10 ways to be a better father [Archive] - Page 4

Andre Lieven

11-24-2003, 05:40 PM

Nan (nan@altmothers.org) writes: On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:31:36 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:"Banty" <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote in messagenews:bpt9eb01ff2@drn.newsguy.com... In article <bpt7f7$1q0pg3$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, JayneKulikauskas says...[] >I'm having a problem with you judging people in a situation that you will >never and can never face. > >Jayne Now Jayne, just how exact has it to be? Can Marie judge the situation she later discovers a child to be from rape (which can happen)? Can she judge the situation where she discovers her husband has a child outside wedlock? Or even is supporting another family out of wedlock? Or is that she has a husband who wouldn't do those things that make her unable to judge? Betrayal is not limited to either gender.I cannot think of anything that a woman can possibly experience comparableto a man discovering the child he thought was his is the product ofadultery. It is not just betrayal; it is the knowledge that a relationshipis based on a lie. No? How about finding out her husband has been having an affair, and has children with the other woman.

Bzt. *Wrong*. Thanks for playing, but you totally failed the empathy
test.

Why ? Because, in the situation you posited, the woman was NEVER
led to believe that that child was HERS....

So, toots, its not even close.

Thanks for, once again, *proving* that neither do you have ANY
knowledge or empathy about men*, but also NO desire to acquire
either...
Or would you say that's the woman's fault, for not taking care of her husbands manly needs??

Straw *woman*. Plsy with her on your own... Or, admit to, once *again*,
falsifying other's views...

Andre

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

Andre Lieven

11-24-2003, 05:53 PM

toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: On 24 Nov 2003 05:10:25 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: On 24 Nov 2003 03:43:25 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:>And, that decietful, fraudulent Easy Mommies are deserving of at least>scorn, not enabling and coddling. How is staying involved with and caring for the child enabling or coddling the woman?Several ways: One, " Child Support " aka Mommy Subsidy. But those in this thread have not been talking about child support money but about the emotional connection to the child.

Nonetheless, given your desired outcome, it *will* happen.

Unless the guy can arrange to move to a non-Presumption of
Paternity law state, and file from there, which would be a
Very Good Idea for any man in such a situation.
Two, having to deal with the woman who screwed aroundon your marriage, ususally, due to the feminised kourts,on her terms. Yes, this is very much the problem.

So, as long as men have to carry *the extra load* of this
comiung at us, women demanding that men do more for them,
can go pound sand.

" If you're not a part of the solution, you are a part
of the problem ", and there isn't a more apt example of
the truth of that statement.
The court system needs to be changed so that you can stay connected to the child without having to deal with her at all and certainly not on *her* terms.

So, until it is, your demand is... unreasonable, to say the
very least...
No one is suggesting that you should stay with her or pay anything to her for the support of the child.LOL ! Nan is suggesting *exactly* that, when she repeatedlyheaps *scorn* on the idea that *men's resources should beunder the sole iscretion of... men*... I think you are the one misreading Nan.

LOL ! Not even close, sista. Try again.

Free Clue: Making such an *empty claim* doesn't work with me.
<laughs>
Try reading the thread for comprehension... You and Bob both have misread me as saying that as well but it is not what is intended.

Nonetheless, you want men to do what women never have to...

Ain't gonna happen no more... Due to Feminism.

Your mess, you clean it up. *After* you do, you *might* have
possible grounds to make your requests of men. NOT before.

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

Nan

11-24-2003, 05:57 PM

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 02:14:56 GMT, "P. Tierney"
<silviomossa@insightbb.com> wrote:
"Bob" <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: Since you refused utterly to answer the question there is no answer to understand. Since he(?) is unable to answer a simple question about gender, it is apparent that Tierney's psychological problems with gender are very deep and he/she is very disturbed. Hmm, which of us is disturbed? I'm comfortable in letting thereader decide that one.

Sheesh, Bob's Pot and Andre's Kettles are Black as Coal ;-)

Nan

Rauni

11-24-2003, 06:08 PM

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:14:43 -0600, toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch>
wrote:
On 24 Nov 2003 13:21:34 -0800, Banty <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote:In article <s7s4svc0aia6dqmc1gc5bnsldsnpvshoec@4ax.com>, Rauni says...On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:16:25 GMT, dragonlady<mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote:>YOU were the one who said that a woman complaining about a rapist was>just someone who was willing to "blame a man for simply being a man".>I'm just trying to figure out what on earth you MEANT by that, since it>sure SOUNDS like you are saying that sometimes rape is justified. I>can't believe that even YOU think that's true.>>mehYou need to google bob and rape. You will be shocked.Rauni, didn't you supply a link to some of Bob's stuff before? Time to do itagain - it's been a long thread.

Yup here it is
http://www.insurgent.org/~alcatroll/Soc.men/goldenbull.html
Cheers,Bantyhttp://snurl.com/2zgkhttp://snurl.com/34ui

Rauni

11-24-2003, 06:18 PM

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:19:05 -0600, toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:05:41 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Banty wrote: In article <s7s4svc0aia6dqmc1gc5bnsldsnpvshoec@4ax.com>, Rauni says...>On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:16:25 GMT, dragonlady><mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote:>>YOU were the one who said that a woman complaining about a rapist was>>just someone who was willing to "blame a man for simply being a man".>>I'm just trying to figure out what on earth you MEANT by that, since it>>sure SOUNDS like you are saying that sometimes rape is justified. I>>can't believe that even YOU think that's true.>>>>meh>>You need to google bob and rape. You will be shocked. Rauni, didn't you supply a link to some of Bob's stuff before? Time to do it again - it's been a long thread. Cheers, BantyNo. It was a link to the trolls lies and libel.

The only thing on that page are links to your hate posts enshrined on
google. Funny how kooks think when their own posts are on a web page
that it is libel.
Well, you can't say that about my links. That's to your posts ongoogle about rape.

Andre Lieven

11-24-2003, 06:34 PM

toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:31:36 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: Betrayal is not limited to either gender.I cannot think of anything that a woman can possibly experience comparableto a man discovering the child he thought was his is the product ofadultery. It is not just betrayal; it is the knowledge that a relationshipis based on a lie. How about discovering that her husband is a bigamist?

Man ( And, I choose that word advisedly ), you man haters will
go to ANY lengths to DENY that there are *some pains, and some
evil acts* that ONLY men get done to them.

Rape isn't a woman only deal, as as many men are raped, mostly
in prison, as women.

Yet, it is IMPOSSIBLE to trick/defraud a woman into believing
that a child *she never had* is indeed hers.

NONE of the pitiful tries at similarities that you've all
exuded have come CLOSE to what a man goes through, when he
finds out that a child *he thoughts AND was led to believe is
of his blood*, ISN'T.

That you continue to try to DENY thos men only pain and crime,
*only shows that you hate men*. Because *you won't even acknowledge
men's legitimate pains, suffereings of injustice... and feelings*.

Andre

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

toto

11-24-2003, 06:53 PM

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:47:28 -0500, Kathy Cole <kathy@scconsult.com>
wrote:
Speaking strictly to what is going on in courts right now, that isn't true. Whether anyone thinks they OUGHT to have the legal right to walk away, they do not at this point in time.Sorry, you're right; I think they ought to have the legal right to walkaway.

I agree, but note, when I asked for any organizations petitioning for
this and said I would sign such a petition, they have not given any
information about it.

I would sign any petitions that were trying to have DNA testing
done routinely at birth and/or to give a male spouse the right to
walk away if that DNA testing said the child was not his.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

Rauni

11-24-2003, 06:58 PM

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:35:18 -0500, Nan <nan@altmothers.org> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 12:44:42 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:"Chas" <c.clementspam@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:V-GdnUuAAMc5tl-iRVn-tA@comcast.com... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote > Can you understand how a decent woman could turn herself emotionallyaway > from a child resulting from rape? How about a man whose companion bears a rapist's child? Is he to acceptthat child as his own?If I were pregnant by rape, I would not have an abortion and I think I wouldwant to raise the child. If my husband did not want to raise the child,then I would have to give the child for adoption.JayneAnd this is not an unreasonable stance. I would do the same if myhusband felt that way, as my marriage takes precedence.Unfortunately, men like Bob et al will blame the woman for her rape,as well as rant and rave that she has more options than a man.How juvenile.Nan

Yup you are right about Bob except he wouldn't have consider it rape.
He would most likely think his wife had cheated on him.

Fortunately my husband would be more than willing to raise the child.
I think the *real* men (and he a man's man, pro athlete and retired
military) of the world have tender hearts. I know my guy does.

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

Rauni

11-24-2003, 07:11 PM

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:53:29 -0600, toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch>
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:47:28 -0500, Kathy Cole <kathy@scconsult.com>wrote: Speaking strictly to what is going on in courts right now, that isn't true. Whether anyone thinks they OUGHT to have the legal right to walk away, they do not at this point in time.Sorry, you're right; I think they ought to have the legal right to walkaway.I agree, but note, when I asked for any organizations petitioning forthis and said I would sign such a petition, they have not given anyinformation about it.I would sign any petitions that were trying to have DNA testingdone routinely at birth and/or to give a male spouse the right towalk away if that DNA testing said the child was not his.

I would too. In fact maybe the local radio station might do a show on
it!

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

Bob

11-25-2003, 05:19 AM

Rauni wrote: On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:35:18 -0500, Nan <nan@altmothers.org> wrote:On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 12:44:42 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:"Chas" <c.clementspam@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:V-GdnUuAAMc5tl-iRVn-tA@comcast.com...>"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote>>>Can you understand how a decent woman could turn herself emotionally>away>>from a child resulting from rape?>>How about a man whose companion bears a rapist's child? Is he to acceptthat>child as his own?If I were pregnant by rape, I would not have an abortion and I think I wouldwant to raise the child. If my husband did not want to raise the child,then I would have to give the child for adoption.JayneAnd this is not an unreasonable stance. I would do the same if myhusband felt that way, as my marriage takes precedence.Unfortunately, men like Bob et al will blame the woman for her rape,as well as rant and rave that she has more options than a man.How juvenile.Nan Yup you are right about Bob except he wouldn't have consider it rape. He would most likely think his wife had cheated on him. Fortunately my husband would be more than willing to raise the child. I think the *real* men (and he a man's man, pro athlete and retired military) of the world have tender hearts. I know my guy does. "The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple." -- Oscar Wilde

Typical femroid bigots. When their little world is disturbed by a MAN
who points out their misandry, they always reach for the rape-hate card
and switch the topic to rape.

Pathetic internet flamers. Its a shame that real people like these
bigot babes exist in real life.

Bob

Jayne Kulikauskas

11-25-2003, 07:10 AM

"toto" <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote in message
news:aek5svogodhdjdifpud1sl04q996cg1gff@4ax.com... On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:47:28 -0500, Kathy Cole <kathy@scconsult.com> wrote: Speaking strictly to what is going on in courts right now, that isn't true. Whether anyone thinks they OUGHT to have the legal right to walk away, they do not at this point in time.Sorry, you're right; I think they ought to have the legal right to walkaway. I agree, but note, when I asked for any organizations petitioning for this and said I would sign such a petition, they have not given any information about it. I would sign any petitions that were trying to have DNA testing done routinely at birth and/or to give a male spouse the right to walk away if that DNA testing said the child was not his.

I posted about this. See www.paternityfraud.com I'm not sure if they have
organized a petition, but that is the sort of thing they do.

Jayne

Chas

11-25-2003, 07:38 AM

"dragonlady" <mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote At least Chas is honest about his total disdain of all women.

I just don't expect from them what they're not able to do.
Consider that there is no word for 'coward' as applied to women.
No surprise in the sentence; 'She lied to me'.
What is a woman's prerogative? To change her mind.
It's not disdain; it's a matter of realistic expectations.

Chas

Nan

11-25-2003, 08:07 AM

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:58:09 -0800, Rauni <LadyWolf@newsguy.com>
wrote:
Yup you are right about Bob except he wouldn't have consider it rape.He would most likely think his wife had cheated on him.

I have no doubt he would, even if she suffered actual injuries.
Or, he'd claim it's a husband's right to take what he's entitled to,
even if the wife isn't willing at the moment.
Fortunately my husband would be more than willing to raise the child.I think the *real* men (and he a man's man, pro athlete and retiredmilitary) of the world have tender hearts. I know my guy does.

My dh would be more than willing, also. He's tender enough to let me
decide if *I* could handle a living reminder of a violent crime, and
he'd be happy to raise a child.

Nan

Bob

11-25-2003, 08:15 AM

Nan wrote: My dh would be more than willing, also. He's tender enough to let me decide if *I* could handle a living reminder of a violent crime, and he'd be happy to raise a child. Nan

Nan's "dh" is a "fem" lesbian who is a "submissive" to butch Nan. Pathetic

Chas

11-25-2003, 08:35 AM

"Nan" <nan@altmothers.org> wroteActually, you women seem to expect that your man will support anything
youchoose to do; bring a cuckoo child into the marriage, the product of a
rapeinto the marriage- Chas, just because you couldn't handle having your wife give birth to a child if she was raped, doesn't mean all men are as egotistical and self-centered as you.

It's her choice to accept the conception, to carry the child to term, to
demur to adoption- the choices are all hers.
It's egotistic and self-centered of women to expect a man to put up withjust anything his wife wants to do. The thing is, we don't "expect" it. We just know they would because we're partners in a relationship, and supporting each other is what partners do.

'Support' is far different from making stupid decisions that have
far-reaching ramifications in someone else's life.
I've been with women that suffered a rape during our association- and been
supportive and nurturing throughout. Had one of them got pregnant from the
experience, that's yet another level to the problem. To keep the pregnancy
is another, to refrain from adoption is yet another again.
I just wondered if they expected him to put up with an STD too. No, you tossed a red herring onto the pile to try and make a ridiculous point.

The whole question is ridiculous.
So, I asked you yesterday but see you haven't answered... Are you married, or divorced?

