Philadelphia Inquirer
Jul. 05, 2002

A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss

By Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson


Katherine is attractive, successful, witty, and educated. She also
can't find a husband. Why? Because most of the men this
thirtysomething software analyst dates do not want to get married.
These men have Peter Pan syndrome: They refuse to commit, refuse to
settle down, and refuse to "grow up."

However, given the family court policies and divorce trends of today,
Peter Pan is no naive boy, but instead a wise man.

"Why should I get married and have kids when I could lose those kids
and most of what I've worked for at a moment's notice?" asks Dan, a
31-year-old power plant technician who says he will never marry. "I've
seen it happen to many of my friends. I know guys who came home one
day to an empty house or apartment - wife gone, kids gone. They never
saw it coming. Some of them were never able to see their kids
regularly again."

Census figures suggest that the marriage rate in the United States has
dipped 40 percent during the last four decades to its lowest point
since the rate was measured. There are many plausible explanations for
this trend, but one of the least mentioned is that American men, in
the face of a family court system hopelessly stacked against them,
have subconsciously launched a "marriage strike."

It is not difficult to see why. Let's say that Dan defies Peter Pan,
marries Katherine, and has two children. There is a 50 percent
likelihood that this marriage will end in divorce within eight years,
and if it does, the odds are 2-1 it will be Katherine, not Dan, who
initiates the divorce. It may not matter that Dan was a decent
husband. Studies show that few divorces are initiated over abuse or
because the man has already abandoned the family. Nor is adultery
cited as a factor by divorcing women appreciably more than by
divorcing men.

While the courts may grant Dan and Katherine joint legal custody, the
odds are overwhelming that it is Katherine, not Dan, who will win
physical custody. Overnight, Dan, accustomed to seeing his kids every
day and being an integral part of their lives, will become a "14
percent dad" - a father who is allowed to spend only one out of every
seven days with his own children.

Once Katherine and Dan are divorced, odds are at least even that
Katherine will interfere with Dan's visitation rights. Three-quarters
of divorced men surveyed say their ex-wives have interfered with their
visitation, and 40 percent of mothers studied admitted that they had
done so, and that they had generally acted out of spite or in order to
punish their exes.

Katherine will keep the house and most of the couple's assets. Dan
will need to set up a new residence and pay at least a third of his
take-home pay to Katherine in child support.

As bad as all of this is, it would still make Dan one of the lucky
ones. After all, he could be one of those fathers who cannot see his
children at all because his ex has made a false accusation of domestic
violence, child abuse, or child molestation. Or a father who can only
see his own children under supervised visitation or in nightmarish
visitation centers where dads are treated like criminals.

He could be one of those fathers whose ex has moved their children
hundreds or thousands of miles away, in violation of court orders,
which courts often do not enforce. He could be one of those fathers
who tears up his life and career again and again in order to follow
his children, only to have his ex-wife continually move them.

He could be one of the fathers who has lost his job, seen his income
drop, or suffered a disabling injury, only to have child support
arrearages and interest pile up to create a mountain of debt which he
could never hope to pay off. Or a father who is forced to pay 70
percent or 80 percent of his income in child support because the court
has imputed an unrealistic income to him. Or a dad who suffers from
one of the child support enforcement system's endless and difficult to
correct errors, or who is jailed because he cannot keep up with his
payments. Or a dad who reaches old age impoverished because he lost
everything he had in a divorce when he was middle-aged and did not
have the time and the opportunity to earn it back.

"It's a shame," Dan says. "I always wanted to be a father and have a
family. But unless the laws change and give fathers the same right to
be a part of their children's lives as mothers have, it just isn't
worth the risk."


Dianna Thompson is the founder and executive director of the American
Coalition for Fathers and Children. She can be contacted by e-mail at
DThompson2232@aol.com. Glenn Sacks writes about gender issues from the
male perspective. He invites readers' comments at
Glenn@GlennSacks.com.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

joe wrote: These men have Peter Pan syndrome: They refuse to commit, refuse to settle down, and refuse to "grow up." However, given the family court policies and divorce trends of today, Peter Pan is no naive boy, but instead a wise man.

While I otherwise likes this editorial, I find it rather striking that
the authors used the word "naive" to describe Peter Pan. It suggests
that men should marry because it's "for their own good", rather than
something they should do to honor their mate.

"joe" <yeah@fvckit.com> wrote "It's a shame," Dan says. "I always wanted to be a father and have a family. But unless the laws change and give fathers the same right to be a part of their children's lives as mothers have, it just isn't worth the risk."

I can well appreciate someone taking that stance. Seems to me
quite reasonable in view of what I've observed myself about
family law and the legal system.

CJ

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 03:44:26 GMT,
In article <3f39b3b0.10307674@news.io.com>,
joe (yeah@fvckit.com) wrote:
Philadelphia Inquirer Jul. 05, 2002 A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss By Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson Katherine is attractive, successful, witty, and educated. She also can't find a husband. Why? Because most of the men this thirtysomething software analyst dates do not want to get married. These men have Peter Pan syndrome: They refuse to commit, refuse to settle down, and refuse to "grow up." However, given the family court policies and divorce trends of today, Peter Pan is no naive boy, but instead a wise man. "Why should I get married and have kids when I could lose those kids and most of what I've worked for at a moment's notice?" asks Dan, a 31-year-old power plant technician who says he will never marry. "I've seen it happen to many of my friends. I know guys who came home one day to an empty house or apartment - wife gone, kids gone. They never saw it coming. Some of them were never able to see their kids regularly again." Census figures suggest that the marriage rate in the United States has dipped 40 percent during the last four decades to its lowest point since the rate was measured. There are many plausible explanations for this trend, but one of the least mentioned is that American men, in the face of a family court system hopelessly stacked against them, have subconsciously launched a "marriage strike." It is not difficult to see why. Let's say that Dan defies Peter Pan, marries Katherine, and has two children. There is a 50 percent likelihood that this marriage will end in divorce within eight years, and if it does, the odds are 2-1 it will be Katherine, not Dan, who initiates the divorce. It may not matter that Dan was a decent husband. Studies show that few divorces are initiated over abuse or because the man has already abandoned the family. Nor is adultery cited as a factor by divorcing women appreciably more than by divorcing men. While the courts may grant Dan and Katherine joint legal custody, the odds are overwhelming that it is Katherine, not Dan, who will win physical custody. Overnight, Dan, accustomed to seeing his kids every day and being an integral part of their lives, will become a "14 percent dad" - a father who is allowed to spend only one out of every seven days with his own children. Once Katherine and Dan are divorced, odds are at least even that Katherine will interfere with Dan's visitation rights. Three-quarters of divorced men surveyed say their ex-wives have interfered with their visitation, and 40 percent of mothers studied admitted that they had done so, and that they had generally acted out of spite or in order to punish their exes. Katherine will keep the house and most of the couple's assets. Dan will need to set up a new residence and pay at least a third of his take-home pay to Katherine in child support. As bad as all of this is, it would still make Dan one of the lucky ones. After all, he could be one of those fathers who cannot see his children at all because his ex has made a false accusation of domestic violence, child abuse, or child molestation. Or a father who can only see his own children under supervised visitation or in nightmarish visitation centers where dads are treated like criminals. He could be one of those fathers whose ex has moved their children hundreds or thousands of miles away, in violation of court orders, which courts often do not enforce. He could be one of those fathers who tears up his life and career again and again in order to follow his children, only to have his ex-wife continually move them. He could be one of the fathers who has lost his job, seen his income drop, or suffered a disabling injury, only to have child support arrearages and interest pile up to create a mountain of debt which he could never hope to pay off. Or a father who is forced to pay 70 percent or 80 percent of his income in child support because the court has imputed an unrealistic income to him. Or a dad who suffers from one of the child support enforcement system's endless and difficult to correct errors, or who is jailed because he cannot keep up with his payments. Or a dad who reaches old age impoverished because he lost everything he had in a divorce when he was middle-aged and did not have the time and the opportunity to earn it back. "It's a shame," Dan says. "I always wanted to be a father and have a family. But unless the laws change and give fathers the same right to be a part of their children's lives as mothers have, it just isn't worth the risk." Dianna Thompson is the founder and executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. She can be contacted by e-mail at DThompson2232@aol.com. Glenn Sacks writes about gender issues from the male perspective. He invites readers' comments at Glenn@GlennSacks.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The time is almost upon us when the only men who will be ready to father
children will be those travelling around under counterfeit temporary
identities.

--
James King

www.anews.co.uk
The best UK based serious news digest on the internet

Some comments. People love to have excuses for their failures.

I know one individual who immigrated to this country, suffered
somewhat due to poor English, and said that not learning English
was not his fault because no one warned him that he had to learn
English before coming here. I am not kidding!

Same is with this Katherine. She cannot find a man for a variety of
reasons probably, including mainly demographics (being 30+ makes it
much more difficult to find a husband because most men are taken),
probably her personality and appearance and whatnot.

Nevertheless, the article makes a valid point, namely that marriage
in its current form is not a very attractive option. I just think that
by and large, men have not caught up with that and it may take 20 more
years for the marriage rate to dip because of this.

The dip in marriage rates that is mentioned in the article, I think,
is mainly due to rise in living standards and the possibility of a
nice life in a one person household. Most statistical behavioral
phenomena have a simple economic explanation. (consideration of
divorce costs are also an economic factor by the way).

i

In article <MPG.19a41fa73700bfc098969a@news.alt.net>, James King wrote: The time is almost upon us when the only men who will be ready to father children will be those travelling around under counterfeit temporary identities.

sounds like a fun life, traveling around under fake identity and
fathering various chidren here and there!

i

In article <3f39b3b0.10307674@news.io.com>, joe says...Philadelphia InquirerJul. 05, 2002A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk lossBy Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson

Another little warning from the micro-brains at soc.men - Ladies! Submit or
languish in singlehood forever! Oooooh, I'm quivering with fear. (Or is it
repressed laughter?)

It might never occur to these twits that marriage isn't exactly an appetizing
prospect for many young women either.

Cat

note: headers purged to remove the riff-raff from further discussion.

In article <MPG.19a41fa73700bfc098969a@news.alt.net>, James King says... On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 03:44:26 GMT, In article <3f39b3b0.10307674@news.io.com>, joe (yeah@fvckit.com) wrote: Philadelphia Inquirer Jul. 05, 2002 A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss

Marital panic-mongering and apocalyptic underpant wetting deleted (and headers
debugged).
The time is almost upon us when the only men who will be ready to fatherchildren will be those travelling around under counterfeit temporaryidentities.--James King

And people accuse ME of being melodramatic!

Cat

James King wrote: The time is almost upon us when the only men who will be ready to father children will be those travelling around under counterfeit temporary identities.

You haven't been keeping up with the news lately have you.

Bob

Speaking as a twit. The economic and personal loss is significant. Courting
financial ruin. I would never have done this had I known. It's too late for
our generation. Perhaps the men coming down the pike now will understand the
real risks of going down the isle.............. It might never occur to these twits that marriage isn't exactly an
appetizing prospect for many young women either.

<catbrier@fwiw.com> wrote in message
news:Utr_a.15476$cJ5.1768@www.newsranger.com... In article <3f39b3b0.10307674@news.io.com>, joe says...Philadelphia InquirerJul. 05, 2002A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk lossBy Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson Another little warning from the micro-brains at soc.men - Ladies! Submit
or languish in singlehood forever! Oooooh, I'm quivering with fear. (Or is it repressed laughter?) It might never occur to these twits that marriage isn't exactly an
appetizing prospect for many young women either. Cat note: headers purged to remove the riff-raff from further discussion.
You are certainly correct in describing many of us as "twits"
especially those of us who got married in good faith and were then taken for
a waltz round the divorce courts when it was opportune for our "partners".
But even twits learn eventually.

"James King" <james.king@anews.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.19a41fa73700bfc098969a@news.alt.net... On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 03:44:26 GMT, In article <3f39b3b0.10307674@news.io.com>, joe (yeah@fvckit.com) wrote: Philadelphia Inquirer Jul. 05, 2002 A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss By Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson Katherine is attractive, successful, witty, and educated. She also can't find a husband. Why? Because most of the men this thirtysomething software analyst dates do not want to get married. These men have Peter Pan syndrome: They refuse to commit, refuse to settle down, and refuse to "grow up." However, given the family court policies and divorce trends of today, Peter Pan is no naive boy, but instead a wise man. "Why should I get married and have kids when I could lose those kids and most of what I've worked for at a moment's notice?" asks Dan, a 31-year-old power plant technician who says he will never marry. "I've seen it happen to many of my friends. I know guys who came home one day to an empty house or apartment - wife gone, kids gone. They never saw it coming. Some of them were never able to see their kids regularly again." Census figures suggest that the marriage rate in the United States has dipped 40 percent during the last four decades to its lowest point since the rate was measured. There are many plausible explanations for this trend, but one of the least mentioned is that American men, in the face of a family court system hopelessly stacked against them, have subconsciously launched a "marriage strike." It is not difficult to see why. Let's say that Dan defies Peter Pan, marries Katherine, and has two children. There is a 50 percent likelihood that this marriage will end in divorce within eight years, and if it does, the odds are 2-1 it will be Katherine, not Dan, who initiates the divorce. It may not matter that Dan was a decent husband. Studies show that few divorces are initiated over abuse or because the man has already abandoned the family. Nor is adultery cited as a factor by divorcing women appreciably more than by divorcing men. While the courts may grant Dan and Katherine joint legal custody, the odds are overwhelming that it is Katherine, not Dan, who will win physical custody. Overnight, Dan, accustomed to seeing his kids every day and being an integral part of their lives, will become a "14 percent dad" - a father who is allowed to spend only one out of every seven days with his own children. Once Katherine and Dan are divorced, odds are at least even that Katherine will interfere with Dan's visitation rights. Three-quarters of divorced men surveyed say their ex-wives have interfered with their visitation, and 40 percent of mothers studied admitted that they had done so, and that they had generally acted out of spite or in order to punish their exes. Katherine will keep the house and most of the couple's assets. Dan will need to set up a new residence and pay at least a third of his take-home pay to Katherine in child support. As bad as all of this is, it would still make Dan one of the lucky ones. After all, he could be one of those fathers who cannot see his children at all because his ex has made a false accusation of domestic violence, child abuse, or child molestation. Or a father who can only see his own children under supervised visitation or in nightmarish visitation centers where dads are treated like criminals. He could be one of those fathers whose ex has moved their children hundreds or thousands of miles away, in violation of court orders, which courts often do not enforce. He could be one of those fathers who tears up his life and career again and again in order to follow his children, only to have his ex-wife continually move them. He could be one of the fathers who has lost his job, seen his income drop, or suffered a disabling injury, only to have child support arrearages and interest pile up to create a mountain of debt which he could never hope to pay off. Or a father who is forced to pay 70 percent or 80 percent of his income in child support because the court has imputed an unrealistic income to him. Or a dad who suffers from one of the child support enforcement system's endless and difficult to correct errors, or who is jailed because he cannot keep up with his payments. Or a dad who reaches old age impoverished because he lost everything he had in a divorce when he was middle-aged and did not have the time and the opportunity to earn it back. "It's a shame," Dan says. "I always wanted to be a father and have a family. But unless the laws change and give fathers the same right to be a part of their children's lives as mothers have, it just isn't worth the risk." Dianna Thompson is the founder and executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. She can be contacted by e-mail at DThompson2232@aol.com. Glenn Sacks writes about gender issues from the male perspective. He invites readers' comments at Glenn@GlennSacks.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ The time is almost upon us when the only men who will be ready to father children will be those travelling around under counterfeit temporary identities.
Or an ambassador with full diplomatic immunity. :-)

When you stop and think about it, the above mentioned trends would probably
result in cognitive degeneration over time. After all, if we discouraged men
who are intelligent enough to consider the possible consequences of
fatherhood from reproducing, the reckless and shortsighted men would be the
only ones left fathering children. Granted, they would all be in jail. But
they would have succeeded in reproducing.

Robert

-- James King www.anews.co.uk The best UK based serious news digest on the internet

> Trouble is bucko, under today's feminist/lesbian/fag marriage laws a man

Maybe gay guys are on to something? Too bad guys do not have womens
bodies :) Oh wait... some do.

Eric

Eric Witte wrote:Trouble is bucko, under today's feminist/lesbian/fag marriage laws a man Maybe gay guys are on to something? Too bad guys do not have womens bodies :) Oh wait... some do. Eric

There are a growing number of geldings among the mentally disturbed
queers these days.

Bob

"Robert Calvert" <Hercules1@pcstarnet.com> wrote in message news:vjlgd8o5jk380@corp.supernews.com... "James King" <james.king@anews.co.uk> wrote in message news:MPG.19a41fa73700bfc098969a@news.alt.net... On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 03:44:26 GMT, In article <3f39b3b0.10307674@news.io.com>, joe (yeah@fvckit.com) wrote: Philadelphia Inquirer Jul. 05, 2002 A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss By Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson Katherine is attractive, successful, witty, and educated. She also can't find a husband. Why? Because most of the men this thirtysomething software analyst dates do not want to get married. These men have Peter Pan syndrome: They refuse to commit, refuse to settle down, and refuse to "grow up." However, given the family court policies and divorce trends of today, Peter Pan is no naive boy, but instead a wise man. "Why should I get married and have kids when I could lose those kids and most of what I've worked for at a moment's notice?" asks Dan, a 31-year-old power plant technician who says he will never marry. "I've seen it happen to many of my friends. I know guys who came home one day to an empty house or apartment - wife gone, kids gone. They never saw it coming. Some of them were never able to see their kids regularly again." Census figures suggest that the marriage rate in the United States has dipped 40 percent during the last four decades to its lowest point since the rate was measured. There are many plausible explanations for this trend, but one of the least mentioned is that American men, in the face of a family court system hopelessly stacked against them, have subconsciously launched a "marriage strike." It is not difficult to see why. Let's say that Dan defies Peter Pan, marries Katherine, and has two children. There is a 50 percent likelihood that this marriage will end in divorce within eight years, and if it does, the odds are 2-1 it will be Katherine, not Dan, who initiates the divorce. It may not matter that Dan was a decent husband. Studies show that few divorces are initiated over abuse or because the man has already abandoned the family. Nor is adultery cited as a factor by divorcing women appreciably more than by divorcing men. While the courts may grant Dan and Katherine joint legal custody, the odds are overwhelming that it is Katherine, not Dan, who will win physical custody. Overnight, Dan, accustomed to seeing his kids every day and being an integral part of their lives, will become a "14 percent dad" - a father who is allowed to spend only one out of every seven days with his own children. Once Katherine and Dan are divorced, odds are at least even that Katherine will interfere with Dan's visitation rights. Three-quarters of divorced men surveyed say their ex-wives have interfered with their visitation, and 40 percent of mothers studied admitted that they had done so, and that they had generally acted out of spite or in order to punish their exes. Katherine will keep the house and most of the couple's assets. Dan will need to set up a new residence and pay at least a third of his take-home pay to Katherine in child support. As bad as all of this is, it would still make Dan one of the lucky ones. After all, he could be one of those fathers who cannot see his children at all because his ex has made a false accusation of domestic violence, child abuse, or child molestation. Or a father who can only see his own children under supervised visitation or in nightmarish visitation centers where dads are treated like criminals. He could be one of those fathers whose ex has moved their children hundreds or thousands of miles away, in violation of court orders, which courts often do not enforce. He could be one of those fathers who tears up his life and career again and again in order to follow his children, only to have his ex-wife continually move them. He could be one of the fathers who has lost his job, seen his income drop, or suffered a disabling injury, only to have child support arrearages and interest pile up to create a mountain of debt which he could never hope to pay off. Or a father who is forced to pay 70 percent or 80 percent of his income in child support because the court has imputed an unrealistic income to him. Or a dad who suffers from one of the child support enforcement system's endless and difficult to correct errors, or who is jailed because he cannot keep up with his payments. Or a dad who reaches old age impoverished because he lost everything he had in a divorce when he was middle-aged and did not have the time and the opportunity to earn it back. "It's a shame," Dan says. "I always wanted to be a father and have a family. But unless the laws change and give fathers the same right to be a part of their children's lives as mothers have, it just isn't worth the risk." Dianna Thompson is the founder and executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. She can be contacted by e-mail at DThompson2232@aol.com. Glenn Sacks writes about gender issues from the male perspective. He invites readers' comments at Glenn@GlennSacks.com. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ The time is almost upon us when the only men who will be ready to father children will be those travelling around under counterfeit temporary identities. Or an ambassador with full diplomatic immunity. :-) When you stop and think about it, the above mentioned trends would probably result in cognitive degeneration over time. After all, if we discouraged men who are intelligent enough to consider the possible consequences of fatherhood from reproducing, the reckless and shortsighted men would be the only ones left fathering children. Granted, they would all be in jail. But they would have succeeded in reproducing. Robert

I see that as the whole point of the original article - Intelligent men who are capable
of considering the consequenses *are* deciding not to marry or father children, so who
does that leave? It's a trend that's actually happening, and worth noting. Those that do will succeed
in reproducing, but from there on out, everything is downhill. The kids are raised in a
single-mom enviornment, and although it's PC to say that fathers are not needed, anyone
with eyes, ears and common sense can see what has happened to our society.

Many men who would be considered "good catches" are not giving in, in spite of attempts
to shame them ("Peter Pan", "unable to make a commitment", etc.) into marrying, even though
it is a bum deal for many of them. They are *very* grown up, and wise. And they are making
a rational choice.

Jack

On 13 Aug 2003 13:15:12 GMT,
In article <bhddl0$ubs$8@pita.alt.net>,
Ignoramus12377 (ignoramus12377@NOSPAM.12377.invalid) wrote:
In article <MPG.19a41fa73700bfc098969a@news.alt.net>, James King wrote: The time is almost upon us when the only men who will be ready to father children will be those travelling around under counterfeit temporary identities. sounds like a fun life, traveling around under fake identity and fathering various chidren here and there! i

It's a living.
--
James King

www.anews.co.uk
The best UK based serious news digest on the internet

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:24:41 -0600,
In article <3F3A5839.7020800@hotmail.com>,
Bob (boby23456@hotmail.com) wrote:
James King wrote: The time is almost upon us when the only men who will be ready to father children will be those travelling around under counterfeit temporary identities. You haven't been keeping up with the news lately have you. Bob

True.

Don't tell me, it's happening already?
--
James King

www.anews.co.uk
The best UK based serious news digest on the internet

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:54:15 -0400,
In article <vjlgd8o5jk380@corp.supernews.com>,
Robert Calvert (Hercules1@pcstarnet.com) wrote:
"James King" <james.king@anews.co.uk> wrote in message news:MPG.19a41fa73700bfc098969a@news.alt.net...
<snippage> The time is almost upon us when the only men who will be ready to father children will be those travelling around under counterfeit temporary identities. Or an ambassador with full diplomatic immunity. :-)

That would be a problem for a mother, having to learn the language to
speak to her own kid.
When you stop and think about it, the above mentioned trends would probably result in cognitive degeneration over time. After all, if we discouraged men who are intelligent enough to consider the possible consequences of fatherhood from reproducing, the reckless and shortsighted men would be the only ones left fathering children. Granted, they would all be in jail. But they would have succeeded in reproducing. Robert

I suppose Australia was started that way, from convicts, and they
usually do well at the Olympics.
-- James King www.anews.co.uk The best UK based serious news digest on the internet

--
James King

www.anews.co.uk
The best UK based serious news digest on the internet

James King wrote: On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:24:41 -0600, In article <3F3A5839.7020800@hotmail.com>, Bob (boby23456@hotmail.com) wrote:James King wrote:The time is almost upon us when the only men who will be ready to fatherchildren will be those travelling around under counterfeit temporaryidentities.You haven't been keeping up with the news lately have you.Bob True. Don't tell me, it's happening already?

Like it says farther up the thread, it's the only safe way for a man to
be a father. Yes it's happening already. There are rap songs(?) about it.

Bob

nethead8 wrote:
"Robert Calvert" <Hercules1@pcstarnet.com> wrote in message news:vjlgd8o5jk380@corp.supernews.com... "James King" <james.king@anews.co.uk> wrote in message news:MPG.19a41fa73700bfc098969a@news.alt.net... On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 03:44:26 GMT, In article <3f39b3b0.10307674@news.io.com>, joe (yeah@fvckit.com) wrote: > Philadelphia Inquirer > Jul. 05, 2002 > > A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss > > By Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson > > > Katherine is attractive, successful, witty, and educated. She also > can't find a husband. Why? Because most of the men this > thirtysomething software analyst dates do not want to get married. > These men have Peter Pan syndrome: They refuse to commit, refuse to > settle down, and refuse to "grow up." > > However, given the family court policies and divorce trends of today, > Peter Pan is no naive boy, but instead a wise man. > > "Why should I get married and have kids when I could lose those kids > and most of what I've worked for at a moment's notice?" asks Dan, a > 31-year-old power plant technician who says he will never marry. "I've > seen it happen to many of my friends. I know guys who came home one > day to an empty house or apartment - wife gone, kids gone. They never > saw it coming. Some of them were never able to see their kids > regularly again." > > Census figures suggest that the marriage rate in the United States has > dipped 40 percent during the last four decades to its lowest point > since the rate was measured. There are many plausible explanations for > this trend, but one of the least mentioned is that American men, in > the face of a family court system hopelessly stacked against them, > have subconsciously launched a "marriage strike." > > It is not difficult to see why. Let's say that Dan defies Peter Pan, > marries Katherine, and has two children. There is a 50 percent > likelihood that this marriage will end in divorce within eight years, > and if it does, the odds are 2-1 it will be Katherine, not Dan, who > initiates the divorce. It may not matter that Dan was a decent > husband. Studies show that few divorces are initiated over abuse or > because the man has already abandoned the family. Nor is adultery > cited as a factor by divorcing women appreciably more than by > divorcing men. > > While the courts may grant Dan and Katherine joint legal custody, the > odds are overwhelming that it is Katherine, not Dan, who will win > physical custody. Overnight, Dan, accustomed to seeing his kids every > day and being an integral part of their lives, will become a "14 > percent dad" - a father who is allowed to spend only one out of every > seven days with his own children. > > Once Katherine and Dan are divorced, odds are at least even that > Katherine will interfere with Dan's visitation rights. Three-quarters > of divorced men surveyed say their ex-wives have interfered with their > visitation, and 40 percent of mothers studied admitted that they had > done so, and that they had generally acted out of spite or in order to > punish their exes. > > Katherine will keep the house and most of the couple's assets. Dan > will need to set up a new residence and pay at least a third of his > take-home pay to Katherine in child support. > > As bad as all of this is, it would still make Dan one of the lucky > ones. After all, he could be one of those fathers who cannot see his > children at all because his ex has made a false accusation of domestic > violence, child abuse, or child molestation. Or a father who can only > see his own children under supervised visitation or in nightmarish > visitation centers where dads are treated like criminals. > > He could be one of those fathers whose ex has moved their children > hundreds or thousands of miles away, in violation of court orders, > which courts often do not enforce. He could be one of those fathers > who tears up his life and career again and again in order to follow > his children, only to have his ex-wife continually move them. > > He could be one of the fathers who has lost his job, seen his income > drop, or suffered a disabling injury, only to have child support > arrearages and interest pile up to create a mountain of debt which he > could never hope to pay off. Or a father who is forced to pay 70 > percent or 80 percent of his income in child support because the court > has imputed an unrealistic income to him. Or a dad who suffers from > one of the child support enforcement system's endless and difficult to > correct errors, or who is jailed because he cannot keep up with his > payments. Or a dad who reaches old age impoverished because he lost > everything he had in a divorce when he was middle-aged and did not > have the time and the opportunity to earn it back. > > "It's a shame," Dan says. "I always wanted to be a father and have a > family. But unless the laws change and give fathers the same right to > be a part of their children's lives as mothers have, it just isn't > worth the risk." > > > Dianna Thompson is the founder and executive director of the American > Coalition for Fathers and Children. She can be contacted by e-mail at > DThompson2232@aol.com. Glenn Sacks writes about gender issues from the > male perspective. He invites readers' comments at > Glenn@GlennSacks.com. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ > The time is almost upon us when the only men who will be ready to father children will be those travelling around under counterfeit temporary identities. Or an ambassador with full diplomatic immunity. :-) When you stop and think about it, the above mentioned trends would probably result in cognitive degeneration over time. After all, if we discouraged men who are intelligent enough to consider the possible consequences of fatherhood from reproducing, the reckless and shortsighted men would be the only ones left fathering children. Granted, they would all be in jail. But they would have succeeded in reproducing. Robert I see that as the whole point of the original article - Intelligent men who are capable of considering the consequenses *are* deciding not to marry or father children, so who does that leave? It's a trend that's actually happening, and worth noting. Those that do will succeed in reproducing, but from there on out, everything is downhill. The kids are raised in a single-mom enviornment, and although it's PC to say that fathers are not needed, anyone with eyes, ears and common sense can see what has happened to our society. Many men who would be considered "good catches" are not giving in, in spite of attempts to shame them ("Peter Pan", "unable to make a commitment", etc.) into marrying, even though it is a bum deal for many of them. They are *very* grown up, and wise. And they are making a rational choice. Jack

I agree with the shaming point you make. Another thing, marriage does not equal commitment. Marriage is
a legal document/contract, and with a divorce rate at around 60% nobody can honesty say that marriage is
the same as commitment. Acting and being with traits that are associated with commitment is being
committed. Dare I say, that someone who requires marriage as proof of commitment from a partner or they
will leave is showing that they are more interesting in the legal benefits than a real commitment.
Unless you mean a money commitment from the guy.

Beside the shaming and insults against men, what have they show us to sell men on the idea of marriage?
Nothing. Make me believe it is worth my time and effort. Show me points that I care about not ones that
matter to her.

Kali wrote: "Wayne Rasmussen" <XvirtualDoNotSpamMe@gomonarch.com> wrote in message news:3F3C03D1.73BA5D4B@gomonarch.com...I agree with the shaming point you make. Another thing, marriage does not equal commitment. Marriage isa legal document/contract, and with a divorce rate at around 60% nobody can honesty say that marriage isthe same as commitment. Acting and being with traits that are associated with commitment is beingcommitted. Dare I say, that someone who requires marriage as proof of commitment from a partner or theywill leave is showing that they are more interesting in the legal benefits than a real commitment.Unless you mean a money commitment from the guy.Beside the shaming and insults against men, what have they show us to sell men on the idea of marriage?Nothing. Make me believe it is worth my time and effort. Show me points that I care about not ones thatmatter to her. The legal rights granted from marriage or domestic partnership can be nice to have.

What rights? Marriage is a HUGE cost and RISKY venture for men these
days. It subjects the man to very large risk, high cost, and virtually
no benefits. Feminism has destroyed all the benefits that men once had.

It can be nice to know that you can get insurance under your partner's plan if you lose your job.

LOL. She'll leave you if you lose your job, and you'll end up in jail
for failure to pay C$. (See "Stiffed : The Betrayal of the American
Man" by Susan Faludi.) That's a benefit?
It can also provide some peace of mind knowing that in the event of an emergency, you count as next of kin, aren't at the mercy of family members who may not like you, and can't be kept away from visiting your partner at the hospital.

LOL. You'll be at the mercy of a greedy spouse who's out to take your
home and kids, and can't wait for the high life insurance to pay off. No
benefit there.

Like any other contract, there should be some forethought before entering a marriage, more than most people tend to give it. Making wise choices can eliminate or drastically reduce the possible negatives if a marriage doesn't work out.

Wise choice for men is NOT to get married. A man no longer gets ANY
benefits and suffers very large legal penalties.

A long and well written prenuptial agreement can mitigate some of the
risks, as can refusing to have life insurance so your worth more to her
alive than dead. But a man is no longer even free of the risk of false
rape accusations, and always in a position where he can be accused.

Bob

In article <bhj09n$3829$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kali wrote: The legal rights granted from marriage or domestic partnership can be nice to have. It can be nice to know that you can get insurance under your partner's plan if you lose your job. It can also provide some peace of mind knowing that in the event of an emergency, you count as next of kin, aren't at the mercy of family members who may not like you, and can't be kept away from visiting your partner at the hospital.

most rights that you cited are of minor importance and at any rate can
be obtained by signing a $200 piece of paper or two.
Like any other contract, there should be some forethought before entering a marriage, more than most people tend to give it. Making wise choices can eliminate or drastically reduce the possible negatives if a marriage doesn't work out.

No it does not... people change and lie about their true nature...

i

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:04:47 -0700, "Kali" <spamcatcher1@lycos.com>
wrote:
The legal rights granted from marriage or domestic partnership can be niceto have. It can be nice to know that you can get insurance under yourpartner's plan if you lose your job. It can also provide some peace ofmind knowing that in the event of an emergency, you count as next of kin,aren't at the mercy of family members who may not like you, and can't bekept away from visiting your partner at the hospital.

But I get all that currently without marriage. Our financial
institutes, insurance companies and even our government accepts our
relationship as 'common-law'. The only exception is the emergency
issue. Since my family is 6000 miles away, I'd be dead before they
could interfere (not that they would).

It's not just men that have an aversion to marriage. The only thing I
see marriage giving us is an easier way for others to label our
relationship (wife/husband versus girlfriend/boyfriend living
together).

