Womyn's Rites
David B. Greene
Ken Brown <40...@utech.net> says:
>> >Marg Petersen wrote:
>> >
>> >> Bullshit! Until BOTH parents *input* has been *equal*, they do
>> >> not have *equal* right to custody. The mother of an infant just
>> >> a few hours old, is considered to be the one who has *custody*
>> >> of that infant. It doesn't matter WHO else shares that custody.
>> >> SHE is the one who gave birth to it; custody is presumed to be
>> >> hers. Presumptive Joint Custody is a crock at that point. What
>> >> HAS HIS input been up until that point that HE should get to
>> >> have equal custody? Joint custody is a *wonderful* thing if both
>> >> parents agree to it and are worthy of it. Otherwise, no dice.
> Eyebrow. In your next post I read you state that you don't believe
>surrogate mothers have any rights to the child they birth since they
>contribute nothing genetically. So let me get this straight this post -
>a man who just contributes genetically contributes nothing and the woman
>who contributes their womb get custody . Next post the woman who
>contributes her womb and births the child contributes nothing and the
>woman who just conributes genetically gets custody. So we can conclude
>that your custody possitions have nothing to do with who gets pregnant
>and has the child but based solely on who contributes the maternal half
>the genetic mixture.
Ken, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The whole thing about equal
rights for the sexes is that feminists support them when women have something
to gain but opposes them when it costs them anything in return.
Dave Greene
Diana Newman
David B. Greene wrote:
<snip>
>
> Ken, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The whole thing about equal
> rights for the sexes is that feminists support them when women have something
> to gain but opposes them when it costs them anything in return.
I'd say that's a pretty fair statement of how advocacy works, yes. As a
woman, why on earth should I support ANYTHING that looks like it would
remove from me rights that I have so very recently won?
After all, it isn't all THAT long ago that women couldn't vote, were
literally the chattel of thier husbands (let's not forget the "rule of
thumb") and were expected to be content with considerably less ability to use
thier talents and eduction than men. My grandmother remembered wanting badly
to be a doctor---and being refused admission to every single medical school
to which she applied. Men in her college classes who were far less qualified
academically were accepted at Harvard, and Johns Hopkins.....Grandma wasn't
even allowed to vote.
In the entire written history of man, can any of you state that there was
ever a time when women had equal rights? Until now, that is? Given that, why
wouldn't you expect us to be extremely protective of everything we have
gained? We know far too well that gains can also be lost, easily and
quickly.
Please realize that there are women alive who can remember not being allowed
to vote, simply because of thier gender. Realize also that if it hadn't been
for extremist feminists who shouted too loudly and asked for too much, we
wouldn't have anything at all, even now. After all, if we had left it to the
men, as we had for millenia, we would still be property. You guys DID have
plenty of time to provide equal rights that wouldn't have caused you extreme
pain---it's your own fault that we had to go adversarial on you. I'm not all
that old, guys--but I remember quite well being passed over for promotion in
favor of young men who were almost immediately drafted, and having to
personally train the replacements. I also remember that I could, perhaps,
have had the job myself, if I had been willing to discuss the matter with the
supervisor at his cabin on the lake.I remember an experiment that my husband
and I tried; I went to a car dealer to look at a new car. I was ignored for a
long time, then shown the vanity mirror, the seats and the apholstery, and
was quoted the highest price. When I applied for financing, they refused to
talk to me unless my husband came with me. I was applying on my own income,
my own credit.
Jim went in, was spoked to immediately, shown the engine, the workings of the
car, spoken to as if he knew something about cars (he never did, poor
thing--I had to show him where the carborator was) and quoted a price, on
that same new car, that was 1500 dollars cheaper than the price quoted me.
When HE applied for credit, they not only didn't require my presence, but
when he suggested that they wait for me, they actively discouraged it. At the
time, he earned less than me.
Now, when we come from experiences like this, can you wonder that some of us
get extreme, and very protective of our hard won victories?
I will admit that extremist feminists DO shout too loud and ask for too much.
However, doesn't every negotiator? We ask for this, want that, and will
settle for this other thing. I do know that if it weren't for Jim, I could
very well be a man-hater, right along with the extremists. My sisters and I
have not come out as winners very often when we go up against the male
hierarchy, not in legal matters, divorce, jobs or education.
I get bemused when I read here about how men are clobbered in divorces.
Personally, I have found that NOT to be true. The studies I have read seem to
bear my personal experiences out; men's standard of living stays the same or
goes up, and the wive's goes down, almost every time. That hardly indicates
to me that the men suffer all that much *in comparison* to the women. Divorce
destroys both of them, period. As for custody of the children; the solution
seems simple enough to me; do what's best for the CHILDREN, and forget about
the 'rights' of the parents. The children are the only innocent parties in
almost any divorce, after all.
If Jim and I had divorced, that would have meant that Jim got physical
custody, and I would have been paying the child support and exercising
visiting rights; I worked, he was disabled and stayed with the kids for much
of our marriage. This wouldn't even have been an issue. (Perhaps this is why
we didn't divorce---we knew what to fight about, and what was too important
to fight about)
That things are changing, and my daughters don't have to put up with it, is
due to those mouthy, demanding, extremist feminists. Bless 'em. Thanks to
them, my daughters may now get a mortgage; work without being asked if they
plan to get pregnant: vote; control their own property; go to school; become
anything they want. My sixteen year old is planning to go to medical school,
and NOBODY is telling her to settle for nursing. My youngest is planning on
attending the Air Force Acadamy (well, this week she is---) and nobody is
telling her that she can't fly a fighter. My oldest son has a welding
business, and has just hired the "best welder I have ever seen"----I didn't
know for two weeks that his "best welder" was female. Sam didn't think it
mattered. (picture me going "YES! yesyesyesyesyes--I raised 'em right)
So yes. We fight for things that will be to our advantage, and resist things
that will not. Being human, a bunch of us would prefer not equal rights, but
a complete turning of the tables. Can't really say that I blame them,
actually. (G) I do think, however, that given a bit of time, and some
settling down, and a taste of the power that men have had for millenia--and a
feeling of security in the rights we have so hardly won, the rancor will go
away and you won't get quite so much of the bazaar bargaining you so object
to.
Diana
Mike Ganopoulos
Diana Newman (di...@sunrem.com) wrote:
: David B. Greene wrote:
: <snip>
: >
: > Ken, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The whole thing about equal
: > rights for the sexes is that feminists support them when women have something
: > to gain but opposes them when it costs them anything in return.
: I'd say that's a pretty fair statement of how advocacy works, yes. As a
: woman, why on earth should I support ANYTHING that looks like it would
: remove from me rights that I have so very recently won?
Because this is not a war. Men and women both live in the same
society, together, and what harms one as a group harms the other.
The status of men and women as seperate groups with seperate agendas is a
myth created by extremists.
: After all, it isn't all THAT long ago that women couldn't vote, were
: literally the chattel of thier husbands (let's not forget the "rule of
: thumb")
Please tell me, what is the "rule of thumb"? If you are going to
repeat the falsehood that it has to do withthe size of a rod a man can
beat his wife with, you are wrong.
: In the entire written history of man, can any of you state that there was
: ever a time when women had equal rights? Until now, that is? Given that, why
: wouldn't you expect us to be extremely protective of everything we have
: gained? We know far too well that gains can also be lost, easily and
: quickly.
The problem is that now women have equal rights, but men do not.
There is no such thing as gains for women as a group. Discrimination
against men as a group has been encouraged by certain feminist groups as
a way to increase the power of those groups, in the same fashion thatthe
English introduced religious discrimination into Ireland as a way to
consolidate the power of the English.
: Please realize that there are women alive who can remember not being allowed
: to vote, simply because of thier gender.
No American woman under the age of 97 can remember this. Even at that
age, by 1920 nearly all women in the US were allowed to vote before the
suffrage amendment was ratified. And who was the first President women
elected? Warren G. Harding. Some gain.
Realize also that if it hadn't been
: for extremist feminists who shouted too loudly and asked for too much, we
: wouldn't have anything at all, even now.
That is wrong. Extremist feminists have done about as much for
women's rights as the Black Panthers and folks such as Louis Farrakhan
have done for Black rights. You can never improve your reputation, as a
group or as an individual, by having the disreputable represent you.
After all, if we had left it to the
: men, as we had for millenia, we would still be property. You guys DID have
: plenty of time to provide equal rights that wouldn't have caused you extreme
: pain---it's your own fault that we had to go adversarial on you.
Now this is ridiculous. All of the legislation providing equal
rights for women has been passed by men. Besides I don't know any man who
thinks a woman or any person should be property. It sounds like you need
to get out more.
I'm not all
: that old, guys--but I remember quite well being passed over for promotion in
: favor of young men who were almost immediately drafted, and having to
: personally train the replacements.
With an attitude like you have expressed in this post, I'm surprised
you were even allowed to do that. Women who walk around in the workplace
with hang-ups about gender differences and discrimination are notoriously
unproductive.
I also remember that I could, perhaps,
: have had the job myself, if I had been willing to discuss the matter with the
: supervisor at his cabin on the lake.
Then why didn't you? Part of a career is politics, and part of
politics is the socialization. If you missed an opportunity because you
refused to go to a cabin on the lake to discuss the matter, you have no
one to blame but yourself.
I remember an experiment that my husband
: and I tried; I went to a car dealer to look at a new car. I was ignored for a
: long time, then shown the vanity mirror, the seats and the apholstery, and
: was quoted the highest price. When I applied for financing, they refused to
: talk to me unless my husband came with me. I was applying on my own income,
: my own credit.
: Jim went in, was spoked to immediately, shown the engine, the workings of the
: car, spoken to as if he knew something about cars (he never did, poor
: thing--I had to show him where the carborator was) and quoted a price, on
: that same new car, that was 1500 dollars cheaper than the price quoted me.
: When HE applied for credit, they not only didn't require my presence, but
: when he suggested that they wait for me, they actively discouraged it. At the
: time, he earned less than me.
Now you are reading a lot more into this experience than is
justified. Men are notorious cheapskates when it comes to buying cars,
and they are unlikely to be impressed by luxury items. Women are more
likely to overpay for anything, and less likely to be impressed by the
mechanical details.
The job of a car salesman is to sell cars, at the highest profit
possible, rather than to enforce a social structure and if tactics they
used didn't work they wouldn't be doing it. Auto sales is too tough a
business.
: Now, when we come from experiences like this, can you wonder that some of us
: get extreme, and very protective of our hard won victories?
So what are you suggesting, that legislation should be written to
control the pitches of car salesman?
: I will admit that extremist feminists DO shout too loud and ask for too much.
: However, doesn't every negotiator?
Negotiators do not shout. Anyway- this is still not a war! There are
no concessions that one side must make to benefit the other, with
retaliation as a response for failure.
We ask for this, want that, and will
: settle for this other thing. I do know that if it weren't for Jim, I could
: very well be a man-hater, right along with the extremists.
So you admit that the extremists hate men. That is good. But in the
last sentence you implied that they were negotiators for all women. How
can one negotiate with someone that they hate?
We have no negotiation here. All you have is the hate, hate by a
small minority of women who are dissatisfied with their lot in life and
trying to spread their hate to make other women feel the same way.
: I get bemused when I read here about how men are clobbered in divorces.
: Personally, I have found that NOT to be true. The studies I have read seem to
: bear my personal experiences out; men's standard of living stays the same or
: goes up, and the wive's goes down, almost every time.
Yes, the same thing tends to happen to people whose adult children
have to leave home and get a job. If a woman is being supported by a
husband, which is very often the case, and they get divorced, ofcourse
her standard of living is going to go down, especially if she has not
been earning the standard of living to which she has become accustomed.
Too damn bad. Get a job.
Among the people I have known women who tend to drag down a man's
standard of living are the most likely to get dumped. Women, on the other
hand, have this nasty habit of developing extreme devotion to men who
treat them badly and screw up their lives. This is an individual problem
which only individuals can solve.
: That things are changing, and my daughters don't have to put up with it, is
: due to those mouthy, demanding, extremist feminists. Bless 'em. Thanks to
: them, my daughters may now get a mortgage; work without being asked if they
: plan to get pregnant: vote; control their own property; go to school; become
: anything they want.
Nonsense. Thanks to successful women who get along with men, and
appreciative men, these things exist. Thanks to extremist feminists your
daughters can now go topless on NYC streets, and have more power to
engage in frivolous rape and sexual harrassment litigation. Most
significantly, thanks to these extremist feminists, they are more likely
to be suspected and distrusted by men, and this is the greatest loss.
: So yes. We fight for things that will be to our advantage, and resist things
: that will not. Being human, a bunch of us would prefer not equal rights, but
: a complete turning of the tables. Can't really say that I blame them,
: actually. (G) I do think, however, that given a bit of time, and some
: settling down, and a taste of the power that men have had for millenia--and a
: feeling of security in the rights we have so hardly won, the rancor will go
: away and you won't get quite so much of the bazaar bargaining you so object
: to.
I'm sure that when Affirmative Action is done away with, the KKK
will want to take credit for that too, but it will not be the truth. Men
and women will always have different roles in society, because we are
different, and there will always be the shrill screeching of those who
are dissatisfied with it. It is always appropriate to resist legal
injustices. But the legal injustices against females at least are now all
gone. All that is left to protest is the social and biological reality,
and the more they do this the more stress and distrust is going to be
generated, to the detriment of society as a whole.
Regards,
Mike Ganopoulos
http://www.emi.net/~mg655321
Mitchell Holman
}
}In the entire written history of man, can any of you state that there was
}ever a time when women had equal rights?
In the entire history of man, can you cite an instance where women
were drafted to defend the country in battle, and men got to stay home
just because they were men?
} I remember quite well being passed over for promotion in
}favor of young men who were almost immediately drafted, and having to
}personally train the replacements.
Do you consider it fair that men got drafted and all you had to
do was keep your job and train a replacement or two?
}I get bemused when I read here about how men are clobbered in divorces.
}Personally, I have found that NOT to be true. The studies I have read seem to
}bear my personal experiences out; men's standard of living stays the same or
}goes up, and the wive's goes down, almost every time. That hardly indicates
}to me that the men suffer all that much *in comparison* to the women. Divorce
}destroys both of them, period. As for custody of the children; the solution
}seems simple enough to me; do what's best for the CHILDREN, and forget about
}the 'rights' of the parents. The children are the only innocent parties in
}almost any divorce, after all.
Please explain the "equality" of women winning 84% of contested
custody battles. Does that sound like the workings of male-dominated
court system to you?
(and that doesn't even touch the massive disparity women enjoy in the
*criminal* justice system....)
Mitchell Holman
"Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child."
-- Senator Dan Quayle, US News and World Report (10/10/88)
Mitchell Holman
}
}Ken, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The whole thing about equal
}rights for the sexes is that feminists support them when women have something
}to gain but opposes them when it costs them anything in return.
Personally I would like someone to explain the "equality" in women
being allowed to have single-sex social and professional clubs while
similar men's groups are deemed "sexist".
Mitchell Holman
"When congressman Newt Gingrich was a student at Tulane University, I baptized
him by immersion into the membership of the St. Charles Avenue Baptist Church.
Perhaps I didn't hold him under long enough."
(The Rev.) G. Avery Lee, New Orleans
From: TIME magazine, letters to the editor
Stephen La Joie
Diana Newman wrote:
>
> David B. Greene wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > Ken, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The whole thing about equal
> > rights for the sexes is that feminists support them when women have something
> > to gain but opposes them when it costs them anything in return.
>
> I'd say that's a pretty fair statement of how advocacy works, yes. As a
> woman, why on earth should I support ANYTHING that looks like it would
> remove from me rights that I have so very recently won?
>
> After all, it isn't all THAT long ago that women couldn't vote, were
> literally the chattel of thier husbands (let's not forget the "rule of
> thumb") and were expected to be content with considerably less ability to use
> thier talents and eduction than men. My grandmother remembered wanting badly
> to be a doctor---and being refused admission to every single medical school
> to which she applied. Men in her college classes who were far less qualified
> academically were accepted at Harvard, and Johns Hopkins.....Grandma wasn't
> even allowed to vote.
[snip]
The ol' "Grandpa abused Grandma, so YOU owe ME" line of reasoning. Man, this
gets really old. It relies on "two wrongs DO make a right" sort of thinking.
The older generation left my generation to atone for their sins. They also
left my generation the National debt, racism, sexism, polution, holes in
the ozone, and a bill for Social Security to fund their retirment.
Sorry, the "scape goat" theory of life just doesn't work.
Czulie
mg65...@toledo.emi.net (Mike Ganopoulos) wrote:
|Diana Newman (di...@sunrem.com) wrote:
|: David B. Greene wrote:
|: <snip>
|: >
|: > Ken, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The whole thing about equal
|: > rights for the sexes is that feminists support them when women have something
|: > to gain but opposes them when it costs them anything in return.
|: I'd say that's a pretty fair statement of how advocacy works, yes. As a
|: woman, why on earth should I support ANYTHING that looks like it would
|: remove from me rights that I have so very recently won?
| Because this is not a war. Men and women both live in the same
|society, together, and what harms one as a group harms the other.
|The status of men and women as seperate groups with seperate agendas is a
|myth created by extremists.
In that case I'm sure you won't mind sharing your restrooms with us
will you? We are separate...that is a basic fact..men and women are
two separate genders...women's health issues having nothing to do with
me, but that doesn't mean that part of your healthcare premium
shouldn't go towards that area, the same applies for women. Women
have an agenda because they must, in order to be treated on the same
playing field as men.
|: After all, it isn't all THAT long ago that women couldn't vote, were
|: literally the chattel of thier husbands (let's not forget the "rule of
|: thumb")
| Please tell me, what is the "rule of thumb"? If you are going to
|repeat the falsehood that it has to do withthe size of a rod a man can
|beat his wife with, you are wrong.
Women were chattel...they were subjucant to their husbands or fathers
having been deemed too unintelligent, too weak, to frail to deal with
the "hardships" of life and to make valid decsions on their own. But,
by God, they could drive that ox team across the prairie, hoe that
field, make bread, cut wood, give birth in the morning and have supper
on the table at night...they were just too stupid to own property.
|: In the entire written history of man, can any of you state that there was
|: ever a time when women had equal rights? Until now, that is? Given that, why
|: wouldn't you expect us to be extremely protective of everything we have
|: gained? We know far too well that gains can also be lost, easily and
|: quickly.
| The problem is that now women have equal rights, but men do not.
|There is no such thing as gains for women as a group. Discrimination
|against men as a group has been encouraged by certain feminist groups as
|a way to increase the power of those groups, in the same fashion thatthe
|English introduced religious discrimination into Ireland as a way to
|consolidate the power of the English.
Women do not have equal rights...try applying for a job, sight unseen,
as a women...you'll be in for a big surprise.
|: Please realize that there are women alive who can remember not being allowed
|: to vote, simply because of thier gender.
| No American woman under the age of 97 can remember this. Even at that
|age, by 1920 nearly all women in the US were allowed to vote before the
|suffrage amendment was ratified. And who was the first President women
|elected? Warren G. Harding. Some gain.
Well, EXCUSE ME, I suppose no men voted in that election? So, by 1920
NEARLY all women were allowed to vote...how generous of you.
| Realize also that if it hadn't been
|: for extremist feminists who shouted too loudly and asked for too much, we
|: wouldn't have anything at all, even now.
| That is wrong. Extremist feminists have done about as much for
|women's rights as the Black Panthers and folks such as Louis Farrakhan
|have done for Black rights. You can never improve your reputation, as a
|group or as an individual, by having the disreputable represent you.
