"Equality" for can't-cope-won't-cope feminist wusses
Rob
We've gone from being Amazons to can't cope, won't cope wusses
Carol Sarler
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1961661,00.html
<Quote>
The overwhelming achievement of these three decades of feminism and its
worker bees in the "women's movement" has been to turn our
triumph on its head. What was once about women's strengths is now
about their weaknesses; where once we celebrated what women can do, we
are asked, now, only to make allowances for what they cannot.
...
Scarcely a week passes without some female high-flyer running to a
tribunal with tales of men being beastly; in one memorable case this
year a woman used in evidence the fact that her male colleagues often
went to the pub without her. You might think that equality involves an
equal chance of being disliked - she called it sex discrimination.
(And prevailed.)
Being excessively liked, mind, causes as much grief: vast sums are paid
to those propositioned by a sexually uppity colleague, as compensation
for the gal being so traumatised that she is forced to retire and spend
more time with her stress counsellor. Women in the Armed Forces seem
especially attracted to this milch cow, with 2,400 of them last year
complaining of harassment - in other words, the very women expected
to produce superhuman effort under enemy fire cannot, apparently, be
expected to produce a robust rebuttal of a smutty overture.
So here we are: victims all. Can't help ourselves. And proud of it.
You will remember Sara Thornton, who stabbed her husband to death as he
lay boozed into coma. She was entirely free to leave him, but given
that he'd kicked her in the self-esteem she couldn't be expected to
do that. And when the usual women's groups fought to have her
released in 1995, she emerged from prison gates, clenched fists aloft,
to applause fit for a heroine.
....
Of course, we are never allowed to forget that it's hard to be strong
when cussed by oestrogen. Where once the menstrual cycle was discreetly
left to euphemistic allusions in intimate company, now it demands
exemptions fit for war wounds as premenstrual tension has become an
excuse for all peculiarities of behaviour. I recently heard an
ambitious woman, who doubtless prides herself on being thoroughly
modern, boldly blame her temporary ineptitude, to a male superior, upon
her " time of the month"; in other words, "I'm as good as the
men, gissa job . . . even though, by the way, I shall be howling at the
moon one week in four."
Still, if our hormonally challenged flesh is weak, it is as nothing
compared with our minds. This season's heated debate, for example,
has concerned whether a woman's consent to sexual intercourse is
valid if she is drunk. Feministas are adamant that it is not, arguing
that a man who "takes advantage" of a woman rendered compliant by a
few pints of snakebite is a fully-fledged rapist; again, their argument
weakens us.
Allowing for the tautological assumption that "date rape" takes
place on a date, and allowing therefore that both parties probably
enjoyed several sherries before engaging in sex, what this means is
that a man may be held responsible for his inebriated actions - but a
woman need not be. A curious equality, is it not, that disallows an
equal right to make our own mistakes?
....
The evolution of the "can't cope, won't cope" philosophy has
done most of us no favours at all ....
<UnQuote>
Of course feminists never were can-cope Amazons, they were only ever
little girls crying to daddy about how life isn't fair; about how they
want to be strong, brave and heroic like their brothers.
Until it came to actually being equal. Until they smelt the garbage,
felt the weight of the brick hod or experienced the claustrophobia of
years working in the mine.
And still they have no idea of the sheer disposability that most men
take for granted.
Hyerdahl
Rob wrote:
> The Times December 29, 2005
>
> We've gone from being Amazons to can't cope, won't cope wusses
> Carol Sarler
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1961661,00.html
>
> Of course feminists never were can-cope Amazons, they were only ever
> little girls crying to daddy about how life isn't fair; about how they
> want to be strong, brave and heroic like their brothers.
>
> Until it came to actually being equal. Until they smelt the garbage,
> felt the weight of the brick hod or experienced the claustrophobia of
> years working in the mine.
>
> And still they have no idea of the sheer disposability that most men
> take for granted.
Poor little Carol Sarler has bought into the notion that women MUST
choose jobs that require brick hodding or mine working. The truth is
that both sexes choose the work they do and that the work they do
should not be evaluated on a sexist standard. Until men start
gestating and delivering our nation's children she does not have a
third leg to stand on, but perhaps she could borrow a flacid one from
one of the bitter twitters here.
Ben
And you;ve just demonstrated that, agree or disagree, you've missed
entirely the point of the article.
Hyerdahl
That's really ok tho, because I'm almost positive she will miss the
point in mine, as you have. Fair enough?
Ben
That I've pointed out that you've made no valid connection between the
point of the article and your remarks? Sure, fair enough for me.
Viking
>> Until it came to actually being equal. Until they smelt the garbage,
>> felt the weight of the brick hod or experienced the claustrophobia of
>> years working in the mine.
>>
>> And still they have no idea of the sheer disposability that most men
>> take for granted.
>
>Poor little Carol Sarler has bought into the notion that women MUST
>choose jobs that require brick hodding or mine working. The truth is
>that both sexes choose the work they do and that the work they do
>should not be evaluated on a sexist standard.
That's the whole point of the article--they choose to opt out of hard
work, moron.
>Until men start
>gestating and delivering our nation's children she does not have a
>third leg to stand on, but perhaps she could borrow a flacid one from
>one of the bitter twitters here.
Once again, according to you, females are only good for being
breeders. IOW, you're saying that females are just about whining and
having babies; meaning, among other things, that they're useless to
men who don't want babies.
Ken Chaddock
I certainly haven't "missed the point" of your reply...though I doubt
you realize that you've confirmed the point *she* was making in her
article...that women WANT all the perks, prerogatives and rights that
our society has to grant but still WANT the "right" to decline the hard,
dirty and dangerous jobs that are necessary to maintain and expand the
very society from which they expect these perks, prerogatives and
rights...much easier to let men do the dying ;-)
...Ken
Hyerdahl
The point of her article was that she hates feminists and women who
can't be forced into male molds. :-) I brought that to your attention
...apparently. :-)
Hyerdahl
Viking wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2005 07:22:42 -0800, "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> Until it came to actually being equal. Until they smelt the garbage,
> >> felt the weight of the brick hod or experienced the claustrophobia of
> >> years working in the mine.
> >>
> >> And still they have no idea of the sheer disposability that most men
> >> take for granted.
> >
> >Poor little Carol Sarler has bought into the notion that women MUST
> >choose jobs that require brick hodding or mine working. The truth is
> >that both sexes choose the work they do and that the work they do
> >should not be evaluated on a sexist standard.
>
> That's the whole point of the article--they choose to opt out of hard
> work, moron.
No, they might opt out of work men like you and other women -haters
LABEL as being hard, simply because they don't want to credit some of
the hard work women do as well. And let's not forget that every time a
woman gives life, she risks her own health and life.
>
> >Until men start
> >gestating and delivering our nation's children she does not have a
> >third leg to stand on, but perhaps she could borrow a flacid one from
> >one of the bitter twitters here.
>
> Once again, according to you, females are only good for being
> breeders. IOW, you're saying that females are just about whining and
> having babies; meaning, among other things, that they're useless to
> men who don't want babies.
Females are the only sex that CAN gestate. That's just the way it is
whether or not you wish to consider all the other things women do.
They are not useless to men who don't want babies since our future is
still our future. Right now, even as we speak, the Japanese are
willing to pay women to gestate. Apparently, even the single tax
payers there have a NEED that only women can fill.
Hyerdahl
Women already HAVE the right to "decline" jobs they don't want, JUST
LIKE MEN. The sad truth you don't want to face is that men PREFER
dangerous work to desk work and that's fine...it's their choice. When
men stop waging wars, fewer men will die in them. And let's not forget
that along with gestating eacy new successive generation, women are
also volunteering for the military. I guess you just can't get a hit
anywhere today; better not buy a lottery ticket.
>
> ...Ken
conn...@hotmail.com
Hyerdahl wrote:
>
> No, they might opt out of work men like you and other women -haters
> LABEL as being hard, simply because they don't want to credit some of
> the hard work women do as well. And let's not forget that every time a
> woman gives life, she risks her own health and life.
Given women aren't risk takers by nature NOR nurture women would not
birth if the risk was excessively risky. ;-)
>
> Females are the only sex that CAN gestate.
It takes male sperm to MAKE a gestation, perhaps hyerdahl thinks
vaginal puss + an egg create life instead. lol.
> That's just the way it is
> whether or not you wish to consider all the other things women do.
> They are not useless to men who don't want babies since our future is
> still our future. Right now, even as we speak, the Japanese are
> willing to pay women to gestate. Apparently, even the single tax
> payers there have a NEED that only women can fill.
Women everyday prove themselves as the laggards of the cosmos.... even
feminist battle axe INC Hyerdahl is apparently semi retiring while men
work their way up the phallic pillars of power.
Tsk Tsk.
Hyerdahl
conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> >
> > No, they might opt out of work men like you and other women -haters
> > LABEL as being hard, simply because they don't want to credit some of
> > the hard work women do as well. And let's not forget that every time a
> > woman gives life, she risks her own health and life.
>
> Given women aren't risk takers by nature NOR nurture women would not
> birth if the risk was excessively risky. ;-)
Actually, many women have opted for risky births over their own health.
>
> >
> > Females are the only sex that CAN gestate.
>
> It takes male sperm to MAKE a gestation, perhaps hyerdahl thinks
> vaginal puss + an egg create life instead. lol.
Actually, male sperm is free to most women and is easily obtained.
>
> > That's just the way it is
> > whether or not you wish to consider all the other things women do.
> > They are not useless to men who don't want babies since our future is
> > still our future. Right now, even as we speak, the Japanese are
> > willing to pay women to gestate. Apparently, even the single tax
> > payers there have a NEED that only women can fill.
>
> Women everyday prove themselves as the laggards of the cosmos.... even
> feminist battle axe INC Hyerdahl is apparently semi retiring while men
> work their way up the phallic pillars of power.
Well, I've already paid my dues, 'contard' in terms of working for a
living. Since becoming an adult, the only time I have not brought in
my own income was for a short stretch after my son was born. When he
became stronger, I returned to my job. Since then I've had steady
employment.
>
Hyerdahl
conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> >
> > No, they might opt out of work men like you and other women -haters
> > LABEL as being hard, simply because they don't want to credit some of
> > the hard work women do as well. And let's not forget that every time a
> > woman gives life, she risks her own health and life.
>
> Given women aren't risk takers by nature NOR nurture women would not
> birth if the risk was excessively risky. ;-)
>
births.
>
> >> > Females are the only sex that CAN gestate.
>
> It takes male sperm to MAKE a gestation, perhaps hyerdahl thinks
> vaginal puss + an egg create life instead. lol.
>
Sperm is either free or cheap. It only takes a few drops from a few
men to father an entire nation. :-) IOW, it has little value in the
scheme of things.
> > That's just the way it is
> > whether or not you wish to consider all the other things women do.
> > They are not useless to men who don't want babies since our future is
> > still our future. Right now, even as we speak, the Japanese are
> > willing to pay women to gestate. Apparently, even the single tax
> > payers there have a NEED that only women can fill.
>
> .
>
> Tsk Tsk.
Ben
No, her point was that the perpetual victimhood that feminists engage
in actually works against them. That was the part that you snipped. I
mean, really, if I were a woman I'd be embarrassed by the level of
keening and whining that feminism generates. I know my wife and female
friends are disgusted by it.
Hyerdahl
Ben, only victims can be victims. The feminist women I know do not
consider themselves victims unless they have been victimized. It
works the exact same way for men whether or not they are feminists.
That was the part that you snipped. I mean, really, if I were a woman
I'd be embarrassed by the level of keening and whining that feminism
generates.
People who call the victimization or pain of others "keening and
whining" are generally not the ones whose oxe is being gored. :-) But
that's ok ...the other way to look at the same set of factors is that
'the squeaky wheel gets the grease'. ;-)
I know my wife and female> friends are disgusted by it.
And, of course, there is no way to prove that, eh? Ben likes to foment
debate points he can't prove. ...must be 'a man's way of knowing'. :-)
Ben
Wrong. Anyone can *claim* victimhood. It's been very effective for
granting a great deal of soft power to a philosophy as shameless and
self- obsessed as gender feminism.
> The feminist women I know do not
> consider themselves victims unless they have been victimized.
The feminist philosophy concerns itself with claims of women being
oppressed, being treated unfairly, not given equal opportunity, being
victims of male violence, and so on. In other words, being victims.
> It
> works the exact same way for men whether or not they are feminists.
Men generally don't complain at the same level as women, and NOWHERE
near the level of gender feminists.
>
>
> That was the part that you snipped. I mean, really, if I were a woman
> I'd be embarrassed by the level of keening and whining that feminism
> generates.
>
> People who call the victimization or pain of others "keening and
> whining" are generally not the ones whose oxe is being gored. :-)
Give me a genuine victim, not someone prattling on about "the
unfairness of it all". I deal with *real* victims all the time,
Hy--your feminist pseudo-victims are moot when compared to them.
> But
> that's ok ...the other way to look at the same set of factors is that
> 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease'. ;-)
Oh, whining works, there's no doubt about that--whether it's grounded
in reality or consistency or not.
>
> I know my wife and female> friends are disgusted by it.
>
> And, of course, there is no way to prove that, eh?
No more than there's any way to prove what you say about you friends
and family. Your point is...?
> Ben likes to foment
> debate points he can't prove. ...must be 'a man's way of knowing'. :-)
I notice you set a new standard for vanishing from a debate with
me--you used to do it when I gave you proof. Now you did it when I
simply proved I gave you proof in the past. :)
Hyerdahl
Ben wrote:
> (edit)
> > > > > That I've pointed out that you've made no valid connection between the
> > > > > point of the article and your remarks? Sure, fair enough for me.
> > > >
> > > > The point of her article was that she hates feminists and women who
> > > > can't be forced into male molds. :-) I brought that to your attention
> > > > ...apparently. :-)
> > >
> > > No, her point was that the perpetual victimhood that feminists engage
> > > in actually works against them.
> >
> > Ben, only victims can be victims.
>
> Wrong. Anyone can *claim* victimhood. It's been very effective for
> granting a great deal of soft power to a philosophy as shameless and
> self- obsessed as gender feminism.
Are you really suggesting that women should have to BE men in order to
BE equal?
>
> > The feminist women I know do not consider themselves victims unless they have been victimized.
>
> The feminist philosophy concerns itself with claims of women being
> oppressed, being treated unfairly, not given equal opportunity, being
> victims of male violence, and so on. In other words, being victims.
>
Again, if a woman has been oppressed, then she is a victim; if she has
not, she is not.
So in that regard, I'm more than willing to balance the scales based on
the here and now.
> > It> > works the exact same way for men whether or not they are feminists.
>
> Men generally don't complain at the same level as women, and NOWHERE
> near the level of gender feminists.
So, now you seem to be blaming women because they DO acknowledge any
victimization while men do not? Or is it that there is not so much
male victimization? Curious minds want to know. :-)
> >
> > That was the part that you snipped. I mean, really, if I were a woman
> > I'd be embarrassed by the level of keening and whining that feminism
> > generates.
> >
> > People who call the victimization or pain of others "keening and
> > whining" are generally not the ones whose oxe is being gored. :-)
>
> Give me a genuine victim, not someone prattling on about "the
> unfairness of it all". I deal with *real* victims all the time,
> Hy--your feminist pseudo-victims are moot when compared to them.
>
Well, I don't really care if you feel that way. We know how emotional
insecure men can be, here, but ...in the end, the courts will determine
whether or not victimization has taken place.
> > But
> > that's ok ...the other way to look at the same set of factors is that
> > 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease'. ;-)
>
> Oh, whining works, there's no doubt about that--whether it's grounded
> in reality or consistency or not.
You are free to pull it apart...if you can, Ben. That's what free
speech is all about, after all.
>
> >
> > I know my wife and female> friends are disgusted by it.
> >
> > And, of course, there is no way to prove that, eh?
>
> No more than there's any way to prove what you say about you friends
> and family. Your point is...?
I don't use my family to prove points. I only add them for color.
Your statement above has no color. :-)
> > Ben likes to foment> > debate points he can't prove. ...must be 'a man's way of knowing'. :-)
>
> I notice you set a new standard for vanishing from a debate with
> me--you used to do it when I gave you proof. Now you did it when I
> simply proved I gave you proof in the past. :)
You haven't given me proof on point in the past, nor have you done so
here.
Viking
>> That's the whole point of the article--they choose to opt out of hard
>> work, moron.
>
>No, they might opt out of work men like you and other women -haters
>LABEL as being hard, simply because they don't want to credit some of
>the hard work women do as well.
No. They take joke jobs and end up earning less. The wage gap shows
their laziness; it's to females' shame that the wage gap exists. They
don't pull their weight.
>And let's not forget that every time a
>woman gives life, she risks her own health and life.
Totally irrelevant to a discussion of jobs, you fruitcake.
>> Once again, according to you, females are only good for being
>> breeders. IOW, you're saying that females are just about whining and
>> having babies; meaning, among other things, that they're useless to
>> men who don't want babies.
>
>Females are the only sex that CAN gestate. That's just the way it is
>whether or not you wish to consider all the other things women do.
That's fucking worthless to me, you shitfaced baboon.
Viking
post without errors, have you? As in this case, where you're posting
your debunked moron crap twice.
Ken Chaddock
> Actually, many women have opted for risky births over their own health.
Perhaps, but they're ONLY taking this "risk" because THEY want to have
children, they're doing it to satisfy THEIR OWN biological imperative,
they're NOT doing it as a "civic duty" and, unlike men who can be forced
to go to war, women CANNOT be drafted and forced to have children so
it's hardly the same thing at all...
> Actually, male sperm is free to most women and is easily obtained.
Not for much longer, men are starting to "smarten up", pretty soon
there will be a male birth control pill...oh sure, femmeisters will
*still* be able to get sperm from the stupid ones...and if they want it
that will be it's own reward :-)
...Ken
Hyerdahl
Ken Chaddock wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
>
> > Actually, many women have opted for risky births over their own health.
>
> Perhaps, but they're ONLY taking this "risk" because THEY want to have
> children, they're doing it to satisfy THEIR OWN biological imperative,
> they're NOT doing it as a "civic duty" and, unlike men who can be forced
> to go to war, women CANNOT be drafted and forced to have children so
> it's hardly the same thing at all...
>
duties. Women, as yet, do not have one so cannot have the other.
Secondly, the reasons women have children are varied, just like the
reasons men go to war. That you wish to make women's reasons look
selfish doesn't work here, any more than I can say, all men have the
reason of college education to go to war. That's just foolish.
> > Actually, male sperm is free to most women and is easily obtained.
>
> Not for much longer, men are starting to "smarten up", pretty soon
> there will be a male birth control pill...oh sure, femmeisters will
> *still* be able to get sperm from the stupid ones...and if they want it
> that will be it's own reward :-)
>
Are you suggesting that only poor people are stupid? I guess you
haven't met your President. :-) I kid the President. :-) Men
born with silver spoons often have little motivation to become smart.
:-)
> ...Ken
Ben
Hyerdahl wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > (edit)
> > > > > > That I've pointed out that you've made no valid connection between the
> > > > > > point of the article and your remarks? Sure, fair enough for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > The point of her article was that she hates feminists and women who
> > > > > can't be forced into male molds. :-) I brought that to your attention
> > > > > ...apparently. :-)
> > > >
> > > > No, her point was that the perpetual victimhood that feminists engage
> > > > in actually works against them.
> > >
> > > Ben, only victims can be victims.
> >
> > Wrong. Anyone can *claim* victimhood. It's been very effective for
> > granting a great deal of soft power to a philosophy as shameless and
> > self- obsessed as gender feminism.
>
> Are you really suggesting that women should have to BE men in order to
> BE equal?
Do you have a bumper sticker quote that's relevant here?
> >
> > > The feminist women I know do not consider themselves victims unless they have been victimized.
> >
> > The feminist philosophy concerns itself with claims of women being
> > oppressed, being treated unfairly, not given equal opportunity, being
> > victims of male violence, and so on. In other words, being victims.
> >
> Again, if a woman has been oppressed, then she is a victim; if she has
> not, she is not.
And then there's that widely used third category: Claiming she's a
victim when she isn't. But I'll be fair, Hy--it's not just feminists
that do this. This society also has its share of race baiters that
scream racism at every opportunity in order to try and leverage what
they want.
> So in that regard, I'm more than willing to balance the scales based on
> the here and now.
No, you're not.
>
> > > It> > works the exact same way for men whether or not they are feminists.
> >
> > Men generally don't complain at the same level as women, and NOWHERE
> > near the level of gender feminists.
>
> So, now you seem to be blaming women because they DO acknowledge any
> victimization while men do not? Or is it that there is not so much
> male victimization? Curious minds want to know. :-)
People inclined to complain will do so to excess, very often for no
good reason.
> > >
> > > That was the part that you snipped. I mean, really, if I were a woman
> > > I'd be embarrassed by the level of keening and whining that feminism
> > > generates.
> > >
> > > People who call the victimization or pain of others "keening and
> > > whining" are generally not the ones whose oxe is being gored. :-)
> >
> > Give me a genuine victim, not someone prattling on about "the
> > unfairness of it all". I deal with *real* victims all the time,
> > Hy--your feminist pseudo-victims are moot when compared to them.