Tara

In article <bhj336$46gt$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kali wrote: "Ignoramus4661" <ignoramus4661@NOSPAM.4661.invalid> wrote in message Like any other contract, there should be some forethought before entering a marriage, more than most people tend to give it. Making wise choices can eliminate or drastically reduce the possible negatives if a marriage doesn't work out. No it does not... people change and lie about their true nature... i I don't think they do. I think it's more a matter of love being blind. All too often I've known people who would date a person with some major defect and not see it. Then later in the relationship when the newness wore off, they'd suddenly start complaining about it and think the other person had changed.

that's the point, the person has a defect and you do not see it!

and therefore getting stuck with the person for life while you may be
missing something majorly bad may not be the wisest choice...

i

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F3D091D.2080608@hotmail.com... Kali wrote: "Wayne Rasmussen" <XvirtualDoNotSpamMe@gomonarch.com> wrote in message news:3F3C03D1.73BA5D4B@gomonarch.com...I agree with the shaming point you make. Another thing, marriage does not equal commitment. Marriage isa legal document/contract, and with a divorce rate at around 60%
nobody can honesty say that marriage isthe same as commitment. Acting and being with traits that are associated with commitment is beingcommitted. Dare I say, that someone who requires marriage as proof of commitment from a partner or theywill leave is showing that they are more interesting in the legal benefits than a real commitment.Unless you mean a money commitment from the guy.Beside the shaming and insults against men, what have they show us to sell men on the idea of marriage?Nothing. Make me believe it is worth my time and effort. Show me points that I care about not ones thatmatter to her. The legal rights granted from marriage or domestic partnership can be
nice to have. What rights? Marriage is a HUGE cost and RISKY venture for men these days. It subjects the man to very large risk, high cost, and virtually no benefits. Feminism has destroyed all the benefits that men once had. It can be nice to know that you can get insurance under your partner's plan if you lose your job. LOL. She'll leave you if you lose your job, and you'll end up in jail for failure to pay C$. (See "Stiffed : The Betrayal of the American Man" by Susan Faludi.) That's a benefit?

Does C$ mean child support? Having a marriage license does not impact
whether or not a man has to pay child support. Having children or not is
not related at all to whether or not a man is married.
It can also provide some peace of mind knowing that in the event of an emergency, you count as next of
kin, aren't at the mercy of family members who may not like you, and can't
be kept away from visiting your partner at the hospital. LOL. You'll be at the mercy of a greedy spouse who's out to take your home and kids, and can't wait for the high life insurance to pay off. No benefit there.

If you were married to a person who you honestly believe would basically
murder you by withholding consent for medical treatment, then I'd say you
never should have married that person or you should have been divorced
already. Most people are not like this. Even most people who hate the
person they're with wouldn't kill them.
Like any other contract, there should be some forethought before
entering a marriage, more than most people tend to give it. Making wise
choices can eliminate or drastically reduce the possible negatives if a
marriage doesn't work out. Wise choice for men is NOT to get married. A man no longer gets ANY benefits and suffers very large legal penalties. A long and well written prenuptial agreement can mitigate some of the risks, as can refusing to have life insurance so your worth more to her alive than dead. But a man is no longer even free of the risk of false rape accusations, and always in a position where he can be accused. Bob

The person I was replying to was considering having a committed
relationship and having or not having a marriage license. Whether or not
a man can be falsely accused has nothing at all to do with having that
piece of paper or not. It doesn't seem that you're advocating not being
married so much as for all men to stay celibate and never have
relationships at all.

In article <MPG.19a5b3394302e1999896a2@news.alt.net>, James King says... On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:24:41 -0600, In article <3F3A5839.7020800@hotmail.com>, Bob (boby23456@hotmail.com) wrote: James King wrote: The time is almost upon us when the only men who will be ready to father children will be those travelling around under counterfeit temporary identities. You haven't been keeping up with the news lately have you. BobTrue.Don't tell me, it's happening already?--James King

James, please don't encourage him. I'm sure you have these "Bobs" in Once-Great
Britain. We're awash in them since the first Bush administration.
Now, under the slanty-eyed leadership of the epigone of the Bush clan, these
sorts feel at liberty to run all over the internet, embarrassing the entire
Republic. Even people in Rajastand are getting a cheap chuckle off the yanks.

Cat (on the way out the door.)

In article <bhj55l$5arv$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kali wrote: "Ignoramus4661" <ignoramus4661@NOSPAM.4661.invalid> wrote in message news:bhj3cb$hkf$0@pita.alt.net... In article <bhj336$46gt$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kali wrote: "Ignoramus4661" <ignoramus4661@NOSPAM.4661.invalid> wrote in message> > Like any other contract, there should be some forethought before entering> > a marriage, more than most people tend to give it. Making wise choices> > can eliminate or drastically reduce the possible negatives if a marriage> > doesn't work out.>> No it does not... people change and lie about their true nature...>> i I don't think they do. I think it's more a matter of love being blind. All too often I've known people who would date a person with some major defect and not see it. Then later in the relationship when the newness wore off, they'd suddenly start complaining about it and think the other person had changed. that's the point, the person has a defect and you do not see it! and therefore getting stuck with the person for life while you may be missing something majorly bad may not be the wisest choice... i I think a fair amount of screening can be done when first starting to date a new person, but before becoming attached. For instance, you're going to know things like a person's general income level right away. If you date a person who makes substantially less money than you do, right away you know that's likely to become a problem and you'll end up supporting them eventually if you end up together. If you know the things that married couples are likely have fights about, then you can look for signs of incompatibility in those areas while dating. Premarital counseling is also an excellent idea.

Kali, without saying much further, I respect you personally, but the
view you espouse here is naive.

i

"Ignoramus4661" <ignoramus4661@NOSPAM.4661.invalid> wrote in message
news:bhj5a0$lhv$0@pita.alt.net... In article <bhj55l$5arv$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kali wrote: "Ignoramus4661" <ignoramus4661@NOSPAM.4661.invalid> wrote in message news:bhj3cb$hkf$0@pita.alt.net... In article <bhj336$46gt$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kali wrote: > "Ignoramus4661" <ignoramus4661@NOSPAM.4661.invalid> wrote in
message >> > Like any other contract, there should be some forethought before > entering >> > a marriage, more than most people tend to give it. Making wise > choices >> > can eliminate or drastically reduce the possible negatives if a > marriage >> > doesn't work out. >> >> No it does not... people change and lie about their true nature... >> >> i > > I don't think they do. I think it's more a matter of love being blind. > All too often I've known people who would date a person with some major > defect and not see it. Then later in the relationship when the newness > wore off, they'd suddenly start complaining about it and think the other > person had changed. > > that's the point, the person has a defect and you do not see it! and therefore getting stuck with the person for life while you may be missing something majorly bad may not be the wisest choice... i I think a fair amount of screening can be done when first starting to
date a new person, but before becoming attached. For instance, you're
going to know things like a person's general income level right away. If you
date a person who makes substantially less money than you do, right away
you know that's likely to become a problem and you'll end up supporting
them eventually if you end up together. If you know the things that
married couples are likely have fights about, then you can look for signs of incompatibility in those areas while dating. Premarital counseling is also an excellent idea. Kali, without saying much further, I respect you personally, but the view you espouse here is naive. i

I've been married twice, I think I learned enough from the first colossal
failure to have done a much better job the second time around. How am I
naive?

Kali wrote:
"Wayne Rasmussen" <XvirtualDoNotSpamMe@gomonarch.com> wrote in message news:3F3C03D1.73BA5D4B@gomonarch.com... I agree with the shaming point you make. Another thing, marriage does not equal commitment. Marriage is a legal document/contract, and with a divorce rate at around 60% nobody can honesty say that marriage is the same as commitment. Acting and being with traits that are associated with commitment is being committed. Dare I say, that someone who requires marriage as proof of commitment from a partner or they will leave is showing that they are more interesting in the legal benefits than a real commitment. Unless you mean a money commitment from the guy. Beside the shaming and insults against men, what have they show us to sell men on the idea of marriage? Nothing. Make me believe it is worth my time and effort. Show me points that I care about not ones that matter to her. The legal rights granted from marriage or domestic partnership can be nice to have. It can be nice to know that you can get insurance under your partner's plan if you lose your job. It can also provide some peace of mind knowing that in the event of an emergency, you count as next of kin, aren't at the mercy of family members who may not like you, and can't be kept away from visiting your partner at the hospital. Like any other contract, there should be some forethought before entering a marriage, more than most people tend to give it. Making wise choices can eliminate or drastically reduce the possible negatives if a marriage doesn't work out.

I don't think you addressed anything that I currently care about. Those sound
like reasons that matter to you.

"Wayne Rasmussen" <XvirtualDoNotSpamMe@gomonarch.com> wrote in message
news:3F3D4491.D1DBAB51@gomonarch.com... Kali wrote: "Wayne Rasmussen" <XvirtualDoNotSpamMe@gomonarch.com> wrote in message news:3F3C03D1.73BA5D4B@gomonarch.com... I agree with the shaming point you make. Another thing, marriage
does not equal commitment. Marriage is a legal document/contract, and with a divorce rate at around 60%
nobody can honesty say that marriage is the same as commitment. Acting and being with traits that are associated with commitment is being committed. Dare I say, that someone who requires marriage as proof
of commitment from a partner or they will leave is showing that they are more interesting in the legal benefits than a real commitment. Unless you mean a money commitment from the guy. Beside the shaming and insults against men, what have they show us
to sell men on the idea of marriage? Nothing. Make me believe it is worth my time and effort. Show me points that I care about not ones that matter to her. The legal rights granted from marriage or domestic partnership can be
nice to have. It can be nice to know that you can get insurance under your partner's plan if you lose your job. It can also provide some peace
of mind knowing that in the event of an emergency, you count as next of
kin, aren't at the mercy of family members who may not like you, and can't
be kept away from visiting your partner at the hospital. Like any other contract, there should be some forethought before
entering a marriage, more than most people tend to give it. Making wise
choices can eliminate or drastically reduce the possible negatives if a
marriage doesn't work out. I don't think you addressed anything that I currently care about. Those
sound like reasons that matter to you.

Maybe you wouldn't care if a long term partner was in the hospital and you
were prevented from seeing her. I don't know what you care about and what
you don't. I just know I'd be going crazy if someone I loved was
suffering and I couldn't get in there to be with them.

"James King" <james.king@anews.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.19a5b443a84656ca9896a3@news.alt.net... On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:54:15 -0400, In article <vjlgd8o5jk380@corp.supernews.com>, Robert Calvert (Hercules1@pcstarnet.com) wrote: "James King" <james.king@anews.co.uk> wrote in message news:MPG.19a41fa73700bfc098969a@news.alt.net... <snippage> The time is almost upon us when the only men who will be ready to
father children will be those travelling around under counterfeit temporary identities. Or an ambassador with full diplomatic immunity. :-) That would be a problem for a mother, having to learn the language to speak to her own kid. When you stop and think about it, the above mentioned trends would
probably result in cognitive degeneration over time. After all, if we discouraged
men who are intelligent enough to consider the possible consequences of fatherhood from reproducing, the reckless and shortsighted men would be
the only ones left fathering children. Granted, they would all be in jail.
But they would have succeeded in reproducing. Robert I suppose Australia was started that way, from convicts, and they usually do well at the Olympics.
In this context, I was mainly referring to a man who would wind up in jail
because he would be unable to satisfy the unreasonable demands of his
wife/girlfriend. Intelligent men would most likely avoid this trap by not
fathering children. Stupid men would not.

Robert
-- James King www.anews.co.uk The best UK based serious news digest on the internet -- James King www.anews.co.uk The best UK based serious news digest on the internet

In article <ch4611-hr3.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, trajan@sfchat.org wrote: In alt.support.marriage Kali <spamcatcher1@lycos.com> wrote: Does C$ mean child support? Having a marriage license does not impact whether or not a man has to pay child support. Having children or not is not related at all to whether or not a man is married. It does, however, mean that there is no burden of proof that a woman's children are in fact fathered by you. If she chooses to get pregnant without your consent, or participation, the marriage license says they're yours and it is difficult or impossible to disavow legal responsibility -- even if you were physically incapable of fathering the children.

you are lying....

i

Ignoramus3934 <ignoramus3934@nospam.3934.invalid> wrote: In article <ch4611-hr3.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, trajan@sfchat.org wrote: It does, however, mean that there is no burden of proof that a woman's children are in fact fathered by you. If she chooses to get pregnant without your consent, or participation, the marriage license says they're yours and it is difficult or impossible to disavow legal responsibility -- even if you were physically incapable of fathering the children. you are lying....

By no means, "Ignoramus" and I resent the accusation.

I may very well be incorrect, but I certainly am not intentionally passing
on incorrect information. Since _I am not a lawyer_ let alone a family law
attorney qualified to interpret the relevant laws.

My understanding of this, however, seems to be borne out in at least some
case; sadly, I can't find the better source I originally read about this in
but a short while with Google reveals a fair amount of support for the
"presumption of paternity" for married men.

http://fact.on.ca/newpaper/lw990412.htm
https://www.tdh.state.tx.us/bvs/patern/patern.htm
http://www.cadivorceonline.com/calpages/childsupport/whopaychildsupportFAQ.asp
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/t/thompson/thompson041102.htm
http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/pd060299e.html
http://www.irvinelaw.com/PATERNIT.HTM
http://www.webcom.com/kmc/adoption/law/ca/fam/div12-p2.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19990221father2.asp
http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C200-299/2100822.HTM
http://www.fathersforlife.org/fatherhood/estoppel.htm

So... read for yourself. I may be wrong.

Marcus Ulpius Traianus

In article <pjg711-fub.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Ignoramus3934 <ignoramus3934@nospam.3934.invalid> wrote: In article <ch4611-hr3.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, trajan@sfchat.org wrote: It does, however, mean that there is no burden of proof that a woman's children are in fact fathered by you. If she chooses to get pregnant without your consent, or participation, the marriage license says they're yours and it is difficult or impossible to disavow legal responsibility -- even if you were physically incapable of fathering the children. you are lying.... By no means, "Ignoramus" and I resent the accusation.

Okay, so maybe I was too harsh and you are misinformed.

It used to be, that being married led to a presumption of paternity
that was next to impossible to rebut. The cases where paternity could
be rebutted were, like, a sailor being away for 2 years and his wife
giving birth to a child whereas she could not get pregnant from him.

After DNA, many states changed their law in allowing the presumption
of paternity to be challenged by DNA tests. Illinois, for instance, is
one of many such states.

http://www.dnatestingcentre.com/States/Illinois_Paternity_Testing.htm
http://www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/ilcs/ch750/ch750act45.htm

``An action to declare the non-existence of the parent and child
relationship brought under subsection (b) of Section 7 of this Act
shall be barred if brought later than 2 years after the petitioner
obtains knowledge of relevant facts. The 2-year period for bringing
an action to declare the nonexistence of the parent and child
relationship shall not extend beyond the date on which the reaches the
age of 18 years. Failure to bring an action within 2 years shall not
bar any party from asserting a defense in any action to declare the
existence of the parent and child relationship.''

i
I may very well be incorrect, but I certainly am not intentionally passing on incorrect information. Since _I am not a lawyer_ let alone a family law attorney qualified to interpret the relevant laws. My understanding of this, however, seems to be borne out in at least some case; sadly, I can't find the better source I originally read about this in but a short while with Google reveals a fair amount of support for the "presumption of paternity" for married men. http://fact.on.ca/newpaper/lw990412.htm https://www.tdh.state.tx.us/bvs/patern/patern.htm http://www.cadivorceonline.com/calpages/childsupport/whopaychildsupportFAQ.asp http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/t/thompson/thompson041102.htm http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/pd060299e.html http://www.irvinelaw.com/PATERNIT.HTM http://www.webcom.com/kmc/adoption/law/ca/fam/div12-p2.html http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/19990221father2.asp http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C200-299/2100822.HTM http://www.fathersforlife.org/fatherhood/estoppel.htm So... read for yourself. I may be wrong. Marcus Ulpius Traianus

Ignoramus3934 <ignoramus3934@nospam.3934.invalid> wrote: Okay, so maybe I was too harsh and you are misinformed.

Apparantly I was, and thank you for passing on the URLs for the IL law on
the subject.

As you say it does seem to vary by state. The most interesting pages I saw
were re: a couple of PA cases in 1997 or so, so even for that state they may
be out of date.

Marcus Ulpius Traianus

You completely misunderstood the PA case.

Read it again.

i

In article <qfm711-aj1.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Ignoramus3934 <ignoramus3934@nospam.3934.invalid> wrote: Okay, so maybe I was too harsh and you are misinformed. Apparantly I was, and thank you for passing on the URLs for the IL law on the subject. As you say it does seem to vary by state. The most interesting pages I saw were re: a couple of PA cases in 1997 or so, so even for that state they may be out of date. Marcus Ulpius Traianus

Ignoramus3934 <ignoramus3934@nospam.3934.invalid> wrote: You completely misunderstood the PA case. Read it again.

Well, at least one of the articles on PA cases says that PA was
"exceptional."

Beyond that, which PA case? It seems that I was confusing two of them
(Turczyn v. Turczyn and ELIZABETH O. MISCOVICH VS GERALD ALLAN MISCOVICH,
Appellant; the latter actually has the text of the decision easily found
online).

In both cases, the PA court seems to have held the father responsible for
children who weren't his, and refused to look at DNA evidence. In the
Miscovich case, it looks like the father was not aware the child wasn't his
until after the marriage, while in the other, it looks like the children
were conceived while the parents were separated and the father was aware
that they weren't his (donor sperm) and that he was dumb enough to allow his
name to be put on the birth certificate.

Am I misreading anything so far on the facts of the cases from the
information provided?

the ruling that I read that was posted in this thread recently was
about a man who fathered a child to a mother that was married to
another man. When the father moved to declare his fatherhood and
demand visitation, the court refused to let him do it. Are you
referring to some other case?

i

court refused to let him introduce
In article <dok811-rki.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>, Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Ignoramus3934 <ignoramus3934@nospam.3934.invalid> wrote: You completely misunderstood the PA case. Read it again. Well, at least one of the articles on PA cases says that PA was "exceptional." Beyond that, which PA case? It seems that I was confusing two of them (Turczyn v. Turczyn and ELIZABETH O. MISCOVICH VS GERALD ALLAN MISCOVICH, Appellant; the latter actually has the text of the decision easily found online). In both cases, the PA court seems to have held the father responsible for children who weren't his, and refused to look at DNA evidence. In the Miscovich case, it looks like the father was not aware the child wasn't his until after the marriage, while in the other, it looks like the children were conceived while the parents were separated and the father was aware that they weren't his (donor sperm) and that he was dumb enough to allow his name to be put on the birth certificate. Am I misreading anything so far on the facts of the cases from the information provided?

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:13:33 -0700, trajan@sfchat.org (Marcus Ulpius
Traianus) wrote:
In both cases, the PA court seems to have held the father responsible forchildren who weren't his, and refused to look at DNA evidence. In theMiscovich case, it looks like the father was not aware the child wasn't hisuntil after the marriage,

In that case, whil the children may not have been biologically his,
since their birth, he accepted paternal responsibility for those kids
and years after the fact, he cannot just arbitrarily choose to try to
undo that.
while in the other, it looks like the childrenwere conceived while the parents were separated and the father was awarethat they weren't his (donor sperm) and that he was dumb enough to allow hisname to be put on the birth certificate.

I dont think the male needs to *give his permission* to be listed on
the birth certificate. If he is not present at the birth, then the
hospital/doctors ASK the mother who the father is, and they put that
name on the birth certificate. At that point, it would have been his
repsonsibility to immediately fight that when he found out that she
placed his name on the birth certificate even though he knew they were
not his children.


JC

Ignoramus32317 <ignoramus32317@nospam.32317.invalid> wrote: the ruling that I read that was posted in this thread recently was about a man who fathered a child to a mother that was married to another man. When the father moved to declare his fatherhood and demand visitation, the court refused to let him do it. Are you referring to some other case?

Yes; the two PA cases I posted links to articles referring to. I missed the
message discussing the case you mention.

Jake Nichols <Jake_Nichols@nospam.toughguy.net> wrote: On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:13:33 -0700, trajan@sfchat.org (Marcus Ulpius Traianus) wrote:In both cases, the PA court seems to have held the father responsible forchildren who weren't his, and refused to look at DNA evidence. In theMiscovich case, it looks like the father was not aware the child wasn't hisuntil after the marriage, In that case, whil the children may not have been biologically his, since their birth, he accepted paternal responsibility for those kids and years after the fact, he cannot just arbitrarily choose to try to undo that.

Discovering that you're not a biological parent is not an _arbitrary_ reason
for "trying to undo that." It may or may not be a _sufficient_ one, but
it's quite specific and anything but arbitrary. Personally, I think it's a
very good reason.
while in the other, it looks like the children were conceived while theparents were separated and the father was aware that they weren't his(donor sperm) and that he was dumb enough to allow his name to be put onthe birth certificate. I dont think the male needs to *give his permission* to be listed on the birth certificate.

I think it may vary by state; one of the articles specifically said he
"signed the birth certificate" or some such, and he did act as their father
for a while afterwards _knowing_ they weren't his. So I've got marginally
less sympathy than in the other case, although frankly, it still seems to me
that barring an actual biological relationship or a _positive_ legal
assumption of the responsibilities (through adoption), one's legal
responsibilities for someone else' offspring should be limited.
If he is not present at the birth, then the hospital/doctors ASK the mother who the father is, and they put that name on the birth certificate. At that point, it would have been his repsonsibility to immediately fight that when he found out that she placed his name on the birth certificate even though he knew they were not his children.

From the URLs Ignoramus has pointed me to for IL, and ones I found for
Texas, CA, and PA, it seems to vary a bit between states how "immediate"
that has to be.

My wife and I don't intend to have children any time soon, and probably not
ever (Do I hear a sigh of relief?) but birth control being only moderately
reliable, in the event of an accident... well, as they say "trust, but
verify."

Marcus Ulpius Traianus

I have to agree with the "good catches getting away" not committing, they
are not silly, who wants to be a part time dad and get treated like dirt for
the rest of his life, i know, i've been there. When i got up and stood on my
own two feet again she was always there to try and knock me down again, so
was child support. Many many years down the track i have found a really
beautiful lady who loves me for me , not for my money or my name or looks,
just plain me. Yes i'm a lucky one but i do not see any of my children and
will be paying for them till they reach legal age, by then they will be so
brainwashed that they wont want to see me.
What is happening to society since single parent families are on the rise,
more and more violence and anti social behavoir. All the single parent
families i know and have met have kids who cannot be controlled. So dont
say to me that single parent families work, because they dont.

In article <3f453a3f@news.comindico.com.au>, Dave & Carol says...
So dontsay to me that single parent families work, because they dont.

i love an open mind ~ don't you?

gnat

Actually this allready taking place:
Take a close look at the educational stats, for the blacks of the inner
cities....





"Robert Calvert" <Hercules1@pcstarnet.com> wrote in message
news:vjlgd8o5jk380@corp.supernews.com... "James King" <james.king@anews.co.uk> wrote in message news:MPG.19a41fa73700bfc098969a@news.alt.net... On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 03:44:26 GMT, In article <3f39b3b0.10307674@news.io.com>, joe (yeah@fvckit.com) wrote: Philadelphia Inquirer Jul. 05, 2002 A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss By Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson Katherine is attractive, successful, witty, and educated. She also can't find a husband. Why? Because most of the men this thirtysomething software analyst dates do not want to get married. These men have Peter Pan syndrome: They refuse to commit, refuse to settle down, and refuse to "grow up." However, given the family court policies and divorce trends of today, Peter Pan is no naive boy, but instead a wise man. "Why should I get married and have kids when I could lose those kids and most of what I've worked for at a moment's notice?" asks Dan, a 31-year-old power plant technician who says he will never marry. "I've seen it happen to many of my friends. I know guys who came home one day to an empty house or apartment - wife gone, kids gone. They never saw it coming. Some of them were never able to see their kids regularly again." Census figures suggest that the marriage rate in the United States has dipped 40 percent during the last four decades to its lowest point since the rate was measured. There are many plausible explanations for this trend, but one of the least mentioned is that American men, in the face of a family court system hopelessly stacked against them, have subconsciously launched a "marriage strike." It is not difficult to see why. Let's say that Dan defies Peter Pan, marries Katherine, and has two children. There is a 50 percent likelihood that this marriage will end in divorce within eight years, and if it does, the odds are 2-1 it will be Katherine, not Dan, who initiates the divorce. It may not matter that Dan was a decent husband. Studies show that few divorces are initiated over abuse or because the man has already abandoned the family. Nor is adultery cited as a factor by divorcing women appreciably more than by divorcing men. While the courts may grant Dan and Katherine joint legal custody, the odds are overwhelming that it is Katherine, not Dan, who will win physical custody. Overnight, Dan, accustomed to seeing his kids every day and being an integral part of their lives, will become a "14 percent dad" - a father who is allowed to spend only one out of every seven days with his own children. Once Katherine and Dan are divorced, odds are at least even that Katherine will interfere with Dan's visitation rights. Three-quarters of divorced men surveyed say their ex-wives have interfered with their visitation, and 40 percent of mothers studied admitted that they had done so, and that they had generally acted out of spite or in order to punish their exes. Katherine will keep the house and most of the couple's assets. Dan will need to set up a new residence and pay at least a third of his take-home pay to Katherine in child support. As bad as all of this is, it would still make Dan one of the lucky ones. After all, he could be one of those fathers who cannot see his children at all because his ex has made a false accusation of domestic violence, child abuse, or child molestation. Or a father who can only see his own children under supervised visitation or in nightmarish visitation centers where dads are treated like criminals. He could be one of those fathers whose ex has moved their children hundreds or thousands of miles away, in violation of court orders, which courts often do not enforce. He could be one of those fathers who tears up his life and career again and again in order to follow his children, only to have his ex-wife continually move them. He could be one of the fathers who has lost his job, seen his income drop, or suffered a disabling injury, only to have child support arrearages and interest pile up to create a mountain of debt which he could never hope to pay off. Or a father who is forced to pay 70 percent or 80 percent of his income in child support because the court has imputed an unrealistic income to him. Or a dad who suffers from one of the child support enforcement system's endless and difficult to correct errors, or who is jailed because he cannot keep up with his payments. Or a dad who reaches old age impoverished because he lost everything he had in a divorce when he was middle-aged and did not have the time and the opportunity to earn it back. "It's a shame," Dan says. "I always wanted to be a father and have a family. But unless the laws change and give fathers the same right to be a part of their children's lives as mothers have, it just isn't worth the risk." Dianna Thompson is the founder and executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. She can be contacted by e-mail at DThompson2232@aol.com. Glenn Sacks writes about gender issues from the male perspective. He invites readers' comments at Glenn@GlennSacks.com. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ The time is almost upon us when the only men who will be ready to father children will be those travelling around under counterfeit temporary identities. Or an ambassador with full diplomatic immunity. :-) When you stop and think about it, the above mentioned trends would
probably result in cognitive degeneration over time. After all, if we discouraged
men who are intelligent enough to consider the possible consequences of fatherhood from reproducing, the reckless and shortsighted men would be
the only ones left fathering children. Granted, they would all be in jail. But they would have succeeded in reproducing. Robert -- James King www.anews.co.uk The best UK based serious news digest on the internet

Quite right old boy, quite right.
And, if you will consider this:

Just what, if any benefit is there for ANY man to marry?



"nethead8" <nethead8@cox.net> wrote in message
news:PJG_a.119120$Bp2.68728@fed1read07... "Robert Calvert" <Hercules1@pcstarnet.com> wrote in message
news:vjlgd8o5jk380@corp.supernews.com... "James King" <james.king@anews.co.uk> wrote in message news:MPG.19a41fa73700bfc098969a@news.alt.net... On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 03:44:26 GMT, In article <3f39b3b0.10307674@news.io.com>, joe (yeah@fvckit.com) wrote: > Philadelphia Inquirer > Jul. 05, 2002 > > A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss > > By Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson > > > Katherine is attractive, successful, witty, and educated. She also > can't find a husband. Why? Because most of the men this > thirtysomething software analyst dates do not want to get married. > These men have Peter Pan syndrome: They refuse to commit, refuse to > settle down, and refuse to "grow up." > > However, given the family court policies and divorce trends of
today, > Peter Pan is no naive boy, but instead a wise man. > > "Why should I get married and have kids when I could lose those kids > and most of what I've worked for at a moment's notice?" asks Dan, a > 31-year-old power plant technician who says he will never marry.
"I've > seen it happen to many of my friends. I know guys who came home one > day to an empty house or apartment - wife gone, kids gone. They
never > saw it coming. Some of them were never able to see their kids > regularly again." > > Census figures suggest that the marriage rate in the United States
has > dipped 40 percent during the last four decades to its lowest point > since the rate was measured. There are many plausible explanations
for > this trend, but one of the least mentioned is that American men, in > the face of a family court system hopelessly stacked against them, > have subconsciously launched a "marriage strike." > > It is not difficult to see why. Let's say that Dan defies Peter Pan, > marries Katherine, and has two children. There is a 50 percent > likelihood that this marriage will end in divorce within eight
years, > and if it does, the odds are 2-1 it will be Katherine, not Dan, who > initiates the divorce. It may not matter that Dan was a decent > husband. Studies show that few divorces are initiated over abuse or > because the man has already abandoned the family. Nor is adultery > cited as a factor by divorcing women appreciably more than by > divorcing men. > > While the courts may grant Dan and Katherine joint legal custody,
the > odds are overwhelming that it is Katherine, not Dan, who will win > physical custody. Overnight, Dan, accustomed to seeing his kids
every > day and being an integral part of their lives, will become a "14 > percent dad" - a father who is allowed to spend only one out of
every > seven days with his own children. > > Once Katherine and Dan are divorced, odds are at least even that > Katherine will interfere with Dan's visitation rights.
Three-quarters > of divorced men surveyed say their ex-wives have interfered with
their > visitation, and 40 percent of mothers studied admitted that they had > done so, and that they had generally acted out of spite or in order
to > punish their exes. > > Katherine will keep the house and most of the couple's assets. Dan > will need to set up a new residence and pay at least a third of his > take-home pay to Katherine in child support. > > As bad as all of this is, it would still make Dan one of the lucky > ones. After all, he could be one of those fathers who cannot see his > children at all because his ex has made a false accusation of
domestic > violence, child abuse, or child molestation. Or a father who can
only > see his own children under supervised visitation or in nightmarish > visitation centers where dads are treated like criminals. > > He could be one of those fathers whose ex has moved their children > hundreds or thousands of miles away, in violation of court orders, > which courts often do not enforce. He could be one of those fathers > who tears up his life and career again and again in order to follow > his children, only to have his ex-wife continually move them. > > He could be one of the fathers who has lost his job, seen his income > drop, or suffered a disabling injury, only to have child support > arrearages and interest pile up to create a mountain of debt which
he > could never hope to pay off. Or a father who is forced to pay 70 > percent or 80 percent of his income in child support because the
court > has imputed an unrealistic income to him. Or a dad who suffers from > one of the child support enforcement system's endless and difficult
to > correct errors, or who is jailed because he cannot keep up with his > payments. Or a dad who reaches old age impoverished because he lost > everything he had in a divorce when he was middle-aged and did not > have the time and the opportunity to earn it back. > > "It's a shame," Dan says. "I always wanted to be a father and have a > family. But unless the laws change and give fathers the same right
to > be a part of their children's lives as mothers have, it just isn't > worth the risk." > > > Dianna Thompson is the founder and executive director of the
American > Coalition for Fathers and Children. She can be contacted by e-mail
at > DThompson2232@aol.com. Glenn Sacks writes about gender issues from
the > male perspective. He invites readers' comments at > Glenn@GlennSacks.com. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ > The time is almost upon us when the only men who will be ready to
father children will be those travelling around under counterfeit temporary identities. Or an ambassador with full diplomatic immunity. :-) When you stop and think about it, the above mentioned trends would
probably result in cognitive degeneration over time. After all, if we discouraged
men who are intelligent enough to consider the possible consequences of fatherhood from reproducing, the reckless and shortsighted men would be
the only ones left fathering children. Granted, they would all be in jail.
But they would have succeeded in reproducing. Robert I see that as the whole point of the original article - Intelligent men
who are capable of considering the consequenses *are* deciding not to marry or father
children, so who does that leave? It's a trend that's actually happening, and worth noting.
Those that do will succeed in reproducing, but from there on out, everything is downhill. The kids
are raised in a single-mom enviornment, and although it's PC to say that fathers are not
needed, anyone with eyes, ears and common sense can see what has happened to our society. Many men who would be considered "good catches" are not giving in, in
spite of attempts to shame them ("Peter Pan", "unable to make a commitment", etc.) into
marrying, even though it is a bum deal for many of them. They are *very* grown up, and wise. And
they are making a rational choice. Jack

Here! Here!
Righto!



