# Barbara Amero's First Wife Club

25 views

### Per

Oct 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/13/96
to

If you have been reading the thread called, "Re: A chilly climate for
WHOM?" you have been treated to the vitriolic outpourings of one Barbara
Amero. (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca). Among the things she has said:

>Sure there's some fellas out there who do some good ... BUT overall MEN
>have fucked things up and will continue to do so ... from my point of
>view men should make the lemmings..."a moderate genocide to later save
>a falling race"!!

[and this]

>Like I said before I really don't think they are useful to us anymore!

[and this]

>Are you suggesting that men shouldn't be gettin' a shit-kickin'???
>I think revenge is warranted .... but not necessarily the issue ...
>you fellas jest plain DESERVE a shit-kickin'!!!
>Again for all the shit women have taken and still take, they are NO where
>near as hostile as MANY men!!!!! And the fellas jest don't seem ta have
>the stamina women had/have to cope with the shit-kickin'!
>I think it would be nice if the fellas would jest quietly retire to the
>parlour!

If you wade through this sort of thing long enough, you will find the
source of Ms. Amero's towering rage against all men. She was married, and it
didnt' work out.
Ms. Amero tells us that she helped put her husband through school, and
when they got divorced, she found herself suffering financially.
Despite all of Ms. Amero's anti-male hatred, I almost felt sorry for
her when I read her hard-luck stories.
Almost.
But then I remembered that she is a feminist, and feminism is about
equality. And I would NOT feel all that sorry for a man who was in the same
position.
The reasons: Ms. Amero supported her husband hoping that when his
career took off, she would be very comfortable financially. I wouldn't be
sympathetic to any MAN who said that he hoped to put in a few years
supporting someone else's labor in the hopes of living off those labors for
the rest of his life. I would look at that man as a loafer and a chiseler.
And if it had worked out for her, I suspect she would be just another
smug, upper-class suburban housewife waving her diamond rings under the nose
of the garbageMEN as she orders them to set the ash cans down softly so they
won't disturb her rest.
She obviously expect a big financial payoff from marriage, and that
payoff was very important to her. If a man married hoping to hit paydirt and
it backfired, I don't think I'd feel much sympathy for him. I treat her
equally in this regard.
Here is some of the things she expected:

>... that I would be taken care of ... full prof, tenure, excellent salary
>which would increase (hard worker, well published, merit pay); house
>mortgage life insured; his hefty life insurance; his impending inheritance,
>and so on.... BUT I WAS STUPIT ... FERGOT TO ASK WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF I
>SHOULD L E A V E !!!!

She has a laundry list of money, money, money, that she hoped to get,
not through her own labors. (She even had an eye on his inheritance. Hmmm?
Did that play a part in her decision to marry him?)
And here is the kicker: Ms. Amero was not dumped. SHE left HIM. She
walked out, apparently expecting to continue living the good life. She is
absolutely *enraged* at all men because her cushy plans did not work out.
She also said that she had a chance to go to college herself during
the marriage. She told of taking Women's Studies courses. Well, if she had
studied something that might have given her usable skills, she might now be
earning a better wage. Instead, it was her *choice* to take Women's Studies
courses, and now she is absolutely enraged at all the male race because that
course of study hasn't paid off very well.
Ms. Amero's case would be just another soap-opera if it didn't tell us
so much about the way that feminists think. Ms. Amero unwittingly reveals an
Ms. Amero is revealing a pathological inability to *take
responsibility for her own actions.*
*She* decided on a course of marrying a man as a meal ticket. *She*
choose to spend her college tuition on such things as Women's Studies. *She*
decided to walk out of the marriage. And now that *her own actions* have not
paid off, she virulently *hates men!* Instead of focusing the responsibility
inward, on her own choices, she throws it outward onto every man on the face
of the earth.
There have been men who have gone through similar things. I know one
guy who helped his wife through college and then *she* left. Feminists would
never tolerate that man turning into a woman-hater, but Ms. Amero is in no
danger of winding up on any list of women regarded as "not real feminists."
Ms. Amero has expressed a towering outrage over the INDIGNITY that she
ACTUALLY HAS TO WORK FOR A LIVING!
Well, Ms. Amero, welcome to the club.
And please ... try to take it like a man.

### ploot

Oct 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/14/96
to

Damn good post, Per. That was such an excellent post.

In my opinion, you hit the nail on the head. Women are so irresponsible for
their own choices and behavior, they represent a genuine threat to the
future of our children. I think one of the biggest challenges facing men is
to rescue children from the clutches of selfish, mean-spirited, irresponsible,
violent women. As bad as we men have it, imagine how bad children have
it. Women are poisoning the minds of children and damaging their bodies
at the least rageful impulse. We have to rescue the children from the
destructive clutches of women.

: If you have been reading the thread called, "Re: A chilly climate for

### Barbara Amero

Oct 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/14/96
to

ploot wrote:
: Damn good post, Per. That was such an excellent post.

Yes I thought so too. And I am flattered that Per would take that much
time and effort to start a thread in my dishonour ... such has also
happened here in a local newsgroup. Geez! I'm gettin' as populaareeee as
Camille Paglia! HOWEVER, Per's post is only a biography ... and as with
all biographies it is his/her interpretation and not all of it is factual.
In fact, s/he made quite a few assumptions/errors ... thas always a problem
when one takes it upon oneself to define another's reality.

BUT I do think that you have hit the nail on the head ... only however if
you say *some* women. Not ALL women are irresponsible for their own
choices and behavior. AND I agree that children need to be rescued ...
BUT certainly NOT from the frying pan into the fire!! ... the fire you
suggest!
AND some feminists do not seem to want to accept that Woman the Nurturer
is a Patriarchal Myth .... in fact it is a myth perpetuated by feminism
...they seem to prefer a shroud of silence covering the reality of women's
complicity in this abusive, violent society. Whose interests are served?
I agree with bell hooks who says that women can and do participate in
politics of domination, as perpetrators as well as victims -- that we
dominate, that we are dominated -- that we must emphasize paradigms of
domination that call attention to woman' capacity to dominate that will
enable us to examine our role as women in the perpetuation and maintenance
of systems of domination.
AND I agree with Firestone that biological reproduction is neither in
women's best interest nor in those of the children so reproduced ...
if technology can eliminate the role of woman-the-producer, it can
eliminate the role of man-the-producer ... BUT tis men in power ... "the
replacement of women's childbearing capacity by male-controlled technology
would remove women's biological burden, BUT it would also leave women
without a product with which to bargain." AND I agree with Firestone that
"biological motherhood is the root of further evils, especially the vice
of possessiveness that generates feelings of hostilty and jealousy among
human beings ... the vice of possessiveness--the favouring of one child over
another on account of its being the product of one's own ovum or sperm--is
precisely what must be overcome if we are to put an end to divisive
hierarchies." Children reproduced exutero could be up fer grabs ... only
those caring, nurturing women or men who truly like children and wish to
parent would do so!
OR another possible solution is for women to bear children when they are
young and for children to be brought up in nurseries with qualified,
competent care-givers who want to perform this function ... with child-
bearing out of the way at an early age, women are then free to pursue
other interests with men as their equals.

FINALLY the writer is truly in a delusional state if s/he thinks that
children should be rescued and put in the hands of "selfish, mean-spirited,
irresponsible, violent men!
AND how many men want their kids ... the situation here does not seem
that many want them enough to pay child support! or even visit them! Even
when they live with their children, many do not visit with them, they are
too bizzy ... after the almighty dollar ... some workin' at demeaning jobs,
some seeking fame and fortune or just fame/immortality!

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
,?, Barbara A. Amero (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca)
{o o} http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
--ooO-(_)-Ooo------------------------------------------------------------
She eats, has a house, has entertainment....what else is there....
------------------------------------------ "DukeNukem" (aka Joseph Glynn)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

### Zenoink

Oct 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/14/96
to

In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes: > Sounds to me like you guys can dish it out, but ya just can't take it when it's thrown back in your faces! Surprise! I come from an area where sexism isn't half as rampant as it is in this newsgroup. I didn't even intend to see the First Wives Club since I didn't find the divorced wife's revenge theme very funny. However, I have noticed the absolute panic of a lot of sexist men over this movie and their efforts to boycott it (got caught using the names of groups they didn't have authorization from, too!) I have, therefore, decided to go see this flick just to be on the good side of matters. A line in the sand, so to speak. Kay ### Mark Evans unread, Oct 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/14/96 to Per (PerAd...@gnn.com) wrote: : If you have been reading the thread called, "Re: A chilly climate for : WHOM?" you have been treated to the vitriolic outpourings of one Barbara : Amero. (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca). Among the things she has said: And their nice postmaster who forwards complaints to them so they can send abusive email back. I don't have much truck with with "cowboy" operators. : Ms. Amero is revealing a pathological inability to *take : responsibility for her own actions.* : *She* decided on a course of marrying a man as a meal ticket. *She* : choose to spend her college tuition on such things as Women's Studies. *She* : decided to walk out of the marriage. And now that *her own actions* have not : paid off, she virulently *hates men!* Instead of focusing the responsibility : inward, on her own choices, she throws it outward onto every man on the face : of the earth. : There have been men who have gone through similar things. I know one : guy who helped his wife through college and then *she* left. Feminists would : never tolerate that man turning into a woman-hater, but Ms. Amero is in no : danger of winding up on any list of women regarded as "not real feminists." : Ms. Amero has expressed a towering outrage over the INDIGNITY that she : ACTUALLY HAS TO WORK FOR A LIVING! : Well, Ms. Amero, welcome to the club. : And please ... try to take it like a man. Maybe you will learn something, like all the sort of stuff men have to put up with... ### Steven Malcolm Anderson unread, Oct 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/14/96 to In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes:

<snipped>

> The reasons: Ms. Amero supported her husband hoping that when his
>career took off, she would be very comfortable financially. I wouldn't
be
>sympathetic to any MAN who said that he hoped to put in a few years
>supporting someone else's labor in the hopes of living off those
labors for
>the rest of his life. I would look at that man as a loafer and a
chiseler.

Exactly. _I_ tolerate _no_ double standards.

> Ms. Amero has expressed a towering outrage over the INDIGNITY
that she
>ACTUALLY HAS TO WORK FOR A LIVING!

Oh, golly! How -- awful! (Two four-letter words that some people
--
sm...@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia

### Stuart Birks

Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

zen...@ix.netcom.com(Zenoink) wrote:
>However, I have noticed the absolute panic of a lot of sexist men over
>this movie and their efforts to boycott it (got caught using the names
>of groups they didn't have authorization from, too!)

>I have, therefore, decided to go see this flick just to be on the good
>side of matters. A line in the sand, so to speak.

I thought it was a picket, not a boycott. From what I read they WANT
people to see it.

Enjoy the film.

Stuart

### Zenoink

Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

In <53v5c3$b...@cc-server9.massey.ac.nz> Stuart Birks Well, actually, that's what they said--figured if it was such a hit they'd get more publicity--but they seem to have kinda flopped--unlike the movie. Kay ### Barbara Amero unread, Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96 to Zenoink (zen...@ix.netcom.com) wrote: : In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes:

: Sounds to me like you guys can dish it out, but ya just can't take it
: when it's thrown back in your faces! Surprise!

You got it! And I'm certainly not surprised that the fellas can't take it!
Some local yokels down this way started dishin' it out ta me and when I
dished it right back ... Whoa! did they get some cranky ... check it out
in my Profile under 'babs cybergossip' ... mosta them are pretty quiet
now.
AND ... Can ya picture a man tryin' ta give birth?

