http://www.angryharry.com/

Comments by AH

Swedish Feministas "We want to take back the official space. We want the 
same rights and have the same respect as men do in this society. If laws are 
necessary, well, then we demand them," they continued. [ 
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1066&date=20050308 ]

Do you know what?

AH really, really, really hates feminists.

They are bad enough when it comes to creating hatred and disharmony in 
relatively wealthy countries, but can you just imagine how much more 
horrible will be the outcomes in poorer countries who might come under their 
malicious influences?

And in the following article we see, yet again, the permanent economic 
turmoil and hopelessness brought about by feminism.

+ Ninety percent of Swedish women would be better off if they were on sick 
benefits, a new report has shown. The study, by academics at Stockholm's 
Karolinska Institute, showed that non-professional women are effectively 
being deprived of incentives to return to work. [ 
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=962&date=20050212&PHPSESSID=aa558ed66effa0ba3fade0d997f9e642
]

Basically, women get paid handsomely for staying at home, so they do not go 
out to work. And because they do not go out to work, the feminists blame 
their allegedly lower pay packets, so-called employment discrimination, and, 
of course, men.

But, the larger is the incentive for women to stay at home, the more that 
must be done for them to get them out to work!

In other words, a never-ending cycle of goodies must be handed out to women 
no matter what they choose to do - all paid for by men, of course.

Indeed, if women who stayed at home were paid via government handouts 
exactly the same amount of money as men who went out to work, then women 
would not go out to work.

Unsurprisingly.

And the feminists would then argue that the men were holding them back!

And this, of course, was pretty much the situation that prevailed some 60 
years ago. The men went out to work and the women stayed at home. The women 
did not receive government handouts because the men were financially 
responsible for their families - and take it from AH, they were forced to be 
financially responsible for their families.

There were no-opt out clauses!

And what did the feminists do?

They moaned about it.

And they claimed that the women who stayed at home were the victims of male 
oppression and that the men were holding them back.

But now the feminists keep demanding that their governments give money to 
women so that they can stay at home!

It does not matter what men do, western governments and feminists will 
continue to heap hatred upon them and to blame them for what women 
themselves decide to do.

Goodness me. Even when women actually kill their partners they are deemed 
mostly to have been their victims - in one way or another!

For example, ...

Domestically Violent Women They [women] struck out in reaction unlike men, 
who typically strike out to show power and control. Women interpreted their 
violence as self-defense or a way to show a man his aggressive behavior has 
to stop. Most learned the power of violence from their parents, boyfriends 
and spouses. [ http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/news/2392.html ] Cynthia 
Taggart - suggesting that domestically-violent women are 'victims' whereas 
domestically-violent men are not.




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/18/05 4:59:39 PM ---