"Wayne Rasmussen" <XvirtualDoNotSpamMe@gomonarch.com> wrote in message
news:3F3C03D1.73BA5D4B@gomonarch.com... nethead8 wrote: "Robert Calvert" <Hercules1@pcstarnet.com> wrote in message
news:vjlgd8o5jk380@corp.supernews.com... "James King" <james.king@anews.co.uk> wrote in message news:MPG.19a41fa73700bfc098969a@news.alt.net... > > On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 03:44:26 GMT, > In article <3f39b3b0.10307674@news.io.com>, > joe (yeah@fvckit.com) wrote: > > > Philadelphia Inquirer > > Jul. 05, 2002 > > > > A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss > > > > By Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson > > > > > > Katherine is attractive, successful, witty, and educated. She also > > can't find a husband. Why? Because most of the men this > > thirtysomething software analyst dates do not want to get married. > > These men have Peter Pan syndrome: They refuse to commit, refuse
to > > settle down, and refuse to "grow up." > > > > However, given the family court policies and divorce trends of
today, > > Peter Pan is no naive boy, but instead a wise man. > > > > "Why should I get married and have kids when I could lose those
kids > > and most of what I've worked for at a moment's notice?" asks Dan,
a > > 31-year-old power plant technician who says he will never marry.
"I've > > seen it happen to many of my friends. I know guys who came home
one > > day to an empty house or apartment - wife gone, kids gone. They
never > > saw it coming. Some of them were never able to see their kids > > regularly again." > > > > Census figures suggest that the marriage rate in the United States
has > > dipped 40 percent during the last four decades to its lowest point > > since the rate was measured. There are many plausible explanations
for > > this trend, but one of the least mentioned is that American men,
in > > the face of a family court system hopelessly stacked against them, > > have subconsciously launched a "marriage strike." > > > > It is not difficult to see why. Let's say that Dan defies Peter
Pan, > > marries Katherine, and has two children. There is a 50 percent > > likelihood that this marriage will end in divorce within eight
years, > > and if it does, the odds are 2-1 it will be Katherine, not Dan,
who > > initiates the divorce. It may not matter that Dan was a decent > > husband. Studies show that few divorces are initiated over abuse
or > > because the man has already abandoned the family. Nor is adultery > > cited as a factor by divorcing women appreciably more than by > > divorcing men. > > > > While the courts may grant Dan and Katherine joint legal custody,
the > > odds are overwhelming that it is Katherine, not Dan, who will win > > physical custody. Overnight, Dan, accustomed to seeing his kids
every > > day and being an integral part of their lives, will become a "14 > > percent dad" - a father who is allowed to spend only one out of
every > > seven days with his own children. > > > > Once Katherine and Dan are divorced, odds are at least even that > > Katherine will interfere with Dan's visitation rights.
Three-quarters > > of divorced men surveyed say their ex-wives have interfered with
their > > visitation, and 40 percent of mothers studied admitted that they
had > > done so, and that they had generally acted out of spite or in
order to > > punish their exes. > > > > Katherine will keep the house and most of the couple's assets. Dan > > will need to set up a new residence and pay at least a third of
his > > take-home pay to Katherine in child support. > > > > As bad as all of this is, it would still make Dan one of the lucky > > ones. After all, he could be one of those fathers who cannot see
his > > children at all because his ex has made a false accusation of
domestic > > violence, child abuse, or child molestation. Or a father who can
only > > see his own children under supervised visitation or in nightmarish > > visitation centers where dads are treated like criminals. > > > > He could be one of those fathers whose ex has moved their children > > hundreds or thousands of miles away, in violation of court orders, > > which courts often do not enforce. He could be one of those
fathers > > who tears up his life and career again and again in order to
follow > > his children, only to have his ex-wife continually move them. > > > > He could be one of the fathers who has lost his job, seen his
income > > drop, or suffered a disabling injury, only to have child support > > arrearages and interest pile up to create a mountain of debt which
he > > could never hope to pay off. Or a father who is forced to pay 70 > > percent or 80 percent of his income in child support because the
court > > has imputed an unrealistic income to him. Or a dad who suffers
from > > one of the child support enforcement system's endless and
difficult to > > correct errors, or who is jailed because he cannot keep up with
his > > payments. Or a dad who reaches old age impoverished because he
lost > > everything he had in a divorce when he was middle-aged and did not > > have the time and the opportunity to earn it back. > > > > "It's a shame," Dan says. "I always wanted to be a father and have
a > > family. But unless the laws change and give fathers the same right
to > > be a part of their children's lives as mothers have, it just isn't > > worth the risk." > > > > > > Dianna Thompson is the founder and executive director of the
American > > Coalition for Fathers and Children. She can be contacted by e-mail
at > > DThompson2232@aol.com. Glenn Sacks writes about gender issues from
the > > male perspective. He invites readers' comments at > > Glenn@GlennSacks.com. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ > > > > The time is almost upon us when the only men who will be ready to
father > children will be those travelling around under counterfeit temporary > identities. > Or an ambassador with full diplomatic immunity. :-) When you stop and think about it, the above mentioned trends would
probably result in cognitive degeneration over time. After all, if we
discouraged men who are intelligent enough to consider the possible consequences of fatherhood from reproducing, the reckless and shortsighted men would
be the only ones left fathering children. Granted, they would all be in jail.
But they would have succeeded in reproducing. Robert I see that as the whole point of the original article - Intelligent men
who are capable of considering the consequenses *are* deciding not to marry or father
children, so who does that leave? It's a trend that's actually happening, and worth
noting. Those that do will succeed in reproducing, but from there on out, everything is downhill. The kids
are raised in a single-mom enviornment, and although it's PC to say that fathers are not
needed, anyone with eyes, ears and common sense can see what has happened to our
society. Many men who would be considered "good catches" are not giving in, in
spite of attempts to shame them ("Peter Pan", "unable to make a commitment", etc.) into
marrying, even though it is a bum deal for many of them. They are *very* grown up, and wise.
And they are making a rational choice. Jack I agree with the shaming point you make. Another thing, marriage does not
equal commitment. Marriage is a legal document/contract, and with a divorce rate at around 60% nobody
can honesty say that marriage is the same as commitment. Acting and being with traits that are associated
with commitment is being committed. Dare I say, that someone who requires marriage as proof of
commitment from a partner or they will leave is showing that they are more interesting in the legal benefits
than a real commitment. Unless you mean a money commitment from the guy. Beside the shaming and insults against men, what have they show us to sell
men on the idea of marriage? Nothing. Make me believe it is worth my time and effort. Show me points
that I care about not ones that matter to her.

Interesting the 'committment' word is absent from this missive....
But the concerns with 'money', 'inheritance' etc., are clearly stated.
Bearing out the preceding writers statment about a womans true concerns...



"Kali" <spamcatcher1@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:bhj09n$3829$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de... "Wayne Rasmussen" <XvirtualDoNotSpamMe@gomonarch.com> wrote in message news:3F3C03D1.73BA5D4B@gomonarch.com... I agree with the shaming point you make. Another thing, marriage does not equal commitment. Marriage is a legal document/contract, and with a divorce rate at around 60% nobody can honesty say that marriage is the same as commitment. Acting and being with traits that are associated with commitment is being committed. Dare I say, that someone who requires marriage as proof of commitment from a partner or they will leave is showing that they are more interesting in the legal benefits than a real commitment. Unless you mean a money commitment from the guy. Beside the shaming and insults against men, what have they show us to sell men on the idea of marriage? Nothing. Make me believe it is worth my time and effort. Show me points that I care about not ones that matter to her. The legal rights granted from marriage or domestic partnership can be nice to have. It can be nice to know that you can get insurance under your partner's plan if you lose your job. It can also provide some peace of mind knowing that in the event of an emergency, you count as next of kin, aren't at the mercy of family members who may not like you, and can't be kept away from visiting your partner at the hospital. Like any other contract, there should be some forethought before entering a marriage, more than most people tend to give it. Making wise choices can eliminate or drastically reduce the possible negatives if a marriage doesn't work out.

Righty-o Old chap could'nt have said it better.....
Just look at kobe bryant...



"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F3D091D.2080608@hotmail.com... Kali wrote: "Wayne Rasmussen" <XvirtualDoNotSpamMe@gomonarch.com> wrote in message news:3F3C03D1.73BA5D4B@gomonarch.com...I agree with the shaming point you make. Another thing, marriage does not equal commitment. Marriage isa legal document/contract, and with a divorce rate at around 60% nobody can honesty say that marriage isthe same as commitment. Acting and being with traits that are associated with commitment is beingcommitted. Dare I say, that someone who requires marriage as proof of commitment from a partner or theywill leave is showing that they are more interesting in the legal benefits than a real commitment.Unless you mean a money commitment from the guy.Beside the shaming and insults against men, what have they show us to sell men on the idea of marriage?Nothing. Make me believe it is worth my time and effort. Show me points that I care about not ones thatmatter to her. The legal rights granted from marriage or domestic partnership can be
nice to have. What rights? Marriage is a HUGE cost and RISKY venture for men these days. It subjects the man to very large risk, high cost, and virtually no benefits. Feminism has destroyed all the benefits that men once had. It can be nice to know that you can get insurance under your partner's plan if you lose your job. LOL. She'll leave you if you lose your job, and you'll end up in jail for failure to pay C$. (See "Stiffed : The Betrayal of the American Man" by Susan Faludi.) That's a benefit? It can also provide some peace of mind knowing that in the event of an emergency, you count as next of
kin, aren't at the mercy of family members who may not like you, and can't be kept away from visiting your partner at the hospital. LOL. You'll be at the mercy of a greedy spouse who's out to take your home and kids, and can't wait for the high life insurance to pay off. No benefit there. Like any other contract, there should be some forethought before
entering a marriage, more than most people tend to give it. Making wise choices can eliminate or drastically reduce the possible negatives if a marriage doesn't work out. Wise choice for men is NOT to get married. A man no longer gets ANY benefits and suffers very large legal penalties. A long and well written prenuptial agreement can mitigate some of the risks, as can refusing to have life insurance so your worth more to her alive than dead. But a man is no longer even free of the risk of false rape accusations, and always in a position where he can be accused. Bob

Something women in this country are accomplished artistes at....





"Ignoramus4661" <ignoramus4661@NOSPAM.4661.invalid> wrote in message
news:bhj1lp$ctd$0@pita.alt.net... In article <bhj09n$3829$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kali wrote: The legal rights granted from marriage or domestic partnership can be
nice to have. It can be nice to know that you can get insurance under your partner's plan if you lose your job. It can also provide some peace of mind knowing that in the event of an emergency, you count as next of
kin, aren't at the mercy of family members who may not like you, and can't be kept away from visiting your partner at the hospital. most rights that you cited are of minor importance and at any rate can be obtained by signing a $200 piece of paper or two. Like any other contract, there should be some forethought before
entering a marriage, more than most people tend to give it. Making wise choices can eliminate or drastically reduce the possible negatives if a marriage doesn't work out. No it does not... people change and lie about their true nature... i

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:56:33 -0700,
In article <neF1b.16227$cj1.9562@fed1read06>,
Carl (coldstreamer@lvcm.com) wrote:
Quite right old boy, quite right. And, if you will consider this: Just what, if any benefit is there for ANY man to marry?

I understand there are still some tax advantages in Elbonia....

--
James King

www.anews.co.uk
The best UK based serious news digest on the internet

In alt.support.marriage Carl <coldstreamer@lvcm.com> wrote: Just what, if any benefit is there for ANY man to marry?

In some cases, cheaper car insurance. Statistically, we live longer when
partnered. Her health insurance to fall back on, if we're laid off (if she
works, and if she doesn't take that as an excuse to leave.)

In alt.support.marriage James King <james.king@anews.co.uk> wrote: Just what, if any benefit is there for ANY man to marry? I understand there are still some tax advantages in Elbonia....

If you work, and she doesn't, there are tax advantages in the states; the
"marriage penalty" only applies if you both have decent incomes.

> I agree with the shaming point you make. Another thing, marriage does not
equal commitment. Marriage is a legal document/contract, and with a divorce rate at around 60% nobody
can honesty say that marriage is the same as commitment. Acting and being with traits that are associated
with commitment is being committed. Dare I say, that someone who requires marriage as proof of
commitment from a partner or they will leave is showing that they are more interesting in the legal benefits
than a real commitment. Unless you mean a money commitment from the guy. Beside the shaming and insults against men, what have they show us to sell
men on the idea of marriage? Nothing. Make me believe it is worth my time and effort. Show me points
that I care about not ones that matter to her.
Love and trust between both partners and living with each other for 2 years
before making the plunge would help. Children should be a product of love
not just being with someone, although a lot of men have been trapped by the
woman who wants kids and money but not the husband, myself included. In the
80's it was a big sham, girl finds a guy gets pregnant, kick the guy out she
could stay at home for the rest of her life living of child support and the
government social security, earning a better income than i could working a
40 hour week.

"Dave & Carol" (dangermouse@coolcats.net.au) writes: I agree with the shaming point you make. Another thing, marriage does not equal commitment. Marriage is a legal document/contract, and with a divorce rate at around 60% nobody can honesty say that marriage is the same as commitment. Acting and being with traits that are associated with commitment is being committed. Dare I say, that someone who requires marriage as proof of commitment from a partner or they will leave is showing that they are more interesting in the legal benefits than a real commitment. Unless you mean a money commitment from the guy.

Based on the results of divorces, that IS what most women want. Money.

Heck, in the background, right now, I have Dr. Phil on, and we're hearing
about a chyk who dates older guys, as she said, *for their money*. Even
calls *herself* " selfish and shallow ".

Thats not uncommon, and the fact that so many women demand money from
the men they're divorcing ( Free Clue, ladies: Divorce means that
its *over*, including your right to dip into his wallet ), shows further
that, to many modern women, its about money *over* love.

Heres a test: Ask her to agree to a wedding with a budget of not over
$500. If she says no, you know that its money *over* love for her.

PS: " Agree " means, *never once* mention that budget in any non
positive manner.
Beside the shaming and insults against men, what have they show us to sell men on the idea of marriage? Nothing. Make me believe it is worth my time and effort. Show me points that I care about not ones that matter to her.

Indeed. The short message is, ladies, its NOT all about what you want.
Love and trust between both partners and living with each other for 2 years before making the plunge would help.

Two points: One, theres no magic number, nor even one that materially
diminishes the odds. Rather, the inner character of the woman is the key,
and that is best seen not through the fog of " romance " ( Another
insane notion, and a feminised one at that ).

Further, statistics show that shack up couples not only have a *higher*
rate of divorce, but theirs tend to occur somewhat sooner then those
of not pre-maritally cohabitating.
Children should be a product of love not just being with someone, although a lot of men have been trapped by the woman who wants kids and money but not the husband, myself included.

Indeed. Disgusting, isn't it ? A viscious harm done to such children,
and *with* malice of forethought, on those " mother's " parts, too.
In the 80's it was a big sham, girl finds a guy gets pregnant, kick the guy out she could stay at home for the rest of her life living of child support and the government social security, earning a better income than i could working a 40 hour week.

Theres a word for people like that: *Thieves*.

Theres a second one: " Child abusers. "

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

On 3 Oct 2003 21:47:46 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
"Dave & Carol" (dangermouse@coolcats.net.au) writes: I agree with the shaming point you make. Another thing, marriage does not equal commitment. Marriage is a legal document/contract, and with a divorce rate at around 60% nobody can honesty say that marriage is the same as commitment. Acting and being with traits that are associated with commitment is being committed. Dare I say, that someone who requires marriage as proof of commitment from a partner or they will leave is showing that they are more interesting in the legal benefits than a real commitment. Unless you mean a money commitment from the guy.Based on the results of divorces, that IS what most women want. Money.Heck, in the background, right now, I have Dr. Phil on, and we're hearingabout a chyk who dates older guys, as she said, *for their money*. Evencalls *herself* " selfish and shallow ".Thats not uncommon, and the fact that so many women demand money fromthe men they're divorcing ( Free Clue, ladies: Divorce means thatits *over*, including your right to dip into his wallet ), shows furtherthat, to many modern women, its about money *over* love.Heres a test: Ask her to agree to a wedding with a budget of not over$500. If she says no, you know that its money *over* love for her.

Heh my wedding was under 200.00 and that includes the extra marriage
certificates we paid for.PS: " Agree " means, *never once* mention that budget in any nonpositive manner. Beside the shaming and insults against men, what have they show us to sell men on the idea of marriage? Nothing. Make me believe it is worth my time and effort. Show me points that I care about not ones that matter to her.Indeed. The short message is, ladies, its NOT all about what you want. Love and trust between both partners and living with each other for 2 years before making the plunge would help.Two points: One, theres no magic number, nor even one that materiallydiminishes the odds. Rather, the inner character of the woman is the key,and that is best seen not through the fog of " romance " ( Anotherinsane notion, and a feminised one at that ).Further, statistics show that shack up couples not only have a *higher*rate of divorce, but theirs tend to occur somewhat sooner then thoseof not pre-maritally cohabitating. Children should be a product of love not just being with someone, although a lot of men have been trapped by the woman who wants kids and money but not the husband, myself included.Indeed. Disgusting, isn't it ? A viscious harm done to such children,and *with* malice of forethought, on those " mother's " parts, too. In the 80's it was a big sham, girl finds a guy gets pregnant, kick the guy out she could stay at home for the rest of her life living of child support and the government social security, earning a better income than i could working a 40 hour week.Theres a word for people like that: *Thieves*.Theres a second one: " Child abusers. "Andre



"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure
and never simple." -- Oscar Wilde

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:blkqq2$mf0$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...

[] Based on the results of divorces, that IS what most women want. Money. Heck, in the background, right now, I have Dr. Phil on, and we're hearing about a chyk who dates older guys, as she said, *for their money*. Even calls *herself* " selfish and shallow ".

I agree that this is just creepy.
Thats not uncommon, and the fact that so many women demand money from the men they're divorcing ( Free Clue, ladies: Divorce means that its *over*, including your right to dip into his wallet ), shows further that, to many modern women, its about money *over* love.

I am a SAHM. I and my children are financially dependent on my husband. I
didn't marry him for money, but I would face serious difficulties if he just
walked without any financial provision for us. After all these years out of
the work force I'm not even sure that I am employable. My husband and I
agreed that I would take on the vulnerability of this position because we
saw benefits to our children from this arrangement. Since it was a mutual
agreement, why should I (and my children) be the only ones facing negative
consequences. (All this is hypothetical, since I have no intention of
leaving my husband and he does not seem likely to leave me.)
Heres a test: Ask her to agree to a wedding with a budget of not over $500. If she says no, you know that its money *over* love for her.

I pass that one easily. We didn't spend that much on our wedding.
PS: " Agree " means, *never once* mention that budget in any non positive manner.
[]

The small wedding was my idea. It was a compromise when my then fiance did
not want to elope. I also tried to talk him out of giving me an engagement
ring, but he insisted.

BTW, hi Andre. It isn't often I meet someone that I already know IRL on the
net.

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:

<snip>
BTW, hi Andre. It isn't often I meet someone that I already know IRL on the net.

Oh my...really and truly, Jayne?

Please forgive my presumption, Jayne, but my curiosity has overcome my good
manners. I'm dying to know, is Andre as charming in real life as he is on
usenet?

Tai

Rauni (LadyWolf@newsguy.com) writes: On 3 Oct 2003 21:47:46 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:"Dave & Carol" (dangermouse@coolcats.net.au) writes:>> I agree with the shaming point you make. Another thing, marriage does> not equal commitment. Marriage is a legal document/contract, and with> a divorce rate at around 60% nobody can honesty say that marriage is> the same as commitment. Acting and being with traits that are associated> with commitment is being committed. Dare I say, that someone who> requires marriage as proof of commitment from a partner or they will> leave is showing that they are more interesting in the legal benefits> than a real commitment.> Unless you mean a money commitment from the guy.Based on the results of divorces, that IS what most women want. Money.Heck, in the background, right now, I have Dr. Phil on, and we're hearingabout a chyk who dates older guys, as she said, *for their money*. Evencalls *herself* " selfish and shallow ".Thats not uncommon, and the fact that so many women demand money fromthe men they're divorcing ( Free Clue, ladies: Divorce means thatits *over*, including your right to dip into his wallet ), shows furtherthat, to many modern women, its about money *over* love.Heres a test: Ask her to agree to a wedding with a budget of not over$500. If she says no, you know that its money *over* love for her. Heh my wedding was under 200.00 and that includes the extra marriage certificates we paid for.

Indeed. " The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

The wedding industry, and it's revenues, would suggest that the " I
have to have *my perfect wedding day ! " is not a minority North
American female view.
PS: " Agree " means, *never once* mention that budget in any nonpositive manner.> Beside the shaming and insults against men, what have they show us> to sell men on the idea of marriage?> Nothing. Make me believe it is worth my time and effort. Show me> points that I care about not ones that matter to her.Indeed. The short message is, ladies, its NOT all about what you want. Love and trust between both partners and living with each other for 2 years before making the plunge would help.Two points: One, theres no magic number, nor even one that materiallydiminishes the odds. Rather, the inner character of the woman is the key,and that is best seen not through the fog of " romance " ( Anotherinsane notion, and a feminised one at that ).Further, statistics show that shack up couples not only have a *higher*rate of divorce, but theirs tend to occur somewhat sooner then thoseof not pre-maritally cohabitating. Children should be a product of love not just being with someone, although a lot of men have been trapped by the woman who wants kids and money but not the husband, myself included.Indeed. Disgusting, isn't it ? A viscious harm done to such children,and *with* malice of forethought, on those " mother's " parts, too. In the 80's it was a big sham, girl finds a guy gets pregnant, kick the guy out she could stay at home for the rest of her life living of child support and the government social security, earning a better income than i could working a 40 hour week.Theres a word for people like that: *Thieves*.Theres a second one: " Child abusers. "

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_bleh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bll9kq$dmvna$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: <snip> BTW, hi Andre. It isn't often I meet someone that I already know IRL on the net. Oh my...really and truly, Jayne? Please forgive my presumption, Jayne, but my curiosity has overcome my
good manners. I'm dying to know, is Andre as charming in real life as he is on usenet?

This is the first time that I've seen a Usenet post by him so I can't
compare. However, I do think he is charming. Also good-looking, smart and
articulate.

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
BTW, I'm not a feminist. Why do they get to speak for all women?

Jayne, from the little that I've learned from your posts, you seem to value
feminist ideals. Could you explain what part of feminist philosophy you disagree
with?

The reason I'm asking is that I often see women who have truly internalized
feminist values, believe in equality of men and women, but claim that they are
not feminists. I am curious as to why this is. Is it because they don't know
what feminism is about, and only see a few outrageous extremist people as
symbols of feminism as a whole?

Ellie wrote: I often see women who have truly internalized feminist values, believe in equality of men and women,

Those are two contradictory statements. You confuse the propaganda
rhetoric of feminism with the the actual values of feminism. A century
and a half of feminist action clearly demonstrates that the rhetoric has
nothing to do with the actual values of feminism. That is also clearly
evident by reading the name, "FEMinism" as well. Only a fool would be
so gullible as to believe the propaganda.

but claim that they are not feminists. I am curious as to why this is. Is it because they don't know what feminism is about, and only see a few outrageous extremist people as symbols of feminism as a whole?

Most women today believe in many of the values of feminism and also
believe in most of their propaganda lies -- Ellie is a good example of
the later.

Many women know enough about how feminism hurts women as well as men,
and has created a huge gulf between women and men, that despite
believing the culturally endemic feminist dogma they really want to be
part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Bob

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes:
Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: BTW, I'm not a feminist. Why do they get to speak for all women? Jayne, from the little that I've learned from your posts, you seem to value feminist ideals. Could you explain what part of feminist philosophy you disagree with? The reason I'm asking is that I often see women who have truly internalized feminist values, believe in equality of men and women, but claim that they are not feminists. I am curious as to why this is. Is it because they don't know what feminism is about, and only see a few outrageous extremist people as symbols of feminism as a whole?

I have to say, I've often wondered about this too. I often hear
people saying the equivalent of "I'm not a feminist, but I believe
women should have the same rights as men."

At which point I find myself wondering "well, then what makes you not a
feminist?"

I feel like the rights (in the U.S., where Jayne isn't) has successfully
confused people in the U.S. about what feminism means.

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 19:31:14 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in messagenews:blkqq2$mf0$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...[] Based on the results of divorces, that IS what most women want. Money. Heck, in the background, right now, I have Dr. Phil on, and we're hearing about a chyk who dates older guys, as she said, *for their money*. Even calls *herself* " selfish and shallow ".I agree that this is just creepy. Thats not uncommon, and the fact that so many women demand money from the men they're divorcing ( Free Clue, ladies: Divorce means that its *over*, including your right to dip into his wallet ), shows further that, to many modern women, its about money *over* love.I am a SAHM. I and my children are financially dependent on my husband. Ididn't marry him for money, but I would face serious difficulties if he justwalked without any financial provision for us. After all these years out ofthe work force I'm not even sure that I am employable. My husband and Iagreed that I would take on the vulnerability of this position because wesaw benefits to our children from this arrangement. Since it was a mutualagreement, why should I (and my children) be the only ones facing negativeconsequences. (All this is hypothetical, since I have no intention ofleaving my husband and he does not seem likely to leave me.)

The only time I didn't work was when my daughter was small. when she
was going to school full time I went to work again. When I divorced my
husband I didn't ask alimony and the child support was very small.
100.00. I much rather have him pay for the extras for our daughter. It
worked out well.
Heres a test: Ask her to agree to a wedding with a budget of not over $500. If she says no, you know that its money *over* love for her.I pass that one easily. We didn't spend that much on our wedding. PS: " Agree " means, *never once* mention that budget in any non positive manner.The small wedding was my idea. It was a compromise when my then fiance didnot want to elope. I also tried to talk him out of giving me an engagementring, but he insisted.

BTW I done both a *big* wedding (well really it was a small big
wedding as we had the reception at my parents home and my family made
all the food) and a small wedding at the county clerks. I can say the
small one was *way* nicer. Where I live a lot of the county clerks are
located in public libraries. There was a small gazebo in a graden like
setting where we got married. In fact there was enough seating for ten
people if we had chosen to invite anyone. Afterward we went to the
Local Starbuck's (where we went for our first date) and celebrated
with a few friends. It was wonderful. And so stress free.

I must be one of the few females in the world who doesn't like
diamonds. They are rocks without character. We bought celtic wedding
band for each other.BTW, hi Andre. It isn't often I meet someone that I already know IRL on thenet.Jayne

Rauni (LadyWolf@newsguy.com) writes: On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 19:31:14 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in messagenews:blkqq2$mf0$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...[] Based on the results of divorces, that IS what most women want. Money. Heck, in the background, right now, I have Dr. Phil on, and we're hearing about a chyk who dates older guys, as she said, *for their money*. Even calls *herself* " selfish and shallow ".I agree that this is just creepy. Thats not uncommon, and the fact that so many women demand money from the men they're divorcing ( Free Clue, ladies: Divorce means that its *over*, including your right to dip into his wallet ), shows further that, to many modern women, its about money *over* love.I am a SAHM. I and my children are financially dependent on my husband.I didn't marry him for money, but I would face serious difficulties ifhe just walked without any financial provision for us. After allthese years out ofthe work force I'm not even sure that I am employable. My husband and Iagreed that I would take on the vulnerability of this position because wesaw benefits to our children from this arrangement. Since it was a mutualagreement, why should I (and my children) be the only ones facing negativeconsequences. (All this is hypothetical, since I have no intention ofleaving my husband and he does not seem likely to leave me.) The only time I didn't work was when my daughter was small. when she was going to school full time I went to work again. When I divorced my husband I didn't ask alimony and the child support was very small.

Indeed. *You didn't ask*...

But, the *law* allowed you ask for, and *get*, more.

It didn't let him have *any* say in whatever *you chose*...
100.00. I much rather have him pay for the extras for our daughter. It worked out well.

Indeed. Not the point, however...
Heres a test: Ask her to agree to a wedding with a budget of not over $500. If she says no, you know that its money *over* love for her.I pass that one easily. We didn't spend that much on our wedding. PS: " Agree " means, *never once* mention that budget in any non positive manner.The small wedding was my idea. It was a compromise when my then fiancedid not want to elope. I also tried to talk him out of giving me anengagement ring, but he insisted. BTW I done both a *big* wedding (well really it was a small big wedding as we had the reception at my parents home and my family made all the food) and a small wedding at the county clerks. I can say the small one was *way* nicer. Where I live a lot of the county clerks are located in public libraries. There was a small gazebo in a graden like setting where we got married. In fact there was enough seating for ten people if we had chosen to invite anyone. Afterward we went to the Local Starbuck's (where we went for our first date) and celebrated with a few friends. It was wonderful. And so stress free.

Indeed. yet, many women, enough to build a *multi-billion dollar
a year industry on*, demand that " stress "...
I must be one of the few females in the world who doesn't like diamonds.

There you go... " One of the *few*... "

That, too, is my point, and that you are one of the few, only
points what *most* ( By even your words ) *demand*...
They are rocks without character. We bought celtic wedding band for each other.BTW, hi Andre. It isn't often I meet someone that I already know IRL onthe net.Jayne

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Doug Anderson wrote: Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> writes:Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:BTW, I'm not a feminist. Why do they get to speak for all women?Jayne, from the little that I've learned from your posts, you seem to valuefeminist ideals. Could you explain what part of feminist philosophy you disagreewith?The reason I'm asking is that I often see women who have truly internalizedfeminist values, believe in equality of men and women, but claim that they arenot feminists. I am curious as to why this is. Is it because they don't knowwhat feminism is about, and only see a few outrageous extremist people assymbols of feminism as a whole? I have to say, I've often wondered about this too. I often hear people saying the equivalent of "I'm not a feminist, but I believe women should have the same rights as men." At which point I find myself wondering "well, then what makes you not a feminist?" I feel like the rights (in the U.S., where Jayne isn't) has successfully confused people in the U.S. about what feminism means.

There was a pretty good book published a few years ago by Judith Levine,
a journalist and author: "My Enemy, My Love: Man-Hating and Ambivalence
in Women's Lives" She describes how almost all women in America hate
men despite also loving one or two, and she makes excuses for them doing
so. The misandry of feminism is pretty universal in society, most men
also believe their century of hate propaganda.

Bob

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: BTW, I'm not a feminist. Why do they get to speak for all women? Jayne, from the little that I've learned from your posts, you seem to value feminist ideals. Nope, since she likes men... Could you explain what part of feminist philosophy you disagree with? Hopefully, the never ending demands for special priviliges for women, and the constant hate of men...

Virtually none of the feminist thought I know about espouses either of
these. Furthermore, neither do any of the (many) avowed feminists I know.

Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> writes:
There was a pretty good book published a few years ago by Judith Levine, a journalist and author: "My Enemy, My Love: Man-Hating and Ambivalence in Women's Lives" She describes how almost all women in America hate men despite also loving one or two, and she makes excuses for them doing so. The misandry of feminism is pretty universal in society, most men also believe their century of hate propaganda.

I disagree with this completely. But, women writing books denouncing
feminism do make good fodder for the book publishers.

>Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: BTW, I'm not a feminist. Why do they get to speak for all women?Jayne, from the little that I've learned from your posts, you seem to valuefeminist ideals. Could you explain what part of feminist philosophy youdisagreewith?The reason I'm asking is that I often see women who have truly internalizedfeminist values, believe in equality of men and women, but claim that theyarenot feminists. I am curious as to why this is. Is it because they don't knowwhat feminism is about, and only see a few outrageous extremist people assymbols of feminism as a whole?


Can I jump in here? :-)

I don't see myself as a "feminist", but, perhaps, instead, as a "neo-feminist",
as I have seen the term described by others. I believe that women (as a group,
not WRT specific individual people) have a set of strengths and men (again, as
a group) have certain areas of strength. Neither strength areas are more or
less important than the other, but they are different. (Think of overlapping
bell curves, with means 3 standard deviations away. Sure, a group of women
will have a higher value for characteristic "A" than a group of men, but
overall, the means are significantly different).

The way I don't see myself as "feminist" is that I don't believe that men and
women (again, as a group) are equally capable in all ways. Men, as a group,
are higher in brute strength than women. Women, as a group, tend to show more
of a gift for understanding the meta-communication between individuals.

The way I *do* see myself as a feminist is that I think that the gifts that
each gender tends to have are equally valuable. I think that a woman's
yearning to want to "nest" and provide minute-by-minute nuturing to the
children is as valuable as a man's more more competitive yearning to go out and
hunt the buffalo. :-) IOW, I see the basic tendencies of men and women as
*equally VALUABLE*, but not equivalent.

Does that make sense?

Sheila

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:
Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: BTW, I'm not a feminist. Why do they get to speak for all women?Jayne, from the little that I've learned from your posts, you seem to valuefeminist ideals. Could you explain what part of feminist philosophy youdisagreewith?The reason I'm asking is that I often see women who have truly internalizedfeminist values, believe in equality of men and women, but claim that theyarenot feminists. I am curious as to why this is. Is it because they don't knowwhat feminism is about, and only see a few outrageous extremist people assymbols of feminism as a whole? Can I jump in here? :-) I don't see myself as a "feminist", but, perhaps, instead, as a "neo-feminist", as I have seen the term described by others. I believe that women (as a group, not WRT specific individual people) have a set of strengths and men (again, as a group) have certain areas of strength. Neither strength areas are more or less important than the other, but they are different. (Think of overlapping bell curves, with means 3 standard deviations away.

I like this metaphor! But my experience would suggest 1, or 1.5
standard deviations away!

Of course feminism doesn't maintain that men and women are identical.
Rather that they should have the same rights and opportunities.

>> I don't see myself as a "feminist", but, perhaps, instead, as a"neo-feminist", as I have seen the term described by others. I believe that women (as agroup, not WRT specific individual people) have a set of strengths and men (again,as a group) have certain areas of strength. Neither strength areas are moreor less important than the other, but they are different. (Think ofoverlapping bell curves, with means 3 standard deviations away.I like this metaphor! But my experience would suggest 1, or 1.5standard deviations away!

Thank you. :-) I guess it depends on the trait, so, there could be a range of
1-4 SDs?
Of course feminism doesn't maintain that men and women are identical.Rather that they should have the same rights and opportunities.

I don't even BEGIN to profess to be a scholar of the feminist movement. I
suspect that within "feminist writings" there is a wide range of sentiments,
from that all people should have the same rights and opportunities, to "women
(as a group) can do anything as well as men." The former, I agree with. The
latter, I don't... but I would add that there are things that men can't do some
things as well as women, either! :-)

Sheila

WhansaMi wrote: I don't see myself as a "feminist", but, perhaps, instead, as a "neo-feminist", as I have seen the term described by others. I believe that women (as a group, not WRT specific individual people) have a set of strengths and men (again, as a group) have certain areas of strength. Neither strength areas are more or less important than the other, but they are different. (Think of overlapping bell curves, with means 3 standard deviations away. I like this metaphor! But my experience would suggest 1, or 1.5 standard deviations away! Thank you. :-) I guess it depends on the trait, so, there could be a range of 1-4 SDs? Of course feminism doesn't maintain that men and women are identical. Rather that they should have the same rights and opportunities. I don't even BEGIN to profess to be a scholar of the feminist movement. I suspect that within "feminist writings" there is a wide range of sentiments, from that all people should have the same rights and opportunities, to "women (as a group) can do anything as well as men." The former, I agree with. The latter, I don't... but I would add that there are things that men can't do some things as well as women, either! :-) Sheila

Like fully - and fluidly - share real feelings and emotions, and truly
communicate - with depth, and have (and most often, raise) babies, and a host
of other things - I agree!

Doug Anderson wrote: whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes: I don't even BEGIN to profess to be a scholar of the feminist movement. I suspect that within "feminist writings" there is a wide range of sentiments, from that all people should have the same rights and opportunities, to
"women (as a group) can do anything as well as men." I haven't seen much of this latter in feminist writing. But it could be there someplace. And you're right that there is a very broad range. (Feminist writing is so broad that anyone who wants to say: "But feminists say men should be slaves and women should be worshipped and slathered in butter" can probably find it somewhere.) No one can agree with all feminist writing for the simple reason that not all feminist writers agree with each other! Given that there is no leader of feminism to say what feminism is, nobody can officially pronounce some piece of thought "feminist" or "non-feminist."