I'm kind of a sequential monogamist. I was married and divorced over thirty
years ago, and I haven't found it necessary to repeat either experience.
Involving the State in my personal life never has been very productive.
I used to volunteer at a couple of crisis centers for rape victims, domestic
violence victims and have been very active in custody issues and so on. I
teach martial art to women, and deal directly with the issues of that sort
of victimization of women.
That connection, and that context, has generated some stereotypes for me-
one of them being the perception of their 'honor' that I have- as well as my
perception of their attitudes towards civic responsibility.
It's amazing to me, for instance, that their first expression of the right
of privacy and self initiative over their bodies was to kill 40,000,000
people.

Chas

Nan

11-25-2003, 08:44 AM

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:35:56 -0700, "Chas" <c.clementspam@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Nan" <nan@altmothers.org> wroteActually, you women seem to expect that your man will support anythingyouchoose to do; bring a cuckoo child into the marriage, the product of arapeinto the marriage- Chas, just because you couldn't handle having your wife give birth to a child if she was raped, doesn't mean all men are as egotistical and self-centered as you.It's her choice to accept the conception, to carry the child to term, todemur to adoption- the choices are all hers.

No wonder you're bitter. Most women would be willing to take your
feelings into consideration. You're so hung up on keeping track of
who can do what that you can't think clearly.

It's egotistic and self-centered of women to expect a man to put up withjust anything his wife wants to do. The thing is, we don't "expect" it. We just know they would because we're partners in a relationship, and supporting each other is what partners do.'Support' is far different from making stupid decisions that havefar-reaching ramifications in someone else's life.I've been with women that suffered a rape during our association- and beensupportive and nurturing throughout. Had one of them got pregnant from theexperience, that's yet another level to the problem. To keep the pregnancyis another, to refrain from adoption is yet another again.I just wondered if they expected him to put up with an STD too. No, you tossed a red herring onto the pile to try and make a ridiculous point.The whole question is ridiculous.

You're the one that asked the question, remember. You didn't like the
answers given so you made up something even more silly.
So, I asked you yesterday but see you haven't answered... Are you married, or divorced?I'm kind of a sequential monogamist. I was married and divorced over thirtyyears ago, and I haven't found it necessary to repeat either experience.

I thought as much.
Does the woman in your life (if one even exists) know of your total
disdain for women?

Nan

tjab

11-25-2003, 09:01 AM

In article <bq02k1$1oe4ei$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
So you admire a man that advocates murdering women as well??? http://www.insurgent.org/~alcatroll/Soc.men/goldenbull.htmlHe is not advocating murder.

"It's a shame he only got 14 of them."

Take your head out of the sand, or wherever you might have it.

Greg

11-25-2003, 09:02 AM

robgautier@DCEmail.com (Robert Gautier) wrote in message news:<e45fbc08.0311121700.186b5d70@posting.google.com>... 1. Respect Your Children's Mother

Ugh! You know you're talking to a womenfirster when he or she starts
off on the subject of fatherhood by talking about ..... women.
Because, that's really what it's all about for them. The children are
secondary, as long as mommy is happy. And any self-disprespecting
feminist would want you to submit to your wife in front of your
children, thus teaching your boy children that women are to be in
control.
One of the best things a father can do for his children is to respect their mother. If you are married, keep your marriage strong and vital.

IOW, give her whatever she wants.

[...]

Jayne Kulikauskas

11-25-2003, 09:03 AM

"Chas" <c.clementspam@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:O4adnciNhYdhD16iRVn-sQ@comcast.com...

[] It's amazing to me, for instance, that their first expression of the right of privacy and self initiative over their bodies was to kill 40,000,000 people.

You are so right, Chas. Well said.

Jayne

Chas

11-25-2003, 09:44 AM

"Nan" <nan@altmothers.org> wroteIt's her choice to accept the conception, to carry the child to term, todemur to adoption- the choices are all hers. No wonder you're bitter.

Only about being denied the choice and prerogative that women enjoy- and the
propensity for different standards of responsibility and duty that are
expected from men as contrasted with women when 'gender equality' is
supposed to be the standard.
Most women would be willing to take your feelings into consideration.

What makes you think so?
The most salient feature of women's 'considerations' is that the committment
can change at will. Men are supposed to keep their committments through any
context- women are allowed to reconsider or change their minds by whim and
caprice.
That's a double standard, and it's offensive.
You're so hung up on keeping track of who can do what that you can't think clearly.

Geez, lady; keeping track of who can do what is what allows 'clear
thinking'.
I'm kind of a sequential monogamist. I was married and divorced over
thirtyyears ago, and I haven't found it necessary to repeat either experience. I thought as much. Does the woman in your life (if one even exists) know of your total disdain for women?

Actually, she's a strong professional with stuff to go do whilst I do my
own. The pool of available companions is huge, so we have an 'at will'
relationship.
I'm the primary care parent for my two children, my eldest having left home.
I homeschool them after their mother abandoned them to pursue an alternative
lifestyle.
A dozen women are not a problem; one woman is a problem.

Chas

Bob

11-25-2003, 09:54 AM

Greg wrote: robgautier@DCEmail.com (Robert Gautier) wrote in message news:<e45fbc08.0311121700.186b5d70@posting.google.com>...1. Respect Your Children's Mother Ugh! You know you're talking to a womenfirster when he or she starts off on the subject of fatherhood by talking about ..... women. Because, that's really what it's all about for them. The children are secondary, as long as mommy is happy. And any self-disprespecting feminist would want you to submit to your wife in front of your children, thus teaching your boy children that women are to be in control.One of the best things a father can do for his children is to respecttheir mother. If you are married, keep your marriage strong and vital. IOW, give her whatever she wants. [...]

You have a very good point. The subject is fathers, but the first thing
on rotgut's list is women. It is pretty obvious now that you mention it
that rotgut isn't talking about MEN at all. Does he know or care
anything about men?

Pathetic.

Bob

11-25-2003, 10:32 AM

tjab wrote: In article <bq02k1$1oe4ei$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:So you admire a man that advocates murdering women as well???http://www.insurgent.org/~alcatroll/Soc.men/goldenbull.htmlHe is not advocating murder. "It's a shame he only got 14 of them." Take your head out of the sand, or wherever you might have it.

There is a war on. Feminists like tjab started it. Millions of men and
children have been hurt or killed and more are killed and badly injured
every day. If men start fighting back and women get killed that is the
war that feminists started, support and participate in.

http://www.angryharry.com/refemsalloutwaronmen.htm
http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/34/05/misandry/
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-72.htm
http://www.conjecturer.com/dailycon/archives/002049.php
http://www.mensnettv.com/download/

War has never been "murder" and is not "murder" now. The Law of Moses
says "Thou shalt not do murder" but Moses and his army killed hundreds
of thousands of men, women, and children in wars. War is not "murder" in
any religious, legal or moral codes.

http://hnn.us/articles/1345.html
http://www.csis.org/burke/ethicsofwar_speech.pdf

If femroids like tjab don't want to lose the war they need to stop
attacking men. When feminists go to wa, the other side, those whom they
attacked is completely moral to fight back. The war on men is the
feminist war.

Bob

tjab

11-25-2003, 12:19 PM

In article <3FC3AE69.7070606@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:tjab wrote: In article <bq02k1$1oe4ei$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:>So you admire a man that advocates murdering women as well???>>http://www.insurgent.org/~alcatroll/Soc.men/goldenbull.htmlHe is not advocating murder. "It's a shame he only got 14 of them." Take your head out of the sand, or wherever you might have it.There is a war on. Feminists like tjab started it. Millions of men andchildren have been hurt or killed and more are killed and badly injuredevery day. If men start fighting back and women get killed that is thewar that feminists started, support and participate in.War has never been "murder" and is not "murder" now.

So you don't consider what Marc Le Pine did to be murder?

(This question is addressed to both Bob and Jayne.)

toto

11-25-2003, 12:35 PM

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:35:56 -0700, "Chas" <c.clementspam@comcast.net>
wrote:
It's her choice to accept the conception, to carry the child to term, todemur to adoption- the choices are all hers.

No, in the case of a good marriage, the couple would make those
choices together. Lots of discussion would happen and each would
make concessions to the other's feelings and wishes. The decision
would have to be a mutual one, that both of them could understand
and handle.

The fact is that many people talk about abortion and birth control
before they get married. An untrustworthy partner *can,* of course,
decide not to honor the agreements made in those discussions,
but those of us who are speaking here do honor our agreements
with our husbands and partners.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

Bob

11-25-2003, 12:36 PM

tjab wrote: In article <3FC3AE69.7070606@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:tjab wrote:In article <bq02k1$1oe4ei$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>,Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:>>So you admire a man that advocates murdering women as well???>>>>http://www.insurgent.org/~alcatroll/Soc.men/goldenbull.html>>He is not advocating murder."It's a shame he only got 14 of them."Take your head out of the sand, or wherever you might have it.There is a war on. Feminists like tjab started it. Millions of men andchildren have been hurt or killed and more are killed and badly injuredevery day. If men start fighting back and women get killed that is thewar that feminists started, support and participate in.War has never been "murder" and is not "murder" now. So you don't consider what Marc Le Pine did to be murder? (This question is addressed to both Bob and Jayne.)

Never heard of him.

In the United States a man who lost his home and family dies every 45
minutes. Do you consider that to be murder?

In the United States there are more than a hundred thousand men in
debtor's prisons. Do you consider that to be acceptable?

The war on men is being waged every day. If some men fight back against
the feminist onslaught and cause a few casualties on the side that is
doing the attack it is not "murder." War is not "murder" and never has
been. Deal with it.

Bob

Chas

11-25-2003, 12:53 PM

"toto" <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote ...... An untrustworthy partner *can,* of course, decide not to honor the agreements made in those discussions, but those of us who are speaking here do honor our agreements with our husbands and partners.

Sure; that's what you always hear.
The trouble is that, particularly with women, 'things change'. They can
always recant any decision, and oftentimes compel someone else to clean up
their mess.
Per example; women have killed 40,000,000 people with little more impetus
than 'oops'. Women initiate divorce far more often than men. Their affairs
are more intense, and lead to the abrogation of their oaths far more than
men. Women are lauded for 'finding themselves' and 'going forth to lead
their own lives' as justification for abrogating their holy oath/sworn
promise.
There is just little or no reason to have any expectation of persistence in
much of any decision a woman makes- hell; they can't decide how long skirts
are supposed to be for six months at a time.

Chas

Jayne Kulikauskas

11-25-2003, 01:28 PM

"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:bq0h0n$9lr@rac3.wam.umd.edu... In article <3FC3AE69.7070606@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:tjab wrote: In article <bq02k1$1oe4ei$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:>>So you admire a man that advocates murdering women as well???>>>>http://www.insurgent.org/~alcatroll/Soc.men/goldenbull.html>>He is not advocating murder. "It's a shame he only got 14 of them." Take your head out of the sand, or wherever you might have it.There is a war on. Feminists like tjab started it. Millions of men andchildren have been hurt or killed and more are killed and badly injuredevery day. If men start fighting back and women get killed that is thewar that feminists started, support and participate in.War has never been "murder" and is not "murder" now. So you don't consider what Marc Le Pine did to be murder? (This question is addressed to both Bob and Jayne.)

I think what Marc LePine did was wrong and would consider it murder. But I
can understand how people could see feminism as declaring war on men and his
actions as retaliation.

Jayne

Nan

11-25-2003, 01:43 PM

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:44:43 -0700, "Chas" <c.clementspam@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Nan" <nan@altmothers.org> wroteIt's her choice to accept the conception, to carry the child to term, todemur to adoption- the choices are all hers. No wonder you're bitter.Only about being denied the choice and prerogative that women enjoy- and thepropensity for different standards of responsibility and duty that areexpected from men as contrasted with women when 'gender equality' issupposed to be the standard.

Like I said earlier in this thread. Take Biology 101 and maybe you'll
understand that there are differences that will never be overcome.
Life is too short to be driven by bitterness.
Most women would be willing to take your feelings into consideration.What makes you think so?

Well, perhaps I just don't travel in the circles you do, Chas. The
women I know, would.
The most salient feature of women's 'considerations' is that the committmentcan change at will. Men are supposed to keep their committments through anycontext- women are allowed to reconsider or change their minds by whim andcaprice.That's a double standard, and it's offensive. You're so hung up on keeping track of who can do what that you can't think clearly.Geez, lady; keeping track of who can do what is what allows 'clearthinking'.

Actually, I think it just makes you bitter and angry. But hey, if
you're happy, so be it.
I'm kind of a sequential monogamist. I was married and divorced overthirtyyears ago, and I haven't found it necessary to repeat either experience. I thought as much. Does the woman in your life (if one even exists) know of your total disdain for women?Actually, she's a strong professional with stuff to go do whilst I do myown. The pool of available companions is huge, so we have an 'at will'relationship.I'm the primary care parent for my two children, my eldest having left home.I homeschool them after their mother abandoned them to pursue an alternativelifestyle.A dozen women are not a problem; one woman is a problem.

Yeah. Those that brag most usually have the least to brag about.

Nan

dragonlady

11-25-2003, 01:45 PM

In article <c3i7sv8gi9etodk0lpqpsh5g7d65206hlq@4ax.com>,
toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:35:56 -0700, "Chas" <c.clementspam@comcast.net> wrote:It's her choice to accept the conception, to carry the child to term, todemur to adoption- the choices are all hers. No, in the case of a good marriage, the couple would make those choices together. Lots of discussion would happen and each would make concessions to the other's feelings and wishes. The decision would have to be a mutual one, that both of them could understand and handle. The fact is that many people talk about abortion and birth control before they get married. An untrustworthy partner *can,* of course, decide not to honor the agreements made in those discussions, but those of us who are speaking here do honor our agreements with our husbands and partners.

And sometimes you find that the decisions you made you cannot move
forward on.

In our case, I got pregnant before we planned on it (birth control DOES
fail sometimes) and, though we'd not discussed it as clearly as we
probably should have, we BOTH expected that I would terminate the
pregnancy, since I needed to support us for another 2 to 3 years, and we
are both totally committed to a pro-choice position. However, I found I
could not. I called him at work with a unilateral decision: I told DH
that I could not go through with an abortion, and I was going to have
the baby.