Just what is it that extremist feminists want that is so distasteful
to you?
| After all, if we had left it to the
|: men, as we had for millenia, we would still be property. You guys DID have
|: plenty of time to provide equal rights that wouldn't have caused you extreme
|: pain---it's your own fault that we had to go adversarial on you.
| Now this is ridiculous. All of the legislation providing equal
|rights for women has been passed by men. Besides I don't know any man who
|thinks a woman or any person should be property. It sounds like you need
|to get out more.
This is way too silly...you are going to tell us that men, of their
own devices, would have given women to rights to which Diana is
referring? I think not...maybe this is why men get the idea that
communication of needs is a "woman thing" and not a "manly thing" so
divorce occurs simply based on that...unsatisfied needs. You see
women are more than happy to ask for their needs to be met, while
having to read their partners minds. Women simply asked for their
needs to be met....All the legislation was passed by men....that says
it all in a nutshell I think...besides she was referring to the past
and not the present. Oh, and thanks to all you men who voted for me
to have equal footing, we stoopid women sure do appreciate it.
| I'm not all
|: that old, guys--but I remember quite well being passed over for promotion in
|: favor of young men who were almost immediately drafted, and having to
|: personally train the replacements.
| With an attitude like you have expressed in this post, I'm surprised
|you were even allowed to do that. Women who walk around in the workplace
|with hang-ups about gender differences and discrimination are notoriously
|unproductive.
What train replacements for jobs to which she could have been
promoted...walk a mile in our shoes before you make statements like
this, or hang out at the water cooler scratchin' and spittin' while
listening to the conversation of men when a woman has been promoted to
a job they think they deserved.
| I also remember that I could, perhaps,
|: have had the job myself, if I had been willing to discuss the matter with the
|: supervisor at his cabin on the lake.
| Then why didn't you? Part of a career is politics, and part of
|politics is the socialization. If you missed an opportunity because you
|refused to go to a cabin on the lake to discuss the matter, you have no
|one to blame but yourself.
Do you really not get it? Are you really that naive? She's talking
about SEX in exchange for PROMOTION. D'uh....
<snip car experiment>
| Now you are reading a lot more into this experience than is
|justified. Men are notorious cheapskates when it comes to buying cars,
|and they are unlikely to be impressed by luxury items. Women are more
|likely to overpay for anything, and less likely to be impressed by the
|mechanical details.
Hah...car salesmen try to sell the woman on the glamour of the
car..plain and simple...the idea that a woman might want to know about
the mechnics or technical specs is not in their frame of reference.
Even when we DO know what we are talking about we are treated as some
kind of dimwit. Why do women overpay...because it's the only damn
price they're given!!!!!!
| The job of a car salesman is to sell cars, at the highest profit
|possible, rather than to enforce a social structure and if tactics they
|used didn't work they wouldn't be doing it. Auto sales is too tough a
|business.
Too bad it's such a tough business...two different prices quoted on
the same vehicle to different genders is dumb, dumb, dumb...Why is he
willing to deal with a man but not with a woman. Fortunately women
have learned the lesson here and are walking away from idiots like
this...leaving them in the dust with their unsold cars.
When women are left alone after divorce they have to learn to deal
with stuff like this and mechanics and repair people and contractors,
etc, etc etc without being taken to the farm on their costs. Men
continue to think that women can be taken easily because of ignorance
and get higher prices because of this. I encourage all women to learn
about how their car works, even if only the very basics, learn how to
do simple home repairs, get references and prices from people when
dealing with contractors and the such, even when they are
married...sooner or later they may be in a position where they have to
handle all this, and for sure they ain't gonna get an even break....my
rule of thumb...Men continue to believe there is a female sucker born
every minute.
|: Now, when we come from experiences like this, can you wonder that some of us
|: get extreme, and very protective of our hard won victories?
| So what are you suggesting, that legislation should be written to
|control the pitches of car salesman?
Nah, just something simple like equality...not being taken advantage
of because of gender or knowledge level.
|: I will admit that extremist feminists DO shout too loud and ask for too much.
|: However, doesn't every negotiator?
| Negotiators do not shout. Anyway- this is still not a war! There are
|no concessions that one side must make to benefit the other, with
|retaliation as a response for failure.
Squeaky wheels is what I think she may be refering to here...if we do
not shout we are not heard...simple as that...women are relegated to
the back row again and ignored. We did that for too many years, now
we are forced to shout to get men's attention. Negotiation is simply
asking for the moon and settling for half way. 'Sides if everyone
behaved as you believe they should the baseball strike would have been
over in a minute!
| We ask for this, want that, and will
|: settle for this other thing. I do know that if it weren't for Jim, I could
|: very well be a man-hater, right along with the extremists.
| So you admit that the extremists hate men. That is good. But in the
|last sentence you implied that they were negotiators for all women. How
|can one negotiate with someone that they hate?
I for one don't hate men, but am a bit disenamoured just the same, I
don't think a blanket statement that all feminist extremists "hate
men" is quite appropriate. Most of us simply hate not being given the
same chances in this world as men have. If your premise is true that
one cannot negotiate with someone they hate, then I must assume that
there is no possible hope for world peace and the United States should
become isolationist again since we will not negotiate on any level
with foriegn politicos that we dislike or "hate." People negotiate
with people they hate everyday in the business world...they are out to
get as much as they can through the negotiation...to do any less is
isolationist and no one gets anywhere.
| We have no negotiation here. All you have is the hate, hate by a
|small minority of women who are dissatisfied with their lot in life and
|trying to spread their hate to make other women feel the same way.
Is this an assumption that all feminists are man haters?
|: I get bemused when I read here about how men are clobbered in divorces.
|: Personally, I have found that NOT to be true. The studies I have read seem to
|: bear my personal experiences out; men's standard of living stays the same or
|: goes up, and the wive's goes down, almost every time.
| Yes, the same thing tends to happen to people whose adult children
|have to leave home and get a job. If a woman is being supported by a
|husband, which is very often the case, and they get divorced, ofcourse
|her standard of living is going to go down, especially if she has not
|been earning the standard of living to which she has become accustomed.
|Too damn bad. Get a job.
O-o-o-o, the old get a job routine..like we don't. How about the
woman who has kids and who can't make enough money working to afford
the child care that she needs in order to go to work? How about the
woman who has been a stay-at-home Mom for all her married life, hasn't
worked in 30 years and now has to figure out a way to take care of
herself and her kids...She will have virtually no Social Security
benefits since she never worked, she has little if any job skills for
anything substantial in the way of employment...what, may I ask is
this woman to do? I for one have a job, a modest standard of living
with one child still at home, and barely enough income to meet the
monthly bills of necessity...while my ex can afford to go on
vacations, buy new clothes, and all sorts of wonderful things. I am
not uneducated, I am not stoopid, but the jobs available to me pay
LESS than what a man with the same credentials makes. THIS IS A FACT.
| Among the people I have known women who tend to drag down a man's
|standard of living are the most likely to get dumped. Women, on the other
|hand, have this nasty habit of developing extreme devotion to men who
|treat them badly and screw up their lives. This is an individual problem
|which only individuals can solve.
Let me see here...a woman who tends to drag down a man's standard of
living is most likely to get dumped...so, in a marriage the woman
drags down the man's standard of living? I don't get it.
Perhaps if the pool of men available were a little less polluted with
adulterers and Peter Pans we women might be able to, statistically
speaking, choose better mates.
|: That things are changing, and my daughters don't have to put up with it, is
|: due to those mouthy, demanding, extremist feminists. Bless 'em. Thanks to
|: them, my daughters may now get a mortgage; work without being asked if they
|: plan to get pregnant: vote; control their own property; go to school; become
|: anything they want.
| Nonsense. Thanks to successful women who get along with men, and
|appreciative men, these things exist. Thanks to extremist feminists your
|daughters can now go topless on NYC streets, and have more power to
|engage in frivolous rape and sexual harrassment litigation. Most
|significantly, thanks to these extremist feminists, they are more likely
|to be suspected and distrusted by men, and this is the greatest loss.
Ah, we have to get along with men and those men must be appreciative
of us in order for women to have equal rights...the reverse is true
also.
Ever been sexually harrassed? Ever sat at your desk while your boss
came up behind you pressing against you and breathing foul breath in
your face? If you throw enough shit at the wall sooner or later some
of it sticks. Men have been harrassing or flirting with harrassment
of women for ages and now have to live with the consequences. Women
who file false claims are wretched creatures, but those who file valid
claims should not be villified.
<snip>
| I'm sure that when Affirmative Action is done away with, the KKK
|will want to take credit for that too, but it will not be the truth. Men
|and women will always have different roles in society, because we are
|different, and there will always be the shrill screeching of those who
|are dissatisfied with it.
"The status of men and women as separate groups with separate agendas
is a myth created by extremists." This is a quote from you in the
beginning of your post...so which is it?
| It is always appropriate to resist legal
|injustices. But the legal injustices against females at least are now all
|gone. All that is left to protest is the social and biological reality,
|and the more they do this the more stress and distrust is going to be
|generated, to the detriment of society as a whole.
Okay, it's illegal to discriminate based on gender...but it happens
anyway, in the workplace, with the car salesman, blah, blah...so where
else can we protest these unjustices beside in the social and
political forum? The only way it will ever stop is when men stop
seeing women as a threat to the masculinity and/or job, and learn to
work with them as full partners.
G. Mark Stewart
Diana Newman (di...@sunrem.com) wrote:
: David B. Greene wrote:
: <snip>
: >
: > Ken, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The whole thing about equal
: > rights for the sexes is that feminists support them when women have something
: > to gain but opposes them when it costs them anything in return.
: I'd say that's a pretty fair statement of how advocacy works, yes. As a
: woman, why on earth should I support ANYTHING that looks like it would
: remove from me rights that I have so very recently won?
: After all, it isn't all THAT long ago that women couldn't vote, were
: literally the chattel of thier husbands (let's not forget the "rule of
And essentially left any risks outside childbirth to their "owners".
Responsibility == responsibility.
Freedom can be a bitch.
Hillel
## Ken, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The whole thing about equal
## rights for the sexes is that feminists support them when women have something
## to gain but opposes them when it costs them anything in return.
In article <324943...@sunrem.com>, Diana Newman <di...@sunrem.com> wrote:
>I'd say that's a pretty fair statement of how advocacy works, yes. As a
>woman, why on earth should I support ANYTHING that looks like it would
>remove from me rights that I have so very recently won?
Because other people don't have those rights.
>After all, it isn't all THAT long ago that women couldn't vote, were
Was it in your life time?
Did you, personally, suffered from it?
I have *NO* responsibility to anything that had happened before I was born.
Get used to it.
>In the entire written history of man, can any of you state that there was
>ever a time when women had equal rights? Until now, that is? Given that, why
>wouldn't you expect us to be extremely protective of everything we have
>gained?
Make the list of all the terrible discriminations that you, personally,
suffered. Then we will see what causes you to be "extremely protective."
>You guys DID have plenty of time to provide equal rights that wouldn't
The Constitutional Amendment for vote for women was passed by a majority
of men's votes. Men gave up their extra rights because it was not fair.
You are not willing to give your extra rights because you don't
care about fairness. The 100 lines of rationalizations are just
that, rationalizations.
>Now, when we come from experiences like this, can you wonder that some of us
>get extreme, and very protective of our hard won victories?
Feminists are very protective of *priority* in divorce and custody.
You fight against men-only schools and for women-only schools. You
demand choice-for-women, no choice-for-men.
And you have the huzpa to call that equality.
>The studies I have read seem to
>bear my personal experiences out; men's standard of living stays the same or
>goes up, and the wive's goes down, almost every time.
He has to pay 25% of before tax income as a support for one child, to pay
taxes on all the income, and his standard of living goes up...
Do you really believe in that?
>So yes. We fight for things that will be to our advantage, and resist things
>that will not.
And you don't give a damn about fairness.
>Being human, a bunch of us would prefer not equal rights, but
>a complete turning of the tables.
That's "being feminist," not "being human."
People with any sense don't try to create a Bosnia in their backyard;
they *know* better.
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
mor...@d0niu3.fnal.gov
gm...@grayfox.svs.com (G. Mark Stewart) writes:
>Diana Newman (di...@sunrem.com) wrote:
>: David B. Greene wrote:
>: <snip>
>: >
>: > Ken, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The whole thing about equal
>: > rights for the sexes is that feminists support them when women have something
>: > to gain but opposes them when it costs them anything in return.
>
>: I'd say that's a pretty fair statement of how advocacy works, yes. As a
>: woman, why on earth should I support ANYTHING that looks like it would
>: remove from me rights that I have so very recently won?
>
>: After all, it isn't all THAT long ago that women couldn't vote, were
>: literally the chattel of thier husbands (let's not forget the "rule of
>
What risks are you talking about?
>Responsibility == responsibility.
yes?
>Freedom can be a bitch.
You do have a point don't you?
James Buster
In article <52c3mu$j...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
Czulie <vic...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In that case I'm sure you won't mind sharing your restrooms with us
>will you?
As long as there are "restrooms", and not "women's restrooms and people's
restrooms", sure. We had common restrooms & shower facilities in college,
it was no big deal.
>on the table at night...they were just too stupid to own property.
In which country? The place you describe sure isn't the US, since women have
pretty much always been able to legally own property in the US.
>Well, EXCUSE ME, I suppose no men voted in that election? So, by 1920
>NEARLY all women were allowed to vote...how generous of you.
In 1800, most men couldn't vote, either. In 1500, the idea of a popular
vote was ridiculous. In fact, for most of human history *nobody* voted.
Get a historical clue.
>I think not...maybe this is why men get the idea that communication of needs
>is a "woman thing" and not a "manly thing" so divorce occurs simply based
>on that...unsatisfied needs.
On the other hand, there is some evidence that "women's styles of
communication" are often considered the only valid methods of communication
in a marriage. In other words, unless the husband talks to his wife in the
same fashion as her female friends do, she will ignore him.
>You see women are more than happy to ask for their needs to be met, while
>having to read their partners minds.
It has often been said that "women spend too much time on other's needs".
If women don't know what those needs are, as you assert, then the above
homily is simply an outright lie to make women look good.
>Women simply asked for their needs to be met....All the legislation was
>passed by men....that says it all in a nutshell I think.
Yes, it does. Men care a lot about women's needs, and women get what they
ask for.
>What train replacements for jobs to which she could have been promoted
Why not? She would only have been promoted because her superiors got
*drafted*, a point which you have refused to discuss. Why should she
get to profit from her superior's misfortune?
>...walk a mile in our shoes before you make statements like
>this, or hang out at the water cooler scratchin' and spittin' while
This is grossly offensive. Men do *not* "scratch & spit" at any watercooler
in any job site I've ever been at.
>Hah...car salesmen try to sell the woman on the glamour of the
>car..plain and simple...the idea that a woman might want to know about
>the mechnics or technical specs is not in their frame of reference.
Irrelevant. Most women don't care about specs. It's a salesman's job to cater
to the largest common denominator, as that generates the most sales.
>Why do women overpay...because it's the only damn price they're given!!!!!!
Why should we protect women from their own idiocy? If you can't negotiate,
let somebody else do it for you or get the hell out. There's always another
dealer.
>Too bad it's such a tough business...two different prices quoted on
>the same vehicle to different genders is dumb, dumb, dumb...Why is he
>willing to deal with a man but not with a woman.
You are confused. The salesdroid always quotes the highest price. If he thinks
the buyer is less likely to negotiate, he will quote a higher price. If he
think the buyer will negotiate, he will give (let's say) a $1500 price break
to *forestall* a possible negotiation that will bring the price even lower
than MSRP - $1500.
>Men continue to believe there is a female sucker born every minute.
That's because there are. Lots of male suckers, too.
>Let me see here...a woman who tends to drag down a man's standard of
>living is most likely to get dumped...so, in a marriage the woman
>drags down the man's standard of living? I don't get it.
Figure it out. If she earns significantly less than he does, her SOL goes up.
So it follows that upon divorce her SOL goes down, and his goes up,
BUT THAT'S OK, since we are merely returning the parties to the state they
were in before divorce.
>Perhaps if the pool of men available were a little less polluted with
>adulterers and Peter Pans we women might be able to, statistically
>speaking, choose better mates.
There's very little evidence that men commit adultery at higher rates
than women do.
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking atomsphere of
poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not much like Earth.
-- Calvin
Gail Thaler
hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>In article <1996Sep23.1...@atl.com>, da...@halcyon.com (David B. Greene) wrote:
>
>
>}
>}rights for the sexes is that feminists support them when women have something
>}to gain but opposes them when it costs them anything in return.
>
>
> being allowed to have single-sex social and professional clubs while
> similar men's groups are deemed "sexist".
>
social and professional clubs are deemed "sexist?"
I have seem women sue to seek membership in quasi-public clubs that
may have liquor licenses or where membership might be required to
do business adequately. Is that what you mean?
Gail
Asmus Tietchens
Czulie wrote:
> bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James Buster) wrote:
> |>on the table at night...they were just too stupid to own property.
>
> |In which country? The place you describe sure isn't the US, since women have
> |pretty much always been able to legally own property in the US.
>
> Women were not allowed to own property inherited from their
> husbands..it went to another male in his family, which could have been
> his son...but if the child was minor then it was "overseen" by an
> older male on the father's side.
What a poor cop out. Your >initial statement< is still false.
Never mind, this historical trivia isn't enlightening me.
> |On the other hand, there is some evidence that "women's styles of
> |communication" are often considered the only valid methods of communication
> |in a marriage. In other words, unless the husband talks to his wife in the
> |same fashion as her female friends do, she will ignore him.
>
> I think most women would be happy if their husbands just talked at
> all...especially those here. I certainly do not expect my husband or
> male partner to talk with me like a talk with my girlfriends...women
> do have different styles of communication than do men...understood and
Funny. I've personally examined the 'style' men use when talking and it
has
a very different application. This supposed 'male' style is a lot more
functional and practical for the purposes of solving problems
objectively
and has a startlingly well developed order to it. I slip into it with
my
friends when we're in a big group, and we discuss politics, philosophy,
and our financial situations with it. There are proper and improper
times
to break in, change the subject, and crack a joke. One distinct
advantage
to it is that within its rules, descisions can be made. It's all a
great
big sparring match. And it's amazing how the person speaking gets the
complete
attention of everyone else at the table.
But there are also times when I've been with just a few of my friends,
(female AND MALE, so nyeah), sitting at home or having lunch, just
sharing my
hopes and fears. Not having them pounced upon and driven at and solved,
but
exchanging them for their inherent value. We smile more warmly at these
times,
often we talk about our relationships. The male banter of accepting and
rejecting ideas isn't in effect. Who knows, we could all be wrong! No
sweat,
we can admit it with no loss of honor or credibility.
That's the difference, I guess. In the 'male' speech mode we're
individuals
comparing notes. As 'females', we're people sharing feelings. To
really be
effective in both one has to be able to tell the difference between the
two,
and react accordingly. What I've noticed that's really sad is that when
a man
suddenly 'talks like a woman', people expect him to still be speaking in
the
'male' framework, and they attack his ideas and ignore the feelings he
shows
until he gives up. People really need to >acknowledge< that ALL people,
male
and female, >need< to communicate feelings every once in a while just as
much
as they need to be taken seriously and submit ideas to a debate. I'm
lucky in
that my friends are able to speak both languages.
So to you I say this:
> accepted (Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars). I certainly never
> ignored any man in my life because of the WAY he communicated only if
> he did NOT.