Gloria Steinem, I believe. Or at least as I recall...

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:
Gloria Steinem, I believe. Or at least as I recall...

Well, I think she is the originator of the famouse dictum: "A woman
without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."

And they say feminists have no sense of humor.

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 16:08:47 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:

->I feel like the rights (in the U.S., where Jayne isn't) has successfully
->confused people in the U.S. about what feminism means.

How about this - you find a feminist website which represents
feminism as you use the term.

Post its URL here:

WhansaMi wrote:
I don't even BEGIN to profess to be a scholar of the feminist movement.

Me neither
I suspect that within "feminist writings" there is a wide range of sentiments, from that all people should have the same rights and opportunities, to "women (as a group) can do anything as well as men."

These two statements are not on the same plane, so to speak! The former talks about
rights and opportunities (and, by extension, public policy), the latter is a belief
system. To me, feminism as a movement is about personal, social, and political
"rights" of women. What self-proclaimed feminists (or the well accepted leaders of
feminism) may believe about variations of abilities in men and women are not the
core and spirit of feminism.

The reason that many try to promote the idea that men and women are identical in
every way (which I don't believe) is a reaction to the model that for millennia has
been in place. In this model, which is still prevalent in most of the world, the
abilities of men and women are rigidly defined, and then social policies are set
based on these divisions. As a result, not only women are prohibited (implicitly or
explicitly) from many areas of personal and social life because they are assumed
not to have the required ability, but the social structure and work environments
are set up based on the abilities of men, which further alienate women from them.

I think this is a shortcoming of our way of thinking. It's a shame that in order to
give women full opportunity to participate in social activities we have to promote
the belief that they are exactly like men. This is because we *started* from a
masculine perspective, and tried to fit women into that. Things are changing slowly
but surely. I am sure that some day we will reach a point where each individual
will be valued for their personal abilities and strength and we won't push people
into stereotyped roles (we are almost there in some of the western countries). That
day, there won't be any need to deny or hid the natural differences of men and
women as a whole. Until then, it will be very difficult to on one hand promote the
idea that "women are good nurturers and men are good providers" and on the other
hand try to allow men and women the same opportunity to be nurturer and provider.
That is why right now these kind of statements are rejected by feminists. They have
grave consequences for the cause of individualizing the playing field.

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F7EE7F5.CF78E832@hotmail.com... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: BTW, I'm not a feminist. Why do they get to speak for all women? Jayne, from the little that I've learned from your posts, you seem to
value feminist ideals. Could you explain what part of feminist philosophy you
disagree with?

The focus in feminism is on the rights of women. I do not like the focus
there. I prefer to focus on human rights, not on any particular group of
humans. Also, feminism is associated with abortion on demand which I am
strongly opposed to.
The reason I'm asking is that I often see women who have truly
internalized feminist values, believe in equality of men and women, but claim that they
are not feminists. I am curious as to why this is. Is it because they don't
know what feminism is about, and only see a few outrageous extremist people as symbols of feminism as a whole?

I am much more comfortable with the label "humanist", since I believe in
justice for all people. Feminism does not seem to me to be about equality,
but about putting the needs and interests of women first. It does not seem
to me to sufficiently consider the needs and interests of men. I'm looking
for ways to be fair to everybody. I believe that it is not possible to have
justice for only some. If it is not for everybody, it is not justice.

Jayne

On 4 Oct 2003 16:39:38 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
<yawn> More *proof* that women demand the " right " to tell men how tolive...Thanks for making my point for me...BTW, denigrating the *accurate* viewing of the major culturalinfluence on western society only makes the denigrater appear*in denial*.


I find your one agenda thinking amusing. I would have said that to
anyone who keep using examples from pop TV shows.

>I think this is a shortcoming of our way of thinking. It's a shame that inorder togive women full opportunity to participate in social activities we have topromotethe belief that they are exactly like men. This is because we *started* fromamasculine perspective, and tried to fit women into that.

I agree. That is why I don't really have an argument with the early feminists
-- because I don't think that unless and until women showed themselves to be
capable within the "men's realm", we could have moved to the place where (I
think) most of us are moving today -- that men and women are different, but
equally valuable. I don't know that "women's worth" would have ever been seen
as equal to men unless women "proved" themselves capable, and also, until
enough women had moved out of the area of traditionally "female" roles for men
(and society, overall) to see what happens when those roles aren't fulfilled.

Things are changingslowlybut surely. I am sure that some day we will reach a point where eachindividualwill be valued for their personal abilities and strength and we won't pushpeopleinto stereotyped roles (we are almost there in some of the westerncountries). Thatday, there won't be any need to deny or hid the natural differences of menandwomen as a whole. Until then, it will be very difficult to on one handpromote theidea that "women are good nurturers and men are good providers" and on theotherhand try to allow men and women the same opportunity to be nurturer andprovider.That is why right now these kind of statements are rejected by feminists.They havegrave consequences for the cause of individualizing the playing field.

Yep.

Sheila

"Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:rk6unvckspjr7sj9q7gtu2g59dqd2feljc@4ax.com... On 4 Oct 2003 16:39:38 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:<yawn> More *proof* that women demand the " right " to tell men how tolive...Thanks for making my point for me...BTW, denigrating the *accurate* viewing of the major culturalinfluence on western society only makes the denigrater appear*in denial*. I find your one agenda thinking amusing. I would have said that to anyone who keep using examples from pop TV shows.

I don't have time to watch very much TV, but I read reviews and plot
synopses because I think that it is such a significant indicator of culture.
Television is probably the single most influential social factor we have. I
may disagree with some of Andre's interpretation of shows, but completely
agree with him on TV examples' usefulness in a discussion of social
attitudes. I find that it reflects poorly on your analytic abilities that
you have overlooked the significance of something this important.

Jayne

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 15:25:15 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:rk6unvckspjr7sj9q7gtu2g59dqd2feljc@4ax .com... On 4 Oct 2003 16:39:38 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:<yawn> More *proof* that women demand the " right " to tell men how tolive...Thanks for making my point for me...BTW, denigrating the *accurate* viewing of the major culturalinfluence on western society only makes the denigrater appear*in denial*. I find your one agenda thinking amusing. I would have said that to anyone who keep using examples from pop TV shows.I don't have time to watch very much TV, but I read reviews and plotsynopses because I think that it is such a significant indicator of culture.Television is probably the single most influential social factor we have. Imay disagree with some of Andre's interpretation of shows, but completelyagree with him on TV examples' usefulness in a discussion of socialattitudes. I find that it reflects poorly on your analytic abilities thatyou have overlooked the significance of something this important.Jayne
I don't have the desire or the incitation to watch any of the stupid
TV shows that Andre mentions, his examples are meaningless. Not to
mention he rants about Oprah's evil anit-male show and the anti-male
books she promotes and yet can't even mention *one*!

In other words Andre see things that aren't even there!

"Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:qpcunv0n69b6kpjis3gc3tvpe5v3ns7qre@4ax.com... On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 15:25:15 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:

[]I don't have time to watch very much TV, but I read reviews and plotsynopses because I think that it is such a significant indicator of
culture.Television is probably the single most influential social factor we have.
Imay disagree with some of Andre's interpretation of shows, but
completelyagree with him on TV examples' usefulness in a discussion of socialattitudes. I find that it reflects poorly on your analytic abilities
thatyou have overlooked the significance of something this important.Jayne I don't have the desire or the incitation to watch any of the stupid TV shows that Andre mentions, his examples are meaningless.

I suppose they are meaningless in a subjective sense, if they did not convey
meaning to you. But this does not indicate a defect in Andre. He chose
examples from a reasonable source for the topic under discussion. I don't
watch those shows either, but I found his explanations quite clear. I do
not see how we can call his examples "meaningless" in any objective sense.
Not to mention he rants about Oprah's evil anit-male show and the anti-male books she promotes and yet can't even mention *one*! In other words Andre see things that aren't even there!

I think the group that I am reading this in (alt.support.marriage) was just
added to the cross-posts and that must have happened before I came into the
thread. From what I have seen, Andre is very good about documenting and
supporting his opinions. I consider him above average in this regard. He
does seem to have some negative feelings about women which colour his views,
but I think you overstate your case.

Jayne

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 17:35:25 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:


I think the group that I am reading this in (alt.support.marriage) was just added to the cross-posts and that must have happened before I came into the thread. From what I have seen, Andre is very good about documenting and supporting his opinions. I consider him above average in this regard. He does seem to have some negative feelings about women which colour his views, but I think you overstate your case. Jayne

Soc.Men has a history of being trolled by women that overstate their case.
Maybe life is boring for them, maybe they need the attention, and i am
sure some of them just hate men. Or maybe they are just as jaded as their
male counterparts.

However, on occasion a breath of fresh air such as yourself will make a
post that is reasonable and sensible.

~wd

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 17:35:25 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:qpcunv0n69b6kpjis3gc3tvpe5v3ns7qre@4ax .com... On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 15:25:15 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:[]I don't have time to watch very much TV, but I read reviews and plotsynopses because I think that it is such a significant indicator ofculture.Television is probably the single most influential social factor we have.Imay disagree with some of Andre's interpretation of shows, butcompletelyagree with him on TV examples' usefulness in a discussion of socialattitudes. I find that it reflects poorly on your analytic abilitiesthatyou have overlooked the significance of something this important.Jayne I don't have the desire or the incitation to watch any of the stupid TV shows that Andre mentions, his examples are meaningless.I suppose they are meaningless in a subjective sense, if they did not conveymeaning to you. But this does not indicate a defect in Andre. He choseexamples from a reasonable source for the topic under discussion. I don'twatch those shows either, but I found his explanations quite clear. I donot see how we can call his examples "meaningless" in any objective sense. Not to mention he rants about Oprah's evil anit-male show and the anti-male books she promotes and yet can't even mention *one*! In other words Andre see things that aren't even there!I think the group that I am reading this in (alt.support.marriage) was justadded to the cross-posts and that must have happened before I came into thethread. From what I have seen, Andre is very good about documenting andsupporting his opinions. I consider him above average in this regard. Hedoes seem to have some negative feelings about women which colour his views,but I think you overstate your case.Jayne

Nope but then we have to agree to disagree. I the he only see what he
wants to see. Him going on and on about how anti male Oprah is just
one laughable example.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:> BTW, I'm not a feminist. Why do they get to speak for all women? Jayne, from the little that I've learned from your posts, you seem to value feminist ideals. Nope, since she likes men... Could you explain what part of feminist philosophy you disagree with? Hopefully, the never ending demands for special priviliges for women, and the constant hate of men... Virtually none of the feminist thought I know about espouses either of these.

Free Clue: If you don't know the leaders, writers, and editors of
the major public Feminist groups, then the few people of zero
political and social consequence you know, speak for *no one but
themselves*.

In which case, what are the views of those few, on C4M ? On default
joint legal and physical custody of children, with NO monies changing
hands in divorces ? On the dearth of resources given to men victims
of domestic violence, of which about half the victims therof are,
and the dearth of attention given to prostate cancer, which kills
as many people as does breast cancer ?
Furthermore, neither do any of the (many) avowed feminists I know.

" The plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:qpcunv0n69b6kpjis3gc3tvpe5v3ns7qre@4ax.com... On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 15:25:15 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: [] I don't have time to watch very much TV, but I read reviews and plot synopses because I think that it is such a significant indicator of
culture. Television is probably the single most influential social factor we have. I may disagree with some of Andre's interpretation of shows, but completely agree with him on TV examples' usefulness in a discussion of social attitudes. I find that it reflects poorly on your analytic abilities that you have overlooked the significance of something this important. Jayne I don't have the desire or the incitation to watch any of the stupid TV shows that Andre mentions, his examples are meaningless. I suppose they are meaningless in a subjective sense, if they did not convey meaning to you. But this does not indicate a defect in Andre. He chose examples from a reasonable source for the topic under discussion. I don't watch those shows either, but I found his explanations quite clear. I do not see how we can call his examples "meaningless" in any objective sense. Not to mention he rants about Oprah's evil anit-male show and the anti-male books she promotes and yet can't even mention *one*! In other words Andre see things that aren't even there! I think the group that I am reading this in (alt.support.marriage) was just added to the cross-posts and that must have happened before I came into the thread. From what I have seen, Andre is very good about documenting and supporting his opinions. I consider him above average in this regard. He does seem to have some negative feelings about women which colour his views, but I think you overstate your case. Jayne

I don't think she does, not at all. It sounds like your interpretation is a
bit biased due to your acquaintance with him, Jayne. His analytical ability
(to whatever extent that exists - I still question that), is totally obfuscated
by his "soc.men" limited mindset.

"wd" <wd@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.04.21.45.52.23706@localhost.local domain... On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 17:35:25 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: I think the group that I am reading this in (alt.support.marriage) was just added to the cross-posts and that must have happened before I came into the thread. From what I have seen, Andre is very good about documenting and supporting his opinions. I consider him above average in this regard. He does seem to have some negative feelings about women which colour his views, but I think you overstate your case. Jayne Soc.Men has a history of being trolled by women that overstate their case. Maybe life is boring for them, maybe they need the attention, and i am sure some of them just hate men. Or maybe they are just as jaded as their male counterparts. However, on occasion a breath of fresh air such as yourself will make a post that is reasonable and sensible.

I would like to think that I would be reasonable even if this were my first
exposure to Andre. However, having met him in real life under circumstances
in which I developed a great respect for him, I can't really help being
inclined to give serious consideration to his opinions. Although I'm not
sure how much credit I deserve for it, thanks for the compliment anyhow.

Jayne

Rauni wrote: On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 17:35:25 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: "Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:qpcunv0n69b6kpjis3gc3tvpe5v3ns7qre@4ax.com... On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 15:25:15 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: []> I don't have time to watch very much TV, but I read reviews and plot> synopses because I think that it is such a significant indicator of> culture. Television is probably the single most influential social factor> we have. I may disagree with some of Andre's interpretation of shows, but> completely agree with him on TV examples' usefulness in a discussion of> social attitudes. I find that it reflects poorly on your analytic> abilities that you have overlooked the significance of something this> important.>> Jayne> I don't have the desire or the incitation to watch any of the stupid TV shows that Andre mentions, his examples are meaningless. I suppose they are meaningless in a subjective sense, if they did not convey meaning to you. But this does not indicate a defect in Andre. He chose examples from a reasonable source for the topic under discussion. I don't watch those shows either, but I found his explanations quite clear. I do not see how we can call his examples "meaningless" in any objective sense. Not to mention he rants about Oprah's evil anit-male show and the anti-male books she promotes and yet can't even mention *one*! In other words Andre see things that aren't even there! I think the group that I am reading this in (alt.support.marriage) was just added to the cross-posts and that must have happened before I came into the thread. From what I have seen, Andre is very good about documenting and supporting his opinions. I consider him above average in this regard. He does seem to have some negative feelings about women which colour his views, but I think you overstate your case. Jayne Nope but then we have to agree to disagree. I the he only see what he wants to see. Him going on and on about how anti male Oprah is just one laughable example.

Exactly. Except it's not laughable, it's rather pathetic. I think Jayne
ought to check out the soc.boys newsgroup briefly, and THEN get back to us.

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jJHfb.1767$Qy2.472@newsread4.news.pas.earthli nk.net...

[] I don't think she does, not at all. It sounds like your interpretation
is a bit biased due to your acquaintance with him, Jayne. His analytical
ability (to whatever extent that exists - I still question that), is totally
obfuscated by his "soc.men" limited mindset.

I can't deny being biased. I'm starting out with the assumption that Andre
is extremely bright and that certainly affects how I approach his posts.

Jayne

Rauni (LadyWolf@newsguy.com) writes: On 4 Oct 2003 16:39:38 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:<yawn> More *proof* that women demand the " right " to tell men how tolive...Thanks for making my point for me...BTW, denigrating the *accurate* viewing of the major culturalinfluence on western society only makes the denigrater appear*in denial*. I find your one agenda thinking amusing.

Well, silly people often foolishly laugh at the betters...
I would have said that to anyone who keep using examples from pop TV shows.

Welcome to the twenty first century. Most people, separated
by distances, etc, simply cannot experience any common sets of
life experiences, that can be easily transmitted in a text medium.

So, pop culture serves as the " lingua franca ", as it has always
served.

Only foolish people, *ignorant* of history, complain about this
fact of mass human life.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:rk6unvckspjr7sj9q7gtu2g59dqd2feljc@4ax.com... On 4 Oct 2003 16:39:38 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:<yawn> More *proof* that women demand the " right " to tell men how tolive...Thanks for making my point for me...BTW, denigrating the *accurate* viewing of the major culturalinfluence on western society only makes the denigrater appear*in denial*. I find your one agenda thinking amusing. I would have said that to anyone who keep using examples from pop TV shows. I don't have time to watch very much TV, but I read reviews and plot synopses because I think that it is such a significant indicator of culture. Television is probably the single most influential social factor we have. I may disagree with some of Andre's interpretation of shows, but completely agree with him on TV examples' usefulness in a discussion of social attitudes. I find that it reflects poorly on your analytic abilities that you have overlooked the significance of something this important.

What she said. <bg>

Rauni just doesn't like that I refuse to be a doormat for women's
priviliges. So, since she *cannot* refute me on the facts, she...
name calls.

" If you CAN'T answer a person's arguments, don't worry ! You can
always call him names ! " Oscar Wilde.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 22:21:03 GMT, "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:qpcunv0n69b6kpjis3gc3tvpe5v3ns7qre@4ax.com... On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 15:25:15 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: []> I don't have time to watch very much TV, but I read reviews and plot> synopses because I think that it is such a significant indicator ofculture.> Television is probably the single most influential social factor we have. I> may disagree with some of Andre's interpretation of shows, but completely> agree with him on TV examples' usefulness in a discussion of social> attitudes. I find that it reflects poorly on your analytic abilities that> you have overlooked the significance of something this important.>> Jayne> I don't have the desire or the incitation to watch any of the stupid TV shows that Andre mentions, his examples are meaningless. I suppose they are meaningless in a subjective sense, if they did not convey meaning to you. But this does not indicate a defect in Andre. He chose examples from a reasonable source for the topic under discussion. I don't watch those shows either, but I found his explanations quite clear. I do not see how we can call his examples "meaningless" in any objective sense. Not to mention he rants about Oprah's evil anit-male show and the anti-male books she promotes and yet can't even mention *one*! In other words Andre see things that aren't even there! I think the group that I am reading this in (alt.support.marriage) was just added to the cross-posts and that must have happened before I came into the thread. From what I have seen, Andre is very good about documenting and supporting his opinions. I consider him above average in this regard. He does seem to have some negative feelings about women which colour his views, but I think you overstate your case. JayneI don't think she does, not at all. It sounds like your interpretation is abit biased due to your acquaintance with him, Jayne. His analytical ability(to whatever extent that exists - I still question that), is totally obfuscatedby his "soc.men" limited mindset.
Yup you hit it right o the nail!

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 22:22:39 GMT, "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Rauni wrote: On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 17:35:25 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: "Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:qpcunv0n69b6kpjis3gc3tvpe5v3ns7qre@4ax.com...> On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 15:25:15 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"> <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: []>> I don't have time to watch very much TV, but I read reviews and plot>> synopses because I think that it is such a significant indicator of>> culture. Television is probably the single most influential social factor>> we have. I may disagree with some of Andre's interpretation of shows, but>> completely agree with him on TV examples' usefulness in a discussion of>> social attitudes. I find that it reflects poorly on your analytic>> abilities that you have overlooked the significance of something this>> important.>>>> Jayne>>> I don't have the desire or the incitation to watch any of the stupid> TV shows that Andre mentions, his examples are meaningless. I suppose they are meaningless in a subjective sense, if they did not convey meaning to you. But this does not indicate a defect in Andre. He chose examples from a reasonable source for the topic under discussion. I don't watch those shows either, but I found his explanations quite clear. I do not see how we can call his examples "meaningless" in any objective sense.> Not to> mention he rants about Oprah's evil anit-male show and the anti-male> books she promotes and yet can't even mention *one*!>> In other words Andre see things that aren't even there! I think the group that I am reading this in (alt.support.marriage) was just added to the cross-posts and that must have happened before I came into the thread. From what I have seen, Andre is very good about documenting and supporting his opinions. I consider him above average in this regard. He does seem to have some negative feelings about women which colour his views, but I think you overstate your case. Jayne Nope but then we have to agree to disagree. I think he only see what he wants to see. Him going on and on about how anti male Oprah is just one laughable example.Exactly. Except it's not laughable, it's rather pathetic. I think Jayneought to check out the soc.boys newsgroup briefly, and THEN get back to us.
Well she knows him in real life. He's prolly better behaved in real
life and know better than to spout of some of his bizarre ideas in
public.

On 4 Oct 2003 23:00:20 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
See " Everybody Loves Raymond "as one example

Damn you need to get put more.........

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:
"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3F7EE7F5.CF78E832@hotmail.com... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: BTW, I'm not a feminist. Why do they get to speak for all women? Jayne, from the little that I've learned from your posts, you seem to value feminist ideals. Could you explain what part of feminist philosophy you disagree with? The focus in feminism is on the rights of women.

Hmm. I'd describe as focussed on the same rights for men and women.
But again, there is no authority. The dictionaries I consult agree
with me, but that probably isn't particularly relevant.
I do not like the focus there. I prefer to focus on human rights, not on any particular group of humans. Also, feminism is associated with abortion on demand which I am strongly opposed to.

Well, that association is certainly accurate in the U.S.
The reason I'm asking is that I often see women who have truly internalized feminist values, believe in equality of men and women, but claim that they are not feminists. I am curious as to why this is. Is it because they don't know what feminism is about, and only see a few outrageous extremist people as symbols of feminism as a whole? I am much more comfortable with the label "humanist", since I believe in justice for all people. Feminism does not seem to me to be about equality, but about putting the needs and interests of women first.

Interesting. To me it _does_ seem to be about equality. But so what
you are saying is that you think feminism means something different
than what I think.

So if it is discussion about the definition of a word, it is no longer
especially interesting.
It does not seem to me to sufficiently consider the needs and interests of men. I'm looking for ways to be fair to everybody. I believe that it is not possible to have justice for only some. If it is not for everybody, it is not justice.

I agree. Though in my case this makes me a proponent of feminism.

The focus in feminism is on the rights of women.Hmm. I'd describe as focussed on the same rights for men and women.But again, there is no authority. The dictionaries I consult agreewith me, but that probably isn't particularly relevant.

Dictionary definitions may not always withstand a reduction to practice.

For example, if a woman wanted *equal* rights in a situation where men
were posting playboy bunnies on the wall, she'd be insisting on the right
to post playgirl boysies on the wall, now wouldn't she? But, no.

Anyway, it's my belief that any movement that declares that it seeks
"equality" for a particular group is really seeking to further that
group's interest with an appeal to equality as its *instrument*.

This isn't to say that equality isn't sometimes the result, of course.

C//

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:PKHfb.1769$Qy2.1498@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

[] Exactly. Except it's not laughable, it's rather pathetic. I think
Jayne ought to check out the soc.boys newsgroup briefly, and THEN get back to
us.

OK, I did it. It seems to me to be a group where people with legitimate
grievances vent their feelings in posts that tend to be emotional and
hyperbolic. I've seen other groups like that. Sometimes people need to
vent like that. I often find it worthwhile to try to understand the
underlying issues in these cases.

Jayne

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1%Ifb.680847$Ho3.145335@sccrnsc03... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3F7EE7F5.CF78E832@hotmail.com... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: > BTW, I'm not a feminist. Why do they get to speak for all women? Jayne, from the little that I've learned from your posts, you seem to value feminist ideals. Could you explain what part of feminist philosophy
you disagree with? The focus in feminism is on the rights of women. Hmm. I'd describe as focussed on the same rights for men and women. But again, there is no authority. The dictionaries I consult agree with me, but that probably isn't particularly relevant.
[]

In academic circles, feminist scholarship is that which is done from a
woman's perspective. So that is one influence on why I take the word the
way I do. Also, the word "feminism" itself seems to me to imply some sort
of primacy of the the female perspective. We aren't calling it "equalism".
I recognize that many people, like you, simply take it to mean equal rights
but I just can't see it that way.

Jayne

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 17:51:39 GMT,
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Gloria Steinem, I believe. Or at least as I recall... Well, I think she is the originator of the famouse dictum: "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle." And they say feminists have no sense of humor.

"A man without a woman is like an ice cream bar without the rich,
delicious chocolate coating" -- Tony Miller

:)

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 18:21:28 GMT,
Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote: WhansaMi wrote: I don't even BEGIN to profess to be a scholar of the feminist movement. Me neither I suspect that within "feminist writings" there is a wide range of sentiments, from that all people should have the same rights and opportunities, to "women (as a group) can do anything as well as men." These two statements are not on the same plane, so to speak! The former talks about rights and opportunities (and, by extension, public policy), the latter is a belief

I hate to go off topic and nit-pick, but could you change your word
wrapping line length to something like 74 to make is easy for us without
windows based newsreaders to read your stuff...

Your posts look like this.

##

system. To me, feminism as a movement is about personal, social, and
political
"rights" of women. What self-proclaimed feminists (or the well accepted
leaders of
feminism) may believe about variations of abilities in men and women are
not the
core and spirit of feminism.

The reason that many try to promote the idea that men and women are identical
in
every way (which I don't believe) is a reaction to the model that for
millennia has
been in place. In this model, which is still prevalent in most of the world,
the
abilities of men and women are rigidly defined, and then social policies are
set
based on these divisions. As a result, not only women are prohibited
(implicitly or
explicitly) from many areas of personal and social life because they are
assumed
not to have the required ability, but the social structure and work
environments
are set up based on the abilities of men, which further alienate women from
them.

##

....etc.

Thanks in advance,

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 20:47:02 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:PKHfb.1769$Qy2.1498@newsread4.news.pas .earthlink.net...[] Exactly. Except it's not laughable, it's rather pathetic. I thinkJayne ought to check out the soc.boys newsgroup briefly, and THEN get back tous.OK, I did it. It seems to me to be a group where people with legitimategrievances vent their feelings in posts that tend to be emotional andhyperbolic. I've seen other groups like that. Sometimes people need tovent like that. I often find it worthwhile to try to understand theunderlying issues in these cases.Jayne
The problem is I can't tell the difference between the rhetoric that
the radical feminist tosses around and the rhetoric on soc.men. It
looks pretty much the same. They both make a lot of stupid assumptions
use a lot of straw man augments and name-calling.

I wonder if that is always true. I'd like to think that in some cases awoman does come to truly love a man even if the initial attraction wasshallow. And what should we consider to be good reasons for being attractedanyhow? For me, by far the greatest factor in attracting me to a man is hisintelligence. Am I being shallow?

A man is *born* with his intelligence, and can't do anything
about not having any. Having a low IQ is about the same as being
born short. 'Course, I agree with you. Make no apologies for what
you are attracted to.

C//

"Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:fjsunvc9ncoeeh9sdrgr2pl21kp1b1d4nv@4ax.com... On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 20:47:02 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:PKHfb.1769$Qy2.1498@newsread4.news.pas .earthlink.net...[] Exactly. Except it's not laughable, it's rather pathetic. I thinkJayne ought to check out the soc.boys newsgroup briefly, and THEN get back tous.OK, I did it. It seems to me to be a group where people with legitimategrievances vent their feelings in posts that tend to be emotional andhyperbolic. I've seen other groups like that. Sometimes people need tovent like that. I often find it worthwhile to try to understand theunderlying issues in these cases.Jayne The problem is I can't tell the difference between the rhetoric that the radical feminist tosses around and the rhetoric on soc.men. It looks pretty much the same. They both make a lot of stupid assumptions use a lot of straw man augments and name-calling.

People come to Usenet for different things. Some people like logical
debates and increasing their understanding of others. Other people are
looking for an emotional release.

Jayne

Courageous wrote:
Anyway, it's my belief that any movement that declares that it seeks "equality" for a particular group is really seeking to further that group's interest with an appeal to equality as its *instrument*.

Not necessarily. It all depends on the context in which the group forms. If
feminism had started from a point where there was no history or established
order in society then you are right. It would be like having a blank slate
and trying to carve a social order on it. In such a hypothetical case a
movement seeking equaility would be "equalism". But if you have an
environment where men have far more rights and privileges than women, then in
order to achieve equality for all you have to promote and elevate the rights
of women. This doesn't mean not caring about men's right. It's just that men
didn't lack rights! You may disagree that this was the situation (many deny
historical male privilege, as some do for holocaust!), but that is a
different argument. The premise of feminist movement was that women are
underprivileged, and in order to get them to the point of equal privilege
with men the focus should be put on them and their rights.

Of course I agree that there are some self-proclaimed feminists who are anti
equality and only care about promoting women's privileges. But the idea that
feminism had to start as equalism to be qualified as a movement for equality
is not true. Those who now say they rather be humanist than feminist (and
feel a little superior on the ladder of humanity) forget that the reason they
can say something like this NOW is because feminism has gotten us to the
point where women are considered full humans - it wasn't always that way!
This isn't to say that equality isn't sometimes the result, of course.

Perhaps because regardelss of the name the goal could in fact be equality.

Someone wrote: [W]hat should we consider to be good reasons for being attracted anyhow? For me, by far the greatest factor in attracting me to a man is his intelligence. Am I being shallow?

"Courageous <jkraska@san.rr.com>" replied: A man is *born* with his intelligence, and can't do anything about not having any. Having a low IQ is about the same as being born short. 'Course, I agree with you. Make no apologies for what you are attracted to.

Virtually all human achievement that comes to mind (weight lifting,
sprinting, musical ability, feats of memory, piloting aircraft,
practicing medicine or law, progamming computers, and so on) are a
combination of innate ability and development of one's talents.

Whatever native intelligence you have may be fixed at birth, but how you
develop it and what you make of it are your own responsibility. Spend
six hours a day watching TV, never read any nonfiction, listen to and
share gossip at every opportunity, and you'll end up a brain-dead moron,
whatever gifts you may have been given.

Study and challenge yourself (for whatever level is challenging to you),
and you can probably do pretty well regardless of where you start out.


Here's an example from history which may be of interest. When he was
studing law, Abraham Lincoln kept coming across the word "demonstrate",
and on looking it up realised that he didn't know what it meant prove
something. As he wrote about it in an autobiographical sketch:

At last I said, Lincoln, you can never make a lawyer if you do
not understand what demonstrate means; and I left my situation
in Springfield, went home to my fathers house, and stayed there
until I could give any proposition in the six books of Euclid at
sight. I then found out what demonstrate means, and went back to
my law studies.

"The six books of Euclid" refers to the sections of _Elements_ which
are on geometry. These were originally on six scrolls, to facilitate
finding something. (If it was all one one long scroll, it would be
annoying to go from one end to the other.) Modern editions are usually
one volume, unless they include commentary.

ANYWAY, there are 173 propositions in the _Elements_. To actually
master the proof of every single one is most impressive. No matter how
smart you are at the outset, finishing this exercise would sharpen your
mind significantly. Lincoln's innate intelligence -- what he was born
with -- didn't change any while he was studying geometry. But he took
advantage of his opportunities to develop his intelligence.


You can't reasonably do anything about being born short. But if you
can read this post, you can read Schneier's _Beyond Fear_, or Dunham's
_Mathematical Universe_, or Lewis's _God in the Dock_, or take an Intro
course in *anything* at the local community college.

In my view, it's not so much the innate ability which matters, but the
level to which it is developed. I dated an attractive woman who had a
good brain, but wasn't much interested in using it for anything besides
generating heat. I pretty quickly lost interest.


Darren Provine | kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu | http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"He seems to me a very foolish man, and very wretched, who will not
increase his understanding while he is in the world, and ever wish
and long to reach that endless life where all shall be made clear."
-- Alfred the Great, King of the West Saxons (849-899)

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F7F863D.CF4D36D4@hotmail.com... Courageous wrote: Anyway, it's my belief that any movement that declares that it seeks "equality" for a particular group is really seeking to further that group's interest with an appeal to equality as its *instrument*. Not necessarily. It all depends on the context in which the group forms.
If feminism had started from a point where there was no history or
established order in society then you are right. It would be like having a blank slate and trying to carve a social order on it. In such a hypothetical case a movement seeking equaility would be "equalism". But if you have an environment where men have far more rights and privileges than women, then
in order to achieve equality for all you have to promote and elevate the
rights of women. This doesn't mean not caring about men's right. It's just that
men didn't lack rights! You may disagree that this was the situation (many
deny historical male privilege, as some do for holocaust!), but that is a different argument. The premise of feminist movement was that women are underprivileged, and in order to get them to the point of equal privilege with men the focus should be put on them and their rights.

I agree that historical male privilege existed (still exists in some areas).
I disagree that the solution is to focus on women and their rights. One of
the first things I was taught when learning how to drive is to look where I
wanted to go. This principle works in a lot of other areas too. If one is
only looking at women's rights, it seems inevitable that men's rights will
eventually be overlooked. If the goal is equal rights for all people then
the focus needs to be on equal rights for all people.
Of course I agree that there are some self-proclaimed feminists who are
anti equality and only care about promoting women's privileges. But the idea
that feminism had to start as equalism to be qualified as a movement for
equality is not true. Those who now say they rather be humanist than feminist (and feel a little superior on the ladder of humanity)

Since I am the only one I noticed saying that I would rather be humanist
than feminist, I suspect that this statement is directed at me. Are you
saying that I was coming across as feeling superior?
forget that the reason they can say something like this NOW is because feminism has gotten us to the point where women are considered full humans - it wasn't always that way!

I'm not so sure that men consider women full humans yet. Or that women
consider men full humans. Isn't the "men are from Mars and women are from
Venus" stuff all about us being so different from each other that we can't
even communicate with each other. How can we be recognizing each other as
fully human if we see the differences as being so huge?
This isn't to say that equality isn't sometimes the result, of course. Perhaps because regardelss of the name the goal could in fact be equality.

The goal may very well be equality, but I don't think that focussing on the
rights of women is the best way to reach that goal. Perhaps it was
necessary in the beginning, but I think we need to be thinking about men now
too.