Had DH decided at that point to leave me, I could have insisted on
financial support from him. I don't know if I would have -- after all,
I had agreed to support HIM financially, and I would have been capable
of supporting a child on my own -- but legally I could have.

I have absolutely NO idea what I'd have done if he'd wanted me to give
the baby up for adoption -- I'm not sure I could do that, either.

Fortunately, I was never faced with that situation, since DH accepted my
decision with grace and dignity, and is a great father and partner.
However, it has always been clear to me that the decision, in this case,
was mine, and his choices were to stay and become a father or leave.

It is clear to me that the men are right about one thing: since women
are the ones who get pregnant, the decision about whether to continue
the pregnancy is, ultimately, theirs. In the best of all possible
worlds, the man and the woman make a decision together -- but under no
circumstances should anyone be able to force someone else to terminate a
pregnancy, nor should anyone be able to force someone to continue a
pregnancy. Since the biology isn't equal, there is simply no way to
make the situation for men and women in an unplanned pregnancy exactly
the same.

I've thought a lot about how to give men the same rights when it comes
to pregnancy, while at the same time protecting children, but really
don't know how. I suppose we could allow men to "legally" abort a
pregnancy by repudiating it, which would at least be partial equity.

We should definately have a system where when a woman decides to give a
baby up for adoption, the father has the right to take the baby -- and
it is my understanding that, in many states, that is now the case.
Maybe real equality would include that, in that case, the woman has to
pay child support to the dad who takes the baby -- after all, if a man
can't simply reject financial responsibility for a child he helped
create, why should a woman?

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Bob

11-25-2003, 02:38 PM

dragonlady wrote: It is clear to me that the men are right about one thing: since women are the ones who get pregnant, the decision about whether to continue the pregnancy is, ultimately, theirs.

That is the current FEMINIST political decision. It is not "equal
rights" as feminists have claimed to advocate. An equal political law
would give men equal legal rights.

In the best of all possible worlds,

Or in a world of equal legal rights.

the man and the woman make a decision together --

I.E. In a world of equal rights the decision would be legally shared.

but under no circumstances should anyone be able to force someone else to terminate a pregnancy, nor should anyone be able to force someone to continue a pregnancy. Since the biology isn't equal, there is simply no way to make the situation for men and women in an unplanned pregnancy exactly the same.

IOW: Dragonlady demands women-first exclusive power over children and
fathers. That is the standard feminist power grab.

Feminists have always claimed to support "equal rights" but when it
comes down to real world situations feminists are always demanding
exclusive "rights for women" and to hell with men.

I've thought a lot about how to give men the same rights when it comes to pregnancy, while at the same time protecting children, but really don't know how. I suppose we could allow men to "legally" abort a pregnancy by repudiating it, which would at least be partial equity.

You haven't thought long enough to be willing to concede any of your
political and legal own power to share with fathers.

Women-first all the way for dragonlady.

We should definately have a system where when a woman decides to give a baby up for adoption, the father has the right to take the baby -- and it is my understanding that, in many states, that is now the case. Maybe real equality would include that, in that case, the woman has to pay child support to the dad who takes the baby -- after all, if a man can't simply reject financial responsibility for a child he helped create, why should a woman? meh

Typical feminist double talk. First she demands sole and exclusive
rights, and then insists that "a man can't reject financial
responsibility." Her choice, his responsibility. Her freedom, his
slavery. Men-pay, women-get-paid. Feminist bigots like dragonlady have
no conscience.

There will never be peace in the abortion wars until women concede some
power and share equal rights with fathers. Unless they do that soon
women will lose legal authority of "a woman's right to choose" but at
least it will be equal.

Bob

Chas

11-25-2003, 02:45 PM

"Nan" <nan@altmothers.org> wrote Yeah. Those that brag most usually have the least to brag about.

Don't mistake a simple statement of fact for a brag, ma'am.
If you think women are unavailable, remember that even adulterous men have
at least two; single men do a little better than that.

Chas

Bob

11-25-2003, 02:55 PM

Nan wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:44:43 -0700, "Chas" <c.clementspam@comcast.net> wrote:"Nan" <nan@altmothers.org> wrote>It's her choice to accept the conception, to carry the child to term, to>demur to adoption- the choices are all hers.No wonder you're bitter.Only about being denied the choice and prerogative that women enjoy- and thepropensity for different standards of responsibility and duty that areexpected from men as contrasted with women when 'gender equality' issupposed to be the standard. Like I said earlier in this thread. Take Biology 101 and maybe you'll understand that there are differences that will never be overcome. Life is too short to be driven by bitterness.

IOW: Women have power and are going to keep it. Despite feminists
preaching "equal rights" for a century, any man who asks for equal
rights is "driven by bitterness." Nan is such a typical feminist bigot.

Nan

11-25-2003, 02:58 PM

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:45:25 -0700, "Chas" <c.clementspam@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Nan" <nan@altmothers.org> wrote Yeah. Those that brag most usually have the least to brag about.Don't mistake a simple statement of fact for a brag, ma'am.

Yeah, sure. And Bob has women falling at his feet, too.

Nan

dragonlady

11-25-2003, 02:58 PM

In article <3FC3E7FA.5070407@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
dragonlady wrote: It is clear to me that the men are right about one thing: since women are the ones who get pregnant, the decision about whether to continue the pregnancy is, ultimately, theirs. That is the current FEMINIST political decision. It is not "equal rights" as feminists have claimed to advocate. An equal political law would give men equal legal rights. In the best of all possible worlds, Or in a world of equal legal rights. the man and the woman make a decision together -- I.E. In a world of equal rights the decision would be legally shared. but under no circumstances should anyone be able to force someone else to terminate a pregnancy, nor should anyone be able to force someone to continue a pregnancy. Since the biology isn't equal, there is simply no way to make the situation for men and women in an unplanned pregnancy exactly the same. IOW: Dragonlady demands women-first exclusive power over children and fathers. That is the standard feminist power grab. Feminists have always claimed to support "equal rights" but when it comes down to real world situations feminists are always demanding exclusive "rights for women" and to hell with men.

No, I just don't see how a man and woman can be in the same place with
regard to a pregnancy, since, like it or not, the man's BODY is not
involved in nurturing and carrying the fetus to term. That's a
biological fact -- it has nothing to do with rights.

1. Do you think a man ought to be able to force a woman to abort? (I
feel pretty strongly that no one, under any circumstances, should be
able to force another person to have an abortion -- and that includes
the parents of a pregnant 13 year old. For some women, the aftermath of
abortion is awful, and no one should be forced to that position.)

2. Do you think a man ought to be able to force a woman to carry a
fetus to term? (While this is more difficult, I still think it has to
be the choice of the person who is pregnant -- and, at least under
current biology, that's always the woman.)

3. Do you think a man ought to be able to force a woman to give away a
baby for adoption? (I don't think anyone ought to be able to force
another person to sign away their parental rights -- and that includes a
mother who wants to give a baby up for adoption without the father's
agreement.)

4. Do you think a man ought to be able to forbid a woman to give away a
baby for adoption? (This is one area where I think we can agree:
either both men and women ought to be able to "give up a baby for
adoption" by refusing to accept paternity/maternity, and therefore be
free of all financial obligation (and the right/responsibility to have
contact with the baby) OR neither party should be able to do it without
the permission of the other. The current situation, where a woman can
choose to keep a baby and force the man into 18 years of financial
support, but the man cannot do the same to the woman, seems patently
unfair. )
I've thought a lot about how to give men the same rights when it comes to pregnancy, while at the same time protecting children, but really don't know how. I suppose we could allow men to "legally" abort a pregnancy by repudiating it, which would at least be partial equity. You haven't thought long enough to be willing to concede any of your political and legal own power to share with fathers. Women-first all the way for dragonlady. We should definately have a system where when a woman decides to give a baby up for adoption, the father has the right to take the baby -- and it is my understanding that, in many states, that is now the case. Maybe real equality would include that, in that case, the woman has to pay child support to the dad who takes the baby -- after all, if a man can't simply reject financial responsibility for a child he helped create, why should a woman? meh Typical feminist double talk. First she demands sole and exclusive rights, and then insists that "a man can't reject financial responsibility." Her choice, his responsibility. Her freedom, his slavery. Men-pay, women-get-paid. Feminist bigots like dragonlady have no conscience.

What I meant was that since, *under current law*, men cannot reject
financial responsibility, one approach to equity would be that women
could not, either. I said nothing about whether I thought the law was
correct.

The other approach, of course, would be to say that either can refuse
financial responsibility. Frankly, since that would put more children
living in poverty (not a feminist stance, just a statemtent of fact) I
don't see that happening any time soon. Again, I am not stating an
opinion about what I think the situation SHOULD be, only stating that
this is how things currently stand.
There will never be peace in the abortion wars until women concede some power and share equal rights with fathers. Unless they do that soon women will lose legal authority of "a woman's right to choose" but at least it will be equal.
meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Nan

11-25-2003, 02:59 PM

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:48:15 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:

YIP YIP YIP
YAP YAP YAP

Bob

11-25-2003, 03:04 PM

Nan wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:45:25 -0700, "Chas" <c.clementspam@comcast.net> wrote:"Nan" <nan@altmothers.org> wroteYeah. Those that brag most usually have the least to brag about.Don't mistake a simple statement of fact for a brag, ma'am. Yeah, sure. And Bob has women falling at his feet, too. Nan

LOL. Most women want a MAN. The sniveling wusses feminazis tell men to
be usually go home alone. Poor Nan. She can't control her sisters who
"sleep with the enemy." Boo Hoo.

Bob

dragonlady

11-25-2003, 03:05 PM

In article <3FC3EBFC.5070800@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Nan wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:44:43 -0700, "Chas" <c.clementspam@comcast.net> wrote:"Nan" <nan@altmothers.org> wrote>>It's her choice to accept the conception, to carry the child to term, to>>demur to adoption- the choices are all hers.>>No wonder you're bitter.Only about being denied the choice and prerogative that women enjoy- and thepropensity for different standards of responsibility and duty that areexpected from men as contrasted with women when 'gender equality' issupposed to be the standard. Like I said earlier in this thread. Take Biology 101 and maybe you'll understand that there are differences that will never be overcome. Life is too short to be driven by bitterness. IOW: Women have power and are going to keep it. Despite feminists preaching "equal rights" for a century, any man who asks for equal rights is "driven by bitterness." Nan is such a typical feminist bigot.

I know this will just make Bob laugh, but you know what?

I'd be GLAD to give men the right to get pregnant. Nine months of
throwing up from one to six times a day, swollen ankles, general misery,
followed by 20 hours of labor and a 4th degree episiotomy . . . while I
wouldn't give up my kids for the world, I've have been DELIGHTED to
share some of that with DH! (And I suspect he'd have been delighted to
share the indescribable feeling of having a life growing inside, of
feeling the baby move around, and of nursing -- especially the twins.
There is very little to equal the intensity of looking down into four
little happy eyes while they gaze at you and nurse.)

Now, if modern medicine would just figure out a way to give men and
women equal rights with regard to being pregnant . . .

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Chas

11-25-2003, 03:05 PM

"Nan" <nan@altmothers.org> wrote Yeah. Those that brag most usually have the least to brag about.Don't mistake a simple statement of fact for a brag, ma'am. Yeah, sure. And Bob has women falling at his feet, too.

I don't have anything to do with 'Bob'. If there is any congruence between
our views on a specific point in the discussion, it certainly doesn't , of
necessity, carry over any further.
And, in more general terms, I remind you of the old proverb; 'Did you ever
see a fool that didn't have a wife?'

Chas

Bob

11-25-2003, 03:14 PM

dragonlady wrote: In article <3FC3E7FA.5070407@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:dragonlady wrote:It is clear to me that the men are right about one thing: since womenare the ones who get pregnant, the decision about whether to continuethe pregnancy is, ultimately, theirs.That is the current FEMINIST political decision. It is not "equalrights" as feminists have claimed to advocate. An equal political lawwould give men equal legal rights.In the best of all possibleworlds,Or in a world of equal legal rights.the man and the woman make a decision together --I.E. In a world of equal rights the decision would be legally shared.but under nocircumstances should anyone be able to force someone else to terminate apregnancy, nor should anyone be able to force someone to continue apregnancy. Since the biology isn't equal, there is simply no way tomake the situation for men and women in an unplanned pregnancy exactlythe same.IOW: Dragonlady demands women-first exclusive power over children andfathers. That is the standard feminist power grab.Feminists have always claimed to support "equal rights" but when itcomes down to real world situations feminists are always demandingexclusive "rights for women" and to hell with men. No, I just don't see how a man and woman can be in the same place with regard to a pregnancy, since, like it or not, the man's BODY is not involved in nurturing and carrying the fetus to term. That's a biological fact -- it has nothing to do with rights. 1. Do you think a man ought to be able to force a woman to abort? (I feel pretty strongly that no one, under any circumstances, should be able to force another person to have an abortion -- and that includes the parents of a pregnant 13 year old. For some women, the aftermath of abortion is awful, and no one should be forced to that position.) 2. Do you think a man ought to be able to force a woman to carry a fetus to term? (While this is more difficult, I still think it has to be the choice of the person who is pregnant -- and, at least under current biology, that's always the woman.) 3. Do you think a man ought to be able to force a woman to give away a baby for adoption? (I don't think anyone ought to be able to force another person to sign away their parental rights -- and that includes a mother who wants to give a baby up for adoption without the father's agreement.) 4. Do you think a man ought to be able to forbid a woman to give away a baby for adoption? (This is one area where I think we can agree: either both men and women ought to be able to "give up a baby for adoption" by refusing to accept paternity/maternity, and therefore be free of all financial obligation (and the right/responsibility to have contact with the baby) OR neither party should be able to do it without the permission of the other. The current situation, where a woman can choose to keep a baby and force the man into 18 years of financial support, but the man cannot do the same to the woman, seems patently unfair. )

Yep, a typical feminist. After a century of yapping about "equal
rights" it always ends up with "whatever the hell women want."

