and supported on lies, half truths,
glittering>generalities, and scapegoating. It cannot stand on its own
two feet>ideologically.

---------
.....and, little Pango, Pango....you are entirely free
to believe that if you like. I must say, however, that
it's doing pretty well with the electorate.
-------------------------------


>To support it you *MUST* lie! And you must overwork every
psychological>defense>mechanism known to science.

-------------------------------
Wow; imagine the magnitude of such a terrible con-
spiracy. Don't forget.....it was feminists who shot
Kennedy.
--------------
>
> In short, while feminism states some lofty and noble sounding
>purposes, it>fall flat on its broad ass intellectuially, require the
more far out>adherants such>as yourself, to build a support structure
based on bullshit. Various>arguments,>like to epedemic of wife
battering on Superbowl Sunday never quite seem to>stand>the light of
day very well. Or the now 1.1 MILLION women that die every
>year from>male imposed anorexia. Or the 1.2 TRILLION rapes per
picosecond in>America. Naw, you don't exaggerate much!

--------
I would like to see present day stats of superbowl Sunday
domestic violence; I don't suppose you have those, do you?
I love how little boys throw in the towel when it gets rough.
They do that by throwing in the few faulty stats they have
found from FEMALE authors they catagorize as "all feminists".
It's just another sham!
--------------------------------------
>
> Carol, watched your claims on Lt. Flinn, you can sure sling the
>bullshit.You ought to enter the bullchip festivals., You can sure
sling it furtherthan anyone I have seen in Texas or Wyoming.

---------
Ah, well, if you go back and look at all my claims about
Flinn, you might also see how much of it came to pass.
Like my wine, I like my "bullshit" dry , with
a firm body and substance so that it hits the spot.

Lefty
>


PangK

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to

Yes Carol, do you want the stats on Superbowl Sunday DV stats? Just
one more example of how intellectually deprived feminists are. The
*official*
reporting shows a marked decline in DV reports on Superbowl Sunday. Maybe
its because the guys are too busy watching the game to beat their wives.
The 1995 figures showed it to be a decline by 12% over other Sunday
averages
for the rest of the year. Oh Golly, there we go again, using that damn
NCIS
stuff. And when you girls went to so much trouble making up the claims.
Naw, honey, you'd NEVER exaggerate, would you? Like the CARD you claimed
that Gayla Zigo's commander MADE her read from at gunpoint? Naw, Caol, you
didn't just make that little lie up to embelish your story, did you?

It isn't just feminists who have been caught in lies Carol, YOU have
tried
to sell some whoppers right here. Which is why you fit the classification
of
being a "Femagogue."

I know you don't like it, and your little friends have gone to great
lengths to *try* to discredit it, but Dr.. Sommers book "Who Stole
Feminism" pretty well
demyths many of the false claims of feminism. Or in less noble terms,
exposes the lies feminists tell. You are a hardliner and at this late date
I'm not at all surprised Carol that *you* would cling to that idiotic line
on the epedemic
of wife beating on Superbowl Sunday well after the women who fabricated it
have admitted they lied. You are certainly one of the last TRUE BELIEVERS!
And
certainly as the intellectual ship of feminsm sinks you will go down with
it
wilding gesticulating and waving that clenched fist of yours gritting your
teeth and snarling.


PangK

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to

What claims about Flinn that have come to pass? That they chucked
her ass out? Or her book and movie deals? Oh geez, who debated that?
Now who has come forward to expose the gun at Gayla Zigo's head and the
card she was forced to read by her commanders? (YOUR CLAIM)

PangK

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to

Carol Ann Hem,ingway moans about the "little boys" throwing out
discussions
about the "few faulty stats" they have found from feminists.

Few? I guess that depends on one's definition of "few." Or the definition
of
"many." If millions is your definition of many, then you have a point. If
dozens
or hundreds fits your definition of few, then you have a point.

Let's just look at SOME of the stats where feminists have been proved to
have
lied (or exaggerated).

Parental abductions. In the 1980's when feminists were shrill on the
subject
of parental kidnappings (by men) they began using claims of statistics
that
had more children missing than existed at the time. Feminists seemed bent
on proving the theory that women have poor math skills. Statistics printed

in Ms. Magazine and the NOW Times if the math was followed would have had
100 million missing children. The *actual* figure for that year from the
federal government was 2,000 children nationwide.

We've had numerous feminist publications, including Ms. Magazine, Working
Woman, and the NOW Times repeat the claim that 1 million women die every
year from Anorexia. (Less than 100 do.)

We've had claims on child sexual abuse attributed to women's (feminist)
organizations including NOW that are many times the actual statistics.

We have had rape statistics that are many hundreds of times the actual
incidence as tracked by federal agencies. I have done talk shows with
many feminists including Gloria Allred claiming tens of millions of rapes
a year,
when the worst year on record showed about 36,000 rapes in the nation.
That damn NCIS stuff again.

We have feminist organizations like NOW screaming of how men "abandon"
their
families. When in point of fact the data shows that *WOMEN* initiate the
divoreces in 93% of the cases. And that 75% of those begin with an
ex-parte restrianing order compelling the man to leave the home. And
despite the conclusive evidence that in 33% of the divorces women block
ALL contact between the men and their children despite court orders and
attempts to enforce
them through contempt citations.

Feminists have claimed that *MEN* win 75% of the custody battles. And
continue to this day to maintain that claim when study after study have
shown
that when you examine those cases where the courts make the determination
on custody, as opposed to stipulations, women win well over 9 out of 10
custody contests. Yet the NOW Times claims contrary, the NOW website
claims contrary. And feminist spokeswomen continue to claim men win
most custody cases. Sometime claiming men win ALL custody fights. IN
radio debates I have done with feminists representatives, the statistical
claims on custody range from 55% to 100% for men. Depends on what
seems to suit the woman.

I could go on. I find it much harder to find an area where feminists tell
the truth.
Not on abortions, wage comparisons, sexual harassment. It just seems to
be genetic. Comes with that extra chromosome you girls have. It must be
the lie gene.

Anne

unread,
Jun 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/26/97
to

Rich wrote:
>
> John Cooper wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:01:06 +1000, Anne <q952...@mail.connect.usq.edu.au>,
> > a shameless apologist for feminism, wrote:
> >
> > > J. Chapman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In message <33AB50...@thethirdstone.com> - _*The Navigator*_
> > > > <sha...@thethirdstone.com>Fri, 20 Jun 1997 23:54:11 -0400 writes:
> > > > >
> > > > >John Mack wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >**************************************
> > > > >
> > > > >As a male I firmly support Women in all
> > > > >their actions..
> > > > > john.
> > > >
> > > > Here we have the archetype of male feminists; it doesn't matter what
> > > > "Women" do he'll support them. Mindlessly. No question of right or
> > > > wrong. Another member of the cult, hopelessly lost to humanity.
> > >
> > > Actually whoever wrote the above para - is the lost one. John did not
> > > say 'it doesn't matter what women do - he'll support them, he actually
> > > said - he 'supported women in their actions'. I think there is a
> > > different meaning there.
> >
> > It's incredible that Anne kept John Mack's original quote and
> > ATTEMPTS to correct J. Chapman for his own observation. John
> > Mack didn't just say he "supported women in their actions."
> > John Mack said he "firmly support(s) Women in ALL their
> > actions." (Emphasis added.) Has whiny feminist rhetoric so
> > blinded Anne