Jayne

Rauni wrote: The problem is I can't tell the difference between the rhetoric that the radical feminist tosses around and the rhetoric on soc.men. It looks pretty much the same. They both make a lot of stupid assumptions use a lot of straw man augments and name-calling.


No, you're not that dumb.

Bob

"Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote in message
news:5RLfb.581$LJ5.18902@iad-read.news.verio.net...

[] In my view, it's not so much the innate ability which matters, but the level to which it is developed. I dated an attractive woman who had a good brain, but wasn't much interested in using it for anything besides generating heat. I pretty quickly lost interest.

That's so true. My husband's intelligence when I first met him, even though
it attracted me to him, is not what is important now. He is always reading
and thinking and expanding his mind. His mind just gets better and better.
It's the attitude to learning that is attractive more than the actual amount
of knowledge.

Jayne

Rauni (LadyWolf@newsguy.com) exuded: On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 15:25:15 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:"Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:rk6unvckspjr7sj9q7gtu2g59dqd2feljc@4ax .com... On 4 Oct 2003 16:39:38 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote: ><yawn> More *proof* that women demand the " right " to tell men how to >live... > >Thanks for making my point for me... > >BTW, denigrating the *accurate* viewing of the major cultural >influence on western society only makes the denigrater appear >*in denial*. I find your one agenda thinking amusing. I would have said that to anyone who keep using examples from pop TV shows.I don't have time to watch very much TV, but I read reviews and plotsynopses because I think that it is such a significant indicator of culture.Television is probably the single most influential social factor we have. Imay disagree with some of Andre's interpretation of shows, but completelyagree with him on TV examples' usefulness in a discussion of socialattitudes. I find that it reflects poorly on your analytic abilities thatyou have overlooked the significance of something this important.Jayne I don't have the desire or the incitation to watch any of the stupid TV shows that Andre mentions, his examples are meaningless.

Translations: 1) " I don't know and you're wrong ! "
2) " Nya, nya, nya, I can't *hear you* ! "

How... kindergarten...
Not to mention he rants about Oprah's evil anit-male show and the anti-male books she promotes and yet can't even mention *one*!

Non sequitur. When did I claim that she was plugging specific
such books ?
In other words Andre see things that aren't even there!

Ibid #2....

Sux to be you...

<laughs>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Whatever native intelligence you have may be fixed at birth, but how youdevelop it and what you make of it are your own responsibility. Spendsix hours a day watching TV, never read any nonfiction, listen to andshare gossip at every opportunity, and you'll end up a brain-dead moron,whatever gifts you may have been given.

Well, no. Someone with an IQ of 160 will be able to spin mental
circles around someone with an IQ of 100, even if they spend their
life as a plumber. One may *know* less, however this one would be
more mentally able to learn something than over 99.99% of every
human on earth.
In my view, it's not so much the innate ability which matters, but thelevel to which it is developed.

Well, I might have said, "it's what you do with it that counts." In
that, I agree entirely. But then we're not talking about *intelligence*.
Something similar, such as "intellectual interest and accomplishement"
or some such. Which is in the same ball park, but not the same thing.

C//

"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "wd" <wd@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message news:pan.2003.10.04.21.45.52.23706@localhost.local domain... On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 17:35:25 -0400, Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: I think the group that I am reading this in (alt.support.marriage) was just added to the cross-posts and that must have happened before I came into the thread. From what I have seen, Andre is very good about documenting and supporting his opinions. I consider him above average in this regard. He does seem to have some negative feelings about women which colour his views, but I think you overstate your case. Jayne Soc.Men has a history of being trolled by women that overstate their case. Maybe life is boring for them, maybe they need the attention, and i am sure some of them just hate men. Or maybe they are just as jaded as their male counterparts. However, on occasion a breath of fresh air such as yourself will make a post that is reasonable and sensible. I would like to think that I would be reasonable even if this were my first exposure to Andre.

Damn, I'm good... <preens><g>
However, having met him in real life under circumstances in which I developed a great respect for him, I can't really help being inclined to give serious consideration to his opinions.

Again, in the words of Harlan Ellison, I'm just a force for good in
my time... Whihc, seriously, isn't as easy as it looks. It means,
among other things, that I have an obligation to myself, to be
informed about the issues that I am willing to discuss.
Although I'm not sure how much credit I deserve for it, thanks for the compliment anyhow.

Hey, people writing reasonably on Usenet is worth commending...

As opposed to the " We never landed on the Moon " wingnutters we
occasionally get infested with, on the space.history group at
times... mostly full Moons, I think... :-)

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 18:27:42 -0700,
Rauni <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote: On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 20:47:02 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:PKHfb.1769$Qy2.1498@newsread4.news.pas .earthlink.net...[] Exactly. Except it's not laughable, it's rather pathetic. I thinkJayne ought to check out the soc.boys newsgroup briefly, and THEN get back tous.OK, I did it. It seems to me to be a group where people with legitimategrievances vent their feelings in posts that tend to be emotional andhyperbolic. I've seen other groups like that. Sometimes people need tovent like that. I often find it worthwhile to try to understand theunderlying issues in these cases.Jayne The problem is I can't tell the difference between the rhetoric that the radical feminist tosses around and the rhetoric on soc.men. It looks pretty much the same. They both make a lot of stupid assumptions use a lot of straw man augments and name-calling.

The difference is the feminist rhetoric is politically correct. This ****
is being taught in our universities under the guise of "woman's studies".

The soc.men rhetoric is not politically correct.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:jJHfb.1767$Qy2.472@newsread4.news.pas.earthli nk.net... [] I don't think she does, not at all. It sounds like your interpretation is a bit biased due to your acquaintance with him, Jayne. His analytical ability (to whatever extent that exists - I still question that), is totally obfuscated by his "soc.men" limited mindset. I can't deny being biased. I'm starting out with the assumption that Andre is extremely bright and that certainly affects how I approach his posts.

Again, thank you.

One aspect of Usenet is, that when rather contraversial topics are
in contention, and some folks have developed emotive connections
to their worldviews, and personal value systems, such people tend
to " shoot the messenger ", when someone presents a view that
shows flaws and/or limits to that prior worldview.

And, its easier for many to atatck the new views, and their
proponents, then to admit that one's old views may need some
revision, with the possibility that some of them simply
don't work, any more.

Thats why so many people replicate behaviors that are not
beneficial to themselves, and then demand that their
" friends " tell them that they were fine, it was the *other*
guy.

Well, in the last decade, I've had to, at least twice, make
major revisions on my worldviews/values, because my experiences
and researches showed me that, in the name of not lying to
*myself*, that was the only way to avoid doing exactly that.

Unlike the types sung about in a Fleetwood Mac song, I don't
like being told " sweet little lies "... Even were I the one
doing the telling...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Rauni (LadyWolf@newsguy.com) writes: On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 22:22:39 GMT, "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:Rauni wrote: On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 17:35:25 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:> "Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message> news:qpcunv0n69b6kpjis3gc3tvpe5v3ns7qre@4ax.com...>> On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 15:25:15 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas">> <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:>> []>>> I don't have time to watch very much TV, but I read reviews and plot>>> synopses because I think that it is such a significant indicator of>>> culture. Television is probably the single most influential social factor>>> we have. I may disagree with some of Andre's interpretation of shows, but>>> completely agree with him on TV examples' usefulness in a discussion of>>> social attitudes. I find that it reflects poorly on your analytic>>> abilities that you have overlooked the significance of something this>>> important.>>>>>> Jayne>>>>> I don't have the desire or the incitation to watch any of the stupid>> TV shows that Andre mentions, his examples are meaningless.>> I suppose they are meaningless in a subjective sense, if they did not convey> meaning to you. But this does not indicate a defect in Andre. He chose> examples from a reasonable source for the topic under discussion. I don't> watch those shows either, but I found his explanations quite clear. I do> not see how we can call his examples "meaningless" in any objective sense.>>> Not to>> mention he rants about Oprah's evil anit-male show and the anti-male>> books she promotes and yet can't even mention *one*!>>>> In other words Andre see things that aren't even there!>> I think the group that I am reading this in (alt.support.marriage) was just> added to the cross-posts and that must have happened before I came into the> thread. From what I have seen, Andre is very good about documenting and> supporting his opinions. I consider him above average in this regard. He> does seem to have some negative feelings about women which colour his views,> but I think you overstate your case.>> Jayne Nope but then we have to agree to disagree. I think he only see what he wants to see. Him going on and on about how anti male Oprah is just one laughable example.Exactly. Except it's not laughable, it's rather pathetic. I think Jayneought to check out the soc.boys newsgroup briefly, and THEN get back to us. Well she knows him in real life. He's prolly better behaved in real life and know better than to spout of some of his bizarre ideas in public.

ROTFLMAO !!! Man oh man, someone sure owes me a new keyboard !

I just *looove* it when people who *don't know me in RL*, try
to " guess " ( Actually, the right word would be " BS "... )
what I am like, in RL, and more so, TO people who have met
me in RL....

Oh man, the *irony*... <laughs>

If this is the best that the " Andre has cooties " grade
schoolers have, I will do very well... <bfg>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

In alt.support.marriage Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: I think that if a man were to stay home to look after the children and gives up establishing his earning potential, then his ex-wife ought to bear some financial responsibility for him after the divorce. I'm not saying that a woman should get anything a man in the same circumstances shouldn't get.

While I'm inclined to agree _in principle_ the fact is that the right
solution in the long run is for couples to discuss these things and make
agreements in advance... the "default" agreement makes sense in some cases,
doesn't in others, and varies a lot between localities within the US -- and
in many cases between the personalities of individuals on the bench.

In alt.support.marriage Andre Lieven <dg411@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote: Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: The reason I'm asking is that I often see women who have truly internalized feminist values, Lesbianism/separatism...

One rather silly corner of a broad concept and a scattered movement (if it,
indeed, ever was one movement.)

"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> exposed his bigotry in message news:PKHfb.1769$Qy2.1498@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... [] Exactly. Except it's not laughable, it's rather pathetic. I think Jayne ought to check out the soc.boys newsgroup briefly, and THEN get back to us. OK, I did it. It seems to me to be a group where people with legitimate grievances vent their feelings in posts that tend to be emotional and hyperbolic. I've seen other groups like that. Sometimes people need to vent like that. I often find it worthwhile to try to understand the underlying issues in these cases.

A couple of points: One, soc.men routinely gets trolled a *lot*.
One way to test for this, with not quite " perfect " results, is
to check the number of crossposts *and* their range of groups
crossposted to, as well as the title of the thread.

Two, we get loads of factual articles posted here. At this point,
my saved to files collection numbers some 644 of them.

This is separate from copies of posts that aren't articles,
and is separate from posts where the writer was addressing me,
personally.

On a heckuva range of topics all related to what we talk
about here.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Marcus Ulpius Traianus (trajan@sfchat.org) writes: In alt.support.marriage Andre Lieven <dg411@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote: Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: > The reason I'm asking is that I often see women who have truly > internalized feminist values, Lesbianism/separatism... One rather silly corner of a broad concept and a scattered movement (if it, indeed, ever was one movement.) Sigh. I keep posting the proof otherwise...

If I posted 10 times as many sensible quotes from feminists and lesbians
would you consider that proof of the opposite assertion?

I thought not.

In alt.support.marriage Andre Lieven <dg411@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote: Marcus Ulpius Traianus (trajan@sfchat.org) writes: In alt.support.marriage Andre Lieven <dg411@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote: Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: > The reason I'm asking is that I often see women who have truly > internalized feminist values, Lesbianism/separatism... One rather silly corner of a broad concept and a scattered movement (if it, indeed, ever was one movement.) Sigh. I keep posting the proof otherwise... Article 698994 of alt.feminism: Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 17:28:31 -0400

Saw it the first time. There are nuts. You can find a significant number of
quotes for them. The reasonable ones don't tend to give easy, self-parodying
quotes of that sort. I didn't say they were even a "tiny" corner: just a
silly one, and only one part of what passes for "feminism" these days.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Marcus Ulpius Traianus (trajan@sfchat.org) writes: In alt.support.marriage Andre Lieven <dg411@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:> Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes:> > The reason I'm asking is that I often see women who have truly> > internalized feminist values,>> Lesbianism/separatism... One rather silly corner of a broad concept and a scattered movement (if it, indeed, ever was one movement.) Sigh. I keep posting the proof otherwise... If I posted 10 times as many sensible quotes from feminists and lesbians would you consider that proof of the opposite assertion?

No, *and heres why not*:

Using your standard, we would have to *acquit* people charged with
crimes, if they only did them on a small number of days, and were
otherwise law adiding, the majority of days.

Its the *outside of the envelope* actions/statements that define
the reality of a person, as well as an ideology. As well as the
*lack of any criticism* coming from the rest of The Mob...
I thought not.

And, you thought... wrong.

Correction applied. No charge.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 22:22:39 GMT, "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Rauni wrote: On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 17:35:25 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: "Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:qpcunv0n69b6kpjis3gc3tvpe5v3ns7qre@4ax.com...> On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 15:25:15 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"> <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: []>> I don't have time to watch very much TV, but I read reviews and plot>> synopses because I think that it is such a significant indicator of>> culture. Television is probably the single most influential social factor>> we have. I may disagree with some of Andre's interpretation of shows, but>> completely agree with him on TV examples' usefulness in a discussion of>> social attitudes. I find that it reflects poorly on your analytic>> abilities that you have overlooked the significance of something this>> important.>>>> Jayne>>> I don't have the desire or the inclination to watch any of the stupid> TV shows that Andre mentions, his examples are meaningless. I suppose they are meaningless in a subjective sense, if they did not convey meaning to you. But this does not indicate a defect in Andre. He chose examples from a reasonable source for the topic under discussion. I don't watch those shows either, but I found his explanations quite clear. I do not see how we can call his examples "meaningless" in any objective sense.> Not to> mention he rants about Oprah's evil anit-male show and the anti-male> books she promotes and yet can't even mention *one*!>> In other words Andre see things that aren't even there! I think the group that I am reading this in (alt.support.marriage) was just added to the cross-posts and that must have happened before I came into the thread. From what I have seen, Andre is very good about documenting and supporting his opinions. I consider him above average in this regard. He does seem to have some negative feelings about women which colour his views, but I think you overstate your case. Jayne Nope but then we have to agree to disagree. I the he only see what he wants to see. Him going on and on about how anti male Oprah is just one laughable example.Exactly. Except it's not laughable, it's rather pathetic. I think Jayneought to check out the soc.boys newsgroup briefly, and THEN get back to us.

Not to mention he cites example from shows I never watch (except Oprah
which I watch a few times a year). Nor do I have a desire to watch. My
TV is mostly off and when its on I usually watch TCM, AMC, the sci-fi
channel or hockey when it is the season. Most TV shows are just pain
dumb and I have no desire to watch them. I just trying figure out
where Andre gets the time to watch so much TV.

I have posted before that for years I didn't even own a TV (when my
daughter was small). My husband didn't own one when I met him.


"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure
and never simple." -- Oscar Wilde

"Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote in message
news:tlt451-6hv.ln1@mail.sfchat.org... In alt.support.marriage Andre Lieven <dg411@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote: Marcus Ulpius Traianus (trajan@sfchat.org) writes: In alt.support.marriage Andre Lieven <dg411@freenet.carleton.ca>
wrote:> Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes:> > The reason I'm asking is that I often see women who have truly> > internalized feminist values,>> Lesbianism/separatism... One rather silly corner of a broad concept and a scattered movement
(if it, indeed, ever was one movement.) Sigh. I keep posting the proof otherwise... Article 698994 of alt.feminism: Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 17:28:31 -0400 Saw it the first time. There are nuts. You can find a significant number
of quotes for them. The reasonable ones don't tend to give easy,
self-parodying quotes of that sort. I didn't say they were even a "tiny" corner: just a silly one, and only one part of what passes for "feminism" these days.

While I agree that feminism is a broad and scattered movement, I don't think
that it is reasonable to simply dismiss the quoted authors as nuts. I
recognized almost all of those names. These are major influential thinkers
in feminism, not a lunatic fringe. It seems to me that this is a
significant stream of feminism.

Jayne

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:blo5p4$chr$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...

[] Indeed. Lets review some of the Fallicies Of Feminism: Are you tired of male-bashing and victimology? Have you had your fill of feminist "Ms./Information"? Have you been mislead by factually challenged professors? TAKE THIS TEST: Campus feminism is a kind of cult: as early as freshman orientation, professors begin spinning theories about how American women are oppressed under "patriarchy." Here is a list of the most common feminist myths. If you believe two or more of these untruths, you may need deprogramming. THE TEN MOST COMMON FEMINIST MYTHS:
[]

If that's the response I got when you agreed with me, I shudder to imagine
what you would have said if you disagreed. <g>

Jayne

On 5 Oct 2003 04:18:16 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
Rauni (LadyWolf@newsguy.com) exuded: On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 15:25:15 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:"Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:rk6unvckspjr7sj9q7gtu2g59dqd2feljc@4ax .com...> On 4 Oct 2003 16:39:38 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)> wrote:>> ><yawn> More *proof* that women demand the " right " to tell men how to> >live...> >> >Thanks for making my point for me...> >> >BTW, denigrating the *accurate* viewing of the major cultural> >influence on western society only makes the denigrater appear> >*in denial*.>> I find your one agenda thinking amusing. I would have said that to> anyone who keep using examples from pop TV shows.I don't have time to watch very much TV, but I read reviews and plotsynopses because I think that it is such a significant indicator of culture.Television is probably the single most influential social factor we have. Imay disagree with some of Andre's interpretation of shows, but completelyagree with him on TV examples' usefulness in a discussion of socialattitudes. I find that it reflects poorly on your analytic abilities thatyou have overlooked the significance of something this important.Jayne I don't have the desire or the incitation to watch any of the stupid TV shows that Andre mentions, his examples are meaningless.Translations: 1) " I don't know and you're wrong ! " 2) " Nya, nya, nya, I can't *hear you* ! "How... kindergarten... Not to mention he rants about Oprah's evil anit-male show and the anti-male books she promotes and yet can't even mention *one*!Non sequitur. When did I claim that she was plugging specificsuch books ? In other words Andre see things that aren't even there!Ibid #2....Sux to be you...

"If you CAN'T answer a person's arguments, don't worry ! You can
always call him names." Oscar Wilde.<laughs>Andre

Rauni wrote: On 5 Oct 2003 04:18:16 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote: Rauni (LadyWolf@newsguy.com) exuded: On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 15:25:15 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:> "Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message> news:rk6unvckspjr7sj9q7gtu2g59dqd2feljc@4ax.com...>> On 4 Oct 2003 16:39:38 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)>> wrote:>>>>> <yawn> More *proof* that women demand the " right " to tell men how to>>> live...>>>>>> Thanks for making my point for me...>>>>>> BTW, denigrating the *accurate* viewing of the major cultural>>> influence on western society only makes the denigrater appear>>> *in denial*.>>>> I find your one agenda thinking amusing. I would have said that to>> anyone who keep using examples from pop TV shows.>> I don't have time to watch very much TV, but I read reviews and plot> synopses because I think that it is such a significant indicator of> culture. Television is probably the single most influential social factor> we have. I may disagree with some of Andre's interpretation of shows,> but completely agree with him on TV examples' usefulness in a discussion> of social attitudes. I find that it reflects poorly on your analytic> abilities that you have overlooked the significance of something this> important.>> Jayne> I don't have the desire or the incitation to watch any of the stupid TV shows that Andre mentions, his examples are meaningless. Translations: 1) " I don't know and you're wrong ! " 2) " Nya, nya, nya, I can't *hear you* ! " How... kindergarten... Not to mention he rants about Oprah's evil anit-male show and the anti-male books she promotes and yet can't even mention *one*! Non sequitur. When did I claim that she was plugging specific such books ? In other words Andre see things that aren't even there! Ibid #2.... Sux to be you... "If you CAN'T answer a person's arguments, don't worry ! You can always call him names." Oscar Wilde.

Precisely. Andre always rants about the ad hominems, but then he turns around
and specializes in it. This would be hilarious, if it weren't so retarded.

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:blo887$i20$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... Rauni (LadyWolf@newsguy.com) writes:

[] Well she knows him in real life. He's prolly better behaved in real life and know better than to spout of some of his bizarre ideas in public. ROTFLMAO !!! Man oh man, someone sure owes me a new keyboard ! I just *looove* it when people who *don't know me in RL*, try to " guess " ( Actually, the right word would be " BS "... ) what I am like, in RL, and more so, TO people who have met me in RL.... Oh man, the *irony*... <laughs>

Yes, considering that most of our aquaintance is based on both of us
spouting our "bizarre ideas" in public, that was very ironic. Should we
tell people how we know each other or should we try to develop an air of
mystery? Maybe we could get some good rumours going. <g>

Jayne

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 15:08:01 GMT, "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Rauni wrote: On 5 Oct 2003 04:18:16 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote: Rauni (LadyWolf@newsguy.com) exuded:> On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 15:25:15 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"> <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:>>> "Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message>> news:rk6unvckspjr7sj9q7gtu2g59dqd2feljc@4ax.com...>>> On 4 Oct 2003 16:39:38 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)>>> wrote:>>>>>>> <yawn> More *proof* that women demand the " right " to tell men how to>>>> live...>>>>>>>> Thanks for making my point for me...>>>>>>>> BTW, denigrating the *accurate* viewing of the major cultural>>>> influence on western society only makes the denigrater appear>>>> *in denial*.>>>>>> I find your one agenda thinking amusing. I would have said that to>>> anyone who keep using examples from pop TV shows.>>>> I don't have time to watch very much TV, but I read reviews and plot>> synopses because I think that it is such a significant indicator of>> culture. Television is probably the single most influential social factor>> we have. I may disagree with some of Andre's interpretation of shows,>> but completely agree with him on TV examples' usefulness in a discussion>> of social attitudes. I find that it reflects poorly on your analytic>> abilities that you have overlooked the significance of something this>> important.>>>> Jayne>>> I don't have the desire or the incitation to watch any of the stupid> TV shows that Andre mentions, his examples are meaningless. Translations: 1) " I don't know and you're wrong ! " 2) " Nya, nya, nya, I can't *hear you* ! " How... kindergarten...> Not to mention he rants about Oprah's evil anit-male show and the> anti-male books she promotes and yet can't even mention *one*! Non sequitur. When did I claim that she was plugging specific such books ?> In other words Andre see things that aren't even there! Ibid #2.... Sux to be you... "If you CAN'T answer a person's arguments, don't worry ! You can always call him names." Oscar Wilde.Precisely. Andre always rants about the ad hominems, but then he turns aroundand specializes in it. This would be hilarious, if it weren't so retarded.
I can't tell,the difference between him and Parg. They are both so
polarized.

I do believe that Andre has become the very thing he hates. To bad
because from what I can tell he seems like an interesting person.


"It is hard to free fools from chains they revere."-Voltaire

Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Gloria Steinem, I believe. Or at least as I recall... Well, I think she is the originator of the famouse dictum: "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."

Then why did SHE get married?

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:blo7g6$g2f$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes:

[] However, having met him in real life under circumstances in which I developed a great respect for him, I can't really help being inclined to give serious consideration to his opinions. Again, in the words of Harlan Ellison, I'm just a force for good in my time... Whihc, seriously, isn't as easy as it looks. It means, among other things, that I have an obligation to myself, to be informed about the issues that I am willing to discuss.
[]

I can tell that you have put a lot of effort into researching this topic.
I'm feeling rather overwhelmed by how knowledgeable you are. I don't like
what you are saying and I would like you to be wrong, but I don't know
enough to counter your arguments. They seem basically logical and cogent to
me. And, since I like you too much to resort to personal attacks, I'm
running out of options. Until I'm willing to do comparable research, I have
to concede that you are probably right.

So, given that your views on feminism are correct, tell me what you want.
Are you proposing it be countered with a movement focussed on men's rights -
an "andrism"? Or do you have other ideas about developing equality? If
you were in charge of the universe, how would you set things up so everyone
would be treated fairly? If I entrusted myself to your universe, what would
happen to me?

Jayne

Rauni wrote: On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 15:08:01 GMT, "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote: Rauni wrote: On 5 Oct 2003 04:18:16 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:> Rauni (LadyWolf@newsguy.com) exuded:>> On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 15:25:15 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas">> <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:>>>>> "Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message>>> news:rk6unvckspjr7sj9q7gtu2g59dqd2feljc@4ax.com...>>>> On 4 Oct 2003 16:39:38 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)>>>> wrote:>>>>>>>>> <yawn> More *proof* that women demand the " right " to tell men how to>>>>> live...>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for making my point for me...>>>>>>>>>> BTW, denigrating the *accurate* viewing of the major cultural>>>>> influence on western society only makes the denigrater appear>>>>> *in denial*.>>>>>>>> I find your one agenda thinking amusing. I would have said that to>>>> anyone who keep using examples from pop TV shows.>>>>>> I don't have time to watch very much TV, but I read reviews and plot>>> synopses because I think that it is such a significant indicator of>>> culture. Television is probably the single most influential social
factor>>> we have. I may disagree with some of Andre's interpretation of shows,>>> but completely agree with him on TV examples' usefulness in a discussion>>> of social attitudes. I find that it reflects poorly on your analytic>>> abilities that you have overlooked the significance of something this>>> important.>>>>>> Jayne>>>>> I don't have the desire or the incitation to watch any of the stupid>> TV shows that Andre mentions, his examples are meaningless.>> Translations: 1) " I don't know and you're wrong ! "> 2) " Nya, nya, nya, I can't *hear you* ! ">> How... kindergarten...>>> Not to mention he rants about Oprah's evil anit-male show and the>> anti-male books she promotes and yet can't even mention *one*!>> Non sequitur. When did I claim that she was plugging specific> such books ?>>> In other words Andre see things that aren't even there!>> Ibid #2....>> Sux to be you... "If you CAN'T answer a person's arguments, don't worry ! You can always call him names." Oscar Wilde. Precisely. Andre always rants about the ad hominems, but then he turns around and specializes in it. This would be hilarious, if it weren't so retarded. I can't tell,the difference between him and Parg. They are both so polarized. I do believe that Andre has become the very thing he hates. To bad because from what I can tell he seems like an interesting person.

Isn't there a psychological term for this? Not just "over identification" -
but I can't remember what it that term was now.

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Gloria Steinem, I believe. Or at least as I recall... Well, I think she is the originator of the famouse dictum: "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle." Then why did SHE get married?

You took the remark out of context, Bill.

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:blo7uh$h8g$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...

[] Well, in the last decade, I've had to, at least twice, make major revisions on my worldviews/values, because my experiences and researches showed me that, in the name of not lying to *myself*, that was the only way to avoid doing exactly that.
[]

I've had a major revision like that in the past decade too. I know what you
are talking about.

Jayne 2.0

Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:> Gloria Steinem, I believe. Or at least as I recall... Well, I think she is the originator of the famouse dictum: "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle." Then why did SHE get married? You took the remark out of context, Bill.

Huh? All I'm saying is she was a staunch feminist that had no use for men (as
I recall), and then she turns around, and gets married. Am I wrong here?

I've had a major revision like that in the past decade too. I know what youare talking about.

I suppose I might say that I've had something like that myself.
I used to consider myself an uncompromising libertarian. And then,
over a period of years, I began to explore the subject of narcissism.
The end result was that it was impossible to continue to be an
*uncompromising* libertarian after the cognitive dissonance was
resolved.

C//

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:blo7g6$g2f$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: [] However, having met him in real life under circumstances in which I developed a great respect for him, I can't really help being inclined to give serious consideration to his opinions. Again, in the words of Harlan Ellison, I'm just a force for good in my time... Whihc, seriously, isn't as easy as it looks. It means, among other things, that I have an obligation to myself, to be informed about the issues that I am willing to discuss. [] I can tell that you have put a lot of effort into researching this topic. I'm feeling rather overwhelmed by how knowledgeable you are. I don't like what you are saying and I would like you to be wrong, but I don't know enough to counter your arguments. They seem basically logical and cogent to me. And, since I like you too much to resort to personal attacks, I'm running out of options. Until I'm willing to do comparable research, I have to concede that you are probably right. So, given that your views on feminism are correct, tell me what you want. Are you proposing it be countered with a movement focussed on men's rights - an "andrism"? Or do you have other ideas about developing equality? If you were in charge of the universe, how would you set things up so everyone would be treated fairly? If I entrusted myself to your universe, what would happen to me? Jayne

Jayne, I do wish you would Google up some of his posts (to the marriage and
divorce groups) over the past year, and see if you still feel the same way.
There have been some heated "debates" - IF you can call it that. I say that,
because it is ALWAYS scripted, and the objectivity and authoritative (non
scripted) reference material is clearly lacking.

Bill in Co wrote: Precisely. Andre always rants about the ad hominems, but then he turns around and specializes in it. This would be hilarious, if it weren't so retarded.

Bill, do you actually do anything other than go from ng to ng
criticizing people? We don't see much else from you.

Bill in Co wrote: Rauni wrote:On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 15:08:01 GMT, "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net>wrote:Rauni wrote:>On 5 Oct 2003 04:18:16 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)>wrote:>>>>Rauni (LadyWolf@newsguy.com) exuded:>>>>>On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 15:25:15 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas">>><momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>"Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message>>>>news:rk6unvckspjr7sj9q7gtu2g59dqd2feljc@4ax.com...>>>>>>>>>On 4 Oct 2003 16:39:38 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)>>>>>wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><yawn> More *proof* that women demand the " right " to tell men how to>>>>>>live...>>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks for making my point for me...>>>>>>>>>>>>BTW, denigrating the *accurate* viewing of the major cultural>>>>>>influence on western society only makes the denigrater appear>>>>>>*in denial*.>>>>>>>>>> I find your one agenda thinking amusing. I would have said that to>>>>>anyone who keep using examples from pop TV shows.>>>>>>>>I don't have time to watch very much TV, but I read reviews and plot>>>>synopses because I think that it is such a significant indicator of>>>>culture. Television is probably the single most influential social>>> factor>>>>we have. I may disagree with some of Andre's interpretation of shows,>>>>but completely agree with him on TV examples' usefulness in a discussion>>>>of social attitudes. I find that it reflects poorly on your analytic>>>>abilities that you have overlooked the significance of something this>>>>important.>>>>>>>>Jayne>>>>>>>>>>I don't have the desire or the incitation to watch any of the stupid>>>TV shows that Andre mentions, his examples are meaningless.>>>>Translations: 1) " I don't know and you're wrong ! ">> 2) " Nya, nya, nya, I can't *hear you* ! ">>>>How... kindergarten...>>>>>>>Not to mention he rants about Oprah's evil anit-male show and the>>>anti-male books she promotes and yet can't even mention *one*!>>>>Non sequitur. When did I claim that she was plugging specific>>such books ?>>>>>>>In other words Andre see things that aren't even there!>>>>Ibid #2....>>>>Sux to be you...>>"If you CAN'T answer a person's arguments, don't worry ! You can>always call him names." Oscar Wilde.Precisely. Andre always rants about the ad hominems, but then he turnsaround and specializes in it. This would be hilarious, if it weren't soretarded.I can't tell,the difference between him and Parg. They are both sopolarized.I do believe that Andre has become the very thing he hates. To badbecause from what I can tell he seems like an interesting person. Isn't there a psychological term for this? Not just "over identification" - but I can't remember what it that term was now.

It would appear that you two are doing exactly what you are criticizing
Andre for doing, and doing more than him.

Bob

Marcus Ulpius Traianus (trajan@sfchat.org) writes: In alt.support.marriage Andre Lieven <dg411@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote: Marcus Ulpius Traianus (trajan@sfchat.org) writes: In alt.support.marriage Andre Lieven <dg411@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote:> Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes:> > The reason I'm asking is that I often see women who have truly> > internalized feminist values,>> Lesbianism/separatism... One rather silly corner of a broad concept and a scattered movement (if it, indeed, ever was one movement.) Sigh. I keep posting the proof otherwise... Article 698994 of alt.feminism: Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 17:28:31 -0400 Saw it the first time. There are nuts.

Non sequitur. " Nuts " *aren't* generally in positions of influence
and power *over* said movement. If they are, and those quotes are from
those who are/were, its clear then, that the movement is *as " nuts "*
as the nuts.
You can find a significant number of quotes for them.

Really ? Can you find me some " nyts " quotes from, say, the leaders
of NASA ?

Yeah, didn't think so...
The reasonable ones don't tend to give easy, self-parodying quotes of that sort.

There simply *aren't* any " reasonable ones "... The misandry of the
NOW web site proves *that*...
I didn't say they were even a "tiny" corner: just a silly one, and only one part of what passes for "feminism" these days.

Wrong. The leaders of a movement *define* the movement's beliefs.
And, those *were* the leaders. Dworkin, even now, is lauded by NOW.
Morgan edited NOW's flagship periodical for *years*.

Those people *are/were* the *mainstream of Feminism*...

Your handwaving is no " proof " of your emotive notion that they're
not...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:blo5p4$chr$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... [] Indeed. Lets review some of the Fallicies Of Feminism: Are you tired of male-bashing and victimology? Have you had your fill of feminist "Ms./Information"? Have you been mislead by factually challenged professors? TAKE THIS TEST: Campus feminism is a kind of cult: as early as freshman orientation, professors begin spinning theories about how American women are oppressed under "patriarchy." Here is a list of the most common feminist myths. If you believe two or more of these untruths, you may need deprogramming. THE TEN MOST COMMON FEMINIST MYTHS: [] If that's the response I got when you agreed with me, I shudder to imagine what you would have said if you disagreed. <g>

I'm toughest on the good people... :-)

And, the facts remain... the facts.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote in message news:tlt451-6hv.ln1@mail.sfchat.org... In alt.support.marriage Andre Lieven <dg411@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote: Marcus Ulpius Traianus (trajan@sfchat.org) writes: > In alt.support.marriage Andre Lieven <dg411@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote: >> Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: >> > The reason I'm asking is that I often see women who have truly >> > internalized feminist values, >> >> Lesbianism/separatism... > > One rather silly corner of a broad concept and a scattered movement > (if it, indeed, ever was one movement.) Sigh. I keep posting the proof otherwise... Article 698994 of alt.feminism: Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 17:28:31 -0400 Saw it the first time. There are nuts. You can find a significant number of quotes for them. The reasonable ones don't tend to give easy, self-parodying quotes of that sort. I didn't say they were even a "tiny" corner: just a silly one, and only one part of what passes for "feminism" these days. While I agree that feminism is a broad and scattered movement, I don't think that it is reasonable to simply dismiss the quoted authors as nuts. I recognized almost all of those names. These are major influential thinkers in feminism, not a lunatic fringe. It seems to me that this is a significant stream of feminism.