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
,?, Barbara A. Amero (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca)
{o o} http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
--ooO-(_)-Ooo------------------------------------------------------------
She eats, has a house, has entertainment....what else is there....
------------------------------------------ "DukeNukem" (aka Joseph Glynn)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

one of them local yokels talkin' about his wife ... tis more than ATV news
that makes me nauseous!

### Barbara Amero

Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

Mark Evans (ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: : If you have been reading the thread called, "Re: A chilly climate for
: : WHOM?" you have been treated to the vitriolic outpourings of one Barbara
: : Amero. (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca). Among the things she has said:

: And their nice postmaster who forwards complaints to them so they can

: send abusive email back. I don't have much truck with with "cowboy"
: operators.

AHH POO ON YOU! ... you're jest cranky Mark 'cause CCN wouldn't reprimand
me ... I didn't break any rules! And I don't have much truck with them
snotty, snooty, folk were you come from! As a fellow netizen friend would
say fuk that trukload of muk! AND some advice from him: If splatter and
gore, decaying corpses and rotting fundamentalism are too mature stuff
for you to handle, it is best to stay inside, not to open a newspaper, or
news magazine or any other such publication, not to turn on TV or radio,
especially not a computer that has a modem line connected, not to talk to
anybody (especially those that might talk back), and to close your eyes,
put fingers in your ears and make a loud humming noise. It is not
guaranteed to work but a major brain surgery will most suitably help to
keep the distracting thoughts out of your consciousness, or even a really
big wooden mallet.

snip a bunch a per's bullshit

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
,?, Barbara A. Amero (ak...@ccn.cs.dal.ca)
{o o} http://www.ccn.cs.dal.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
--ooO-(_)-Ooo------------------------------------------------------------
Castration fear: inevitable in a species that has knock-offable
external dangling genitalia. -Beata Bishop
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

### Carolyn Jean Fairman

Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

followups restricted

Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:

>Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes: >: <snipped> >: > The reasons: Ms. Amero supported her husband hoping that when his >: >career took off, she would be very comfortable financially. I wouldn't >: be >: >sympathetic to any MAN who said that he hoped to put in a few years >: >supporting someone else's labor in the hopes of living off those >: labors for >: >the rest of his life. I would look at that man as a loafer and a >: chiseler. How sadly traditional. Then who cares for the children? Can't be men, as they would be loafers to do that work. But many men have nothing against demanding women do it. The Mormon Elders just demanded women stay at home and not work outside the home. Per seems to have forgotten this. Such attitudes and such a demand is clearly sexist, because if men are loafers for that work, so are women. If it is good that women do it, so it is for men. To split this by sex is sexist. And so many anti feminists are blatently and self-righteously sexist it can make you sick. [snip] >Hmmm.... am I understanding you correctly ... are you saying that women >who work as homemakers do not work for a living? Is that what you're >saying?? Maybe Fairman who isn't nutty would like to address this issue. >So what do you think Fairman? Very common comment, raising children is not work. Men certainly would stoop to being "loafers" and doing it. Certainly running a household is just eating bon bons all day. Riight. Raising children is very hard work, and to parent-bash like that is exceedingly rude, thoughtless and worthy almost of cross posting to misc.kids so parents could flame you for your mindlessness. I do think the time where one person staying home, with no kids, is past, and I am glad to see it go. But, of course, now we have a dearth of volunteers, as that was very commonly work homemakers had (but since it was not paid, it didn't 'count' and men would not do it in anywhere near the number women do). But, Barbara, bashing men just doesn't cut it. One, you give people like Per yet one more excuse to woman bash and point fingers at you. You give anti-feminists an opportunity to ignore their own female bashing and pick on your for male bashing. And, of course, it is rude because you label all for the idiocy of the few. Some women are totally ridiculous, gold diggers, whatever. Watch and you'll see that men here all agree with that, with much nastiness. But point out that some men are totally ridiculous, selfish and cruel people and they ignore it, call you a man basher and basically avioid admitting men are far from perfect, too. I test this all the time, same thing each time. However, a word of advice. Don't male bash. Be clear you mean some men. Men like your ex, say. Rich Payne blows this all the time, but none of the men here care. He goes from experience with his ex and some other women and states women as a whole are some form of bad, evil, whatever, it varies. Per has female bashed a few times himself and is completely of the opinion he is right and women are just like that. Thus it is ok to female bash because you can justify it by female bashing more and saying women are really all like that. Amazing But True: Per On Alt.feminism. The hypocracy is galling and can fuel anger that results in lashing out just as immaturely as the men did, but you get nowhere that way, or really you get as far as they do. And at as low a level. It isn't worth it. >AND you steven what makes you think I didn't work outside of the home? >Is that what Per told ya? Per seems always willing to assume things about people that fit his woman bashing prejudices. Then if you state the truth, at least with me, I got called niave for posting personal info on the net. Pretty good scam, hm? >Why don't ya have a chat with my x-husband, >W. David Pierce, University of Alberta, Canada? He could set ya straight >tho' I don't think he'd talk to the likes a you fellas! Or ya could jest >read my posts ... I'm pretty sure that I wrote about working outside of >the home ... Oh, details. How naive of you, anyway. :-) You also worked in the home, raising children. Barbara, if women don't work to end this devaluing of childrearing, not only will kids lose out, but men will continue to shirk their share of it in marriges allowing them to continue to blothely think it isn't work. Clearly someone has been covering their butts to the nitty gritty work of childrearing --their wives. But male bashing is wrong, Barbara, not matter how irriating and stupid many men here are. They are not all men, or even (thanks be to life) most. But you *will* alientate and drive away men who might have well been agreable about many topics related to feminism. Always unwise, to be rude and mean and drive away the people who might have agreed otherwise. People like Per don't matter either way, his mind is made up, but not being rude seems, IMHO, a generally good idea anyway. Even to him, irritating and rude as he is. >fessors at U of A make pretty good money but not enough ta >pay for competitive sports fer 3 children ... especially when one of those >sports is figure skating ... and I'm pretty sure that I mentioned running >my own business ... Details! :-) >but Per's version of my life is more to yer liking >isn't it! Gives ya an opportunity to engage in woman-bashing ... after >all isn't that why yer in here?? Well for the love of life, don't stoop to their level! It is obvious how many men here will reinterpret what you said and and change it, and when caught will beg off claiming "sarcasm" and "lack of a sense of humor in feminists". Be persistant about stopping female bashing. Quite simply, you are in a better position the less you male bash and the more you talk about men who do certain things, of which there are many or some but far from all. I didn't think you were worth talking to, because you come across as no better than these bitter, agnry, feminists-hating woman-bashers (note, I am not confusing feminism with women. There are femininsts *haters* who may like some women but sure seem willing to bash all of them) and I just thought, oh, great, a woman who is damaging the ability of feminists to reach the men who would listen. So stop it! Focus in reaching the men you can, pointing out the foibles of certain types of men of which your ex is one and try to focus your anger at changing things. I have a friend, in his 50's, who is stopping calling women girls and really has worked on using they as a sex neutral pronoun and seeing women are capable of things they were denied even the opportunity to try when he was growing up. He is also way mroe aware of gender role stereotyping and how he likely treats girls (real ones, ie small female children) differently from boys -- and he trying to *change* that! Male bashing would not have brought about this effect. His going off and talking to other men about these issues does more for feminism than trying to rebut the blatherings one feminist-hating female-basher here. Make yourseslf worth talking to, by building up women and praising certain kinds of men and critiqueing others. Tossing in an occasional comment critiquing certain kinds of women is worth it too because, like men, women are not perfect. And you get to watch with amazement as some men go Yeah, the bitch, women do that, while they ignore their own sexism. Keeps me involved in feminism, let me tell ya. Likewise, the issue of SAH Moms or SAH women, really, but also SAH Dads. There is real value in supporting someone who can do more because they don't need to worry about food, shelter, paying bills or much of daya to day life. Men who do this get a *lot* of shit tossed at them. Loafers (and we are not talking shoes here) and wusses is the least of it. Women who do it are praised by certain religious groups (whome certain antifeminists thing are run by women. Hah.), but ignored when they get divorced (but blamed for wanting alimony). Many men made it clear the risk for staying at home and raising the children was not worth it becuase you get dumped, don't have the skills he had while you supported him and raised the both of yours children. No wonder they won't risk it when their sex practically defined it being a stupid thing to do. But it can work if the couple is up front about who is sacrificing what and why and expects what in return. Women who stay at home, and men who do, too, are WORKING. But in a job few in power in society value. Barbara, bashing men won't help. Other things will (valuing childrearing for men as well as women, talking about expressing feelings, sexism in the wrokplace, sexual harassment of 6th graders and the social code that used to say this was ok, that some men seem to want to *keep* and others) men just as upset without being, in all honesty, stupid for falling for the temptation to male bash. :-) -- | Feminism-the notion (apparently radical to some) that women are people |\O/| ===If equality is viewed as a loss, what does== Carolyn | _ | ===that tell you about the previous situation?== Fairman |/ \| http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~cfairman/ or /Humanists/ ### Sean C unread, Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96 to In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU>, cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Carolyn Jean Fairman) wrote:

<snippo>

>
> Barbara, bashing men won't help. Other things will (valuing
> childrearing for men as well as women, talking about expressing
> feelings, sexism in the wrokplace, sexual harassment of 6th graders
> and the social code that used to say this was ok, that some men seem
> to want to *keep* and others) men just as upset without being, in all
> honesty, stupid for falling for the temptation to male bash. :-)
>
> --
> | Feminism-the notion (apparently radical to some) that women are people
> |\O/| ===If equality is viewed as a loss, what does== Carolyn
> | _ | ===that tell you about the previous situation?== Fairman
> |/ \| http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~cfairman/ or /Humanists/

--
############################################################
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of
opinions that we loathe.
-Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr.
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call
him vile names.
-Elbert Hubbard

### Marg Petersen

Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96
to

In article <andersonD...@netcom.com>,
Jay Anderson <ande...@netcom.com> wrote:

>In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU> cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes: >> >>But, Barbara, bashing men just doesn't cut it. One, you give people >>like Per yet one more excuse to woman bash and point fingers at you. >>You give anti-feminists an opportunity to ignore their own female >>bashing and pick on your for male bashing. And, of course, it is rude >>because you label all for the idiocy of the few. Some women are >>totally ridiculous, gold diggers, whatever. Watch and you'll see that >>men here all agree with that, with much nastiness. But point out that >>some men are totally ridiculous, selfish and cruel people and they >>ignore it, call you a man basher and basically avioid admitting men >>are far from perfect, too. I test this all the time, same thing each >>time. > >Three, male bashing is wrong. > >>But male bashing is wrong, Barbara, not matter how irriating and >>stupid many men here are. They are not all men, or even (thanks be to >>life) most. > >Yes. Even we Martinets - sorry, private joke - agree that many >of the guys you see on these ngs and in certain mailing lists are >not representative of men in general. > >Thank the goddess - no, not you, Marg! :-) > >Jay > Aw gee, Jay! You mean I *haven't* had anything to do with lots of men being nice(r)? Shucks! I guess I'll just have to light a few more candles then. :-) Marg -- Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~petersm "At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway ### Carolyn Jean Fairman unread, Oct 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/15/96 to Ngs changed Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote: >Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote: >: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes:
>: <snipped>

>: > The reasons: Ms. Amero supported her husband hoping that when his

>: >career took off, she would be very comfortable financially. I wouldn't
>: be
>: >sympathetic to any MAN who said that he hoped to put in a few years
>: >supporting someone else's labor in the hopes of living off those
>: labors for
>: >the rest of his life. I would look at that man as a loafer and a
>: chiseler.

men, as they would be loafers to do that work. But many men have
nothing against demanding women do it. The Mormon Elders just demanded
women stay at home and not work outside the home. Per seems to have
forgotten this. Such attitudes and such a demand is clearly sexist,
because if men are loafers for that work, so are women. If it is good
that women do it, so it is for men. To split this by sex is sexist.
And so many anti feminists are blatently and self-righteously sexist
it can make you sick.

