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.

> > >
> >
> > >:-)  :-)  :-)  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.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/11/05 12:42:09 PM ---