You're dead wrong. If that man uttered so much as a single word and you
still
ignored him, you were ignoring the WAY he communicated.
You're not omniscient. Try learning a new language and maybe your next
relationship will develop. And personally, I think that book is >crap<,
not so much for the methods it teaches (some of which are actually well-
developed and culturally accurate) but for the stigma it tries to push
them with- that "men" need to assure their "ancient warrior skills" and
women need to engage their "nurturing aura" and all that bogus pandering
crap. What that dickhead is trying to tell me is that I >CAN'T< speak
that other language because of my genes; that I need him to serve as my
interpreter. Well he's WRONG because I >AM< speaking it. And I've
known
plenty of women who speak 'like men' well enough too. So his
consultation only invites my ire.
> |It has often been said that "women spend too much time on other's needs".
> |If women don't know what those needs are, as you assert, then the above
> |homily is simply an outright lie to make women look good.
>
> Women are most often forced to try to fulfill perceived needs of
> men...we cook a certain way because there are no complaints, we make
> the bed a certain way, do the laundry, raise the kids, make love, and
> clean the bathroom a certain way because there are no complaints. In
> this forum the point is that after X number of years the man suddenly
> says he never liked your lasagne or the way you giggled when you made
> love.... If we simply left men to deal with their own needs we would
> be castigated for that as well...It all boils down to no more than
> learning good communication skills...and then using them.
To this I agree, wholeheartedly. Of course it never hurts to inquire
every once in a while. That's what I do. Keeps things healthy.
> |Yes, it does. Men care a lot about women's needs, and women get what they
> |ask for.
>
> Certainly med cared about women's needs and voted the legislation. I
> take humbrage with the manner in which the poster's point was
> stated...like men did women a big favor..well there weren't any women
> in the voting bodies anyway...so men did the favor by default. Women
> are tired of being "given" things by men as if they owned them.
But they >did< own them, back then.
I think what you mean to say is that >women< did >themselves< a big
favor
by using the system as it was to make their voices count.
What a dumb battle of words this is.
What irks me about this whole thing is that you presume to speak for all
'women'. My sisters, my mother, my friends, my fiancee. As if you knew
them.
How dare you! They don't >need< you to speak for them, in many respects
they're tough as nails and I'm glad they're on my side.
> |Why not? She would only have been promoted because her superiors got
> |*drafted*, a point which you have refused to discuss. Why should she
> |get to profit from her superior's misfortune?
>
> As I understood the post, she was stating that these men were in
> positions for which she was qualified and rather than promote her to
> one of the positions, the company solicited for job applicants (ergo
> bypassing her) and hired men who she was required to train...her point
> being why waste money training someone when you have me here already?
> I did not see that these men were her "superiors," but then I've been
> wrong once or twice in my life <G>
There are other angles to consider- if the company hired an
inexperienced
person who required training, perhaps it was able to pay them less.
I, personally, haven't got any of the pie in the sky because of my sex.
My superior, Lucy, earns TWICE as much as I do and, of the two of us,
other staff have confirmed that I write superior code. The difference?
I'm an intern with no previous experience, and she's been with the
company
for ten years. But I write better code! Gee, what a horrible
injustice.
Oddly, I'm pretty tolerant of it. It's the way the job market works.
And I may starve next year and I may not. Life's tough, no free lunch,
up by your bootstraps, etc, etc blah blah yadda yaddah.
> |>...walk a mile in our shoes before you make statements like
> |>this, or hang out at the water cooler scratchin' and spittin' while
>
> |This is grossly offensive. Men do *not* "scratch & spit" at any watercooler
> |in any job site I've ever been at.
Heh. The only evidence of stuff like this I've seen is that there's a
big
basket of candy just inside the door of my superior's office, and people
stop in and gorge themselves and chat with her for hours over the week.
Of the senior programming staff, 60% are 'female'. Personally, I
couldn't
give a frig either way. So I stop in and chat with the gang and gorge
myself
too. :) Makes for a relaxed company atmosphere.
> Sorry about that, but issues regarding uteri and women's habits have
> been bandied about here with abandon and it just slipped out.....I
> won't do scratch n spit if men won't do PMS comments.
The only PMS comments I've ever heard IN MY LIFE (aside from TV sitcoms)
have
been from a female friend of mine and from a former girlfriend. The
latter in
excusing her own conduct over the week, which I actually accepted as a
valid
explanation because she gets SCREAMING painful cramps. So put that in
your
pipe and smoke it.
Hmmmm- the hanging-out-around-the-water-cooler bit I've seen on TV and
read in
Dave Barry articles every six lines or so. ;)
Equal representation? I don't know. Whatever.
> <snip the whole car dealer thingie>
>
> Car dealers get me crazy anyway and it's really not worth arguing
> about...I hate all the game playing involved with that procedure.
I just chop about 30% off the sticker price and haggle. If they take me
down below 25% off I go to other dealerships and get 'second opinions'.
(These are really effective.) I suggest reading the Consumer Reports
articles
on it, though I can't recall if they did gender-based testing or not.
> But her situation may be totally different than before the marriage.
> My comment on that statement was regarding the fact that the poster
> stated that "a woman who tends to drag down a man's standard of living
> is most likely to get dumped." So this is, I believe, reference to
> within the marriage, not after the divorce.
I actually agree with that poster. Same goes for a man- if he drags
down
the woman's SOL he's more likely to get dumped too. I don't see any big
evil gender monster lurking here, just simple financial common sense and
responsibility.
> |>Perhaps if the pool of men available were a little less polluted with
> |>adulterers and Peter Pans we women might be able to, statistically
> |>speaking, choose better mates.
Humph. You're not exactly a spring chicken yourself either. So there. :P
Peter Pans? Kiss my ass. I read that 'Peter Pan Syndrome' book cover
to
cover and dismissed it as crap. However, reverse the gender references
in
the book and you get what sounds like a butch femenist manifesto. (:
Well,
actually I think those are crap too. Whole thing's crap. It's based on
a psychologically handicapped impression of what defines maturity versus
normal human emotional health. I haven't met a Peter Pan or a Wendy in
my
life, with one exception- an aging Mormon couple living in Pleasonton.
Parents of a friend of mine. They actually fit the book quite nicely.
Heh.
Hardly >polluted< with Peter Pans is the dating pool. And as for
adultery,
read on:
> |There's very little evidence that men commit adultery at higher rates
> |than women do.
Uh- adultery, that's screwing around on your wife/husband, right?
I can't quite remember. What confuses me about this statistic is that
it
takes two to tango- if a man cheats on his wife, the only way another
woman
could not automatically also be cheating on her husband is if the man is
fooling around with an unmarried woman (heh heh heh or another man,
always that possibility). Which is the greater sin- messing around with
someone who's married to someone else- or messing around with someone
who's
not married? Hmmm. So I guess the distinction is in the subject, not
the
object. The man is married, he shouldn't be sleeping with anyone else
at all!
(According to some possessive bozos at any rate)
Well only a few factors could drive him to do it- obviously the poor
chap can't
have an interesting sex life at home, so he pursues one abroad...
If sex is so uninmportant and uninteresting to the husband's wife, why
should
she give a rats ass if he screws around with some other girl? SOMEone,
SOMEwhere in this dilemma, is holding someone else to a different
standard
than they hold to themselves. It's a case of find the hypocrisy!
The hunt is on! I'd wager that a marriage where either party has to go
and
commit adultery has some problems with both parties, and statistics
tallying
up who scores and who stays home are irrelevant. Whichever way they
turn out
to be. :P
Czulie
bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James Buster) wrote:
|As long as there are "restrooms", and not "women's restrooms and people's
|restrooms", sure. We had common restrooms & shower facilities in college,
|it was no big deal.
Good, at least we agree on something <G>
|>on the table at night...they were just too stupid to own property.
|In which country? The place you describe sure isn't the US, since women have
|pretty much always been able to legally own property in the US.
Women were not allowed to own property inherited from their
husbands..it went to another male in his family, which could have been
his son...but if the child was minor then it was "overseen" by an
older male on the father's side.
|In 1800, most men couldn't vote, either. In 1500, the idea of a popular
|vote was ridiculous. In fact, for most of human history *nobody* voted.
|Get a historical clue.
My point was directed at the "nearly" all women statement. I have a
very good historical view...it is the subjucation of women regarding
their voting rights to which I refer.
|On the other hand, there is some evidence that "women's styles of
|communication" are often considered the only valid methods of communication
|in a marriage. In other words, unless the husband talks to his wife in the
|same fashion as her female friends do, she will ignore him.
I think most women would be happy if their husbands just talked at
all...especially those here. I certainly do not expect my husband or
male partner to talk with me like a talk with my girlfriends...women
do have different styles of communication than do men...understood and
accepted (Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars). I certainly never
ignored any man in my life because of the WAY he communicated only if
he did NOT.
|It has often been said that "women spend too much time on other's needs".
|If women don't know what those needs are, as you assert, then the above
|homily is simply an outright lie to make women look good.
Women are most often forced to try to fulfill perceived needs of
men...we cook a certain way because there are no complaints, we make
the bed a certain way, do the laundry, raise the kids, make love, and
clean the bathroom a certain way because there are no complaints. In
this forum the point is that after X number of years the man suddenly
says he never liked your lasagne or the way you giggled when you made
love.... If we simply left men to deal with their own needs we would
be castigated for that as well...It all boils down to no more than
learning good communication skills...and then using them.
|Yes, it does. Men care a lot about women's needs, and women get what they
|ask for.
Certainly med cared about women's needs and voted the legislation. I
take humbrage with the manner in which the poster's point was
stated...like men did women a big favor..well there weren't any women
in the voting bodies anyway...so men did the favor by default. Women
are tired of being "given" things by men as if they owned them.
|Why not? She would only have been promoted because her superiors got
|*drafted*, a point which you have refused to discuss. Why should she
|get to profit from her superior's misfortune?
As I understood the post, she was stating that these men were in
positions for which she was qualified and rather than promote her to
one of the positions, the company solicited for job applicants (ergo
bypassing her) and hired men who she was required to train...her point
being why waste money training someone when you have me here already?
I did not see that these men were her "superiors," but then I've been
wrong once or twice in my life <G>
|>...walk a mile in our shoes before you make statements like
|>this, or hang out at the water cooler scratchin' and spittin' while
|This is grossly offensive. Men do *not* "scratch & spit" at any watercooler
|in any job site I've ever been at.
Sorry about that, but issues regarding uteri and women's habits have
been bandied about here with abandon and it just slipped out.....I
won't do scratch n spit if men won't do PMS comments.
<snip the whole car dealer thingie>
Car dealers get me crazy anyway and it's really not worth arguing
about...I hate all the game playing involved with that procedure.
|>Let me see here...a woman who tends to drag down a man's standard of
|>living is most likely to get dumped...so, in a marriage the woman
|>drags down the man's standard of living? I don't get it.
|Figure it out. If she earns significantly less than he does, her SOL goes up.
|So it follows that upon divorce her SOL goes down, and his goes up,
|BUT THAT'S OK, since we are merely returning the parties to the state they
|were in before divorce.
But her situation may be totally different than before the marriage.
My comment on that statement was regarding the fact that the poster
stated that "a woman who tends to drag down a man's standard of living
is most likely to get dumped." So this is, I believe, reference to
within the marriage, not after the divorce.
|>Perhaps if the pool of men available were a little less polluted with
|>adulterers and Peter Pans we women might be able to, statistically
|>speaking, choose better mates.
|There's very little evidence that men commit adultery at higher rates
|than women do.
I think I am clearly on the record for how I feal about adultery but,
ahhhhhh, those Peter Pan's will get you everytime....
V--
Gail Thaler
hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>In article <324943...@sunrem.com>, Diana Newman <di...@sunrem.com> wrote:
>
>
>}
>}ever a time when women had equal rights?
>
>
> were drafted to defend the country in battle, and men got to stay home
> just because they were men?
>
were offered the choice of being drafted as opposed to being raped,
a sidebar of "war?"
>} I remember quite well being passed over for promotion in
>}favor of young men who were almost immediately drafted, and having to
>}personally train the replacements.
>
>
> Do you consider it fair that men got drafted and all you had to
> do was keep your job and train a replacement or two?
>
Do you consider it fair that women in the modern ages (as opposed
to Joan of Arc and the British wars to name a few) could not fight
along side, but were and are casualties of war and victims of rape
as the "byproduct" of war?
>}I get bemused when I read here about how men are clobbered in divorces.
>}Personally, I have found that NOT to be true. The studies I have read seem to
>}bear my personal experiences out; men's standard of living stays the same or
>}goes up, and the wive's goes down, almost every time. That hardly indicates
>}to me that the men suffer all that much *in comparison* to the women. Divorce
>}destroys both of them, period. As for custody of the children; the solution
>}seems simple enough to me; do what's best for the CHILDREN, and forget about
>}the 'rights' of the parents. The children are the only innocent parties in
>}almost any divorce, after all.
>
> Please explain the "equality" of women winning 84% of contested
> custody battles. Does that sound like the workings of male-dominated
> court system to you?
>
"Contested" means nothing. That includes men who don't care a whit
about their kids but file for custody to reduce child-support payments.
> (and that doesn't even touch the massive disparity women enjoy in the
> *criminal* justice system....)
>
>
And my references suggest that women pay a higher burden for going
outside their "feminine" character.
Women get harsher sentences, according to the books I read.
Gail
James Buster
In article <52coau$8...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>,
Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>And my references suggest that women pay a higher burden for going
>outside their "feminine" character.
>
>Women get harsher sentences, according to the books I read.
The books you read are wrong.
.........
Ninth Circuit Court Gender Bias Task Force, Final Report 1993
It says that the Guidelines for sentencing and the mandatory minimum sentences
are unfair to women because the effects of equal treatment disproportionately
hurts women as a class since before the guidelines they used to get off with
lesser sentences. They explain this in the footnote as to why Guidelines hurt
women disproportionately.
p.181 "... Thus, if women received lessor sentences prior to the
implementation of the Guidelines, and now their sentences
more closely approximate those given to men, the Guidelines
would have had a disproportionately harsher effect on women
than men."
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin
Women in Prison
NCJ-145321
Sentence length
Overall, female prisoners had shorter maximum sentences than men. Half of the
women had a maximum sentence of 60 months or less, while half of the men had a
sentence of 120 months or less. Excluding sentences to life or death, women in
prison had received sentences that, on average, were 48 months shorter than
those of men (mean sentences of 105 and 153, respectively). An estimated 7%
of the women and 9% of the men received sentences to life or death.
Maximum Percent of inmates
sentence length Female Male
Less than 36 months 24.2% 12.4%
36-59 18.7 15.0
60-119 20.5 22.3
120-179 11.9 13.2
180 or more 17.7 27.9
Life/death 7.0 9.2
For each category of offense, women received shorter average maximum sentences
than men. For property offenses, female prisoners had a mean sentence 42 months
shorter than men; for drug offenses, 18 months shorter; and for violent
offenses, 39 months shorter.
National Crime Survey
The data reports the criminal population (only for single-offender crimes,
alas) as reported _by the victims_ in the National Crime Survey. It also
reports the prison composition by gender for each crime category for
comparison. Murder data for perps is from the Uniform Crime Reports as the
NCS doesn't collect this data (the difficulty in getting interviews from dead
victims is one reason :-)). The data for the NCS is from the year 1988.
Perps (NCS data) Prison Composition
Crime Male Female Unknown Male Female
Rape 95.0 1.7 3.3 99.8 .3
Simple Assault 83.9 15.7 .4
Aggravated Assault 87.2 12.1 .6 96.2 3.8
Robbery 87.0 11.1 1.9 97.8 2.3
Murder* 85.8 13.5 .6 95.0 5.1
*UCR data
The conclusion, in a generic sense, which follows is that women are
underrepresented in prison for a broad spectrum of violent crimes, including
murder.
This shows that if one surveys victims to find out what gender the criminals
are, and uses this as a baseline to determine the gender composition of the
criminal population, one finds that women appear a lot more often in the
criminal population (for a wide variety of crimes) than they do in the prison
population. From this one can conclude that women are either not caught, not
convicted, or given lesser sentences (and/or more lenient plea bargins) than
men for crimes ranging from robbery to murder.
Mitchell Holman
}>In article <324943...@sunrem.com>, Diana Newman <di...@sunrem.com> wrote:
}>
}>
}>}
}>}ever a time when women had equal rights?
}>
}>
}> were drafted to defend the country in battle, and men got to stay home
}> just because they were men?
}>
}In the history of people, can you cite an instance where women
}were offered the choice of being drafted as opposed to being raped,
}a sidebar of "war?"
Governments do not order women to be raped as a matter of
policy. They *do* order men to be drafted and engage in combat.
Of course, I was presuming that a discussion of equal rights dealt
with official policy. Of which rape is not a part.
}>} I remember quite well being passed over for promotion in
}>}favor of young men who were almost immediately drafted, and having to
}>}personally train the replacements.
}>
}>
}> Do you consider it fair that men got drafted and all you had to
}> do was keep your job and train a replacement or two?
}>
}Do you consider it fair that women in the modern ages (as opposed
}to Joan of Arc and the British wars to name a few) could not fight
}along side, but were and are casualties of war and victims of rape
}as the "byproduct" of war?
Were any of the said women ordered in to combat by
their governments? True, women are denied the "opportunity"
engage in combat, but are equally free of the *obligation* to
engage in combat.
As for the historical treatment of enemy civilians, the usual
pattern was the women were raped and the men were killed.
Both awful, but hardly equal.
}> (and that doesn't even touch the massive disparity women enjoy in the
}> *criminal* justice system....)
}>
}
}Women get harsher sentences, according to the books I read.
I used to believe that too. But consider:
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
The average sentence for Violent Women is more than 3 years shorter
than the sentence for men convicted of the same category of offense.
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin
Women in Prison
NCJ-145321
The number of women sentenced for a violent offense rose from
8,045 to 12,400 during the 5-year period. Murder, the most
prevalent violent offense among female inmates in 1991,
accounted for just over a third of the women sentenced for a
violent offense.
Sentence length
Overall, female prisoners had shorter maximum sentences than
men. Half of the women had a maximum sentence of 60 months or
less, while half of the men had a sentence of 120 months or
less. Excluding sentences to life or death, women in prison
had received sentences that, on average, were 48 months
shorter than those of men (mean sentences of 105 and 153,
respectively). An estimated 7% of the women and 9% of the men
received sentences to life or death.
Maximum Percent of inmates
sentence length Female Male
Less than 36 months.........24.2%........12.4%
36-59..................................18.7...........15.0
60-119................................20.5...........22.3
120-179..............................11.9...........13.2
180 or more.........................17.7..........27.9
Life/death............................. 7.0........... 9.2
For each category of offense, women received shorter average
maximum sentences than men. For property offenses, female
prisoners had a mean sentence 42 months shorter than men; for
drug offenses, 18 months shorter; and for violent offenses, 39
months shorter.
Mitchell Holman
"The earth revolves around the sun. But ask most
humans, they'll say it revolves around them."
Dick Soloman, Third Rock from the Sun
Mitchell Holman
}>
}> Personally I would like someone to explain the "equality" in women
}> being allowed to have single-sex social and professional clubs while
}> similar men's groups are deemed "sexist".
}>
}Mitchell, could you be a little more specific on which male single-sex
}social and professional clubs are deemed "sexist?"
}
}I have seem women sue to seek membership in quasi-public clubs that
}may have liquor licenses or where membership might be required to
}do business adequately. Is that what you mean?