Indeed.

We get this false claim on soc.men, all the time, that, no matter
whom we quote, and cite, we're always told that " they don't speak
for Feminism ".

Well, any movement that is that amorphous that you can never pin
it down on any issue or topic, is *useless*, for *exactly* the same
reason.

" If you never say what you mean, you can never *mean what you say*. "

And, the opinions covered in the quotes represent the core of Feminism.
Since the cover people who are still lauded by the main organisations of
Feminism, and include people with present of former positions of
power and influence in Feminism.

This excuse would be tatramount to someone claiming that Bush,
Cheney, and Powell " only speak for one small part of the US
Government "...

Uh huh.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:siXfb.2869$gA1.2464@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Doug Anderson wrote:> "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:>>> Gloria Steinem, I believe. Or at least as I recall...>> Well, I think she is the originator of the famouse dictum: "A woman> without a man is like a fish without a bicycle." Then why did SHE get married? You took the remark out of context, Bill. Huh? All I'm saying is she was a staunch feminist that had no use for
men (as I recall), and then she turns around, and gets married. Am I wrong
here?
I never actually read Gloria Steinem, and don't really know (or care) about
all the details of what she stood for - but I could say that in my opinion
(not Gloria's, necessarily, since I'm not sure what hers is) the "a woman
without a man is like a fish without a bicycle" may mean something different
that it sounds like it does to you. To me, it reminds me that unlike past
generations, where a woman really had a difficult time simply surviving
without the support of a man, in this day and age a woman really can survive
on her own - just like a bicycle isn't necessary for a fishes survival.
Doesn't mean the fish was hostile to bicycles, though, and it certainly
doesn't mean I don't like and appreciate men. Saying "not necessary for
survival" is not the same as "have no use for". (And apparently she does
like men, since she married one.) Just my thoughts on it, though - YMMV, and
so might Gloria's for that matter....

Rauni (LadyWolf@newsguy.com) writes: On 5 Oct 2003 04:18:16 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:Rauni (LadyWolf@newsguy.com) exuded: On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 15:25:15 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:>"Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message>news:rk6unvckspjr7sj9q7gtu2g59dqd2feljc@4ax.com...>> On 4 Oct 2003 16:39:38 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)>> wrote:>>>> ><yawn> More *proof* that women demand the " right " to tell men how to>> >live...>> >>> >Thanks for making my point for me...>> >>> >BTW, denigrating the *accurate* viewing of the major cultural>> >influence on western society only makes the denigrater appear>> >*in denial*.>>>> I find your one agenda thinking amusing. I would have said that to>> anyone who keep using examples from pop TV shows.>>I don't have time to watch very much TV, but I read reviews and plot>synopses because I think that it is such a significant indicator of>culture. Television is probably the single most influential social>factor we have. I may disagree with some of Andre's interpretation>of shows, but completely agree with him on TV examples' usefulness>in a discussion of social attitudes. I find that it reflects poorly>on your analytic abilities that you have overlooked the significance>of something this important.>>Jayne> I don't have the desire or the incitation to watch any of the stupid TV shows that Andre mentions, his examples are meaningless.Translations: 1) " I don't know and you're wrong ! " 2) " Nya, nya, nya, I can't *hear you* ! "How... kindergarten... Not to mention he rants about Oprah's evil anit-male show and the anti-male books she promotes and yet can't even mention *one*!Non sequitur. When did I claim that she was plugging specificsuch books ?

Concession noted... IOW, you lied. Got it.
In other words Andre see things that aren't even there!Ibid #2....Sux to be you... "If you CAN'T answer a person's arguments, don't worry ! You can always call him names." Oscar Wilde.

What " name " ? Calling someone eho told a lie isn't a name, its
accurate reporting.

Still sux to be you.
<laughs>

Andre



--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

>>>>> Gloria Steinem, I believe. Or at least as I recall...>> Well, I think she is the originator of the famouse dictum: "A woman> without a man is like a fish without a bicycle." Then why did SHE get married? You took the remark out of context, Bill.Huh? All I'm saying is she was a staunch feminist that had no use for men(asI recall), and then she turns around, and gets married. Am I wrong here?

As I remember, there were 20+ years between the comment and the marriage. That
she may have changed her perspective isn't really surprising. :-)

Also, I think we have to look at the historical perspective here. When Steinem
said that, the prevailing view had been, for years, that women NEEDED men to
survive, or at least survive well. Perhaps I am a bit more sensitive to it
because I was raised in such an environment. When I married at 26, my father
said to my husband, "I thought I'd never marry her off!". They "tolerated" my
going to college, because I *might* find a better class of men, but they never
really understood my going on to graduate school, because the goal of women
*should be* finding a husband. I'd obviously failed at that in undergrad, so
why in the world invest in grad school?!? ;-)

Sometimes the rhetoric of the minority group goes a bit far, to get people
thinking and talking about, or maybe just in reaction to the status quo.
Personally, as I said in another post, I can't criticize the early feminist
movement, even though I don't agree with all of the tenets, because they had no
template to follow, and because (I believe) if they hadn't been so strident and
so reactionary, the male-dominated status quo would have been placating --- "Of
COURSE what you do is important, honey. Now, just go run along, and I'll stay
in charge of the money."

JMO, as always.

Sheila

"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:blo887$i20$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... Rauni (LadyWolf@newsguy.com) writes: [] Well she knows him in real life. He's prolly better behaved in real life and know better than to spout of some of his bizarre ideas in public. ROTFLMAO !!! Man oh man, someone sure owes me a new keyboard ! I just *looove* it when people who *don't know me in RL*, try to " guess " ( Actually, the right word would be " BS "... ) what I am like, in RL, and more so, TO people who have met me in RL.... Oh man, the *irony*... <laughs> Yes, considering that most of our aquaintance is based on both of us spouting our "bizarre ideas" in public, that was very ironic.

Indeed. Its what I find from such people, as Bill and Rauni, as they
really do hate any *person* who shows their claims to be a load of
dingo's kidneys.

They're still at it, mutually masterbating each other with how horrid
I am, even now... <laughs>
Should we tell people how we know each other or should we try to develop an air of mystery?

I'm rather likeing the mystery angle letting such persons make
larger fools of themselves. Its amusing watching them *rush* into
doing such.
Maybe we could get some good rumours going. <g>

Yeah ! Alert Matt Drudge. <bg>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Joy formerly known as fairly_happy"
<fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_fake_microsoft_ spam@withoutspamyahoo.com wrote in message news:FSXfb.43067$k17.20715@bignews5.bellsouth.net. .. "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:siXfb.2869$gA1.2464@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:> Doug Anderson wrote:>> "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:>>>>> Gloria Steinem, I believe. Or at least as I recall...>>>> Well, I think she is the originator of the famouse dictum: "A woman>> without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.">> Then why did SHE get married? You took the remark out of context, Bill. Huh? All I'm saying is she was a staunch feminist that had no use for men (as I recall), and then she turns around, and gets married. Am I wrong here? I never actually read Gloria Steinem, and don't really know (or care)
about all the details of what she stood for - but I could say that in my opinion (not Gloria's, necessarily, since I'm not sure what hers is) the "a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle" may mean something
different that it sounds like it does to you. To me, it reminds me that unlike past generations, where a woman really had a difficult time simply surviving without the support of a man, in this day and age a woman really can
survive on her own - just like a bicycle isn't necessary for a fishes survival. Doesn't mean the fish was hostile to bicycles, though, and it certainly doesn't mean I don't like and appreciate men. Saying "not necessary for survival" is not the same as "have no use for". (And apparently she does like men, since she married one.) Just my thoughts on it, though - YMMV,
and so might Gloria's for that matter....

I think Gloria meant, at one time, that a woman needs a man like a fish
needs a bicycle.

I think she found later on that she was mistaken about men, and most likely
about fish too.

rg

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:blpige$jiu$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:blo887$i20$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... Rauni (LadyWolf@newsguy.com) writes: [] > Well she knows him in real life. He's prolly better behaved in real > life and know better than to spout of some of his bizarre ideas in > public. ROTFLMAO !!! Man oh man, someone sure owes me a new keyboard ! I just *looove* it when people who *don't know me in RL*, try to " guess " ( Actually, the right word would be " BS "... ) what I am like, in RL, and more so, TO people who have met me in RL.... Oh man, the *irony*... <laughs> Yes, considering that most of our aquaintance is based on both of us spouting our "bizarre ideas" in public, that was very ironic. Indeed. Its what I find from such people, as Bill and Rauni, as they really do hate any *person* who shows their claims to be a load of dingo's kidneys. They're still at it, mutually masterbating each other with how horrid I am, even now... <laughs> Should we tell people how we know each other or should we try to develop an air of mystery? I'm rather likeing the mystery angle letting such persons make larger fools of themselves. Its amusing watching them *rush* into doing such. Maybe we could get some good rumours going. <g> Yeah ! Alert Matt Drudge. <bg> Andre -- " I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. " The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Andre, ..I mean Jayne....I mean Andre...no I mean Jayne.

:)

rg

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes: Doug Anderson wrote:> "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:>>> Gloria Steinem, I believe. Or at least as I recall...>> Well, I think she is the originator of the famouse dictum: "A woman> without a man is like a fish without a bicycle." Then why did SHE get married? You took the remark out of context, Bill. Huh? All I'm saying is she was a staunch feminist that had no use for men (as I recall), and then she turns around, and gets married. Am I wrong here?

Yes. Her remark was a joke. She is a staunch feminist, but this has
nothing to do with "no use for men."

"rg" <jobahut@hotmail.com> writes:
I think Gloria meant, at one time, that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.

The thing everyone is missing here is that this wasn't a serious
statement of philosphy, but a joke to make people think.
I think she found later on that she was mistaken about men, and most likely about fish too.

I don't think Steinem was ever "anti-man." Andrea Dworkin maybe, but
not Gloria Steinem.

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:zpXfb.2873$gA1.1329@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...

[] Jayne, I do wish you would Google up some of his posts (to the marriage
and divorce groups) over the past year, and see if you still feel the same
way. There have been some heated "debates" - IF you can call it that. I say
that, because it is ALWAYS scripted, and the objectivity and authoritative (non scripted) reference material is clearly lacking.

If you would like to offer me something specific to look at then I will read
it. Andre is a prolific writer and I cannot go through all of his posts
looking for something to prove your point for you. From what I have seen in
this thread, he sounds like he knows what he is talking about. In this
thread, I have not seen others make good counter-arguments or been able to
think of any myself. Based on the current evidence available to me, I have
to conclude that he is right.

Jayne

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:blpn39$eq0os$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:zpXfb.2873$gA1.1329@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net... [] Jayne, I do wish you would Google up some of his posts (to the marriage and divorce groups) over the past year, and see if you still feel the same way. There have been some heated "debates" - IF you can call it that. I
say that, because it is ALWAYS scripted, and the objectivity and authoritative
(non scripted) reference material is clearly lacking. If you would like to offer me something specific to look at then I will
read it. Andre is a prolific writer and I cannot go through all of his posts looking for something to prove your point for you. From what I have seen
in this thread, he sounds like he knows what he is talking about. In this thread, I have not seen others make good counter-arguments or been able to think of any myself. Based on the current evidence available to me, I
have to conclude that he is right. Jayne

Jayne, I think it is too soon to draw conclusions. Personally, I think he is
right also, but we can leave it at he appears to have the better argument
and he might be right. Sometimes, who is right and who is wrong can only be
judged by history.

rg

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in messageI'm real easy on this question: Post-coital rights for men *and*women, or for neither. Thats equal... We could set things up so that it is equally easy for men and women to avoid parenting repsonsibilites, but be disastrous for the welfare of children. Equality of men and women is not my only consideration in this issue. However, a solution that is good for women and men and children is not immediately obvious to me.

Equality for men and women is a very important issue. The rights of the
children and the rights to be parents to the children are equal for both
fathers and mothers. The current one-sided female dominant laws are an
aberration. If the welfare of children is most important then fathers
would be given equal rights to parenting decisions. That isn't an
excuse to practice misandry in families.

It seems likely that the number of welfare children would be
significantly reduced if fathers were given equal respect and rights,
and if children were give equal rights to call on their fathers.

BTW: I have been reading some of your posts and I kind of like your style.

Bob

"rg" <nospamjobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5pZfb.64915$xH1.58347@twister.austin.rr.com.. . "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:blpn39$eq0os$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... From what I have seen in this thread, he sounds like he knows what he is talking about. In this thread, I have not seen others make good counter-arguments or been able
to think of any myself. Based on the current evidence available to me, I have to conclude that he is right. Jayne Jayne, I think it is too soon to draw conclusions. Personally, I think he
is right also, but we can leave it at he appears to have the better argument and he might be right. Sometimes, who is right and who is wrong can only
be judged by history.

I suppose that I can't say "right" in an absolute sense, but as far as my
interactions with him go, I am out-matched. I just have to surrender and
see if he is a gentle as he claims to be. <g>

Jayne

Jayne, I think it is too soon to draw conclusions. Personally, I think he isright also, but we can leave it at he appears to have the better argumentand he might be right. Sometimes, who is right and who is wrong can only bejudged by history.

What's "right" is sometimes decided in the context of social values. The
(recently drafted) Russian Constitution grants the elderly a RIGHT to support
from their children. It's an interesting perspective. To wit: should the
burdens and responsibilities placed on parents during the raising of their
children be ethically reciprocal, by means of asserting that the children
return the favor? It would appear that the Russians have voiced their opinion.

It certainly makes you think.

BTW, the current opinion of the Courts in the U.S. is that a child has
a RIGHT to the support of both of its parents.

C//

"Courageous" <jkraska.removetomail@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:84q0ovsjnrcp72p8350ouhhca40mrem8dq@4ax.com... Jayne, I think it is too soon to draw conclusions. Personally, I think he
isright also, but we can leave it at he appears to have the better argumentand he might be right. Sometimes, who is right and who is wrong can only
bejudged by history. What's "right" is sometimes decided in the context of social values. The (recently drafted) Russian Constitution grants the elderly a RIGHT to
support from their children. It's an interesting perspective. To wit: should the burdens and responsibilities placed on parents during the raising of their children be ethically reciprocal, by means of asserting that the children return the favor? It would appear that the Russians have voiced their
opinion. It certainly makes you think. BTW, the current opinion of the Courts in the U.S. is that a child has a RIGHT to the support of both of its parents. C//

I think another way of saying that a child has the RIGHT to the support from
both parents would be that both parents have an OBLIGATION to support their
children.

Constitutionally, individual liberty also carries with it personal
responsibility.

When parents fail to support their children however, I think it then becomes
the BURDEN of those that profess values of charity and compassion for the
less fortunate to step forward and put their money where their mouth is, put
into action what they say they believe.

Quite the contrary, what has happened in the US at least, is the Federal
Government has taken on the power of the church and forces
everyone...compassionate or not, willing or not, ...to support those
children for their parents. Un-Constitutionally at that.


rg

On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 22:03:27 -0700,
Marcus Ulpius Traianus <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote: In alt.support.marriage Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: I think that if a man were to stay home to look after the children and gives up establishing his earning potential, then his ex-wife ought to bear some financial responsibility for him after the divorce. I'm not saying that a woman should get anything a man in the same circumstances shouldn't get. While I'm inclined to agree _in principle_ the fact is that the right solution in the long run is for couples to discuss these things and make agreements in advance... the "default" agreement makes sense in some cases, doesn't in others, and varies a lot between localities within the US -- and in many cases between the personalities of individuals on the bench.

Taking this idea to an extreme, the parents could make an agreement that
their children would be put on the street in the case of divorce.

There has to be some protection for the children when their parents
(married or not) do stupid or selfish things.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:blo7uh$h8g$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... [] Well, in the last decade, I've had to, at least twice, make major revisions on my worldviews/values, because my experiences and researches showed me that, in the name of not lying to *myself*, that was the only way to avoid doing exactly that. [] I've had a major revision like that in the past decade too. I know what you are talking about. Jayne 2.0

I'd have to say that, not only have I had at least two, with other
peripheral " upgrades ", but they've come at no small costs... :-(

There are stories there... including making a national legal precedent...

Andre 3.4



--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:17:44 GMT, "rg" <jobahut@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think Gloria meant, at one time, that a woman needs a man like a fishneeds a bicycle.I think she found later on that she was mistaken about men, and most likelyabout fish too.

Either that or she finally found a man she wanted to be with, not
necessarily needed. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.

I can live perfectly fine without a man in my life, and have done in
the past. The fact that I have chosen to share my life with a man
does not negate the fact that I can live without one.

Tara

On 5 Oct 2003 17:17:17 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
If you were in charge of the universe, how would you set things up so everyone would be treated fairly?
<snip>In other areas, we get rid of " affirmative action-discrimination ",since the just view would be, jobs are open to anyone who wants to*try* for them, but *success* is dependent on the applicant's*qualifications*. Thus, there would be no need to *make the results,across society, be the same ( Which is not a synonym for " fair " ).

One thing in long laundry list that didn't involve parenthood.

Tara

"Tara D" <manderly@eol.ca> wrote in message
news:38u0ovcl8udee47ui98eu8tp8mtnp1j9qj@4ax.com... On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:17:44 GMT, "rg" <jobahut@hotmail.com> wrote:I think Gloria meant, at one time, that a woman needs a man like a fishneeds a bicycle.I think she found later on that she was mistaken about men, and most
likelyabout fish too. Either that or she finally found a man she wanted to be with, not necessarily needed. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation. I can live perfectly fine without a man in my life, and have done in the past. The fact that I have chosen to share my life with a man does not negate the fact that I can live without one. Tara

True, but perhaps you found that life is a lot more fun when you have
someone to share it and yourself with.

rg

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 20:32:11 GMT, "rg" <nospamjobbahut@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Tara D" <manderly@eol.ca> wrote in messagenews:38u0ovcl8udee47ui98eu8tp8mtnp1j9qj@4ax .com... On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:17:44 GMT, "rg" <jobahut@hotmail.com> wrote:I think Gloria meant, at one time, that a woman needs a man like a fishneeds a bicycle.I think she found later on that she was mistaken about men, and mostlikelyabout fish too. Either that or she finally found a man she wanted to be with, not necessarily needed. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation. I can live perfectly fine without a man in my life, and have done in the past. The fact that I have chosen to share my life with a man does not negate the fact that I can live without one. TaraTrue, but perhaps you found that life is a lot more fun when you havesomeone to share it and yourself with.

Again, not an either/or option. Life is certainly different. I can't
honestly say one way is/was better or more fun.

Tara

Quite the contrary, what has happened in the US at least, is the FederalGovernment has taken on the power of the church and forceseveryone...compassionate or not, willing or not, ...to support thosechildren for their parents. Un-Constitutionally at that.

The problem here is that the parts of the constitution that would prohibit
such generalized welfare unstitutions have been ruled unjudiciable, by the
Supreme Court itself. This is a pragmatic problem of epic proportions, in
the sense that, were even the court inclined to believe that the traditional
interpretation was the correct one, it is most likely to look with great
trepidation upon a move which would dismantle a great portion of the federal
government as we know it.

If such a move were to happen, at the whim of the court, the amendment
necessary for allowing the federal government to exercise the powers that
you object to would be passed overnight. So your objection is, while well
noted, entirely academic.

Do you see things otherwise?

C//

"Tara D" <manderly@eol.ca> wrote in message
news:g701ovcfg5a7auk5v1a0mfmnrfsf66bc81@4ax.com... On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 20:32:11 GMT, "rg" <nospamjobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote:"Tara D" <manderly@eol.ca> wrote in messagenews:38u0ovcl8udee47ui98eu8tp8mtnp1j9qj@4ax .com... On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:17:44 GMT, "rg" <jobahut@hotmail.com> wrote: >I think Gloria meant, at one time, that a woman needs a man like a
fish >needs a bicycle. > >I think she found later on that she was mistaken about men, and mostlikely >about fish too. Either that or she finally found a man she wanted to be with, not necessarily needed. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation. I can live perfectly fine without a man in my life, and have done in the past. The fact that I have chosen to share my life with a man does not negate the fact that I can live without one. TaraTrue, but perhaps you found that life is a lot more fun when you havesomeone to share it and yourself with. Again, not an either/or option. Life is certainly different. I can't honestly say one way is/was better or more fun. Tara

Would it be better if you had a daily choice?

I see too many older folks whose main complaint in life is loneliness due to
absence of a companion.

rg

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:

snip, including B5 references to "choices, consequences and responsibility."
This is why I oppose Feminism, for that is an ideology that *refuses* to acknowledge, for it's intended gain group, the second and the third parts of that equation.

Only if _you_ get to define feminism, as opposed to, say, a
dictionary, or a typical feminist.

rg wrote: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:blpige$jiu$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:blo887$i20$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...> Rauni (LadyWolf@newsguy.com) writes: []>> Well she knows him in real life. He's prolly better behaved in real>> life and know better than to spout of some of his bizarre ideas in>> public.>> ROTFLMAO !!! Man oh man, someone sure owes me a new keyboard !>> I just *looove* it when people who *don't know me in RL*, try> to " guess " ( Actually, the right word would be " BS "... )> what I am like, in RL, and more so, TO people who have met> me in RL....>> Oh man, the *irony*... <laughs> Yes, considering that most of our aquaintance is based on both of us spouting our "bizarre ideas" in public, that was very ironic. Indeed. Its what I find from such people, as Bill and Rauni, as they really do hate any *person* who shows their claims to be a load of dingo's kidneys. They're still at it, mutually masterbating each other with how horrid I am, even now... <laughs>

Rauni, I think you were right. He has apparently become what he most
despises, and what's even worse, he can't even see it! What a ROFLMAO!!!

"Forgive them Lord, for they cannot see...."

D-E-N-I-A-L 101

Or perhaps that was covered in PSY 202. Since Andre never completed college,
I won't ask him, but someone else out there who did, might actually know.
Since my degree was in Electrical Engineering, I'll have to turn it over the
Psych majors (if any are in here). What a trip this is.... LOL!

Joy formerly known as fairly_happy wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:siXfb.2869$gA1.2464@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Doug Anderson wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:> Doug Anderson wrote:>> "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> writes:>>>>> Gloria Steinem, I believe. Or at least as I recall...>>>> Well, I think she is the originator of the famouse dictum: "A woman>> without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.">> Then why did SHE get married? You took the remark out of context, Bill. Huh? All I'm saying is she was a staunch feminist that had no use for men (as I recall), and then she turns around, and gets married. Am I wrong here? I never actually read Gloria Steinem, and don't really know (or care) about all the details of what she stood for - but I could say that in my opinion (not Gloria's, necessarily, since I'm not sure what hers is) the "a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle" may mean something different that it sounds like it does to you. To me, it reminds me that unlike past generations, where a woman really had a difficult time simply surviving without the support of a man, in this day and age a woman really can survive on her own - just like a bicycle isn't necessary for a fishes survival. Doesn't mean the fish was hostile to bicycles, though, and it certainly doesn't mean I don't like and appreciate men. Saying "not necessary for survival" is not the same as "have no use for". (And apparently she does like men, since she married one.) Just my thoughts on it, though - YMMV, and so might Gloria's for that matter....

OK - I probably misinterpreted her remarks. But as I recall, she was a bit
outspoken, but that was then, and this is now. Sometimes I get stuck in a
time warp.

"Courageous" <jkraska.removetomail@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:j711ovcf1ij79oriut8b7ifv5ct5djugl1@4ax.com... Quite the contrary, what has happened in the US at least, is the FederalGovernment has taken on the power of the church and forceseveryone...compassionate or not, willing or not, ...to support thosechildren for their parents. Un-Constitutionally at that. The problem here is that the parts of the constitution that would prohibit such generalized welfare unstitutions have been ruled unjudiciable, by the Supreme Court itself. This is a pragmatic problem of epic proportions, in the sense that, were even the court inclined to believe that the
traditional interpretation was the correct one, it is most likely to look with great trepidation upon a move which would dismantle a great portion of the
federal government as we know it. If such a move were to happen, at the whim of the court, the amendment necessary for allowing the federal government to exercise the powers that you object to would be passed overnight. So your objection is, while well noted, entirely academic. Do you see things otherwise? C//

No, not necessarily. But I think there may be a chance (although a snowball
in hell would have a better one) that someday a system of popular voting on
issues might be feasible.

Then........ no longer academic!!

rg

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:zpXfb.2873$gA1.1329@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net... [] Jayne, I do wish you would Google up some of his posts (to the marriage and divorce groups) over the past year, and see if you still feel the same way. There have been some heated "debates" - IF you can call it that. I say that, because it is ALWAYS scripted, and the objectivity and authoritative (non scripted) reference material is clearly lacking. If you would like to offer me something specific to look at then I will read it. Andre is a prolific writer and I cannot go through all of his posts looking for something to prove your point for you. From what I have seen in this thread, he sounds like he knows what he is talking about. In this thread, I have not seen others make good counter-arguments or been able to think of any myself. Based on the current evidence available to me, I have to conclude that he is right. Jayne

With all due respect, your evidence is just a bit limited, but I'm not willing
to go back and dredge all this up again, Jayne. What, am I to be your lackey
boy? (LOL)!

To summarize, he has about ten "articles" (and I use that term loosely) that he
routinely (and ONLY) accepts, and constantly refers to, and if you veer off of
those for ANY discussion, he gets offended and starts in on the ad hominems,
just like he did today, in response to Jauni. Nuff said....

If you want to research it further, Google is YOUR friend. I have enough to
do, like finding a suitable DOS CD (change directory) replacement for CDX.
LOL..

If such a move were to happen, at the whim of the court, the amendment necessary for allowing the federal government to exercise the powers that you object to would be passed overnight. So your objection is, while well noted, entirely academic. Do you see things otherwise?
No, not necessarily. But I think there may be a chance (although a snowballin hell would have a better one) that someday a system of popular voting onissues might be feasible.Then........ no longer academic!!

I wouldn't predict that. Many of the institutions that would be disabled
by a decision of the courts of the type you are requesting would do things
like dismantle social security and other publically cherished institutions.
Institutions charished by some of the most stodgy of voters, I might add.

No, I wouldn't predict that at all.

Surely you wouldn't predict that the *voters* would willingly wipe away
their own entitlements, do you?

Ack! As a Californian, my experience with the voter referenda system (to
wit: "popular voting") has been to the contrary.

C//

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:MQ%fb.2960$Qy2.2385@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... rg wrote: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:blpige$jiu$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes:> "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message> news:blo887$i20$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...>> Rauni (LadyWolf@newsguy.com) writes:>> []>>> Well she knows him in real life. He's prolly better behaved in real>>> life and know better than to spout of some of his bizarre ideas in>>> public.>>>> ROTFLMAO !!! Man oh man, someone sure owes me a new keyboard !>>>> I just *looove* it when people who *don't know me in RL*, try>> to " guess " ( Actually, the right word would be " BS "... )>> what I am like, in RL, and more so, TO people who have met>> me in RL....>>>> Oh man, the *irony*... <laughs>>> Yes, considering that most of our aquaintance is based on both of us> spouting our "bizarre ideas" in public, that was very ironic. Indeed. Its what I find from such people, as Bill and Rauni, as they really do hate any *person* who shows their claims to be a load of dingo's kidneys. They're still at it, mutually masterbating each other with how horrid I am, even now... <laughs> Rauni, I think you were right. He has apparently become what he most despises, and what's even worse, he can't even see it! What a
ROFLMAO!!! "Forgive them Lord, for they cannot see...." D-E-N-I-A-L 101 Or perhaps that was covered in PSY 202. Since Andre never completed
college, I won't ask him, but someone else out there who did, might actually know. Since my degree was in Electrical Engineering, I'll have to turn it over
the Psych majors (if any are in here). What a trip this is.... LOL!

Bill, you have my rg at the top of this post. I hope you realize that not a
word contained in this post is attributable to me.

rg

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 21:10:44 GMT, "rg" <nospamjobbahut@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Tara D" <manderly@eol.ca> wrote in messagenews:g701ovcfg5a7auk5v1a0mfmnrfsf66bc81@4ax .com...
<snip> Again, not an either/or option. Life is certainly different. I can't honestly say one way is/was better or more fun. TaraWould it be better if you had a daily choice?I see too many older folks whose main complaint in life is loneliness due toabsence of a companion.rg

Daily choice, no. I made my choice to be with Blue, as he made a
choice to be with me. It was not a choice made on the spur of the
moment, or without a great deal of thought. Some things are better,
some are not. If something should happen to him, would I repeat the
choice with someone else? I seriously doubt it.

I'd hazard these older folks would have had the same complaint in
their younger years (bored with nothing to do if all their friends had
other plans). That's not how I'm wired.

Tara

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
snip Many studies prove that fatherlessness is the leading factor in amny of the pathologoes present in modern kids. So, we must act to make fatherless-by-choice sprog whelping a bad thing, by definition.

Do you know of any such studies that carefully distinguish
"fatherlessness" from the many other confounding factors? If these
are US studies there is a pretty big correlation between kids with no
fathers in their life and mothers who started out poor and have few
resources (_before_ having kids).

Unless these studies have removed those confounding factors, it's
naive to blame the problems the children face on fatherlessness.
snip

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b00gb.3024$Qy2.1292@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:zpXfb.2873$gA1.1329@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net... [] Jayne, I do wish you would Google up some of his posts (to the marriage
and divorce groups) over the past year, and see if you still feel the same
way. There have been some heated "debates" - IF you can call it that. I
say that, because it is ALWAYS scripted, and the objectivity and
authoritative (non scripted) reference material is clearly lacking. If you would like to offer me something specific to look at then I will
read it. Andre is a prolific writer and I cannot go through all of his posts looking for something to prove your point for you. From what I have
seen in this thread, he sounds like he knows what he is talking about. In this thread, I have not seen others make good counter-arguments or been able
to think of any myself. Based on the current evidence available to me, I
have to conclude that he is right. Jayne With all due respect, your evidence is just a bit limited, but I'm not
willing to go back and dredge all this up again, Jayne. What, am I to be your
lackey boy? (LOL)!

I am used to circles in which doing one's own research to prove one's own
points is not considered being a lackey. It is the standard procedure.
If you wish to convince me of something, I consider it your job to provide
the evidence. If Andre had said there is evidence out there somewhere that
supports his position and sent me to look for it, rest assured I would not
have taken him seriously.
To summarize, he has about ten "articles" (and I use that term loosely)
that he routinely (and ONLY) accepts, and constantly refers to, and if you veer
off of those for ANY discussion, he gets offended and starts in on the ad
hominems, just like he did today, in response to Jauni. Nuff said....

It seemed to me that the altercation with Rauni was part of a long standing
feud. I don't think either came off looking very good. (And I don't care
who started it. I get enough of that excuse from my children.) It all
seemed personal and I could not see any relevance to the actual arguments.
If you want to research it further, Google is YOUR friend. I have enough
to do, like finding a suitable DOS CD (change directory) replacement for CDX. LOL..

No, I don't want to research it further. You are the one who thinks I
should change my mind.

Jayne

rg wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:MQ%fb.2960$Qy2.2385@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... rg wrote: "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message news:blpige$jiu$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...> "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes:>> "Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message>> news:blo887$i20$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...>>> Rauni (LadyWolf@newsguy.com) writes:>>>> []>>>> Well she knows him in real life. He's prolly better behaved in real>>>> life and know better than to spout of some of his bizarre ideas in>>>> public.>>>>>> ROTFLMAO !!! Man oh man, someone sure owes me a new keyboard !>>>>>> I just *looove* it when people who *don't know me in RL*, try>>> to " guess " ( Actually, the right word would be " BS "... )>>> what I am like, in RL, and more so, TO people who have met>>> me in RL....>>>>>> Oh man, the *irony*... <laughs>>>>> Yes, considering that most of our aquaintance is based on both of us>> spouting our "bizarre ideas" in public, that was very ironic.>> Indeed. Its what I find from such people, as Bill and Rauni, as they> really do hate any *person* who shows their claims to be a load of> dingo's kidneys.>> They're still at it, mutually masterbating each other with how horrid> I am, even now... <laughs> Rauni, I think you were right. He has apparently become what he most despises, and what's even worse, he can't even see it! What a ROFLMAO!!! "Forgive them Lord, for they cannot see...." D-E-N-I-A-L 101 Or perhaps that was covered in PSY 202. Since Andre never completed college, I won't ask him, but someone else out there who did, might actually know. Since my degree was in Electrical Engineering, I'll have to turn it over the Psych majors (if any are in here). What a trip this is.... LOL! Bill, you have my rg at the top of this post. I hope you realize that not a word contained in this post is attributable to me. rg

I don't know what happened, rg. I didn't type your name in there, so maybe
someone cut and snipped but left your attribution in, and I just copied part of
their post, which still had your name in there. It sometimes happens.
Sorry.

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:b00gb.3024$Qy2.1292@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:zpXfb.2873$gA1.1329@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net... []> Jayne, I do wish you would Google up some of his posts (to the marriage
and> divorce groups) over the past year, and see if you still feel the same
way.> There have been some heated "debates" - IF you can call it that. I say> that, because it is ALWAYS scripted, and the objectivity and authoritative> (non scripted) reference material is clearly lacking. If you would like to offer me something specific to look at then I will
read it. Andre is a prolific writer and I cannot go through all of his posts looking for something to prove your point for you. From what I have seen
in this thread, he sounds like he knows what he is talking about. In this thread, I have not seen others make good counter-arguments or been able to think of any myself. Based on the current evidence available to me, I have to conclude that he is right. Jayne With all due respect, your evidence is just a bit limited, but I'm not willing to go back and dredge all this up again, Jayne. What, am I to be your lackey boy? (LOL)! I am used to circles in which doing one's own research to prove one's own points is not considered being a lackey.