> >
> Well, I don't really care if you feel that way. We know how emotional
> insecure men can be, here, but ...in the end, the courts will determine
> whether or not victimization has taken place.
Actually, much of that can be determined before anything ever gets to
court. In many cases, the 'victim' turns out to be the one at fault.
:)
>
>
> > > But
> > > that's ok ...the other way to look at the same set of factors is that
> > > 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease'. ;-)
> >
> > Oh, whining works, there's no doubt about that--whether it's grounded
> > in reality or consistency or not.
>
> You are free to pull it apart...if you can, Ben. That's what free
> speech is all about, after all.
It is indeed. And speaking out and throwing light works wonders. More
men should do it.
> >
> > >
> > > I know my wife and female> friends are disgusted by it.
> > >
> > > And, of course, there is no way to prove that, eh?
> >
> > No more than there's any way to prove what you say about you friends
> > and family. Your point is...?
>
> I don't use my family to prove points. I only add them for color.
> Your statement above has no color. :-)
Says you.
>
>
> > > Ben likes to foment> > debate points he can't prove. ...must be 'a man's way of knowing'. :-)
> >
> > I notice you set a new standard for vanishing from a debate with
> > me--you used to do it when I gave you proof. Now you did it when I
> > simply proved I gave you proof in the past. :)
>
> You haven't given me proof on point in the past, nor have you done so
> here.
Google says otherwise. :)
Ken Chaddock
> Ken Chaddock wrote:
>>Hyerdahl wrote:
>>>Actually, many women have opted for risky births over their own health.
>>
>>Perhaps, but they're ONLY taking this "risk" because THEY want to have
>>children, they're doing it to satisfy THEIR OWN biological imperative,
>>they're NOT doing it as a "civic duty" and, unlike men who can be forced
>>to go to war, women CANNOT be drafted and forced to have children so
>>it's hardly the same thing at all...
> First, only those with equal military rights HAVE equal military
> duties. Women, as yet, do not have one so cannot have the other.
I've asked you many many times to enlighten us as to what these
"military rights" might be and to tell us why women should have them
since *men* certainly don't...I'm STILL waiting for an answer...
> Secondly, the reasons women have children are varied, just like the
> reasons men go to war. That you wish to make women's reasons look
> selfish doesn't work here,
Satisfying a self-serving aim isn't necessarily "selfish", and, in
fact, can be quite "selfless" however it IS a self serving aim which IS
NOT a civic duty in the same sense as being drafted and sent to war
whether you want to go or not...
> any more than I can say, all men have the reason of college education
> to go to war. That's just foolish.
???
>>>Actually, male sperm is free to most women and is easily obtained.
>>
>>Not for much longer, men are starting to "smarten up", pretty soon
>>there will be a male birth control pill...oh sure, femmeisters will
>>*still* be able to get sperm from the stupid ones...and if they want it
>>that will be it's own reward :-)
> Are you suggesting that only poor people are stupid? I guess you
> haven't met your President. :-)
While GWB may be ignorant of some things, a graduate of the Harvard
School of Business and a successful executive in an international oil
conglomerate isn't likely to be "stupid"...
And he ain't MY president...I live in Canada :-)
...Ken
Deborah Terreson
"Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Rob wrote:
>> The Times December 29, 2005
>>
>> We've gone from being Amazons to can't cope, won't cope wusses
>> Carol Sarler
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1961661,00.html
>> (edit)
>
>>
>> Of course feminists never were can-cope Amazons, they were only ever
>> little girls crying to daddy about how life isn't fair; about how they
>> want to be strong, brave and heroic like their brothers.
>>
>> Until it came to actually being equal. Until they smelt the garbage,
>> felt the weight of the brick hod or experienced the claustrophobia of
>> years working in the mine.
>>
>> And still they have no idea of the sheer disposability that most men
>> take for granted.
>
> Poor little Carol Sarler has bought into the notion that women MUST
> choose jobs that require brick hodding or mine working.
Equality includes responsibility and responsibility goes hand in hand into
ACCEPTING the idea that there are things that may need doing that one finds
physically unpleasant. This includes entry into dangerous jobs when a space
is available. Equality demands NO less, otherwise just harping about
'choice' from a safe place is really just selfishness. If one can't meet a
standard, quit the work, and shut the fuck up about 'equality'.
Regardless, all work is NOT the same, some is more dangerous and difficult
than others and requires more compensation. If women want 'safer' work, they
can get office work, but remember: nothing done in an office, NOTHING, is so
invaluable that it can't be done in China or India, so think really hard
about that before you demand 'equal wages' for work that is less than.
> The truth is
> that both sexes choose the work they do and that the work they do
> should not be evaluated on a sexist standard.
What sexism is there that expects equal work from equal people?
After all, women can do everything men can, AND gestate so this should be a
snap!
> Until men start
> gestating and delivering our nation's children she does not have a
> third leg to stand on, but perhaps she could borrow a flacid one from
> one of the bitter twitters here.
Bwahahahah! NOW we hide behind a physical difference!
I'm loving seeing you get your hair rubbed the wrong way, pussycat.
Guess what I've been on about isn't so off the mark - or is this columnist
one of Dave Sim's 'cockpuppets' too?
>>>Bwahahahah!<<<
Deb.
Hyerdahl
Ken Chaddock wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> > Ken Chaddock wrote:
>
> >>Hyerdahl wrote:
>
> >>>Actually, many women have opted for risky births over their own health.
> >>
> >>Perhaps, but they're ONLY taking this "risk" because THEY want to have
> >>children, they're doing it to satisfy THEIR OWN biological imperative,
> >>they're NOT doing it as a "civic duty" and, unlike men who can be forced
> >>to go to war, women CANNOT be drafted and forced to have children so
> >>it's hardly the same thing at all...
>
> > First, only those with equal military rights HAVE equal military
> > duties. Women, as yet, do not have one so cannot have the other.
>
> I've asked you many many times to enlighten us as to what these
> "military rights" might be and to tell us why women should have them
> since *men* certainly don't...I'm STILL waiting for an answer...
No. I've answered many times. Today women can't sign up for all
military duties BECAUSE they are female. All men can apply for any
military duties as any other man, i.e. all submarine duty, all special
ops, all combat duty, etc. No man is restricted just because he's a
man.
>
> > Secondly, the reasons women have children are varied, just like the
> > reasons men go to war. That you wish to make women's reasons look
> > selfish doesn't work here,
>
>Satisfying a self-serving aim isn't necessarily "selfish", and, in
> fact, can be quite "selfless" however it IS a self serving aim which IS
> NOT a civic duty in the same sense as being drafted and sent to war
> whether you want to go or not...
>
Indeed, but women can't go to war in a draft as long as they don't have
equal military rights, so stop blaming women for this boondoggle and
start blaming the military for preventing women from having equal
military rights.
> > any more than I can say, all men have the reason of college education
> > to go to war. That's just foolish.
>
> ???
Well, we don't blame people for the reasons they choose to do or not do
a thing. Men may have their reasons for risking their lives in war and
women have theirs for risking their healh and lives in childbirth. I
won't micromanage men's reasons if you do likewise for women's. I
mean....some men go to war simply to blow things up.
>
> >>>Actually, male sperm is free to most women and is easily obtained.
> >>
> >>Not for much longer, men are starting to "smarten up", pretty soon
> >>there will be a male birth control pill...oh sure, femmeisters will
> >>*still* be able to get sperm from the stupid ones...and if they want it
> >>that will be it's own reward :-)
>
> > Are you suggesting that only poor people are stupid? I guess you
> > haven't met your President. :-)
>
> While GWB may be ignorant of some things, a graduate of the Harvard
> School of Business and a successful executive in an international oil
> conglomerate isn't likely to be "stupid"...
> And he ain't MY president...I live in Canada :-)
>
Lucky you. :-) Well, after Jan. he will no longer be my president as
well. :-) IN any event, he is stupid no matter where his dad paid for
his grades.
> ...Ken
Deborah Terreson
"Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote:
> 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease'. ;-)
And sometimes it gets removed and replaced if the grease won't stop the
squeaking. Some wheels can't be greased enough, they'll always have a noise
to them. There's THAT factor as well. ;)
Deb.
Deborah Terreson
<ArG...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It is indeed. And speaking out and throwing light works wonders. More
> men should do it.
Yes they should, Ben.
The glow is magnificent!
Deb.
Ken Chaddock
> Ken Chaddock wrote:
>
>>Hyerdahl wrote:
>>
>>>Ken Chaddock wrote:
>>
>>>>Hyerdahl wrote:
>>
>>>>>Actually, many women have opted for risky births over their own health.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps, but they're ONLY taking this "risk" because THEY want to have
>>>>children, they're doing it to satisfy THEIR OWN biological imperative,
>>>>they're NOT doing it as a "civic duty" and, unlike men who can be forced
>>>>to go to war, women CANNOT be drafted and forced to have children so
>>>>it's hardly the same thing at all...
>>
>>>First, only those with equal military rights HAVE equal military
>>>duties. Women, as yet, do not have one so cannot have the other.
>>
>> I've asked you many many times to enlighten us as to what these
>>"military rights" might be and to tell us why women should have them
>>since *men* certainly don't...I'm STILL waiting for an answer...
> No. I've answered many times. Today women can't sign up for all
> military duties BECAUSE they are female.
And has been explained to you many many times in the past, men don't
"sign up" for these duties, they are *assigned* to these duties and
further, where prohibitions against do exist, it's not, in most cases,
an unreasonable discrimination.
Consider submarine service for example, the physical space just doesn't
exist to provide separate accommodations and wash places for female crew
members, hell in many boats there isn't space for everyone to have a
personal bunk ! Further, there simple aren't enough qualified women to
provide an all female crew for a boat. Now, if US women were willing to
drop their false modesty and share accommodations with their male crew
mates like the Swedes do there probably wouldn't be a problem.
> All men can apply for any
> military duties as any other man, i.e. all submarine duty, all special
> ops, all combat duty, etc.
Women are restricted from special ops and combat ops simply because
they cannot physically carry out all of the required duties and to lower
standards in the combat arms to accommodate women will lead to
unnecessary deaths and the possibility that units will not be able to
successfully achieve mission objectives, leading to more avoidable
causalities. Consider, Canadian infantry*men* in Afghanistan undertake
100 kilometers forced march patrols, marching up to 16 hours a day
carrying 45 kilo packs PLUS weapons while wearing another 15 kilos of
protective clothing/body armour. How many women; 1/ could accomplish
such a mission and 2/ would want to try ?
> No man is restricted just because he's a man.
No, but men ARE restricted when the cannot physically cope...
>>Satisfying a self-serving aim isn't necessarily "selfish", and, in
>>fact, can be quite "selfless" however it IS a self serving aim which IS
>>NOT a civic duty in the same sense as being drafted and sent to war
>>whether you want to go or not...
> Indeed, but women can't go to war in a draft as long as they don't have
> equal military rights,
Women should have the "right" to be drafted and told exactly what they
are to do...just like men.
> so stop blaming women for this boondoggle and start blaming the military
> for preventing women from having equal military rights.
There are no such things as military "rights", there are military
*duties* and military *obligations* but no "rights"...and the easiest
way to prove this is to note that having a "right" implies that you have
a CHOICE, you can choose TO DO something or choose NOT TO DO
something...can a man choose NOT TO partake in combat if ordered to ?
Can an man CHOOSE to join an infantry or special ops team if he has been
deemed unfit ? Can a man choose NO TO accept the draft when called up ?
Of course, the answer is NO, he HAS NO CHOICE...consequently he HAS NO
RIGHT...so why should women have rights that men do not have ?
> Well, we don't blame people for the reasons they choose to do or not do
> a thing.
Not entirely true. Some things need doing in order to maintain and
expand our civilization and society. If men are the ones doing this,
then men are the ones who have EARNED the right to enjoy the benefits
that their labours have made possible. If women CHOOSE NOT to equally
participate in the maintenance and expansion of our civilization and
society, they simply have not EARNED the right to expect to equally
share in the benefits that MEN'S labour have made possible. So, if men
CHOOSE to share the benefits they have earned with women, women should
be GRATEFUL that the benefits, which the labours of men have made
possible, are being shared with them even though they didn't earn them...
...Ken
Ken Chaddock
I think we're getting to that point with feminism rather sooner than
later...consider than very few young women want to be associated with
"feminism" and seem to have a much more egalitarian outlook than their
pre-decessors. My daughter, who is currently doing a Master's program in
Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering is quite an anti-feminist (and
no, I haven't brain-washed her) as are those of her female friends with
whom I've spoken...
...Ken
Hyerdahl
Ken Chaddock wrote:
> Deborah Terreson wrote:
>
> > In article <1135957573.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> ,
> > "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>'the squeaky wheel gets the grease'. ;-)
> >
> >
> > And sometimes it gets removed and replaced if the grease won't stop the
> > squeaking. Some wheels can't be greased enough, they'll always have a noise
> > to them. There's THAT factor as well. ;)
You don't have the "means" to remove the wheel of feminism, Kenny.
It's all over for that kind of thinking. Women have the right to own
property, vote, manage their own gestations, work for equal pay, and
the right to NOT MARRY or to DIVORCE men like you. :-)
> I think we're getting to that point with feminism rather sooner than
> later...consider than very few young women want to be associated with
> "feminism" and seem to have a much more egalitarian outlook than their
> pre-decessors.
Well, since feminism is about acquiring egalitarianism, that sounds
very good to me. :-)
My daughter, who is currently doing a Master's program in
> Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering is quite an anti-feminist (and
> no, I haven't brain-washed her) as are those of her female friends with
> whom I've spoken...
I dont' believe you for a moment. The fact that your daughter is
working side by side with men who are not able to sexually harass her
and get away with it, speaks well of feminism. :-) It's all over
Kenny.
>
> ...Ken
Hyerdahl
Deborah Terreson wrote:
(edit)
> >
> > Poor little Dave Sim cockpuppets have bought into the notion that women MUST
> > choose jobs that require brick hodding or mine working.
>
> Equality includes responsibility and responsibility goes hand in hand into
> ACCEPTING the idea that there are things that may need doing that one finds
> physically unpleasant.
When one CHOOSES a job that is "physically unpleasant" one must do that
job. So choose well. I think that fact that women tend to choose
more pleasant work than some men is making other men angry. :-)
This includes entry into dangerous jobs when a space
> is available.
There is no law or even morality that says a woman should take
dangerous jobs. There is no push for seeing men take dangerous jobs.
It's a choice.
Equality demands NO less, otherwise just harping about 'choice' from a
safe place is really just selfishness.
Where is the bogeyman forcing men to take dangerous jobs? It isn't
women who are "harping" here; it's you Dave Sim cockpuppet. Take the
jobs you like; leave those you don't. No one is forcing men to take
these jobs.
If one can't meet a standard, quit the work, and shut the fuck up about
'equality'.
>
As long as the standards aren't penis only standards, I agree.
> Regardless, all work is NOT the same, some is more dangerous and difficult
> than others and requires more compensation. If women want 'safer' work, they
> can get office work, but remember: nothing done in an office, NOTHING, is so
> invaluable that it can't be done in China or India, so think really hard
> about that before you demand 'equal wages' for work that is less than.
Actually, the jobs going to China or India are mostly jobs
traditionally going to middle class men. :-) Secretaries will always
be needed. :-) Watch general motors.
> > The truth is
> > that both sexes choose the work they do and that the work they do
> > should not be evaluated on a sexist standard.
>
> What sexism is there that expects equal work from equal people?
As long as there no penis standards, I agree.
>
> After all, women can do everything men can, AND gestate so this should be a
> snap!
>
It is. :-) Happy New Year
> > Until men start
> > gestating and delivering our nation's children she does not have a
> > third leg to stand on, but perhaps she could borrow a flacid one from
> > one of the bitter twitters here.
>
> Bwahahahah! NOW we hide behind a physical difference!
Hiding? Women can't hide their pregnancies and men can't immitate
them. It's an obvious skill that women have that men simply don't.
Today a woman can go to college, LIKE A MAN, work in a well paid job,
LIKE A MAN, buy her own house, LIKE A MAN but no man can gestate and
deliver LIKE A WOMAN.
>
Deborah Terreson
"Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Deborah Terreson wrote:
> (edit)
>> >
>> > Poor little Dave Sim cockpuppets have bought into the notion that women
MUST
>> > choose jobs that require brick hodding or mine working.
>>
>> Equality includes responsibility and responsibility goes hand in hand into
>> ACCEPTING the idea that there are things that may need doing that one finds
>> physically unpleasant.
>
> When one CHOOSES a job that is "physically unpleasant" one must do that
> job. So choose well. I think that fact that women tend to choose
> more pleasant work than some men is making other men angry. :-)
>
> This includes entry into dangerous jobs when a space
>> is available.
>
> There is no law or even morality that says a woman should take
> dangerous jobs.
And of course, NO responsibility, right?
> There is no push for seeing men take dangerous jobs.
> It's a choice.
So then, those women that do NOT make the choice to engage in equality, by
accepting the risk inherent in the work they choose, should shut up about
wanting 'equality'.
It really IS that simple.
>
> Equality demands NO less, otherwise just harping about 'choice' from a
> safe place is really just selfishness.
>
> Where is the bogeyman forcing men to take dangerous jobs?
It's called 'responsibility' Parg. Something you wouldn't know much of.
I don't know a single electrical lineman who actually LIKES working in a
cherry picker, putting back up a downed line during a storm. Alas, someone
HAS to do it, and that is the 'responsibility' to the job.
What you can't get your thick head around, is that there ARE things that
benefit everyone, that are parts of an infrastructure that requires
maintenance constantly.
Weren't you the one harping not too long ago, about how 'women would
survive' if men disappeared?
How'd that be anything MORE than some pathetic fantasy of yours without more
women doing the very things they eschew?
> It isn't
> women who are "harping" here; it's you Dave Sim cockpuppet. Take the
> jobs you like; leave those you don't. No one is forcing men to take
> these jobs.
>
> If one can't meet a standard, quit the work, and shut the fuck up about
> 'equality'.
>>
> As long as the standards aren't penis only standards, I agree.
Penis only standards are the only ones that matter in some lines of work.
But you know the funny thing? Penis only standards, for the most part, are
fairly easy for vagina workers (hell, they've turned out to be a snap for
me).
Too bad vagina workers would rather work in fields set to vagina standards
only.
What a bunch of pussies. ;-)
Deb.
TXZZ
with the american women, for she is lower than an animal
Heidi Graw
>"Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTS...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:CMGdnRS5w9C...@comcast.com...
(snip)
>Deborah wrote:
> I don't know a single electrical lineman who actually LIKES working in a
> cherry picker, putting back up a downed line during a storm. Alas, someone
> HAS to do it, and that is the 'responsibility' to the job.
Whatever happened to men actually climbing poles? The ability to climb
poles used to be that "men's standard" to get that job installing hydro,
telephone and cable lines. One of the few female telephone installers I
know doesn't bother to wait and hang around for hours on end for that cherry
picker to arrive. She scrambles up the pole, which the men refuse to do,
and thereby provides the customer with timely and efficient service. Her
beef: the guys simply refuse to haul their fat asses up the pole because
it's too hard. She, being lithe and thin, has no trouble doing that "man's"
job.
(snip)
> Penis only standards are the only ones that matter in some lines of work.
Penis standards have long ago given way to "mechanical" standards. Any
vagina can use a mechanical device which the penii are using, too.
>
> But you know the funny thing? Penis only standards, for the most part, are
> fairly easy for vagina workers (hell, they've turned out to be a snap for
> me).
Sure...given the power tools that the men use, even women can do those heavy
jobs. It's not that difficult to use an air tool to drive those nails.
>
> Too bad vagina workers would rather work in fields set to vagina standards
> only.
Well...the penii workers have chosen to forgo penii standards in order to
pussify their work. Now even pussies can do what used to be traditional
"men's work."
>
> What a bunch of pussies. ;-)
The men? Sure. ;-) If you give that penis a choice between actually using
that penis vs. a mechanical device, they're using the mechanical. Muscle
vs. machine...if the men can avoid using their muscles, they'll do so.
Anyway, Deb, you seem to be saying that people who are prepared to do the
most dangerous work are the ones who ought to have a greater say and they
ought to be looked at as the more responsible. Among the world's most
dangerous work is capping burning blow-out of oil rigs. Few men in this
world are trained for it and few will choose to do this.
Are you saying that the man who caps burning oil wells should have a greater
weight in say than that man who sits behind a computer terminal all day?
That the man who caps oil wells is more responsible than that computer
programmer? That the man who caps oils wells should rule, while the
computer programmer should submit and shut the f*ck up?
If the willingness and ability to do some of the most dangerous work is what
should determine one's superiority, then an awfull lot of men would have to
sh*t up and remain quiet. And all those men who choose safe and clean work
should be considered irresponsible.
Since men are not judging themselves according to that criteria, then why
apply it to women? The weight of one's word should not be based upon one's
brawn and ones willingness to place themselves into dangerous situations.
Most men will avoid it and they do!
You'll notice, too, that in order to get men to do dangerous work (ie.
warfare), they pretty much have to be conscripted (or forced, shamed, etc)
into it. I'm against forced labour. I'm also against conscription. All
work (including warfare) should be voluntary. And one's word should not be
weighted according to the work that person does. Also, merely having brawn
is not what determines responsibility. One can be brainy and responsible.