There are women-only CPA groups, women-only realtor groups,
womens' bar associations, women's gardening clubs, women's
political forums, and associations of women law students, med students,
women journalism students, and women psychiatrists. All of which
exclude men, all of which are legal.
But if men form a professional group or association and exclude
women, guess what the result would be? Besides a successful
lawsuit, that is........
Mitchell Holman
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work.
I want to achieve it through not dying."
-- Woody Allen --
David B. Greene
vic...@ix.netcom.com (Czulie) wrote:
>In that case I'm sure you won't mind sharing your restrooms with us
>will you?
Hell, they already take 'em over when they need too. Ever been to a busy
department store?
>Just what is it that extremist feminists want that is so distasteful
>to you?
Well the last one expected *me* to bring *her* a beer! No wonder they take
over our restrooms.
Dave Greene
Gail Thaler
hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>In article <52coau$8...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>, Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>}hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>}>In article <324943...@sunrem.com>, Diana Newman <di...@sunrem.com> wrote:
>}>
>}>
>}>}
>}>}In the entire written history of man, can any of you state that there was
>}>}ever a time when women had equal rights?
>}>
>}>
>}> In the entire history of man, can you cite an instance where women
>}> were drafted to defend the country in battle, and men got to stay home
>}> just because they were men?
>}>
>}In the history of people, can you cite an instance where women
>}were offered the choice of being drafted as opposed to being raped,
>}a sidebar of "war?"
>
> Governments do not order women to be raped as a matter of
> policy. They *do* order men to be drafted and engage in combat.
> Of course, I was presuming that a discussion of equal rights dealt
> with official policy. Of which rape is not a part.
>
civilian population. I was objecting mainly to the language
that men are drafted and women "stay home." This presumes that
women's lives are not at risk from war.
>}>} I remember quite well being passed over for promotion in
>}>}favor of young men who were almost immediately drafted, and having to
>}>}personally train the replacements.
>}>
>}>
>}> Do you consider it fair that men got drafted and all you had to
>}> do was keep your job and train a replacement or two?
>}>
>}Do you consider it fair that women in the modern ages (as opposed
>}to Joan of Arc and the British wars to name a few) could not fight
>}along side, but were and are casualties of war and victims of rape
>}as the "byproduct" of war?
>
> Were any of the said women ordered in to combat by
> their governments? True, women are denied the "opportunity"
> engage in combat, but are equally free of the *obligation* to
> engage in combat.
>
I'm against that.
> As for the historical treatment of enemy civilians, the usual
> pattern was the women were raped and the men were killed.
> Both awful, but hardly equal.
>
Many women were killed after being raped. To say that women as
civilians are not at risk from war is just wrong. That some are
permitted to live after being raped--to be ostracized by their
own people--especially if they get pregnant--minimizes the damage
done to the civilian population.
On the other hand, some have suggested that women often are overcharged.
That is that most of the so-called murder cases are actually self-
defense cases. Some suggest that the definition of self-defense is
skewed toward men. Women who kill after years of abuse are often
charged with murder.
An interesting book on this is Women Who Kill by Ann Jones.
> For each category of offense, women received shorter average
> maximum sentences than men. For property offenses, female
> prisoners had a mean sentence 42 months shorter than men; for
> drug offenses, 18 months shorter; and for violent offenses, 39
> months shorter.
>
That doesn't surprise me very much. It's hard to tell from the raw
data whether it's strictly gender-based. A lot happens between the
crime and the sentence and the serving of time.
My objection is that people take these numbers to suggest that
women are treated with chivalry. I don't think that can be proven
either way.
Gail
Gail Thaler
hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>In article <52cbvo$3...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>, Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>
>}>
>}> Personally I would like someone to explain the "equality" in women
>}> being allowed to have single-sex social and professional clubs while
>}> similar men's groups are deemed "sexist".
>}>
>}Mitchell, could you be a little more specific on which male single-sex
>}social and professional clubs are deemed "sexist?"
>}
>}I have seem women sue to seek membership in quasi-public clubs that
>}may have liquor licenses or where membership might be required to
>}do business adequately. Is that what you mean?
>
>
> There are women-only CPA groups, women-only realtor groups,
> womens' bar associations, women's gardening clubs, women's
> political forums, and associations of women law students, med students,
> women journalism students, and women psychiatrists. All of which
> exclude men, all of which are legal.
They'd be legal for men too.
> But if men form a professional group or association and exclude
> women, guess what the result would be? Besides a successful
> lawsuit, that is........
>
Not if they are voluntary and not public or quasi-public.
Most of the women's groups you mention sprang up because women
were discriminated in those professions. There are also Asian
Societies, African-American societies, Hispanic societies. It's
the reason you have a Black Caucus and Women's Caucus in Congress
but not a White Caucus.
Alice Victoire M Liesman
>woman, why on earth should I support ANYTHING that looks like it would
>remove from me rights that I have so very recently won?
Ah. So what you want isn't equal rights, it's more rights for
women.
>In the entire written history of man, can any of you state that there was
>ever a time when women had equal rights? Until now, that is? Given that, why
The Roman Republic. Old Celtic, Germanic and Norse cultures, and
other such "barbarian" people. Native Americans. Ancient Japan.
Ancient Egypt. And probably many more. In general, the more
responsibilities women had, the more "rights" they enjoyed. In
those days, women who wanted to be "equal" to men acted as such,
and those who wanted to stay home and raise the kids did.
In the course of time, rich women delegated more and more of
their responsibilities to servants and slaves, becoming more and
more useless and incapable of anything but whining, ordering and
breeding. Rich men, who happened to be the ones who made the
laws, saw that their women were incompetent fools, and made the
law accordingly, for the common good. At least in the west.
As for the present, women officially have the same rights as men,
but in practice they have more, which doesn't keep them from
whining for more respect they don't necessarily deserve.
>After all, if we had left it to the
>men, as we had for millenia, we would still be property.
Of course if women hadn't lazily left it to the men a long time
ago there wouldn't have been an issue. It's hardly the men's
fault that women became useless, and if they thought that having
more responsibilities gave them more rights, well, it's only
fair.
>So yes. We fight for things that will be to our advantage, and resist things
>that will not.
Sometimes it would be in the women's best advantage to just shut
up about their "rights" and act like normal people, for a change.
That would do more for their image.
But then, my opinions are only as good as theirs.
--
Alice V. Liesman
avml...@acs.ucalgary.ca
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~avmliesm/
hesp...@netcom.com
Alice Victoire M Liesman (avml...@acs.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
: In article <324943...@sunrem.com>, Diana Newman <di...@sunrem.com> wrote:
: >
: >I'd say that's a pretty fair statement of how advocacy works, yes. As a
: >remove from me rights that I have so very recently won?
: Ah. So what you want isn't equal rights, it's more rights for
: women.
<wry smile> #%^>
: Sometimes it would be in the women's best advantage to just shut
: up about their "rights" and act like normal people, for a change.
: That would do more for their image.
: But then, my opinions are only as good as theirs.
Yep, but I respect the courage it took for you to post yours.
#%^>
Bright Blessings,
Hesperos, M.P.
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
* She was delighted in Her heart and placed longing in their breasts, *
* so that they lay together in pairs along the shady glens. *
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Mitchell Holman
}On the other hand, some have suggested that women often are overcharged.
}That is that most of the so-called murder cases are actually self-
}defense cases. Some suggest that the definition of self-defense is
}skewed toward men. Women who kill after years of abuse are often
}charged with murder.
If women choose to kill an abuser in a nonconfrontational setting
rather than just leave, then murder *is* the proper charge, under the
law. And women who kill during a fight are usually presumed to
acting in self defense, and are only charged with manslaughter, if
they are charged with anything at all.
}An interesting book on this is Women Who Kill by Ann Jones.
Actually, I *have* read it. Also the Burning Bed by Lenore
Walker. Before the silly Farrah Fawcett movie.
(PS: can you imagine a man murdering his wife while she
slept and claiming self defense? And getting away with it?)
}> For each category of offense, women received shorter average
}> maximum sentences than men. For property offenses, female
}> prisoners had a mean sentence 42 months shorter than men; for
}> drug offenses, 18 months shorter; and for violent offenses, 39
}> months shorter.
}>
}That doesn't surprise me very much. It's hard to tell from the raw
}data whether it's strictly gender-based. A lot happens between the
}crime and the sentence and the serving of time.
}
}My objection is that people take these numbers to suggest that
}women are treated with chivalry. I don't think that can be proven
}either way.
Well, the statistics *do* blow holes in the "women get longer
sentences than men" claim.
Mitchell Holman
"A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going
to the polls."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle, 1988
Daniel Chenault (MS)
Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote in article
<52coau$8...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>...
> hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
> >In article <324943...@sunrem.com>, Diana Newman <di...@sunrem.com>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >}
was
> >}ever a time when women had equal rights?
> >
> >
> > were drafted to defend the country in battle, and men got to stay home
> > just because they were men?
> >
> In the history of people, can you cite an instance where women
> were offered the choice of being drafted as opposed to being raped,
> a sidebar of "war?"
Joan of Arc? I'm sure others exist...
> >} I remember quite well being passed over for promotion in
> >}favor of young men who were almost immediately drafted, and having to
> >}personally train the replacements.
> >
> >
> > Do you consider it fair that men got drafted and all you had to
> > do was keep your job and train a replacement or two?
> >
> Do you consider it fair that women in the modern ages (as opposed
> to Joan of Arc and the British wars to name a few) could not fight
> along side, but were and are casualties of war and victims of rape
> as the "byproduct" of war?
The casualties of war are not limited to women, so drop that sophist
argument. Victims of rape I'll go along with; it certainly does happen. I
guess the only reason my mom wasn't raped during WW2 was that she was
armed, dangerous, knew how to use it and wasn't scared to use it. In war,
all bets are off, there is no civilization. The victor then puts the loser
on trial for war crimes.
> >}I get bemused when I read here about how men are clobbered in divorces.
> >}Personally, I have found that NOT to be true. The studies I have read
seem to
> >}bear my personal experiences out; men's standard of living stays the
same or
> >}goes up, and the wive's goes down, almost every time. That hardly
indicates
> >}to me that the men suffer all that much *in comparison* to the women.
Divorce
> >}destroys both of them, period. As for custody of the children; the
solution
> >}seems simple enough to me; do what's best for the CHILDREN, and forget
about
> >}the 'rights' of the parents. The children are the only innocent parties
in
> >}almost any divorce, after all.
> >
> > Please explain the "equality" of women winning 84% of contested
> > custody battles. Does that sound like the workings of male-dominated
> > court system to you?
> >
> "Contested" means nothing. That includes men who don't care a whit
> about their kids but file for custody to reduce child-support payments.
I see. And how many of the men who do such contesting do so only to reduce
their child-support payments? I know far too many divorced couples where
this just ain't the case. I've only known one man to contest custody for
the reason you cite: since the custody payments represented 120% of his
paycheck after rent and other necessaries (no, not beer), he had an
excellent case. That one was clearly a case of the man getting screwed by
the vengeful divorcee.
> > (and that doesn't even touch the massive disparity women enjoy in
the
> > *criminal* justice system....)
> >
> >
> And my references suggest that women pay a higher burden for going
> outside their "feminine" character.
>
> Women get harsher sentences, according to the books I read.
Really? Got some statistics to back that up?
Daniel Chenault (MS)
Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote in article
<52dskd$8...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>...
> hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
> >In article <52coau$8...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>, Gail Thaler
<gth...@cs.com> wrote:
> >}hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
> >}>In article <324943...@sunrem.com>, Diana Newman <di...@sunrem.com>
wrote:
> >}>
> >}>
> >}>}
> Many women were killed after being raped. To say that women as
> civilians are not at risk from war is just wrong. That some are
> permitted to live after being raped--to be ostracized by their
> own people--especially if they get pregnant--minimizes the damage
> done to the civilian population.
You're talking about two different things. "The women stay at home" implies
safety if they live in the country that is not being invaded. If they live
in the country that is being invaded, all bets are off. If the civilian is
male, he's killed. If female, raped, possibly killed. I guess the male
could get raped too. The art museums are ransacked, the businesses looted,
etc, etc. It's not that the soldiers are going in to specifically, and with
malice aforethought, to find women to rape. They are specifically invading
a country with the intent of raping the country.
> >
> >The average sentence for Violent Women is more than 3 years shorter
> > than the sentence for men convicted of the same category of offense.
> >
> >U.S. Department of Justice
> >Office of Justice Programs
> >Bureau of Justice Statistics
> >
> >Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin
> >Women in Prison
> >NCJ-145321
> On the other hand, some have suggested that women often are overcharged.
> That is that most of the so-called murder cases are actually self-
> defense cases. Some suggest that the definition of self-defense is
> skewed toward men. Women who kill after years of abuse are often
> charged with murder.
How is the definition of self-defense skewed towards men?
> An interesting book on this is Women Who Kill by Ann Jones.
Why is it interesting?
> > For each category of offense, women received shorter average
> > maximum sentences than men. For property offenses, female
> > prisoners had a mean sentence 42 months shorter than men; for
> > drug offenses, 18 months shorter; and for violent offenses, 39
> > months shorter.
> >
> That doesn't surprise me very much. It's hard to tell from the raw
> data whether it's strictly gender-based. A lot happens between the
> crime and the sentence and the serving of time.
If it's not gender-based, what other properties could the wide disparity in
sentencing be based upon?
Daniel Chenault (MS)
Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote in article
<52cbvo$3...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>...
> hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
> >In article <1996Sep23.1...@atl.com>, da...@halcyon.com (David B.
Greene) wrote:
> >
> >
> >}
> >}Ken, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The whole thing about
equal
> >}rights for the sexes is that feminists support them when women have
something
> >}to gain but opposes them when it costs them anything in return.
> >
> >
> > Personally I would like someone to explain the "equality" in women
> > being allowed to have single-sex social and professional clubs while
> > similar men's groups are deemed "sexist".
> >
> Mitchell, could you be a little more specific on which male single-sex
> social and professional clubs are deemed "sexist?"
>
> I have seem women sue to seek membership in quasi-public clubs that
> may have liquor licenses or where membership might be required to
> do business adequately. Is that what you mean?
>
> Gail
How about the VMI, a *private* institution.
James Buster
In article <52dskd$8...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>,
Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>Many women were killed after being raped. To say that women as
>civilians are not at risk from war is just wrong. That some are
>permitted to live after being raped--to be ostracized by their
>own people--especially if they get pregnant--minimizes the damage
>done to the civilian population.
I'd rather be ostracized than dead. At least I can recover from being raped.
>On the other hand, some have suggested that women often are overcharged.
>That is that most of the so-called murder cases are actually self-
>defense cases.
The idea that *most* murders committed by women are actually self-defense
cases is a ludicrous one.
>Some suggest that the definition of self-defense is skewed toward men.
How so? Men's behavior is held to a higher standard.
>Women who kill after years of abuse are often charged with murder.
As they should be. Killing somebody who's beating you *right now* is
self-defense. Killing somebody who is asleep on the couch is *not*, and
never should have been, self-defense.
Alan Madsen
Alice Victoire M Liesman (avml...@acs.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
: In article <324943...@sunrem.com>, Diana Newman <di...@sunrem.com> wrote:
: >I'd say that's a pretty fair statement of how advocacy works, yes. As a
: >woman, why on earth should I support ANYTHING that looks like it would
: >remove from me rights that I have so very recently won?
: Ah. So what you want isn't equal rights, it's more rights for
: women.
now why would someone want to exclude the actuality (of fact, if
less, these days, of law) of the continuing preponderance of ad-
vantage for the male...?
alice, it seems, sees no significance to simple numbers, such as
the sex ratios in government and business... nor does she acknow-
ledge relative career experience within bureaucracy, wherever it
exists (such as police departments), generally more difficult or
what is reported, by participants, as rampant sexism within aca-
deme... i could go on, but you get the idea...
advocacy means to speak for... the for is important... some hold
women want more rights than men (not true)... some hold that the
aim of feminism is equal rights, comprehensivly, not just in law...
women, not wishing to loose rights newly gained, can not be con-
strued as women wishing more rights simply because advocacy, in
its broadest sense, seeks gain, not loss...
--
alan madsen - new york, n.y.
Andrew Rogers
Daniel Chenault (MS) wrote:
> > Mitchell, could you be a little more specific on which male single-sex
> > social and professional clubs are deemed "sexist?"
> How about the VMI, a *private* institution.
VMI went private rather than admit women? When did that happen?
Andrew
mor...@d0niu3.fnal.gov
bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James Buster) writes:
>Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>>Women who kill after years of abuse are often charged with murder.
>
>As they should be. Killing somebody who's beating you *right now* is
>self-defense. Killing somebody who is asleep on the couch is *not*, and
>never should have been, self-defense.
How do you feel about Israel launching raids into Southern Lebanon
after being attacked from there?
(for the nonce, set aside imperfect targeting and assume that they hit
the correct bases)
Diana Newman
Mike Ganopoulos wrote:
>
> Diana Newman (di...@sunrem.com) wrote:<snip>
> : I'd say that's a pretty fair statement of how advocacy works, yes. As a
> : woman, why on earth should I support ANYTHING that looks like it would
> : remove from me rights that I have so very recently won?
>
> Because this is not a war. Men and women both live in the same
> society, together, and what harms one as a group harms the other.
> The status of men and women as seperate groups with seperate agendas is a
> myth created by extremists.
OF COURSE it's a war!! It shouldn't be, but it is. You know, I had no idea
that my post could generate such heat--I have recieved many responses both in
E-Mail and on newsgroups, and it's all either wildly enthusiastic, or deeply
disaproving. No mellow ground there, at all. Sounds like battle lines to me.
(G)
>
> : After all, it isn't all THAT long ago that women couldn't vote, were
> : literally the chattel of thier husbands (let's not forget the "rule of
> : thumb")
>
> Please tell me, what is the "rule of thumb"? If you are going to
> repeat the falsehood that it has to do withthe size of a rod a man can
> beat his wife with, you are wrong.
I am, am I? OK, I'm willing to be educated; the "rule of thumb" is a very
old expression---very old, indeed. I would be grateful if you could give me
an alternative origin for it than the one I learned about in grade school,
35+ years ago.
> : In the entire written history of man, can any of you state that there was
> : ever a time when women had equal rights? Until now, that is? Given that, why
> : wouldn't you expect us to be extremely protective of everything we have
> : gained? We know far too well that gains can also be lost, easily and
> : quickly.
>
> The problem is that now women have equal rights, but men do not.
No, they don't. Legally men and women do, of course--but culturally we don't.
Culturally the men still have an edge. Extremest feminists, seeing this,
don't realize that the only cure for cultural gender bias is the education
and expectations of children, want to force the changes legally, resulting in
laws that get skewed against men.
However, as with an antiabortion law, if ever one gets passed, these laws do
little to cure the problem, just excacerbate the rancor.
<snip>
> : Please realize that there are women alive who can remember not being allowed
> : to vote, simply because of thier gender.
>
> No American woman under the age of 97 can remember this.
So? I personally know eleven of them--one of whom is 107, and sharp as
glass; her stories of pioneer life are amazing. Is it your contention
that 97 years is so very ancient a history that these women and their
historys don't count?
> Even at that
> age, by 1920 nearly all women in the US were allowed to vote before the
> suffrage amendment was ratified. And who was the first President women
> elected? Warren G. Harding. Some gain.
Don't blame the women for that---if the men hadn't wanted him, he wouldn't
have made it. Women were definately NOT the major deciding force in elections
in the early years.
