Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2005 07:52:46 -0800, "Ben"
 wrote:
>
> >
> >Hyerdahl wrote:
> >> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> >> > On 10 Mar 2005 06:33:11 -0800, "Hyerdahl"

> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> I was thinking myself that if either Condoleeza Rice or
Hillary
> >> > >> Clinton or any woman became president, it's
quite possible
that
> >> the
> >> > >> government would subsidize or otherwise actively promote
> >> > >> gender-selection abortion, targeting males for
extinction and
> >that
> >> > >> behind a pink iron curtain, mass butcheries would begin.
> >
> >I'm thinking this is out there a tad.
>
>
>
> I'm thinking that NOTHING is inconceivable when we are talking about
> the war on males.

Here's hoping I'm right and you're wrong.

>
>
>
> >> > >:-)  :-)  :-)  You are such an insecure little Sim cockpuppet.
> >:-)
> >> > >It's funny, tho.  Here's the thing, women are already CHOOSING
the
> >> > >families they want to have, here in the west.  When
they choose
to
> >> have
> >> > >male children, they also can choose how they are raised.
> >
> >They seem to be favoring boys, when given a choice.  I'm good with
> >that.
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Well, I appreciate the concession, Puke.
> >>
> >> There was no "concession", Dave Sim;
> >
> >Just how many Dave Sims have you found?  :)
> >
> >>  just the observation that women
> >> continue to choose the types of familes THEY want.
> >>
> >>
> >> > You used to deny that mothers were responsible for children who
> >> turned
> >> > out bad.
> >>
> >> ????   Children who fail are the product of many social ills.
Using
> >> terms like "children who TURN OUT bad" are way too
simplistic for
the
> >> amount of societal problems that work against our nation's
children,
> >
> >And yet we continue to see children from a particular set of
> >circumstances, i.e., homes without fathers, over-represented in
> >categories that indicate they're not doing well.
> >
> >
> >> but I don't have the NEED to blame only one social group.  You do.
> >
> >You have a NEED to try and swing *any* responsibility away from
women
> >or feminism at all, in this or any other area.
> >
> >> You're very needy when it comes to your need to expose your
bigotry
> >and
> >> sexism.
> >
> >I don't know, Hy--you're about as sexist and racist as they come
here.
> >You're just in deeper denial about it.
> >
> >>
> >> > But now, you appear to be acknowledging that women choose how
their
> >> > kids are raised.
> >>
> >> Western women certainly have an abundance of choices in how their
> >> children are born and raised.  If a man isn't worthy of being a
> >father,
> >> no western woman is legally forced to bear the unworthy seed in
order
> >> to give him a son.
> >
> >They don't have to be legally forced--they seem to be tripping over
> >each other to have sex with and bear the children of men who are
> >*clearly* not good father potential.  Must be that "bad
boy" thing.
> >
> >>  AND, if the man is unworthy as a life partner, she
> >> need not include such a man in her family.
> >
> >Need not and won't are two different things.
> >
> >>  Blaming women isn't at
> >> issue here,
> >
> >Holding women--or perhaps more accurately, feminism--accountable for
> >anything has never been an issue with you; you simply don't do it.
> >
> >> as much as the acknowledgement that she need not remain
> >> with or have her children fathered by an unworthy man.
> >
> >Tons of unworthy mothers out there, too.  Unfortunately, a higher
> >percentage of them get the kids than do unworthy fathers.
> >
> >>
> >>  So kids that turn out bad turn out bad due to bad
> >> > mothering, right?
> >>
> >> See above.  Men who abandon their children still abandon them,
> >
> >Unless they're forced away, or have their children moved away from
> >them, and some silly asshole who can't tell the difference between
that
> >and abandonment decrees them to be "deadbeat dads".
> >
> >> and
> >> there are all kinds of other social issues that effect children.
> >
> >And yet, being without a father seems to set a foundation for many
of
> >them.
> >
> >>  So,
> >> no...we don't blame the mothers who stay for the actions of the
> >fathers
> >> who don't.
> >
> >We do if she deprived him of contact.
> >
> >>  And we don't blame women for being on the grassy knoll
> >> simply because we never solved the JFK assasignation.
> >
> >Lee Harvey Oswald did it--it was in the papers.
>
>
> Surely, you don't believe everything that you read in the newspapers.

No, but that's what I get for not putting a smily face after the
sentence.  :)

>
> Lee Harvey Oswald was the only individual to fire with intent to
kill,
> but JFK's head was blown off by Secret Service Agent George Warren
> Hickey, who was riding in the follow-up vehicle, and whose AR-15
> accidentally went off when he tried to return Oswald's fire.
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312080743/qid=1110605809/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-5589776-5808932?v=glance&s=books
>

Shit, Now I gotta go buy another book.  I'm going to assume you read
this, GA.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/12/05 8:56:31 AM ---