The cave-man standard has long ago been abandoned. Surely you don't want to
return to the stone age, do you?
Heidi
Deborah Terreson
<supero...@aol.com> wrote:
> ARe you really a US woman? Well if you aren't deborah, do not argue
> with the american women, for she is lower than an animal
>
Yes, I am from New England.
I like the arguments.
It's good for sharpening the mind. I only rise up to the more obnoxious
women, but I don't argue much though, as the competition isn't too
difficult.
Deb.
mountain...@gmail.com
done, it's the bad attitude. Now that women no longer need a man, men
are an option. This is what men don't like and consider unnatural.
The very fact that men are reduced to an option is evidence and proof
that women are in charge and control.
When women are in charge and control, the roles are reversed and the
new masters are worse than the old. Not to mention that nature has not
prepared any of us for this reversal and nobody knows what to do with
it, except of course, those who love power, and what woman doesn't?
Pride preceeds a fall.
Deborah Terreson
<heid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTS...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:CMGdnRS5w9C...@comcast.com...
> (snip)
>
>>Deborah wrote:
>> I don't know a single electrical lineman who actually LIKES working in a
>> cherry picker, putting back up a downed line during a storm. Alas, someone
>> HAS to do it, and that is the 'responsibility' to the job.
>
> Whatever happened to men actually climbing poles? The ability to climb
> poles used to be that "men's standard" to get that job installing hydro,
> telephone and cable lines. One of the few female telephone installers I
> know doesn't bother to wait and hang around for hours on end for that cherry
> picker to arrive. She scrambles up the pole, which the men refuse to do,
> and thereby provides the customer with timely and efficient service. Her
> beef: the guys simply refuse to haul their fat asses up the pole because
> it's too hard. She, being lithe and thin, has no trouble doing that "man's"
> job.
Lot's of men climb up ladders, the Comcast guys were out on Friday, doing
last minute work across the street from me. Not everyone will wait for a
cherry picker. If these guys on this job your friend has are waiting for
equipment that's unnecessary, that's not a sexual policy in action, but
obviously a work standards one. The company should be making sure the
linemen know their obligations to the employer and customer and not their
comfort are first.
>
> (snip)
>
>> Penis only standards are the only ones that matter in some lines of work.
>
> Penis standards have long ago given way to "mechanical" standards. Any
> vagina can use a mechanical device which the penii are using, too.
Exactly.
>
>>
>> But you know the funny thing? Penis only standards, for the most part, are
>> fairly easy for vagina workers (hell, they've turned out to be a snap for
>> me).
>
> Sure...given the power tools that the men use, even women can do those heavy
> jobs. It's not that difficult to use an air tool to drive those nails.
Yep. You're saying the SAME thing I am.
>
>>
>> Too bad vagina workers would rather work in fields set to vagina standards
>> only.
>
> Well...the penii workers have chosen to forgo penii standards in order to
> pussify their work. Now even pussies can do what used to be traditional
> "men's work."
Ah, but there's the rub. they CAN, but choose NOT to, and then still cry
about the lack of 'equality' in employment!
>
>>
>> What a bunch of pussies. ;-)
>
> The men? Sure. ;-) If you give that penis a choice between actually using
> that penis vs. a mechanical device, they're using the mechanical. Muscle
> vs. machine...if the men can avoid using their muscles, they'll do so.
>
> Anyway, Deb, you seem to be saying that people who are prepared to do the
> most dangerous work are the ones who ought to have a greater say and they
> ought to be looked at as the more responsible. Among the world's most
> dangerous work is capping burning blow-out of oil rigs. Few men in this
> world are trained for it and few will choose to do this.
>
> Are you saying that the man who caps burning oil wells should have a greater
> weight in say than that man who sits behind a computer terminal all day?
If the man sitting behind the computer is invaluable to preserving a
resource that many others, in fact whole economies depend on, the answer is
yes.
> That the man who caps oil wells is more responsible than that computer
> programmer? That the man who caps oils wells should rule, while the
> computer programmer should submit and shut the f*ck up?
The man who chooses the fire work and the man who chooses the computer work
are representative of the full scope of of human endeavor. Women do not, by
and large, choose the more difficult and dangerous jobs, yet it is women who
continually are seeking 'equality'.
>
> If the willingness and ability to do some of the most dangerous work is what
> should determine one's superiority, then an awfull lot of men would have to
> sh*t up and remain quiet. And all those men who choose safe and clean work
> should be considered irresponsible.
Ah, but do you hear men crying about their lack of 'equality'? Oh sure,
there may be the occasional 'reverse' discrimination thing on a job or
college campus, but it is by no means as large as the hue and cry from the
feminist movement today.
>
> Since men are not judging themselves according to that criteria, then why
> apply it to women? The weight of one's word should not be based upon one's
> brawn and ones willingness to place themselves into dangerous situations.
> Most men will avoid it and they do!
There's a statistically large enough difference in the numbers of men and
women in the jobs of higher risk, that undermines the women who say they
want 'equality.' Men aren't the ones claiming discrimination all over the
place. Women are. Truth is, there's plenty of risky work that men would love
to step away from, if there was someone else, even women, to take over.
>
> You'll notice, too, that in order to get men to do dangerous work (ie.
> warfare), they pretty much have to be conscripted (or forced, shamed, etc)
> into it. I'm against forced labour. I'm also against conscription. All
> work (including warfare) should be voluntary. And one's word should not be
> weighted according to the work that person does. Also, merely having brawn
> is not what determines responsibility. One can be brainy and responsible.
Of that I have no doubt. It is however, annoying when by and large, women go
off on tangents about work 'equality' and choose easy work only, and then
expect that they're going to be given the same wages and benefits. Sad truth
is, too much of the white-collar employment today is the 21st century
equivalent of millwork.
> The cave-man standard has long ago been abandoned. Surely you don't want to
> return to the stone age, do you?
If I could see a wooly mammoth, sure.
Deb.
P.S. OT totally to the thread - I recall a picture you posted and I grabbed
it and just recently finished some more color theory books so I decided to
try some Photoshop tricks on it - hope you don't mind - it came out pretty
snazzy if I do say so myself. Cleaned up the flecks on the scan, ran it
through the levels and brought up the colors and played with the background.
Here 'tis.
http://www.geocities.com/foodandart/RetouchedSteven.jpg
TXZZ
being in charge, and it'll be the end of us.
Sill...@famous.com
>I dont' believe you for a moment. The fact that your daughter is
>working side by side with men who are not able to sexually harass her
>and get away with it, speaks well of feminism. :-) It's all over
>Kenny.
>>
>> ...Ken
Didn't you say you were leaving? Get out, already. Jeez.
Hyerdahl
Deborah Terreson wrote:
> In article <1136133475....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> ,
> "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Deborah Terreson wrote:
> > (edit)
> >> >
> >> > Poor little Dave Sim cockpuppets have bought into the notion that women
> MUST> choose jobs that require brick hodding or mine working.
> >>
> >> Equality includes responsibility and responsibility goes hand in hand into
> >> ACCEPTING the idea that there are things that may need doing that one finds
> >> physically unpleasant.
> >
> > When one CHOOSES a job that is "physically unpleasant" one must do that
> > job. So choose well. I think that fact that women tend to choose
> > more pleasant work than some men is making other men angry. :-)
> >
> > This includes entry into dangerous jobs when a space>> is available.
> >
> > There is no law or even morality that says a woman should take
> > dangerous jobs.
>
> And of course, NO responsibility, right?
Indeed, there is no moral responsibility required since jobs are chosen
and not forced on people.
> > There is no push for seeing men take dangerous jobs.> > It's a choice.
>
> So then, those women that do NOT make the choice to engage in equality, by
> accepting the risk inherent in the work they choose, should shut up about
> wanting 'equality'.
Equality has nothing at all to do with being forced into certain work.
Equality is about the equal right TO work. Do you see the difference?>
> It really IS that simple.
> >
> > Equality demands NO less, otherwise just harping about 'choice' from a
> > safe place is really just selfishness.
> >
> > Where is the bogeyman forcing men to take dangerous jobs?
>
> It's called 'responsibility' Parg. Something you wouldn't know much of.
No, 'Deb'...no one has the moral or legal "responsibility" to work in a
mine unless they are employed there, and that's a choice.
> I don't know a single electrical lineman who actually LIKES working in a
> cherry picker, putting back up a downed line during a storm. Alas, someone
> HAS to do it, and that is the 'responsibility' to the job.
Sure, and there are male and female linepersons :-) but they weren't
forced to do that work; they chose it. If they don't like it they can
choose something else.
>
> What you can't get your thick head around, is that there ARE things that
> benefit everyone, that are parts of an infrastructure that requires
> maintenance constantly.
What you don't understand is that the men who choose these jobs CHOOSE
to do them, as do the women who choose their jobs. There is "lineman'
craft. :-)
> Weren't you the one harping not too long ago, about how 'women would
> survive' if men disappeared?
I don't harp,. but I did raise that point.
>
> How'd that be anything MORE than some pathetic fantasy of yours without more
> women doing the very things they eschew?
Women already do those things, whether or not you give the women who
CHOOSE to do them any notice. :-)
>
> > It isn't
> > women who are "harping" here; it's you Dave Sim cockpuppet. Take the
> > jobs you like; leave those you don't. No one is forcing men to take
> > these jobs.
> >
> > If one can't meet a standard, quit the work, and shut the fuck up about
> > 'equality'.
> >>
> > As long as the standards aren't penis only standards, I agree.
>
> Penis only standards are the only ones that matter in some lines of work.
Nah. Today there are all sorts of safety requirements that make things
clear, and penis standards are no longer tolorated.
>
> But you know the funny thing? Penis only standards, for the most part, are
> fairly easy for vagina workers (hell, they've turned out to be a snap for
> me).
>
Well, wherever women go they usually find that men lie about the actual
difficulty of the work they do. As you your vagina, that's just more
science fiction from Dave Sim.
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>Deb wrote:
> P.S. OT totally to the thread - I recall a picture you posted and I
> grabbed
> it and just recently finished some more color theory books so I decided to
> try some Photoshop tricks on it - hope you don't mind - it came out pretty
> snazzy if I do say so myself. Cleaned up the flecks on the scan, ran it
> through the levels and brought up the colors and played with the
> background.
> Here 'tis.
> http://www.geocities.com/foodandart/RetouchedSteven.jpg
St. Steven? LOL... Well...ya, he's close enough. I tend to think he's is
blessed and has a touch of the divine. ;-) Thanks for doing that, Deb. I
like it. I've added it to the picture file and I'll show it to Steven when
he gets home later this evening. I'll let you know what he thinks.
As for your comments about those who gripe and complain about any existing
inequality, while not stepping up to the plate oneself, I do agree with
you. However, I can't see a practical way to deny these people their rights
and their say. I'm also not one who will tolerate a victim mentality unless
I see that victim *actively* doing something for themselves to pull
themselves out of it.
For example: I've come across women within my own social circle who'll
complain about that glass ceiling. To them I say: "So? If you don't like
it, smash it!" Don't just sit there and complain about it, *do* something
about it. The opportunities exist. Legally, there is nothing standing in
the way for any women to go out and *do* stuff and succeed. Seize the
opportunities. No-one is just going to go and hand them to you.
At the same time, though, I do come across men who also believe they've been
given a raw deal and that somehow life has been unfair and *someone else* is
creating the barriers. They also prefer to just whine and gripe about their
various situations. I'm as unsympathetic to these guys as I am towards
women who bitch and gripe in that same manner.
I figure, if someone has a problem, *do* something about it. Don't just sit
there to whine and gripe about it. I don't have the patience it. Let's
come up with a *work* plan and *work* at it to resolve that problem.
I tend to leave those whine and gripe parties in favor of victory parties
where everyone is sharing ideas about how they've overcome various barriers,
challenges, etc. Instead of hanging with losers, I hang with the winners.
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>"Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:QZ0uf.231851$ki.106352@pd7tw2no...
>
(snip)
>>Deb's reworking of Steven's portrait:
>> Here 'tis.
>> http://www.geocities.com/foodandart/RetouchedSteven.jpg
>
> St. Steven? LOL... Well...ya, he's close enough. I tend to think he's is
> blessed and has a touch of the divine. ;-) Thanks for doing that, Deb.
> I like it. I've added it to the picture file and I'll show it to Steven
> when he gets home later this evening. I'll let you know what he thinks.
<chuckle> I just got the word. Steven looked at it and laughed. He said,
"That's WEIRD! She should have used a pot leaf instead!" LOL... Bear in
mind, Steven does not smoke pot or cigarettes. He does, however, giggle
about "naughty" things. Plus he also knows that BC is known as that
marijuana capital of the world. So, as a citizen of BC, he thinks he ought
to be shown with a patriotic pot leaf! ;-)
Can you do that for him? He'd love it. I also just replaced the coloured
ink cartidge so I can print it out for him and frame it. I'll give the
picture of St. Steven to my Mom...but for Steven's bedroom, he'd love one of
himself with that pot leaf. ;-)
Heidi
Deborah Terreson
<heid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTS...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:uvmdnRXEe8F...@comcast.com...
> (snip)
>
>>Deb wrote:
>> P.S. OT totally to the thread - I recall a picture you posted and I
>> grabbed
>> it and just recently finished some more color theory books so I decided to
>> try some Photoshop tricks on it - hope you don't mind - it came out pretty
>> snazzy if I do say so myself. Cleaned up the flecks on the scan, ran it
>> through the levels and brought up the colors and played with the
>> background.
>> Here 'tis.
>> http://www.geocities.com/foodandart/RetouchedSteven.jpg
>
> St. Steven? LOL... Well...ya, he's close enough. I tend to think he's is
> blessed and has a touch of the divine. ;-) Thanks for doing that, Deb. I
> like it. I've added it to the picture file and I'll show it to Steven when
> he gets home later this evening. I'll let you know what he thinks.
You're welcome, Heidi. Hope he likes it too! :)
Deb.
Deborah Terreson
<heid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
No problem!
http://www.geocities.com/foodandart/StonerSteven.jpg
I added swirlies to the background of the leaf, very psychedelic!
Deb.
Heidi Graw
> In article <Be2uf.232179$ki.116300@pd7tw2no> , "Heidi Graw"
> <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>>"Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:QZ0uf.231851$ki.106352@pd7tw2no...
>>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>>>Deb's reworking of Steven's portrait:
>>>> Here 'tis.
>>>> http://www.geocities.com/foodandart/RetouchedSteven.jpg
(snip)
>>Heidi wrote:
>> <chuckle> I just got the word. Steven looked at it and laughed. He
>> said,
>> "That's WEIRD! She should have used a pot leaf instead!" LOL... Bear
>> in
>> mind, Steven does not smoke pot or cigarettes. He does, however, giggle
>> about "naughty" things. Plus he also knows that BC is known as that
>> marijuana capital of the world. So, as a citizen of BC, he thinks he
>> ought
>> to be shown with a patriotic pot leaf! ;-)
>>
>> Can you do that for him? He'd love it. I also just replaced the
>> coloured
>> ink cartidge so I can print it out for him and frame it. I'll give the
>> picture of St. Steven to my Mom...but for Steven's bedroom, he'd love one
>> of
>> himself with that pot leaf. ;-)
> Deb wrote:
> No problem!
>
> http://www.geocities.com/foodandart/StonerSteven.jpg
>
> I added swirlies to the background of the leaf, very psychedelic!
Wow! That is so cool! Steven LOVES it! He says, "Thank you, Deb!" ;-)
You've made one young man very happy! ;-)
I've shown that St. Steven picture to some others. They all liked what you
chose as a brackground much better. I've already framed it and Steven will
give it to his grandmother for her 70th birthday that we're celebrating
today.
As for Steven the stoner...LOL....PRICELESS! ;-) But, Steven definitely
owes you a lunch!
Thanks again, Deb.
Heidi
Rob
Nicely put Ken.
Heidi Graw
>"Rob" <robw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1136370310....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
[...piggy-backing off Rob's post...]
(snip)
>>Ken wrote:
>>Some things need doing in order to maintain and
>> expand our civilization and society.
Yes...like bearing children. Only women can actually gestate and bear those
children so you can have that civilization and that society.
In the oldern days, childbearing was incredibly risky. And within ancient
Germanic society this was known and acknowledged. The custom of the groom
given the bride a wedding gift arose from this possibility the wife might
die during child-birth. She was given her "weregild" before she actually
died and it was given to her instead of her family. If the infant survived,
but the mother died, that weregild was then given the child as an
inheritance.
Men, on the other hand risk dying during battle. Any loot gained by the
warriors was divided out. The portion that the deceased warrior was
entitled to had he survived was given his wife, children and other family
members. The man was not given a pre-death gift, not like that wife.
>>If men are the ones doing this,
>> then men are the ones who have EARNED the right to enjoy the benefits
>> that their labours have made possible. If women CHOOSE NOT to equally
>> participate in the maintenance and expansion of our civilization and
>> society, they simply have not EARNED the right to expect to equally
>> share in the benefits that MEN'S labour have made possible.
However, women are the only ones who can gestate and bear those children to
form that civilization. They're also typically the ones nurturing and
caring for those children to make sure they actually reach adulthood. And
when the men laboured out in the field or were away on one of their forays,
the wife was sewing the clothes, cooking the meals, feeding the children and
the domesticated animals. The wife was cleaning the pigpen while the hubby
was out looting some church across the Channel. ;-)
>>So, if men
>> CHOOSE to share the benefits they have earned with women,
The women, too, *earned* their benefits. The bore the people needed for
that civilization, they also assisted the men in whatever capacity they
could.
>>women should
>> be GRATEFUL that the benefits,
...as you should be grateful that your wife risked her life to bring forth
those offspring for you to lay claim to and leave all your stuff to once you
die.
Btw, did you thank the wife for that nice roast she cooked? Did you thank
her for washing and ironing your shirts? Did you thank her for allowing you
access to her most intimate body parts? When was the last time you thanked
your wife for anything she did for you? Do you thank her at all for
anything she does for you?
Heidi
Rob
Heidi Graw wrote:
> >"Rob" <robw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:1136370310....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
>
> [...piggy-backing off Rob's post...]
>
> (snip)
>
> >>Ken wrote:
> >>Some things need doing in order to maintain and
> >> expand our civilization and society.
>
> Yes...like bearing children. Only women can actually gestate and bear those
> children so you can have that civilization and that society.
And only men can impregnate for the same outcome and provide while both
mother and child are recovering and developing. But because men clearly
enjoy a part of that process and you'd rather not feel indebted to them
for the balance you discount their role, ignoring how much women enjoy
their children.
> In the oldern days, childbearing was incredibly risky. And within ancient
> Germanic society this was known and acknowledged. The custom of the groom
> given the bride a wedding gift arose from this possibility the wife might
> die during child-birth. She was given her "weregild" before she actually
> died and it was given to her instead of her family. If the infant survived,
> but the mother died, that weregild was then given the child as an
> inheritance.
Interesting proposition, can you prove it? Weregild is normally
compensation paid by a murderer. A 'bride price', which is what you may
be referring to, is usually the compensation to the bride's family for
the loss of her labour or fertility in societies where a woman is an
asset rather than a liability.
Life was incredibly risky then, not just childbirth. There have been
other threads here that have put the lie to this imaginary 'balance' of
death. Women have always been protected relative to men, its a survival
necessity for any successful community.
> Men, on the other hand risk dying during battle. Any loot gained by the
> warriors was divided out. The portion that the deceased warrior was
> entitled to had he survived was given his wife, children and other family
> members. The man was not given a pre-death gift, not like that wife.
>
There are many examples of communities that practise dowrys, but few
will have much to do with pre-compensation-for-death payments I
suspect!
> >>If men are the ones doing this,
> >> then men are the ones who have EARNED the right to enjoy the benefits
> >> that their labours have made possible. If women CHOOSE NOT to equally
> >> participate in the maintenance and expansion of our civilization and
> >> society, they simply have not EARNED the right to expect to equally
> >> share in the benefits that MEN'S labour have made possible.
>
> However, women are the only ones who can gestate and bear those children to
> form that civilization. They're also typically the ones nurturing and
> caring for those children to make sure they actually reach adulthood. And
> when the men laboured out in the field or were away on one of their forays,
> the wife was sewing the clothes, cooking the meals, feeding the children and
> the domesticated animals. The wife was cleaning the pigpen while the hubby
> was out looting some church across the Channel. ;-)
You've got all that history stuff well sorted now, then?
> >>So, if men
> >> CHOOSE to share the benefits they have earned with women,
>
> The women, too, *earned* their benefits. The bore the people needed for
> that civilization, they also assisted the men in whatever capacity they
> could.
And valuable assistance too. Noone is suggesting that they didn't do as
much as they could, just as most men did. We all love our moms. But
women didn't contribute the exceptional drive and imagination that
brought us out of the cave. The rights and privileges we in the West
enjoy are almost exclusively the result of men's work. Forget this and
risk the engine of progress stalling.
> >>women should
> >> be GRATEFUL that the benefits,
>
> ...as you should be grateful that your wife risked her life to bring forth
> those offspring for you to lay claim to and leave all your stuff to once you
> die.
>
> Btw, did you thank the wife for that nice roast she cooked?
She doesn't.
> Did you thank
> her for washing and ironing your shirts?
She doesn't.
> Did you thank her for allowing you
> access to her most intimate body parts?