> Realize also that if it hadn't been
> : for extremist feminists who shouted too loudly and asked for too much, we
> : wouldn't have anything at all, even now.
>
> That is wrong. Extremist feminists have done about as much for
> women's rights as the Black Panthers and folks such as Louis Farrakhan
> have done for Black rights. You can never improve your reputation, as a
> group or as an individual, by having the disreputable represent you.
Perhaps not; but every movement must have a cutting edge; sharp edges tend to
hurt everybody, but they are necessary.
> After all, if we had left it to the
> : men, as we had for millenia, we would still be property. You guys DID have
> : plenty of time to provide equal rights that wouldn't have caused you extreme
> : pain---it's your own fault that we had to go adversarial on you.
>
> Now this is ridiculous. All of the legislation providing equal
> rights for women has been passed by men.
Because women were not allowed to.
> Besides I don't know any man who
> thinks a woman or any person should be property. It sounds like you need
> to get out more.
I know a couple. However, I do believe that 97 years have made SOME
difference in male attitude. (G) Not so much that I would expect great howls
of rage should women be denied the vote again, mind you, but perhaps they
would draw the line at "property" at this point. ;-)
> I'm not all
> : that old, guys--but I remember quite well being passed over for promotion in
> : favor of young men who were almost immediately drafted, and having to
> : personally train the replacements.
>
> With an attitude like you have expressed in this post, I'm surprised
> you were even allowed to do that. Women who walk around in the workplace
> with hang-ups about gender differences and discrimination are notoriously
> unproductive.
I didn't have that attitude at the time. It is from incidents like this that
I GAINED the "attitude" I have now. Actually, at the time I didn't think too
much about it, figuring that it was "the way it worked". It took real chutspa
on my part, frankly, to apply for the job when it became available.
>
> I also remember that I could, perhaps,
> : have had the job myself, if I had been willing to discuss the matter with the
> : supervisor at his cabin on the lake.
>
> Then why didn't you? Part of a career is politics, and part of
> politics is the socialization. If you missed an opportunity because you
> refused to go to a cabin on the lake to discuss the matter, you have no
> one to blame but yourself.
Are you REALLY that stupid? I was 20 and pretty good looking. He was 42 and
married. And his wife wasn't invited. It wasn't VERBAL exercise he had in
mind, sir. He made that extremely plain.
Just how clear do I have to be, here?
<snip>
> : When HE applied for credit, they not only didn't require my presence, but
> : when he suggested that they wait for me, they actively discouraged it. At the
> : time, he earned less than me.
>
> Now you are reading a lot more into this experience than is
> justified. Men are notorious cheapskates when it comes to buying cars,
> and they are unlikely to be impressed by luxury items. Women are more
> likely to overpay for anything, and less likely to be impressed by the
> mechanical details.
>
> The job of a car salesman is to sell cars, at the highest profit
> possible, rather than to enforce a social structure and if tactics they
> used didn't work they wouldn't be doing it. Auto sales is too tough a
> business.
If that were so, he would have pressed ME to sign the financing papers
without my husband, and he would have wanted to wait for me when Jim had them
in front of him. Can't have it both ways.
> : Now, when we come from experiences like this, can you wonder that some of us
> : get extreme, and very protective of our hard won victories?
>
> So what are you suggesting, that legislation should be written to
> control the pitches of car salesman?
Extremists would have it so. I think a little education and a female car
salesperson or two would do the job better, myself. However, legislation has
indeed been passed that affects this; the financial disclosure laws, for
instance, and the anti-discrimination statutes that limit the questions one
can ask prospective borrowers.
> : I will admit that extremist feminists DO shout too loud and ask for too much.
> : However, doesn't every negotiator?
>
> Negotiators do not shout. Anyway- this is still not a war! There are
> no concessions that one side must make to benefit the other, with
> retaliation as a response for failure.
Yes, there are. You are extremely naive if you think otherwise.
> We ask for this, want that, and will
> : settle for this other thing. I do know that if it weren't for Jim, I could
> : very well be a man-hater, right along with the extremists.
>
> So you admit that the extremists hate men.
Some do. Some merely hold them in contempt. Some like them just fine as
individuals, but can't handle them as a group. (G)
> That is good. But in the
> last sentence you implied that they were negotiators for all women. How
> can one negotiate with someone that they hate?
How can one NOT? That is the essence of diplomacy, after all.
> We have no negotiation here. All you have is the hate, hate by a
> small minority of women who are dissatisfied with their lot in life and
> trying to spread their hate to make other women feel the same way.
In the extremests, yes. However, I know some extremist men who are just as
wierd in thier own agendas. (shrug)
> : I get bemused when I read here about how men are clobbered in divorces.
> : Personally, I have found that NOT to be true. The studies I have read seem to
> : bear my personal experiences out; men's standard of living stays the same or
> : goes up, and the wive's goes down, almost every time.
>
> Yes, the same thing tends to happen to people whose adult children
> have to leave home and get a job. If a woman is being supported by a
> husband, which is very often the case, and they get divorced, ofcourse
> her standard of living is going to go down, especially if she has not
> been earning the standard of living to which she has become accustomed.
> Too damn bad. Get a job.
Be very careful here. I have a real problem with men who dump the wife of
twenty years, who cleaned the house, raised the kids, worked her tail off in
the home--and by the way gave up any chance she had of getting ahead in any
professional capacity, take the fruits of his own uninterupted career and her
efforts at home, and discount them so completely. "Get a job"? Grrrrrr.
<snip>
> I'm sure that when Affirmative Action is done away with, the KKK
> will want to take credit for that too, but it will not be the truth. Men
> and women will always have different roles in society, because we are
> different, and there will always be the shrill screeching of those who
> are dissatisfied with it.
Actually, I agree with that---except for the screeching part, that is. (G)
However, we aren't all THAT different; at least, there is no role that a
woman traditionally plays that a man cannot and vice versa except the
physical act of procreation. Everything else is cultural--which means that
everything else is subject to change.
Change makes everybody uncomfortable.
> It is always appropriate to resist legal
> injustices. But the legal injustices against females at least are now all
> gone.
Are they? Really?
> All that is left to protest is the social and biological reality,
> and the more they do this the more stress and distrust is going to be
> generated, to the detriment of society as a whole.
As I said, there's nothing wrong with protesting social norms, since these
are products of culture and subject to change; biological reality isn't all
THAT all-pervasive.
I gave birth to five children; nursed them for two years each. That makes,
oh, not quite fourteen years of biological "truth" which I had that Jim
physically did not. However, during those fourteen years I did just fine. I
cooked, I cleaned, I studied, I read, I thought, I....WAS. Physically bearing
children and nursing them involve the belly and the breast---not the brain.
Raising them and teaching them involve the brain and the heart; and Jim had
that in abundance. So what is the real difference between us, other than what
culture decrees?
Diana
> Regards,
> Mike Ganopoulos
> http://www.emi.net/~mg655321
Diana Newman
Alice Victoire M Liesman wrote:
>
> In article <324943...@sunrem.com>, Diana Newman <di...@sunrem.com> wrote:
> >In the entire written history of man, can any of you state that there was
> >ever a time when women had equal rights? Until now, that is? Given that, why
>
> The Roman Republic.
Hardly.
> Old Celtic, Germanic and Norse cultures, and
> other such "barbarian" people. Native Americans. Ancient Japan.
You really DO need to study more. These cultures were, by and large, no more
likely to view women as "equal" as any other.
> Ancient Egypt. And probably many more. In general, the more
> responsibilities women had, the more "rights" they enjoyed. In
> those days, women who wanted to be "equal" to men acted as such,
> and those who wanted to stay home and raise the kids did.
And those who wanted to stay home and raise the kids were denied the rights
of the men. In other words, those women who wanted to act like men could have
the rights of men, but those who acted like "women" lost most of thier
rights.
<snip.
> Sometimes it would be in the women's best advantage to just shut
> up about their "rights" and act like normal people, for a change.
> That would do more for their image.
You mean, shut up and act like normal MALE people? We ARE acting like people.
WE ARE people. In fact, we are more than half of all people. To tell us to
'shut up' and 'act like normal people' is to deny the humanity of half the
human race.
>
> But then, my opinions are only as good as theirs.
I am glad.
Diana
Gail Thaler
>> hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>> >In article <52coau$8...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>, Gail Thaler
><gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>> >}hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>> >}>In article <324943...@sunrem.com>, Diana Newman <di...@sunrem.com>
>wrote:
>> >}>
>> >}>
>> >}>}
>> civilians are not at risk from war is just wrong. That some are
>> permitted to live after being raped--to be ostracized by their
>> own people--especially if they get pregnant--minimizes the damage
>> done to the civilian population.
>
>safety if they live in the country that is not being invaded. If they live
>in the country that is being invaded, all bets are off. If the civilian is
>male, he's killed. If female, raped, possibly killed. I guess the male
>could get raped too. The art museums are ransacked, the businesses looted,
>etc, etc. It's not that the soldiers are going in to specifically, and with
>malice aforethought, to find women to rape. They are specifically invading
>a country with the intent of raping the country.
>
understand and agree with what you're saying. My intention is
to point out that women are very often victims in war, but they
often get overlooked.
>> >The average sentence for Violent Women is more than 3 years shorter
>> > than the sentence for men convicted of the same category of offense.
>> >
>> >U.S. Department of Justice
>> >Office of Justice Programs
>> >Bureau of Justice Statistics
>> >
>> >Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin
>> >Women in Prison
>> >NCJ-145321
>
>> On the other hand, some have suggested that women often are overcharged.
>> That is that most of the so-called murder cases are actually self-
>> defense cases. Some suggest that the definition of self-defense is
>> skewed toward men. Women who kill after years of abuse are often
>> charged with murder.
>
>How is the definition of self-defense skewed towards men?
>
Self-defense is usually only allowed if the person is in immediate
danger and, in some cases, cannot flee from danger (laws differ).
Where this fails women, some battered-spouse advocates claim, is
that women do not get the opportunity to defend themselves in the
same way that two men of equal size may. And years of abuse may
alter the sense of a woman's safety. Sorry to be so terse, but
entire books and law articles have been written about it, and like
many legal theories a bit hard to reduce to a post.
In other words, if a man continously beats a woman for years,
and one day beats her, then passes out drunk and she gets out the
gun, should this be first-degree murder?
>> An interesting book on this is Women Who Kill by Ann Jones.
>
>Why is it interesting?
>
It's interesting for a lot of reasons. Did you know that a handful
of women have been burned at the stake in the US? All of them
slaves who killed their masters? This author proposes that 2/3
of women who kill really kill in self-defense. It's also interesting
like a lot of true-crime books are interesing. You have to be a
bit ghoulish, I guess.
>> > For each category of offense, women received shorter average
>> > maximum sentences than men. For property offenses, female
>> > prisoners had a mean sentence 42 months shorter than men; for
>> > drug offenses, 18 months shorter; and for violent offenses, 39
>> > months shorter.
>> >
>> That doesn't surprise me very much. It's hard to tell from the raw
>> data whether it's strictly gender-based. A lot happens between the
>> crime and the sentence and the serving of time.
>
>If it's not gender-based, what other properties could the wide disparity in
>sentencing be based upon?
>
Like I said, a lot happens between the crime, arrest, trial,
imprisonment and parole. Perhaps women get a raw deal in the pleading
stage, the judge knows it and gives a lighter sentence. Women
behave better in prison, so it's easier to see why they might be
released earlier. And they might get parole because they have
stronger ties to the community. Children, other relatives, etc.
It would be interesting to see some comprehensive studies.
Gail
Gail Thaler
hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>In article <52dskd$8...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>, Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>
>
>}On the other hand, some have suggested that women often are overcharged.
>}That is that most of the so-called murder cases are actually self-
>}defense cases. Some suggest that the definition of self-defense is
>}skewed toward men. Women who kill after years of abuse are often
>}charged with murder.
>
> rather than just leave, then murder *is* the proper charge, under the
> law. And women who kill during a fight are usually presumed to
> acting in self defense, and are only charged with manslaughter, if
> they are charged with anything at all.
>
chooses to kill an abuser, say after a confrontional setting,
where the man is asleep or incapacitated, why not a lesser charge
than murder? I don't think murder IS the proper charge here.
>}An interesting book on this is Women Who Kill by Ann Jones.
>
> Actually, I *have* read it. Also the Burning Bed by Lenore
> Walker. Before the silly Farrah Fawcett movie.
>
> (PS: can you imagine a man murdering his wife while she
> slept and claiming self defense? And getting away with it?)
>
I've heard a case of a man who claimed he killed his wife while
HE was asleep. A man in Maryland was released on parole after
shooting his wife hours after finding out she had committed
adultery. Of course, there are anecdotal cases.
The fact is few women kill. Most who do have been battered. If
women are getting shorter sentences for murder, I would suggest
that they probably do because they should not have been charged
with murder in the first place.
Self-defense laws were after all were written by male legislators
to protect their interests.
>}> For each category of offense, women received shorter average
>}> maximum sentences than men. For property offenses, female
>}> prisoners had a mean sentence 42 months shorter than men; for
>}> drug offenses, 18 months shorter; and for violent offenses, 39
>}> months shorter.
>}>
>}That doesn't surprise me very much. It's hard to tell from the raw
>}data whether it's strictly gender-based. A lot happens between the
>}crime and the sentence and the serving of time.
>}
>}My objection is that people take these numbers to suggest that
>}women are treated with chivalry. I don't think that can be proven
>}either way.
>
>
> Well, the statistics *do* blow holes in the "women get longer
> sentences than men" claim.
>
I disagree. I think that you could infer that from reading the raw
data, but it would take a comprehensive study to prove it either way.
GJP
Alice Victoire M Liesman wrote:
>
> In article <324943...@sunrem.com>, Diana Newman <di...@sunrem.com> wrote:
> >
> >woman, why on earth should I support ANYTHING that looks like it would
> >remove from me rights that I have so very recently won?
>
> women.
>
> >ever a time when women had equal rights? Until now, that is? Given that, why
>
> other such "barbarian" people. Native Americans. Ancient Japan.
> responsibilities women had, the more "rights" they enjoyed. In
> those days, women who wanted to be "equal" to men acted as such,
> and those who wanted to stay home and raise the kids did.
>
> their responsibilities to servants and slaves, becoming more and
> more useless and incapable of anything but whining, ordering and
> breeding. Rich men, who happened to be the ones who made the
> laws, saw that their women were incompetent fools, and made the
> law accordingly, for the common good. At least in the west.
>
> As for the present, women officially have the same rights as men,
> but in practice they have more, which doesn't keep them from
> whining for more respect they don't necessarily deserve.
>
> >men, as we had for millenia, we would still be property.
>
> ago there wouldn't have been an issue. It's hardly the men's
> fault that women became useless, and if they thought that having
> more responsibilities gave them more rights, well, it's only
> fair.
>
> >So yes. We fight for things that will be to our advantage, and resist things
> >that will not.
>
> up about their "rights" and act like normal people, for a change.
> That would do more for their image.
>
>
Thank you Alice Liesman for your perspective. Normal on everybodies
part would be nice if all "victims" were excluded from the definition of
normal.
Greg Palumbo
GJP
Alan Madsen wrote:
>
> Alice Victoire M Liesman (avml...@acs.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
> : In article <324943...@sunrem.com>, Diana Newman <di...@sunrem.com> wrote:
> : >
> : >I'd say that's a pretty fair statement of how advocacy works, yes. As a
> : >woman, why on earth should I support ANYTHING that looks like it would
> : >remove from me rights that I have so very recently won?
>
> : Ah. So what you want isn't equal rights, it's more rights for
> : women.
>
> less, these days, of law) of the continuing preponderance of ad-
> vantage for the male...?
I think you have yet to open your eyes, or listen, or in fact you are a
troll.....a womyn dressed in a man's signature.
>
> alice, it seems, sees no significance to simple numbers, such as
> the sex ratios in government and business... nor does she acknow-
> ledge relative career experience within bureaucracy, wherever it
> exists (such as police departments), generally more difficult or
> what is reported, by participants, as rampant sexism within aca-
> deme... i could go on, but you get the idea...
First one has to choose a career path, and pursue it, and be successful
at it, before one can be employed in it.....or is this foreign to you.
I get it.....you deserve it because you are a victim. Trolling,
trolling........dadum dadum dadum........
>
> advocacy means to speak for... the for is important... some hold
> women want more rights than men (not true)
I guess you must not read the posts either......trolling,
trolling...........
... some hold that the
> aim of feminism is equal rights, comprehensivly, not just in law...
>
> women, not wishing to loose rights newly gained, can not be con-
> strued as women wishing more rights simply because advocacy, in
> its broadest sense, seeks gain, not loss...
>
> --
> alan madsen - new york, n.y.
So is it Mr. Madsen or is it Ms. Madsen......alanda perhaps???????
Why not post something useful to alt.child-support????
GJP
Diana Newman wrote:
>
> Alice Victoire M Liesman wrote:
> >
> > In article <324943...@sunrem.com>, Diana Newman <di...@sunrem.com> wrote:
>
> > >In the entire written history of man, can any of you state that there was
> > >ever a time when women had equal rights? Until now, that is? Given that, why
> >
> > The Roman Republic.
>
>
> > Old Celtic, Germanic and Norse cultures, and
> > other such "barbarian" people. Native Americans. Ancient Japan.
>
> likely to view women as "equal" as any other.
>
> > responsibilities women had, the more "rights" they enjoyed. In
> > those days, women who wanted to be "equal" to men acted as such,
> > and those who wanted to stay home and raise the kids did.
>
> of the men. In other words, those women who wanted to act like men could have
> the rights of men, but those who acted like "women" lost most of thier
> rights.
>
> <snip.
>
> > up about their "rights" and act like normal people, for a change.
> > That would do more for their image.
>
Naw, you are acting like victims. I was always taught if you work real
hard you can be successful and make something of your life. This was
normal!!! But with all you victims running about demanding
entitlements, something for nothing, etc., and getting it.....where is
the incentive for us normal people? I guess we should all just become
parasites living off of others until society implodes.
Greg Palumbo
We ARE acting like people.
> WE ARE people. In fact, we are more than half of all people. To tell us to
> 'shut up' and 'act like normal people' is to deny the humanity of half the
> human race.
> >
> > But then, my opinions are only as good as theirs.
>
> I am glad.
>
> Diana
Carolyn Jean Fairman
Diana Newman <di...@sunrem.com> wrote:
>Alice Victoire M Liesman wrote:
>> Diana Newman <di...@sunrem.com> wrote:
><snip>
>>>In the entire written history of man, can any of you state that
>>>there was ever a time when women had equal rights? Until now, that
>>>is? Given that, why
>
>> Ancient Egypt. And probably many more. In general, the more
>> responsibilities women had, the more "rights" they enjoyed. In
>> those days, women who wanted to be "equal" to men acted as such,
>> and those who wanted to stay home and raise the kids did.
>
>And those who wanted to stay home and raise the kids were denied the rights
>of the men.
Yes and no. We have records of women weavers who were negotiating for
others to sell their cloth, and of those women keeping the money.
You are right that because of women being, at that time though not
currently, the ones needed to do most of the childrearing, most women
could not fill many of the male professions. They wove cloth a lot
and if they did it well enough gained some status from that.
Some women did not have children and managed to do a fair bit because
of it. In the Odyssey there is a passage where Homer writes of the
Balkans. The men were away much of the time and the women owned and
controlled the houses. The men sold and traded and the women ran the
houses and produced grain and cloth to be traded and it mostly worked
out.