[snip]
>Hmmm.... am I understanding you correctly ... are you saying that women
>who work as homemakers do not work for a living? Is that what you're
>saying?? Maybe Fairman who isn't nutty would like to address this issue.
>So what do you think Fairman?

Very common comment, raising children is not work. Men certainly
would stoop to being "loafers" and doing it. Certainly running a
household is just eating bon bons all day. Riight. Raising children
is very hard work, and to parent-bash like that is exceedingly rude,
thoughtless and worthy almost of cross posting to misc.kids so parents

could flame you for your mindlessness. To a crisp as this is often
discussed.

I do think the time where one person staying home, with no kids, is
past, and I am glad to see it go. But, of course, now we have a
dearth of volunteers, as that was very commonly work homemakers had

(but since it was not paid, it didn't 'count' and in general it seems

men would not do it in anywhere near the number women do).

But, Barbara, bashing men just doesn't cut it. One, you give people

like Per yet one more excuse to woman bash and point fingers at you.
You give anti-feminists an opportunity to ignore their own female
bashing and pick on your for male bashing. And, of course, it is rude
because you label all for the idiocy of the few. Some women are
totally ridiculous, gold diggers, whatever. Watch and you'll see that
men here all agree with that, with much nastiness. But point out that
some men are totally ridiculous, selfish and cruel people and they
ignore it, call you a man basher and basically avioid admitting men
are far from perfect, too. I test this all the time, same thing each
time.

However, a word of advice. Don't male bash. Be clear you mean some

men. Men like your ex, say. Rich Payne blows this all the time, but
none of the men here care. He goes from experience with his ex and
some other women and states women as a whole are some form of bad,
evil, whatever, it varies. Per has female bashed a few times himself
and is completely of the opinion he is right and women are just like
that. Thus it is ok to female bash because you can justify it by
female bashing more and saying women are really all like that.
Amazing But True: Per On Alt.feminism.

The hypocracy is galling and can fuel anger that results in lashing

out just as immaturely as those men did, but you get nowhere that way,

or really you get as far as they do. And at as low a level. It isn't

worth it. Repeat that as needed; it isnt worth stooping like that
yourself. :-)

>AND you steven what makes you think I didn't work outside of the home?
>Is that what Per told ya?

Per seems always willing to assume things about people that fit his

woman-bashing prejudices. Then if you state the truth, at least with
me, I got called naive for posting personal info on the net. Pretty
good scam, hm?

>Why don't ya have a chat with my x-husband,
>W. David Pierce, University of Alberta, Canada? He could set ya straight
>tho' I don't think he'd talk to the likes a you fellas! Or ya could jest
>read my posts ... I'm pretty sure that I wrote about working outside of
>the home ...

Oh, details. How naive of you, anyway. :-)

You also worked in the home, raising children. Barbara, if women
don't work to end this devaluing of childrearing, not only will kids

lose out, but many men will continue to shirk their share of it in
marriges allowing them to continue to blithely think it isn't work.

Clearly someone has been covering their butts to the nitty gritty work
of childrearing --their wives.

But male bashing is wrong, Barbara, not matter how irriating and

stupid many men here are. They are not all men, or even (thanks be to

life) most. But you *will* alienate and drive away men who might have
well been agreeable about many topics related to feminism. Always

unwise, to be rude and mean and drive away the people who might have
agreed otherwise. People like Per don't matter either way, his mind
is made up, but not being rude seems, IMHO, a generally good idea
anyway. Even to him, irritating and rude as he is.

>fessors at U of A make pretty good money but not enough ta
>pay for competitive sports fer 3 children ... especially when one of those
>sports is figure skating ... and I'm pretty sure that I mentioned running

Details! :-)

>but Per's version of my life is more to yer liking
>isn't it! Gives ya an opportunity to engage in woman-bashing ... after
>all isn't that why yer in here??

Well for the love of life, don't stoop to their level! It is obvious
how many men here will reinterpret what you said and and change it,
and when caught will beg off claiming "sarcasm" and "lack of a sense
of humor in feminists". Be persistant about stopping female bashing.
Quite simply, you are in a better position the less you male bash and
the more you talk about men who do certain things, of which there are
many or some but far from all.

I didn't think you were worth talking to, because you come across as

no better than these bitter, angry, feminists-hating woman-bashers

(note, I am not confusing feminism with women. There are femininsts
*haters* who may like some women but sure seem willing to bash all of

them anyway) and I just thought, oh, great, a woman who is damaging

the ability of feminists to reach the men who would listen.

So stop it! Focus in reaching the men you can, pointing out the
foibles of certain types of men of which your ex is one and try to
focus your anger at changing things. I have a friend, in his 50's,
who is stopping calling women girls and really has worked on using
they as a sex neutral pronoun and seeing women are capable of things
they were denied even the opportunity to try when he was growing up.

He is also way more aware of gender role stereotyping and how he

likely treats girls (real ones, ie small female children) differently
from boys -- and he trying to *change* that! Male bashing would not
men about these issues does more for feminism than trying to rebut the
blatherings one feminist-hating female-basher here.

Make yourseslf worth talking to, by building up women and praising
certain kinds of men and critiqueing others. Tossing in an occasional
comment critiquing certain kinds of women is worth it too because,
like men, women are not perfect. And you get to watch with amazement
as some men go Yeah, the bitch, women do that, while they ignore their
own sexism. Keeps me involved in feminism, let me tell ya.

Likewise, the issue of SAH Moms or SAH women, really, but also SAH
Dads. There is real value in supporting someone who can do more
because they don't need to worry about food, shelter, paying bills or

much of day to day life with small chillren. Men who do this get a
*lot* of shit tossed at them. I read the SAH Dads lists, and wow, the
stories of male to male man-bashing... Loafers (and we are not talking

shoes here) and wusses is the least of it. Women who do it are
praised by certain religious groups (whome certain antifeminists thing
are run by women. Hah.), but ignored when they get divorced (but
blamed for wanting alimony).

Many men made it clear the risk for staying at home and raising the
children was not worth it becuase you get dumped, don't have the
skills he had while you supported him and raised the both of yours
children. No wonder they won't risk it when their sex practically
defined it being a stupid thing to do. But it can work if the couple
is up front about who is sacrificing what and why and expects what in
return. Women who stay at home, and men who do, too, are WORKING.
But in a job few in power in society value.

Barbara, bashing men won't help. Other things will (valuing

childrearing for men as well as women, talking about expressing
feelings, sexism in the wrokplace, sexual harassment of 6th graders
and the social code that used to say this was ok, that some men seem

to want to *keep* and other things) and get the same men here just as

### Jay Anderson

Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU> cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes: > >But, Barbara, bashing men just doesn't cut it. One, you give people >like Per yet one more excuse to woman bash and point fingers at you. >You give anti-feminists an opportunity to ignore their own female >bashing and pick on your for male bashing. And, of course, it is rude >because you label all for the idiocy of the few. Some women are >totally ridiculous, gold diggers, whatever. Watch and you'll see that >men here all agree with that, with much nastiness. But point out that >some men are totally ridiculous, selfish and cruel people and they >ignore it, call you a man basher and basically avioid admitting men >are far from perfect, too. I test this all the time, same thing each >time. Three, male bashing is wrong. >But male bashing is wrong, Barbara, not matter how irriating and >stupid many men here are. They are not all men, or even (thanks be to >life) most. Yes. Even we Martinets - sorry, private joke - agree that many ### Barbara Amero unread, Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96 to Jay Anderson (ande...@netcom.com) wrote: : In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU> cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
: >
: >But, Barbara,

Hmmm...... thas what my x-husband used ta call me ... thought my name was
Butbarbara ...... always leary when addressed as such!

bashing men just doesn't cut it. One, you give people
: >like Per yet one more excuse to woman bash and point fingers at you.
: >You give anti-feminists an opportunity to ignore their own female
: >bashing and pick on your for male bashing. And, of course, it is rude
: >because you label all for the idiocy of the few. Some women are
: >totally ridiculous, gold diggers, whatever. Watch and you'll see that
: >men here all agree with that, with much nastiness. But point out that
: >some men are totally ridiculous, selfish and cruel people and they
: >ignore it, call you a man basher and basically avioid admitting men
: >are far from perfect, too. I test this all the time, same thing each
: >time.

: Three, male bashing is wrong.

: >But male bashing is wrong, Barbara, not matter how irriating and

: >stupid many men here are. They are not all men, or even (thanks be to
: >life) most.

: Yes. Even we Martinets - sorry, private joke - agree that many

: of the guys you see on these ngs and in certain mailing lists are
: not representative of men in general.

: Thank the goddess - no, not you, Marg! :-)

: Jay

Haven't had time to read Fairman's post yet .... but I have to say that
I disagree with you ... I do not think the men in here are representative
of all men BUT I think they are representative of men in general! And
goddess ain't gonna change that!

Barbara

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

### Sean C

Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

In article <541mst$s...@News.Dal.Ca>, ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Barbara Amero) wrote: > > Haven't had time to read Fairman's post yet .... but I have to say that > I disagree with you ... I do not think the men in here are representative > of all men BUT I think they are representative of men in general! And > goddess ain't gonna change that! > > Barbara > > ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ > ,?, Barbara A. Amero (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca) > {o o} http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak955/Profile.html > --ooO-(_)-Ooo------------------------------------------------------------ > She eats, has a house, has entertainment....what else is there.... > ------------------------------------------ "DukeNukem" (aka Joseph Glynn) > ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Yes, Barbara is right for once. The men on here are representative of those men in our society who are not going to bow down to you anymore. We have woken up to the notion that our lives and our desires are as important as yours, and we are not going to be your workhorses, meal-tickets or objects of your twisted desire for revenge for what men did one hundred years ago. We will assert our rights to be fathers to our children, to equal employment and education, and the right to make *our own* reproductive and life choices. You feminists have deprived of of these rights, or are working to do so; and though you have the upper hand now, we will have our freedom in the end. We will demand that you take responsibility for your actions, as we have always had to do. Deal with it. And yes, we will rightfully mock you when you endorse fanatic psychopaths who think six-year olds are capable of sexual harassment. We will laugh our asses off when you tell us we don't have any feelings -because we know that there is no greater proof that you feminists don't give a fuck about men's feelings then your distorted belief that we have none. And we will smile knowingly when you call feminists "stupid, for falling for the temptation to male bash," because your familiar attempts to place respnsibility on one sex for being the temptors, or snakes in the Garden, is as old as Eve and is pure sexist bullshit. Your movement, which has used the massive propagation of sexist hatred and stereotyping to achieve its goals, will be joining T Rex and Company soon enough. ### Carol Ann Hemingway unread, Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96 to In <redhawk-ya0230600...@news.walrus.com> red...@walrus.com (Sean C) writes: > >In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU>,
cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU
>(Carolyn Jean Fairman) wrote:
>
><snippo>
>>
>> Barbara, bashing men won't help. Other things will (valuing
>> childrearing for men as well as women, talking about expressing
>> feelings, sexism in the wrokplace, sexual harassment of 6th graders
>> and the social code that used to say this was ok, that some men seem
>> to want to *keep* and others) men just as upset without being, in
all>> honesty, stupid for falling for the temptation to male bash. :-)

-----
Personally, I am offended by bashing either gender, but women, like
men, have all styles of battle. Just as female bashing exists, so
does male bashing; what good does it do to only question the value
of one? As a feminist, I do value the idea that men are fully able
to raise children, and feel free to discuss those issues, and the
others you mention, but being critical of "male bashing" is rather
silly, in light of the fact that female bashing has been going on
for centuries, and continues in the hallowed halls of magazines
like Hustler, on comedy reviews, and here on the net. Fighting
fire with fire is simply another way to fight; if you're going to
be critical, be critical of both.
-------
>>
>Lefty

### Per

Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU> Carolyn Jean Fairman wrote: >Male bashing as bad as female bashing; both stupid Is it? Hmmm. But on the "Dolls Can Be Raped" thread, In article <52h1m8$i...@solaria13.Stanford.EDU> Carolyn Jean Fairman wrote:

>I am bashing the people who did it, who happened to be male.