That would be Heidi Presumptuousness Graw, would it?
> When was the last time you thanked
> your wife for anything she did for you?
When did she last do anything for me, as opposed to for herself? Mainly
she just takes my money and, despite working part time, contributes
none of her own to the partnership (sic).
> Do you thank her at all for
> anything she does for you?
No. Gave that up years ago after realising that, for decades, she never
thanked me for anything I did for her. In fact she acted as if she
resented these things, so I've progressively stopped doing them. Its
hard and shrinks the soul, but I'm working out countervailing
strategies and doing my best to get used to it. Once married, men don't
have a viable alternative these days.
Ben
Heidi Graw wrote:
> >"Rob" <robw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:1136370310....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
>
> [...piggy-backing off Rob's post...]
>
> (snip)
>
> >>Ken wrote:
> >>Some things need doing in order to maintain and
> >> expand our civilization and society.
>
> Yes...like bearing children. Only women can actually gestate and bear those
> children so you can have that civilization and that society.
Which they don't do alone. And they profit from civilization and
society as much as men.
>
> In the oldern days, childbearing was incredibly risky.
Life for everyone was risky. But the simply fact is that most women
don't die in childbirth.
> And within ancient
> Germanic society this was known and acknowledged. The custom of the groom
> given the bride a wedding gift arose from this possibility the wife might
> die during child-birth. She was given her "weregild" before she actually
> died and it was given to her instead of her family. If the infant survived,
> but the mother died, that weregild was then given the child as an
> inheritance.
>
> Men, on the other hand risk dying during battle. Any loot gained by the
> warriors was divided out. The portion that the deceased warrior was
> entitled to had he survived was given his wife, children and other family
> members. The man was not given a pre-death gift, not like that wife.
>
> >>If men are the ones doing this,
> >> then men are the ones who have EARNED the right to enjoy the benefits
> >> that their labours have made possible. If women CHOOSE NOT to equally
> >> participate in the maintenance and expansion of our civilization and
> >> society, they simply have not EARNED the right to expect to equally
> >> share in the benefits that MEN'S labour have made possible.
>
> However, women are the only ones who can gestate and bear those children to
> form that civilization.
Children don't "form a civilization"--forming the civilization forms
the civilization.
> They're also typically the ones nurturing and
> caring for those children to make sure they actually reach adulthood. And
> when the men laboured out in the field or were away on one of their forays,
> the wife was sewing the clothes, cooking the meals, feeding the children and
> the domesticated animals. The wife was cleaning the pigpen while the hubby
> was out looting some church across the Channel. ;-)
>
> >>So, if men
> >> CHOOSE to share the benefits they have earned with women,
>
> The women, too, *earned* their benefits. The bore the people needed for
> that civilization,
Sorry, but I just don't see masses of women getting pregnant with the
idea that they're providing a societal service. Generally, the motives
are more centered around their own families.
> they also assisted the men in whatever capacity they
> could.
Agreed.
>
> >>women should
> >> be GRATEFUL that the benefits,
>
> ...as you should be grateful that your wife risked her life to bring forth
> those offspring for you to lay claim to
Don't they *both* lay claim to them? And the women perhaps more so
than the men?
> and leave all your stuff to once you
> die.
>
> Btw, did you thank the wife for that nice roast she cooked? Did you thank
> her for washing and ironing your shirts?
Yes, I usually do, for the meals and laundry that I don't do myself.
> Did you thank her for allowing you
> access to her most intimate body parts?
lol Jesus, woman, get over yourself.
Hyerdahl
Ben wrote:
> Heidi Graw wrote:
> > >"Rob" <robw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:1136370310....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> >
> > [...piggy-backing off Rob's post...]
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > >>Ken wrote:
> > >>Some things need doing in order to maintain and
> > >> expand our civilization and society.
> >
> > Yes...like bearing children. Only women can actually gestate and bear those
> > children so you can have that civilization and that society.
>
> Which they don't do alone. And they profit from civilization and
> society as much as men.
Yes, children gestate children ALONE. You may be confused between the
words 'conception' and 'gestation' but I assure you that men niether
gestate nor deliver.
>
> > In the oldern days, childbearing was incredibly risky.
>
It still is. First, women's bodies are never the same after delivery.
Most delivering women are subject to weight gain, stretch marks,
bloating and minor surgery adjunct to delivery. Many women also
experience high blood pressure, toxemia, and other things during
gestation. And still other women, like my own sister, risk their very
lives when things develop that cause a pregnant woman to 'bleed out' or
some other event. Some women experience such a fluctuation in blood
pressure as to have a stroke or heart attack. Most pregnant women
(whether or not they deliver a child) experince morning sickness and
mood altering hormone changes.
> Life for everyone was risky. But the simply fact is that most women
> don't die in childbirth.
Women risk life and health in childbirth and since more women have
children than men go to war, more women risk for the future.
>
> > And within ancient
> > Germanic society this was known and acknowledged. The custom of the groom
> > given the bride a wedding gift arose from this possibility the wife might
> > die during child-birth. She was given her "weregild" before she actually
> > died and it was given to her instead of her family. If the infant survived,
> > but the mother died, that weregild was then given the child as an
> > inheritance.
Sure. More women have, historically died in childbirth then men have
been killed as soldiers in war, which is why so many men historically
remarried, and married much younger women.
> >
> > Men, on the other hand risk dying during battle. Any loot gained by the
> > warriors was divided out. The portion that the deceased warrior was
> > entitled to had he survived was given his wife, children and other family
> > members. The man was not given a pre-death gift, not like that wife.
Well, a dead woman doesn't need the ring. :-) A dead man doesn't need
loot. It all goes to the family, no?
> >
> > >>If men are the ones doing this,
> > >> then men are the ones who have EARNED the right to enjoy the benefits
> > >> that their labours have made possible. If women CHOOSE NOT to equally
> > >> participate in the maintenance and expansion of our civilization and
> > >> society, they simply have not EARNED the right to expect to equally
> > >> share in the benefits that MEN'S labour have made possible.
> >
> > However, women are the only ones who can gestate and bear those children to
> > form that civilization.
>
> Children don't "form a civilization"--forming the civilization forms
> the civilization.
>
It doesn't matter, Ben; you can't build an army without men and women
bear men as babies. Society doesn't buy your biased view that only
men's sacrifice has value, nor do I. And I would not buy it regardless
of what society does. It's simply a phallic view of the world, that
ONLY what men provide has value.
> > They're also typically the ones nurturing and
> > caring for those children to make sure they actually reach adulthood. And
> > when the men laboured out in the field or were away on one of their forays,
> > the wife was sewing the clothes, cooking the meals, feeding the children and
> > the domesticated animals. The wife was cleaning the pigpen while the hubby
> > was out looting some church across the Channel. ;-)
Colorful view of the world, you have matey! :-) In any event, in
those days women had little to say about their roles, and perhaps the
smartest women of the time, simply remained alone in a cottage on the
edge of the city (at least until witch burning became the most popular
way to steal their property).
>So, if men> CHOOSE to share the benefits they have earned with women,
> >
> > The women, too, *earned* their benefits. The bore the people needed for
> > that civilization,
>
> Sorry, but I just don't see masses of women getting pregnant with the
> idea that they're providing a societal service. Generally, the motives
> are more centered around their own families.
Ben, you have a phallic view of the world, which is really nothing much
new in this NG. But that won't change how most of society views women
and the huge sacrifice they make when bearing each future generation.
And it certainly wouldn't change my mind, in any event. A woman who
FEELS she is unvalued by society has several choices. She can marry a
master and never love him or find an egalitarian man who understands
and agrees with her plight, OR she can become a 'witch'. :-) But
today, most women can simply vote, own their own property, work for
demanded equal pay, and ignore bitter boys who don't find their efforts
equal. They raise their eyes to the heavens, laugh at you and move
forward.
> >
> > >>women should>> be GRATEFUL that the benefits,
> >
Women don't need to be "grateful". They are enjoying the blessings of
what they, themselves provide, knowing full well that men deserve no
unjust reward. Women today know they hold up half the sky, and, in
some cases the whole sky. Women aren't buying your snake oil.
>
Ben
Hyerdahl wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > Heidi Graw wrote:
> > > >"Rob" <robw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > >news:1136370310....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > >
> > > [...piggy-backing off Rob's post...]
> > >
> > > (snip)
> > >
> > > >>Ken wrote:
> > > >>Some things need doing in order to maintain and
> > > >> expand our civilization and society.
> > >
> > > Yes...like bearing children. Only women can actually gestate and bear those
> > > children so you can have that civilization and that society.
> >
> > Which they don't do alone. And they profit from civilization and
> > society as much as men.
>
> Yes, children gestate children ALONE.
They don't get pregnant by themselves, and they don't run off to be
alone until they have their children. Perhaps you haven't noticed the
huge amount of resources dedicated to healthy pregnancies and
childbearing.
> You may be confused between the
> words 'conception' and 'gestation' but I assure you that men niether
> gestate nor deliver.
No, and I assure you that women profit from civilization and society as
much as men. Is it still a sacrifice when you have as much to gain as
anyone else?
> >
> > > In the oldern days, childbearing was incredibly risky.
> >
> It still is. First, women's bodies are never the same after delivery.
They can be if the women want them to be, for the most part. My wife
is a tiny little thing, and she got huge when she was pregnant.
Shortly after delivery, her weight was back to where it was before, and
to this day, you'd never know from her body that she had a
child...you'd have to check the grey hairs for that. ;)
> Most delivering women are subject to weight gain, stretch marks,
> bloating and minor surgery adjunct to delivery. Many women also
> experience high blood pressure, toxemia, and other things during
> gestation. And still other women, like my own sister, risk their very
> lives when things develop that cause a pregnant woman to 'bleed out' or
> some other event. Some women experience such a fluctuation in blood
> pressure as to have a stroke or heart attack.
It is very hazardous for some women, but not for most. Going to work
is very hazardous for some men, but not for most.
> Most pregnant women
> (whether or not they deliver a child) experince morning sickness and
> mood altering hormone changes.
Sorry, don't see that as life-threatening.
>
> > Life for everyone was risky. But the simply fact is that most women
> > don't die in childbirth.
>
> Women risk life and health in childbirth and since more women have
> children than men go to war, more women risk for the future.
Most women don't die in childbirth. Most make it through multiple
births just fine.
> >
> > > And within ancient
> > > Germanic society this was known and acknowledged. The custom of the groom
> > > given the bride a wedding gift arose from this possibility the wife might
> > > die during child-birth. She was given her "weregild" before she actually
> > > died and it was given to her instead of her family. If the infant survived,
> > > but the mother died, that weregild was then given the child as an
> > > inheritance.
>
> Sure. More women have, historically died in childbirth then men have
> been killed as soldiers in war,
Your proof?
> which is why so many men historically
> remarried, and married much younger women.
Well, if you're remarrying to have children, you wouldn't marry older
women, would you?
> > >
> > > Men, on the other hand risk dying during battle. Any loot gained by the
> > > warriors was divided out. The portion that the deceased warrior was
> > > entitled to had he survived was given his wife, children and other family
> > > members. The man was not given a pre-death gift, not like that wife.
>
> Well, a dead woman doesn't need the ring. :-) A dead man doesn't need
> loot. It all goes to the family, no?
> > >
> > > >>If men are the ones doing this,
> > > >> then men are the ones who have EARNED the right to enjoy the benefits
> > > >> that their labours have made possible. If women CHOOSE NOT to equally
> > > >> participate in the maintenance and expansion of our civilization and
> > > >> society, they simply have not EARNED the right to expect to equally
> > > >> share in the benefits that MEN'S labour have made possible.
> > >
> > > However, women are the only ones who can gestate and bear those children to
> > > form that civilization.
> >
> > Children don't "form a civilization"--forming the civilization forms
> > the civilization.
> >
> It doesn't matter, Ben; you can't build an army without men and women
> bear men as babies.
Well, you can't build anything without raw materials, but it doesn't
make the people providing the materials engineers. I send people to
court--it doesn't make me a prosecutor.
> Society doesn't buy your biased view that only
> men's sacrifice has value, nor do I.
Doesn't really matter what you buy or not, I'm simply stating that it's
not just the women who do the work or 'sacrifices', regardless of how
you'd like to present it.
> And I would not buy it regardless
> of what society does.
So?
> It's simply a phallic view of the world, that
> ONLY what men provide has value.
I'm just countering the gynocentric version presented here, since you
attach no value to men.
>
> > > They're also typically the ones nurturing and
> > > caring for those children to make sure they actually reach adulthood. And
> > > when the men laboured out in the field or were away on one of their forays,
> > > the wife was sewing the clothes, cooking the meals, feeding the children and
> > > the domesticated animals. The wife was cleaning the pigpen while the hubby
> > > was out looting some church across the Channel. ;-)
>
> Colorful view of the world, you have matey! :-) In any event, in
> those days women had little to say about their roles, and perhaps the
> smartest women of the time, simply remained alone in a cottage on the
> edge of the city (at least until witch burning became the most popular
> way to steal their property).
>
> >So, if men> CHOOSE to share the benefits they have earned with women,
> > >
> > > The women, too, *earned* their benefits. The bore the people needed for
> > > that civilization,
> >
> > Sorry, but I just don't see masses of women getting pregnant with the
> > idea that they're providing a societal service. Generally, the motives
> > are more centered around their own families.
>
> Ben, you have a phallic view of the world, which is really nothing much
> new in this NG.
Howso, Hy? You're the one who thinks paying women to have children is
a fine thing, when in reality it's very selfish and self-absorbed.
And, with the childbirth rates dropping like stones in most western
style civilizations, to the point where there's a very real danger that
these civilizations will be unrecognizable in their current form by the
end of the century, it's obvious that women as a group aren't concerned
with having children for the larger good. So we're back to my
statement that most women have children for self-motivated reasons and
little else. But, to be fair, the same applies to men--I don't think
they run around looking to get women pregnant in order to prevent the
fall of the West.
> But that won't change how most of society views women
> and the huge sacrifice they make when bearing each future generation.
> And it certainly wouldn't change my mind, in any event.
Hy, changing your mind is the least of my concerns.
> A woman who
> FEELS she is unvalued by society has several choices. She can marry a
> master and never love him or find an egalitarian man who understands
> and agrees with her plight, OR she can become a 'witch'. :-) But
> today, most women can simply vote, own their own property, work for
> demanded equal pay, and ignore bitter boys who don't find their efforts
> equal. They raise their eyes to the heavens, laugh at you and move
> forward.
What *are* you babbling about?
Hyerdahl
Only as much as men's OLD unique contribution was a sacrifice, i.e. if
we consider men's dying in wars as a sacrifice, there's no reason we
can't consider women's deaths in childbirth a sacrifice. Both
"profit" from civilization and certainly peopling a nation has been
necessary for that. Of course, today women also volunteer for military
duties today as well, at least those from which they are not barred.
> > > > In the oldern days, childbearing was incredibly risky.
> > >
> > It still is. First, women's bodies are never the same after delivery.
>
> They can be if the women want them to be, for the most part.
It's a good thing you included "for the most part". My coment still
holds true, Ben, women's bodies are never "the same" after delivery.
My wife> is a tiny little thing, and she got huge when she was
pregnant.
> Shortly after delivery, her weight was back to where it was before, and
> to this day, you'd never know from her body that she had a
> child...you'd have to check the grey hairs for that. ;)
>
On her or you? :-) Weight, is not the only thing that changes Ben.
If a woman delivers a child vaginally, for example, she will not be as
tight as she once was. It's just what happens. Her sexuality can be
extremely diminished by giving birth as well.
> > Most delivering women are subject to weight gain, stretch marks,
> > bloating and minor surgery adjunct to delivery. Many women also
> > experience high blood pressure, toxemia, and other things during
> > gestation. And still other women, like my own sister, risk their very
> > lives when things develop that cause a pregnant woman to 'bleed out' or
> > some other event. Some women experience such a fluctuation in blood
> > pressure as to have a stroke or heart attack.
>
> It is very hazardous for some women, but not for most. Going to work
> is very hazardous for some men, but not for most.
Women work too, Ben. Women fact the same risks men face PLUS the risks
adjunct to pregancy, gestation and delivery.
>
> > Most pregnant women> > (whether or not they deliver a child) experince morning sickness and> > mood altering hormone changes.
>
> Sorry, don't see that as life-threatening.
I don't need to call it "life-threatening" in order to discuss all the
risks to HEALTH that women face....that men don't when it comes to
gestation and delivery.
>
> > > Life for everyone was risky. But the simply fact is that most women
> > > don't die in childbirth.
Most women don't have to "die in childbirth" in order to have risks men
don't share, in the same way that women don't have to be disadvantaged
in the classroom in order to face discrimination in education funding.
Logic beats emotion every time.
> > Women risk life and health in childbirth and since more women have
> > children than men go to war, more women risk for the future.
>
> Most women don't die in childbirth. Most make it through multiple
> births just fine.
Most men don't die as soldiers in war. More "make it thru" just fine.
My father served during WWII in Okinawa and he made radios and
sea-shell necklaces, never seeing one day of action, while my mother
risked her life giving birth to her children.
> > >
> > > > And within ancient
> > > > Germanic society this was known and acknowledged. The custom of the groom
> > > > given the bride a wedding gift arose from this possibility the wife might
> > > > die during child-birth. She was given her "weregild" before she actually
> > > > died and it was given to her instead of her family. If the infant survived,
> > > > but the mother died, that weregild was then given the child as an
> > > > inheritance.
> >
> > Sure. More women have, historically died in childbirth then men have
> > been killed as soldiers in war,
>
> Your proof?
Common sense and biographical accounts historically recorded about
marriages, births and deaths. The United Nations posts the horrendous
figures of women dying in childbirth related ailments 'round the world.
>
> > which is why so many men historically > remarried, and married much younger women.
>
> Well, if you're remarrying to have children, you wouldn't marry older
> women, would you?
Indeed. You'd use them and 'refuse' them if you were a misogynist,
which probably defined many, if not, most of our forefathers.
>
> > > > Men, on the other hand risk dying during battle. Any loot gained by the
> > > > warriors was divided out. The portion that the deceased warrior was
> > > > entitled to had he survived was given his wife, children and other family
> > > > members. The man was not given a pre-death gift, not like that wife.
> >
> > Well, a dead woman doesn't need the ring. :-) A dead man doesn't need
> > loot. It all goes to the family, no?
> > > >
> > > > >>If men are the ones doing this,
> > > > >> then men are the ones who have EARNED the right to enjoy the benefits
> > > > >> that their labours have made possible. If women CHOOSE NOT to equally
> > > > >> participate in the maintenance and expansion of our civilization and
> > > > >> society, they simply have not EARNED the right to expect to equally
> > > > >> share in the benefits that MEN'S labour have made possible.
> > > >
> > > > However, women are the only ones who can gestate and bear those children to
> > > > form that civilization.
> > >
> > > Children don't "form a civilization"--forming the civilization forms
> > > the civilization.
> > >
> > It doesn't matter, Ben; you can't build an army without men and women
> > bear men as babies.
>
> Well, you can't build anything without raw materials, but it doesn't
> make the people providing the materials engineers. I send people to
> court--it doesn't make me a prosecutor.
Ah, but the police force gets rewarded as does the prosecutor, and both
get credit for what they do, no? I see cops getting their little
medals and accolades all the time.
And without the cop, the perps don't get caught. What you seem to be
doing is finding some false glory for the prosecutor at the expense of
the cop.
>
> > Society doesn't buy your biased view that only
> > men's sacrifice has value, nor do I.
>
> Doesn't really matter what you buy or not, I'm simply stating that it's
> not just the women who do the work or 'sacrifices', regardless of how
> you'd like to present it.
I never said that ONLY women sacrifice, Ben. What I have said in the
past here is that I don't honor what has been male only sacrifice
BECAUSE that which has been female only sacrifice has not been honored.
Do you see the difference?
> And I would not buy it regardless > of what society does.
>
> So?
So, I'm consistent. :-)
>
> > It's simply a phallic view of the world, that> ONLY what men provide has value.
>
> I'm just countering the gynocentric version presented here, since you
> attach no value to men.
That's not true, at all. First, I've made the comment here many times,
that men have intrinsic value...just like women. I've also suggested
that individual men who make themselves valuable ARE valuable. I'm not
looking for special rights or perks, just equal rights. What I don't
do is try to pretend special value just to make men look special.
:-) Men/boys don't deserve or need that. They can be valuable in
their own right.
> > > > They're also typically the ones nurturing and
> > > > caring for those children to make sure they actually reach adulthood. And
> > > > when the men laboured out in the field or were away on one of their forays,
> > > > the wife was sewing the clothes, cooking the meals, feeding the children and
> > > > the domesticated animals. The wife was cleaning the pigpen while the hubby
> > > > was out looting some church across the Channel. ;-)
> >
> > Colorful view of the world, you have matey! :-) In any event, in
> > those days women had little to say about their roles, and perhaps the
> > smartest women of the time, simply remained alone in a cottage on the
> > edge of the city (at least until witch burning became the most popular
> > way to steal their property).
> >
> > >So, if men> CHOOSE to share the benefits they have earned with women,
> > > >
> > > > The women, too, *earned* their benefits. The bore the people needed for
> > > > that civilization,
> > >
> > > Sorry, but I just don't see masses of women getting pregnant with the
> > > idea that they're providing a societal service. Generally, the motives
> > > are more centered around their own families.