Feminist Definition: "Equal Rights" --> Every damn thing women want
and to hell with men.

There will be no peace in the abortion wars until power to make
decisions about children is shared between fathers and mothers. But go
ahead bigot babe, keep demanding total grrrrrl power and see where that
leads.

I've thought a lot about how to give men the same rights when it comesto pregnancy, while at the same time protecting children, but reallydon't know how. I suppose we could allow men to "legally" abort apregnancy by repudiating it, which would at least be partial equity.You haven't thought long enough to be willing to concede any of yourpolitical and legal own power to share with fathers.Women-first all the way for dragonlady.We should definately have a system where when a woman decides to give ababy up for adoption, the father has the right to take the baby -- andit is my understanding that, in many states, that is now the case.Maybe real equality would include that, in that case, the woman has topay child support to the dad who takes the baby -- after all, if a mancan't simply reject financial responsibility for a child he helpedcreate, why should a woman?mehTypical feminist double talk. First she demands sole and exclusiverights, and then insists that "a man can't reject financialresponsibility." Her choice, his responsibility. Her freedom, hisslavery. Men-pay, women-get-paid. Feminist bigots like dragonlady haveno conscience. What I meant was that since, *under current law*, men cannot reject financial responsibility, one approach to equity would be that women could not, either. I said nothing about whether I thought the law was correct. The other approach, of course, would be to say that either can refuse financial responsibility.

Women can refuse financial responsibility now, and do quite frequently.
After a century of feminist lies about "equal rights" it always comes
down to "men-pay, women-get-paid."

On the net women almost always claim to support equal financial
responsibility, but we never see that in political support. It has lots
its credibility on the net, just like "feminism is about equal rights."

Frankly, since that would put more children living in poverty (not a feminist stance, just a statemtent of fact) I don't see that happening any time soon. Again, I am not stating an opinion about what I think the situation SHOULD be, only stating that this is how things currently stand.

IOW: She claims to support equal financial rights, but then takes it all
back with a weasel. Men-pay, women-get-paid. Typical feminist greed.

Bob

There will never be peace in the abortion wars until women concede somepower and share equal rights with fathers. Unless they do that soonwomen will lose legal authority of "a woman's right to choose" but atleast it will be equal. meh

Nan

11-25-2003, 03:14 PM

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 17:05:36 -0700, "Chas" <c.clementspam@comcast.net>
wrote:
"Nan" <nan@altmothers.org> wrote> Yeah. Those that brag most usually have the least to brag about.Don't mistake a simple statement of fact for a brag, ma'am. Yeah, sure. And Bob has women falling at his feet, too.I don't have anything to do with 'Bob'. If there is any congruence betweenour views on a specific point in the discussion, it certainly doesn't , ofnecessity, carry over any further.

You and Bob could almost be twins, Chas. Although he is more rabid
and doesn't say much of substance.
And, in more general terms, I remind you of the old proverb; 'Did you eversee a fool that didn't have a wife?'

You're spending too much energy trying to convince me you're a
stud-muffin.

Nan

Nan

11-25-2003, 03:16 PM

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:05:03 GMT, dragonlady
<mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote:
I know this will just make Bob laugh, but you know what?

Bob is nothing but an ankle-biting YIP YIP YAPPER.
I'd be GLAD to give men the right to get pregnant. Nine months ofthrowing up from one to six times a day, swollen ankles, general misery,followed by 20 hours of labor and a 4th degree episiotomy . . . while Iwouldn't give up my kids for the world, I've have been DELIGHTED toshare some of that with DH! (And I suspect he'd have been delighted toshare the indescribable feeling of having a life growing inside, offeeling the baby move around, and of nursing -- especially the twins.There is very little to equal the intensity of looking down into fourlittle happy eyes while they gaze at you and nurse.)Now, if modern medicine would just figure out a way to give men andwomen equal rights with regard to being pregnant . . .meh

I hear you! I'd have liked to let my dh endure 23 hours of labor with
the first and a c-section recovery with the second ;-)

Nan

Jayne Kulikauskas

11-25-2003, 03:20 PM

"Nan" <nan@altmothers.org> wrote in message
news:n0s7svsp2u3tb10tbh4ql65dk0dlluvd9l@4ax.com... On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 17:05:36 -0700, "Chas" <c.clementspam@comcast.net> wrote:

[]And, in more general terms, I remind you of the old proverb; 'Did you
eversee a fool that didn't have a wife?' You're spending too much energy trying to convince me you're a stud-muffin.

If you hadn't made irrelevant comments about his personal life, I doubt the
subject would have come up.

Jayne

Bob

11-25-2003, 03:21 PM

dragonlady wrote: In article <3FC3EBFC.5070800@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Nan wrote:On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:44:43 -0700, "Chas" <c.clementspam@comcast.net>wrote:>"Nan" <nan@altmothers.org> wrote>>>>>It's her choice to accept the conception, to carry the child to term, to>>>demur to adoption- the choices are all hers.>>>>No wonder you're bitter.>>Only about being denied the choice and prerogative that women enjoy- and the>propensity for different standards of responsibility and duty that are>expected from men as contrasted with women when 'gender equality' is>supposed to be the standard.Like I said earlier in this thread. Take Biology 101 and maybe you'llunderstand that there are differences that will never be overcome.Life is too short to be driven by bitterness.IOW: Women have power and are going to keep it. Despite feministspreaching "equal rights" for a century, any man who asks for equalrights is "driven by bitterness." Nan is such a typical feminist bigot. I know this will just make Bob laugh, but you know what? I'd be GLAD to give men the right to get pregnant. Nine months of throwing up from one to six times a day, swollen ankles, general misery, followed by 20 hours of labor and a 4th degree episiotomy . . . while I wouldn't give up my kids for the world, I've have been DELIGHTED to share some of that with DH! (And I suspect he'd have been delighted to share the indescribable feeling of having a life growing inside, of feeling the baby move around, and of nursing -- especially the twins. There is very little to equal the intensity of looking down into four little happy eyes while they gaze at you and nurse.) Now, if modern medicine would just figure out a way to give men and women equal rights with regard to being pregnant . . . meh

The classic feminist claim. Women deserve special and exclusive rights
becasue women are women, and men are not women. One could just as
easily argue that "niggers" have to sit at the back of the bus becasue
"niggers" are not white.

IOW: Women have power and are going to keep it. Despite feminists
preaching "equal rights" for a century, any man who asks for equal
rights is "driven by bitterness." dragonlady is such a typical feminist
bigot.

No toots. Men do not have to become women to have equal rights.

Bob

dragonlady

11-25-2003, 03:23 PM

In article <3FC3F04C.3070101@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
dragonlady wrote: In article <3FC3E7FA.5070407@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:dragonlady wrote:>It is clear to me that the men are right about one thing: since women>are the ones who get pregnant, the decision about whether to continue>the pregnancy is, ultimately, theirs.That is the current FEMINIST political decision. It is not "equalrights" as feminists have claimed to advocate. An equal political lawwould give men equal legal rights.>In the best of all possible>worlds,Or in a world of equal legal rights.>the man and the woman make a decision together --I.E. In a world of equal rights the decision would be legally shared.>but under no>circumstances should anyone be able to force someone else to terminate a>pregnancy, nor should anyone be able to force someone to continue a>pregnancy. Since the biology isn't equal, there is simply no way to>make the situation for men and women in an unplanned pregnancy exactly>the same.IOW: Dragonlady demands women-first exclusive power over children andfathers. That is the standard feminist power grab.Feminists have always claimed to support "equal rights" but when itcomes down to real world situations feminists are always demandingexclusive "rights for women" and to hell with men. No, I just don't see how a man and woman can be in the same place with regard to a pregnancy, since, like it or not, the man's BODY is not involved in nurturing and carrying the fetus to term. That's a biological fact -- it has nothing to do with rights. 1. Do you think a man ought to be able to force a woman to abort? (I feel pretty strongly that no one, under any circumstances, should be able to force another person to have an abortion -- and that includes the parents of a pregnant 13 year old. For some women, the aftermath of abortion is awful, and no one should be forced to that position.) 2. Do you think a man ought to be able to force a woman to carry a fetus to term? (While this is more difficult, I still think it has to be the choice of the person who is pregnant -- and, at least under current biology, that's always the woman.) 3. Do you think a man ought to be able to force a woman to give away a baby for adoption? (I don't think anyone ought to be able to force another person to sign away their parental rights -- and that includes a mother who wants to give a baby up for adoption without the father's agreement.) 4. Do you think a man ought to be able to forbid a woman to give away a baby for adoption? (This is one area where I think we can agree: either both men and women ought to be able to "give up a baby for adoption" by refusing to accept paternity/maternity, and therefore be free of all financial obligation (and the right/responsibility to have contact with the baby) OR neither party should be able to do it without the permission of the other. The current situation, where a woman can choose to keep a baby and force the man into 18 years of financial support, but the man cannot do the same to the woman, seems patently unfair. ) Yep, a typical feminist. After a century of yapping about "equal rights" it always ends up with "whatever the hell women want."

This is typical of you -- you never actually answer specific questions,
but just yammer on about how awful women are.

I'm telling you where I stand on very specific issues, and asking you to
be just as specific, but all you are capable of is whining about how
awful women are.

Typical feminist double talk. First she demands sole and exclusiverights, and then insists that "a man can't reject financialresponsibility." Her choice, his responsibility. Her freedom, hisslavery. Men-pay, women-get-paid. Feminist bigots like dragonlady haveno conscience. What I meant was that since, *under current law*, men cannot reject financial responsibility, one approach to equity would be that women could not, either. I said nothing about whether I thought the law was correct. The other approach, of course, would be to say that either can refuse financial responsibility. Women can refuse financial responsibility now, and do quite frequently. After a century of feminist lies about "equal rights" it always comes down to "men-pay, women-get-paid." On the net women almost always claim to support equal financial responsibility, but we never see that in political support. It has lots its credibility on the net, just like "feminism is about equal rights." Frankly, since that would put more children living in poverty (not a feminist stance, just a statemtent of fact) I don't see that happening any time soon. Again, I am not stating an opinion about what I think the situation SHOULD be, only stating that this is how things currently stand. IOW: She claims to support equal financial rights, but then takes it all back with a weasel. Men-pay, women-get-paid. Typical feminist greed.

How does saying "this is the way the current law works" translate in
your brain into "this is what I support"?

Or are you arguing that the current law DOESN'T work this way?

The inability to read what I actually wrote is pretty amazing, I suppose.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Nan

11-25-2003, 03:25 PM

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:20:38 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Nan" <nan@altmothers.org> wrote in messagenews:n0s7svsp2u3tb10tbh4ql65dk0dlluvd9l@4ax .com... On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 17:05:36 -0700, "Chas" <c.clementspam@comcast.net> wrote:[]And, in more general terms, I remind you of the old proverb; 'Did youeversee a fool that didn't have a wife?' You're spending too much energy trying to convince me you're a stud-muffin.If you hadn't made irrelevant comments about his personal life, I doubt thesubject would have come up.

Irrelevant? I don't think so, Jayne. When men tend to spew hate
towards women, it's usually indicative that they can't maintain a
relationship for longer than one or two dates, or however long the
woman sees the danger signs.

Like I said, those who brag most, tend to have the least to brag
about.
If Chas wants to spend 10 more posts trying to convince me he's a
stud, it's not going to work anyways.

Nan

tjab

11-25-2003, 03:29 PM

In article <3FC3CB4D.6080906@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:tjab wrote: In article <3FC3AE69.7070606@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:tjab wrote:>In article <bq02k1$1oe4ei$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>,>Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:>>>>>>So you admire a man that advocates murdering women as well???>>>>>>http://www.insurgent.org/~alcatroll/Soc.men/goldenbull.html>>>>He is not advocating murder.>>"It's a shame he only got 14 of them.">>Take your head out of the sand, or wherever you might have it.>There is a war on. Feminists like tjab started it. Millions of men andchildren have been hurt or killed and more are killed and badly injuredevery day. If men start fighting back and women get killed that is thewar that feminists started, support and participate in.War has never been "murder" and is not "murder" now. So you don't consider what Marc Le Pine did to be murder? (This question is addressed to both Bob and Jayne.)Never heard of him.

Who were you talking about when you wrote "It's a shame he
only got 14 of them?"

Bob

11-25-2003, 03:36 PM

Nan wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:05:03 GMT, dragonlady <mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote:I know this will just make Bob laugh, but you know what? Bob is nothing but an ankle-biting YIP YIP YAPPER.I'd be GLAD to give men the right to get pregnant. Nine months ofthrowing up from one to six times a day, swollen ankles, general misery,followed by 20 hours of labor and a 4th degree episiotomy . . . while Iwouldn't give up my kids for the world, I've have been DELIGHTED toshare some of that with DH! (And I suspect he'd have been delighted toshare the indescribable feeling of having a life growing inside, offeeling the baby move around, and of nursing -- especially the twins.There is very little to equal the intensity of looking down into fourlittle happy eyes while they gaze at you and nurse.)Now, if modern medicine would just figure out a way to give men andwomen equal rights with regard to being pregnant . . .meh I hear you! I'd have liked to let my dh endure 23 hours of labor with the first and a c-section recovery with the second ;-) Nan

Boo Hoo. Being a woman is so tough. Boo Hoo.

tjab

11-25-2003, 03:42 PM

In article <bq0ksq$1rpa0d$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in messagenews:bq0h0n$9lr@rac3.wam.umd.edu... In article <3FC3AE69.7070606@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>wrote:tjab wrote:> In article <bq02k1$1oe4ei$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>,> Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:>>>>>So you admire a man that advocates murdering women as well???>>>>>>http://www.insurgent.org/~alcatroll/Soc.men/goldenbull.html>>>>He is not advocating murder.>> "It's a shame he only got 14 of them.">> Take your head out of the sand, or wherever you might have it.>There is a war on. Feminists like tjab started it. Millions of men andchildren have been hurt or killed and more are killed and badly injuredevery day. If men start fighting back and women get killed that is thewar that feminists started, support and participate in.War has never been "murder" and is not "murder" now. So you don't consider what Marc Le Pine did to be murder? (This question is addressed to both Bob and Jayne.)I think what Marc LePine did was wrong and would consider it murder. But Ican understand how people could see feminism as declaring war on men and hisactions as retaliation.