I'm not at the University right now - this is Sunday. I think I'll take a
break from that expectation, if you don't mind. :-)
It is the standard procedure. If you wish to convince me of something, I consider it your job to provide the evidence.

Well then I guess I will retract my wishing to convince you of something, cause
I don't feel like going back and dragging all this up again. Or you can just
monitor the diatribe here, with one blinding - and extremely limited -
viewpoint being espoused, ad nauseum.
If Andre had said there is evidence out there somewhere that supports his position and sent me to look for it, rest assured I would not have taken him seriously. To summarize, he has about ten "articles" (and I use that term loosely) that he routinely (and ONLY) accepts, and constantly refers to, and if you veer off of those for ANY discussion, he gets offended and starts in on the ad hominems, just like he did today, in response to Jauni. Nuff said.... It seemed to me that the altercation with Rauni was part of a long standing feud.

I didn't assume that. That is an assumption, n'est pas? (You know what they
say about assume...)

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 21:44:10 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
The National Socialists were "defending Germany from Jewish oppression" too. We've been through that kind of lying before.Ah. You've singled the end of the thread.

How the hell do you "single the end of a thread"?

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 14:16:25 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:zpXfb.2873$gA1.1329@newsread3.news.pas .earthlink.net...[] Jayne, I do wish you would Google up some of his posts (to the marriageand divorce groups) over the past year, and see if you still feel the sameway. There have been some heated "debates" - IF you can call it that. I saythat, because it is ALWAYS scripted, and the objectivity and authoritative (non scripted) reference material is clearly lacking.If you would like to offer me something specific to look at then I will readit. Andre is a prolific writer and I cannot go through all of his postslooking for something to prove your point for you. From what I have seen inthis thread, he sounds like he knows what he is talking about. In thisthread, I have not seen others make good counter-arguments or been able tothink of any myself. Based on the current evidence available to me, I haveto conclude that he is right.Jayne
Here is a good link I gave him cites and yet he keeps telling me I
haven't. Tunnel vision at it's finest
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1506599376d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3f2dee83.33388156%40news.dbtech.net&rnum=165

I've even posted links to web site that deal with men being abused by
their wives/girlfrineds. I'm am a die in the wool middle roader. I
think today's feminism as gone somewhere off in la la land with
invented statistic (like the myth about superbowl sunday).

But what I see here on soc.mendoesn'tmake them look much better than
the wacko feminist they attack.


"It is hard to free fools from chains they revere."-Voltaire

Organization: Cigar Diary - http://www.cigardiary.com/
Reply-To: tony@cigardiary.com
Message-ID: <slrnbo175i.gq9.tony@callisto.jtan.com>
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0 (OpenBSD)

On 5 Oct 2003 20:08:39 GMT,
Andre Lieven <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote: "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes:

<Snip>
I'm probably more inclined to be well-disposed toward men in general because I think my husband is so wonderful. Indeed. But, how could a woman who shacks up with a succession of guys, gets preggers from a couple of them, and decides, on her own, to carry one to term, ever hope to develop such a view of men, when the basis of her starting value system is to treat men as interchangable and... disposable ?

But the men who use this particular slut in succession are *what*? Take
all the paper you need for your answer.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F8065DD.7060101@hotmail.com...
BTW: I have been reading some of your posts and I kind of like your style.

Thank you.

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_bleh@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bll9kq$dmvna$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: <snip> BTW, hi Andre. It isn't often I meet someone that I already know IRL on the net. Oh my...really and truly, Jayne? Please forgive my presumption, Jayne, but my curiosity has overcome my good manners. I'm dying to know, is Andre as charming in real life as he is on usenet? This is the first time that I've seen a Usenet post by him so I can't compare. However, I do think he is charming. Also good-looking, smart and articulate.

I have to confess to being disingenuous in my question to you, Jayne, and I
felt a little guilty afterwards for misleading you. I have my own opinions
about Andre based on years of seeing his posts both about women in general
and his ex-wife in particular. I've found neither kind all that impressive
although I don't disagree with your views on his intelligence.

He does often make me count my blessings so I there is something nice I can
say about him!

Thank you for giving my impression of him a little more flesh.

Tai






Jayne

Tony Miller wrote:
I hate to go off topic and nit-pick, but could you change your word wrapping line length to something like 74 to make is easy for us without windows based newsreaders to read your stuff...

Actually I really don't know why this happens to my posts! In my setting I have set the
outgoing wrap around to 72, but I notice that depending on the post that I am responding
to it sometimes wraps and sometimes doesn't. And I don't see it when I compose the
message, just when it comes back through my newsreader. Can you tell me what could be
wrong?

On 5 Oct 2003 07:32:54 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: Marcus Ulpius Traianus (trajan@sfchat.org) writes: > In alt.support.marriage Andre Lieven <dg411@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote: >> Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: >> > The reason I'm asking is that I often see women who have truly >> > internalized feminist values, >> >> Lesbianism/separatism... > > One rather silly corner of a broad concept and a scattered movement (if it, > indeed, ever was one movement.) Sigh. I keep posting the proof otherwise... If I posted 10 times as many sensible quotes from feminists and lesbians would you consider that proof of the opposite assertion?No, *and heres why not*:Using your standard, we would have to *acquit* people charged withcrimes, if they only did them on a small number of days, and wereotherwise law adiding, the majority of days.

Uh, no, your logic is a little wacky. Let me turn it around. Given
your standard for what is evidence of "feminist opinion", could I take
an opinion held by, say, 1% of people registered Republican and
legitimately say "this is how Republicans think?"
Its the *outside of the envelope* actions/statements that definethe reality of a person, as well as an ideology.

OK. Thanks for the standard. So David Duke is a standard bearer for
the Republican party. Cool.

- Randy

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 04:31:42 GMT, Courageous <jkraska@san.rr.com>
wrote:
Whatever native intelligence you have may be fixed at birth, but how youdevelop it and what you make of it are your own responsibility. Spendsix hours a day watching TV, never read any nonfiction, listen to andshare gossip at every opportunity, and you'll end up a brain-dead moron,whatever gifts you may have been given.Well, no. Someone with an IQ of 160 will be able to spin mentalcircles around someone with an IQ of 100, even if they spend theirlife as a plumber.

I was flipping through an autobiography of famous Japanese film
directory Akira Kurosawa. He describes how terrible it was as a child
to be retarded. Not "misdiagnosed retarded", but retarded. He
describes in vivid terms how hard it was for him to think, to get
stuff which seemed easy to all the other kids.

- Randy

rg wrote: Well, I don't totally agree, Bob. I think men do have somewhat of a choice. They can choose to keep it in their pants for one. rg

That would be equal to "a woman's right to choose" exactly how?

Bob

Tony Miller wrote: Enforced servitude that the guy volunteered for (albeit he may have been to stupid to know it at the time.)

LIE to someone else bucko. That lie don't fly here.


Bob

Andre Lieven wrote:
I'd lose " no fault " divorce, too. Restore divorce to the field of contract law.

That sounds good if marriage and (subsequent divorce) was like any other
contract, where the signers were all adults who accepted and signed
voluntarily. But unlike braking other contracts, divorce doesn't only affect
those who signed it.
If one signer to the contract decides to void it, unilaterally, and with no good legal reason, one consequence is that they leave the contract relationship with NO profit. Period.

That's good for the breakers of contracts. However; the most negatively
affected people in such a breakup are people who never had any say in the
contract - the children. How do you make sure that the rights of children who
neither signed, nor broke any contract are protected? And yes, they should be
given highest priority because they are the true victims with no way to protect
their own right. What, in your opinion, is in the best interest of children
when one of their parents leaves the other unilaterally (regardless of what you
think the parent deserves)?

Tony Miller wrote: Men always have a choice. To keep it in their pants.

Exactly how is that equal to "a woman's right to choose"?

Does anyone require a woman to keep her legs together?
When it's past the "in the pants" stage, the one who owns the womb makes the rules.

Typical feminist lie. Do you mean the one who owns the legislature and
court makes the law?

Current law in the US gives all choice to women. Other societies and
other times have made other legal decisions. That old feminist saw about
biology determining law is udder nonsense.

It's a hard lesson, but not too tough if you are willing to understand it.

It's a feminist anti-men dogma, and hateful to men, is that what you mean?


Bob

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 21:12:26 GMT,
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: snip, including B5 references to "choices, consequences and responsibility." This is why I oppose Feminism, for that is an ideology that *refuses* to acknowledge, for it's intended gain group, the second and the third parts of that equation. Only if _you_ get to define feminism, as opposed to, say, a dictionary, or a typical feminist.

I don't know... The only women who I have met who have defined themselves
as feminists have been ugly man-hating lesbians. That's how I see a
"typical" feminist until I meet a few more who are more reasonable.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 22:17:05 GMT,
JDK <jdk00@yahoo.com> wrote: On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 21:44:10 GMT, Doug Anderson<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: The National Socialists were "defending Germany from Jewish oppression" too. We've been through that kind of lying before.Ah. You've singled the end of the thread. How the hell do you "single the end of a thread"?

I think he meant "signal" :) Bob invoked Godwin's law by comparing those
who think like Doug with Hitler or Nazis :)

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

In alt.support.marriage Andre Lieven <dg411@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote: We get this false claim on soc.men, all the time, that, no matter whom we quote, and cite, we're always told that " they don't speak for Feminism ".

Well, if feminism represents only the lunatic wing, then so be it -- it's
not worth arguing over the semantics; in that case there _was_, a
significant equal rights movement in the past well beyond "feminism." With
sufferage, with the attempts to equalize wages, etc, and with the slow
deterioration of the glass ceiling, it's not as relevant today as it was,
which is why the extreme corner/wing/whatever of that movement -- the only
part you apply the term "feminism" to -- is more visible.
Well, any movement that is that amorphous that you can never pin it down on any issue or topic, is *useless*, for *exactly* the same reason.

Hardly. There are issues and topics that it has in common with ther more
moderate wing of the movement, and issues which it decidedly doesn't have in
common with them.

Like any movement: the loose alliance between middle-class liberals,
organized labor and minorities that is the backbone of the Democratic party
is another such example, as is the loose alliance between wealthy
individuals, big business, and religious zealotry that is the backbone of
the Republican party.
" If you never say what you mean, you can never *mean what you say*. "
And, the opinions covered in the quotes represent the core of Feminism.

A substantial part of the broader movement.
Since the cover people who are still lauded by the main organisations of Feminism, and include people with present of former positions of power and influence in Feminism.

Arguably, a lot of those organization have diverged a lot from their
original constituency.
This excuse would be tatramount to someone claiming that Bush, Cheney, and Powell " only speak for one small part of the US Government "...

No, it's like saying that the named <expletive deleteds> speak for the
entire American people, as opposed to the republican minority who elected
them.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 22:06:23 GMT,
rg <nospamjobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote: "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3F8090B2.70809@hotmail.com...

<Snip>
If the woman claims "a woman's right to choose" and excludes men from any choice, then she also must accept responsibility for the outcome of her choice. Her choice -- her responsibility. Bob Well, I don't totally agree, Bob. I think men do have somewhat of a choice. They can choose to keep it in their pants for one.

Can't do that, rg. When the little head's calling the shots, the man has
no control over his actions. Don't you know it's the woman's job to take
responsibility?
rg

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F80B555.1040804@hotmail.com... rg wrote: Well, I don't totally agree, Bob. I think men do have somewhat of a
choice. They can choose to keep it in their pants for one. rg That would be equal to "a woman's right to choose" exactly how? Bob

That would be equal to me joining the Army and losing my choices or NOT
joining the Army and keeping my choices.

Don't want to lose any of your choices? Then keep your zipper up and don't
join the military. You'll have all the choices you want.

rg

"Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9a61ov00pe9dubci6vimd9b7pr33ibo56a@4ax.com... On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 14:16:25 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas"

[]If you would like to offer me something specific to look at then I will
readit. Andre is a prolific writer and I cannot go through all of his postslooking for something to prove your point for you. From what I have seen
inthis thread, he sounds like he knows what he is talking about. In thisthread, I have not seen others make good counter-arguments or been able
tothink of any myself. Based on the current evidence available to me, I
haveto conclude that he is right.Jayne Here is a good link I gave him cites and yet he keeps telling me I haven't. Tunnel vision at it's finest
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1506599376d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe
=UTF-8&selm=3f2dee83.33388156%40news.dbtech.net&rnum=165

I've read this thread with special attention to the posts by Andre. Yours
are not archived making it hard to follow your contributions. I saw one
post in which claimed you had given cites and someone else reposted the
cites you had given.
I've even posted links to web site that deal with men being abused by their wives/girlfrineds. I'm am a die in the wool middle roader. I think today's feminism as gone somewhere off in la la land with invented statistic (like the myth about superbowl sunday). But what I see here on soc.mendoesn'tmake them look much better than the wacko feminist they attack.

From what I saw in that thread it is possible to support claims that Andre
is disrespectful or undignified or just not nice. My impression was that one
could make this claim about just about everyone in the thread. I did not
see anything that indicated that he does not know what he is talking about.
If you want to tell me that Andre has a confrontational or abrasive style, I
can't put up much of a defense. But this does not affect the worth of his
arguments. He has done extensive research and backs up his claims with
evidence. That favorably impresses me. Sure, I'd prefer he was nicer about
it, but I don't see that as being at all relevant to whether his claims are
true.

Jayne

Rauni wrote: On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 14:16:25 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:zpXfb.2873$gA1.1329@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net... [] Jayne, I do wish you would Google up some of his posts (to the marriage and divorce groups) over the past year, and see if you still feel the same way. There have been some heated "debates" - IF you can call it that. I say that, because it is ALWAYS scripted, and the objectivity and authoritative (non scripted) reference material is clearly lacking. If you would like to offer me something specific to look at then I will read it. Andre is a prolific writer and I cannot go through all of his posts looking for something to prove your point for you. From what I have seen in this thread, he sounds like he knows what he is talking about. In this thread, I have not seen others make good counter-arguments or been able to think of any myself. Based on the current evidence available to me, I have to conclude that he is right. Jayne Here is a good link I gave him cites and yet he keeps telling me I haven't. Tunnel vision at it's finest...

THAT is a speciality of Andre's. He has that down to a "T". If you push
too hard, watch the whining and ad hominem attacks come back...

Pavlov conditioning, at its finest...

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote: Marcus Ulpius Traianus <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote: While I'm inclined to agree _in principle_ the fact is that the right solution in the long run is for couples to discuss these things and make agreements in advance... the "default" agreement makes sense in some cases, doesn't in others, and varies a lot between localities within the US -- and in many cases between the personalities of individuals on the bench. Taking this idea to an extreme, the parents could make an agreement that their children would be put on the street in the case of divorce.

That's something that parents have no right to do when married, so that's a
ridiculous extreme. Similarly, some sort of child support arrangement may
be unavoidable -- although should parents with an income disparity agree
prior to marriage that any hypothetical future children stay with the parent
who has the income, as far as I'm concerned that's A-OK.

That said, if an adult woman is willing to agree to take the risk _for
herself_ of being put out on the streets, she should have the right to make
that agreement. Part of being an adult is having the right to your own
stupidity -- and the state shouldn't have the right to come after the former
husband for his earnings, any more than it should be able to come after her
parents.
There has to be some protection for the children when their parents (married or not) do stupid or selfish things.

While I agree, the benchmark should be "a guarantee of minimally adequate
care" and "the child will not be put into danger or poverty" and not "the
best interests of the child as decided by a capricious court system" or
(while this is more relevant to alimony) "maintenance of lifestyle."

"Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_bleh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:blq9bm$ekc3o$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_bleh@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bll9kq$dmvna$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: <snip>> BTW, hi Andre. It isn't often I meet someone that I already know> IRL on the net. Oh my...really and truly, Jayne? Please forgive my presumption, Jayne, but my curiosity has overcome my good manners. I'm dying to know, is Andre as charming in real life as he is on usenet? This is the first time that I've seen a Usenet post by him so I can't compare. However, I do think he is charming. Also good-looking, smart and articulate. I have to confess to being disingenuous in my question to you, Jayne, and
I felt a little guilty afterwards for misleading you. I have my own opinions about Andre based on years of seeing his posts both about women in general and his ex-wife in particular. I've found neither kind all that impressive although I don't disagree with your views on his intelligence. He does often make me count my blessings so I there is something nice I
can say about him! Thank you for giving my impression of him a little more flesh.

Having seen more of his Usenet persona since I wrote the above, I can say
that Andre is nowhere near as charming on the Net as in real life. The
intelligence shows in both situations.

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Rauni" <LadyWolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:9a61ov00pe9dubci6vimd9b7pr33ibo56a@4ax.com... On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 14:16:25 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas" [] If you would like to offer me something specific to look at then I will
read it. Andre is a prolific writer and I cannot go through all of his posts looking for something to prove your point for you. From what I have seen
in this thread, he sounds like he knows what he is talking about. In this thread, I have not seen others make good counter-arguments or been able to think of any myself. Based on the current evidence available to me, I have to conclude that he is right. Jayne Here is a good link I gave him cites and yet he keeps telling me I haven't. Tunnel vision at it's finest http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1506599376d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe =UTF-8&selm=3f2dee83.33388156%40news.dbtech.net&rnum=165 I've read this thread with special attention to the posts by Andre. Yours are not archived making it hard to follow your contributions. I saw one post in which claimed you had given cites and someone else reposted the cites you had given. I've even posted links to web site that deal with men being abused by their wives/girlfrineds. I'm am a die in the wool middle roader. I think today's feminism as gone somewhere off in la la land with invented statistic (like the myth about superbowl sunday). But what I see here on soc.mendoesn'tmake them look much better than the wacko feminist they attack. From what I saw in that thread it is possible to support claims that Andre is disrespectful or undignified or just not nice. My impression was that one could make this claim about just about everyone in the thread. I did not see anything that indicated that he does not know what he is talking about. If you want to tell me that Andre has a confrontational or abrasive style, I can't put up much of a defense. But this does not affect the worth of his arguments. He has done extensive research and backs up his claims with evidence.

How do you really know that, Jayne? Just by what he says? Or the "articles"
he finds somewhere on the net? Just what peer reviewed research articles has
he himself read - and researched? And who were the peers of those articles?
As I said, you've made a LOT of assumptions.

rg does some tap dancing and hand waving: "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3F80B555.1040804@hotmail.com...rg wrote:Well, I don't totally agree, Bob. I think men do have somewhat of a choice.They can choose to keep it in their pants for one.rgThat would be equal to "a woman's right to choose" exactly how? That would be equal to me joining the Army and losing my choices or NOT joining the Army and keeping my choices. Don't want to lose any of your choices? Then keep your zipper up and don't join the military. You'll have all the choices you want. rg


That would be equal to a "woman's right to choose" exactly how? Please
answer the question.

That would be fair and equal between men and woman exactly how?

Bob

JDK <jdk00@yahoo.com> wrote: On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 21:44:10 GMT, Doug Anderson: The National Socialists were "defending Germany from Jewish oppression" too. We've been through that kind of lying before.Ah. You've singled the end of the thread. How the hell do you "single the end of a thread"?

Godwin's Law
Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer,
the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is
over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever
argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the
existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there
is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of
Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be
unsuccessful.


http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html

Ellie wrote: Andre Lieven wrote:I'd lose " no fault " divorce, too. Restore divorce to thefield of contract law. That sounds good if marriage and (subsequent divorce) was like any other contract, where the signers were all adults who accepted and signed voluntarily. But unlike braking other contracts, divorce doesn't only affect those who signed it.If one signer to the contract decidesto void it, unilaterally, and with no good legal reason,one consequence is that they leave the contract relationshipwith NO profit. Period. That's good for the breakers of contracts. However; the most negatively affected people in such a breakup are people who never had any say in the contract - the children. How do you make sure that the rights of children who neither signed, nor broke any contract are protected? And yes, they should be given highest priority because they are the true victims with no way to protect their own right. What, in your opinion, is in the best interest of children when one of their parents leaves the other unilaterally (regardless of what you think the parent deserves)?

Since the children are not getting divorced the divorce decision ought
not interfere with the child's fundamental human right to both parents.

Any decision by the court to award custody to either parent is a
violation of the child's rights and goes against the best interest of
the child.

Bob

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Kg3gb.3833$Qy2.2055@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:

[] From what I saw in that thread it is possible to support claims that
Andre is disrespectful or undignified or just not nice. My impression was that
one could make this claim about just about everyone in the thread. I did
not see anything that indicated that he does not know what he is talking
about. If you want to tell me that Andre has a confrontational or abrasive
style, I can't put up much of a defense. But this does not affect the worth of
his arguments. He has done extensive research and backs up his claims with evidence. How do you really know that, Jayne? Just by what he says? Or the
"articles" he finds somewhere on the net? Just what peer reviewed research
articles has he himself read - and researched? And who were the peers of those
articles? As I said, you've made a LOT of assumptions.

Actually "just by what he says" carries a great deal of weight with me.
Andre is a man of his word.

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Kg3gb.3833$Qy2.2055@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: [] From what I saw in that thread it is possible to support claims that Andre is disrespectful or undignified or just not nice. My impression was that
one could make this claim about just about everyone in the thread. I did not see anything that indicated that he does not know what he is talking about. If you want to tell me that Andre has a confrontational or abrasive style,
I can't put up much of a defense. But this does not affect the worth of his arguments. He has done extensive research and backs up his claims with evidence. How do you really know that, Jayne? Just by what he says? Or the "articles" he finds somewhere on the net? Just what peer reviewed research articles has he himself read - and researched? And who were the peers of those articles? As I said, you've made a LOT of assumptions. Actually "just by what he says" carries a great deal of weight with me. Andre is a man of his word. Jayne

I see. You must not have majored in the sciences, then, where intellectual
rigor (supported by scholarly research) is expected. What was your major?

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:25:47 -0600,
Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: Tony Miller wrote: Men always have a choice. To keep it in their pants. Exactly how is that equal to "a woman's right to choose"? Does anyone require a woman to keep her legs together?

No, but she's not the one who might be victim of onorous child support is
she. Why don't you think about something you have some control over.
When it's past the "in the pants" stage, the one who owns the womb makes the rules. Typical feminist lie. Do you mean the one who owns the legislature and court makes the law?

I guess that's one in the same right now isn't it. So what I said wasn't
a "lie". It was a totally correct statement. Want to apologize now?
Current law in the US gives all choice to women. Other societies and other times have made other legal decisions. That old feminist saw about biology determining law is udder nonsense.

Indeedy. Current law gives all choice to the women. It's her womb, her
body, and her choice. If you're smart, you'll live within that framework.
If you're not you won't and only whine on usenet when you're caught.

"Udder nonsense". Cute. Is that a typo, or some cutesy reference to a
cow?
It's a hard lesson, but not too tough if you are willing to understand it. It's a feminist anti-men dogma, and hateful to men, is that what you mean?

Yup, responsibility is anti-men. Men aren't required to be responsible.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

Tony Miller wrote: On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 22:06:23 GMT, rg <nospamjobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote: "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3F8090B2.70809@hotmail.com... <Snip> If the woman claims "a woman's right to choose" and excludes men from any choice, then she also must accept responsibility for the outcome of her choice. Her choice -- her responsibility. Bob Well, I don't totally agree, Bob. I think men do have somewhat of a choice. They can choose to keep it in their pants for one. Can't do that, rg. When the little head's calling the shots, the man has no control over his actions. Don't you know it's the woman's job to take responsibility? rg

No, I just don't understand this advanced concept, Tony! Could you break it
down for us (or rather, some of us)?

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_bleh@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:blq9bm$ekc3o$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_bleh@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bll9kq$dmvna$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de...> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:>> <snip>>>> BTW, hi Andre. It isn't often I meet someone that I already know>> IRL on the net.>> Oh my...really and truly, Jayne?>> Please forgive my presumption, Jayne, but my curiosity has overcome> my good manners. I'm dying to know, is Andre as charming in real> life as he is on usenet? This is the first time that I've seen a Usenet post by him so I can't compare. However, I do think he is charming. Also good-looking, smart and articulate. I have to confess to being disingenuous in my question to you, Jayne, and I felt a little guilty afterwards for misleading you. I have my own opinions about Andre based on years of seeing his posts both about women in general and his ex-wife in particular. I've found neither kind all that impressive although I don't disagree with your views on his intelligence. He does often make me count my blessings so I there is something nice I can say about him! Thank you for giving my impression of him a little more flesh. Having seen more of his Usenet persona since I wrote the above, I can say that Andre is nowhere near as charming on the Net as in real life.
The intelligence shows in both situations.

Only to you, I fear. (You're just easily dazzled, that's all)!

"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F80C0D0.8030900@hotmail.com... rg does some tap dancing and hand waving: "Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3F80B555.1040804@hotmail.com...rg wrote:>Well, I don't totally agree, Bob. I think men do have somewhat of a> choice.>They can choose to keep it in their pants for one.>rgThat would be equal to "a woman's right to choose" exactly how? That would be equal to me joining the Army and losing my choices or NOT joining the Army and keeping my choices. Don't want to lose any of your choices? Then keep your zipper up and
don't join the military. You'll have all the choices you want. rg That would be equal to a "woman's right to choose" exactly how? Please answer the question. That would be fair and equal between men and woman exactly how? Bob

I don't think there is such a thing as equal rights in some cases, Bob.

I answered your question. You didn't answer mine.

When men and women have the same rights, then men will get pregnant at the
same frequency that women do. Until then, there is no such thing as equal
rights in these cases.

You are not going to change my mind about this, Bob. You might as well quit
on this one.

Got anything else you want to discuss?

rg

When men and women have the same rights, then men will get pregnant at thesame frequency that women do.

In my mind, a real source of tension here is the lack of a good oral
contraceptive for men. As it is, I'd recommend that any man *that*
scared of siring a child get snipped and unsip later. While the unsnip
is no sure thing, the piece of mind had by the snippage certainly is.

C//

Tony Miller wrote: On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 22:06:23 GMT,Well, I don't totally agree, Bob. I think men do have somewhat of a choice.They can choose to keep it in their pants for one. Can't do that, rg. When the little head's calling the shots, the man has no control over his actions. Don't you know it's the woman's job to take responsibility? -Tony

Is that similar to women not being able to keep their legs together on
ovulation day?

As for responsibility, both men and women ought to be required to take
responsibility for their own life choices. As long as women have sole
and exclusive "a woman's right to choose" then women are exclusively
responsible for THEIR choice.

Equal rights, equal choice and equal responsibility are the goal of
decent people. Prejudiced people want some people to get the choice but
not be responsible, while other people are responsible but have not
choice.

Bob

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F80C8E7.1722EB22@hotmail.com... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: It works in that example. However, if feminist groups are working
towards having the courts favour women in custody cases (as Andre has presented evidence for) that is not working for equality. That is giving a right
to women at the expense of men. And I think that is wrong. Yes, I agree. I wasn't talking about specific political actions of various feminist groups, but the general principle that a "feminist" movement,
despite its name and methods of promoting women's right, could very well be
working towards equality. And I believe that for the most parts it has. The fact
that we are able to take equal pay for equal work, equal opportunities for
education, jobs, etc. for granted in much of the western world today is the result of
the work of many who focused on promoting women's rights. This doesn't mean
that every policy that every feminist group is trying to enforce is towards
equality, but there is no contradiction between focusing on an underprivileged group
in society, and having equality as the ultimate goal.

It works in the early stages of the movement when the underprivileged group
is clearly underprivileged. But as it gains rights to a point of equality,
but still keeps seeing itself as underprivileged and needing to fight for
more and more rights then it is no longer working for equality. Focussing
on the underprivileged group doesn't provide for a good mechanism to
recognize that equality has been reached and a different strategy is needed
to work for equality for everyone.

Jayne

rg wrote: Your sick. rg

The classic feminist. She can't answer the argument so she hurls an insult.

Bob

"Courageous" <jkraska.removetomail@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:kmi1ov4bpih2np8ioudkie6uid44ebnsba@4ax.com... When men and women have the same rights, then men will get pregnant at
thesame frequency that women do. In my mind, a real source of tension here is the lack of a good oral contraceptive for men. As it is, I'd recommend that any man *that* scared of siring a child get snipped and unsip later. While the unsnip is no sure thing, the piece of mind had by the snippage certainly is. C//

Personally, I'd recommend mutual masturbation if they are not willing to
accept the risk of pregnancy.

Someday, there will be a good contraceptive for men.

rg

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:wI3gb.4300$gA1.3822@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Kg3gb.3833$Qy2.2055@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: []> From what I saw in that thread it is possible to support claims that
Andre> is disrespectful or undignified or just not nice. My impression was
that one> could make this claim about just about everyone in the thread. I did
not> see anything that indicated that he does not know what he is talking
about.> If you want to tell me that Andre has a confrontational or abrasive
style, I> can't put up much of a defense. But this does not affect the worth of
his> arguments. He has done extensive research and backs up his claims
with> evidence. How do you really know that, Jayne? Just by what he says? Or the "articles" he finds somewhere on the net? Just what peer reviewed research articles has he himself read - and researched? And who were
the peers of those articles? As I said, you've made a LOT of assumptions. Actually "just by what he says" carries a great deal of weight with me. Andre is a man of his word. Jayne I see. You must not have majored in the sciences, then, where
intellectual rigor (supported by scholarly research) is expected. What was your
major?

I majored in linguistics as an undergrad and my graduate degree is in
theology. I nevertheless understand intellectual rigour. The concept does
exist in the humanities. If I were writing a paper on the subject I would
check Andre's references as part of my research.. I do know how to evaluate
references. But I do not see that as the issue here. Doubting the word of a
person I know to be honest is not intellectual rigor. It is an insult to a
man of honour.

Jayne

She says that men have to become women to get equal rights. That istypical of a feminist despite their whining about feminism=equality.

I observed this, and duly noted.
You are right about the lack of contraceptives for men. There has beenalmost complete discrimination against men in medical research for mostof the past century.

That seems a bit of an overstatement to me.
Many millions have been spent developing a widerange of contraceptive options, but virtually NO MONEY has been spent onthe equal needs of men.

The drug companies are well aware that there is a gobble of money to be
made on men's contraceptives, I assure you. Part of the problem here is
that developing a male contraceptive has been really, really hard. The
most obvious mechanisms of action either leave the man permanently sterilized
or temporarily neuter, neither of which would seem to be the result desired.
I love the stories about men who use the Tom Lykus suggestion of puttinghot chili sauce in used condoms in the garbage, and listening to womenscream after trying to get pregnant with a used condom and a turkey baster.

Getting snipped would seem to be a preferable option to me. Meeting
sociopathy with sociopathy just creates two sociopaths. I realize, of
course, that you're just venting your frustrations.

'Course, the ultimate joke would be to get a gig with your neighbor
where each of you put the used condoms in the *other* man's trash can.
If either woman gets pregnant, one then demands a paternity test.
Seems somebody might have some 'splainin' to do. :-)

C//

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> writes:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 22:17:05 GMT, JDK <jdk00@yahoo.com> wrote: On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 21:44:10 GMT, Doug Anderson<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:> The National Socialists were "defending Germany from Jewish> oppression" too. We've been through that kind of lying before.Ah. You've singled the end of the thread. How the hell do you "single the end of a thread"? I think he meant "signal" :)

Yes, I did. Though Sub knew that I imagine. I hope it isn't
incipient Alzheimers to be typing a completely different word with a
somewhat similar sound.

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:wI3gb.4300$gA1.3822@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Kg3gb.3833$Qy2.2055@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net...> Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: []>> From what I saw in that thread it is possible to support claims that
Andre>> is disrespectful or undignified or just not nice. My impression was that>> one could make this claim about just about everyone in the thread. I did>> not see anything that indicated that he does not know what he is talking>> about. If you want to tell me that Andre has a confrontational or>> abrasive style, I can't put up much of a defense. But this does not>> affect the worth of his arguments. He has done extensive research and>> backs up his claims with evidence.>> How do you really know that, Jayne? Just by what he says? Or the> "articles" he finds somewhere on the net? Just what peer reviewed> research articles has he himself read - and researched? And who were
the> peers of those articles? As I said, you've made a LOT of assumptions. Actually "just by what he says" carries a great deal of weight with me. Andre is a man of his word. Jayne I see. You must not have majored in the sciences, then, where intellectual rigor (supported by scholarly research) is expected. What was your major? I majored in linguistics as an undergrad and my graduate degree is in theology. I nevertheless understand intellectual rigour. The concept does exist in the humanities. If I were writing a paper on the subject I would check Andre's references as part of my research.. I do know how to evaluate references. But I do not see that as the issue here. Doubting the word of a person I know to be honest is not intellectual rigor. It is an insult to a man of honour. Jayne

So let me get this right. He is a man of honour, so everything he says is
factual, and scientifically based? Sorry, I don't buy it. He may indeed be
a man of his word, but that has NOTHING to do with the issues here - of not
accepting ANY personal responsibility AS A MAN for his actions, in regard to
these gender based issues. Instead, he whines about it (just like some of the
others from soc.boys).

Just listen and read what has transpired here, Jayne. You can't even see the
blatant misogyny?

Bill in Co wrote: Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
<snip>
The intelligence shows in both situations. Only to you, I fear. (You're just easily dazzled, that's all)!

Nah, don't forget that wisdom, common sense and intelligence don't actually
*have* to go together.

Tai

Tony Miller wrote: On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 21:12:26 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: snip, including B5 references to "choices, consequences and responsibility." This is why I oppose Feminism, for that is an ideology that *refuses* to acknowledge, for it's intended gain group, the second and the third parts of that equation. Only if _you_ get to define feminism, as opposed to, say, a dictionary, or a typical feminist. I don't know... The only women who I have met who have defined themselves as feminists have been ugly man-hating lesbians. That's how I see a "typical" feminist until I meet a few more who are more reasonable.

Do I appear to be a man-hating lesbian? (We can leave my looks out of it....
;) )

I am a feminist of the dictionary definition variety.

Tai

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:xu5gb.4091$Qy2.2072@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:

[] I majored in linguistics as an undergrad and my graduate degree is in theology. I nevertheless understand intellectual rigour. The concept
does exist in the humanities. If I were writing a paper on the subject I
would check Andre's references as part of my research.. I do know how to
evaluate references. But I do not see that as the issue here. Doubting the word
of a person I know to be honest is not intellectual rigor. It is an insult
to a man of honour. Jayne So let me get this right. He is a man of honour, so everything he says
is factual, and scientifically based?