> >
> > Ben, you have a phallic view of the world, which is really nothing much
> > new in this NG.
>
> Howso, Hy? You're the one who thinks paying women to have children is
> a fine thing, when in reality it's very selfish and self-absorbed.
That's a crazy notion since men find having families just as rewarding
as women. I ran into a divorced man the other day; he's about 55 years
old, and he was telling me how he loves to take his daughter and grand
children camping. It's his favorite thing. I think you'd have some
difficulty explaining to him how his ex-wife was "selfish" in giving
him that opportunity. But be my guest.
> And, with the childbirth rates dropping like stones in most western
> style civilizations, to the point where there's a very real danger that
> these civilizations will be unrecognizable in their current form by the
> end of the century, it's obvious that women as a group aren't concerned
> with having children for the larger good. So we're back to my
> statement that most women have children for self-motivated reasons and
> little else. But, to be fair, the same applies to men--I don't think
> they run around looking to get women pregnant in order to prevent the
> fall of the West.
Whatever individual reasons women have for having children or men have
for joining the military, both of them sacrifice. Women sacrifice
their health and risk their lives every time they gestate, and men and
women who join the military also risk their lives when deployed in war.
>
> > But that won't change how most of society views women
> > and the huge sacrifice they make when bearing each future generation.
> > And it certainly wouldn't change my mind, in any event.
>
> Hy, changing your mind is the least of my concerns.
>
Well, good. That might well lead you to start changing your own. :-)
> > A woman who > FEELS she is unvalued by society has several choices. She can marry a > master and never love him or find an egalitarian man who understands
> > and agrees with her plight, OR she can become a 'witch'. :-) But
> > today, most women can simply vote, own their own property, work for
> > demanded equal pay, and ignore bitter boys who don't find their efforts
> > equal. They raise their eyes to the heavens, laugh at you and move
> > forward.
>
> What *are* you babbling about?
About freedom, Ben; that's what women want, and that's what they're
headed toward in this modern time. This is a time for women where they
may well choose more and more to buy that 'witch' house. :-) They
seem to want to practice living on a different level, and the only men
they will take with them are those egalitarian, and enlightened men who
are not insecure. The only way to end that would be another Spanish
Inquisition. :-)
Heidi Graw
>
> Heidi Graw wrote:
>> >"Rob" <robw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:1136370310....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>>
>> [...piggy-backing off Rob's post...]
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> >>Ken wrote:
>> >>Some things need doing in order to maintain and
>> >> expand our civilization and society.
>>Heidi wrote:
>> Yes...like bearing children. Only women can actually gestate and bear
>> those
>> children so you can have that civilization and that society.
> Ben wrote:
> And only men can impregnate for the same outcome
That impregnation was useless, though, if the woman chose to take a herbal
concoction or otherwise abort if she didn't want to gestate and bear a
child. The existence of society depended on the women's willingness to
actually bear those children.
(snip)
>> In the oldern days, childbearing was incredibly risky. And within
>> ancient
>> Germanic society this was known and acknowledged. The custom of the
>> groom
>> given the bride a wedding gift arose from this possibility the wife might
>> die during child-birth. She was given her "weregild" before she actually
>> died and it was given to her instead of her family. If the infant
>> survived,
>> but the mother died, that weregild was then given the child as an
>> inheritance.
> Ben wrote:
> Interesting proposition, can you prove it? Weregild is normally
> compensation paid by a murderer. A 'bride price', which is what you may
> be referring to, is usually the compensation to the bride's family for
> the loss of her labour or fertility in societies where a woman is an
> asset rather than a liability.
In traditional Viking society, the bride price was given to the bride...not
to her family. The parents of both bride and groom would also negotiate
what goods and wealth each set of parents would provide to give that couple
the chance to set up their own household. There tended to be a lot of
haggling between the families to ensure an equal contribution that both
families considered fair was being made.
Both bride and groom would enter into the marriage with goods and wealth
provided by their parents, plus the groom would on top of all that give his
bride a "bridal price"...weregild because he knew, "With this sperm I may
kill thee." With that bridal price the groom acknowledged that his seed
could potentially kill his wife. So, he paid the wereguild up front for her
to enjoy while she was yet alive. In Viking society women as wives did have
their own property that they could leave for the children. Just as the
husband would leave his property for the children to inherit, too.
http://www.ostvik.org/articles/vikingwho.html
>
> There are many examples of communities that practise dowrys, but few
> will have much to do with pre-compensation-for-death payments I
> suspect!
No, in most other cultures around the world, fathers tended to sell their
daughters into marriage. "I'll pay you x-amount to take my daughter off my
hands." In Native culture, it was the groom who had to buy his bride.
"I'll give you x-amount to take your daughter off your hands.
Viking culture did things differently. Both sets of parents would
contribute something to the new household, plus the groom would pay his
bride a little something extra just in case she were to die during
child-birth.
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>
>>"Rob" <robw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:1136376978.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Heidi Graw wrote:
>>> >"Rob" <robw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> >news:1136370310....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> >
>>>
>>> [...piggy-backing off Rob's post...]
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>> >>Ken wrote:
>>> >>Some things need doing in order to maintain and
>>> >> expand our civilization and society.
>
>>>Heidi wrote:
>>> Yes...like bearing children. Only women can actually gestate and bear
>>> those
>>> children so you can have that civilization and that society.
>
>> Ben wrote:
****Ooops! I meant Rob! ;-) Sorry about that mistake! LOL...
Ken Chaddock
>>"Rob" <robw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:1136370310....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> [...piggy-backing off Rob's post...]
>>>Ken wrote:
>>>Some things need doing in order to maintain and
>>>expand our civilization and society.
> Yes...like bearing children. Only women can actually gestate and bear those
> children so you can have that civilization and that society.
You are absolutely right Heidi...and, in general, men ARE appreciative,
FAR MORE appreciative than women, in general, are for what men do for
them. That's WHY the average man will put himself at risk for the
average women, even to giving his life to ensure her survival...it was
MEN who "invented" and sustained the "women and children first"
standard...remember, when the Titanic went down, some of the wealthiest
and most powerful MEN in America and Britain gave their lives so that
some of the poorest and least powerful women and children could survive...
> In the oldern days, childbearing was incredibly risky. And within ancient
> Germanic society this was known and acknowledged. The custom of the groom
> given the bride a wedding gift arose from this possibility the wife might
> die during child-birth. She was given her "weregild" before she actually
> died and it was given to her instead of her family. If the infant survived,
> but the mother died, that weregild was then given the child as an
> inheritance.
Again, I don't disagree or dispute this at all, the point that I've
been trying to get through certain individuals heads is that, in
general, women have a mentality of "entitlement" and are not, again "in
general" appreciative of what this society does for them...in my
experience not nearly as appreciative of men as men are of women...
<snip>
>>>If men are the ones doing this,
>>>then men are the ones who have EARNED the right to enjoy the benefits
>>>that their labours have made possible. If women CHOOSE NOT to equally
>>>participate in the maintenance and expansion of our civilization and
>>>society, they simply have not EARNED the right to expect to equally
>>>share in the benefits that MEN'S labour have made possible.
> However, women are the only ones who can gestate and bear those children to
> form that civilization. They're also typically the ones nurturing and
> caring for those children to make sure they actually reach adulthood.
While the men worked from dawn until dusk tilling the soil or running
down large, dangerous animals to feed their women and children...there's
really *no* mystery in why, in general, men's lives are, and always have
been, shorter than women's...even with the dangers of childbirth, women
have always lives substantially longer lives than men because men
undertake the dirty and dangerous jobs, shielding the women and children
from them...
> And
> when the men laboured out in the field or were away on one of their forays,
> the wife was sewing the clothes, cooking the meals, feeding the children and
> the domesticated animals. The wife was cleaning the pigpen while the hubby
> was out looting some church across the Channel. ;-)
Which wasn't "really" all that common...consider that, with a few
notable exceptions, the Vikings were almost exclusively traders...also
consider that while she was cleaning the pig sty...a relatively safe
job, he was likely at sea in an open "ship" and had about a 30%
probability of getting home alive...
>>>So, if men
>>>CHOOSE to share the benefits they have earned with women,
> The women, too, *earned* their benefits. The bore the people needed for
> that civilization, they also assisted the men in whatever capacity they
> could.
>
>
>>>women should
>>>be GRATEFUL that the benefits,
>
>
> ...as you should be grateful that your wife risked her life to bring forth
> those offspring for you to lay claim to and leave all your stuff to once you
> die.
I am, and she is grateful that I supported her so she could stay at
home with those children...*my* wife isn't ungrateful of my efforts
> Btw, did you thank the wife for that nice roast she cooked?
Ah...I do most of the cooking in our home...
> Did you thank her for washing and ironing your shirts?
I also arrive home before her so the laundry is usually done before she
gets home...and she doesn't iron...
> Did you thank her for allowing you access to her most intimate body parts?
That's sort of a "mutual" favour...don't you think ? And anyway,
...she's not displeased with our intimate life...a notable comment, as
we were discussing the breakup of one of her sister's marriages, "I have
great sex all the time..."A" hasn't has sex, let alone good sex, for
several years...
> When was the last time you thanked your wife for anything she did for you?
All the time actually, as she does with me, in fact, she just thanked
me a couple of minutes ago for the supper I cooked tonight...
> Do you thank her at all for anything she does for you?
Pretty much, as she does with me...
...Ken
PS This reminds me, I never did get that pension info from Ottawa, I'll
have to ask again...but just as an interesting aside, the Feds are
sniffing around for a "settlement", an acquaintance of mine is involved
with the case and tells me they've made some pretty attractive offers
which might be worth even *more* than the 30+ billion the absconded
with...hummm, isn't *that* interesting, admitting quilt...without
"admitting guilt" ;-)
Ken Chaddock
> Ben wrote:
>
>>Heidi Graw wrote:
>>
>>>>"Rob" <robw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>news:1136370310....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>
>>>[...piggy-backing off Rob's post...]
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Ken wrote:
>>>>>Some things need doing in order to maintain and
>>>>>expand our civilization and society.
>>>
>>>Yes...like bearing children. Only women can actually gestate and bear those
>>>children so you can have that civilization and that society.
>>
>>Which they don't do alone. And they profit from civilization and
>>society as much as men.
>
>
> Yes, children gestate children ALONE. You may be confused between the
> words 'conception' and 'gestation' but I assure you that men niether
> gestate nor deliver.
>
>>>In the oldern days, childbearing was incredibly risky.
>>
> It still is.
Snicker snicker... a pregnant has about the same risk of being trampled
in an elephant stampede in Tennessee in October during a thunder and
lightening storm as dying in or because of pregnancy or childbirth in
the US...1 in about 30,000 to be precise...
> First, women's bodies are never the same after delivery.
> Most delivering women are subject to weight gain, stretch marks,
> bloating and minor surgery adjunct to delivery. Many women also
> experience high blood pressure, toxemia, and other things during
> gestation. And still other women, like my own sister, risk their very
> lives when things develop that cause a pregnant woman to 'bleed out' or
> some other event. Some women experience such a fluctuation in blood
> pressure as to have a stroke or heart attack. Most pregnant women
> (whether or not they deliver a child) experince morning sickness and
> mood altering hormone changes.
If "gestation" and childbirth is such a *horrible* experience, why do
most women do it and why do the majority of women do it over and over
again ?
According to *my* wife, she loved being pregnant, even to the extent
that she offered to carry a child for her sister who can't have
children...she produced viable eggs but can't get pregnant...I don't
know the medical details but apparently her uterus is "toxic"...
> Women risk life and health in childbirth and since more women have
> children than men go to war, more women risk for the future.
Yea right...we've been down that argument before...even in the "bad old
days" far more men died in war and "on the job" than women in child
birth. In the 25 eastern US States between 1810 and 1866, 1215 women and
girls died as a result of pregnancy or childbirth while over 15000 men
and boys died "on the job" and over 600,000 Union men and boys died
fighting in the civil war...at this ratio, if men had stopped dying at
work and in war altogether and women had continued dying at the same
rate it would have taken until the year 2372 for women to "catch up" in
deaths...and I suspect that this is fairly typical...:-0 !
...Ken
Andre Lieven
> Heidi Graw wrote:
>>>"Rob" <robw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:1136370310....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> [...piggy-backing off Rob's post...]
>
>>>>Ken wrote:
>>>>Some things need doing in order to maintain and
>>>>expand our civilization and society.
>
>> Yes...like bearing children. Only women can actually gestate and bear
>> those children so you can have that civilization and that society.
>
> You are absolutely right Heidi...and, in general, men ARE appreciative,
> FAR MORE appreciative than women, in general, are for what men do for
> them. That's WHY the average man will put himself at risk for the
> average women, even to giving his life to ensure her survival...it was
> MEN who "invented" and sustained the "women and children first"
> standard...remember, when the Titanic went down, some of the wealthiest
> and most powerful MEN in America and Britain gave their lives so that
> some of the poorest and least powerful women and children could survive...
Indeed. If there ever were a " patriarchy ", then usual human self interest
would have alloed it's members to apply their power to the most basic human
value, self preservation. Yet, on a proportionate basis, fewer First Class
men survived the Titanic than did Third Class women.
" Duty " is another concept that Feminist allficted women ( And, men )
simply fail to grasp.
>> In the oldern days, childbearing was incredibly risky. And within ancient
>> Germanic society this was known and acknowledged. The custom of the groom
>> given the bride a wedding gift arose from this possibility the wife might
>> die during child-birth. She was given her "weregild" before she actually
>> died and it was given to her instead of her family. If the infant survived,
>> but the mother died, that weregild was then given the child as an
>> inheritance.
>
> Again, I don't disagree or dispute this at all, the point that I've
> been trying to get through certain individuals heads is that, in
> general, women have a mentality of "entitlement" and are not, again "in
> general" appreciative of what this society does for them...in my
> experience not nearly as appreciative of men as men are of women...
In wider terms, thats accurate, too. Why else would the birth group LESS
at risk from acts of violence demand " The Violence Against *Women*
Act " ?
Feminism: " Me, me, me, its all about meeeee !!! ".
> <snip>
>
>>>>If men are the ones doing this,
>>>>then men are the ones who have EARNED the right to enjoy the benefits
>>>>that their labours have made possible. If women CHOOSE NOT to equally
>>>>participate in the maintenance and expansion of our civilization and
>>>>society, they simply have not EARNED the right to expect to equally
>>>>share in the benefits that MEN'S labour have made possible.
>
>> However, women are the only ones who can gestate and bear those children to
>> form that civilization. They're also typically the ones nurturing and
>> caring for those children to make sure they actually reach adulthood.
>
> While the men worked from dawn until dusk tilling the soil or running
> down large, dangerous animals to feed their women and children...there's
> really *no* mystery in why, in general, men's lives are, and always have
> been, shorter than women's...even with the dangers of childbirth, women
> have always lives substantially longer lives than men because men
> undertake the dirty and dangerous jobs, shielding the women and children
> from them...
Truth. The fact that Feminists CANNOT come up with any factual rebuttals
to this set of facts, shows that their self serving claims are, well,
fictional. IOW, lies.
>> And when
>> the men laboured out in the field or were away on one of their forays,
>> the wife was sewing the clothes, cooking the meals, feeding the children
>> and the domesticated animals. The wife was cleaning the pigpen while
>> the hubby was out looting some church across the Channel. ;-)
>
> Which wasn't "really" all that common...consider that, with a few
> notable exceptions, the Vikings were almost exclusively traders...also
> consider that while she was cleaning the pig sty...a relatively safe
> job, he was likely at sea in an open "ship" and had about a 30%
> probability of getting home alive...
Gee... stay at *home*, incountry, or sail a very primitive ship over
uncharted open seas, braving weather and storms, without any of the
modern aids to mariners that make shipping today safe...
It take a Feminist ( IOW, an ignorant bigoted LIAR ) to claim that
option A is in any way " worse " than option B...
>>>>So, if men
>>>>CHOOSE to share the benefits they have earned with women,
>
>> The women, too, *earned* their benefits. The bore the people needed for
>> that civilization, they also assisted the men in whatever capacity they
>> could.
Yet, failed to do the front line works... So, supporting help, supporting
credits...
>>>>women should be GRATEFUL that the benefits,
>>
>> ...as you should be grateful that your wife risked her life to bring
>> forth those offspring for you to lay claim to and leave all your stuff
>> to once you die.
>
> I am, and she is grateful that I supported her so she could stay at
> home with those children...*my* wife isn't ungrateful of my efforts
Of course not... shes not a self inflicted brain rot sufferer...
Unlike Misandrist Graw.
>> Btw, did you thank the wife for that nice roast she cooked?
>
> Ah...I do most of the cooking in our home...
The PREjudice in Misandrist Graw's statement was clearly... sexist.
>> Did you thank her for washing and ironing your shirts?
>
> I also arrive home before her so the laundry is usually done before
> she gets home...and she doesn't iron...
For a claimed " progressive ", Misandrist Graw is ripe with ignorant
PREjudices about men's and women's lives...
>> Did you thank her for allowing you access to her most intimate body
>> parts?
>
> That's sort of a "mutual" favour...don't you think ? And anyway,
> ...she's not displeased with our intimate life...a notable comment, as
> we were discussing the breakup of one of her sister's marriages, "I have
> great sex all the time..."A" hasn't has sex, let alone good sex, for
> several years...
It takes a Feminist ( Like Misandrist Graw ) to *reduce all women* down
to WHORES....
Thats why its true that no one hates *women* more than Feminists.
>> When was the last time you thanked your wife for anything she did for
>> you?
>
> All the time actually, as she does with me, in fact, she just thanked
> me a couple of minutes ago for the supper I cooked tonight...
Note that Misandrist Sexist Graw sees NO reason for a woman to EVER
tahnk a man for anything... The Entitlementitis of Feminism is unlimited,
and shows their utter and total narcissism.
>> Do you thank her at all for anything she does for you?
>
> Pretty much, as she does with me...
>
> ...Ken
>
> PS This reminds me, I never did get that pension info from Ottawa, I'll
> have to ask again...but just as an interesting aside, the Feds are
> sniffing around for a "settlement", an acquaintance of mine is involved
> with the case and tells me they've made some pretty attractive offers
> which might be worth even *more* than the 30+ billion the absconded
> with...hummm, isn't *that* interesting, admitting quilt...without
> "admitting guilt" ;-)
Of course not. Not after Gomery... <g>
Andre
Ben
Guess that depends on who the aggressor and who the defender is, eh?
>there's no reason we
> can't consider women's deaths in childbirth a sacrifice. Both
> "profit" from civilization and certainly peopling a nation has been
> necessary for that. Of course, today women also volunteer for military
> duties today as well, at least those from which they are not barred.
>
> > > > > In the oldern days, childbearing was incredibly risky.
> > > >
> > > It still is. First, women's bodies are never the same after delivery.
> >
> > They can be if the women want them to be, for the most part.
>
> It's a good thing you included "for the most part". My coment still
> holds true, Ben, women's bodies are never "the same" after delivery.
Not that you could prove that by my wife, or by a lot of female
athletes who have children and get right back in the game. A lot of it
can depend on how badly they want it, Hy.
>
> My wife> is a tiny little thing, and she got huge when she was
> pregnant.
> > Shortly after delivery, her weight was back to where it was before, and
> > to this day, you'd never know from her body that she had a
> > child...you'd have to check the grey hairs for that. ;)
> >
> On her or you? :-)
Now that I think about it, on both of us. lol
> Weight, is not the only thing that changes Ben.
> If a woman delivers a child vaginally, for example, she will not be as
> tight as she once was.
Wrong! :)
> It's just what happens. Her sexuality can be
> extremely diminished by giving birth as well.
I thought the wedding ceremony did that.
>
> > > Most delivering women are subject to weight gain, stretch marks,
> > > bloating and minor surgery adjunct to delivery. Many women also
> > > experience high blood pressure, toxemia, and other things during
> > > gestation. And still other women, like my own sister, risk their very
> > > lives when things develop that cause a pregnant woman to 'bleed out' or
> > > some other event. Some women experience such a fluctuation in blood
> > > pressure as to have a stroke or heart attack.
> >
> > It is very hazardous for some women, but not for most. Going to work
> > is very hazardous for some men, but not for most.
>
> Women work too, Ben. Women fact the same risks men face PLUS the risks
> adjunct to pregancy, gestation and delivery.
Ahhhh...no. By your own admission, men are killed on the job in far
greater numbers than the women. But I got to thinking about maternal
death rates and occupational death rates, so I did a little checking.
According to the CDC, between 1991 and 1999, there were about 4200
maternal deaths. In one year alone, 1996, about 5100 men were killed
on the job (this number is approximately 93% of total deaths that
year). Now, when we look at rates, the picture varies a bit. Men have
a 2.0 per 100,000 rate of occupational death, while women have about a
9.8 per 100,000 maternal death rate. But a 30 per 1000,000 rate among
black women skews those stats badly, as does the higher maternal death
rate among older women. Among white women under 30, the maternal death
rate of 1.8 per 100,000 is just marginally lower than the male
occupational death rate, probably not statistically significant.
So clearly, women are not facing the same hazardous work that men are.