Pretty dangerous semantic game you're playing there. There's an awfully
fine line between understanding and encouraging, and I'm not entirely
sure you haven't crossed it.

Jayne Kulikauskas

11-25-2003, 04:00 PM

"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:bq0sth$d9p@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <bq0ksq$1rpa0d$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message

[] So you don't consider what Marc Le Pine did to be murder? (This question is addressed to both Bob and Jayne.)I think what Marc LePine did was wrong and would consider it murder. But
Ican understand how people could see feminism as declaring war on men and
hisactions as retaliation. Pretty dangerous semantic game you're playing there. There's an awfully fine line between understanding and encouraging, and I'm not entirely sure you haven't crossed it.

I believe in non-violence. I even believe in non-violent speech on Usenet
and so maintain a personal policy of never flaming. There is no cause that
I believe in, no matter how passionately, that I would kill for.

What Bob is doing with the Golden Bull award is making a point. He is
saying that the injustice perpetrated against men under the influence of
feminism has reached a point where it can be considered a war on men. He is
saying that men's lives are being lost in this war and people need to take
it seriously. Unfortunately, it seems that some people are not going to
take it seriously unless women lose their lives, so Bob portrays female
deaths as casualties on the women's side. It is bloody and violent imagery,
not a style that I would use myself. However, I agree with the underlying
message that something is very wrong with the way that men are being
treated.

Jayne

Bob

11-25-2003, 04:04 PM

Nan wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:48:15 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: YIP YIP YIP YAP YAP YAP

Somebody let the ***** out to crap on the neighbor's lawn.

Andre Lieven

11-25-2003, 04:38 PM

toto (scarecrow@wicked.witch) writes: On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:35:56 -0700, "Chas" <c.clementspam@comcast.net> wrote:It's her choice to accept the conception, to carry the child to term, todemur to adoption- the choices are all hers. No, in the case of a good marriage, the couple would make those choices together. Lots of discussion would happen and each would make concessions to the other's feelings and wishes. The decision would have to be a mutual one, that both of them could understand and handle.

Non sequitur. Under LAW, he has NO ability to either change her
choice, or opt out of it.

Any " choice " that you can't even enforce on yourself, isn't a choice.
The fact is that many people talk about abortion and birth control before they get married. An untrustworthy partner *can,* of course, decide not to honor the agreements made in those discussions, but those of us who are speaking here do honor our agreements with our husbands and partners.

And, you clearly have no empathy for anyone caught in a situation where
the other has... changed their mind, and choice...

Got it.

Andre

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

dragonlady

11-25-2003, 04:49 PM

In article <3FC3F57B.2060009@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Nan wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:05:03 GMT, dragonlady <mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote:I know this will just make Bob laugh, but you know what? Bob is nothing but an ankle-biting YIP YIP YAPPER.I'd be GLAD to give men the right to get pregnant. Nine months ofthrowing up from one to six times a day, swollen ankles, general misery,followed by 20 hours of labor and a 4th degree episiotomy . . . while Iwouldn't give up my kids for the world, I've have been DELIGHTED toshare some of that with DH! (And I suspect he'd have been delighted toshare the indescribable feeling of having a life growing inside, offeeling the baby move around, and of nursing -- especially the twins.There is very little to equal the intensity of looking down into fourlittle happy eyes while they gaze at you and nurse.)Now, if modern medicine would just figure out a way to give men andwomen equal rights with regard to being pregnant . . .meh I hear you! I'd have liked to let my dh endure 23 hours of labor with the first and a c-section recovery with the second ;-) Nan Boo Hoo. Being a woman is so tough. Boo Hoo.

Have you ever noticed that men like Bob have NO sense of humor?

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Chas

11-25-2003, 04:51 PM

"dragonlady" <mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote No, I just don't see how a man and woman can be in the same place with regard to a pregnancy, since, like it or not, the man's BODY is not involved in nurturing and carrying the fetus to term. That's a biological fact -- it has nothing to do with rights.

Then he should have no responsibility for the results of her decision.
1. Do you think a man ought to be able to force a woman to abort?

nope.
Neither should he be forced to be responsible for her decision to carry to
term if he opposes the continuation of a pregnancy.
2. Do you think a man ought to be able to force a woman to carry a fetus to term?

Nope.
Neither should she be able to force him to participate in a pregnancy he
opposes.
3. Do you think a man ought to be able to force a woman to give away a baby for adoption?

Nope.
Neither should he be responsible for her decision to keep a child if he
opposes that decision.
4. Do you think a man ought to be able to forbid a woman to give away a baby for adoption?

If he is the father, he should have the option of having her rights
terminated and accept responsibility for his own child.

Chas

tjab

11-25-2003, 04:54 PM

In article <bq0tqt$1rr4e8$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in messagenews:bq0sth$d9p@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <bq0ksq$1rpa0d$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message[]> So you don't consider what Marc Le Pine did to be murder?>> (This question is addressed to both Bob and Jayne.)I think what Marc LePine did was wrong and would consider it murder. ButIcan understand how people could see feminism as declaring war on men andhisactions as retaliation. Pretty dangerous semantic game you're playing there. There's an awfully fine line between understanding and encouraging, and I'm not entirely sure you haven't crossed it.I believe in non-violence. I even believe in non-violent speech on Usenetand so maintain a personal policy of never flaming. There is no cause thatI believe in, no matter how passionately, that I would kill for.What Bob is doing with the Golden Bull award is making a point. He issaying that the injustice perpetrated against men under the influence offeminism has reached a point where it can be considered a war on men. He issaying that men's lives are being lost in this war and people need to takeit seriously. Unfortunately, it seems that some people are not going totake it seriously unless women lose their lives, so Bob portrays femaledeaths as casualties on the women's side. It is bloody and violent imagery,not a style that I would use myself. However, I agree with the underlyingmessage that something is very wrong with the way that men are beingtreated.

What Bob does when he bemoans the fact that Marc Le Pine didn't
kill more women is to argue in support of cold-blooded murder.
Dance around it all you want, but by being an apologist for his
cheerleading for rapists and murderers, you are doing something
far worse than flaming on usenet. And all the dainty pseudo-intellectual
weasel words in the world (like "not a style I would use myself")
really don't diminish your culpability one whit.

Chas

11-25-2003, 04:57 PM

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote If you hadn't made irrelevant comments about his personal life, I doubt
the subject would have come up.

Thank you ma'am.
My description of my personal life was in response to her query about my
marital status.
In point of fact, I near 60 years of various sorts of relationships, and
have some small appreciation of the scope of a number of models of
interaction.

Chas

toto

11-25-2003, 05:44 PM

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:05:03 GMT, dragonlady
<mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote:
Now, if modern medicine would just figure out a way to give men andwomen equal rights with regard to being pregnant . . .

http://www.malepregnancy.com/

http://www.malepregnancy.com/science/

<vbg>

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

Bob

11-25-2003, 06:28 PM

tjab wrote: In article <bq0tqt$1rr4e8$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in messagenews:bq0sth$d9p@rac1.wam.umd.edu...In article <bq0ksq$1rpa0d$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>,Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:Pretty dangerous semantic game you're playing there. There's an awfullyfine line between understanding and encouraging, and I'm not entirelysure you haven't crossed it.I believe in non-violence. I even believe in non-violent speech on Usenetand so maintain a personal policy of never flaming. There is no cause thatI believe in, no matter how passionately, that I would kill for.What Bob is doing with the Golden Bull award is making a point. He issaying that the injustice perpetrated against men under the influence offeminism has reached a point where it can be considered a war on men. He issaying that men's lives are being lost in this war and people need to takeit seriously. Unfortunately, it seems that some people are not going totake it seriously unless women lose their lives, so Bob portrays femaledeaths as casualties on the women's side. It is bloody and violent imagery,not a style that I would use myself. However, I agree with the underlyingmessage that something is very wrong with the way that men are beingtreated. What Bob does when he bemoans the fact that Marc Le Pine didn't kill more women is to argue in support of cold-blooded murder. Dance around it all you want, but by being an apologist for his cheerleading for rapists and murderers, you are doing something far worse than flaming on usenet. And all the dainty pseudo-intellectual weasel words in the world (like "not a style I would use myself") really don't diminish your culpability one whit.

Back in 1970 we used to get the body count and kill ratio from Viet Nam
every afternoon with the evening news. You feminist *****es don't like
a war, don't start one. You don't like the body count, too fricking bad.

The war on men has gone on too long. Many men are starting to fight
back.

There is a war on. Feminists like tjab started it. Millions of men and
children have been hurt or killed and more are killed and badly injured
every day. If men start fighting back and women get killed that is the
war that feminists started, support and participate in.

http://www.angryharry.com/refemsalloutwaronmen.htm
http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/34/05/misandry/
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-72.htm
http://www.conjecturer.com/dailycon/archives/002049.php
http://www.mensnettv.com/download/

War has never been "murder" and is not "murder" now. The Law of Moses
says "Thou shalt not do murder" but Moses and his army killed hundreds
of thousands of men, women, and children in wars. War is not "murder" in
any religious, legal or moral codes.

http://hnn.us/articles/1345.html
http://www.csis.org/burke/ethicsofwar_speech.pdf

If femroids don't want to lose the war they need to stop attacking men.
When feminists go to war, the other side, those whom they attacked, is
completely moral to fight back. The war on men is the feminist war.

Bob

toto

11-25-2003, 06:28 PM

On 26 Nov 2003 01:38:04 GMT, dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
wrote:
And, you clearly have no empathy for anyone caught in a situation wherethe other has... changed their mind, and choice...

I have empathy and sympathy for them.. I agree that the LAW
should be changed.

That however doesn't mean that those of us who you are talking to
don't already make those decisions jointly and honor the commitments
we made. It simply means there are people of both genders who are
untrustworthy and don't honor commitments.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

Jayne Kulikauskas

11-25-2003, 06:43 PM

Just to let people know that I am going to be busy for the next day or so
and won't be able to post. I'll try to answer any questions directed at me
when I get back.

(My husband has ordered me to stop doing newsgroups until I get caught up
around the house. <g>)

Jayne

Bob

11-25-2003, 07:01 PM

toto wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:05:03 GMT, dragonlady <mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote:Now, if modern medicine would just figure out a way to give men andwomen equal rights with regard to being pregnant . . . http://www.malepregnancy.com/ http://www.malepregnancy.com/science/ <vbg> Dorothy

What we have here is another failure to understand the concept.

dragonlady

11-25-2003, 07:03 PM

In article <UISdnfRH7-aVmlmiRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
"Chas" <c.clementspam@comcast.net> wrote:
"dragonlady" <mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote No, I just don't see how a man and woman can be in the same place with regard to a pregnancy, since, like it or not, the man's BODY is not involved in nurturing and carrying the fetus to term. That's a biological fact -- it has nothing to do with rights. Then he should have no responsibility for the results of her decision. 1. Do you think a man ought to be able to force a woman to abort? nope. Neither should he be forced to be responsible for her decision to carry to term if he opposes the continuation of a pregnancy. 2. Do you think a man ought to be able to force a woman to carry a fetus to term? Nope. Neither should she be able to force him to participate in a pregnancy he opposes. 3. Do you think a man ought to be able to force a woman to give away a baby for adoption? Nope. Neither should he be responsible for her decision to keep a child if he opposes that decision. 4. Do you think a man ought to be able to forbid a woman to give away a baby for adoption? If he is the father, he should have the option of having her rights terminated and accept responsibility for his own child. Chas

On this list, at least, it seems we are in agreement.

I don't expect the laws to change any time in the near future.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

toto

11-25-2003, 07:21 PM

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:01:08 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
toto wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:05:03 GMT, dragonlady <mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote:Now, if modern medicine would just figure out a way to give men andwomen equal rights with regard to being pregnant . . . http://www.malepregnancy.com/ http://www.malepregnancy.com/science/ <vbg> DorothyWhat we have here is another failure to understand the concept.

