Men have it far worst yet women still complain?
connor_a
worst jobs in society, MANipulating men in the process to perform them
in exchange for her "love" and "equality", two mutually exclusive
terms.
No feminist can be deeply and emotionally involved with a loving man
at one moment whilst spitting misandric venom at all men the next.
Just ask all those childless feminist leaders!
Hyerdahl1
>From: conn...@hotmail.com (connor_a)
>Date: 3/3/2004 11:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <6688b088.04030...@posting.google.com>
>
>Protect me pinks exempt themselves on purpose from the worst of the>worst jobs
in society, MANipulating men in the process to perform them in exchange for her
"love" and "equality", two mutually exclusive>terms.
No one can force men to take risky work, connor. Are you saying men are so
very weak minded that they can't make those choices for themselves? How
stupid. You seem to be suggesting that men take on difficult work so that they
can get women to love them. How do you account for the fact that so many
SINGLE men DO risky work? How do you account for the riskier HOBBIES men have?
How many female race car drivers and bunggee jumpers have you seen?
>No feminist can be deeply and emotionally involved with a loving man
>at one moment whilst spitting misandric venom at all men the next.
>
>Just ask all those childless feminist leaders!
It is just as possible for a woman to hate men and love one man as it is for a
man to hate women but love one woman. Just ask Archie Bunker. AS to
"childless feminists", most women have children, whether or not they have a man
in their lives.
>
>
>
>
>
Each colony is a family unit, comprising a single egg-laying female ...The
workers cooperate in the food gathering, nest building and rearing offspring.
Males are reared only at times of year when their presence is required.
(Secret Life of Bees)
offline
"Hyerdahl1" <hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040304101439...@mb-m16.aol.com...
> >Subject: Men have it far worst yet women still complain?
> >From: conn...@hotmail.com (connor_a)
> >Date: 3/3/2004 11:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <6688b088.04030...@posting.google.com>
> >
> >Protect me pinks exempt themselves on purpose from the worst of the>worst
jobs
> in society, MANipulating men in the process to perform them in exchange
for her
> "love" and "equality", two mutually exclusive>terms.
>
> No one can force men to take risky work, connor. Are you saying men are
so
> very weak minded that they can't make those choices for themselves? How
i don't think that's what he's saying. I think it's more to the effect that
women make their demands that she remain in the home and laze around while
he goes earn the crust. If he wants to remain in his child/ren's life - then
he must submit and obey else be forced out of the home he has built/paid
for; child/ren's life, (yet remain in his position of paying again for her
choices) etc. etc.
> stupid. You seem to be suggesting that men take on difficult work so that
they
> can get women to love them. How do you account for the fact that so many
Are you implying that women would have gone down the coal mines and killed
themselves slowly by form of black lung disease etc. in order to supply the
society of that time with the fuel and energy required for homes to run? Or
are you saying that women would have stood in the front line of wars, losing
life and limb to ensure the safety of the next generation and culture? Are
you telling us that women would have willingly installed the pylons and
electricity cables or worked in the stinking sewers and filtering the shit
from our systems in order to ensure our comfort and health of the times ?
No, i didnt' think so...
> SINGLE men DO risky work?
It's called sacrifice for society - it's what men are known for, a noble
giving value, one worthy of recognition, not that feminist give recognition
for anything other than their own lies and underhand tactics.
How do you account for the riskier HOBBIES men have?
> How many female race car drivers and bunggee jumpers have you seen?
>
> >No feminist can be deeply and emotionally involved with a loving man
> >at one moment whilst spitting misandric venom at all men the next.
> >
> >Just ask all those childless feminist leaders!
>
> It is just as possible for a woman to hate men and love one man as it is
for a
> man to hate women but love one woman. Just ask Archie Bunker. AS to
> "childless feminists", most women have children, whether or not they have
a man
> in their lives.
>
True, it is a common trait of modern women to abuse their position in
society to take the sperm they want and hence have the perfect excuse to
laze in the home and force the man they took sperm from to pay for their
choice and decision.
gadfly-x
that would end nicely with an anti-birth control rant, now deliver!
--
Known forces of Evil:
Chas Sockpuppet Army
The Witches
The Pest Horde
Spinics United
The Speilberg Conspiracy
Brandon hex's filthy mouth
Alex Cain's obsession
Allan Connor's illegal cable hookup
Hyerdahl1
>From: "offline" off...@yahoo.com
>Date: 3/4/2004 12:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <40478...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>
(edit)
>i don't think that's what he's saying. I think it's more to the effect that
>women make their demands that she remain in the home and laze around while
>he goes earn the crust.