This is like the structure of the Peublo Indians in the US. Women had
a lot of power in those cultures. They could reject a guest, for
example, which sounds minor but was rather important back then.
>In other words, those women who wanted to act like men could have
>the rights of men, but those who acted like "women" lost most of thier
>rights.
No, the society simply tended to be different where women had more
autonomy while still caring for the children. For references, check
out Wayland Barber's book, _Women's Work, the first 20,000 years_
[snip]
>> Sometimes it would be in the women's best advantage to just shut
>> up about their "rights" and act like normal people, for a change.
>> That would do more for their image.
>
>You mean, shut up and act like normal MALE people? We ARE acting like people.
>WE ARE people. In fact, we are more than half of all people. To tell us to
>'shut up' and 'act like normal people' is to deny the humanity of half the
>human race.
Yep. The mere idea that women have valuable ideas, that it is normal
for a human being to talk about ideas seem alien perhaps. Or wrong
only if the human is female.
If women were treated like normal people, there would be no need to
yammer on about wanting to be treated, well, as a normal human being
and respected as such.
The image I think was referred to there was one of a doormat who has
no spine and accepts being told she is not as worthy or qualified or
good at useful human things like math or whathaveyou as a mane.
No thanks.
--
| 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/
Ken Brown
GJP wrote:
> >
> > alice, it seems, sees no significance to simple numbers, such as
> > the sex ratios in government and business... nor does she acknow-
> > ledge relative career experience within bureaucracy
liberals are trying to replace our incumbant congresswoman with another
white male. I just sit and shake my head when I read the editorials in
the newspaper. The same people who were spouting the above are now
trying to oust her. Of course, then again, I think it's rather strange
that Mrs. C is held up as a feminist icon when the only noteworthy thing
she has done is to quit her job to reap the benifits of having a
husband, a white male none the less, who is holding a job that no
monority or female has even come close to getting.
Michael Smith
Alice Victoire M Liesman (avml...@acs.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
: In article <324943...@sunrem.com>, Diana Newman <di...@sunrem.com> wrote:
: >why
: The Roman Republic.
This is simply not true. Women in Rome were considered property by law
even during the Republic. However...
: Old Celtic, Germanic and Norse cultures, and
: other such "barbarian" people. Native Americans. Ancient Japan.
: Ancient Egypt. And probably many more. In general, the more
: responsibilities women had, the more "rights" they enjoyed. In
: those days, women who wanted to be "equal" to men acted as such,
: and those who wanted to stay home and raise the kids did.
: >After all, if we had left it to the
: >men, as we had for millenia, we would still be property.
: Of course if women hadn't lazily left it to the men a long time
: ago there wouldn't have been an issue.
Why place the blame for patriarchy on anyone? We have no idea really
how patriarchy evolved; the only thing we do know is that it is bad
social policy for all kinds of reasons and on all kinds of scales.
To claim that men maliciously took over or that women lazily left it
to men is just plain nonsense.
: It's hardly the men's
: fault that women became useless, and if they thought that having
: more responsibilities gave them more rights, well, it's only
: fair.
However men did *not* gain more responsabilities than women. Instead
the responsabilities became very separated. Men earned/provided a
living while women raised children and maintained a home. Both of these
are extremely heavy responsabilities and neither women nor men had a
greater burden. And yet the result was that women had equivalent
burdens to men and fewer social, political and legal freedoms.
: But then, my opinions are only as good as theirs.
Same here.
: --
: Alice V. Liesman
: avml...@acs.ucalgary.ca
: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~avmliesm/
Blessed Be,
Mike Smith
"Rise, hold fast your faith. To lie dormant is certain death."
-Slayer, "At Dawn They Sleep"
DISCLAIMER: My opinions do not necessarily, or even remotely, reflect
those of Loyola University, Chicago.
Identity withheld
I read in the paper just a few days ago that a male-only military institute
in the East bowed to pressure and started admitting women. My memory of the
article filled in "VMI" as the place.
--
Identity withheld to protect my employer
<insert large, gratuitous Sig here>
Andrew Rogers <rog...@hi.com> wrote in article <324ADF...@hi.com>...
Dave Prichard
Diana Newman <di...@sunrem.com> wrote:
>> Universal suffrage for men happened about 60 years before women. And women
>> got it with a lot less blood shed too! Until the early 1800's, in Britain,
>> men had to own property of 500 Sterling before they could vote. Care to
>> guess how many men had that money when they making pennies a week?
>
>At least suffrage for men was within thier own individual powers to gain--and
>not denied them simply because of gender. There is some justification for
>having a property ownership requirement for voting....but you notice that
>only rich MEN could vote. No matter how wealthy, a woman could not.
You really don't understand do you? The vast majority of men hadn't a hope
in hell of gaining suffrage. 500 Sterling in those times was out of reach
for all but the very few. Men had no chance at suffrage. It was not within
their reach any more than air flight was.
>
>You people really need to get your history straight. (G) The patriarchal
>system has been around a great deal longer than the Romans. Of course, two
>thousand + years since then, given that most of our written history is
>documented in this time frame, is pretty significant, wouldn't you say?
Who is our? Written histories in other societies go back considerably
further. Or don't other cultures count?
>>
>
>> Again, learn your history!! It was men primarily who fought for better
>> working conditions for women in the mills etc. It was men that fought for a
>> single family wage. It was the British railMEN that fought and died for
>> things most people take for granted today. Like workplace safety, an eight
>> hour work day. Most of the safety and work standards legislation both men
>> and women now enjoy had it's basis in the 1911 British railway strike. It
>> wasn't women facing those bayonets!!
>
>Because women weren't allowed to do the work. There WERE no British railWOMEN
>TO strike, fight and die, bub. You will notice that the rights and
>priviledges won by the British railmen did not extend to those sweatshops,
>etc. where women traditionally worked. No indeed, they did not.
Again, only slowly this time! Trade unions with the support of women,
fought to get women and children out of the work place. The single family
wage, which major international corporations now seek to abolish, aimed at
removing women from the workplace. Not for male dominance but for health
and safety reasons. The rights and privledges won by the British railmen
are the basis for the vast majority of western workplaces. When you go to
work today many of the rights you enjoy are directly a result of their
efforts and sacrifices. As stated eariler which you snipped, the first
major assault on those workplace standards in decades was the American
feminist E.R.A. legislation.
>
>Name me ONE man who died to further the cause of womens' rights. While there
>are many men who have faught to gain rights for themselves, there have been
>precious few who, historically, felt that women had any right to join in
>those fruits of victory.
How about Sgt. Earl Trowles? You wouldn't know him. A Canadian soldier he
fought an died in Europe fifty years ago so that you could have freedom of
movement, expression etc.. He wasn't anything spectacular, a local boy, who
was one of thousands of local boys from many countries who never came back.
Our world is better for them.
>
><snip>
>
>Personally?
>
>I haven't worked in a job such as that for over twenty years. However, at
>that time I could tell you why there weren't more women; it was because the
>harrassment they got was too hard to handle. They also simply weren't hired.
>Odd how that works.
>
Hmm... perhaps you could offer an opinion why I have yet to see a female
garbage collector come to the house in the last 20 years. Or why there
seems to be a complete lack of females on the transit maintance crews.
Would be because it's nasty work would it?
Dave
GJP
Ken Brown wrote:
>
> GJP wrote:
> > >
Mr. Brown,
Please get your quotes correct. Mr......err.....Ms. Madsen wrote that.
My own experience in government in
Washingtonm D.C. for 7 years suggested that if you were not a minority,
and preferably female, you had little chance of obtaining a FTE....but
they would hire you on contract off the books as it were.
Greg Palumbo
David B. Greene
avml...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Alice Victoire M Liesman) wrote:
>In article <324943...@sunrem.com>, Diana Newman <di...@sunrem.com> wrote:
>>
>>yes. As a woman, why on earth should I support ANYTHING that
>>looks like it would remove from me rights that I have so very
>>recently won?
>Ah. So what you want isn't equal rights, it's more rights for
>women.
>>In the entire written history of man, can any of you state that
>>there was ever a time when women had equal rights? Until now,
>>that is? Given that, why
>The Roman Republic. Old Celtic, Germanic and Norse cultures, and
>other such "barbarian" people. Native Americans. Ancient Japan.
>Ancient Egypt. And probably many more. In general, the more
>responsibilities women had, the more "rights" they enjoyed. In
>those days, women who wanted to be "equal" to men acted as such,
>and those who wanted to stay home and raise the kids did.
Well for the most part, if what you say is true, the pagans were much more
equitable with the "fairer sex" than were the other Western cultures. But
I question your extension of that equity to the ancient Japanese and Native
American cultures. But pagans have often been big on the "Queen Bee" theory
of religion to the point of celebrating the "Godess" and, for those of an
environmental bent, her twin sister, Gaia, the metaphorical personification
of the Sierra Club.
>In the course of time, rich women delegated more and more of
>their responsibilities to servants and slaves, becoming more and
>more useless and incapable of anything but whining, ordering and
>breeding. Rich men, who happened to be the ones who made the
>laws, saw that their women were incompetent fools, and made the
>law accordingly, for the common good. At least in the west.
So in the West this was a good thing? And the women brought it upon
themselves?
Perhaps the key lies in religion rather than in law. Most Western
religions treated women as inferior. Jesus was the exception and he
brought a new dignity to women. But after he left it was not too long
before the church returned to business as usual teaching the "traditions
of men" instead of the "commandments of God." One wonders, however, how
the pagans lost influence over the course of Western civilization with all
those energetic and hard working women on their side. At least in modern
Israel, the women are equal enough with men to march into battle.
>As for the present, women officially have the same rights as men,
>but in practice they have more, which doesn't keep them from
>whining for more respect they don't necessarily deserve.
>>After all, if we had left it to the
>>men, as we had for millenia, we would still be property.
>Of course if women hadn't lazily left it to the men a long time
>ago there wouldn't have been an issue. It's hardly the men's
>fault that women became useless, and if they thought that having
>more responsibilities gave them more rights, well, it's only
>fair.
>>So yes. We fight for things that will be to our advantage, and resist
>> things that will not.
>Sometimes it would be in the women's best advantage to just shut
>up about their "rights" and act like normal people, for a change.
>That would do more for their image.
>But then, my opinions are only as good as theirs.
true enough ...
GJP
Ken Brown wrote:
>
> GJP wrote:
> >
> > Ken Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > GJP wrote:
> > > > >
> >
> > Mr. Brown,
> > Please get your quotes correct. Mr......err.....Ms. Madsen wrote that.
> > My own experience in government in
> > Washingtonm D.C. for 7 years suggested that if you were not a minority,
> > and preferably female, you had little chance of obtaining a FTE....but
> > they would hire you on contract off the books as it were.
> >
> > Greg Palumbo
> >
> deleting what you wrote. I am sorry for any and all implications and
> character slights which my oversight may have caused. I just think its
> funny that several long time feminists, around where I live, who have
> complained about womens underpresentation in government are having fits
> that we have a female republican congresswoman whom they can't control
> and are trying to replace her.
Now that is funny <g>. I guess Republicans are not quite the socialists
those Democrats are.
Greg Palumbo
Ken Brown
Mark Evans
James Buster (bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com) wrote:
: In article <52dskd$8...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>,
: Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
: >Women who kill after years of abuse are often charged with murder.
:
: As they should be. Killing somebody who's beating you *right now* is
: self-defense. Killing somebody who is asleep on the couch is *not*, and
: never should have been, self-defense.
Killing somone then (bogusly) claiming that they were beating
is murder.
Mark Evans
Stephen La Joie (laj...@eskimo.com) wrote:
: Diana Newman wrote:
: >
: > David B. Greene wrote:
: > <snip>
: > >
: > > Ken, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The whole thing about equal
: > > rights for the sexes is that feminists support them when women have something
: > > to gain but opposes them when it costs them anything in return.
: > I'd say that's a pretty fair statement of how advocacy works, yes. As a
: > woman, why on earth should I support ANYTHING that looks like it would
: > remove from me rights that I have so very recently won?
: > literally the chattel of thier husbands (let's not forget the "rule of
: > thier talents and eduction than men. My grandmother remembered wanting badly
: > to be a doctor---and being refused admission to every single medical school
: > to which she applied. Men in her college classes who were far less qualified
: > academically were accepted at Harvard, and Johns Hopkins.....Grandma wasn't
: > even allowed to vote.
:
: [snip]
:
: The ol' "Grandpa abused Grandma, so YOU owe ME" line of reasoning. Man, this
: gets really old. It relies on "two wrongs DO make a right" sort of thinking.
I did once ask my Italian friend about making restitutions for the little
matter of a 400 year occupation about 2,000 years ago....
Mitchell Holman
} Why not, if a woman chooses to kill an abuser, say after a
}confrontional setting, where the man is asleep or incapacitated,
}why not a lesser charge than murder?
The law in all states would define the above a *premediated*
killing. That is to say, murder.
Even the most ardent champions of battered women (to my
limited knowledge) are not trying to have the definitions of
murder changed, so much as allow for Battered Wife Syndrome
to be acceptable defense to murder. And failing that, a subset
of temporary insanity (the defense raised in the Burning Bed
case).
}}The fact is few women kill. Most who do have been battered.
I haven't seen any stats that even address this issue. Are
there any that you know of?
} If women are getting shorter sentences for murder, I would suggest
}that they probably do because they should not have been charged
}with murder in the first place.
Again there are no stats on this. Further, why would a jury
convict a woman of murder if they thought she should not have
have been charged with murder in the first place?
}> Well, the statistics *do* blow holes in the "women get longer
}> sentences than men" claim.
}>
}I disagree. I think that you could infer that from reading the raw
}data, but it would take a comprehensive study to prove it either way.
If there is a comphrehensive study that shows women get
longer sentences when all the raw data shows just the opposite,
I would love to see it.
Mitchell Holman
"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access
to the mainstream of society." -Rush Limbaugh, "See, I Told You So"
Mark Evans
Diana Newman (di...@sunrem.com) wrote:
: David B. Greene wrote:
: <snip>
: >
: > Ken, I think you have hit the nail on the head. The whole thing about equal
: > rights for the sexes is that feminists support them when women have something
: > to gain but opposes them when it costs them anything in return.
:
: I'd say that's a pretty fair statement of how advocacy works, yes. As a
: woman, why on earth should I support ANYTHING that looks like it would
: remove from me rights that I have so very recently won?
:
: After all, it isn't all THAT long ago that women couldn't vote, were
What proportion of women now alive have been denyed the vote becuase of
their gender.
: literally the chattel of thier husbands (let's not forget the "rule of
: thumb") and were expected to be content with considerably less ability to use
The "rule of thumb" is a modern American myth, you make a very poor case
when you resort to fiction.
: thier talents and eduction than men. My grandmother remembered wanting badly
: to be a doctor---and being refused admission to every single medical school
: to which she applied. Men in her college classes who were far less qualified
: academically were accepted at Harvard, and Johns Hopkins.....Grandma wasn't
: even allowed to vote.
:
: In the entire written history of man, can any of you state that there was
Small (well actually a very big one) written history is very patchy and
often completly absent.
: ever a time when women had equal rights? Until now, that is? Given that, why
: wouldn't you expect us to be extremely protective of everything we have
: gained? We know far too well that gains can also be lost, easily and
: quickly.
:
: Please realize that there are women alive who can remember not being allowed
: to vote, simply because of thier gender. Realize also that if it hadn't been
With in modern history there are many cases of political systems where
only a tiny minority of the population have any vote.
: for extremist feminists who shouted too loudly and asked for too much, we
: wouldn't have anything at all, even now. After all, if we had left it to the
Some historians belive that the actions of such groups as the "suffrugets"
may well have prevented for a time women to be able to vote.
: men, as we had for millenia, we would still be property. You guys DID have
What is a slave, a surf?, a plebeian? For centuries (possibly millenia, but we
simply don't have the documentation) the vast majority of human populations
(REGARDLESS of gender) were for all practical purposes "property" of
a small minority.
: plenty of time to provide equal rights that wouldn't have caused you extreme
Nonsense. You are confusing gender with social class.
: pain---it's your own fault that we had to go adversarial on you. I'm not all
: that old, guys--but I remember quite well being passed over for promotion in
: favor of young men who were almost immediately drafted, and having to
And you don't consider NOT being conscripted into being cannon fodder some
form of privilege???
And if you ask you will find plenty of MEN in the situation of being unfairly
passed over. However unlike you they do not have something to point at to
show another that they are being treated unfairly.
: I get bemused when I read here about how men are clobbered in divorces.
: Personally, I have found that NOT to be true. The studies I have read seem to
: bear my personal experiences out; men's standard of living stays the same or
: goes up, and the wive's goes down, almost every time. That hardly indicates
This is exactly what SHOULD happen when the marriage had only a husband working,
BTW.
GJP
mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
>
> In article <324B1E...@uokhsc.edu>, GJP <gregory...@uokhsc.edu> writes:
>
> >I was always taught if you work real hard you can be successful and
> >make something of your life.
>
>
> And I bet you believed it too!
But only until I found how the real marketplace works....and
government:(. But that still does give excuse for those who are
parasites (nonproducers but breeders) from living off the work of
others. And yes at an early age I realized genetics played a major part
in defining ones limitations or horizons.
Greg Palumbo
>
> I want to hear this definition of successful.
>
> If you don't work (and study) hard, you have precious little to
> complain about (aside from the boss's neighbor's son who twiddles
> his thumbs half the day and still gets raises) but that doesn't
> mean you are going to go anywhere if you DO work hard.
>
> 50% of getting to the Olympics is pure genetic luck
> another 20% is being in a position to make use of that potential
> and 30% is blood, sweat and tears.
>
> Once there, 60% of getting a medal at the Olympics is the blood,
> sweat and tears that you shed that week, 20% is the blood,
> sweat and tears that you shed on the way there, 10% is the luck of
> weather, viruses, etc., and 10% is genetics.
>
> (the real %ages are probably something a bit different but I think the
> thinking readers understand what I am getting at)
>
> Whether you like it or not real discrimination against women goes
> on today. You can argue about whether the gov't should do something
> about it but the assumptions and attitude behind your line above
> and your posts in general are ... lacking.
>
> >Greg Palumbo
mor...@d0niu3.fnal.gov
>I was always taught if you work real hard you can be successful and
>make something of your life.
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!
And I bet you believed it too!
I want to hear this definition of successful.
Gail Thaler
hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>In article <52etil$2...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>, Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>
>} Why not, if a woman chooses to kill an abuser, say after a
>}confrontional setting, where the man is asleep or incapacitated,
>}why not a lesser charge than murder?
>
>
> The law in all states would define the above a *premediated*
> killing. That is to say, murder.
>
> Even the most ardent champions of battered women (to my
> limited knowledge) are not trying to have the definitions of
> murder changed, so much as allow for Battered Wife Syndrome
> to be acceptable defense to murder. And failing that, a subset
> of temporary insanity (the defense raised in the Burning Bed
> case).
>
>}}The fact is few women kill. Most who do have been battered.
>
>
> I haven't seen any stats that even address this issue. Are
> there any that you know of?
>
It's from the book, Women Who Kill. She speculates 2/3 may have
been battered.
>} If women are getting shorter sentences for murder, I would suggest
>}that they probably do because they should not have been charged
>}with murder in the first place.
>
> Again there are no stats on this. Further, why would a jury
> convict a woman of murder if they thought she should not have
> have been charged with murder in the first place?
>
Well, many might not have gone to trial. It would be interesting
to see how many plead guilty for one reason or another. That
could also be a reason for shorter sentences.
>}> Well, the statistics *do* blow holes in the "women get longer
>}> sentences than men" claim.