No sense of humor? It's weird science.. sheesh. Did you
see the <vbg>

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

tjab

11-25-2003, 07:32 PM

In article <3FC41DCF.4070003@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:tjab wrote: In article <bq0tqt$1rr4e8$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in messagenews:bq0sth$d9p@rac1.wam.umd.edu...>In article <bq0ksq$1rpa0d$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>,>Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:>>Pretty dangerous semantic game you're playing there. There's an awfully>fine line between understanding and encouraging, and I'm not entirely>sure you haven't crossed it.I believe in non-violence. I even believe in non-violent speech on Usenetand so maintain a personal policy of never flaming. There is no cause thatI believe in, no matter how passionately, that I would kill for.What Bob is doing with the Golden Bull award is making a point. He issaying that the injustice perpetrated against men under the influence offeminism has reached a point where it can be considered a war on men. He issaying that men's lives are being lost in this war and people need to takeit seriously. Unfortunately, it seems that some people are not going totake it seriously unless women lose their lives, so Bob portrays femaledeaths as casualties on the women's side. It is bloody and violent imagery,not a style that I would use myself. However, I agree with the underlyingmessage that something is very wrong with the way that men are beingtreated. What Bob does when he bemoans the fact that Marc Le Pine didn't kill more women is to argue in support of cold-blooded murder. Dance around it all you want, but by being an apologist for his cheerleading for rapists and murderers, you are doing something far worse than flaming on usenet. And all the dainty pseudo-intellectual weasel words in the world (like "not a style I would use myself") really don't diminish your culpability one whit.Back in 1970 we used to get the body count and kill ratio from Viet Namevery afternoon with the evening news. You feminist *****es don't likea war, don't start one. You don't like the body count, too fricking bad.The war on men has gone on too long. Many men are starting to fightback.There is a war on. Feminists like tjab started it. Millions of men andchildren have been hurt or killed and more are killed and badly injuredevery day. If men start fighting back and women get killed that is thewar that feminists started, support and participate in.http://www.angryharry.com/refemsalloutwaronmen.htmhttp://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/34/05/misandry/http://www.dvmen.org/dv-72.htmhttp://www.conjecturer.com/dailycon/archives/002049.phphttp://www.mensnettv.com/download/War has never been "murder" and is not "murder" now. The Law of Mosessays "Thou shalt not do murder" but Moses and his army killed hundredsof thousands of men, women, and children in wars. War is not "murder" inany religious, legal or moral codes.http://hnn.us/articles/1345.htmlhttp://www.csis.org/burke/ethicsofwar_speech.pdfIf femroids don't want to lose the war they need to stop attacking men. When feminists go to war, the other side, those whom they attacked, iscompletely moral to fight back. The war on men is the feminist war.Bob

If you have not put your sick philosophy into practice, I hope
you get help before you mistake Jayne's misguided sympathy for
support and do something that lands you in prison or on death row.
If, on the other hand, you have, you may very well belong there.

toto

11-25-2003, 07:44 PM

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:21:07 -0600, toto <scarecrow@wicked.witch>
wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:01:08 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:toto wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:05:03 GMT, dragonlady <mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote:>Now, if modern medicine would just figure out a way to give men and>women equal rights with regard to being pregnant . . . http://www.malepregnancy.com/ http://www.malepregnancy.com/science/ <vbg> DorothyWhat we have here is another failure to understand the concept.No sense of humor? It's weird science.. sheesh. Did yousee the <vbg>

Oh, yeah, and just for the record.\:

Here's the urban legend refutation of the website. I can't
beleive anyone thought I was posting it as serious science.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa100400a.htm?once=true&terms=male+pregnancy

It's an elaborate put-on conceived by artists Virgil Wong and Lee
Mingwei. Both are members of a collective known as PaperVeins,
described as "a multidisciplinary arts group developing work about the
human body as seen through medicine, society and technology."

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

Bob

11-25-2003, 07:54 PM

toto wrote: On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 21:01:08 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:toto wrote:On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:05:03 GMT, dragonlady<mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote:>Now, if modern medicine would just figure out a way to give men and>women equal rights with regard to being pregnant . . .http://www.malepregnancy.com/http://www.malepregnancy.com/science/<vbg>DorothyWhat we have here is another failure to understand the concept. No sense of humor? It's weird science.. sheesh. Did you see the <vbg> Dorothy

You must have missed the quoted line from a classic comedy.

Bob

P. Tierney

11-26-2003, 12:04 AM

"analog" <analog@ieee.org> wrote: Those who want truly want equality for men and women must call for: either drafting women (in whatever numbers are required) into segregated units (so that there can be no men to blame or do for them) so that women are forced to carry their equal load as measured by hospital beds and body bags filled; or giving men special rights to go hand-in-hand with their special responsibilities (such as enfranchising only men to vote and run for office at the national level). Women could earn this right, but only by serving in military combat ready positions. Women in general would retain the right to vote and run in state and local elections. I urge all readers to start actively promoting such fair minded views here and among those you deal with on a day to day basis.

I'm all with that. Along with women, include the children
of those in Congress and the Administration (no Georgie,
flying planes around Texas doesn't count!), as well as
children of the wealthy. Send that bill to the Hill.

P. Tierney

Nan

11-26-2003, 05:00 AM

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:49:33 GMT, dragonlady
<mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote:
Have you ever noticed that men like Bob have NO sense of humor?

Ayup. I noticed that about 4 days ago.

Nan

Chas

11-26-2003, 05:08 AM

"dragonlady" <mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote I don't expect the laws to change any time in the near future.

Actually, I think it's coming.
The whole idea of civil rights, equality before the law, stopping gender
bias and so on is becoming very attractive to men. We're intrigued with the
idea of 'choice', and feel it would be a nice change from what we're used
to.
Far more men are fighting in the courts- as opposed to simply rolling over
and taking the pipe. Far more men are getting their children, getting child
support, getting separate maintenance even. The use of Habeus Corpus is
becoming more and more common in Divorce/Custody cases, for instance.
Like they say; there's enough Law to go around.

Chas

toto

11-26-2003, 07:43 AM

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 07:08:37 -0700, "Chas" <c.clementspam@comcast.net>
wrote:
"dragonlady" <mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote I don't expect the laws to change any time in the near future.Actually, I think it's coming.The whole idea of civil rights, equality before the law, stopping genderbias and so on is becoming very attractive to men. We're intrigued with theidea of 'choice', and feel it would be a nice change from what we're usedto.Far more men are fighting in the courts- as opposed to simply rolling overand taking the pipe. Far more men are getting their children, getting childsupport, getting separate maintenance even. The use of Habeus Corpus isbecoming more and more common in Divorce/Custody cases, for instance.Like they say; there's enough Law to go around.Chas
Unfortunately, it's usually the lawyers that make a profit, while the
man or woman who is fighting the system pays.

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

dragonlady

11-27-2003, 07:06 AM

In article <WCoxb.6040$lF6.4440@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>,
"Rich Soyack" <r.soyack@verizon.net> wrote:
\ And, of course, you know everything everyone in the world was doing 30 years ago? I took it as far as I could without the $$ to hire a lawyer. I suppose if I'd been a hard core feminist at the time, I might have approached some feminist organization about funding a lawsuit, but I did not. I lost. meh You didn't tell us what you did. Rich Soyack

What is it about you guys and demanding proof that we have done what
we've done or stood where we stood?

I tried to volunteer for the draft. When I was turned down, I appealed
the decision. I kept appealing up the ladder, and continued to be
turned down. I went as far as I could go, and lost. Perhaps if I'd
been older and known more, I could have done more. I didn't have $$, so
I didn't hire a lawyer, which might have given me more options.

What more can I tell you?

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Rich Soyack

11-27-2003, 09:51 AM

"dragonlady" <mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote in message
news:mehouck-4C8045.08045027112003@news.SF.sbcglobal.net... In article <WCoxb.6040$lF6.4440@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, "Rich Soyack" <r.soyack@verizon.net> wrote: \ And, of course, you know everything everyone in the world was doing 30 years ago? I took it as far as I could without the $$ to hire a lawyer. I
suppose if I'd been a hard core feminist at the time, I might have approached some feminist organization about funding a lawsuit, but I did not. I lost. meh You didn't tell us what you did. Rich Soyack What is it about you guys and demanding proof that we have done what we've done or stood where we stood? I tried to volunteer for the draft. When I was turned down, I appealed the decision. I kept appealing up the ladder, and continued to be turned down. I went as far as I could go, and lost. Perhaps if I'd been older and known more, I could have done more. I didn't have $$, so I didn't hire a lawyer, which might have given me more options. What more can I tell you?

Who did you go to first? Who did you appeal to? Why didn't you simply join
the Armed Services when you were turned down? Did you go to the press? Did
you go to your elected representatives?

Why did I ask what you did? Its the normal follow up question when someone
seems
to be patting themselves on the back and then hand waving when they are
asked what
they did.

Let's see, 30 years ago would have put us in 1973 when the War in Vietnam
was still
going on. When every man between the age of 18 and 26 was asked what their
draft
status was when they applied for a job. Those of us who went through that,
I wasn't in
Vietnam but I did join the Navy on my 17th birthday, tend to ask for more
than hand
waving when boasts, such as yours, are made.

Rich Soyack

dragonlady

11-27-2003, 10:26 AM

In article <6Jrxb.1680$i81.1642@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>,
"Rich Soyack" <r.soyack@verizon.net> wrote:
"dragonlady" <mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote in message news:mehouck-4C8045.08045027112003@news.SF.sbcglobal.net... In article <WCoxb.6040$lF6.4440@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, "Rich Soyack" <r.soyack@verizon.net> wrote: \ > > And, of course, you know everything everyone in the world was doing 30 > years ago? > > I took it as far as I could without the $$ to hire a lawyer. I suppose > if I'd been a hard core feminist at the time, I might have approached > some feminist organization about funding a lawsuit, but I did not. > > I lost. > > meh You didn't tell us what you did. Rich Soyack What is it about you guys and demanding proof that we have done what we've done or stood where we stood? I tried to volunteer for the draft. When I was turned down, I appealed the decision. I kept appealing up the ladder, and continued to be turned down. I went as far as I could go, and lost. Perhaps if I'd been older and known more, I could have done more. I didn't have $$, so I didn't hire a lawyer, which might have given me more options. What more can I tell you? Who did you go to first? Who did you appeal to? Why didn't you simply join the Armed Services when you were turned down? Did you go to the press? Did you go to your elected representatives? Why did I ask what you did? Its the normal follow up question when someone seems to be patting themselves on the back and then hand waving when they are asked what they did. Let's see, 30 years ago would have put us in 1973 when the War in Vietnam was still going on. When every man between the age of 18 and 26 was asked what their draft status was when they applied for a job. Those of us who went through that, I wasn't in Vietnam but I did join the Navy on my 17th birthday, tend to ask for more than hand waving when boasts, such as yours, are made. Rich Soyack

Let's review here.

Someone asked if we were opposed to only men being drafted; I said yes,
I was.

Then someone demanded to know what I'd done about it -- I wasn't
voluntarily "hand waving", but decided to answer the question.

You demanded more details. I provided them.

You are still asking more questions, but I get the feeling that if I
answer them, whatever my answer is you will still use whatever I say as
an excuse to attack further, but what the hell . . .

Thirty years is an estimate; it was sometime in 1974.

I wanted to volunteer for the draft rather than simply join, in part
because I believed then (and continue to believe) that it was wrong for
only men to be drafted.

I went to both the Army and the Navy. I don't remember exactly who I
appealed to -- I remember going "up" several steps with both, but it WAS
a long time ago, and I just don't remember exactly what happened any
more. No, I didn't go to the press -- as I pointed out several times, I
was young, inexperienced and unsophisticated about such things. Had I
actually BEEN a member of a feminist organization, I probably would have
had more resources and more ideas about what to do and where to go. At
the time, appealing to an elected representative didn't occur to me.
Nor did going to the press, which, looking back, is somewhat surprising,
since I knew people who worked as journalists -- what can I say, I was
young and trying to get some sort of public support for what I was
trying to do just didn't occur to me. Were I to try to do that NOW, it
undoubtedly would.

I DID try to join after that; however, there was a delay (I can't
remember what -- maybe because they wanted me to go the OCS route --
whatever it was, it was about 10 weeks) and by the time they were ready
to take me, I'd changed my mind. (I had 2 brothers in the military and a
3rd in the process of joining, and Mom talked me out of it.)

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Rich Soyack

11-27-2003, 04:25 PM

"dragonlady" <mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote in message
news:mehouck-D65423.11242127112003@news.SF.sbcglobal.net... In article <6Jrxb.1680$i81.1642@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, "Rich Soyack" <r.soyack@verizon.net> wrote: "dragonlady" <mehouck@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote in message news:mehouck-4C8045.08045027112003@news.SF.sbcglobal.net... In article <WCoxb.6040$lF6.4440@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, "Rich Soyack" <r.soyack@verizon.net> wrote: \ > > > > And, of course, you know everything everyone in the world was
doing 30 > > years ago? > > > > I took it as far as I could without the $$ to hire a lawyer. I suppose > > if I'd been a hard core feminist at the time, I might have
approached > > some feminist organization about funding a lawsuit, but I did not. > > > > I lost. > > > > meh > > You didn't tell us what you did. > > Rich Soyack > > What is it about you guys and demanding proof that we have done what we've done or stood where we stood? I tried to volunteer for the draft. When I was turned down, I
appealed the decision. I kept appealing up the ladder, and continued to be turned down. I went as far as I could go, and lost. Perhaps if I'd been older and known more, I could have done more. I didn't have $$,
so I didn't hire a lawyer, which might have given me more options. What more can I tell you? Who did you go to first? Who did you appeal to? Why didn't you simply
join the Armed Services when you were turned down? Did you go to the press?
Did you go to your elected representatives? Why did I ask what you did? Its the normal follow up question when
someone seems to be patting themselves on the back and then hand waving when they are asked what they did. Let's see, 30 years ago would have put us in 1973 when the War in
Vietnam was still going on. When every man between the age of 18 and 26 was asked what
their draft status was when they applied for a job. Those of us who went through
that, I wasn't in Vietnam but I did join the Navy on my 17th birthday, tend to ask for
more than hand waving when boasts, such as yours, are made. Rich Soyack Let's review here. Someone asked if we were opposed to only men being drafted; I said yes, I was. Then someone demanded to know what I'd done about it -- I wasn't voluntarily "hand waving", but decided to answer the question. You demanded more details. I provided them. You are still asking more questions, but I get the feeling that if I answer them, whatever my answer is you will still use whatever I say as an excuse to attack further, but what the hell . . . Thirty years is an estimate; it was sometime in 1974. I wanted to volunteer for the draft rather than simply join, in part because I believed then (and continue to believe) that it was wrong for only men to be drafted. I went to both the Army and the Navy.

You went to the Army and the Navy? How do you do that?
I don't remember exactly who I appealed to -- I remember going "up" several steps with both, but it WAS a long time ago, and I just don't remember exactly what happened any more. No, I didn't go to the press -- as I pointed out several times, I was young, inexperienced and unsophisticated about such things. Had I actually BEEN a member of a feminist organization, I probably would have had more resources and more ideas about what to do and where to go. At the time, appealing to an elected representative didn't occur to me. Nor did going to the press, which, looking back, is somewhat surprising, since I knew people who worked as journalists -- what can I say, I was young and trying to get some sort of public support for what I was trying to do just didn't occur to me. Were I to try to do that NOW, it undoubtedly would.

It also didn't seem to occur to you that the Draft is administered by the
Draft
Boards and not the Army and the Navy. I would have thought that the very
first person you spoke to at the Army and the Navy would have told you that.
I DID try to join after that; however, there was a delay (I can't remember what -- maybe because they wanted me to go the OCS route -- whatever it was, it was about 10 weeks) and by the time they were ready to take me, I'd changed my mind. (I had 2 brothers in the military and a 3rd in the process of joining, and Mom talked me out of it.)