Here's the thing; you, as an adult, are able to either accept what others
demand OR you are free to NOT acquiesce to those demands. If you have a lazy
wife/gf, throw the bum out. OTOH, if she is a good wife, mother and providing
a necessary service to you, go ahead and acquiesce, but don't come bawling back
later, suggesting that you never got your money's worth. I have to laugh at
men I've met in my life who have enjoyed FABULOUS careers. When they are
talking about their lives they say wonderful things about how they could never
have accomplished so much if SusiQ had not stayed at home. Then when the
divorce happens, these same men try to pretend that they did it all themselves.
If he wants to remain in his child/ren's life - then>he must submit and obey
else be forced out of the home he has built/paid
>for; child/ren's life, (yet remain in his position of paying again for
her>choices) etc. etc.
Again, if you don't want a SAH wife, don't marry one. If you don't want a
continuation of a SAH wife, don't acquiesce to one. Marry a career woman who
loves to bring home the bacon and divorce her if she doesn't live up to your
expectations.
You seem to be suggesting that men take on difficult work so that>they>> can
get women to love them. How do you account for the fact that so many
>
>Are you implying that women would have gone down the coal mines and killed
>themselves slowly by form of black lung disease etc. in order to supply the
>society of that time with the fuel and energy required for homes to run? Or
>are you saying that women would have stood in the front line of wars, losing
>life and limb to ensure the safety of the next generation and culture? Are
>you telling us that women would have willingly installed the pylons and
>electricity cables or worked in the stinking sewers and filtering the shit
>from our systems in order to ensure our comfort and health of the times ?
>No, i didnt' think so...
>
Here's what I think about your idea of progress; I think that women see things
a bit differently; if you ask a woman whether she'd rather do without
electricity or risk the life of her husband, in the pursuit of light, might I
suggest that most women would rather have their husbands. Men who risk their
lives to give us progress at any COST are certainly free to make those choices,
but don't you dare put that on women's shoulders.
>
>> SINGLE men DO risky work?
>
Indeed. So do married men.
>It's called sacrifice for society - it's what men are known for, a
noble>giving value, one worthy of recognition, not that feminist give
recognition>for anything other than their own lies and underhand tactics.
>
Just who do you vainly imagine is DEMANDING men sacrifice their lives for
"society"? I have to tell you, it isn't women. :-) I've heard some men on
this ng say that if it were not for men, women would still be living in caves.
Altho I don't believe that, there is an element of truth in the sentiment
behind it....women prefer life to progress. AND, perhaps women alone would not
have progressed as quickly if they had the opportunity to rule. Step by step,
precept by precept. Life is already to short to demand progress at the expense
of living.
>How do you account for the riskier HOBBIES men have? How many female race car
drivers and bunggee jumpers have you seen?
>>
>> >No feminist can be deeply and emotionally involved with a loving man
>> >at one moment whilst spitting misandric venom at all men the next.
>> >
>> >Just ask all those childless feminist leaders!
>>
>> It is just as possible for a woman to hate men and love one man as it is
>for a> man to hate women but love one woman. Just ask Archie Bunker. AS to
> "childless feminists", most women have children, whether or not they have
>a man>> in their lives.
>>
>
>True, it is a common trait of modern women to abuse their position in society
to take the sperm they want and hence have the perfect excuse to>laze in the
home and force the man they took sperm from to pay for their>choice and
decision.
No one is forcing you to donate to a sperm bank, off. And no one is forcing
you to copulate. Stop demanding that women pay for men's poor choices. Women
aren't buying.
geminii2
I believe this may be one of the most inane comments I have
seen from you yet. Is ANYTHING in your pathetic little world worth
taking a risk? "A woman would rather do without electricity" than
risk the life of her husband in his "pursuit of light"!? Thank God
that your opinion was not held by Mrs. Edison or you would have no
means of conveying your "message" on usenet.
No one said that a man had to die doing his job, or that he
should perform it at any cost. Men do have choices and they DO choose
where they work or what they would like to invent or create. There
ARE things worth dying for, but I won't belabor the point since you
would never understand anyway. It is clear that if society had waited
around for women to muster up the courage to do some of these
important tasks we would be, by your own admission, sitting in the
dark.
> >
> >> SINGLE men DO risky work?
> >
> Indeed. So do married men.