Black women and older women face higher risk during pregnancy than men
do at work, but far and away, more men than women are dying on the job.
> >
> > > Most pregnant women> > (whether or not they deliver a child) experince morning sickness and> > mood altering hormone changes.
> >
> > Sorry, don't see that as life-threatening.
>
> I don't need to call it "life-threatening" in order to discuss all the
> risks to HEALTH that women face....that men don't when it comes to
> gestation and delivery.
Ah, then it's a 'risk' in the same sense that a cold is a risk...maybe
it will turn into the flu or pneumonia, but probably not.
>
> >
> > > > Life for everyone was risky. But the simply fact is that most women
> > > > don't die in childbirth.
>
> Most women don't have to "die in childbirth" in order to have risks men
> don't share, in the same way that women don't have to be disadvantaged
> in the classroom in order to face discrimination in education funding.
> Logic beats emotion every time.
So you finally acknowledge that girls aren't disadvantaged. Given that
one of the elements of discrimination is unfavorable treatment, it
doesn't appear as if the girls are being discriminated against.
Disparate impact, however, can be considered prima facie proof of
discrimination, and it's clear that boys are suffering from disparate
impact.
>
> > > Women risk life and health in childbirth and since more women have
> > > children than men go to war, more women risk for the future.
> >
> > Most women don't die in childbirth. Most make it through multiple
> > births just fine.
>
> Most men don't die as soldiers in war. More "make it thru" just fine.
> My father served during WWII in Okinawa and he made radios and
> sea-shell necklaces, never seeing one day of action, while my mother
> risked her life giving birth to her children.
They both lived, correct?
>
> > > >
> > > > > And within ancient
> > > > > Germanic society this was known and acknowledged. The custom of the groom
> > > > > given the bride a wedding gift arose from this possibility the wife might
> > > > > die during child-birth. She was given her "weregild" before she actually
> > > > > died and it was given to her instead of her family. If the infant survived,
> > > > > but the mother died, that weregild was then given the child as an
> > > > > inheritance.
> > >
> > > Sure. More women have, historically died in childbirth then men have
> > > been killed as soldiers in war,
> >
> > Your proof?
>
> Common sense and biographical accounts historically recorded about
> marriages, births and deaths. The United Nations posts the horrendous
> figures of women dying in childbirth related ailments 'round the world.
Some areas of the world are indeed horrendous. In those areas, you'll
also find greatly increased rates of death for men as well.
>
> >
> > > which is why so many men historically > remarried, and married much younger women.
> >
> > Well, if you're remarrying to have children, you wouldn't marry older
> > women, would you?
>
> Indeed. You'd use them and 'refuse' them if you were a misogynist,
> which probably defined many, if not, most of our forefathers.
And the women were misandrist. So?
Nope, what I'm doing is finally steering you around to my point of
view. :) Each part of the process has a role to play, without which
the desired outcome couldn't be achieved. You do indeed need children
to build--and sustain--a civilization, but bearing children alone
really does nothing. Which was my point to begin with.
> >
> > > Society doesn't buy your biased view that only
> > > men's sacrifice has value, nor do I.
> >
> > Doesn't really matter what you buy or not, I'm simply stating that it's
> > not just the women who do the work or 'sacrifices', regardless of how
> > you'd like to present it.
>
> I never said that ONLY women sacrifice, Ben. What I have said in the
> past here is that I don't honor what has been male only sacrifice
> BECAUSE that which has been female only sacrifice has not been honored.
> Do you see the difference?
Part of it is because I don't really buy the "male-only" or
"female-only" perspective. You do, apparently.
>
> > And I would not buy it regardless > of what society does.
> >
> > So?
>
> So, I'm consistent. :-)
That you are.
>
> >
> > > It's simply a phallic view of the world, that> ONLY what men provide has value.
> >
> > I'm just countering the gynocentric version presented here, since you
> > attach no value to men.
>
> That's not true, at all. First, I've made the comment here many times,
> that men have intrinsic value...just like women.
Except that as soon as the debate gets heated, you invariably make some
general misandrist remark that you apply to all men. So your statement
rings a bit hollow.
> I've also suggested
> that individual men who make themselves valuable ARE valuable. I'm not
> looking for special rights or perks, just equal rights.
And I want what's fair for the boys in schools. One of the bits of
information that was in the cite I gave you--the one you called a "puff
piece" and didn't read--was that school activities spending typically
amounted to 3% or less of the total budget. So, disparities in
spending can't possibly amount to more than a fraction of that.
Unfortunately, it's also in an area that many boys--more boys than
girls--find very important in keeping them engaged in school. But a
feminist distortion of Title IX that is more concerned with social
engineering and equality of outcome over fairness and equality of
opportunity really amounts to nothing more than discrimination against
boys.
I find sex with my wife very rewarding and satisfying. I suspect I
wouldn't with someone that I was forced to pay for sex.
> I ran into a divorced man the other day; he's about 55 years
> old, and he was telling me how he loves to take his daughter and grand
> children camping. It's his favorite thing. I think you'd have some
> difficulty explaining to him how his ex-wife was "selfish" in giving
> him that opportunity. But be my guest.
Sure. Next time you see him, ask him if his wife refused to have kids
until he paid her.
>
> > And, with the childbirth rates dropping like stones in most western
> > style civilizations, to the point where there's a very real danger that
> > these civilizations will be unrecognizable in their current form by the
> > end of the century, it's obvious that women as a group aren't concerned
> > with having children for the larger good. So we're back to my
> > statement that most women have children for self-motivated reasons and
> > little else. But, to be fair, the same applies to men--I don't think
> > they run around looking to get women pregnant in order to prevent the
> > fall of the West.
>
> Whatever individual reasons women have for having children or men have
> for joining the military, both of them sacrifice. Women sacrifice
> their health and risk their lives every time they gestate, and men and
> women who join the military also risk their lives when deployed in war.
Which skirts my point nicely.
>
>
> >
> > > But that won't change how most of society views women
> > > and the huge sacrifice they make when bearing each future generation.
> > > And it certainly wouldn't change my mind, in any event.
> >
> > Hy, changing your mind is the least of my concerns.
> >
> Well, good. That might well lead you to start changing your own. :-)
Do you really see that happening? lol
>
> > > A woman who > FEELS she is unvalued by society has several choices. She can marry a > master and never love him or find an egalitarian man who understands
> > > and agrees with her plight, OR she can become a 'witch'. :-) But
> > > today, most women can simply vote, own their own property, work for
> > > demanded equal pay, and ignore bitter boys who don't find their efforts
> > > equal. They raise their eyes to the heavens, laugh at you and move
> > > forward.
> >
> > What *are* you babbling about?
>
> About freedom, Ben; that's what women want, and that's what they're
> headed toward in this modern time.
Freedom is fine for both men and women, Hy. But people in affluent
societies tend to become soft and self-indulgent, and the rot begins
from within. Men are no more immune to it then women, but women have
more to lose.
> This is a time for women where they
> may well choose more and more to buy that 'witch' house. :-) They
> seem to want to practice living on a different level, and the only men
> they will take with them
You seem to think it will be entirely their choice--it probably won't
be. :)
> are those egalitarian, and enlightened men who
> are not insecure. The only way to end that would be another Spanish
> Inquisition. :-)
Will Islamic Law suffice for you?
Rob
> >"Rob" <robw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:1136376978.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Heidi Graw wrote:
> >> >"Rob" <robw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >news:1136370310....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >>
> >> [...piggy-backing off Rob's post...]
> >>
> >> (snip)
> >>
> >> >>Ken wrote:
> >> >>Some things need doing in order to maintain and
> >> >> expand our civilization and society.
>
> >>Heidi wrote:
> >> Yes...like bearing children. Only women can actually gestate and bear
> >> those
> >> children so you can have that civilization and that society.
>
> > Ben wrote:
> > And only men can impregnate for the same outcome
>
> That impregnation was useless, though, if the woman chose to take a herbal
> concoction or otherwise abort if she didn't want to gestate and bear a
> child. The existence of society depended on the women's willingness to
> actually bear those children.
Ah yes, reminds me of that excellent book 'Reliable contraception in
the middle ages' by that cambridge scholastic duo Jeffrey Archer and
Jonathan Aitken.
A discussion about viking divorce, yes, but no evidence there in
support of the challenged statement:
>> The custom of the groom given (sic)
>> the bride a wedding gift arose from this possibility the wife might
>> die during child-birth.
But please don't give up the search. I'm looking forward to reading the
old Norse (or Germanic?) for 'with this sperm I may kill thee'?
I think I read somewhere that the viking bride's ceremonial reply was:
'with this reindeer soup I may kill thee' before they ritually
exchanged drinking vessels.
But even then there was discrimination against women because his gift
was always a lot smaller, seldom more than 10cc, and far too salty.
Bob
> According to *my* wife, she loved being pregnant, even to the extent
> that she offered to carry a child for her sister who can't have
> children
Is that a purely physical reaction, or it partly a reaction to
status and perks (pregnant women are treated *real* nicely in our
society)?
Hyerdahl
Ken Chaddock wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
>
> > Ben wrote:
> >
> >>Heidi Graw wrote:
> >>
> >>>>"Rob" <robw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>news:1136370310....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>[...piggy-backing off Rob's post...]
> >>>
> >>>(snip)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>Ken wrote:
> >>>>>Some things need doing in order to maintain and
> >>>>>expand our civilization and society.
> >>>
> >>>Yes...like bearing children. Only women can actually gestate and bear those
> >>>children so you can have that civilization and that society.
> >>
> >>Which they don't do alone. And they profit from civilization and
> >>society as much as men.
> >
> >
> > Yes, children gestate children ALONE. You may be confused between the
> > words 'conception' and 'gestation' but I assure you that men niether
> > gestate nor deliver.
> >
> >>>In the oldern days, childbearing was incredibly risky.
> >>
> > It still is.
>
>Snicker snicker... a pregnant has about the same risk of being trampled
> in an elephant stampede in Tennessee in October during a thunder and
> lightening storm as dying in or because of pregnancy or childbirth in
> the US...1 in about 30,000 to be precise...
Ah, but the figures posed by the UN show us the number of women all
over the world still more women than men who die as soldiers in war,
are dying from pregnancy related problems. And, western women already
did their dying when men were still playing soldier in early wars.
>
> > First, women's bodies are never the same after delivery.
> > Most delivering women are subject to weight gain, stretch marks,
> > bloating and minor surgery adjunct to delivery. Many women also
> > experience high blood pressure, toxemia, and other things during
> > gestation. And still other women, like my own sister, risk their very
> > lives when things develop that cause a pregnant woman to 'bleed out' or
> > some other event. Some women experience such a fluctuation in blood
> > pressure as to have a stroke or heart attack. Most pregnant women
> > (whether or not they deliver a child) experince morning sickness and
> > mood altering hormone changes.
>
> If "gestation" and childbirth is such a *horrible* experience, why do
> most women do it and why do the majority of women do it over and over
> again ?
Actually, fewer western women ARE placing themselves at risk. There
are fewer children born to western women today than to women in other
parts of the world.
According to *my* wife, she loved being pregnant, even to the extent
> that she offered to carry a child for her sister who can't have
> children...she produced viable eggs but can't get pregnant...I don't
> know the medical details but apparently her uterus is "toxic"...
Good to know you post personal information about your alleged spouse.
It shows a certain lack of character on your part. And we can't
balance health figures by talking about one person, especially when you
don't even have proof for her position.
>
> > Women risk life and health in childbirth and since more women have
> > children than men go to war, more women risk for the future.
>
> Yea right...we've been down that argument before...even in the "bad old
> days" far more men died in war and "on the job" than women in child
> birth. In the 25 eastern US States between 1810 and 1866, 1215 women and
> girls died as a result of pregnancy or childbirth while over 15000 men
> and boys died "on the job"
Women and men CHOOSE the work they do, so that doesn't count.
and over 600,000 Union men and boys died
> fighting in the civil war...at this ratio, if men had stopped dying at
> work and in war altogether and women had continued dying at the same
> rate it would have taken until the year 2372 for women to "catch up" in
> deaths...and I suspect that this is fairly typical...:-0 !
>
No dear. The figures offered by the UN per year shows how many women
around the world die in childbirth each year. And when you add up the
years, it comes to many times more than for men who have died AS
SOLDIERS in wars. You want to limit the discussion to the US and if
we were going to do that we'd have to have the stats for all those
women who died prior to the Civil War, and we don't have those. What
we DO have is figures now for around the world before medical care
comes to those countries. From that and all the remarriage records for
men who lost spouses in childbirth....we can extrapolate for the US>
Yes, I know you don't like that. Too bad. Women are not buying your
snake oil.
>
> ...Ken
Hyerdahl
Ken Chaddock wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
>
> > Ben wrote:
> >
> >>Heidi Graw wrote:
> >>
> >>>>"Rob" <robw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>news:1136370310....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>[...piggy-backing off Rob's post...]
> >>>
> >>>(snip)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>Ken wrote:
> >>>>>Some things need doing in order to maintain and
> >>>>>expand our civilization and society.
> >>>
> >>>Yes...like bearing children. Only women can actually gestate and bear those
> >>>children so you can have that civilization and that society.
> >>
> >>Which they don't do alone. And they profit from civilization and
> >>society as much as men.
> >
> >
> > Yes, children gestate children ALONE. You may be confused between the
> > words 'conception' and 'gestation' but I assure you that men niether
> > gestate nor deliver.
> >
> >>>In the oldern days, childbearing was incredibly risky.
> >>
> > It still is.
>
>Snicker snicker... a pregnant has about the same risk of being trampled
> in an elephant stampede in Tennessee in October during a thunder and
> lightening storm as dying in or because of pregnancy or childbirth in
> the US...1 in about 30,000 to be precise...
Ah, but the figures posed by the UN show us the number of women all
over the world still more women than men who die as soldiers in war,
are dying from pregnancy related problems. And, western women already
did their dying when men were still playing soldier in early wars.
>
> > First, women's bodies are never the same after delivery.
> > Most delivering women are subject to weight gain, stretch marks,
> > bloating and minor surgery adjunct to delivery. Many women also
> > experience high blood pressure, toxemia, and other things during
> > gestation. And still other women, like my own sister, risk their very
> > lives when things develop that cause a pregnant woman to 'bleed out' or
> > some other event. Some women experience such a fluctuation in blood
> > pressure as to have a stroke or heart attack. Most pregnant women
> > (whether or not they deliver a child) experince morning sickness and
> > mood altering hormone changes.
>
> If "gestation" and childbirth is such a *horrible* experience, why do
> most women do it and why do the majority of women do it over and over
> again ?
Actually, fewer western women ARE placing themselves at risk. There
are fewer children born to western women today than to women in other
parts of the world.
According to *my* wife, she loved being pregnant, even to the extent
> that she offered to carry a child for her sister who can't have
> children...she produced viable eggs but can't get pregnant...I don't
> know the medical details but apparently her uterus is "toxic"...
Good to know you post personal information about your alleged spouse.
It shows a certain lack of character on your part. And we can't
balance health figures by talking about one person, especially when you
don't even have proof for her position.
>
> > Women risk life and health in childbirth and since more women have
> > children than men go to war, more women risk for the future.
>
> Yea right...we've been down that argument before...even in the "bad old
> days" far more men died in war and "on the job" than women in child
> birth. In the 25 eastern US States between 1810 and 1866, 1215 women and
> girls died as a result of pregnancy or childbirth while over 15000 men
> and boys died "on the job"
Women and men CHOOSE the work they do, so that doesn't count.
and over 600,000 Union men and boys died
> fighting in the civil war...at this ratio, if men had stopped dying at
> work and in war altogether and women had continued dying at the same
> rate it would have taken until the year 2372 for women to "catch up" in
> deaths...and I suspect that this is fairly typical...:-0 !
>
Hyerdahl
Ken Chaddock wrote:
> Heidi Graw wrote:
> >>"Rob" <robw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:1136370310....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > [...piggy-backing off Rob's post...]
>
> >>>Ken wrote:
> >>>Some things need doing in order to maintain and
> >>>expand our civilization and society.
>
> > Yes...like bearing children. Only women can actually gestate and bear those
> > children so you can have that civilization and that society.
>
> You are absolutely right Heidi...and, in general, men ARE appreciative,
> FAR MORE appreciative than women, in general, are for what men do for
> them.
Not really, Ken. Men who sacrifice their lives in the military get
vets benes and preferences, and a cemetary and parades. What do women
get for their unique sacrifice?
That's WHY the average man will put himself at risk for the average
women, even to giving his life to ensure her survival...
???? Ken, you can't claim this as a honor if it's not something
tangible. What men will or won't do on a personal level is up to the
man or woman in question, and certainly there are also case of women
risking their lives for a man or men.
it was MEN who "invented" and sustained the "women and children first"
> standard...remember, when the Titanic went down, some of the wealthiest
> and most powerful MEN in America and Britain gave their lives so that
> some of the poorest and least powerful women and children could survive...
>
The men protected women out of their very rights, Ken. Women were not
the ones who designed Titanic, nor were women on the board to decide
how many life jackets should be provided, or life boats. :-) Men had
the western-style obligation to protect those who had no rights, ie
women and children. :-)
> <snip>
>
> >>>If men are the ones doing this,
> >>>then men are the ones who have EARNED the right to enjoy the benefits
> >>>that their labours have made possible. If women CHOOSE NOT to equally
> >>>participate in the maintenance and expansion of our civilization and
> >>>society, they simply have not EARNED the right to expect to equally
> >>>share in the benefits that MEN'S labour have made possible.
You don't get to ride on the coatails of your forebears, Ken. :-) Men
have NOT earned extra rights or special rights by protecting women out
of their rights. :-) And it is the labour of women who allowed men
to be born at all, as well as old fashioned labour of child nursing,
teaching, housekeeping, etc. Men didn't arrive here alone, and women
aren't about to let men have special rights or honor. It's all over
Ken. Learn to like equality.
>
Heidi Graw
>"Ken Chaddock" <chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
>news:1iYuf.29930$km.6970@edtnps89...
> Heidi Graw wrote:
>>>"Rob" <robw...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:1136370310....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> [...piggy-backing off Rob's post...]
>
>>>>Ken wrote:
>>>>Some things need doing in order to maintain and
>>>>expand our civilization and society.
>>Heidi wrote:
>> Yes...like bearing children. Only women can actually gestate and bear
>> those children so you can have that civilization and that society.
> Ken wrote:
> You are absolutely right Heidi...and, in general, men ARE appreciative,
> FAR MORE appreciative than women, in general, are for what men do for
> them. That's WHY the average man will put himself at risk for the average
> women, even to giving his life to ensure her survival...it was MEN who
> "invented" and sustained the "women and children first"
> standard...remember, when the Titanic went down, some of the wealthiest
> and most powerful MEN in America and Britain gave their lives so that some
> of the poorest and least powerful women and children could survive...
Er...Ken, here's a list of survivors:
http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/manifest.php?q=5
Read it. There are lots of men who got onto those lifeboats and/or
otherwise survived. It was hardly a case of "women and children first." I
didn't do an actual headcount of *all* men vs. women and children, but there
are enough men listed to indicate that an awful lot of men did not subscribe
to that "women and children first."
I counted the passengers up to and including the ones with the last name
beginning with "H"...
Men 19 and older....135
Women 19 and older....187
Children and teens 18 and under...46
I'm too tired to plot all 712 passengers. Up to and including the "H" gives
us a darn good idea that is was definitely *not* a case of women and
children first. It was darn close to an even competition for survival.
Feel free to do your own count. ;-)
(snip)
>Ken wrote:
> PS This reminds me, I never did get that pension info from Ottawa, I'll
> have to ask again...but just as an interesting aside, the Feds are
> sniffing around for a "settlement", an acquaintance of mine is involved
> with the case and tells me they've made some pretty attractive offers
> which might be worth even *more* than the 30+ billion the absconded
> with...hummm, isn't *that* interesting, admitting quilt...without
> "admitting guilt" ;-)
LOL...well...if you find out anything more, please post it.
Thanks,
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>"Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1136484421.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
(snip)
>>Ken wrote:
>> it was MEN who "invented" and sustained the "women and children first"
>
>> standard...remember, when the Titanic went down, some of the wealthiest
>> and most powerful MEN in America and Britain gave their lives so that
>> some of the poorest and least powerful women and children could
>> survive...
>>
>Hyerdahl wrote:
> The men protected women out of their very rights, Ken. Women were not
> the ones who designed Titanic, nor were women on the board to decide
> how many life jackets should be provided, or life boats. :-) Men had
> the western-style obligation to protect those who had no rights, ie
> women and children. :-)
Actually, Hyerdahl, *in practise* that notion of "women and children first"
turns out to be a myth. It's an *ideal* perhaps, but in practise it's more
a case of "women and children first provided there is a man along with
them." LOL... The Titanic survivor list bears this out. For every woman
and child saved, there was also a man who was saved. And for every woman
without a child there was also a man rescued. Ken's attempt to claim that
men as a group were those heroic ones sacrificing their lives for women and
children is pure bullsh*t.
See:
http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/manifest.php?q=5
I sorted out the men and women aged 19 and over from the children and teens
18 and under. I only got through the "H"s, but even just that gave a clear
indication that women and children as a group were rescued in equal numbers
to the men. For every woman and child there was a man rescued as well. And
for every woman there was a surviving man. So, in this tragic disaster we
can see that the desire for survival was an equal opportunity and a
competitive event. The men as a group were not quite so heroic and
chivalrous as Ken claims they were. If they had been, we would have seen
far greater numbers of women and children rescued than men. But, this was
not the case as per the Titanic.