So, you had a college degree and yet you didn't seem to know the first thing
about the draft, during the time when draft stories were in the papers just
about
every day, and you knew nothing about the political process. Interesting.

Rich Soyack

Bob

11-28-2003, 05:47 PM

Nan wrote: I don't see that it is unfair

Of course Nan is a femroid and therefore anything bad that happens to a
man is not unfair.

Feminist definition: Fairness --> A woman's right to demand everything
and give nothing.

Bob

analog

11-29-2003, 11:50 PM

Nan, analog wrote:
There *are* women in the military. Yes, certainly, but none were forced to submit to a slave/death registry under penalty of substantial fine, imprisonment and forfeiture of right and privileges. Also, even the women who have volunteered under their own free will don't even come close to shouldering their proportional share of the load as measured in percentage of body bags and hospital beds filled. Got cites?

Check the Selective Service web site for the list of men only
"incentives". And just poke around on the web for the latest
military casualty figures in Iraq. They're not hard to find.

I know that the last time I checked (around the 20th of October)
the numbers for the current Iraq War were that women make up 15
percent of our armed forces and yet had suffered only four deaths.
That's about 1.5 percent of the total at that time. So that means
there are over 300 body bags just waiting to be filled by young
equality minded feminist if they were to carry their share of the
load.

This will never happen in my opinion. Feminists only demand equal
or superior rights for women, never equal responsibilities.

In the face of this ongoing and legally sanctioned (by our land's
highest court, no less) disparity, it is simply not good enough to
think you can justify your privilege by exclaiming, "But I would
vote to draft women if I could, really!".

The reality is that only men are obligated to register to be
standby cannon fodder and men should be rewarded for this special
responsibility with more than just the threat of a big stick
(imprisonment, fines and loss of government benefits given for
free to women). Where is our carrot?

That is why mostly men (and the few women who have stepped up to
the plate of equal responsibility) only have earned the right to
vote and run for office at the national level, IMO. (Of course,
for state and local elections men and women would both still be
equally eligible.)

Impotent claims of how you would make things right if you only had
the power do not excuse you when you *do* have the power to act this
very moment by pledging to give up your unearned vote. Don't be an
ungrateful slacker riding on the broken backs of men. Pledge today.

PS: Many soc.men regulars have often wondered why men have not
merited special legislation like the Violence Against Women Act.
Men already have their own Violence Against Men Act - it's called
the Draft.

analog

11-30-2003, 12:09 AM

Nan, analog, Nan, analog wrote:
> If women really were paid 70 percent of their worth then why don't> any companies take advantage of such a clear competitive edge by> hiring only women and thereby significantly lowering their single> biggest expense, payroll? Where are all the feminist run> engineering companies cleaning up the competition with their> legions of cheap but equally productive feminist engineers? Women get passed over because companies are afraid they'll take time off, or be less focused than men because women are traditionally the nurturers of family. That is not really an answer to my question, but, if anything, your observation supports the notion that women are less productive and are in general of less value to companies as workers. It's just not the answer you're looking for. You asked where were the feminist run engineering companies, and why didn't companies hire the cheaper labor. I answered you. [cut]

No you didn't. Name a feminist run engineering company that is
cleaning up the competition with its legions of 70-cents-to-the-
dollar cheaper but equally productive feminist engineers.

You can't because none exist.

Take into account all the hidden extra costs to employers of women
as employees and you will find, just as the free market already has,
that women in general are already paid what they are worth in
productivity to the company.

Nan

11-30-2003, 06:55 AM

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:09:21 GMT, analog <analog@ieee.org> wrote:
Nan, analog, Nan, analog wrote:>> If women really were paid 70 percent of their worth then why don't>> any companies take advantage of such a clear competitive edge by>> hiring only women and thereby significantly lowering their single>> biggest expense, payroll? Where are all the feminist run>> engineering companies cleaning up the competition with their>> legions of cheap but equally productive feminist engineers?>> Women get passed over because companies are afraid they'll take> time off, or be less focused than men because women are> traditionally the nurturers of family. That is not really an answer to my question, but, if anything, your observation supports the notion that women are less productive and are in general of less value to companies as workers. It's just not the answer you're looking for. You asked where were the feminist run engineering companies, and why didn't companies hire the cheaper labor. I answered you. [cut]No you didn't. Name a feminist run engineering company that iscleaning up the competition with its legions of 70-cents-to-the-dollar cheaper but equally productive feminist engineers.You can't because none exist.

Yes, I did answer you. I stated that women aren't hired because
they're seen as the nurturers of family who will inevitably either
retire, or take time off for family.

It is simply the answer you don't wish to hear.

Either way, I believe you and I have reached an impasse in this
conversation. We will have to agree to disagree.

I do appreciate your effort to keep the conversation on a civil level.

Nan

Nan

11-30-2003, 07:03 AM

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 08:50:26 GMT, analog <analog@ieee.org> wrote:
Nan, analog wrote:> There *are* women in the military. Yes, certainly, but none were forced to submit to a slave/death registry under penalty of substantial fine, imprisonment and forfeiture of right and privileges. Also, even the women who have volunteered under their own free will don't even come close to shouldering their proportional share of the load as measured in percentage of body bags and hospital beds filled. Got cites?Check the Selective Service web site for the list of men only"incentives". And just poke around on the web for the latestmilitary casualty figures in Iraq. They're not hard to find.

I'm well aware of the SS website. I researched it when my son joined
the military.
I don't believe it will give me the info you claim.
I know that the last time I checked (around the 20th of October)the numbers for the current Iraq War were that women make up 15percent of our armed forces and yet had suffered only four deaths.That's about 1.5 percent of the total at that time. So that meansthere are over 300 body bags just waiting to be filled by youngequality minded feminist if they were to carry their share of theload.

Perhaps when women are treated as equals in the military they will be
more willing to serve.
But I still believe the SS should apply equally.
This will never happen in my opinion. Feminists only demand equalor superior rights for women, never equal responsibilities.

That is simply your take on it.
In the face of this ongoing and legally sanctioned (by our land'shighest court, no less) disparity, it is simply not good enough tothink you can justify your privilege by exclaiming, "But I wouldvote to draft women if I could, really!".The reality is that only men are obligated to register to bestandby cannon fodder and men should be rewarded for this specialresponsibility with more than just the threat of a big stick(imprisonment, fines and loss of government benefits given forfree to women). Where is our carrot?

I already agreed that SS should apply equally. Oh right.... that
isn't good enough.
That is why mostly men (and the few women who have stepped up tothe plate of equal responsibility) only have earned the right tovote and run for office at the national level, IMO. (Of course,for state and local elections men and women would both still beequally eligible.)Impotent claims of how you would make things right if you only hadthe power do not excuse you when you *do* have the power to act thisvery moment by pledging to give up your unearned vote. Don't be anungrateful slacker riding on the broken backs of men. Pledge today.

Uhm, I haven't made claims about how I would make things right if I
had the power. I don't aspire to the power. But no, I won't give up
my vote. Will you give yours up for women's rights??? Funny, but I
would never ask anyone to give up their right to vote.
PS: Many soc.men regulars have often wondered why men have notmerited special legislation like the Violence Against Women Act.Men already have their own Violence Against Men Act - it's calledthe Draft.

Do all of you like to portray yourselves as weak and victims?

Either way, I feel we've reached an impasse in this conversation.
We'll have to agree to disagree and let this monster thread die a
quiet death.

I do appreciate your effort to keep the discussion civil.

Nan

Youwillnotspammeyoubastards

12-07-2003, 05:53 PM

Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FBC02DF.6050701@hotmail.com>... Kathy Cole wrote: On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:11:44 -0700, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:For most of history men have worked together for justice for alleven when their own lives were not impacted by injustice. Mentoday need to look at the injustice happening to other men andsupport equal rights even if they are not yet hurt personally. This is a fine sentiment, which would be more palatable and likely more successful, if you didn't sound like a raving, woman-hating extremist when espousing it. Your objection would sound a lot more palatable if you didn't keep supporting misandrist bigotry in almost every post. Hate is not a good way to make friends. It is so typical of femroids to attack the speaker who defends MEN and supports MEN against the onslaught of feminist destruction. Sorry Toots, that tactic doesn't work any more. Your definition of "woman-hating extremist" amounts to opposing feminism and your feminist beliefs. Too bad Toots. Your femroid fantasy days are numbered. Deal with it. Feminist definition: "Misogynist" --> n. someone winning a debate with a feminist. Usually used as an ad-hominem attack. Bob

Bob - the condescending way you call ppl "toots" pisses me off. Get to
the subject, not the person, in any debate.

ChrisScaife

12-07-2003, 09:43 PM

> > Feminist definition: "Misogynist" --> n. someone winning a debate with a feminist. Usually used as an ad-hominem attack. Bob Bob - the condescending way you call ppl "toots" pisses me off. Get to the subject, not the person, in any debate.

If you have not been thru it you might not understand.
I don't know Bob or what his story is.
I know mine.
I can sympathise with his anger regardless of how it is expressed.
If you had been robbed of everything you held dear, would you be as
reasonable as Bob?

Bob

12-07-2003, 10:05 PM

Youwillnotspammeyoubastards wrote: Bob - the condescending way you call ppl "toots" pisses me off. Get to the subject, not the person, in any debate.

Boo Hoo, spammybastard is pissed off. Boo Hoo. I'm crying in my
pretzels.

If you don't like the heat, toots, stay out of the kitchen.

Bob

Youwillnotspammeyoubastards

12-09-2003, 05:15 PM

Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FD422CF.1040105@hotmail.com>... Youwillnotspammeyoubastards wrote: Bob - the condescending way you call ppl "toots" pisses me off. Get to the subject, not the person, in any debate. Boo Hoo, spammybastard is pissed off. Boo Hoo. I'm crying in my pretzels. If you don't like the heat, toots, stay out of the kitchen. Bob

Bob - its easy to see why you're angry, but hard to understand what
you're going to do about it, other than whinge and construct a tiny
world around that keeps reality from touching you. Face it, if you
want a girl, then you'll have to compromise. If you don't, go right
ahead and don't have one. Your choice, as always. And get a prenuptial
signed next time.

Bob

12-09-2003, 05:51 PM

Youwillnotspammeyoubastards wrote: Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FD422CF.1040105@hotmail.com>...Youwillnotspammeyoubastards wrote:Bob - the condescending way you call ppl "toots" pisses me off. Get tothe subject, not the person, in any debate.Boo Hoo, spammybastard is pissed off. Boo Hoo. I'm crying in mypretzels.If you don't like the heat, toots, stay out of the kitchen.Bob Bob - its easy to see why you're angry, but hard to understand what you're going to do about it,

Your difficulty understanding is nobody's problem but your own.

other than whinge and construct a tiny world around that keeps reality from touching you. Face it, if you want a girl, then you'll have to compromise. If you don't, go right ahead and don't have one. Your choice, as always. And get a prenuptial signed next time.

What part of "off the wall" did that comment come from? Is that your
version of "understanding"?

Bob

Dave M

12-10-2003, 07:22 AM

tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<bq114k$kv9@rac1.wam.umd.edu>... In article <bq0tqt$1rr4e8$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in messagenews:bq0sth$d9p@rac1.wam.umd.edu... In article <bq0ksq$1rpa0d$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: > >"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message[] >> So you don't consider what Marc Le Pine did to be murder? >> >> (This question is addressed to both Bob and Jayne.) > >I think what Marc LePine did was wrong and would consider it murder. But I >can understand how people could see feminism as declaring war on men and his >actions as retaliation. Pretty dangerous semantic game you're playing there. There's an awfully fine line between understanding and encouraging, and I'm not entirely sure you haven't crossed it.I believe in non-violence. I even believe in non-violent speech on Usenetand so maintain a personal policy of never flaming. There is no cause thatI believe in, no matter how passionately, that I would kill for.What Bob is doing with the Golden Bull award is making a point. He issaying that the injustice perpetrated against men under the influence offeminism has reached a point where it can be considered a war on men. He issaying that men's lives are being lost in this war and people need to takeit seriously. Unfortunately, it seems that some people are not going totake it seriously unless women lose their lives, so Bob portrays femaledeaths as casualties on the women's side. It is bloody and violent imagery,not a style that I would use myself. However, I agree with the underlyingmessage that something is very wrong with the way that men are beingtreated. What Bob does when he bemoans the fact that Marc Le Pine didn't kill more women is to argue in support of cold-blooded murder. Dance around it all you want, but by being an apologist for his cheerleading for rapists and murderers, you are doing something far worse than flaming on usenet. And all the dainty pseudo-intellectual weasel words in the world (like "not a style I would use myself") really don't diminish your culpability one whit.

Neither do they increase it. You are trying to apply blame where there
is none.
It is an opinion which is being expressed - nothing more.
As for Bob - his opinion that there is a war on... is close to the
truth (it is as yet undeclared and unrecognised) - but just a couple
more years - and more women will start to die. not something I want -
neither do I encourage it.... but (as Oliver Cromwell put it - ) when
people run out of words... they reach for the sword ! Simple Fact !

Dave M

12-10-2003, 07:34 AM

<snip>If femroids don't want to lose the war they need to stop attacking men. When feminists go to war, the other side, those whom they attacked, iscompletely moral to fight back. The war on men is the feminist war.Bob If you have not put your sick philosophy into practice, I hope you get help before you mistake Jayne's misguided sympathy for support and do something that lands you in prison or on death row. If, on the other hand, you have, you may very well belong there.

Why do you find the idea of a "real" w a r with men just a tad
scary... do you think suggesting that he will end up on death row will
prevent him from taking sides... how little you understand men. Men
have been giving their lives for causes which they believe to be right
and just for eons. Women have not ! If you are not scared of what is
coming yet.... get ready for the big surprise - that noise in the
night gunna send your 'wasman' to investigate it ?

Bob is not insane enough to go do it for real - he just sees it coming
- the undercurrents are there NOW.... Your problem is that you are
going to try to say boo - and make it go away. It don't work darlin'.