Hmmm. Welp, let's not comment on this or draw conclusions. Let's just lay
this little baby on Fairman's doorstep and quietly tiptoe away ...

### Barbara Amero

Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

Carolyn Jean Fairman (cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

Carolyn,
I appreciate you taking the time to make such a long, thoughtful post and
I'm sure many will agree with you. I also appreciate your right to have
a voice, even if it's not a voice I agree with. I was quite shocked with
what I found in alt.feminism, as I said I thought it would be women
discussing feminism. "Make myself worth talking to", you say. In this
newsgroup?? I'd be breaking the norm! BUT note in some of the threads I
post to who women and men are responding to! I had my reasons for posting
as I did and do not have to explain or justify my reasons. Tis fine for
you to have your opinions, disagree with me and express such. But as a 50
year old woman, I have to say that I do not appreciate your patronizing
lecture. And when you say focus on changing things, I'm wondering if what
you mean by change is the kind of change you have in mind. Eg. I note you
mention valuing childrearing for men as well as women and I *assume* you
mean in some type of family situation ... well that may not be something
I value! or envision in an ideal society! AND this insistence on individual
rights, freedom, blah, blah, blah, is not the route to equality or the
survival of our culture.
There's many brands of feminism with differing views. We do not all share
the same view on the equality issue. The sameness/difference debate thas
been goin' on how long! will continue long after I'm gone.
I do not read posts that I don't want to and I'm sure you can/do the
same. Basically what I am saying is that you do things the way you want to
and I will do things the way I want to. After having men tell me what to
do, I'm not about to now start letting women tell me what to do. And I'm
not all that impressed with the posts of women in here ... some who have
been just as attacking towards me as the men. As I stated in a recent
post, one of the tenents of feminism is that women have a voice and that
their voice be heard ... and from my point of view that means ALL women
and not just women whose voices we agree with. AND to be sure the voices
of radical feminists are being silenced. Feminism is full of hypocrisy!
The men in here don't need the ammunition I provide them, they have all
they need!

I want to quickly note the posts on Robin Morgan's quote ... I've not read
much of Morgan's writing but I did see an interview with her, her male
partner and their child. With tears in her eyes she said that she was
optimistic, that she 'loved men 'too much not to be. I have not seen the
quote mentioned ... but I would agree that it is possible to hate the
oppressor without hating the individual! In other words, one can hate men
without hating man.

Again I appreciate your thoughtful post and respect your right to disagree
with, disapprove of my man-bashing. BUT who are you to tell me to stop it??
AND Per writing the story of my life that is very far removed from reality
isn't just woman-bashing; it's in a class all by itself! ... but as I said
assholes know no gender ... a *woman* in a mailing list did the same just
in a different way ... in fact she *libeled* me ... and perhaps Per's post
is libelous??

Finally, I have to wonder why you be cavorting with the fellas in here ...
surely such is not your idea of making change as you suggested I do ...
you write "and I just thought, oh, great, a woman who is damaging the
ability of feminists to reach the men who would listen" ... really Carolyn
do you think the fellas in here are gonna listen?? And what man worth
anything would even be reading these posts! I don't know anything about
you, what your job is, etc., but it seems to me that if change is your
interest, your time would better be spent elsewhere.
: |\O/| ===I am a feminist
: | _ | ===I want credit for what I say
: |/ \| not what I do.
I think this is your quote?? If so, I suggest it should be the other way
around ... my x, a behaviorist, always used ta tell me not to pay attention
to what people say, to pay attention to what people do. I agree!