He is a man of honour so he does not lie. If he says he has done extensive
research then he has. The research needs to be evaluated on the same terms
as any other research, but there is no question that he has done it.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought that you were questioning that he had
done the research he claims to have done.
Sorry, I don't buy it. He may indeed be a man of his word, but that has NOTHING to do with the issues here - of
not accepting ANY personal responsibility AS A MAN for his actions, in regard
to these gender based issues. Instead, he whines about it (just like some
of the others from soc.boys).

Of course he accepts personal responsibility for his actions. That is an
important value for him.
Just listen and read what has transpired here, Jayne. You can't even
see the blatant misogyny?

Not in Andre's posts. If he were that misogynistic I would expect hostility
toward me, since I am a woman. He is quite friendly towards me.

Jayne

Tai wrote: Bill in Co wrote: Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: <snip> The intelligence shows in both situations. Only to you, I fear. (You're just easily dazzled, that's all)! Nah, don't forget that wisdom, common sense and intelligence don't actually *have* to go together.

Well, ok, maybe what we have here then is a reasonably good case for the latter
one, but a nearly non existent case for the former two. It's just that the
latter one is getting a bit obfuscated by the lack of the other ones.

I was trying to show erie Bob that women were not being favored over men inevery aspect of life.

No, of course you're right. OTOH, I personally have noticed trends where women,
as a gross generalization, tend to deny responsibility for things that they
insist men must. For example, how shocked would a woman be if, in response to
some verbal insult from a man, she slapped him, and then he called the police
and had her arrested for misdemeanor assault? And as a further thought experiment,
consider for a moment how far he'd likely get, in attempting this.

How would you rate the man's deep doo-doo were the situation reversed?

Other cultural asymmetries present themselves. For example, the man must
bring roses, the woman ______? A man buys the diamond ring, the woman ______?
Looks kind of one-sided from where I am sitting, I must say.

A coworker of mine, a self-labelled feminist, greatly derides any man in the
workplace if they vent about their wives, but has no trouble voicing repeated
misandric representations of her own. "Men are _____". "Men are so _____".

'Course, this later point is something of the "my **** doesn't stink" phenomenon
that is present amply in *both* genders.

The sooner both genders realize their **** most surely *does* stink, the better.

'Course, women have been telling men how much their **** stinks for a good 20
years now. Guess they'll have to take some of their own medicine.

C//

"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "rg" <nospamjobbahut@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5pZfb.64915$xH1.58347@twister.austin.rr.com.. . "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:blpn39$eq0os$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... From what I have seen in this thread, he sounds like he knows what he is talking about. In this thread, I have not seen others make good counter-arguments or been able to think of any myself. Based on the current evidence available to me, I have to conclude that he is right. Jayne Jayne, I think it is too soon to draw conclusions. Personally, I think he is right also, but we can leave it at he appears to have the better argument and he might be right. Sometimes, who is right and who is wrong can only be judged by history.

I just *love* this final cop out. When ideologues find that their
ideology has been *factually* shredded, the final appeal to stave off
*admitting* that fact, is the appeal to nihlism, that of, " well we
can never really know... "

The sheer *absurdity* of that is, in the fact that, when it was
*their views* being expressed, that appeal to long term nihlism
*never* appeared to their words.
I suppose that I can't say "right" in an absolute sense, but as far as my interactions with him go, I am out-matched. I just have to surrender and see if he is a gentle as he claims to be. <g>

Like I said, I'd *love* to be wrong about what I'm saying.

But, aside from all the *evidence* that I've gone over, along the
path of figuring all this out, the additional fact that *no one*
can refute my views, with facts, in *specifics*, also speaks to
the unfortunate accuracy of my tested views.

Hey folks... you wanna prove me wrong ?

Then... PROVE me wrong. Empty assertions don't come even close to
a Polaroid of that...

And, when people *refuse to engage*, but only snipe ad homs from
the sidelines, thats just *more proof* that they... CAN'T rise to
that feat.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Again, I can believe this to be the case, but if it were true for the reasons that would first leap to mind, who's fault is this, exactly?Farrell published statistics that show women get 3/4 of medicaltreatment in the US. Go count m vs. f at any clinic or hospital. Theunbalance is almost always there.

As I said, I can believe this. The question remains, who's fault is it,
anyway? You can't blame the medical community for catering to the customers
who most want to get medical care, can you?
Yes, and if medical science had spent ANY research on malecontraceptives they would have been available decades ago.

An unsupported assertion. In any case, what am I supposed to conclude
from this? Pharmaceutical companies are not social welfare instruments.
They are businesses.

Doctors have been recommending for quite some time that men take better
care of themselves medically. Men have every incentive to do so, and have
been given ample encouragement.
huge other market out here. In only a very few years, with badlylimited funding, several companies have promising male birth controlproducts in testing.

*Promises* a new drug do not make.
There was an article posted a week or so ago about male BC in test. Idon't save such things.

*Tests* a new drug do not make.

Few drugs make it past their phase I and II clinical trials, supposing
said drug has made it that far. In addition, a pharmaceutical company
has every incentive to market (e.g., "creative lying") a possible new
innovation to keep its stock price up.

As I said, a search for the new drug application didn't turn up anything
obvious. I *did* find a few hints and promises, as you point out, but not
a one of the ones I found was even in a phase I trial. I wouldn't count
your juevos before they hatch, as it were. :)

C//

Courageous <jkraska.removetomail@san.rr.com> writes:
I was trying to show erie Bob that women were not being favored over men inevery aspect of life. No, of course you're right. OTOH, I personally have noticed trends where women, as a gross generalization, tend to deny responsibility for things that they insist men must. For example, how shocked would a woman be if, in response to some verbal insult from a man, she slapped him, and then he called the police and had her arrested for misdemeanor assault? And as a further thought experiment, consider for a moment how far he'd likely get, in attempting this. How would you rate the man's deep doo-doo were the situation reversed?

There are asymmetries which are probably more than cultural. Equality
means something different from identical.

As long as it is true that men are, on average, larger, stronger, and
more prone to commit violent crimes than women, actions that verge on
violence from men toward women will be viewed differently than actions
that verge on violence from women toward men.

This probably is neither right nor fair, but it's probably human nature.
Other cultural asymmetries present themselves. For example, the man must bring roses, the woman ______? A man buys the diamond ring, the woman ______? Looks kind of one-sided from where I am sitting, I must say.

You are quoting stereotypes, which are very asymmetric indeed. If you
want to fill in the blanks, in the stereotypes the woman provides the
emotional support in the relationship. The woman (even if she works
outside the home) also takes responsibility for the housework and
child-rearing (if children exist). Etc.

Of course these are stereotypes and many of them are old ones. They
don't apply in a number of ways to my marriage or relationships, or
those of most of my friends.
A coworker of mine, a self-labelled feminist, greatly derides any man in the workplace if they vent about their wives, but has no trouble voicing repeated misandric representations of her own. "Men are _____". "Men are so _____".

Sounds like a twisted and sad person. Unfortunately, twisted and sad
individuals aren't unusual.
'Course, this later point is something of the "my **** doesn't stink" phenomenon that is present amply in *both* genders. The sooner both genders realize their **** most surely *does* stink, the better.

Well that's true. I'm not convinced it is really a gender issue
though. The sooner everyone realizes their **** stinks the better.

Refusing to cover contraception is incredibly foolish on the part of aninsurance company for purely economic reasons; one pregnancy and deliverycan _easily_ cost the insurance company more than a decade's worth of oralbirth control pills, even without any severe complications.

From your perspective. However, it's not clear to me that an actuary would
conclude the same thing. For example, if a woman has one pregnancy *earlier*
than she would prefer, will she have more children overall? If the answer is
no, then the number of total pregnancies the insurance company will have to
pay for does not change.

C//

Tai wrote: Tony Miller wrote: On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 21:12:26 GMT, Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:> snip, including B5 references to "choices, consequences and> responsibility."> This is why I oppose Feminism, for that is an ideology that> *refuses* to acknowledge, for it's intended gain group,> the second and the third parts of that equation. Only if _you_ get to define feminism, as opposed to, say, a dictionary, or a typical feminist. I don't know... The only women who I have met who have defined themselves as feminists have been ugly man-hating lesbians. That's how I see a "typical" feminist until I meet a few more who are more reasonable. Do I appear to be a man-hating lesbian? (We can leave my looks out of it.... ;) ) I am a feminist of the dictionary definition variety. Tai

I'm not sure what that exactly means, but it's probably good.

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:xu5gb.4091$Qy2.2072@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: [] I majored in linguistics as an undergrad and my graduate degree is in theology. I nevertheless understand intellectual rigour. The concept does exist in the humanities. If I were writing a paper on the subject I would check Andre's references as part of my research.. I do know how to
evaluate references. But I do not see that as the issue here. Doubting the word of
a person I know to be honest is not intellectual rigor. It is an insult to a man of honour. Jayne So let me get this right. He is a man of honour, so everything he says is factual, and scientifically based? He is a man of honour so he does not lie. If he says he has done extensive research then he has. The research needs to be evaluated on the same terms as any other research, but there is no question that he has done it. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought that you were questioning that he had done the research he claims to have done.

The "research" (however that term is defined here, which is still up in the
air) he has done is in question.

I mean, I could say I'm researching what Oprah said on a TV show for my
viewpoint. Big deal! - it means nothing. (In fact, Andre himself brought
up something related to such nonsense as a source of his information).
Sorry, I don't buy it. He may indeed be a man of his word, but that has NOTHING to do with the issues here - of not accepting ANY personal responsibility AS A MAN for his actions, in regard to these gender based issues. Instead, he whines about it (just like some of the others from soc.boys). Of course he accepts personal responsibility for his actions. That is an important value for him.

No he doesn't - not always. Didn't you just read here where he said it was
the woman's responsibility if she got pregnant? And the guy was basically
absolved of all responsibility?

The fact that HE should have "kept it in his pants"....well, he won't even go
there! IOW, he's off the hook. Sorry, THAT is just irresponsible. Case
closed.
Just listen and read what has transpired here, Jayne. You can't even see the blatant misogyny? Not in Andre's posts. If he were that misogynistic I would expect hostility toward me, since I am a woman. He is quite friendly towards me.

Well, I think he could still be friendly to you, as long as you don't push the
envelope on these issues. So maybe saying he hates women is a bit
overstated. A more accurate statement would be that he feels he is "an
innocent victim", and the system is stacked 100% against men.
Jayne

Tara D (manderly@eol.ca) writes: On 5 Oct 2003 17:17:17 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote: If you were in charge of the universe, how would you set things up so everyone would be treated fairly? <snip>In other areas, we get rid of " affirmative action-discrimination ",since the just view would be, jobs are open to anyone who wants to*try* for them, but *success* is dependent on the applicant's*qualifications*. Thus, there would be no need to *make the results,across society, be the same ( Which is not a synonym for " fair " ). One thing in long laundry list that didn't involve parenthood.

So ? You a Net-Cop Wannabe, or something ?

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Courageous <jkraska.removetomail@san.rr.com> writes:
Refusing to cover contraception is incredibly foolish on the part of aninsurance company for purely economic reasons; one pregnancy and deliverycan _easily_ cost the insurance company more than a decade's worth of oralbirth control pills, even without any severe complications. From your perspective. However, it's not clear to me that an actuary would conclude the same thing. For example, if a woman has one pregnancy *earlier* than she would prefer, will she have more children overall? If the answer is no, then the number of total pregnancies the insurance company will have to pay for does not change.

Your logic is correct, but as an actualy would tell you, the answer
happens to be yes.

"Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:x%5gb.2$f%6.1@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.ne t... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
[] He is a man of honour so he does not lie. If he says he has done
extensive research then he has. The research needs to be evaluated on the same
terms as any other research, but there is no question that he has done it. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought that you were questioning that he
had done the research he claims to have done. The "research" (however that term is defined here, which is still up in
the air) he has done is in question. I mean, I could say I'm researching what Oprah said on a TV show for my viewpoint. Big deal! - it means nothing. (In fact, Andre himself
brought up something related to such nonsense as a source of his information).

I completely agree with Andre on the usefulness of analyzing TV shows when
tracing social trends. Watching shows to analyze them in this way is
research. He also uses other kinds of sources.
Sorry, I don't buy it. He may indeed be a man of his word, but that has NOTHING to do with the issues here - of
not accepting ANY personal responsibility AS A MAN for his actions, in
regard to these gender based issues. Instead, he whines about it (just like
some of the others from soc.boys). Of course he accepts personal responsibility for his actions. That is
an important value for him. No he doesn't - not always. Didn't you just read here where he said it
was the woman's responsibility if she got pregnant? And the guy was
basically absolved of all responsibility?

He is saying that if women can unilaterally decide whether or not to proceed
with a pregnancy it is unjust for men to be held responsible. I agree.
Women can't have it both ways. If we are the only ones with a choice then
we are the only ones responsible. If we want men to share the
responsibility then they need to share the choice. Choice and responsiblity
have to go together.
The fact that HE should have "kept it in his pants"....well, he won't even
go there! IOW, he's off the hook. Sorry, THAT is just irresponsible.
Case closed.

His position has nothing to do with being irresponsible. It is based on a
concern for justice.
Just listen and read what has transpired here, Jayne. You can't even
see the blatant misogyny? Not in Andre's posts. If he were that misogynistic I would expect
hostility toward me, since I am a woman. He is quite friendly towards me. Well, I think he could still be friendly to you, as long as you don't push
the envelope on these issues. So maybe saying he hates women is a bit overstated. A more accurate statement would be that he feels he is "an innocent victim", and the system is stacked 100% against men.

He has not said this so I see no reason to think that this is what he feels.

Jayne

Courageous <jkraska.removetomail@san.rr.com> writes:
Refusing to cover contraception is incredibly foolish on the part of aninsurance company for purely economic reasons; one pregnancy and deliverycan _easily_ cost the insurance company more than a decade's worth of oralbirth control pills, even without any severe complications. From your perspective. However, it's not clear to me that an actuary would conclude the same thing. For example, if a woman has one pregnancy *earlier* than she would prefer, will she have more children overall? If the answer is no, then the number of total pregnancies the insurance company will have to pay for does not change.

Your logic is correct, but I think an actuary would tell you that
women who delay pregnancy do, in fact, have fewer children.

As it so happens, we have an illegal misdemeanor that may result in no consequence, when in fact a small amount of jail time is the statutory prescription. But if it's the lack of damage that's at issue here, would you approve of a man, having been slapped, taking the woman, throwing her over his knee, and giving her a good and humiliating public spanking?No I wouldn't. Why, and what has it got to do with the subject?

Because a slap from a typical woman to a typical man is humiliating,
and not really anything more. But then, so is a spanking. So they are
about even, in my estimation. Or perhaps a good firm spit in the face
would be a more appropriate reply, do you estimate?

How do you feel about a woman tossing a glass of water on a man for a
perceived slight?

Anyway, the subject was social inequities. I find it to be directly
pertinent. My lesson is clear: woman should eliminate the "slap" from
their social repertoire.

C//

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: But I don't know of _any_ insurance companies which provide birth control pills. There may be exceptions, but they are exceptions, not the rule.

Let's see:

HIP of Greater New York
Whichever of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of NY my mom had after her employer
switched from HIP to one of Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
Blue Cross of California
Blue Shield of California
Kaiser Permanente Northern California
Whichever actual provider underwrote my undergrad college's health plan.
Whichever actual provider underwrites my graduate school's health plan.

_All_ of these cover oral birth control plans. In the case of HIP, when my
family had it, they covered my mother's birth control pills even after her
employer stopped paying for prescription drug coverage as part of the
general coverage.

Because I've had other health problems, I read the information on insurance
I've had _very_ carefully. That's the sum total of the insurance coverage
I've had, or someone in my family has had since I was old enough to talk
about the issue. The _only_ health insurance coverage I've seen that didn't
was the student health plan at my (now-)wife's undergraduate college, and it
was at a private Catholic university. She works for the same university,
and their employee health coverage _does_ cover her birth control pills.

As far as I can tell, _if_ there is prescription drug coverage at all,
covering oral birth control is the rule, and not the exception.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: snip, including B5 references to "choices, consequences and responsibility." This is why I oppose Feminism, for that is an ideology that *refuses* to acknowledge, for it's intended gain group, the second and the third parts of that equation. Only if _you_ get to define feminism, as opposed to, say, a dictionary, or a typical feminist.

Non sequitur. Feminists define themselves, by their *chosen
words and actions*.

We here, on soc.men, only *point those out*.

If you want to believe a random dictionary *over* the NOW site,
then you are free to be that *ignorant*, but if you desire to
be called " wise " for that, I fear you will be disappointed.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Courageous <jkraska.removetomail@san.rr.com> writes:
As it so happens, we have an illegal misdemeanor that may result in no consequence, when in fact a small amount of jail time is the statutory prescription. But if it's the lack of damage that's at issue here, would you approve of a man, having been slapped, taking the woman, throwing her over his knee, and giving her a good and humiliating public spanking?No I wouldn't. Why, and what has it got to do with the subject? Because a slap from a typical woman to a typical man is humiliating, and not really anything more. But then, so is a spanking. So they are about even, in my estimation.

I see your point. I don't consider them equivalent however. A slap
is almost instantaneous, and although physical involves fairly minimal
physical contact. It isn't an action that presumes much intimacy.

The turnaround you describe seems very different to me. Putting
someone over your knee and spanking them takes more time and involves
much more physical contact. It seems more assaultive to me than a
slap by quite a bit.

Also, for reasons already discussed behavior bordering on violence
from men to women will be perceived differently than behavior
bordering on violence from women to men.
Or perhaps a good firm spit in the face would be a more appropriate reply, do you estimate? How do you feel about a woman tossing a glass of water on a man for a perceived slight?

I feel negatively about both, but I also feel negative about slapping
(and spanking).

Have you been on the receiving end of much of this? I only see it on
TV and movies.
Anyway, the subject was social inequities. I find it to be directly pertinent. My lesson is clear: woman should eliminate the "slap" from their social repertoire.

Yes, indeed.

Though I wonder to waht extent it is still in "woman's" repertoire.
All the women I've had contact don't have the "slap" in their social
repertoire. I've never been slapped. And I've never seen a woman
slap a man outside of movies or TV.

Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: snip Many studies prove that fatherlessness is the leading factor in amny of the pathologoes present in modern kids. So, we must act to make fatherless-by-choice sprog whelping a bad thing, by definition. Do you know of any such studies that carefully distinguish "fatherlessness" from the many other confounding factors?

Yes. See " The Unexpected Legacy Of Divorce; A 25 Year Landmark
Study ", by Judith Wallerstein.
If these are US studies there is a pretty big correlation between kids with no fathers in their life and mothers who started out poor and have few resources (_before_ having kids).

Wrong. Wallerstein's study *compensated* for all other factors,
even taking children from the same neighbourhoods, and socioeconomic
statuses, and still found the fatherless differences.
Unless these studies have removed those confounding factors, it's naive to blame the problems the children face on fatherlessness.

Incorrect. Follow the evidence...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:b00gb.3024$Qy2.1292@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:zpXfb.2873$gA1.1329@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net... []> Jayne, I do wish you would Google up some of his posts (to the marriage and> divorce groups) over the past year, and see if you still feel the same way.> There have been some heated "debates" - IF you can call it that. I say> that, because it is ALWAYS scripted, and the objectivity and> authoritative (non scripted) reference material is clearly lacking. If you would like to offer me something specific to look at then I will read it. Andre is a prolific writer and I cannot go through all of his posts looking for something to prove your point for you. From what I have seen in this thread, he sounds like he knows what he is talking about. In this thread, I have not seen others make good counter-arguments or been able to think of any myself. Based on the current evidence available to me, I have to conclude that he is right. Jayne With all due respect, your evidence is just a bit limited, but I'm not willing to go back and dredge all this up again, Jayne. What, am I to be your lackey boy? (LOL)! I am used to circles in which doing one's own research to prove one's own points is not considered being a lackey. It is the standard procedure. If you wish to convince me of something, I consider it your job to provide the evidence. If Andre had said there is evidence out there somewhere that supports his position and sent me to look for it, rest assured I would not have taken him seriously.

Indeed. We're used to having facts to support our views, here on soc.men.

I will confess that I don't have loads that I can directly post, as my
files are on a Windows based mail program, wheras, my newsreader is
not a Windows based program, so I can't shift material from the mail
system to the newsreader.
To summarize, he has about ten "articles" (and I use that term loosely) that he routinely (and ONLY) accepts, and constantly refers to, and if you veer off of those for ANY discussion, he gets offended and starts in on the ad hominems, just like he did today, in response to Jauni. Nuff said.... It seemed to me that the altercation with Rauni was part of a long standing feud. I don't think either came off looking very good. (And I don't care who started it. I get enough of that excuse from my children.) It all seemed personal and I could not see any relevance to the actual arguments.

Like I said, she just gets pissy at me, and sometimes, I do choose to
rattle her chain.

It makes the poor thing feel loved. <bg>
If you want to research it further, Google is YOUR friend. I have enough to do, like finding a suitable DOS CD (change directory) replacement for CDX. LOL.. No, I don't want to research it further. You are the one who thinks I should change my mind.

Indeed. Bill seems to believe that others *must* make his case for him.

A good thing he doesn't do that in a court...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Though I wonder to waht extent it is still in "woman's" repertoire.All the women I've had contact don't have the "slap" in their socialrepertoire. I've never been slapped. And I've never seen a womanslap a man outside of movies or TV.

I've been slapped, for trivial reasons.

Anyway, to answer your question, female-to-male abuse statistics are
available on-line. One source says:

"Female-Initiated Violence (where women ALWAYS initiate the physical attack)
may be present in up to 15% of high-conflict divorcing families. Moderately
severe violence can occur if the men lose control while restraining these
attacking women." --Dr. Janet R. Johnston

I'm sure, however, that you would be much more satisified with the
truth of any such statements if you looked into the subject yourself.

Women can be abusive, too.

C//

Bill in Co wrote: Tai wrote:
I am a feminist of the dictionary definition variety. I'm not sure what that exactly means, but it's probably good.

And I'm not quite sure what you mean, Bill, but it feels a bit like a
compliment so I'll say thank you, just in case. ;)

Tai

trajan@sfchat.org (Marcus Ulpius Traianus) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: But I don't know of _any_ insurance companies which provide birth control pills. There may be exceptions, but they are exceptions, not the rule. Let's see: HIP of Greater New York Whichever of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of NY my mom had after her employer switched from HIP to one of Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Blue Cross of California Blue Shield of California Kaiser Permanente Northern California Whichever actual provider underwrote my undergrad college's health plan. Whichever actual provider underwrites my graduate school's health plan.

And our Blue Cross does too. I was mistaken about that. (Modulo
co-pay, of course, like all other meds.)

Courageous <jkraska.removetomail@san.rr.com> writes:
Though I wonder to waht extent it is still in "woman's" repertoire.All the women I've had contact don't have the "slap" in their socialrepertoire. I've never been slapped. And I've never seen a womanslap a man outside of movies or TV. I've been slapped, for trivial reasons. Anyway, to answer your question, female-to-male abuse statistics are available on-line. One source says:

I know female initiated violence exists. There are plenty of cases of
physical spousal abuse where the abuser is female (though not nearly
as many as the othe way around). There are cases where women murder
their partners or boyfriends (though again, many fewer than theother
way around).

That wasn't my question. In fact I didn't really have a question
extent to what extent the "slap with intent to socially humiliate" is
still part of women's social repertoire. Your experience shows that
it is, for at least one woman.
Women can be abusive, too.

Sure. But you weren't talking about the slaps as physical abuse, but
rather as humiliation.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Doug Anderson (ethelthelog@yahoo.com) writes: dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes: snip Many studies prove that fatherlessness is the leading factor in amny of the pathologoes present in modern kids. So, we must act to make fatherless-by-choice sprog whelping a bad thing, by definition. Do you know of any such studies that carefully distinguish "fatherlessness" from the many other confounding factors? Yes. See " The Unexpected Legacy Of Divorce; A 25 Year Landmark Study ", by Judith Wallerstein.

This is a study of _45_ families!

And it isn't a study of fatherless children at all! It is a study of
children whose parents have divorced!! And there is no control group!!!

Try again.
Incorrect. Follow the evidence...

I'm waiting for some.

Sure. But you weren't talking about the slaps as physical abuse, butrather as humiliation.

Eh? This is where you not having been slapped shows. Growing up,
my grandmother used a slap as an instrument of child rearing. Slaps
are intrinsically abusive, and are a mechanism of asserting
dominance. They are demeaning, and meant to be. The pain is trivial.

C//

Courageous <jkraska.removetomail@san.rr.com> writes:
Sure. But you weren't talking about the slaps as physical abuse, butrather as humiliation. Eh? This is where you not having been slapped shows. Growing up, my grandmother used a slap as an instrument of child rearing. Slaps are intrinsically abusive, and are a mechanism of asserting dominance. They are demeaning, and meant to be. The pain is trivial.

Maybe I misunderstand.

You are asserting that women shouldn't slap men. I agree.

You are also asserting that men turning women over their knees and
spanking them is equivalent to women slapping men. I happen to
disagree with that for the reasons I stated.


I question whether women still commonly slap men, and you tell me
about that I don't know what I'm talking about because physical abuse
of men by women exists.

That seemed like a non-sequitur to me, as does the above remark by
you. I'm not denying that slaps are humiliating, and that people
shouldn't be slapping one another.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote: individuals covered probably makes more sense anyway. Based on anecdotal information from Ob/Gyn practitioners in my area of the US, their patients for whom birth control (pill, IUD occasionally, diaphragm, etc.) are covered by their insurance are in a minority.

And how many of those have prescription drug coverage? It is not terribly
usual, I think, to have obcps covered separately from other prescription
drugs, just as (AFAICT) it's unusual for obcps to be excluded from
prescription drug coverage.

I have no idea about coverage for IUDs/diaphragms, etc; I've never actually
talked to a woman who used one about how they were paid for. I know my
mother used one when she was younger, but she went back on the pill when she
quit smoking.
I'm only counting those covered by insurance of course.

If it's insurance with prescription drug coverage, I'm surprised. If you're
comfortable saying, what region are you in? As may be clear from my prior
post, I'm largely restricted to the Northeast and California in my
experience and it's not implausible that there are regional variations.
female barrier devices (sponges, etc) both significantly predate condoms, as both were known in ancient times, while latex condoms aren't very old at all, and I don't _think_ sheepgut condoms are more than a few hundred years old. 3 thousand maybe? I'm no expert on birth control history, but the first web site I googled refered to non-animal material condoms from 1000 years BCE.

The cite mentioning 1640 is closer to my recollection for the sheepgut
variety, but from your other notes it does look like other sorts are much
older. I know that copper IUDs were used in Egypt, but I don't know that
it's as far back as 1000 years BCE; I've been trying to find a cite, and
can't -- it wouldn't surprise me if it were later in the Ptolemaic or Roman
era.

Tai wrote: Bill in Co wrote: Tai wrote: I am a feminist of the dictionary definition variety. I'm not sure what that exactly means, but it's probably good. And I'm not quite sure what you mean, Bill, but it feels a bit like a compliment so I'll say thank you, just in case. ;) Tai

I don't know what the term "feminist" really means. IOW, is it just about
equality, or is it so "pro women" that men are effectively "out of the loop",
or what.

In alt.support.marriage Andre Lieven <dg411@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote: Abortion, especially as a method of BC, doesn't thrill me, either, but I bow to the democratic will of the people, whose overall position on abortion appears to be, let it be, as long as it doesn't get done past the ever moving point(s) of foetal viability.

Even those of us who don't find an issue with abortion on moral or other
grounds aren't thrilled by it; it's a surgical procedure, not without risk
to the mother, and expensive. It's best avoided even purely on those
grounds.

Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Andre Lieven wrote: I'd lose " no fault " divorce, too. Restore divorce to the field of contract law. That sounds good if marriage and (subsequent divorce) was like any other contract, where the signers were all adults who accepted and signed voluntarily. But unlike braking other contracts, divorce doesn't only affect those who signed it.

Oh yeah ? Go to a court where such contract cases are tried. many
two party contracts DO have effects on third, and more, parties.
If one signer to the contract decides to void it, unilaterally, and with no good legal reason, one consequence is that they leave the contract relationship with NO profit. Period. That's good for the breakers of contracts. However; the most negatively affected people in such a breakup are people who never had any say in the contract - the children.

Fine. Children are shown to do best when they have regular access to
*both parents*. Yet, the courts refuse to make this possible, for the
fathers of millions of such children.

I have a life rule on this: Whenever rhetoric and actiosn contradict
each other, the actions are the truth and the rhetoric is the lie.
How do you make sure that the rights of children who neither signed, nor broke any contract are protected?

Easy. Joint *legal and physical shared parenting* ( The very term
" custody " makes the kids into the possessions that so many women
see them as- givers of Child Support profits ), absent *proven*
neglect of one parent.
And yes, they should be given highest priority because they are the true victims with no way to protect their own right.

So, why do courts abet women taking the kids as hostages, in
effect ?
What, in your opinion, is in the best interest of children when one of their parents leaves the other unilaterally (regardless of what you think the parent deserves)?

If the leaving parent has no good reason for leaving ( The aforementioned
" A's Of Divorce " (, then that parent is de facto showing their
neglect of the children's welfare, in *breaking up* the family.

Thus, such a divorcing parent would be second in the list of whose
interests to take seriously, the other adult and the kids coming
jointly first, sunce in such situations, neither are at fault.

This would also have the salutory effect, with some time for it to
sink in, of getting people to view marrying as a serious matter,
and to forego it, if they're not up for the whole deal.

Andre



--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes: "Bill in Co" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Kg3gb.3833$Qy2.2055@newsread4.news.pas.earthl ink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: [] From what I saw in that thread it is possible to support claims that Andre is disrespectful or undignified or just not nice. My impression was that one could make this claim about just about everyone in the thread. I did not see anything that indicated that he does not know what he is talking about. If you want to tell me that Andre has a confrontational or abrasive style, I can't put up much of a defense. But this does not affect the worth of his arguments. He has done extensive research and backs up his claims with evidence. How do you really know that, Jayne? Just by what he says? Or the "articles" he finds somewhere on the net? Just what peer reviewed research articles has he himself read - and researched? And who were the peers of those articles? As I said, you've made a LOT of assumptions. Actually "just by what he says" carries a great deal of weight with me. Andre is a man of his word.

Thank you, Jayne. That is one of my life values.

Even when some people ( Again, could I tell some tales of
reality ) fail to keep theirs, that is never an excuse to
not keep mine. I still have to look myself in the mirror,
over what I do, daily.

If anyone has a specific claim that I have failed, let
them state it, or not make claims they won't support, eh ?

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Courageous (jkraska.removetomail@san.rr.com) writes: BTW, the current opinion of the Courts in the U.S. is that a child has a RIGHT to the support of both of its parents.Indeed. And, 200 years ago, the US courts held that a Black person was3/5ths of a white person. So ?Shall we discuss the fallicy of judgicial infallibility ? Bit of a straw man there, Andre.

Indeed. YOURS, as you appealed to the " current opinion ", as if
it *must* be correct.

I merely *replied* to *your claim*.
Anyway, in understanding the law, on must understand jurisprudence, because the means that laws are reduced to practice are as essential to what we can expect from the law as the letter of the law itself.

Congratulations: Three lines that said nothing.

When the law distinguishes between the group identity of a person
accused of a crime, that is discrimination...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Marcus Ulpius Traianus (trajan@sfchat.org) writes: In alt.support.marriage Andre Lieven <dg411@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote: Abortion, especially as a method of BC, doesn't thrill me, either, but I bow to the democratic will of the people, whose overall position on abortion appears to be, let it be, as long as it doesn't get done past the ever moving point(s) of foetal viability. Even those of us who don't find an issue with abortion on moral or other grounds aren't thrilled by it; it's a surgical procedure, not without risk to the mother, and expensive. It's best avoided even purely on those grounds.

Sure. The history of the fUSSR, with which I am more than passingly
familiar with, with my being 3/4ths Russian by birth, being one
motive for this, is clear on this practice, and what can come with
it.

Its just that for Feminist, this is a huge issue, yet we see
literally millions of women who don't want to use this right.

Come on, folks, make one choice or the other... :-)

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
Marcus Ulpius Traianus (trajan@sfchat.org) writes: In alt.support.marriage Andre Lieven <dg411@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote: Abortion, especially as a method of BC, doesn't thrill me, either, but I bow to the democratic will of the people, whose overall position on abortion appears to be, let it be, as long as it doesn't get done past the ever moving point(s) of foetal viability. Even those of us who don't find an issue with abortion on moral or other grounds aren't thrilled by it; it's a surgical procedure, not without risk to the mother, and expensive. It's best avoided even purely on those grounds. Sure. The history of the fUSSR, with which I am more than passingly familiar with, with my being 3/4ths Russian by birth, being one motive for this, is clear on this practice, and what can come with it. Its just that for Feminist, this is a huge issue, yet we see literally millions of women who don't want to use this right.

?

I want the right to practice any religion I choose. Does that mean
I'm supposed to choose them all?

Wanting the right to choose between having an abortion and not having
one doesn't mean one is compelled to choose one!
Come on, folks, make one choice or the other... :-)

People do make one choice or the other. All the time.

Maybe this is related to your confusion about what feminism means.
All women do not have to make the same choices.

"Andre Lieven" <dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:blr5sm$e6n$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... "Jayne Kulikauskas" (momkulio@yahoo.ca) writes:

[] Actually "just by what he says" carries a great deal of weight with me. Andre is a man of his word. Thank you, Jayne. That is one of my life values.

It shows.
Even when some people ( Again, could I tell some tales of reality ) fail to keep theirs, that is never an excuse to not keep mine. I still have to look myself in the mirror, over what I do, daily.

It is clear to me that you are a highly principled person.
If anyone has a specific claim that I have failed, let them state it, or not make claims they won't support, eh ?

That's what I would like to see.

Jayne