Bob

12-10-2003, 08:44 AM

tjab wrote: In article <bq0tqt$1rr4e8$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>, Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in messagenews:bq0sth$d9p@rac1.wam.umd.edu...In article <bq0ksq$1rpa0d$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>,Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:>"tjab" <tjab@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message[]>>So you don't consider what Marc Le Pine did to be murder?>>>>(This question is addressed to both Bob and Jayne.)>>I think what Marc LePine did was wrong and would consider it murder. ButI>can understand how people could see feminism as declaring war on men andhis>actions as retaliation.Pretty dangerous semantic game you're playing there. There's an awfullyfine line between understanding and encouraging, and I'm not entirelysure you haven't crossed it.I believe in non-violence. I even believe in non-violent speech on Usenetand so maintain a personal policy of never flaming. There is no cause thatI believe in, no matter how passionately, that I would kill for.What Bob is doing with the Golden Bull award is making a point. He issaying that the injustice perpetrated against men under the influence offeminism has reached a point where it can be considered a war on men. He issaying that men's lives are being lost in this war and people need to takeit seriously. Unfortunately, it seems that some people are not going totake it seriously unless women lose their lives, so Bob portrays femaledeaths as casualties on the women's side. It is bloody and violent imagery,not a style that I would use myself. However, I agree with the underlyingmessage that something is very wrong with the way that men are beingtreated. What Bob does when he bemoans the fact that Marc Le Pine didn't kill more women is to argue in support of cold-blooded murder.

Wrong! Lépine wasn't killing "women" toots. He was killing "feminists!"

If you don't like the war, or are afraid of the war, go cry to your
feminist sisters who started it and are fighting to destroy men as
quickly as they can.

Dance around it all you want, but by being an apologist for his cheerleading for rapists and murderers, you are doing something far worse than flaming on usenet.

Dance around it all you want, but being an apologist for the feminazi
war on men that kills, maims, imprisons, and destroys millions of men is
something far worse than having an opinion.

Go cry to your femroid sisters. It's their war. They have no
protection. When you start a war, you live or die with the results.

Bob

tjab

12-12-2003, 04:39 AM

In article <3FD75B95.80801@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:tjab wrote: What Bob does when he bemoans the fact that Marc Le Pine didn't kill more women is to argue in support of cold-blooded murder.Wrong! Lépine wasn't killing "women" toots. He was killing "feminists!"

Wrong. Le Pine was murdering women. You know, like you have at least one
of in your family.

Bob

12-12-2003, 05:21 AM

tjab wrote: In article <3FD75B95.80801@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:tjab wrote:What Bob does when he bemoans the fact that Marc Le Pine didn'tkill more women is to argue in support of cold-blooded murder.Wrong! Lépine wasn't killing "women" toots. He was killing "feminists!" Wrong. Le Pine was murdering women. You know, like you have at least one of in your family.

We're sure you can provide some evidence for that claim?

tjab

12-12-2003, 05:48 AM

In article <3FD9CEE4.5050807@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:tjab wrote: Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:tjab wrote:>What Bob does when he bemoans the fact that Marc Le Pine didn't>kill more women is to argue in support of cold-blooded murder.Wrong! Lépine wasn't killing "women" toots. He was killing "feminists!" Wrong. Le Pine was murdering women. You know, like you have at least one of in your family.We're sure you can provide some evidence for that claim?

Sorry, I guess I should have said "have or had." That was very
insensitive of me.

Bob

12-12-2003, 05:58 AM

tjab wrote: In article <3FD9CEE4.5050807@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:tjab wrote:Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>tjab wrote:>>>>What Bob does when he bemoans the fact that Marc Le Pine didn't>>kill more women is to argue in support of cold-blooded murder.>>Wrong! Lépine wasn't killing "women" toots. He was killing "feminists!"Wrong. Le Pine was murdering women. You know, like you have at least oneof in your family.We're sure you can provide some evidence for that claim? Sorry, I guess I should have said "have or had." That was very insensitive of me.

IOW: You admit that Lépine was taking the war feminists started back to
them by counter attacking.

tjab

12-12-2003, 08:44 AM

In article <3FD9D792.1050808@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:tjab wrote: In article <3FD9CEE4.5050807@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:tjab wrote:>Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>>>tjab wrote:>>>>>What Bob does when he bemoans the fact that Marc Le Pine didn't>>>kill more women is to argue in support of cold-blooded murder.>>>>Wrong! Lépine wasn't killing "women" toots. He was killing "feminists!">>Wrong. Le Pine was murdering women. You know, like you have at least one>of in your family.>We're sure you can provide some evidence for that claim? Sorry, I guess I should have said "have or had." That was very insensitive of me.IOW: You admit that Lépine was taking the war feminists started back tothem by counter attacking.

No, I admit that your mother may no longer be living. Geez, talk about
jumping to conclusions!

Dave M

12-15-2003, 04:58 AM

tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<brcgf6$c4p@rac2.wam.umd.edu>... In article <3FD75B95.80801@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:tjab wrote: What Bob does when he bemoans the fact that Marc Le Pine didn't kill more women is to argue in support of cold-blooded murder.Wrong! Lépine wasn't killing "women" toots. He was killing "feminists!" Wrong. Le Pine was murdering women. You know, like you have at least one of in your family.

Yeah - maybe I have - and maybe haven't - but whatever my situation -
this statement is totally irrelevant. (Barbie Rule number: 6892 -
Change the conversation when you do not like what is being said. Do
not deal with anything you do not want to hear. Deflect at all costs
the direction of the conversation).

However the big Question - which Bob has been reflecting on is... WHY
("Le Pine was murdering women").... Bob reckons it is war. You have
said that because he thinks it is war and takes some satisfaction in
this perceived war taking place - he is complicit in the act itself.
This is not the case.

If Bob is right about there being a beginning to the war - it is still
none of his responsability. It would be called 'recognition'.He might
hope for such a war It would then be called 'wishful thinking'. - But
it is not his responsability.

After all - when you switch on the news - on the goggle box - and it
is boring - with nothing which interests you - and you wish there was
some 'real' news - does that make you complicit in whatever 'real'
news next appears on the screen in front of you ? - I thought not !

Bob

12-15-2003, 08:33 AM

Dave M wrote: tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<brcgf6$c4p@rac2.wam.umd.edu>...In article <3FD75B95.80801@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:tjab wrote:>What Bob does when he bemoans the fact that Marc Le Pine didn't>kill more women is to argue in support of cold-blooded murder.Wrong! Lépine wasn't killing "women" toots. He was killing "feminists!"Wrong. Le Pine was murdering women. You know, like you have at least oneof in your family.

Mr. Lepine said he was killing feminists. That was his intent and his
actions.

Yeah - maybe I have - and maybe haven't - but whatever my situation - this statement is totally irrelevant. (Barbie Rule number: 6892 - Change the conversation when you do not like what is being said. Do not deal with anything you do not want to hear. Deflect at all costs the direction of the conversation). However the big Question - which Bob has been reflecting on is... WHY ("Le Pine was murdering women").... Bob reckons it is war. You have said that because he thinks it is war and takes some satisfaction in this perceived war taking place - he is complicit in the act itself. This is not the case.

The war on men destroys millions of men. People who start wars always
believe they are going to win them and that someone else will die. Its
always a rude awakening when the enemy they attacked gets the best of
them. Feminists want a one way war, but war doesn't stay one way forever.

Bob

If Bob is right about there being a beginning to the war - it is still none of his responsability. It would be called 'recognition'.He might hope for such a war It would then be called 'wishful thinking'. - But it is not his responsability. After all - when you switch on the news - on the goggle box - and it is boring - with nothing which interests you - and you wish there was some 'real' news - does that make you complicit in whatever 'real' news next appears on the screen in front of you ? - I thought not !

tjab

12-15-2003, 09:26 AM

In article <27fce6dd.0312150558.7ecf8404@posting.google.com>,
Dave M <djm_gb@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<brcgf6$c4p@rac2.wam.umd.edu>... In article <3FD75B95.80801@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:tjab wrote:>> What Bob does when he bemoans the fact that Marc Le Pine didn't> kill more women is to argue in support of cold-blooded murder.Wrong! Lépine wasn't killing "women" toots. He was killing "feminists!" Wrong. Le Pine was murdering women. You know, like you have at least one of in your family.Yeah - maybe I have - and maybe haven't - but whatever my situation -

I couldn't care less what you have. I was talking to Bob.
However the big Question - which Bob has been reflecting on is... WHY("Le Pine was murdering women").... Bob reckons

Are you Bob's lawyer? Has he asked you to represent him? Do you
believe him incapable of speaking for himself? If none of these,
who are you to be telling anyone what Bob "reckons?"

tjab

12-15-2003, 09:51 AM

In article <3FDDF069.2050909@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Dave M wrote: tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<brcgf6$c4p@rac2.wam.umd.edu>...In article <3FD75B95.80801@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>tjab wrote:>>>What Bob does when he bemoans the fact that Marc Le Pine didn't>>kill more women is to argue in support of cold-blooded murder.>>Wrong! Lépine wasn't killing "women" toots. He was killing "feminists!"Wrong. Le Pine was murdering women. You know, like you have at least oneof in your family.Mr. Lepine said he was killing feminists. That was his intent and hisactions.The war on men destroys millions of men. People who start wars alwaysbelieve they are going to win them and that someone else will die. Itsalways a rude awakening when the enemy they attacked gets the best ofthem. Feminists want a one way war, but war doesn't stay one way forever.

Bob desperately needs to read up on the rules of war.

Bob is also desperately in need of a moral education.

A question for you, Bob. Why did Le Pine blow his own
brains out at the end of his murder spree?

Bob

12-15-2003, 09:55 AM

tjab wrote: In article <3FDDF069.2050909@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Dave M wrote:tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<brcgf6$c4p@rac2.wam.umd.edu>...>In article <3FD75B95.80801@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>>>>tjab wrote:>>>>>>>What Bob does when he bemoans the fact that Marc Le Pine didn't>>>kill more women is to argue in support of cold-blooded murder.>>>>Wrong! Lépine wasn't killing "women" toots. He was killing "feminists!">>Wrong. Le Pine was murdering women. You know, like you have at least one>of in your family.Mr. Lepine said he was killing feminists. That was his intent and hisactions.The war on men destroys millions of men. People who start wars alwaysbelieve they are going to win them and that someone else will die. Itsalways a rude awakening when the enemy they attacked gets the best ofthem. Feminists want a one way war, but war doesn't stay one way forever. Bob desperately needs to read up on the rules of war. Bob is also desperately in need of a moral education. A question for you, Bob. Why did Le Pine blow his own brains out at the end of his murder spree?

To avoid capture by the feminist minions. DUH!

Bob

12-15-2003, 09:55 AM

tjab wrote: In article <27fce6dd.0312150558.7ecf8404@posting.google.com>, Dave M <djm_gb@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<brcgf6$c4p@rac2.wam.umd.edu>...In article <3FD75B95.80801@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:>tjab wrote:>>>What Bob does when he bemoans the fact that Marc Le Pine didn't>>kill more women is to argue in support of cold-blooded murder.>>Wrong! Lépine wasn't killing "women" toots. He was killing "feminists!"Wrong. Le Pine was murdering women. You know, like you have at least oneof in your family.Yeah - maybe I have - and maybe haven't - but whatever my situation - I couldn't care less what you have. I was talking to Bob.However the big Question - which Bob has been reflecting on is... WHY("Le Pine was murdering women").... Bob reckons Are you Bob's lawyer? Has he asked you to represent him? Do you believe him incapable of speaking for himself? If none of these, who are you to be telling anyone what Bob "reckons?"

if tjab had a clue she'd be dangerous.

Dave M

12-19-2003, 03:09 AM

tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<brkucl$d8p@rac2.wam.umd.edu>... In article <27fce6dd.0312150558.7ecf8404@posting.google.com>, Dave M <djm_gb@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in message news:<brcgf6$c4p@rac2.wam.umd.edu>... In article <3FD75B95.80801@hotmail.com>, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote: >tjab wrote: >> >> What Bob does when he bemoans the fact that Marc Le Pine didn't >> kill more women is to argue in support of cold-blooded murder. > >Wrong! Lépine wasn't killing "women" toots. He was killing "feminists!" Wrong. Le Pine was murdering women. You know, like you have at least one of in your family.Yeah - maybe I have - and maybe haven't - but whatever my situation - I couldn't care less what you have. I was talking to Bob.

Barbie rule number: 4281. Whenever you cannot answer a question -
ignore it.
Barbie rule number: 4282. Whenever you cannot ignore a question -
suggest that the subject matter being discussed is private - even in a
public arena.
However the big Question - which Bob has been reflecting on is... WHY("Le Pine was murdering women").... Bob reckons Are you Bob's lawyer? Has he asked you to represent him? Do you believe him incapable of speaking for himself? If none of these, who are you to be telling anyone what Bob "reckons?"

I was just attempting to explain for you as you appear not to
comprehend what Bob is saying. You were appearing to be in dire need
of this as your attacks on Bobs opinion were just plain incorrect.

In answer to your questions (as I have no problem answering (most)
questions unlike some I could mention).

No I am not Bobs lawyer (Barbie rule number: 2188 - Try to invalidate
the opinion of the speaker by pointing out that they are not an expert
in the field - thereby implying that you yourself are just such an
expert. Barbie rule number: 1434 - Attempt to divide aligned groups or
persons by implying that one or other of them is attempting to usurp
the others authority to speak for themselves.)

Also I am sure that Bob needs no-one to represent him. I have not even
tried. I have tried to educate the (obviously - in my oh so humble
opinion) ignorant (iow - you) to understand what they themselves are
actually trying to say.

Lastly - I am not sure that Bob is in the least bit concerned as to
whether I educate you on his behalf. He needs no-one to educate him on
his opinions.
the way I see it - you have now found yourself sitting on the wrong
side of a very high fence - you are are in denial of the truth (as you
always have been) as it is easier to claim victimhood than face the
truth. I go so far as to say that you and your ilk are now running
scared.

What a shame !