>}>
>}I disagree. I think that you could infer that from reading the raw
>}data, but it would take a comprehensive study to prove it either way.
>
>
> If there is a comphrehensive study that shows women get
> longer sentences when all the raw data shows just the opposite,
> I would love to see it.
>
There's a great criminal justice page called Cecil Greek's Criminal
Justice Page. I'll check it out to see if it has anything.
Zenoink
In <52hb13$f...@news0-alterdial.uu.net> Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com>
writes:
>
>SNIPS
>
>> Mitchell Holman
>>
>> "Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier
access
>> to the mainstream of society." -Rush Limbaugh, "See, I Told You So"
Mitchell, just interested in your signature quote. I am glad to see
that at least Limbaugh knows that even as an unattractive man he
already got access to the mainstream.
Kay
Alan Madsen
GJP (gregory...@uokhsc.edu) wrote:
: Ken Brown wrote:
: Mr. Brown,
: Please get your quotes correct. Mr......err.....Ms. Madsen wrote that.
: My own experience in government in Washingtonm D.C. for 7 years suggested
: that if you were not a minority, and preferably female, you had little
: chance of obtaining a FTE....but they would hire you on contract off the
: books as it were.
: Greg Palumbo
why greg, you've just let something be known about yourself
that, knew you more, you would quickly change for shame...
as for your d.c. experience (accepting it without question)
does this, in some way, change the sexual makeup of congress,
or the executive, or the judicary, or any of the related bureau-
cracys...?
i do not think you would care to claim that (even thought that
was your response to my observation)...
: > > > alice, it seems, sees no significance to simple numbers, such as
: > > > the sex ratios in government and business... nor does she acknow-
: > > > ledge relative career experience within bureaucracy
: > Had to laugh at this. I am from a congressional district where the
: > liberals are trying to replace our incumbant congresswoman with another
: > white male. I just sit and shake my head when I read the editorials in
<snip>
did ken (who had to laugh (?)), wish to demonstrate a confusion
of the merit of a particular female with the sexual make-up of
congress...?
i know nothing about this congresswoman, but what i do know is
that as there are men who are feminists, there are women only too
happy to either be a trojan horse for political reasons or oppor-
tunitistic to the point of completly materialistic ego centricity,
and that there are anti-feminists only too happy to forward these
people...
when they are discovered, they are removed if possible...
--
mor...@d0niu3.fnal.gov
ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
>: bit...@seal.engr.sgi.com (James Buster) writes:
>: >Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>:
>: >>Women who kill after years of abuse are often charged with murder.
>: >
>: >As they should be. Killing somebody who's beating you *right now* is
>: >self-defense. Killing somebody who is asleep on the couch is *not*, and
>: >never should have been, self-defense.
>: How do you feel about Israel launching raids into Southern Lebanon
>: after being attacked from there?
>
>So can they simply pick up their country and move it?
Very good, and a woman can move...
but the odds of being murdered go UP when an abused woman moves out,
so now what?
Move to another state away from what friends and family you have,
at a time of great duress when you need help,and hope he doesn't
track you down?
FWIW, I am very uncomfortable with calling the premeditated killing of
a sleeping person self-defense, but there ARE extenuating circumstances.
Calling it murder 1 and sentencing hir to death or life w/o parole
just doesn't cut it in the justice department for me.
If a significant risk can be shown perhaps the offending spouse can
be forced to wear a cell phone that calls the police when sie comes
with in a certain distance of the threatened spouse.
I don't have the answers.
Robert
Mark Evans
David B. Greene (da...@halcyon.com) wrote:
: vic...@ix.netcom.com (Czulie) wrote:
:
: >In that case I'm sure you won't mind sharing your restrooms with us
: >will you?
:
: Hell, they already take 'em over when they need too. Ever been to a busy
: department store?
Nightclubs are other examples where the "women's" and "peoples" toilet
facilities can be seen in action.
Mark Evans
Mark Evans
Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
: hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
: >In article <52dskd$8...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>, Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
: >
: >
: >}On the other hand, some have suggested that women often are overcharged.
: >}That is that most of the so-called murder cases are actually self-
: >}defense cases. Some suggest that the definition of self-defense is
: >}charged with murder.
: >
: > If women choose to kill an abuser in a nonconfrontational setting
: > rather than just leave, then murder *is* the proper charge, under the
: > law. And women who kill during a fight are usually presumed to
: > acting in self defense, and are only charged with manslaughter, if
: > they are charged with anything at all.
: >
: chooses to kill an abuser, say after a confrontional setting,
: where the man is asleep or incapacitated, why not a lesser charge
How about the EQUAL number of abused men?
Guess you'd have a problem with calling a man who killed
the wife who abused him something other than murder.
Incidence of violence in monogamous relationships is
gender neutral.
Mark Evans
Alice Victoire M Liesman (avml...@acs.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
: In article <324943...@sunrem.com>, Diana Newman <di...@sunrem.com> wrote:
: >I'd say that's a pretty fair statement of how advocacy works, yes. As a
: >woman, why on earth should I support ANYTHING that looks like it would
: >remove from me rights that I have so very recently won?
:
: women.
:
: >In the entire written history of man, can any of you state that there was
:
: other such "barbarian" people. Native Americans. Ancient Japan.
: Ancient Egypt. And probably many more. In general, the more
: responsibilities women had, the more "rights" they enjoyed. In
Was this any different from a man in the same culture. i.e. if
he wanted "rights" he would have to accept the "responsibilities"
that went with them.
: those days, women who wanted to be "equal" to men acted as such,
: and those who wanted to stay home and raise the kids did.
:
: In the course of time, rich women delegated more and more of
: their responsibilities to servants and slaves, becoming more and
: more useless and incapable of anything but whining, ordering and
: breeding. Rich men, who happened to be the ones who made the
: laws, saw that their women were incompetent fools, and made the
: law accordingly, for the common good. At least in the west.
Sounds like you are saying that they made the laws according to
what they were observing amongst women of (only) their own class.
But then would they often look at any people outside their
own class.
David B. Greene
hol...@cyberramp.net says...
Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>
>
>}On the other hand, some have suggested that women often are overcharged.
>}That is that most of the so-called murder cases are actually self-
>}defense cases. Some suggest that the definition of self-defense is
>}skewed toward men. Women who kill after years of abuse are often
>}charged with murder.
>
> If women choose to kill an abuser in a nonconfrontational setting
> rather than just leave, then murder *is* the proper charge, under the
> law. And women who kill during a fight are usually presumed to
> acting in self defense, and are only charged with manslaughter, if
> they are charged with anything at all.
>
>
Is that a companion volume to "Women Who Love Too Much"?
J R Molloy
> :
> : The ol' "Grandpa abused Grandma, so YOU owe ME" line of reasoning. Man,
this
> : gets really old. It relies on "two wrongs DO make a right" sort of
thinking.
>
> I did once ask my Italian friend about making restitutions for the little
> matter of a 400 year occupation about 2,000 years ago....
>
Yes, it sure does get old. When do you suppose men will get tired enough of
this old feminazi crap and begin to take back the truth?
Cheers,
JRMolloy
G. Mark Stewart
: >
: >}On the other hand, some have suggested that women often are overcharged.
[...]
: The fact is few women kill. Most who do have been battered. If
: women are getting shorter sentences for murder, I would suggest
: that they probably do because they should not have been charged
: with murder in the first place.
: Self-defense laws were after all were written by male legislators
: to protect their interests.
Obviously.
Women that are sentenced tend to be innocent victims of males.
That's why women don't commit crimes unless forced to by a male.
Still don't know why they should be allowed to vote with that kind
of lack of self-determination.
Mitchell Holman
In article <52dsum$8...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>, Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
}>
}>
}> There are women-only CPA groups, women-only realtor groups,
}> womens' bar associations, women's gardening clubs, women's
}> political forums, and associations of women law students, med students,
}> women journalism students, and women psychiatrists. All of which
}> exclude men, all of which are legal.
}
}They'd be legal for men too.
Nope. White males remain the only group against which is it
is permissable to discriminate under federal law. As the very
existence of the above groups demonstrates.
}> But if men form a professional group or association and exclude
}> women, guess what the result would be? Besides a successful
}> lawsuit, that is........
}>
}Not if they are voluntary and not public or quasi-public.
}
}Most of the women's groups you mention sprang up because women
}were discriminated in those professions. There are also Asian
}Societies, African-American societies, Hispanic societies. It's
}the reason you have a Black Caucus and Women's Caucus in Congress
}but not a White Caucus.
OK, now we have established that there *is* legal discrimination
against white males. So much for "equality before the law".
Next question: How much discrimination are we willing to tolerate
in order show that discrimination is wrong?
Mitchell Holman
"The essence of Christianity is told us in the Garden of Eden story.
The fruit that was forbidden was on the tree of knowledge. The subtext
is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what
was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just keep
your fucking mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions"
-- Frank Zappa, April 1993 --
Dorothy Marker
On 27 Sep 1996 19:47:47 GMT, Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>>In article <52etil$2...@news0-alterdial.uu.net>, Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>>
>>} Why not, if a woman chooses to kill an abuser, say after a
>>}confrontional setting, where the man is asleep or incapacitated,
>>}why not a lesser charge than murder?
>>
>>
>> The law in all states would define the above a *premediated*
>> killing. That is to say, murder.
>>
>> Even the most ardent champions of battered women (to my
>> limited knowledge) are not trying to have the definitions of
>> murder changed, so much as allow for Battered Wife Syndrome
>> to be acceptable defense to murder. And failing that, a subset
>> of temporary insanity (the defense raised in the Burning Bed
>> case).
>>
>I may go for that.
>
>>}}The fact is few women kill. Most who do have been battered.
>>
>>
>> I haven't seen any stats that even address this issue. Are
>> there any that you know of?
>>
>It's from the book, Women Who Kill. She speculates 2/3 may have
>been battered.
>
>>} If women are getting shorter sentences for murder, I would suggest
>>}that they probably do because they should not have been charged
>>}with murder in the first place.
>>
>> Again there are no stats on this. Further, why would a jury
>> convict a woman of murder if they thought she should not have
>> have been charged with murder in the first place?
>>
>Well, many might not have gone to trial. It would be interesting
>to see how many plead guilty for one reason or another. That
>could also be a reason for shorter sentences.
>
>
>>}> Well, the statistics *do* blow holes in the "women get longer
>>}> sentences than men" claim.
>>}>
>>}I disagree. I think that you could infer that from reading the raw
>>}data, but it would take a comprehensive study to prove it either way.
>>
>>
>> If there is a comphrehensive study that shows women get
>> longer sentences when all the raw data shows just the opposite,
>> I would love to see it.
>>
>There's a great criminal justice page called Cecil Greek's Criminal
>Justice Page. I'll check it out to see if it has anything.
It does. It links into the Bureau of Justice stats for prison
sentences and it only shows a four year difference with (average)
women's sentences and men's sentences. But most women are first
offenders and they commit more non-violent crimes crimes.
Dorothy Marker
>
>> Mitchell Holman
>>
>> "Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access
>> to the mainstream of society." -Rush Limbaugh, "See, I Told You So"
And Rush Limbaugh built his career from people who are too
lazy (not stupid because that is an excuse) to think for themselves.
-me
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ken Brown
the situation. Well I take that back your doing the same thing within
this post. Its a classic comic/ironic situation and the fact that you
fail to see it makes it more so. I keep getting this picture in my
mind of a scene from a Monty Python's The Holy Grail.
Fade in
A group of people like you dressed up in armor surrounding the
walls of congress.
"Come on womyn lets attack the walls of female congressional
disparity" one of you yell.
Panaramic shot of you charging ahead getting closer and closer
to your goal.
Close-up of one of you speaking. Realization spreading across
your face. "You know we still may not get our way"
Panaramic shot again. Everyone lets out a colective "oops"
then starts running the other direction yelling out. "Run
away. Run away. Run away."
> i know nothing about this congresswoman, but what i do know is
> that as there are men who are feminists, there are women only too
> happy to either be a trojan horse for political reasons or oppor-
> tunitistic to the point of completly materialistic ego centricity,
> and that there are anti-feminists only too happy to forward these
> people...
>
> when they are discovered, they are removed if possible...
>
Oh and I suppose you get to decide who is a "good" woman and who is a
"bad" woman and give them positions of power accordingly. Nope no male
power trips going on here are there. (more irony but I doubt you'll get
it)
G. Mark Stewart
When the real loser chicks decide they'd rather get asked out than whine.
GJP
ROTFLMAO!!!!!! Thats him, thats him!! Or maybe the cave of the killer
rabbits? Running....probably not....but envision a fast waddle. Still
LOL.
Greg Palumbo
Alan Madsen
G. Mark Stewart (gm...@grayfox.svs.com) wrote:
: J R Molloy (jrmo...@ddt.net) wrote:
: : > : The ol' "Grandpa abused Grandma, so YOU owe ME" line of reasoning.
: : > : Man, this gets really old. It relies on "two wrongs DO make a right"
: : > : sort of thinking. I did once ask my Italian friend about making
: : > : restitutions for the little matter of a 400 year occupation about
: : > : 2,000 years ago....
: : Yes, it sure does get old. When do you suppose men will get tired enough
: : of this old feminazi crap and begin to take back the truth?
before some males can "take back the truth", they will need learn to
recoginse it; once done, they will need to move to it...
appropriating truth is not as easy as doing so with tactic and slogan...
: When the real loser chicks decide they'd rather get asked out than whine.
mockery...?
G. Mark Stewart
Karl B
It's not difficult to understand Diana'a argument, and gives meaning to
the quotation "There is no oppressor like the oppressed". She is
luxuriating in the success of the womens movement of 20-30 years ago,
enjoying a little vindictive relish on the reversal of power roles, but
she's missing that today the movement is hell bent on destroying the
intellectual foundation that it was built on.
Today the midgets that are standing on her, and her sisters, shoulders
are announcing to the world that a woman's place is with her child, and
the man's place is at work earning the child support. When the men who
supported the feminist/humanist movement of the 60's-70's, like myself,
are prevented from having quantity time with our children, and forced
into the provider only role of our fathers, we will withdraw our support
for workplace equity. Withdrawal of even tacit support, means at least
tacit opposition. Insidious and hard to fight, ask any woman of Diana'a
generation. Women will be again discriminated against at work where and
when possible. I don't want this to be the case, I am seeking to
prevent it. I am merely the messenger, it is a forseeable effect.
Another effect that requires no forsight, because it's happening now, is
that men are refusing to get married in growing numbers. Why should
they, the marriage contract offers them no protection. Yes, if they
father a child they will be subject to current family law. But what is
lost are the explicit and implicit agreements that form the institution
of marriage. That they will not father children elsewhere and dilute
their ability to be a parenting partner, that they are willing
participants in an exclusive relationship, willing to pool their
fortunes for better or worse, willing to remain supportive in sickness
as in health...in short all the things we still look for in marriage. =
The intelligent among the leadership of today's woman need to take up
the responsibility that comes along with their empowerment. Put a stop
to the emotional carnage in the family courts, where "feminist" judges
are separating men from their children, and forcing "traditional" roles
on us all. Not to mention the behavioral decay that sets in when child
theft and slavery become accepted, and expected, social roles.
Oppression
You may try but you can never imagine what it is to have a man's form of
genius in you, and to suffer the slavery of being a girl.
George Eliot (1819-80), English novelist, editor. Deronda's mother, in
Daniel Deronda, bk. 7, ch. 51 (1874-76).
The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia
University Press. Copyright =A9 1993 by Columbia University Press. All
rights reserved.
Caedmon recordings reproduced by arrangement with Harper Collins
Publishers.
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <324DCF...@cuix.pscu.com> Karl B <ka...@cuix.pscu.com> writes:
>
(edit)
When the men who>supported the feminist/humanist movement of the
60's-70's, like myself,>are prevented from having quantity time with
our children, and forced>into the provider only role of our fathers, we
will withdraw our support>for workplace equity.
-----
Whatever makes you think that your support is worth much? Women
have already made many improvements in their ability to work
outside the home to earn money. My job, for example, along with
my part time business and my degrees don't depend upon your
support. There are also many men who do support women in their
quest for equal opportunity...these men are often the husbands,
fathers, and sons of the women they support.
------
Withdrawal of even tacit support, means at least>tacit opposition.
Insidious and hard to fight, ask any woman of Diana'a>generation.
Women will be again discriminated against at work where and>when
possible. I don't want this to be the case, I am seeking to
>prevent it. I am merely the messenger, it is a forseeable effect.
-----
Women already feel the pinch of tacit opposition; that has never
changed except in areas where women are now totally accepted. Men
will not totally accept women in the workplace until more women
start their own businesses and start calling the shots.
------
>
>Another effect that requires no forsight, because it's happening now,
is>that men are refusing to get married in growing numbers. Why should
>they, the marriage contract offers them no protection. Yes, if they
>father a child they will be subject to current family law. But what
is>lost are the explicit and implicit agreements that form the
institution>of marriage.
-----
What I have seen is that both genders are reluctant to marry. I
knew a woman who was 26 and unmarried, and seeking a husband. When
she was about 32 I talked to her again about this...by the time she
was 32 she was very, very happy to be unmarried, and had decided
that she didn't want to ever marry. Men and women may have
different reasons for waiting, but it seems fairly clear that
society is changing from the family as the basic unit to the indivi
dual as the basic unit. To me, this seems a good thing.
-----
That they will not father children elsewhere and dilute
>their ability to be a parenting partner, that they are willing
>participants in an exclusive relationship, willing to pool their
>fortunes for better or worse, willing to remain supportive in sickness
>as in health...in short all the things we still look for in marriage.
-----
I'm not sure I'd want a husband to be there in sickness.
I saw a news show last night about a widower who had convinced his
sickly wife to kill herself. Perhaps it is safer to die in the
arms of one's children or friends. :]
------
=
>
>
>The intelligent among the leadership of today's woman need to take up
>the responsibility that comes along with their empowerment. Put a
stop>to the emotional carnage in the family courts, where "feminist"
judges>are separating men from their children, and forcing"traditional"
roles>on us all. Not to mention the behavioral decay that sets in when
child>theft and slavery become accepted, and expected, social roles.
------
The theft of children is reprehensible...yes, I've seen the facts
but haven't read the case. As for the emotional carnage in family
court, I don't think any of us have a remedy for that! When a
family breaks in two there's no way that someone doesn't walk away
scared; all we can do is try to make sure that the someone isn't
the child....at least not more than necessary.
>
>
>Lefty
phyr...@usa.net
hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>In article <324943...@sunrem.com>, Diana Newman <di...@sunrem.com> wrote:
>}
>}In the entire written history of man, can any of you state that there was
>}ever a time when women had equal rights?
> In the entire history of man, can you cite an instance where women
> were drafted to defend the country in battle, and men got to stay home
> just because they were men?
That's a non-sequitor unless you were trying to agree, saying no,
there never was a time of equal rights?
>} I remember quite well being passed over for promotion in
>}favor of young men who were almost immediately drafted, and having to
>}personally train the replacements.
> Do you consider it fair that men got drafted and all you had to
> do was keep your job and train a replacement or two?
Personally, I think if men are drafted women should be too. But do
you think it's fair? Do you want women right along side you in the
military?
>}I get bemused when I read here about how men are clobbered in divorces.