I don't have the time right now to do a thorough analysis regarding the
survivors and the deceased. But it's on my to-do list and when it's done,
I'll post here. ;-)
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>
>>"Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:1136484421.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
> (snip)
>
>>>Ken wrote:
>>> it was MEN who "invented" and sustained the "women and children first"
>>
>>> standard...remember, when the Titanic went down, some of the wealthiest
>>> and most powerful MEN in America and Britain gave their lives so that
>>> some of the poorest and least powerful women and children could
>>> survive...
>>>
>
>>Hyerdahl wrote:
>> The men protected women out of their very rights, Ken. Women were not
>> the ones who designed Titanic, nor were women on the board to decide
>> how many life jackets should be provided, or life boats. :-) Men had
>> the western-style obligation to protect those who had no rights, ie
>> women and children. :-)
> Heidi wrote:
> Actually, Hyerdahl, *in practise* that notion of "women and children
> first" turns out to be a myth. It's an *ideal* perhaps, but in practise
> it's more a case of "women and children first provided there is a man
> along with them." LOL... The Titanic survivor list bears this out. For
> every woman and child saved, there was also a man who was saved.
Oops...what I meant to say was, "for every *man* and child saved, there was
a woman saved." The numbers of men plus children equal the number of women
saved.
> See:
>
> http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/manifest.php?q=5
>
Heidi
Rob
What kind of naif would attempt to assess the prevalence of an ethic
like 'women and children first' in the Titanic disaster by counting the
manifest of the survivors, rather than those that perished?
The Titanic death rates show that about 68% of the passengers and crew
died and that about 92% of the dead were male.
As Andre regularly reminds us: Baby Feminist is SO *stoopid*.
Hyerdahl
Heidi Graw wrote:
> >"Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:1136484421.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> (snip)
>
> >>Ken wrote:
> >> it was MEN who "invented" and sustained the "women and children first"
> >
> >> standard...remember, when the Titanic went down, some of the wealthiest
> >> and most powerful MEN in America and Britain gave their lives so that
> >> some of the poorest and least powerful women and children could
> >> survive...
> >>
>
> >Hyerdahl wrote:
> > The men protected women out of their very rights, Ken. Women were not
> > the ones who designed Titanic, nor were women on the board to decide
> > how many life jackets should be provided, or life boats. :-) Men had
> > the western-style obligation to protect those who had no rights, ie
> > women and children. :-)
>
> Actually, Hyerdahl, *in practise* that notion of "women and children first"
> turns out to be a myth. It's an *ideal* perhaps, but in practise it's more
> a case of "women and children first provided there is a man along with
> them." LOL...
That is very true; I hadn't considered that. :-)
The Titanic survivor list bears this out. For every woman
> and child saved, there was also a man who was saved. And for every woman
> without a child there was also a man rescued. Ken's attempt to claim that
> men as a group were those heroic ones sacrificing their lives for women and
> children is pure bullsh*t.
Indeed.
>
> See:
>
> http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/manifest.php?q=5
>
> I sorted out the men and women aged 19 and over from the children and teens
> 18 and under. I only got through the "H"s, but even just that gave a clear
> indication that women and children as a group were rescued in equal numbers
> to the men. For every woman and child there was a man rescued as well. And
> for every woman there was a surviving man. So, in this tragic disaster we
> can see that the desire for survival was an equal opportunity and a
> competitive event. The men as a group were not quite so heroic and
> chivalrous as Ken claims they were. If they had been, we would have seen
> far greater numbers of women and children rescued than men. But, this was
> not the case as per the Titanic.
>
> I don't have the time right now to do a thorough analysis regarding the
> survivors and the deceased. But it's on my to-do list and when it's done,
> I'll post here. ;-)
Heidi, thanks so much for giving me the resources to provide a good
answer to the very next man who wants to take credit. You are a jewel.
>
> Heidi
Ken Chaddock
I'll do it for you Heidi...
100% of the 1st class children survived
100% of the 2nd class children survived
34.2% of the 3rd class children survived
97.2% of the 1st class women survived
86.2% of the 2nd class women survived
46.4% of the 3rd class women survived
87.0% of the female crew Survived
32.6% of the 1st class men survived
8.3% of the 2nd class men survived
16.2% of the 3rd class men survived
21.7% of the male crew survived
In all, 109 women and 52 children (about half of whom were boys) lost
their lives while 1352 MEN died...
Of the 109 women and 52 children who died, about 40% died of exposure IN
THE LIFE BOATS and most of the remainder were trapped below decks and
never made it to the boats...they weren't kept out of the boats by men
they NEVER GOT TO THE BOATS in the first place...in total 84.7% of the
women and 71.6% of the children made it into a life boat...while only
20% of the men made it into life boats and those ONLY after all the
women and children who COULD BE saved were saved...
So let's recap...about 85% of the women and 72% of children make it into
a life boat but only while 20% of the men are allowed into a life
boat...most *unbiased* people would see this as "women and children
first"...men sacrificing their lives so women and children could survive...
...Ken
Ken Chaddock
> Heidi Graw wrote:
<snip>
>>I don't have the time right now to do a thorough analysis regarding the
>>survivors and the deceased. But it's on my to-do list and when it's done,
>>I'll post here. ;-)
>
>
> Heidi, thanks so much for giving me the resources to provide a good
> answer to the very next man who wants to take credit. You are a jewel.
Don't rely too heavily on her "analysis there Parg...you'll look even
MORE the fool than usual...any disaster where 85% of the women and 72%
of the children are rescued while 80% of the men die can hardly be
called anything other than "women and children first" :-(
...Ken
Ken Chaddock
Yea, Heidi tried quite a spin...85% of the women and 72% of the
children rescued while 80% of the men perish can ONLY be "women and
children first"...I'd also like to know just where she got her
figures...712 passengers ? By my could there were 1316 passengers and
908 crew onboard...
...Ken
Andre Lieven
> Misandrist Graw proved her gross stupidity:
Indeed, her brian rot of Feminism ensures that her pitiful attempts
at an appearance of " research " must come up a cropper.
> The Titanic death rates show that about 68% of the passengers and crew
> died and that about 92% of the dead were male.
To be more specific:
Titanic and the 4th Class: Men
Class Men Died % Women Died %
1st 66% 3%
2nd 92% 16%
3rd 88% 45%
" Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say ", Dr Warren Farrell, pages
288-290 ( hardcover ).
Now, another way to illustrate the retardity of Misandrist Graw's
exceptionally stupid, retarded, and lazy ass LIE, would be to make
another chart, but this time, noting survival rates.
Class Men Survived % Women Survived %
1st 34% 97%
2nd 8% 84%
3rd 12% 55%
It takes an exceptionally stupid and deliberately deceitful moron,
( I know that thats a synonym for " Feminists ", but clarity is good )
to suggest that 34% is " darn close " to 97%, that 8% is
" darn close " to 84%, and that 12% is " darn close " to 55%.
But, as we well understand on this happy newsgroup, the principle
of the Feminist BIG LIE is so ingrained into their otherwise empty
and rotted crania, that they routinely spout BIG LIES whenever
they make claims in favour of their evil and retarded hate filled
ideology.
Its useful to keep pointing out *with the facts*, their lies and
retarditude, such that their lies don't gain any credence due to
reasonable and non-retarded persons having kept quiet.
> As Andre regularly reminds us: Baby Feminist is SO *stoopid*.
Ain't that the truth ! A big thanks to Misandrist Graw for so
clearly being an excellent example of the severe brain damage that
Feminism inflicts on it's loony and misandristic adherants.
But, a better thanks to Rob, for pointing out her idiocy and
laziness, and for allowing me to follow up with real and cited
FACTS. Feminists HATE facts ! Because they show up their
retarditude.
Oh, Mark: In case you needed proof that Misandrist Graw is an
innumerate retard, here ya go... <bg>
Andre
Mark Borgerson
says...
If you want a good cite with all the details on the Titanic
survival ratios, see:
http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm
It shows all the details and derives the survival statistics that
show that women and children definitely received preferential
access to the lifeboats.
Mark Borgerson
Heidi Graw
>
(snip)
>> > Ken wrote:
>> > You are absolutely right Heidi...and, in general, men ARE appreciative,
>> > FAR MORE appreciative than women, in general, are for what men do for
>> > them. That's WHY the average man will put himself at risk for the
>> > average
>> > women, even to giving his life to ensure her survival...it was MEN who
>> > "invented" and sustained the "women and children first"
>> > standard...remember, when the Titanic went down, some of the wealthiest
>> > and most powerful MEN in America and Britain gave their lives so that
>> > some
>> > of the poorest and least powerful women and children could survive...
>>Heidi wrot e:
>> Er...Ken, here's a list of survivors:
>>
>> http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/manifest.php?q=5
>>
>> Read it. There are lots of men who got onto those lifeboats and/or
>> otherwise survived. It was hardly a case of "women and children first."
>> I
>> didn't do an actual headcount of *all* men vs. women and children, but
>> there
>> are enough men listed to indicate that an awful lot of men did not
>> subscribe
>> to that "women and children first."
>>
>> I counted the passengers up to and including the ones with the last name
>> beginning with "H"...
>>
>> Men 19 and older....135
>> Women 19 and older....187
>> Children and teens 18 and under...46
>>
>> I'm too tired to plot all 712 passengers. Up to and including the "H"
>> gives
>> us a darn good idea that is was definitely *not* a case of women and
>> children first. It was darn close to an even competition for survival.
>>
>> Feel free to do your own count. ;-)
>Rob wrote:
> What kind of naif would attempt to assess the prevalence of an ethic
> like 'women and children first' in the Titanic disaster by counting the
> manifest of the survivors, rather than those that perished?
I find the statistics of the survivors very revealing. I've done a count by
scrolling down the survivor list and miscounted by 9. That nine isn't such
a big deal. What I came up with as the survivor list is the following:
Of the 712 survivors listed:
313 were men age 19 and over.
285 were women age 19 and over.
40 were boys age 18 and under.
65 were girls age 18 and under.
That comes to 703...revealing a miscount of 9 people that I missed while
scrolling down that list.
Of the 1496 victims, the site lists the following:
1267 men age 19 and over died.
86 women age 19 and over died.
106 boys age 18 and under died.
37 girls age 18 and under died.
The ship carried about 1580 men, 371 women, 146 boys and 102 girls.
The notion that women and children ought to go first turned out in practise
to be "women and children first provided a man is along to go with them."
Those men went at the expense of 86 women and 143 children (106 of those
being at the expense of boys.)
I would have expected that if "women and children first" were to apply, one
would find a significant greater number of women and children rescued than
number of men. This, however, was *not* the case.
Heidi
Heidi Graw
(snip)
> Yea, Heidi tried quite a spin...85% of the women and 72% of the children
> rescued while 80% of the men perish can ONLY be "women and children
> first"...I'd also like to know just where she got her figures...712
> passengers ? By my could there were 1316 passengers and 908 crew
> onboard...
That 712 applies to the number of *survivors*. I scrolled down the list and
miscounted by 9. I came up with
313 men 19 and over.
285 women 19 and over.
40 boys 18 and under.
65 girls 18 and under.
Of those killed in the disaster:
1267 were men 19 and over.
86 were women 19 and over.
106 were boys 18 and under.
37 were girls 18 and under.
Consider also there were significantly more men on board than women.
However, given that supposedly this notion of "women and children first" was
applied, we find instead that a system of "women and children provided a man
was along with them applied." The number of male and female survivors was
darn near even 353 males to 350 females give or take 9 persons that I missed
in my count.
Heidi
Hyerdahl
>
> http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/manifest.php?q=5
>
> Read it. There are lots of men who got onto those lifeboats and/or
> otherwise survived. It was hardly a case of "women and children first." I
> didn't do an actual headcount of *all* men vs. women and children, but there
> are enough men listed to indicate that an awful lot of men did not subscribe
> to that "women and children first."
Sounds like the men on this NG have been living off of faulty stats all
this time. :-)
>
> I counted the passengers up to and including the ones with the last name
> beginning with "H"...
>
> Men 19 and older....135
> Women 19 and older....187
> Children and teens 18 and under...46
>
> I'm too tired to plot all 712 passengers. Up to and including the "H" gives
> us a darn good idea that is was definitely *not* a case of women and
> children first. It was darn close to an even competition for survival.
>
> Feel free to do your own count. ;-)
Hahahahahahah....I guess revisionist history has some value after all.
:-) Thanks for the update Heidi. Keep up the good work.
>
PolishKnight
If gestation was a primary reason for men to save women, then I imagine
that
older women would be treated similar to men.
> I counted the passengers up to and including the ones with the last name
> beginning with "H"...
>
> Men 19 and older....135
> Women 19 and older....187
> Children and teens 18 and under...46
>
> I'm too tired to plot all 712 passengers. Up to and including the "H" gives
> us a darn good idea that is was definitely *not* a case of women and
> children first. It was darn close to an even competition for survival.
>
> Feel free to do your own count. ;-)
I don't know what numerical shenanigans you're up to, but
here's a quite simple breakdown:
http://octopus.gma.org/space1/titanic.html
Only 705 of 2,227 people on board survived. What percentage is that?
Women/Children Men Total
First class 94% 31% 60%
Second class 81% 10% 44%
Steerage 47% 14% 25%
Crew 87% 22% 24%
I think I have figured out Heidi's game: She wants to argue that
since there were a similar number of women survivors, then
there wasn't much of a preference. This is a statistical
function of there being more men than women to begin with on
the ship.
Heidi Graw
>
>>Heidi wrote:
>> Er...Ken, here's a list of survivors:
>>
>> http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/manifest.php?q=5
>>
(snip)
>Hyerdahl wrote:
> Sounds like the men on this NG have been living off of faulty stats all
> this time. :-)
...and they're continuing to trot out numbers from who knows where. I'm
going strictly by the names of the ship's passenger list...the list of names
of those who survived and the list of names of those who perished. The
names, ages, class and crew, and/or occupation are listed. The list is also
clear on whether it's a Mr., Master, Mrs, Miss, Mlle or Madam, Sir and/or
Lady, General or Lord, or Count and Countess. I'm working off an actual
list which appears to be an authoritive source and grouping the people into
19 and over and 18 and under, male and female. The stats are there. Anyone
can have a look at them. They can do a count for themselves. They can
group the people into whatever catagories.
What cannot be denied is that an equal number of males and females survived.
More adult males than females were rescued. Had the system of "women and
children" applied, one would expect to find a far greater number of women
and children as those survivors. But, this is simply not the case.
Now, we could argue about the age catagory. Perhaps those 18-year olds
should be counted as adults? How about those 17-year olds? I've chosen 19
as that adult age. Choosing the age of what constitutes an adult will
affect the number of children. This is why I was absolutely clear about
what ages I've used to make my own assessment.
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>"PolishKnight" <mar...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:1136583307.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
(snip)
>>Heidi wrote:
>> Er...Ken, here's a list of survivors:
>>
>> http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/manifest.php?q=5
>>
>> Read it.
>Mark offered:
> http://octopus.gma.org/space1/titanic.html
>
> Only 705 of 2,227 people on board survived. What percentage is that?
> Women/Children Men Total
> First class 94% 31% 60%
> Second class 81% 10% 44%
> Steerage 47% 14% 25%
> Crew 87% 22% 24%
Why don't you use the actual list that gives the names and details about
various survivors and those who perished?
>
> I think I have figured out Heidi's game: She wants to argue that
> since there were a similar number of women survivors, then
> there wasn't much of a preference. This is a statistical
> function of there being more men than women to begin with on
> the ship.
I'm not denying that there weren't more men than women on board. Men made
the decision not to outfit the ship with enough life-boats. However, going
through the list of survivors makes it absolutely clear that "women and
children" were *not* first...they survived and were rescued in *equal
numbers* to the men...male and female ratio 50/50. Adult men and adult
women darn close in equal numbers...slightly more men rescued than women.
In practise what happened: "women and children first provided men went
along with them"...all other men, women and children be damned!
So, what does this tell us? I'm looking at this disaster and seeing a vast
majority of passengers and crew being men. However, when the disaster
struck, luck would have it that an equal number of males and females survive
that catastrophy. So, what began as an unequal gender distribution resulted
in survivors being gender equal. Chaos allowed for an equal number of males
and females to survive!
Heidi
Heidi Graw
>
(snip)
>>Heidi wrote:
>> Actually, Hyerdahl, *in practise* that notion of "women and children
>> first"
>> turns out to be a myth. It's an *ideal* perhaps, but in practise it's
>> more
>> a case of "women and children first provided there is a man along with
>> them." LOL...
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> That is very true; I hadn't considered that. :-)
>
(snip)
>>Heidi wrote:
>> See:
>>
>> http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/manifest.php?q=5
>>
(snip)
>Hyerdahl wrote:
> Heidi, thanks so much for giving me the resources to provide a good
> answer to the very next man who wants to take credit. You are a jewel.
Ah thank you, Hyerdahl. But here is something to consider (ignore for a
moment that 9 person miscount...it's not too big of an issue for me to
bother doing another count):
Of all the people on board the Titanic:
Total men age 19 and over 1580.
Total women age 19 and over 371.
Total boys age 18 and under 146.
Total girls age 18 and under 102.
The total of women and all children comes to 619 people.
This means that of the 1580 men, only 619 had the *potential* to actually
behave in a chivalrous manner. The remaining 961 men did not have a woman
or a child for whom they could potentially give up their lives. These 961
men were victims of *MAN*-made and MAN imposed decisions. The majority of
men died at the hands of other men.
So, let's look at these 619 men who had the *real* potential to give up
their own lives for these women and children. We know that 313 men were
rescued. These ones did not give up their lives for any women and children.
That leaves only 309 men out of all those 1580 men who could be considered
*truly* chivalrous. These 309 men did indeed sacrifice their lives for
those women and children. So, of the potential chivalrous men numbering
619, less than half, 309 actually acted on that conviction.
961 men were victims of decisions that other men made. 313 avoided being
chivalrous. 309 were indeed chivalrous...they actually acted on it.
And to those 309 men who gave up their lives for the women and children....
I salute you! These 309 rightfully and justly deserve to be honoured for
their actions.
These chivalrous 309 men comprise the minority of all men who were on the
Titanic. The others, 313 men didn't choose it, nor did 961 men have that
real chance to even act chivalrous had they been given the choice. There
were not enough women and children on board for them to die for!
Heidi
Andre Lieven
> Misandrist Graw posted dishonesty and lies:
Including the " Unsinkable Molly Brown ", who was far older than able to
give birth at the time.
>> I counted the passengers up to and including the ones with the last name
>> beginning with "H"...
>>
>> Men 19 and older....135
>> Women 19 and older....187
>> Children and teens 18 and under...46
>>
>> I'm too tired to plot all 712 passengers. Up to and including the "H"
>> gives us a darn good idea that is was definitely *not* a case of women and
>> children first. It was darn close to an even competition for survival.
>>
>> Feel free to do your own count. ;-)
>
> I don't know what numerical shenanigans you're up to, but
> here's a quite simple breakdown:
>
> http://octopus.gma.org/space1/titanic.html
>
> Only 705 of 2,227 people on board survived. What percentage is that?
> Women/Children Men Total
> First class 94% 31% 60%
> Second class 81% 10% 44%
> Steerage 47% 14% 25%
> Crew 87% 22% 24%
>
> I think I have figured out Heidi's game: She wants to argue that
> since there were a similar number of women survivors, then
> there wasn't much of a preference. This is a statistical
> function of there being more men than women to begin with on
> the ship.
Indeed. As her claim has been shown up by *cited facts* several
times, and now her game of *falsely* claiming that the passenger
*and* crew ( The crew being overwhelmingly male ) list contained
50/50 men/women, her femicentric and misandristic cowshit
claim is now well and massively busted.
>> (snip)
>>
>> >Ken wrote:
>> > PS This reminds me, I never did get that pension info from Ottawa, I'll
>> > have to ask again...but just as an interesting aside, the Feds are
>> > sniffing around for a "settlement", an acquaintance of mine is involved
>> > with the case and tells me they've made some pretty attractive offers
>> > which might be worth even *more* than the 30+ billion the absconded
>> > with...hummm, isn't *that* interesting, admitting quilt...without
>> > "admitting guilt" ;-)
>>
>> LOL...well...if you find out anything more, please post it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Heidi
Andre
PolishKnight
"Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >"PolishKnight" <mar...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:1136583307.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> (snip)
>
> >>Heidi wrote:
> >> Er...Ken, here's a list of survivors:
> >>
> >> http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/manifest.php?q=5
> >>
> >> Read it.
>
> >Mark offered:
> > http://octopus.gma.org/space1/titanic.html
> >
> > Only 705 of 2,227 people on board survived. What percentage is that?
> > Women/Children Men Total
> > First class 94% 31% 60%
> > Second class 81% 10% 44%
> > Steerage 47% 14% 25%
> > Crew 87% 22% 24%
>
> Why don't you use the actual list that gives the names and details about
> various survivors and those who perished?
I suspect that's a rhetorical question because the answer is
pretty obvious. You had written:
"It was hardly a case of "women and children first.""