Barbara

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
__ Barbara A. Amero
(__) ak...@chebucto.ns.ca
/""\ http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
(\/\/)
/ \ "I am a feminist no but, but ... ."
( )
~~~~ "Equal is not equitable!"
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~**~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

: followups restricted

: Details! :-)

--

### Carolyn Jean Fairman

Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>Jay Anderson (ande...@netcom.com) wrote:

>:cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>: >
>: >But, Barbara,
>
>Hmmm...... thas what my x-husband used ta call me ... thought my name was
>Butbarbara ...... always leary when addressed as such!

If you agree with soemthing someone states and yet have a profound
dislike of other things that person states, /but/ is the term to
separate them.

You figure it out!

>: >bashing men just doesn't cut it. One, you give people

>: >like Per yet one more excuse to woman bash and point fingers at you.
>: >You give anti-feminists an opportunity to ignore their own female
>: >bashing and pick on your for male bashing. And, of course, it is rude
>: >because you label all for the idiocy of the few. Some women are
>: >totally ridiculous, gold diggers, whatever. Watch and you'll see that
>: >men here all agree with that, with much nastiness. But point out that
>: >some men are totally ridiculous, selfish and cruel people and they
>: >ignore it, call you a man basher and basically avioid admitting men
>: >are far from perfect, too. I test this all the time, same thing each
>: >time.
>

>: Three, male bashing is wrong.
>

>: >But male bashing is wrong, Barbara, not matter how irriating and

>: >stupid many men here are. They are not all men, or even (thanks be to
>: >life) most.
>

>: Yes. Even we Martinets - sorry, private joke - agree that many
>: of the guys you see on these ngs and in certain mailing lists are
>: not representative of men in general.
>
>: Thank the goddess - no, not you, Marg! :-)
>
>: Jay
>

>Haven't had time to read Fairman's post yet .... but I have to say that
>I disagree with you ...

*But* you replied anyway. You are disagreeing with what? That male
bashing is wrong? That it feeds posters like Per and lets them ignore
their own female bashing to pick on you instead? That you are
blaming the whole for the idiocy of a few?

Or just about what sort of men join in? Ah, well. Think about the
rest, too.

>I do not think the men in here are representative
>of all men BUT I think they are representative of men in general! And
>goddess ain't gonna change that!

Some men, then, or many men. Fine. No, no supernatural goddess deity
will do much, I agree. It has to be people changing themselves and
others. And you do far more harm against reaching the interested and
supportive men than most. Well, other men who harass feminist type
men as many men here have done, Per included, are also a big problem.
Buyt people like you, Barbara, screw things up. Men who want to bail
on the old style cultural norms of gender and social roles and
whatnot, if they just get lumped in with "men in gneeral and bashed by
women like you, then they bail on feminism entirely, and frequently
rejoin the rigid male gender role that does, after all, give them more
direct power, more assumptions of ability, competance and
qualification and stuff like that and do so with a hatred of women,
that they claim is really only for feminists (but female bashing
statements show the truth).

Quite simply, you are being irresponsible. The tempation to sink to
the level of someone like Per and make jokes about how Jesus could
have been a woman, but turned to male bash, is there. So be more
mature and do something one man at a time, while mostly ignoring the
worthless men who hang around here woman- and femininst-bashing.
Well, except to point out they are hypocrites for complaining about
male bashing while they post female bashing commetns and try to
justify and rationalize them instead of owning up to that incident of
sexism and apoloigizing.

Go and reasd my post and think about how, yes, maybe you feel a bit
better to lash out, just like the men who vent here by being mean and
woman-bashing. Really, thought, act like and adult. Just becuase
some men here act like little boys doesn't mean acting like a little
girl is an acceptable response.

### Barbara Amero

Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

Carolyn Jean Fairman (cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: followups restricted

: Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
: >Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes: : >: <snipped> CORRECTION Carolyn, I want to retract the following statement: "And what man worth anything would even be reading these posts!" I just received very nice email from a male poster in here. Of course, I have no way of knowing if this person is male BUT I have no reason not to believe him! AND men such as this man are not ones that you, Carolyn, need to change, mold, etc. We don't have to waste our time trying to get men like him to listen. And I do think that it is of benefit for reasonable men to read posts in here to see what it is that women haveta put up with! Often men don't believe us! ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ,?, Barbara A. Amero (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca) {o o} http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak955/Profile.html --ooO-(_)-Ooo----------------------------------------------------- --------------- Men are cruel, but man is kind. -Tagore ---------- ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ### Sen...@no.mail unread, Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96 to ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) wrote: >In article <541mst$s...@News.Dal.Ca>,

>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>>I do not think the men in here are representative
>>of all men BUT I think they are representative of men in general!

>If only it was true...

>If the men here were a good sample of the men in general then the
>libertarian party could get much more than 4% of the votes...

>IMO a large minority of the men on the net wants the government off
>their, and everybody's else, backs.

>Most feminists, on and off the net, want to use the government power
>to enforce their "moral" values.

"Most feminists." Support this with something other than your opinion
please, as it seems reasonable to assume you have not met nor
discussed this with "most feminists" on or off the net.

>That's the basic conflict between the two groups.

### Hillel

Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

In article <541mst$s...@News.Dal.Ca>, Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote: >I do not think the men in here are representative >of all men BUT I think they are representative of men in general! If only it was true... If the men here were a good sample of the men in general then the libertarian party could get much more than 4% of the votes... IMO a large minority of the men on the net wants the government off their, and everybody's else, backs. Most feminists, on and off the net, want to use the government power to enforce their "moral" values. That's the basic conflict between the two groups. ### Hiekeba unread, Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96 to In article <541pi4$f...@cardinal2.Stanford.EDU>,

cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:

Very nicely done Carolyn! I'm impressed.

Mary Ann

### Hillel

Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96
to

In article <543egt$7...@News.Dal.Ca>, Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote: >In other words, one can hate men without hating man. \begin{sarcasm} In other words, one can hate black men without hating black man. \end{sarcasm} Somehow, the movement that came with gems like "if we can send one man to the moon then why can't we send them all?" continues to produce sexist comments and then claims that the obvious meaning is not the real meaning. ### Carolyn Jean Fairman unread, Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96 to Sean C <red...@walrus.com> wrote: > ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Barbara Amero) wrote: >> Haven't had time to read Fairman's post yet .... but I have to say that >> I disagree with you ... I do not think the men in here are representative >> of all men BUT I think they are representative of men in general! And >> goddess ain't gonna change that! > >Yes, Barbara is right for once. The men on here are representative of those >men in our society who are not going to bow down to you anymore. We have >woken up to the notion that our lives and our desires are as important as >yours, and we are not going to be your workhorses, meal-tickets or objects >of your twisted desire for revenge for what men did one hundred years ago. Woken up to that notion? It was the defining one for many men. All women did not want workhorses, Sean. In the cases where the woman agreed to be a workhorse in the home, with the children, a man would often agree to be a workhorse outside the home. Or do you think raising children and running a house is watching the TV and eating bon-bons? Bashing women is as wrong, you know, as bashing men. Your above comments are very negative. Once womemn ended the sexist stranglehold on well paying careers, they became workhorses outside the home,too. Women had always worked in dirty, low paying jobs with health risks, especailly lower class and poor women. They just finally got the opportunity to be better-paid 'workhorses'. And still cook and clean and raise the children... And we are not talking 100 years ago, we are talking 10 years ago and 1 year ago. A woman who sought to be an contractor had door shut in her face but for programs to force companies to accept non-white males. That ended to magical underbidding that came a day after her low bid came in and would have won the contract. Now, she is in a position of enough strength to bid low from her larger volume so as to get her companies name known for doing an excellent job -- something she could not do starting off with all the doors shut to *her*, as a woman. Sure, a lot of male people had this experience starting off, but to a lesser degree. She had additional burdens on the basis of *sex* discriminiation, too, in __1986__. [San Jose Merc News story in recent week] We are not talking 100 years, but 10 years and 1 year. And equality should be a win-win result, with better people, male and female, working at what they are good at. Unless you liked things being tipped towards men, as they are still a fair bit, were more in 1986 and even more in the 1960's. >We will assert our rights to be fathers to our children, to equal >employment and education, and the right to make *our own* reproductive >and life choices. Hey, wow, more men taking advantage of the sex neutral Family Medical Leave Act to be fathers to their children! Great! Or did you not mean men in committed marriages? Most women are overjoyed at their husband's doing his share, as so any do nowadays. More negative stereotypes from you though. You seem to gloss over the men who refuse to do any work for raising their children, and seem unwilling to admit they exist. I can admit women gatekeep, but I bet you anything you refuse to admit as many men shirk in their responsibililities to their wives and children, in the multitude of homes where both parents work. Well? >You feminists have deprived of of these rights, or are >working to do so; and though you have the upper hand now, we will have our >freedom in the end. We will demand that you take responsibility for your >actions, as we have always had to do. Deal with it. Upper hand? Surely you jest! The only deprivation you feel is equality being a loss from men not getting the advantages they unfairly were bestowed with before. Sure a poor man less than a rich oner, but a poor woman less than a poor man, too. There is no upper hand for women and much less of the old one for men, I agree. Equality means means that while you recognize women possbily having an upper hand would be "now", as contrasted to all the many years and centuries when men did. I just don't see women having anything like the upper hand men had in the past; I see more equality with neither sex having the upper hand. Why, you liked it better the old way? If you really are willing to toss the "boys will be boys" allowance for men to abandon responsibility for their actions, the great. I mean, women got labelled with too stupid to understand and a refusal to holding responsbility by law (ie, laws written by men that women could not open a bank account or have credit in their own name, thankfully *recently* removed), which gets you far less than "boys will be boys" did. One means you got power until you overstepped too far, the other meant you got squat. If men are owning up to their responsibility that men will not be boys and ought to act like adults ansd respect the humanity of other men and women, then great. Women have their own issues in the way they were denied the trial and error learning of dealing with responsibility. I do hope you see the balace here I am striving for. Men and women are not perfect; men and women have faults. Male-bashing is as wrong as female-bashing. >And yes, we will rightfully mock you when you endorse fanatic psychopaths >who think six-year olds are capable of sexual harassment. Will you mock feminists over 7 year old boys who were discipline problems and did, in fact, keep kissing girls who didn't want it and who kept pulling buttons off *many* girl's clothing? Or do you not care about that case, because it is more clear and the 6 year old is more murky and more opem to blaming feminists? I'll mock you for being a fool to children's abilities to pester each other with unwanted kisses, hugs and unwanted grabbing. Yes, Sean, in 6 year olds. You seem to be fine with letting this continue, but I simply could not understand such an attitude. Overreacting by an in school 1 day suspension, I agree. Having a rule and enforcing it, I think is goo. d When is it unacceptable to you? When do you care what the harassed child feels? Some magic age over 6? >We will laugh our >asses off when you tell us we don't have any feelings -because we know that >there is no greater proof that you feminists don't give a fuck about men's >feelings then your distorted belief that we have none. Certainly uou are not talking about the posts where the feminist (er, me) talked clearly and extensively about men not or needing to do more *expressing of their feelings* she talked about all of them __having__? Perhaps in your desire to hate feminists, you didn't read with much comprehension. It really helps. Maybe you missed how another anti-feminists talked about his expressing his feelings being a "weak spot" when the same feminist as above (me) talked on another topic related to men *expressing* the feelings she talked extensively of them *all having*. Paying attention really helps your cause. Looking foolish does not. Men seem not to "give a fuck" that they have feelings themselves and that is why so many refuse to express them beyond anger, call then a weak spot, and willingly misread clear statements by feminists, if those explicit and clear comments were of the nature that *of course* men _have_ feelings! Duh, Sean! Most men do not express them beyond anger, was the statement. Viola, your responses here. >And we will smile >knowingly when you call feminists "stupid, for falling for the temptation >to male bash," because your familiar attempts to place respnsibility on one >sex for being the temptors, or snakes in the Garden, is as old as Eve and >is pure sexist bullshit. ROTFL! There are tons of men here, running around female-bashing. A woman who joins in is doing so of her own freee will and being just as stupid, low and juvenile as those men. When a woman male-bashed first, the man who joins in of his own free will is being just as stupid, low, juvenile as those women. You figure out where these complaints of sexism are really coming from, Sean. >Your movement, which has used the massive propagation of sexist hatred and >stereotyping to achieve its goals, will be joining T Rex and Company soon >enough. Dream on. The changes are too set. Men are clamouring, in committed marriages, to go part time, to be respected for talking FMLA time and to be fathers to their children. Women are supporting this more and more. Every man I see carrying their baby in the snuggli while out with his wife is a hard rebuttal to your claim. And I see many. Women will always have the vote. Women will continue to pursue technical and science careers. The more who have done so, the more who do, the more common it is, the more women go into it. You can't roll back these permanent changes, but I know many men support trying to, by ending the things that were needed so that these fully capable and qualified women got a foot in the door once slammed in their faces. It won't happen. Things like what is happening in the Islamic fundamentalist takeover in Afganistan will only feul women's certainty to prevent such sexism in the US and other countries, and to end it there. ### Bill Edison unread, Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96 to In article <541pi4$f...@cardinal2.Stanford.EDU.

cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:

.
.Ngs changed
.
.Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca. wrote:
..Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
..: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com. PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes: ..: <snipped. ..: . The reasons: Ms. Amero supported her husband hoping that when his ..: .career took off, she would be very comfortable financially. I wouldn't ..: be ..: .sympathetic to any MAN who said that he hoped to put in a few years ..: .supporting someone else's labor in the hopes of living off those ..: labors for ..: .the rest of his life. I would look at that man as a loafer and a ..: chiseler. . .How sadly traditional. Then who cares for the children? Can't be .men, as they would be loafers to do that work. But many men have .nothing against demanding women do it. The Mormon Elders just demanded .women stay at home and not work outside the home. Per seems to have .forgotten this. Such attitudes and such a demand is clearly sexist, .because if men are loafers for that work, so are women. If it is good .that women do it, so it is for men. To split this by sex is sexist. .And so many anti feminists are blatently and self-righteously sexist .it can make you sick. Sick is right! If you're going to dogmatically say that women are the only ones who care for children then you are sadly stuck with having to explain why those children are raised to become *sexists*. Maybe such a sad set of circumstances could be avoided by having men raise them. . .[snip] ..Hmmm.... am I understanding you correctly ... are you saying that women ..who work as homemakers do not work for a living? Is that what you're ..saying?? Maybe Fairman who isn't nutty would like to address this issue. ..So what do you think Fairman? . .Very common comment, raising children is not work. Men certainly .would stoop to being "loafers" and doing it. Certainly running a .household is just eating bon bons all day. Riight. Raising children .is very hard work, and to parent-bash like that is exceedingly rude, .thoughtless and worthy almost of cross posting to misc.kids so parents .could flame you for your mindlessness. To a crisp as this is often .discussed. THIS is the common comment. There's no evidence that a majority of men espouse this notion pushed by propagandizers. AND similar to the above, you'll find yourself having to defend working women for taking "the easy way out". One thing you'll have to concede is that at least women have a choice in this area- men don't. . .I do think the time where one person staying home, with no kids, is .past, and I am glad to see it go. But, of course, now we have a .dearth of volunteers, as that was very commonly work homemakers had .(but since it was not paid, it didn't 'count' and in general it seems .men would not do it in anywhere near the number women do). Not paid? I guess 1/2 the paycheck doesn't count. Those bonbons are getting cheaper all the time. . .But, Barbara, bashing men just doesn't cut it. One, you give people .like Per yet one more excuse to woman bash and point fingers at you. .You give anti-feminists an opportunity to ignore their own female .bashing and pick on your for male bashing. And, of course, it is rude .because you label all for the idiocy of the few. Some women are .totally ridiculous, gold diggers, whatever. Watch and you'll see that .men here all agree with that, with much nastiness. But point out that .some men are totally ridiculous, selfish and cruel people and they .ignore it, call you a man basher and basically avioid admitting men .are far from perfect, too. I test this all the time, same thing each .time. Considering your "bon bon" mindset, it's understandable you'd run into an attitude. Then again, it could be all those men who are wrong. . .However, a word of advice. Don't male bash. Be clear you mean some .men. Men like your ex, say. Rich Payne blows this all the time, but .none of the men here care. He goes from experience with his ex and There's another one> "None of the men care here". Thanks for including the usual amount of evidence. Btw...this is not "female bashing"- it's limited to you, not women who have the ability to support their position. .some other women and states women as a whole are some form of bad, .evil, whatever, it varies. Per has female bashed a few times himself .and is completely of the opinion he is right and women are just like .that. Thus it is ok to female bash because you can justify it by .female bashing more and saying women are really all like that. .Amazing But True: Per On Alt.feminism. . .The hypocracy is galling and can fuel anger that results in lashing What is "galling" is the spelling! one too many bonbons if you ask me.... Bill Edison ### Carolyn Jean Fairman unread, Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96 to Per <PerAd...@gnn.com> wrote: >In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU> Carolyn Jean Fairman wrote:
>
>>Male bashing as bad as female bashing; both stupid
>
>Is it? Hmmm.

So you don't think so? Do you think your woman-bashing is as stupid
as Amero's male bashing, when she bashed men for their being men, like
you bash women for being female? Or do you want to be free to woman
bash as you do and yet hypocritically complain about women such as
Amero who man bash?

>But on the "Dolls Can Be Raped" thread, In article
><52h1m8$i...@solaria13.Stanford.EDU> Carolyn Jean Fairman wrote: > >>I am bashing the people who did it, who happened to be male. > >Hmmm. Welp, let's not comment on this or draw conclusions. Let's just lay >this little baby on Fairman's doorstep and quietly tiptoe away ... Tipetoe away with your tail between your legs, perhaps, rather than stay and try to engage in discussion? How typical of you Per. I would need to go back and, of course, find the context for my comment as you tend to ignore those in favor of trying to change someone's words by taking one sentence. I think I remember this one though. Most simply, I think I was upset at the people sticking their finger up the plastic vagina of a blow up doll and yelling "Take this, Bitch", among other things directed at women. I was bashing those people for their *actions* -- not anything related to their sex, whatever it was. Women who did (er, to male blow up dolls, perhaps?) that I would equally bash *for what they did*, __not_ who they are or their sex. As it turns out the people doing this were male. Thus, I am not bashing them FOR BEING MEN. I realize such a sublte yet obvious distinction is beyond you, Per, but most everyone else likely understands. Showing off a lack of reading comperehension is really not very impressive. Bashing a group of people for a specific act, is not bashing that sex for simply being that sex. Bashing some women I know for being mindless twits, or some men I know for being mindless twits is neither woman-bashing nor man-bashing. It is bashing mindless twits, who deserve it for their idiocy. Or, say, people who refuse to consider context, understand blatently obvious meanings or deliberately misinterpret things. Male or female, they are mindless twits and deserve being bashed for that annoying fact. You know, people who would take the first sentence of a paragraph that explains the meaning better and take it from that context and post all sorts of blather about it, sometimes very short blather at least. Or just post it with a nasty comment. You did this before, when I wrote about how some feminists hate all men for the action of a few men. You snipped the whole rest of the paragraph and portrayed the comment as my *supporting* such people. In reality, far from your little world, I followed it right up with roundly criticizing such people and hw this weas unwise and a bad idea. Kinda like the big time snip you made of my criticism of Amero that you don't want to see. But you don't seem to like context and meaning get in the way of what you wnat to twist someone's writing to appear to say. I have my post, your out of context slam and my response to it. Early summer was the time. Just like here where rather than accept that I criticized Amero for male bashing, you keep bringing in red herrings and going off and rambling tangents by bringing in other bits from other posts. The accusation seem familair, Per? You complain I do this, then give exmaple after example of your doing it. ### Hillel unread, Oct 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/16/96 to In article <543egt$7...@News.Dal.Ca>,
Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>I was quite shocked with
>what I found in alt.feminism, as I said I thought it would be women
>discussing feminism. "Make myself worth talking to", you say. In this
>newsgroup?? I'd be breaking the norm! BUT note in some of the threads I
>post to who women and men are responding to!

Let's give you a little bit of net.history.

Soc.feminism was created, as a moderated newsgroup, with the promise that
the moderators would let anti-feminists post there. After it was created
the moderators ignored the guide lines and rejected quite a few anti-
feminist articles but let most feminist articles pass.

When we (anti--feminists) got tired of that we created an un-moderated
news group, alt.feminism, for those of us who wanted a forum where all
opinions can be posted.

If you don't want such a forum for yourself then you can move to
soc.feminism. Your opinions will probably be posted, people who challenge
your opinions will probably be censored, everything will work just fine.

If you don't want such a forum for us then it is your problem.
If you can't stand the heat then just get out of the kitchen.

Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu

"Y'know .. REAL equality, REAL paybacks to women for being turned into
what they are by society would involve switching places and making men
the 2nd class citizens for the next 3000 years or so."
-- Jeanette Dravk (in soc.feminism)

### Mark Hendy

Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

Bravo Per this is a classic example.

> If you have been reading the thread called, "Re: A chilly climate for
>WHOM?" you have been treated to the vitriolic outpourings of one Barbara
>Amero. (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca). Among the things she has said:

>>Sure there's some fellas out there who do some good ... BUT overall MEN
>>have fucked things up and will continue to do so ... from my point of
>>view men should make the lemmings..."a moderate genocide to later save
>>a falling race"!!

>[and this]

>>Like I said before I really don't think they are useful to us anymore!

>[and this]

>>Are you suggesting that men shouldn't be gettin' a shit-kickin'???
>>I think revenge is warranted .... but not necessarily the issue ...
>>you fellas jest plain DESERVE a shit-kickin'!!!
>>Again for all the shit women have taken and still take, they are NO where
>>near as hostile as MANY men!!!!! And the fellas jest don't seem ta have
>>the stamina women had/have to cope with the shit-kickin'!
>>I think it would be nice if the fellas would jest quietly retire to the
>>parlour!

> If you wade through this sort of thing long enough, you will find the
>source of Ms. Amero's towering rage against all men. She was married, and it
>didnt' work out.
> Ms. Amero tells us that she helped put her husband through school, and
>when they got divorced, she found herself suffering financially.
> Despite all of Ms. Amero's anti-male hatred, I almost felt sorry for
>her when I read her hard-luck stories.
> Almost.
> But then I remembered that she is a feminist, and feminism is about
>equality. And I would NOT feel all that sorry for a man who was in the same
>position.

> The reasons: Ms. Amero supported her husband hoping that when his

>career took off, she would be very comfortable financially. I wouldn't be

>sympathetic to any MAN who said that he hoped to put in a few years

>supporting someone else's labor in the hopes of living off those labors for
>the rest of his life. I would look at that man as a loafer and a chiseler.
> And if it had worked out for her, I suspect she would be just another
>smug, upper-class suburban housewife waving her diamond rings under the nose
>of the garbageMEN as she orders them to set the ash cans down softly so they
>won't disturb her rest.
> She obviously expect a big financial payoff from marriage, and that
>payoff was very important to her. If a man married hoping to hit paydirt and
>it backfired, I don't think I'd feel much sympathy for him. I treat her
>equally in this regard.
> Here is some of the things she expected:

>>... that I would be taken care of ... full prof, tenure, excellent salary
>>which would increase (hard worker, well published, merit pay); house
>>mortgage life insured; his hefty life insurance; his impending inheritance,
>>and so on.... BUT I WAS STUPIT ... FERGOT TO ASK WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF I
>>SHOULD L E A V E !!!!

> She has a laundry list of money, money, money, that she hoped to get,
>not through her own labors. (She even had an eye on his inheritance. Hmmm?
>Did that play a part in her decision to marry him?)
> And here is the kicker: Ms. Amero was not dumped. SHE left HIM. She
>walked out, apparently expecting to continue living the good life. She is
>absolutely *enraged* at all men because her cushy plans did not work out.
> She also said that she had a chance to go to college herself during
>the marriage. She told of taking Women's Studies courses. Well, if she had
>studied something that might have given her usable skills, she might now be
>earning a better wage. Instead, it was her *choice* to take Women's Studies
>courses, and now she is absolutely enraged at all the male race because that
>course of study hasn't paid off very well.
> Ms. Amero's case would be just another soap-opera if it didn't tell us
>so much about the way that feminists think. Ms. Amero unwittingly reveals an
> Ms. Amero is revealing a pathological inability to *take
>responsibility for her own actions.*
> *She* decided on a course of marrying a man as a meal ticket. *She*
>choose to spend her college tuition on such things as Women's Studies. *She*
>decided to walk out of the marriage. And now that *her own actions* have not
>paid off, she virulently *hates men!* Instead of focusing the responsibility
>inward, on her own choices, she throws it outward onto every man on the face
>of the earth.
> There have been men who have gone through similar things. I know one
>guy who helped his wife through college and then *she* left. Feminists would
>never tolerate that man turning into a woman-hater, but Ms. Amero is in no
>danger of winding up on any list of women regarded as "not real feminists."

> Ms. Amero has expressed a towering outrage over the INDIGNITY that she
>ACTUALLY HAS TO WORK FOR A LIVING!

> Well, Ms. Amero, welcome to the club.
> And please ... try to take it like a man.

### Hillel

Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

In article <543egt$7...@News.Dal.Ca>, Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote: >I want to quickly note the posts on Robin Morgan's quote ... I've not read >much of Morgan's writing but I did see an interview with her, her male >partner and their child. With tears in her eyes she said that she was >optimistic, that she 'loved men 'too much not to be. For those who don't remember how a feminist who "loves men" writes, here is a good example: "In her ground-breaking new book, "The Demon Lover: On the Sexuality of Terrorism," Robin Morgan advances an analysis of terrorism in which the soldier (the State's hero) and the terrorist (the Revolution's hero) are mirror-image expressions of male nature, not human nature. A feminist writer who was once involved in small, pre-Weathermen, "armed propaganda" groups, Morgan opens a window of thought and action that lets us move out of a male-centered politics of Thanatos - the romance of death - into a feminist politics of Eros, a loving life force. The following excerpt, drawn from Chapters 1,5 and 6 of "The Demon Lover," shows us how maleness itself becomes the weapon of destruction, and how women who seek political change are coerced, deceived, and seduced into fighting for manhood under the illusion that they are ending their own oppression and creating a humane world." --- Ms. magazine, March 1989 Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu "Indeed, one of the earliest forms of male bonding must have been the gang rape of one woman by a band of marauding men." -- ("Against Our Will", Susan Brownmiller) ### Hillel unread, Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96 to ##Most feminists, on and off the net, want to use the government power ##to enforce their "moral" values. In article <543n17$4...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, <Sen...@no.mail> wrote:
>"Most feminists." Support this with something other than your opinion
>please, as it seems reasonable to assume you have not met nor
>discussed this with "most feminists" on or off the net.

See the kind of laws that the feminist representatives and the
feminists on the net support.

"Violence Against Women Act," anti-porno laws, anti-prostitution
laws, affirmative action, choice for women & no choice for men,
no federal money for men-only colleges (e.g. VMI), federal money
for women-only colleges (e.g. Mills college), priority for women
in custody and divorce; all those are feminist issues.

All those actions require coercion by the government, and most feminist
representatives support at least some of them. On the net, you can
see how "choice for men" draws a lot of feminist fire, but very
little feminist support.

### Jok...@no.mail

Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) wrote:

>In article <543egt$7...@News.Dal.Ca>, >Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote: >>In other words, one can hate men without hating man. >\begin{sarcasm} >In other words, one can hate black men without hating black man. >\end{sarcasm} >Somehow, the movement that came with gems like "if we can send one man >to the moon then why can't we send them all?" continues to produce >sexist comments and then claims that the obvious meaning is not >the real meaning. But you approve of generalizing, bashing, and sexism!!! You participate so willingly in it, commit it, and defend it!! ### Barbara Amero unread, Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96 to Carolyn Jean Fairman (cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote: : Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote: : >Jay Anderson (ande...@netcom.com) wrote: : >:cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes: snip : Go and reasd my post and think about how, yes, maybe you feel a bit : better to lash out, just like the men who vent here by being mean and : woman-bashing. Really, thought, act like and adult. Just becuase : some men here act like little boys doesn't mean acting like a little : girl is an acceptable response. I read your post and replied. Again you are free to your opionions and free to express them in the manner you wish BUT ya ain't gonna impose yer way of thinking on me! yer not gonna make me sit up and bark! I want to remind you again that one of the tenents of feminism is that women have a voice and that their voices be heard ... that means ALL women and not just the the women YOU deem responsible! OR the women who behave as you think they should! Perhaps you should be a liddle more 'mature'. You give the fellas in here ammunition to bash feminism ... MANY feminists are the biggest hypocrites of all humankind! Hmmm...are you one of them elitist feminists who says any woman is in a state of false consciousness if she don't share yer consciousness??? IMO tis more important to attend to what people do and not what they say! AND again I have not met a feminist who does not engage in male-bashing! ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* __ Barbara A. Amero (__) ak...@ccn.cs.dal.ca /""\ http://www.ccn.cs.dal.ca/~ak955/Profile.html (\/\/) / \ It's not surprising that we haven't achieved ( ) equality; we haven't even defined it. ~~~~ - Wendy Kaminer ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~**~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ ### Robin E. Cook unread, Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96 to In <543n17$4...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> Sen...@no.mail writes:
>
>ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) wrote:
>
>
>In article <543egt$7...@News.Dal.Ca>, >Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote: >>I was quite shocked with >>what I found in alt.feminism, as I said I thought it would be women >>discussing feminism. "Make myself worth talking to", you say. In this >>newsgroup?? I'd be breaking the norm! BUT note in some of the threads I >>post to who women and men are responding to! > >Let's give you a little bit of net.history. > >Soc.feminism was created, as a moderated newsgroup, with the promise that >the moderators would let anti-feminists post there. After it was created >the moderators ignored the guide lines and rejected quite a few anti- >feminist articles but let most feminist articles pass. > >When we (anti--feminists) got tired of that we created an un-moderated >news group, alt.feminism, for those of us who wanted a forum where all >opinions can be posted. Who's this "we"? Checking the FAQ, the forum is clearly established for discussing feminism. Why antifeminists would form such a newsgroup is beyond me. It seems that it would be called alt.antifeminism if it was intended as an antifeminist newsgroup. Certainly, alt.feminazis suggests a forum specifically for antifeminist views. Hillel's explanation is fishy to me. It's almost like the local chapter of the KKK forming an alt.civil-rights newsgroup. ### Barbara Amero unread, Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96 to Hillel (ga...@cs.duke.edu) wrote: : In article <543egt$7...@News.Dal.Ca>,
: Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
: >In other words, one can hate men without hating man.

: \begin{sarcasm}
: In other words, one can hate black men without hating black man.
: \end{sarcasm}

YOU "arse-in-pooches"!

I WROTE:
... but I would agree that it is possible to hate the
oppressor without hating the individual! In other words, one can hate men
without hating man.

: Somehow, the movement that came with gems like "if we can send one man

: to the moon then why can't we send them all?" continues to produce
: sexist comments and then claims that the obvious meaning is not
: the real meaning.

Yah! Why can't we send them all to the moon, if they won't quietly retire
to the parlour!

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
,~, Barbara A. Amero (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca)

{o o} http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
--ooO-(_)-Ooo------------------------------------------------------------

Any person can tell, when they look around at men in general that God never
intended women to be very particular. -Anonymous(Quoted by Nellie McClung
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
--

### Femi...@equals.hate

Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

reco...@ix.netcom.com(Robin E. Cook) wrote:

:In <543ro0$7...@hal.cs.duke.edu> ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes: :> :>In article <543egt$7...@News.Dal.Ca>,
:>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
:>>I was quite shocked with

:>>what I found in alt.feminism, as I said I thought it would be women
:>>discussing feminism. "Make myself worth talking to", you say. In this
:>>newsgroup?? I'd be breaking the norm! BUT note in some of the threads
:I
:>>post to who women and men are responding to!

:>
:>Let's give you a little bit of net.history.

:>
:>Soc.feminism was created, as a moderated newsgroup, with the promise
:that
:>the moderators would let anti-feminists post there. After it was
:created
:>the moderators ignored the guide lines and rejected quite a few anti-
:>feminist articles but let most feminist articles pass.
:>
:>When we (anti--feminists) got tired of that we created an un-moderated
:>news group, alt.feminism, for those of us who wanted a forum where all
:>opinions can be posted.

:Who's this "we"? Checking the FAQ, the forum is clearly established
:for discussing feminism. Why antifeminists would form such a newsgroup
:is beyond me. It seems that it would be called alt.antifeminism if it
:was intended as an antifeminist newsgroup. Certainly, alt.feminazis
:suggests a forum specifically for antifeminist views.

:Hillel's explanation is fishy to me.

Hey, you better write that hunch up as feminist research.

:It's almost like the local

### Femi...@equals.hate

Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) wrote:

:In article <543egt$7...@News.Dal.Ca>, :Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote: :>I want to quickly note the posts on Robin Morgan's quote ... I've not read :>much of Morgan's writing but I did see an interview with her, her male :>partner and their child. With tears in her eyes she said that she was :>optimistic, that she 'loved men 'too much not to be. :For those who don't remember how a feminist who "loves men" writes, :here is a good example: :"In her ground-breaking new book, "The Demon Lover: On the Sexuality of :Terrorism," Robin Morgan advances an analysis of terrorism in which the soldier :(the State's hero) and the terrorist (the Revolution's hero) are mirror-image :expressions of male nature, not human nature. A feminist writer who was once :involved in small, pre-Weathermen, "armed propaganda" groups, Morgan opens a :window of thought and action that lets us move out of a male-centered politics :of Thanatos - the romance of death - into a feminist politics of Eros, a loving :life force. :The following excerpt, drawn from Chapters 1,5 and 6 of "The Demon Lover," :shows us how maleness itself becomes the weapon of destruction, and how :women who seek political change are coerced, deceived, and seduced into :fighting for manhood under the illusion that they are ending their own :oppression and creating a humane world." The outrage is the WOMEN desert their duty when active duty looms. When the ship goes down, women are the FIRST ones of the ship, THEN the children, THEN the men. Men are forced into military duty, while women are "forced" to stay safely at home making bullets. Yet, women are the most violent segment of our society. Violence must be encoded into women's genes in the form of estrogen poisoning. If only we could find a cure. : --- Ms. magazine, March 1989 :Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu :"Indeed, one of the earliest forms of male bonding must have :been the gang rape of one woman by a band of marauding men." : -- ("Against Our Will", Susan Brownmiller) Excellent post, Hillel. I was going to snip it for brevity, but I couldn't find anything I had the heart to snip. It's all so good. ### Femi...@equals.hate unread, Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96 to Excellent post, Hillel. Very well put. ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) wrote: :In article <543egt$7...@News.Dal.Ca>,
:Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:

:>I was quite shocked with

:>what I found in alt.feminism, as I said I thought it would be women
:>discussing feminism. "Make myself worth talking to", you say. In this
:>newsgroup?? I'd be breaking the norm! BUT note in some of the threads I
:>post to who women and men are responding to!

:Let's give you a little bit of net.history.

:Soc.feminism was created, as a moderated newsgroup, with the promise that
:the moderators would let anti-feminists post there. After it was created
:the moderators ignored the guide lines and rejected quite a few anti-
:feminist articles but let most feminist articles pass.

:When we (anti--feminists) got tired of that we created an un-moderated
:news group, alt.feminism, for those of us who wanted a forum where all
:opinions can be posted.

:If you don't want such a forum for yourself then you can move to

### Femi...@equals.hate

Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

Apparently what feminists mean when they say "everybody stop bashing,"
what they really mean is "everybody, but women, stop bashing."

:In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU> Carolyn Jean Fairman wrote: :>Male bashing as bad as female bashing; both stupid :Is it? Hmmm. But on the "Dolls Can Be Raped" thread, In article ### Steven Malcolm Anderson unread, Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96 to In <541pi4$f...@cardinal2.Stanford.EDU> cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU

(Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>
>Ngs changed
>
>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>>Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes: <everything snipped> OK. This is where I stand: I tolerate no double standards. If a man is a cool "stud" because he enjoys sex, then a woman is _not_ a contemptible "slut" because she enjoys sex. If a man is a contemptible "bum" because he doesn't work outside the home, then a woman is _not_ some sort of saint because she doesn't work outside the home. If nobody works outside the home, nobody eats. If a man is a noble hero because he risks his life as a fire-fighter or soldier, then a woman is a noble heroine if she does the same. If a man is a contemptible coward if he shirks military duty, then so is a woman if she does the same. Etc.. _That_, and nothing less, is what _I_ mean by feminism. Is there any part of that anybody doesn't understand? -- sm...@ix.netcom.com "The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble, wanting to be by oneself, being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche "Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia ### Barbara Amero unread, Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96 to Carol Ann Hemingway (lef...@ix.netcom.com) wrote: : In <redhawk-ya0230600...@news.walrus.com> : red...@walrus.com (Sean C) writes: : > : >In article <5418nk$2...@tree.Stanford.EDU>,
: cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU
: >(Carolyn Jean Fairman) wrote:
>
snippity snip fairman's lecture

: -----
: Personally, I am offended by bashing either gender, but women, like
: men, have all styles of battle. Just as female bashing exists, so
: does male bashing; what good does it do to only question the value
: of one? As a feminist, I do value the idea that men are fully able
: to raise children, and feel free to discuss those issues, and the
: others you mention, but being critical of "male bashing" is rather
: silly, in light of the fact that female bashing has been going on
: for centuries, and continues in the hallowed halls of magazines
: like Hustler, on comedy reviews, and here on the net. Fighting
: fire with fire is simply another way to fight; if you're going to
: be critical, be critical of both.
: -------
: >>
: >Lefty

So there is some sanity in here. Are you saying that you are willing to
let me be who I be? to fight fire with fire if I so choose? What do we
want women to be? Fairman clones? Who was the famous or infamous feminist
writer who said that women won't win til we let women pay attention to
aesthetics or not -- to dye our gray hair or not; to paint our faces like
liddel hussies or not(my words); to wear doc martins with a ball gown or
not; and so on?
IMO to live with a man is crazy-making! And research suggests that
marriage for women is indeed an emotional hazard (tho' I don't need
research to validate that, all I have to do is reflect on all the women
I've know since I was a kid!)
BUT what I found in Women's Studies was more of the same crazy-making,
jest a different sex! I used ta have men defining my reality for me ...
then I had women defining my reality for me ... now I define my reality
for me, thank you very much!!
I think Fairman assigns way too much power to me ... ain't nothing I've
got ta say that's gonna influence any of these mental midgets ... they've
already got their minds made up. I stopped playing Mother Tit to my kids
6 years ago, put my needs ahead of theirs ... so ta the least I ain't
inta re-parenting, re-nurturing, re-conditioning men! If Fairman, etc.
wants to play Mother Tit To The World thas her/their business but it's
not a gig I want! AND after listening to woman-bashing for half a century,
if I want to engage in man-bashng I will!

I'm for women only universities with women faculty ... men jest won't keep
their mouths in park! I attended a university that is concerned primarily
with the education of women. It considers the educational needs of women
to be paramount, although men are welcomed as non-resident students. It
started as an academy established by the Sisters of Charity in 1873. Men
were first admitted in 1967. Today, women represent 85% of the enrollment
... I would like to see that 100% In a women's studies class with over
50 women and 3 men, the men jest wouldn't shut up ... one man in particular
who was simply auditing the course ... the Prof had to take him aside and
tell him not to answer her questions. In another class with about 25 women
and 1 man, not only the female students were deferring to this lone man
but also the self-confident Assoc. Prof--female! And to top it off the
man who was auditing that class and told ta shut up approached me wanting
to know where the Women's Studies Society Club meets ... he wants ta help
women ... I told him the best way for him ta help women is to stop being
the first one ta the microphone like the rest of the damn men! AND
spending 20+ years in the company of white hard dicks (aka white male
middle-class knowers) should be enough to make any woman a man-hater!
Well them dinosars at U of A (if you're having a wee peek in here) will
be retiring soon, hopefully to be replaced with sumpthin' more refreshing.
AND I'm fer woman only spaces. Now if all this (and more) makes me a bigot
then I'll wear the label proudly! Men had their turn, they fucked up!

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
__ Barbara A. Amero
(__) ak...@ccn.cs.dal.ca
/""\ http://www.ccn.cs.dal.ca/~ak955/Profile.html
(\/\/)

/ \ The time has come to valorize woman's ideas
( ) at the expense of those of man...
~~~~ -Andre Breton
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~**~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