>
> >It's called sacrifice for society - it's what men are known for, a
> noble>giving value, one worthy of recognition, not that feminist give
> recognition>for anything other than their own lies and underhand tactics.
> >
> Just who do you vainly imagine is DEMANDING men sacrifice their lives for
> "society"? I have to tell you, it isn't women. :-) I've heard some men on
> this ng say that if it were not for men, women would still be living in caves.
> Altho I don't believe that, there is an element of truth in the sentiment
> behind it....women prefer life to progress. AND, perhaps women alone would not
> have progressed as quickly if they had the opportunity to rule. Step by step,
> precept by precept. Life is already to short to demand progress at the expense
> of living.
HA HA The absurdity grows more awesome. I can't muster up the
energy to speak out loud to such a deaf person.
>
> >How do you account for the riskier HOBBIES men have? How many female race car
> drivers and bunggee jumpers have you seen?
Are you bragging about this?? Men and women are different
(newsflash), but that doesn't mean all women selfishly avoid risk like
you do. Perhaps in your quest to live as long as possible you forgot
that all of life is a risk. It would seem that your desire to avoid
death has resulted in your never really learning how to live. But
then, you'll never understand that concept either...why don't you just
go light a candle (beeswax) instead.
Hyerdahl1
>Date: 3/4/2004 10:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <a07b18e4.04030...@posting.google.com>
Sure. And I'm not condemning risk taking per se; I'm simply suggesting that
each person CHOOSES how much risk they are willing to take for WHICH things.
For example, I would certainly want to risk defending my own country should
another country attack it as an act of war. That would be a risk worth taking.
"A woman would rather do without electricity" than>risk the life of her husband
in his "pursuit of light"!? Thank God>that your opinion was not held by Mrs.
Edison or you would have no
>means of conveying your "message" on usenet.
>
Mrs Edison never had to worry about her wealthy, husband who was interested in
science. The real issue surrounding electricity is found in the number of
folks killed while climbing or getting electrocuted, doing the actual work. I
suggest that it is MEN who want that sort of progress, at the expense of lives.
I suggest that women are more willing to wait until safety factors are in
place.
No one said that a man had to die doing his job, or that he>should perform it
at any cost. Men do have choices and they DO choose>where they work or what
they would like to invent or create. There
>ARE things worth dying for, but I won't belabor the point since you>would
never understand anyway. It is clear that if society had waited around for
women to muster up the courage to do some of these>important tasks we would be,
by your own admission, sitting in the
>dark.
Always a possibility, altho, even cave women knew how to light fires. :-) So,
basically what you are suggesting is that it is MEN who resent staying in the
dark and MEN who are willing to risk their own lives to provide a night light.
Good to know.
>
> >> >> SINGLE men DO risky work?
>> >
>> Indeed. So do married men. AND, so do women.
>>
>> >It's called sacrifice for society - it's what men are known for, a>
noble>giving value, one worthy of recognition, not that feminist give>
recognition>for anything other than their own lies and underhand tactics.
>> >
>> Just who do you vainly imagine is DEMANDING men sacrifice their lives for
>> "society"? I have to tell you, it isn't women. :-) I've heard some men
>on> this ng say that if it were not for men, women would still be living in
>caves. > Altho I don't believe that, there is an element of truth in the
sentiment
>> behind it....women prefer life to progress. AND, perhaps women alone
would>not> have progressed as quickly if they had the opportunity to rule.
Step by
>step,> precept by precept. Life is already too short to demand progress at
the>expense> of living.
>
>
> HA HA The absurdity grows more awesome. I can't muster up the
>energy to speak out loud to such a deaf person.
>
No problem. Just say 'no' dear.
>>
>> >How do you account for the riskier HOBBIES men have? How many female
race>car drivers and bunggee jumpers have you seen?
>
> Are you bragging about this?? Men and women are different>(newsflash),
but that doesn't mean all women selfishly avoid risk like>you do.
I never said women avoided all risks; I simply said they were more circumpect
about the risks they chose. I stand by that.
Perhaps in your quest to live as long as possible you forgot that all of life
is a risk.
I don't believe in living in FEAR, gem; I do believe in balancing risk with
reward, and, in doing so, I find many of the things that men risk, unworthy of
the reward.
It would seem that your desire to avoid
>death has resulted in your never really learning how to live.
That would certainly be a very sad thing, but, of course, you don't know
anything about my life, my risks or the balance I provide there.
Butthen, you'll never understand that concept either...why don't you just
>go light a candle (beeswax) instead.
>
Beeswax candles? Aren't they some of the best?