>}Personally, I have found that NOT to be true. The studies I have read seem to
>}bear my personal experiences out; men's standard of living stays the same or
>}goes up, and the wive's goes down, almost every time. That hardly indicates
>}to me that the men suffer all that much *in comparison* to the women. Divorce
>}destroys both of them, period. As for custody of the children; the solution
>}seems simple enough to me; do what's best for the CHILDREN, and forget about
>}the 'rights' of the parents. The children are the only innocent parties in
>}almost any divorce, after all.
Mitchell Holman
This is a new one on me. Where are you seeing unisex bathrooms for
men and a separate one for women?
PS: Texas passed a law last year that required all stadiums and
concert halls to have twice as many restroom facilities for women
as men. Which is OK as far as that goes, but they gave it the Orwellian
name of "Potty Parity".
Mitchell Holman
"The earth revolves around the sun. But ask most
humans, they'll say it revolves around them."
Dick Soloman, Third Rock from the Sun
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <52l4n4$6...@newshost.cyberramp.net> hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell
Holman) writes:
>
> PS: Texas passed a law last year that required all stadiums and
> concert halls to have twice as many restroom facilities for women
> as men. Which is OK as far as that goes, but they gave it the
Orwellian name of "Potty Parity".
>
>
> Mitchell Holman
-----
So, what's wrong with that? If women are human and their bathroom
needs are a bit different, what's wrong with giving them more bath-
rooms to provide "parity"? Of course, in order to make it "fair"
we do have to show that women are deserving of the same human
rights that men enjoy. It would seem that in issues related to
the water closet, that women may, indeed be dis-similarly situated.
Lefty
Enemy Of The People
kl...@neosoft.com wrote:
: >
: > On Mon, 30 Sep 96 02:08:27 GMT, hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman)
: > wrote:
: >
: > >In article <52lo83$o...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
: lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
: > >}In <52l4n4$6...@newshost.cyberramp.net> hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell
: > >}Holman) writes:
: > >}
: > >}>
: > >}> PS: Texas passed a law last year that required all stadiums and
: > >}> concert halls to have twice as many restroom facilities for women
: > >}> as men. Which is OK as far as that goes, but they gave it the
: > >}Orwellian name of "Potty Parity".
: > >}>
: > >}>
: > >}> Mitchell Holman
: > >}
: > >} -----
: > >} So, what's wrong with that? If women are human and their bathroom
: > >} needs are a bit different, what's wrong with giving them more bath-
: > >} rooms to provide "parity"?
: > >
: > > Because giving one group more of something than the other is
: > > not parity. There may be good reasons to allocate different resources
: > > among groups, but such actions do not amount to parity. If you want
: > > label it as justifiable inequality or something, that is fine. But it
: *does*
: > > stretch the use of the word "parity" to decribe a %100 difference in
: > > resources.....
: > >
: > >
: > >
: > >
: > > Mitchell Holman
: > >
: > > "My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy,
: > > mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away
: > > from a church as you can."
: > > -- Frank Zappa --
: > >
: >
: > And besides all that, it strains *my* poor brain to understand how
: > even "structural" differences could justify anything other than the
: > following little equation:
: >
: > one potty = one body
: >
: > What could be simpler? Or fairer?
: >
: > ron
Yeah, but during the seventh inning stretch, the number on beer bloated men
able to simultaniously use a single trough is unlimited.
EOTP
Patrick Tang
Karl B wrote:
>
> It's not difficult to understand Diana'a argument, and gives meaning to
> the quotation "There is no oppressor like the oppressed". She is
> luxuriating in the success of the womens movement of 20-30 years ago,
> enjoying a little vindictive relish on the reversal of power roles, but
> she's missing that today the movement is hell bent on destroying the
> intellectual foundation that it was built on.
>
Agree with what you posted. And we are seeing another cultureal
revolution happening again.
patrick tang
PS Forget about Lefty, she is missing your Righty, not all there.
Mark Nobles
[Newsgroup list trimmed, but still too long.]
In article <1996Sep26.1...@atl.com>, da...@halcyon.com (David B.
Greene) wrote:
> vic...@ix.netcom.com (Czulie) says:
> >mg65...@toledo.emi.net (Mike Ganopoulos) wrote:
> >|Diana Newman (di...@sunrem.com) wrote:
> >|:
[snip]
> >Too bad it's such a tough business...two different prices quoted on
> >the same vehicle to different genders is dumb, dumb, dumb...Why is he
> >willing to deal with a man but not with a woman. Fortunately women
> >have learned the lesson here and are walking away from idiots like
> >this...leaving them in the dust with their unsold cars.
Gosh, are all car salesmen men? Where are the women clamoring for equal
treatment to break into that highly respected and lucrative profession? Or
do women selling cars act the same way?
[snip]
> Of course there is a female sucker born every minute, they marry men
> don't they?
No sexism here.
Mitchell Holman
kl...@neosoft.com
>In article <52lo83$o...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
kl...@neosoft.com
On Sun, 29 Sep 1996 22:58:57 -0400, Enemy Of The People
<for...@ibm.net> wrote:
>kl...@neosoft.com wrote:
>: >
>: > On Mon, 30 Sep 96 02:08:27 GMT, hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman)
>Yeah, but during the seventh inning stretch, the number on beer bloated men
>able to simultaniously use a single trough is unlimited.
>
>EOTP
"Unlimited"? I think not.... But you *do* have a point. In this
culture, we don't seem to have a prohibition for men against
semi-public (ie., within the confines of the "mens" room) micturition.
This makes those urinals *much* more efficient than the stalls.
In the interest of "parity", it should be entirely feasible to design
and build similarly efficient semi-public (ie., within the confines of
the "womens" room) facilities for communal "sitting".
I can visualize it all now... Left is sitting right *there*, second
from the right....
Ron
Jok...@no.mail
kl...@neosoft.com wrote:
>ron
OK Ron. You're on. A race... you against the clock. Dress and pee
as usual. Time it. Then put on a dress, panties, pantyhose, hey,
maybe a girdle, carry a purse. Cover the stool with paper, because
you're going to sit for this one. Pee. Check the clock. Now which
bathroom is likely to process the most people? The one where the
people have interior plumbing and inconvenient garmets, or the one
where they can whip it and zip and exit?
kl...@neosoft.com
Question:
If women (or men, either, for that matter...) insist on wearing
"inconvenient" garments, why should it be the responsibility of men
(or women, either, for that matter...) or of society at large to pay
the penalty for their lack of common sense?
I say "Redesign that clothing..."
Ron
>
Jok...@no.mail
kl...@neosoft.com wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Sep 1996 22:58:57 -0400, Enemy Of The People
><for...@ibm.net> wrote:
>>Yeah, but during the seventh inning stretch, the number on beer bloated men
>>able to simultaniously use a single trough is unlimited.
>>
>>EOTP
>"Unlimited"? I think not.... But you *do* have a point. In this
>culture, we don't seem to have a prohibition for men against
>semi-public (ie., within the confines of the "mens" room) micturition.
>This makes those urinals *much* more efficient than the stalls.
>In the interest of "parity", it should be entirely feasible to design
>and build similarly efficient semi-public (ie., within the confines of
>the "womens" room) facilities for communal "sitting".
>I can visualize it all now... Left is sitting right *there*, second
>from the right....
>Ron
You've got it, Ron. The day you have to change your tampon in that
public circle, I'll join you and do the same. (Pads are OK, too.)
You get to bare your all, waist to the knees, just like us, whether
you're teetering on high heels and dressed to the nines, or in your
jeans and Birkenstocks.
Haven't you yet heard "Equal but not same???"
Jok...@no.mail
>>OK Ron. You're on. A race... you against the clock. Dress and pee
>>as usual. Time it. Then put on a dress, panties, pantyhose, hey,
>>maybe a girdle, carry a purse. Cover the stool with paper, because
>>you're going to sit for this one. Pee. Check the clock. Now which
>>bathroom is likely to process the most people? The one where the
>>people have interior plumbing and inconvenient garments, or the one
>>where they can whip it and zip and exit?
>Question:
>If women (or men, either, for that matter...) insist on wearing
>"inconvenient" garments, why should it be the responsibility of men
>(or women, either, for that matter...) or of society at large to pay
>the penalty for their lack of common sense?
>I say "Redesign that clothing..."
>Ron
>>
You can design mine if I can design yours. <g> Strange that most of
the big name designers are men, huh? Maybe what we need to redesign
is your plumbing? To REALLY make it fair.........
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <324F37...@ibm.net> Enemy Of The People <for...@ibm.net>
writes:
-------
If group "A" has 100 marbles and group "B" has 50 marbles,
providing more marbles for group "B" is striving toward some form of
"parity", if both groups are equal, i.e. similarly situated. OTOH, if
there is a gender difference where folks are dis-similarly situated,
giving one gender more than the other may still result in parity. In
this case providing more bathrooms for women would make the time spent
in line equal to that of men. Therefore, in one sense what is
justifiable inequality may also be perfect parity in another venue.
> -----
Lefty
kl...@neosoft.com
On 30 Sep 1996 04:27:21 GMT, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann
Hemingway) wrote:
I knew it.
Lefty *has* lost a few of her marbles....
Ron
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <324F44...@ptang.com> Patrick Tang <pat...@ptang.com> writes:
>
>Karl B wrote:
>>
>> It's not difficult to understand Diana'a argument, and gives meaning
to>> the quotation "There is no oppressor like the oppressed". She is
>> luxuriating in the success of the womens movement of 20-30 years
ago,>> enjoying a little vindictive relish on the reversal of power
roles, but>> she's missing that today the movement is hell bent on
destroying the>> intellectual foundation that it was built on.
-----
Any power movement is transitory. It has an ebb and flow of its
own, and rightly so. I enjoy our political power sways as well;
if we go too much in either direction, "the people" make a correc-
tion. Feminism, like any other social theory, has expanded to
allow for a variety of people with differing views and ideas. The
intellectual foundation of feminism is still there, i.e. that women
are human and deserve equal treatment under the law. The methods
for gaining that treatment may indeed be disputed.
-------
>>
>
>Agree with what you posted. And we are seeing another cultureal
>revolution happening again.
>
>patrick tang
>
>PS Forget about Lefty, she is missing your Righty, not all there.
-----
Cutural revolutions are rather larger power sways; I don't see
that happening with feminism. What I do see is that groups of men
who are opposed to female equality banding together in an attempt
at backlash, but the women's groups don't seem to be effected by
this. There will be an attempt to create laws to "put women in
their place".....women aren't surprised; we expect that. We are
also used to taking two steps forward, and one back.
Lefty
Carol Ann Hemingway
In <324fa7b7...@news.neosoft.com> kl...@neosoft.com writes:
>
Lefty wrote:
>> If group "A" has 100 marbles and group "B" has 50 marbles,
>>providing more marbles for group "B" is striving toward some form of
>>"parity", if both groups are equal, i.e. similarly situated. OTOH,
if>there is a gender difference where folks are dis-similarly situated,
>>giving one gender more than the other may still result in parity. In
>>this case providing more bathrooms for women would make the time
spent>>in line equal to that of men. Therefore, in one sense what is
>>justifiable inequality may also be perfect parity in another venue.
>>
>>
>>> -----
>> Lefty
>
>
>I knew it.
>
>Lefty *has* lost a few of her marbles....
>
>Ron
>
-----
That may be, but I still have my "shooter" of due process and equal
protection :]
Lefty
mor...@d0niu3.fnal.gov
kl...@neosoft.com writes:
>>kl...@neosoft.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Sep 96 02:08:27 GMT, hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman)
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>}In <52l4n4$6...@newshost.cyberramp.net> hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell
>>>>}Holman) writes:
>>>>}>
>>>>}> PS: Texas passed a law last year that required all stadiums and
>>>>}> concert halls to have twice as many restroom facilities for women
>>>>}> as men.
>>>>} So, what's wrong with that? If women are human and their bathroom
>>>>} needs are a bit different, what's wrong with giving them more bath-
>>>>} rooms to provide "parity"?
>>>>
>>>> Because giving one group more of something than the other is
>>>> not parity. There may be good reasons to allocate different resources
>>>> among groups, but such actions do not amount to parity. If you want
>>>> label it as justifiable inequality or something, that is fine. But it
>>>> *does*
>>>> stretch the use of the word "parity" to decribe a %100 difference in
>>>> resources.....
>>
>>>one potty = one body
>>>ron
>
>Question:
>
>If women (or men, either, for that matter...) insist on wearing
>"inconvenient" garments, why should it be the responsibility of men
>(or women, either, for that matter...) or of society at large to pay
>the penalty for their lack of common sense?
>I say "Redesign that clothing..."
At a ball game I might actually agree with you (as far as it goes, see
below) but at the opera you are going to have to change the opinion of
society that women do NOT go to opera in blue jeans.
now, get the stopwatch out and use the stall while sitting down vs.
using the urinal.
California went with a 3:2 ratio.
Robert
New York Theosophical Society
David B. Greene (da...@halcyon.com) wrote:
: Perhaps the key lies in religion rather than in law. Most Western
: religions treated women as inferior. Jesus was the exception and he
: brought a new dignity to women.
Which Western religions treated women as inferior, and how?
Bart Lidofsky
Robertson Druery
On Mon, 30 Sep 1996 kl...@neosoft.com wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 96 02:08:27 GMT, hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <52lo83$o...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, lef...@ix.netcom.com(Carol Ann Hemingway) wrote:
> >}In <52l4n4$6...@newshost.cyberramp.net> hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell
> >}Holman) writes:
> >}
> >}>
> >}> PS: Texas passed a law last year that required all stadiums and
> >}> concert halls to have twice as many restroom facilities for women
> >}> as men. Which is OK as far as that goes, but they gave it the
> >}Orwellian name of "Potty Parity".
> >}>
> >}>
> >}> Mitchell Holman
> >}
> >} -----
> >} So, what's wrong with that? If women are human and their bathroom
> >} needs are a bit different, what's wrong with giving them more bath-
> >} rooms to provide "parity"?
> >
> >
> > Because giving one group more of something than the other is
> > not parity. There may be good reasons to allocate different resources
> > among groups, but such actions do not amount to parity. If you want
> > label it as justifiable inequality or something, that is fine. But it *does*
> > stretch the use of the word "parity" to decribe a %100 difference in
> > resources.....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mitchell Holman
> >
> > "My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy,
> > mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away
> > from a church as you can."
> > -- Frank Zappa --
> >
>
>
> And besides all that, it strains *my* poor brain to understand how
> even "structural" differences could justify anything other than the
> following little equation:
>
> one potty = one body
>
> What could be simpler? Or fairer?
>
> ron
>
>
On the Potty Issue;
Equality does not mean "giving the same thing to everybody", it means
"giving everyone what they need". If the average man needs 30 seconds to
use a bathroom and the average woman 60 (due to their different
physiologies) how is it fair that there are not more women's washrooms?
R.D.
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
Judaism, Christianity, Islam... in chronological order.
Cults of virginity, menstrual isolation, reproductive enslavement,
education denial, priesthood ineligibility, unreasoned absolute obeisance
to the husband... are standard operating procedure.
Name any 19th Century or before religion wherein "barefoot and pregnant"
is not sacred text.
The big mistake was giving them any rights at all. Like moral of the
story of the camel begging to put his nose in the tent, the humans are
now out in the cold.
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
Uncl...@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.netprophet.co.nz/uncleal/ (best of + new)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm (lots of + new)
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
ok
ny...@dorsai.org (New York Theosophical Society) wrote:
>David B. Greene (da...@halcyon.com) wrote:
>
>: Perhaps the key lies in religion rather than in law. Most Western
>: religions treated women as inferior. Jesus was the exception and he
>: brought a new dignity to women.
>
Or rather, women were instrumental in the early rise of church in
Rome. So eh, what do you expect ? Them to be cleaning the pans.
So thankyou women for the downfall of Rome.
Mitchell Holman
In article <52op2k$l...@amanda.dorsai.org>, ny...@dorsai.org (New York Theosophical Society) wrote:
}David B. Greene (da...@halcyon.com) wrote:
}
}: Perhaps the key lies in religion rather than in law. Most Western
}: religions treated women as inferior. Jesus was the exception and he
}: brought a new dignity to women.
}
}
Know of any women priests or rabbis?
Mitchell Holman
"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access
to the mainstream of society." -Rush Limbaugh, "See, I Told You So"
Mitchell Holman
In article <52nhm3$j...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, Jok...@no.mail wrote:
}
}Haven't you yet heard "Equal but not same???"
}
Is that a variation of "seperate but equal", or "some are more
equal than others"? :)
Mitchell Holman
"Abortion is not an issue with the American people. It is a figment of your
imagination if you think that this is an issue that is talked about a lot."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle [From the Associated Press 9/24/92]
mor...@d0niu3.fnal.gov
ma...@leasion.demon.co.uk (Mark Evans) writes:
>Gail Thaler (gth...@cs.com) wrote:
>: hol...@cyberramp.net (Mitchell Holman) wrote:
>: >Gail Thaler <gth...@cs.com> wrote:
>: They seems to a desire to change the law. Why not, if a woman
>: chooses to kill an abuser, say after a confrontional setting,
>: where the man is asleep or incapacitated, why not a lesser charge
>: than murder? I don't think murder IS the proper charge here.
>
>How about the EQUAL number of abused men?
>Guess you'd have a problem with calling a man who killed
>the wife who abused him something other than murder.
If the man weighed 50% less than the wife, the wife had threatened
the man's life if he left them and had a reasonable capability to
carry out the threat, I would have a problem with charging the man
with murder.
>Incidence of violence in monogamous relationships is
>gender neutral.
How about the incidence of serious damage?
The last time I got into this discussion a number of the cases cited
were of men who "were raised not to hit a woman".
If you have the capacity to defend yourself and don't...
Robert
mor...@d0niu3.fnal.gov
In article <324C7C...@uokhsc.edu>, GJP <gregory...@uokhsc.edu> writes:
>mor...@D0NIU3.FNAL.GOV wrote:
>>
>> GJP <gregory...@uokhsc.edu> writes:
>>
>> >I was always taught if you work real hard you can be successful and
>> >make something of your life.
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!
>>
>> And I bet you believed it too!
>
>But only until I found how the real marketplace works....
So I will buy you another clue, in portions of the real marketplace
there is real discrimination against women. They don't get hired, they
get hired at lower pay, they get hired and their ideas are ignored or
taken by others who get the credit (how to deal with this last is a
subject of much discussion on two news groups dealing with women in
science)
At a minimum, if a company with such a history wants a gov't contract
then I expect it to start reviewing hiring practices and attitudes
within the company, start doing some active recruiting of women and
if there are women within the company who have been passed over for
raises and promotions on questionable grounds they should be given
priority as such opportunities come up.
>and
>government:(. But that still does give excuse for those who are
>parasites (nonproducers but breeders) from living off the work of
>others.
You mean like the woman in Michigan who wanted to finish her degree so
she could get a decent job, only to have her child taken away from
her because her ex-spouse's mother could provide "better" care
than daycare could?
Besides you are talking about a welfare problem, not a feminism or
child-support problem, it takes two to "breed" and to the best of my
knowledge ex-spouses are not liable for kids that the custodial parent
begets with someone else after the divorce.
>Greg Palumbo
mor...@d0niu3.fnal.gov
In article <52op2k$l...@amanda.dorsai.org>, ny...@dorsai.org (New York Theosophical Society) writes:
>David B. Greene (da...@halcyon.com) wrote:
>
>: Perhaps the key lies in religion rather than in law. Most Western
>: religions treated women as inferior. Jesus was the exception and he
>: brought a new dignity to women.
>
> Which Western religions treated women as inferior, and how?
A better question is which (pre-1900s) Western religions treated women
as equal?
> Bart Lidofsky