Barbara Amero (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca) wrote:
<snip>

: AND again I have not met a feminist who does not engage in male-bashing!

just how many feminists have you met...?

--
alan madsen - new york, n.y.

### Fraxis Vendalwats

Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

Responding to Carolyn Jean Fairman's obligatory rebuke and
advise to become a kinder, gentler misandrist, Barbara Amero
wrote:

[much snippage]

>MANY feminists are the biggest hypocrites of all humankind!

[more snippage]

>
>AND again I have not met a feminist who does not engage in male-bashing!
>

> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> Barbara A. Amero
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>

In the interest of fairness, please note that these excerpted
lines are not the heart and soul of BAA's response to CJF.
They do merit special attention, however, because such
profound truths will rarely be heard from a feminist.

I'll continue to wonder if she really meant it.

Frax

### Allison Gau

Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

Carolyn,

I found your remarks to be a bit patronizing. Barbara doesn't even pretend
to speak for all women, or all feminists. So why should you dictate what
she should or should not say because of the potential harm to the feminist
cause?

If a woman says something stupid she not only is an idiot, but she also
damages the credibility of all women? Come on.

Fe/male bashing and taking personal potshots at people tends to degrade the
credibility of the author, as does poor grammar. But this is the internet --
you can say whatever you want, however you want. It is up to the reader to
pick out what she or he thinks is good information.

Allison
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Gau (g...@sfu.ca) >> Cole's Law:
School of Engineering Science >>
Simon Fraser University >> Thinly sliced cabbage.
Burnaby, BC >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

cfai...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:

[Bits and pieces of Carolyn's post, edited to keep size down]
[Also note that the first chunk is actually located much farther
down in the original post]

>I didn't think you were worth talking to, because you come across as

>no better than these bitter, agnry, feminists-hating woman-bashers

>(note, I am not confusing feminism with women. There are femininsts
>*haters* who may like some women but sure seem willing to bash all of

>them) and I just thought, oh, great, a woman who is damaging the

>ability of feminists to reach the men who would listen.