Yet, it clearly _was_ a case of "women and children first".
A classic one in fact.
You've been caught lying through your teeth.
> > I think I have figured out Heidi's game: She wants to argue that
> > since there were a similar number of women survivors, then
> > there wasn't much of a preference. This is a statistical
> > function of there being more men than women to begin with on
> > the ship.
>
> I'm not denying that there weren't more men than women on board.
Er, probably precisely I just said you were emphasizing that very
fact in an effort to imply that the male survivors who
were able to get the remaining lifeboat space were
treated equally to women.
> Men made
> the decision not to outfit the ship with enough life-boats.
The men who made the decision were upper and middle class
and had the highest relative survival rates.
You claim that society cares about people based upon classes,
but it's wealthy women who enjoyed better treatment than
the lowest working class man. Fiddle dee dee!
> However, going
> through the list of survivors makes it absolutely clear that "women and
> children" were *not* first...they survived and were rescued in *equal
> numbers* to the men
As you just admitted above, there were more men on board to
begin with.
If there had been more women, it's likely few men would have
survived at all.
> ...male and female ratio 50/50. Adult men and adult
> women darn close in equal numbers...slightly more men rescued than women.
Do you know how percentages work?
> In practise what happened: "women and children first provided men went
> along with them"...all other men, women and children be damned!
>
> So, what does this tell us? I'm looking at this disaster and seeing a vast
> majority of passengers and crew being men.
So much for the vast majority of those who perished being men.
You're sweeping them under the rug, figuratively. Have you
no shame?
> However, when the disaster
> struck, luck would have it that an equal number of males and females survive
> that catastrophy. So, what began as an unequal gender distribution resulted
> in survivors being gender equal. Chaos allowed for an equal number of males
> and females to survive!
>
> Heidi
That's a bald lie.
In this case, it was the women and children first policy that
allowed an equal number of women to survive. If such a policy
wasn't in place, it's probable that far fewer women would have survived.
regards,
PolishKnight
PolishKnight
In article <SDIvf.261028$ki.60627@pd7tw2no>,
"Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
More than _10X_ more men perished than women! Yet, you try to
claim that there wasn't much of a preferential system in
place for women.
I read accounts of a few women refusing to board the lifeboats
without their men and dying along with them. So if there
were men allowed with a female escort, it probably was only
on a few lifeboats.
In closing, Heidi, I'm sure that if a disaster like this
happened, you would probably save your own skin.
Your sons and husbands, on the other hand, we can't
be so sure.
regards,
PolishKinght
PolishKnight
"Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Hmmm, you're talked an awful lot about the men. What about the women?
There were opportunities for them to behave heroically and nobly.
A few did. I recall that a few women refused to board without
their husbands AND the women who were on the lifeboats had
no problems with saving their own skin and seeing their husbands
and older sons perish.
I think we know how you would behave.
That's ok though. I don't think anyone expects much more from
you at this point.
regards,
PolishKnight
Heidi Graw
> In article <Z5Ovf.36038$tl.13167@pd7tw3no>,
> "Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> >"Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1136597692.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> (snip)
>>
>> >>Heidi wrote:
>> >> Actually, Hyerdahl, *in practise* that notion of "women and children
>> >> first"
>> >> turns out to be a myth. It's an *ideal* perhaps, but in practise it's
>> >> more
>> >> a case of "women and children first provided there is a man along with
>> >> them." LOL...
>>
>> > Hyerdahl wrote:
>> > That is very true; I hadn't considered that. :-)
>> >
>> (snip)
>>
>> >>Heidi wrote:
>> >> See:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/manifest.php?q=5
>> >>
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> >Hyerdahl wrote:
>> > Heidi, thanks so much for giving me the resources to provide a good
>> > answer to the very next man who wants to take credit. You are a jewel.
> Mark wrote:
> Hmmm, you're talked an awful lot about the men.
The topic is *men* and their supposed acts of chivalry.
>What about the women?
86 women aged 19 and over died to allow 86 men of those 313 men to survive.
106 boys also died to allow 106 men to survive, and 37 girls died to allow
37 men to survive. 229 women and children died which allowed 229 men to
survive. All these women and children are heros, too.
> There were opportunities for them to behave heroically and nobly.
Absolutely. We know that 86 women who died allowed for 86 men to survive.
> A few did. I recall that a few women refused to board without
> their husbands AND the women who were on the lifeboats had
> no problems with saving their own skin and seeing their husbands
> and older sons perish.
There was a potential for 619 men to act chivalrous. Only 309 did so. The
other 961 men who died were the numbers of men who did not have women and
children for whom to die for!
You cannot claim that 1267 men died in order so save 285 women! You
certainly can claim 285 men died so that 285 women could live. The rest of
the men died because other *men* made decisions which resulted in a
disaster!
If we're going to talk majority numbers, then we can indeed claim it was a
disaster for men by men. The women and children were a minority concern and
only a minority of men behaved in a chivalrous manner!
Heidi
Heidi Graw
> In article <GwLvf.35856$tl.30170@pd7tw3no>,
> "Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> >"PolishKnight" <mar...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >news:1136583307.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> (snip)
>>
>> >>Heidi wrote:
>> >> Er...Ken, here's a list of survivors:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/manifest.php?q=5
>> >>
>> >> Read it.
>>
>> >Mark offered:
>> > http://octopus.gma.org/space1/titanic.html
>> >
>> > Only 705 of 2,227 people on board survived. What percentage is that?
>> > Women/Children Men Total
>> > First class 94% 31% 60%
>> > Second class 81% 10% 44%
>> > Steerage 47% 14% 25%
>> > Crew 87% 22% 24%
>> Heidi wrote:
>> Why don't you use the actual list that gives the names and details about
>> various survivors and those who perished?
>Mark wrote:
> I suspect that's a rhetorical question because the answer is
> pretty obvious. You had written:
>
> "It was hardly a case of "women and children first.""
>
> Yet, it clearly _was_ a case of "women and children first".
> A classic one in fact.
In terms of numbers, it was a case of men killing men. 1267 men died while
285 women survived. 961 men died for whom there were no women and children
to die for! The Titanic disaster was a disaster for *men* caused by men!
>>Heidi wrote:
>> Men made
>> the decision not to outfit the ship with enough life-boats.
>Mark wrote:
> The men who made the decision were upper and middle class
> and had the highest relative survival rates.
So? They were still *men* weren't they?
>Mark wrote:
> As you just admitted above, there were more men on board to
> begin with.
Exactly. There were 961 men who died for whom no women or children existed
to die for! The men numbered in total of 1580. Women and children together
accounted for 619 people. The women and children comprised a *minority.*
Numerically-wise, it was a disaster for men due to other men gambling with
these men's lives! These few men also gambled the lives of the minority who
made up that group of women and children.
Heidi
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>>Heidi wrote:
>> That 712 applies to the number of *survivors*. I scrolled down the list
>> and
>> miscounted by 9. I came up with
>>
>> 313 men 19 and over.
>> 285 women 19 and over.
>> 40 boys 18 and under.
>> 65 girls 18 and under.
>>
>> Of those killed in the disaster:
>>
>> 1267 were men 19 and over.
>> 86 were women 19 and over.
>> 106 were boys 18 and under.
>> 37 were girls 18 and under.
>>
>> Consider also there were significantly more men on board than women.
>> However, given that supposedly this notion of "women and children first"
>> was
>> applied, we find instead that a system of "women and children provided a
>> man
>> was along with them applied." The number of male and female survivors
>> was
>> darn near even 353 males to 350 females give or take 9 persons that I
>> missed
>> in my count.
>>
>> Heidi
> Mark wrote:
> More than _10X_ more men perished than women!
Well, duh! To start off with there were 1580 men to 371 women and 248
children! Only 619 men had that potential to act chivalrous. And of those
619 only 309 actually did! Chivalry was a *minority* action within the
larger scheme which was that it was a disaster for men by men who formed the
*majority.*
>Yet, you try to
> claim that there wasn't much of a preferential system in
> place for women.
No, I'm claiming that chivalry was a *minority* action...only 309 men out of
1580 acted that way. By far it was a disaster for men by men!
Heidi
PolishKnight
"Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
So? Margaret Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth sent men to their
deaths even if they never got their own fingernails dirty.
Your argument is a classic justification for the patriarchal
policies of the past denying women equality: Women and Children
had a special patronized place that they belonged in. Not much
has changed, eh?
> >Mark wrote:
> > As you just admitted above, there were more men on board to
> > begin with.
>
> Exactly.
Since it's my point, it's no surprise to me.
> There were 961 men who died for whom no women or children existed
> to die for!
So?
> The men numbered in total of 1580. Women and children together
> accounted for 619 people. The women and children comprised a *minority.*
> Numerically-wise, it was a disaster for men due to other men gambling with
> these men's lives! These few men also gambled the lives of the minority who
> made up that group of women and children.
>
> Heidi
However you RATIONALIZE it, women enjoyed special privileges
at the expense of men. You had denied this before with some
lame numerical shenanigans. At least we're making progress.
At least Jayne is honest that she is dependent upon Patriarchal
chivalry.
regards,
PolishKnight
Rob
Your claims have been thoroughly discredited. The more you argue the more
foolish you make yourself look.
Made any progress researching those Vikings who you contend said 'With this
sperm I may kill thee'? Or perhaps even 'The Knights Who Say Nee'? Stick
with those lines of enquiry. At least they have the potential to amuse us
with something other than your simple foolishness.
(Google Groups seems to be having trouble today, so I'm resorting to other
routes.)
PolishKnight
"Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
There's a fast way to eliminate women's historical accomplishments:
Just mention a few drops of blood and suddenly you gals
run under the table and give up delusions of equality.
So it's _men_ who designed, built, and operated the Titanic and
most other ships on the sea. THANK YOU! Men don't have a "history
month" because Men's history is: Make democracy, make technology,
protect women, financially support families.
Yep Heidi. You gals got equality through _charity_ and
patronizing chivalry much like children receive. Good going.
> >Yet, you try to
> > claim that there wasn't much of a preferential system in
> > place for women.
>
> No, I'm claiming that chivalry was a *minority* action...only 309 men out of
> 1580 acted that way. By far it was a disaster for men by men!
Yes, men run things. We have the ability.
regards,
PolishKnight
PolishKnight
"Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
I doubt that children gave up their seat on a lifeboat to allow
women and men access. It's more likely that these children (and women)
simply couldn't get up to the lifeboats in time to use them.
Also, wealthy women insisted upon bringing their bags and luggage
on the lifeboats while leaving their husbands and older sons
behind.
> > There were opportunities for them to behave heroically and nobly.
>
> Absolutely. We know that 86 women who died allowed for 86 men to survive.
What we _do_ know is that women and children enjoyed preferential
lifeboat access and this is reflected by the statistics that including
both survivors _and_ deaths (that you swept under the rug.)
> > A few did. I recall that a few women refused to board without
> > their husbands AND the women who were on the lifeboats had
> > no problems with saving their own skin and seeing their husbands
> > and older sons perish.
>
> There was a potential for 619 men to act chivalrous. Only 309 did so. The
> other 961 men who died were the numbers of men who did not have women and
> children for whom to die for!
Amazing.
So now you're smearing the reputation of these men even as they
lie at the bottom of the Atlantic.
> You cannot claim that 1267 men died in order so save 285 women! You
> certainly can claim 285 men died so that 285 women could live. The rest of
> the men died because other *men* made decisions which resulted in a
> disaster!
Indeed. Men make difficult decisions and take risks. That's
what HIStory shows. :-)
> If we're going to talk majority numbers, then we can indeed claim it was a
> disaster for men by men. The women and children were a minority concern and
> only a minority of men behaved in a chivalrous manner!
>
> Heidi
The latter is certainly subject to debate. The former, I concede:
Men make the disasters and also civilizations and industry.
regards,
PolishKnight
Ken Chaddock
> Ah thank you, Hyerdahl. But here is something to consider (ignore for a
> moment that 9 person miscount...it's not too big of an issue for me to
> bother doing another count):
>
> Of all the people on board the Titanic:
>
> Total men age 19 and over 1580.
> Total women age 19 and over 371.
> Total boys age 18 and under 146.
> Total girls age 18 and under 102.
>
> The total of women and all children comes to 619 people.
>
> This means that of the 1580 men, only 619 had the *potential* to actually
> behave in a chivalrous manner. The remaining 961 men did not have a woman
> or a child for whom they could potentially give up their lives. These 961
> men were victims of *MAN*-made and MAN imposed decisions. The majority of
> men died at the hands of other men.
>
> So, let's look at these 619 men who had the *real* potential to give up
> their own lives for these women and children. We know that 313 men were
> rescued. These ones did not give up their lives for any women and children.
> That leaves only 309 men out of all those 1580 men who could be considered
> *truly* chivalrous. These 309 men did indeed sacrifice their lives for
> those women and children. So, of the potential chivalrous men numbering
> 619, less than half, 309 actually acted on that conviction.
The FACT that there was a rated* life boat capacity of 1178 persons but
only 534 women and children on board meant that there SHOULD HAVE been
550 spaces available for men in the boats (not counting the 94 men of
the boat crews)...but ONLY about half (258) of these seats were filled...
> 961 men were victims of decisions that other men made. 313 avoided being
> chivalrous. 309 were indeed chivalrous...they actually acted on it.
>
> And to those 309 men who gave up their lives for the women and children....
> I salute you! These 309 rightfully and justly deserve to be honoured for
> their actions.
>
> These chivalrous 309 men comprise the minority of all men who were on the
> Titanic. The others, 313 men didn't choose it, nor did 961 men have that
> real chance to even act chivalrous had they been given the choice. There
> were not enough women and children on board for them to die for!
This is an incredible piece of misandrist crap...
I don't know where you're getting your numbers or conclusions from
Heidi, I've taken mine from Lord Mersey's Report of the Official Board
of Inquiry into the disaster.
According the report, EVERY woman and EVERY child who reached a life
boat station made it into a life boat, men (other than the boat crews)
were prohibited from getting into the life boats until every woman
waiting for a seat was accommodated. This conclusion was supported by
written and verbal testimony from the surveyors, men AND women.
Further, of the women and children who died, a significant % of them
died of exposure while IN A LIFE BOAT. There were also several verified
and confirmed cases of men giving up their seats in life boats to women
who were hauled out of the water, these men going into the water and
subsequently every one of them died.
All 14 lifeboats, the two emergency boats, and two Engelhardt boats
were launched. These had a capacity of 1,178 passengers and crew. Many
boats were not loaded to full capacity. There were many reasons for
this; at first, many women and children were simply unwilling to be
lowered 65 feet from the boat deck to the water. Some of the (crew) men
put in boats were put there simply to show it was safe, and allay the
fears of other passengers. (The two Engelhardt boats that were not
launched floated off when the Titanic sank, and were used as rafts.)
Further, there was enough lifeboat capacity for ALL women and children
(534 persons total), AND 644 men (including boat crews) as well. (Total
capacity of the boats launched was 1,178.) This explains why, especially
as the situation became more urgent, more men were put in the boats. In
fact, it has been suggested by many experts that if the boat crews had
not had obsessive "women & children first" orders but had instead loaded
one man for each woman or child loaded, they could have expected to save
all women and children, plus as many men. If this approach been adopted
from the start, the boats would have been loaded more rapidly, passenger
fear would have been reduced as families were kept together, and far
more lives would have been saved in the long run....
As to why so many third class passengers died (89 of the 109 women who
perished were from third class): Lord Mersey's report addressed (p. 40)
the question of the low survival rate of third-class passengers, as follows:
"It has been suggested before the Inquiry that the third-class
passengers had been unfairly treated; that their access to the boat deck
had been impeded; and that when at last they reached that deck the first
and second-class passengers were given precedence in getting places in
the boats. There appears to have been no truth in these suggestions. It
is no doubt true that the proportion of third-class passengers saved
falls far short of the proportion of the first and second class, but
this is accounted for by the greater reluctance of the third-class
passengers to leave the ship, by their unwillingness to part with their
baggage, by the difficulty in getting them up from their quarters, which
were at the extreme ends of the ship, and by other similar causes. The
interests of the relatives of some of the third-class passengers who had
perished were in the hands of Mr. Harbinson, who attended the Enquiry on
their behalf. He said at the end of his address to the court: 'I wish to
say distinctly that no evidence has been given in the course of this
case which would substantiate a charge that any attempt was made to keep
back the third-class passengers ... I desire further to say that there
is no evidence that when they did reach the boat deck there was any
discrimination practiced either by the officers or by the sailors in
putting them into the boats"
So the reason for the high causality rate among third class women
wasn't as a result of a "preference for men" but as a result of them not
getting to the boats at all...
So what this all comes down to Heidi is that there was sufficient
capacity in the boats to save ALL of the women and children and almost
twice as many men as actually were saved...the reason that only half as
many men were saved as could have been saved was the obsessive "women
and children first" policy that prevented men from being loaded into the
boats until all women and children were accounted for...which left it
far too late to fill the boats to capacity...
...Ken
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>Ken quoted:
> In fact, it has been suggested by many experts that if the boat crews had
> not had obsessive "women & children first" orders but had instead loaded
> one man for each woman or child loaded, they could have expected to save
> all women and children, plus as many men. If this approach been adopted
> from the start, the boats would have been loaded more rapidly, passenger
> fear would have been reduced as families were kept together, and far more
> lives would have been saved in the long run....
Well, well, well...look what we have here! The crew obsessed over the
"women & children first" orders...meaning that the men in general were not
willing to act chivalrous! A *few* had to enforce the rule upon the masses
of men.
Plus, on top of all that, this chivalrous behavior proved disastrous for
women, children and men!
So, Ken, what are we actually arguing about? You at first made this claim
that men are good because they risk their lives for women and children. You
used the Titanic disaster as that example of "women and children first" to
support this notion of self-sacrificing men.
I responded with the comment that is was a case of "women and children first
provided there are men with them." The survivor list of the Titanic bears
this out. I also indicated that of the men who had the actual potential to
behave in a chivalrous manner, only 50% actually did so. The majority of
the men couldn't because there were not enough women and children on board
for them to die for.
So, now you're giving evidence of just how reluctant the men were to
self-sacrifice their lives for women and children. The *few* men has to
*force* the issue. Plus it turns out this policy ended up harming more men,
women and children. You gave proof that chivalry is harmful! So, why do
it?
I've also said that since the total of women and children comprised the
*minority,* the disaster was in fact a *majority* concern for men...a men's
disaster created by men...Patriarchy in action coupled with chivalry! The
Titanic proves just how dangerous and disasterous such patriarchial thinking
can be!
Ken, you've done a good job supporting *my* argument. ;-)
I thank YOU! ;-)
Heidi
Rob
That you can't see the stupidity of your claim, that you attempt to
stereotype everyone's behaviour into gender-only boxes, that you
clearly don't have any idea what is needed to crew a lifeboat and that
you imagine a well ordered process in the evacuation of the ship are
just four of the many factors that demonstrate your naivety.
Your time will be better spent finding out more on those Vikings you
believe in who used terms like: 'with this sperm I may kill thee'.
Then, in the unlikely event that you find anything on them, by all
means post it. At least that would give the rest of us something to
laugh at other than you and your feminist cronies.
Ben
And you don't see that as preference being given to women and children?
That's just sad. If your central argument was true, you see men
vastly overrepresented in the lifeboats.
> So, what began as an unequal gender distribution resulted
> in survivors being gender equal. Chaos allowed for an equal number of males
> and females to survive!
This is the old "absolute numbers vs percentages" game that everyone
likes to play. Could more men have given up their seats on the
lifeboats? Sure. But I also notice that more third class children
than second class women died. More women could have given their seats
to children.
Hyerdahl
Heidi Graw wrote:
Gee, that's going to put a hole in the bitter boy raft, isn't it?
>
> Heidi
Bob
> Further, of the women and children who died, a significant % of them
> died of exposure while IN A LIFE BOAT. There were also several verified
> and confirmed cases of men giving up their seats in life boats to women
> who were hauled out of the water, these men going into the water and
> subsequently every one of them died.
If there was so much excess capacity, why did those men have to
trade places?
> Many boats were not loaded to full capacity. There were many reasons for
> this; at first, many women and children were simply unwilling to be
> lowered 65 feet from the boat deck to the water.
How selfish of them. Murderously so, since it should have been
obvious that empty spaces == dead people.
Heidi Graw
>"Bob" <b...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:9b58d$43c0d692$43091f4c$6...@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
(snip)
>>Ken wrote:
>> Many boats were not loaded to full capacity. There were many reasons for
>> this; at first, many women and children were simply unwilling to be
>> lowered 65 feet from the boat deck to the water.
> Bob wrote:
> How selfish of them. Murderously so, since it should have been
> obvious that empty spaces == dead people.
Perhaps instead of insisting on, "women and children first," they should
have gone with "families with children first." That way mothers and
children wouldn't have become seperated from their husbands and the children
from their fathers. The women would have felt more reassured having their
husbands with them on those lifeboats. More boats could have been filled to
capacity. The unfortunate outcome would still have meant single men being
left behind.
I find it appalling that the reason they didn't have all the lifeboats
needed on deck was based on "aesthetics"...the owners didn't want the ship
looking too cluttered up! <sigh> So, for the sake of beautifying a ship,
1,500 people died! <sigh>
Heidi