--

>But, Barbara, bashing men just doesn't cut it. One, you give people

>like Per yet one more excuse to woman bash and point fingers at you.

>You give anti-feminists an opportunity to ignore their own female

>bashing and pick on your for male bashing. And, of course, it is rude

>because you label all for the idiocy of the few.

>However, a word of advice. Don't male bash. Be clear you mean some
>men.

>The hypocracy is galling and can fuel anger that results in lashing

>out just as immaturely as the men did, but you get nowhere that way,

>or really you get as far as they do. And at as low a level. It isn't
>worth it.

>But male bashing is wrong, Barbara, not matter how irriating and

>stupid many men here are. They are not all men, or even (thanks be to
>life) most.

>Well for the love of life, don't stoop to their level! It is obvious

>how many men here will reinterpret what you said and and change it,
>and when caught will beg off claiming "sarcasm" and "lack of a sense
>of humor in feminists".

>So stop it! Focus in reaching the men you can, pointing out the

>foibles of certain types of men of which your ex is one and try to
>focus your anger at changing things.

>Barbara, bashing men won't help. Other things will (valuing

>childrearing for men as well as women, talking about expressing
>feelings, sexism in the wrokplace, sexual harassment of 6th graders
>and the social code that used to say this was ok, that some men seem

>to want to *keep* and others) men just as upset without being, in all
>honesty, stupid for falling for the temptation to male bash. :-)

### Allison Gau

Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

sm...@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson) writes:

>(Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes:
>>
>>Ngs changed
>>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:
>>>Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>>: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes: > <everything snipped> > OK. This is where I stand: I tolerate no double standards. If a man is >a cool "stud" because he enjoys sex, then a woman is _not_ a >contemptible "slut" because she enjoys sex. Good enough. >If a man is a contemptible >"bum" because he doesn't work outside the home, then a woman is _not_ >some sort of saint because she doesn't work outside the home. If nobody >works outside the home, nobody eats. And if everybody works outside the home, then who takes care of the kids? Either one takes care of the kids or the couple PAYS someone to take care of the kids (and likewise, the housework). >If a man is a noble hero because >he risks his life as a fire-fighter or soldier, then a woman is a noble >heroine if she does the same. If a man is a contemptible coward if he >shirks military duty, then so is a woman if she does the same. Etc.. That's all very nice and well, assuming that women have equal opportunity to work as a fire-fighter or soldier. >_That_, and nothing less, is what _I_ mean by feminism. Is there any >part of that anybody doesn't understand? >-- >sm...@ix.netcom.com >"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble, > wanting to be by oneself, > being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche Says the Anarchist ... ### Ed Falk unread, Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96 to In article <543ro0$7...@hal.cs.duke.edu>, Hillel <ga...@cs.duke.edu> wrote:
>Let's give you a little bit of net.history.
>
>Soc.feminism was created, as a moderated newsgroup, with the promise that
>the moderators would let anti-feminists post there. ...

Do you have any of the CFV's archived by any chance? *My* recollection
is just the opposite. Soc.feminism was created to get away from the
constant infantile "Feminism bad, no feminism good" arguments.

Alt.feminism was created to give the anti-feminists a place to do their
whining so the grownups could have a real discussion in peace and
quiet.

--
-ed falk, sun microsystems -- fa...@sun.com
If there's ever a nuclear holocaust, the only things left
alive afterward will be cockroaches and spammers
-- Dan Gillmor, Mercury News

### Barbara Amero

Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

Sean C (red...@walrus.com) wrote:

: In article <541mst$s...@News.Dal.Ca>, ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Barbara Amero) wrote: : > : > Haven't had time to read Fairman's post yet .... but I have to say that : > I disagree with you ... I do not think the men in here are representative : > of all men BUT I think they are representative of men in general! And : > goddess ain't gonna change that! : > : > Barbara : > : > ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ : > ,?, Barbara A. Amero (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca) : > {o o} http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak955/Profile.html : > --ooO-(_)-Ooo------------------------------------------------------------ : > She eats, has a house, has entertainment....what else is there.... : > ------------------------------------------ "DukeNukem" (aka Joseph Glynn) : > ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* : Yes, Barbara is right for once. Oh! Come on now fella ... I know ya don't like me but Geez! you know I've been right more than once ... play fair-man. : The men on here are representative of those : men in our society who are not going to bow down to you anymore. We have : woken up to the notion that our lives and our desires are as important as : yours, Hmmm....interesting concept ... Geez! I was ahead of you in waking up ta the notion that my life and desires are as important as any man's, my children and my cute lil dog! : and we are not going to be your workhorses, meal-tickets or objects : of your twisted desire for revenge for what men did one hundred years ago. I tole ya ... don't ya listen ... jest give the women the education and the jobs then you fellas don't haveta be bothered anymore!! : We will assert our rights to be fathers to our children, to equal : employment and education, and the right to make *our own* reproductive and : life choices. You feminists have deprived of of these rights, or are : working to do so; and though you have the upper hand now, we will have our : freedom in the end. We will demand that you take responsibility for your : actions, as we have always had to do. Deal with it. Now I got as much of a giggle out of this as I did readin' some feminist far fetched ideas. You know the bit about men seeking to control women, women's bodies and their children. I read that men get women under their control through alcohol, drugs, hunger, desperation and manipulation. Now I'd haveta agree that does go on. BUT what about all them fellas that flee from the bands of matrimony? Sheeit! There's an over abundance of books on the market telling women how to catch the elusive man and make him pop the right question. Many women will do whatever it takes to "get her man", perhaps by withholding sex or by tricking him into unprotected sex with conception the goal (and geesus what else are they ta do, we gotta survive!) Once caught, however, men seek to control women's bodies and their children in order to pass on all their worldly goods to legitimate heirs...yup thas a fact. BUT in all of this, they seem ta have misplaced the many propertyless men as well as the many men who do not want their children, who do not seek full custody of their children (or even want it!) upon marital breakdown ... who do not want to support their children financially or emotionally! Now jest how many are there of them fellas you be talkin' about who want their rights to be fathers to their children? (I assume that includes financially and emotionally supporting them??) Is there really enough of them to be concerned about? We do haveta have priorites! And yer own reproductive choices? What might they be?? How many of you fellas have had a nite on the town and don't give a rats ass if you've reproduced or not?? Seems ta me that what yer really concerned about is yer education and employment...am I right again? Well ya should be worried! Deal with it! : And yes, we will rightfully mock you when you endorse fanatic psychopaths : who think six-year olds are capable of sexual harassment. Fergawdsakes fella get a grip ... of course 6 year olds are capable of sexual harassment, and sexual abuse/assault ... if ya ain't got no life experience least ya can do a liddle bit of readin'. : We will laugh our : asses off when you tell us we don't have any feelings -because we know that : there is no greater proof that you feminists don't give a fuck about men's : feelings then your distorted belief that we have none. I'm only speakin' fer meself here BUT I don't deny that you fellas have feelings ... I'm jest not prepared to help ya get in touch with them ... I ain't got no time ta re-parent, re-nurture, re-condition ya!! It's time fer you fellas ta start takin' care of yerselves and ta stop relying on womenfolk ta take care of ya...time ta cut the umbilical cord! Deal with it! : And we will smile : knowingly when you call feminists "stupid, for falling for the temptation : to male bash," because your familiar attempts to place respnsibility on one : sex for being the temptors, or snakes in the Garden, is as old as Eve and : is pure sexist bullshit. Well I gotta agree with ya there ... I don't think them self-professed feminists should be goin' around callin' women stupid, nutty! All that does is give feminism a bad name! makes feminists look like a buncha hypocrites! : Your movement, which has used the massive propagation of sexist hatred and : stereotyping to achieve its goals, will be joining T Rex and Company soon : enough. Well you fellas never used ta have a problem with sexist hatred and stereotyping to achieve yer goals ... so whas the problem with it now?? Oh! I guess you fellas have seen the light, that kind of behavior jest isn't fair! Deal with it! ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ ,!, Barbara A. Amero (ak...@chebucto.ns.ca) {o o} http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak955/Profile.html --ooO-(_)-Ooo------------------------------------------------------------ All the seeds of social abominations such as savagery, barbarism, and civilization have as their sole pivot the subjection of women.-Charles Fourier ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* ### Gro...@step.off unread, Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96 to g...@sfu.ca (Allison Gau) wrote: :sm...@ix.netcom.com(Steven Malcolm Anderson) writes: :>(Carolyn Jean Fairman) writes: :>> :>>Ngs changed :>>Barbara Amero <ak...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote: :>>>Steven Malcolm Anderson (sm...@ix.netcom.com) wrote: :>>>: In <53s5f3$n...@news-e2c.gnn.com> PerAd...@gnn.com (Per) writes:
:> <everything snipped>

:> OK. This is where I stand: I tolerate no double standards. If a man is
:>a cool "stud" because he enjoys sex, then a woman is _not_ a
:>contemptible "slut" because she enjoys sex.

:Good enough.

:>If a man is a contemptible
:>"bum" because he doesn't work outside the home, then a woman is _not_
:>some sort of saint because she doesn't work outside the home. If nobody
:>works outside the home, nobody eats.

:And if everybody works outside the home, then who takes care of the kids?

Have you ever heard of day care?

:>If a man is a noble hero because

:>he risks his life as a fire-fighter or soldier, then a woman is a noble
:>heroine if she does the same. If a man is a contemptible coward if he
:>shirks military duty, then so is a woman if she does the same. Etc..

:That's all very nice and well, assuming that women have equal opportunity
:to work as a fire-fighter or soldier.

That's all very nice and well, assuming that men have equal opportunity to
NOT work as a soldier. Personally, I think women who become pregnant
just prior to active duty should be court martialled for desertion of duty.

### Gro...@step.off

Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

Whatever happened to the notion that it's what's inside that counts?
Judging someone by their level of education rather than the content
of their ideas drips with elitism. Some people, especially people born
in the very early half of the century in rural poverty, had little opportunity
for education. Many children were pulled out of school to help their
sharecropper parents farm the land so they could have a roof over

You elitist snobs condescendingly look down your noses at people
who were deprived of your opportunities and think "how inferior."

g...@sfu.ca (Allison Gau) wrote:

:Carolyn,

:I found your remarks to be a bit patronizing. Barbara doesn't even pretend
:to speak for all women, or all feminists. So why should you dictate what
:she should or should not say because of the potential harm to the feminist
:cause?

:If a woman says something stupid she not only is an idiot, but she also
:damages the credibility of all women? Come on.

:Fe/male bashing and taking personal potshots at people tends to degrade the
:credibility of the author, as does poor grammar. But this is the internet --
:you can say whatever you want, however you want. It is up to the reader to
:pick out what she or he thinks is good information.

:Allison
:--

:---------------------------------------------------------------------------
:Allison Gau (g...@sfu.ca) >> Cole's Law:
:School of Engineering Science >>
:Simon Fraser University >> Thinly sliced cabbage.
:Burnaby, BC >>
:---------------------------------------------------------------------------

:>honesty, stupid for falling for the temptation to male bash. :-)

### Barbara Amero

Oct 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/17/96
to

Mark Hendy (ma...@pcug.org.au) wrote:

: Bravo Per this is a classic example.

of anither mealy mouth sycophant makin' smarmy comments without even
a wee bit of evidence ta back up what he be sayin'! jest ask Nell, the
girl with the naturally curly mind!