"John Royer" (john.royer2{at}sympatico.ca) writes:
> "Doug Anderson" 
wrote in message
> news:393gcnF5rq6lpU4{at}individual.net...
>> dg411{at}FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) writes:
>>
>>> "JWB" (jwb3333__takeoutallthis__{at}excite.com) writes:
>>> > "John Royer" 
wrote in message
>>> > news:Ud%Wd.6749$fW4.231944{at}news20.bellglobal.com...
>>> >
>>> >> If it would be unfair to say that all women are
airheads because most
>>> >> women are not, and it would be unfair to say that all
kids are bad,
>>> >> because most kids are not, why is it ok to say that men have
>>> >> maintained
>>> >> superior priveleges most of the time, when most men have not?
>>> >> Or does the history book you have not write and
record the fact that
>>> >> for
>>> >> every woman that is killed violently, 4 men are
killed violently.
>>> >
>>> > how many (of both sexes) are killed by men, and how many by women?
>>>
>>> How is it better for a man to be killed by another man, rather than by
>>> a woman ? Your statement implies this.
>>
>> No it doesn't imply that.
>>
>> John is implying that feminism is at fault because more men die
>> violently than women.  This is a tough argument to maintain in the
>> face of who it is that does the killing (mostly men, not feminists).
>
> Again the fallacy of your reasoned discourse comes through. I in no way
> implied feminism is responsible for the disparate number of male to female
> deaths.

Indeed. What shows Feminism's ingrained misandry is that, *in spite of the
facts that more men are assaulted and killed, then women, Feminist groups
demand that more and more services be created for the women victims, only*.

> My point is that as a society if we are going to address wrongs does
> it not make more sense to pay attention to the greater evil? Feminism does
> not support this. They want the funding directed to womens issues only.

Exactly. That is clear proof that Feminism is NOT about some mythical
call for " equality ", as it's only interested in how much women *get*.

" Why are the two largest male events of recent years-- Promise Keepers,
and The Million Man March-- concerned with how men can do a better job
of giviing, while the two largest female efforts-- NOW and The Million
Women March-- are about how women can do an even better job of
getting ? " Jack Kammer, " If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women
Make All The Rules ? ", 1999, page 60.

>>> >> Or that men do far more of the more dangerous jobs
because they must,
>>> >> otherwise our society as we know it would not exist?
>>> >
>>> > "jobs" as we know them are a fairly recent
thing. Most people worked
>>> > for themselves until the industrial age (even serfs were basically
>>> > self-employed).
>
> Serfs worked the land of the nobles. If they did not they were expelled
> MEN, women and children. However the biggest difference was If the noble
> decided to go to war the MALE serfs were required ( or expelled) to fight
> for the noble and die.

And, until the draft ended *in the 1970s*, nothing about this changed.
So, women got more rights and freedoms, starting in the 1910s, yet the
fact that men got nothing for another 60 years, is somehow proof that
women were discriminated against ? AS that IS the Feminist argument,
going, as it does, exactly against the actual historical facts.

> The women and children suffered too. I see no priveledge here.
> BTW. What about the noble women? I can't recall a charitable movement
> organized by them to help lessen the burden of the serfs. They protected
> their priveledge just as zealously as the men did.

Thus, torpedoing any claims of women's innate greater sensitivity and
generousity...

>>> Flounce evasion noted.
>>>
>>> > And in our society, your job is your choice.
>>>
>>> And, such choices are the reason that women, as a class, earn less $$
>>> than do men, as a class. See Warren Farrell " Why Men
Earn More ", 2005.
>
> Any yet they use the statistic that women learnn 33% less than men. Who
> wants their cake?

Indeed. Women *have* equal rights, and in many cases, *greater* rights
than men. Yet, to MIsandrist Feminists, this is not enough.

NOW had a couple of articles on their website a while back. One stated
that 84% of single parent families had the mother as the only adult. One
may surmise that at least a part of this trend is women being heavily
favoured when divorce brings issues of who gets custody of the child.

Yet, another article there, claimed that " Biased Family Courts System
Hurts *Mothers* "

Thus, according to NOW, winning 84% of the time.... *isn't enough* !

>>> >> Or the fact that men live on avaerage 7 years less
than women and yet
>>> >> 90% of the funding goes towards womens medical
issues? etc.etc.etc.
>>> >
>>> > Men statistically live shorter lives due to war / the jobs they
>>> > *choose* / etc.
>
> While a contributing factor, the question is why is 90% of medical
> research directed to womens issues in ANGLO SAXON societies?

Indeed. Note that the Feminist fallacious claimant had NO facts to back
up their cowshit...

>>> Wrong. But, thanks for showing that you don't know what you're talking
>>> about.
>>>
>>> At the time that women, stastically, have their first cardiac event,
>>> most men have been dead for several years. Yet, women's health care
>>> gets far more funding, nonetheless.
>>>
>>> How many " runs for prostate cancer " have you seen
Teevee ads for ?
>>> As many men die from prostate cancer as do women die from breast cancer.
>>> But, the latter gets ten times the health research funding that the
>>> former gets.
>>
>> Could it be because the survival rate for prostate cancer is now 97% in
>> the US?
>
> And still just as many men die as do women for breast cancer.

Again, note the *evasion* from the facts used by the MIsandrist Feminist.
Plus, the use of a partial statistic, which would only make some sense
were it *coupled* with the overall survival rate for breast cancer.

Feminists love to play this game: " And now, a partial score: Stamford,
23. " ( George Carlin ).

> Where is the funding for prostate?

An order of magnitude *beneath* breast cancer.

> Both are scourages. My question would be, If men pay half of the taxes,
> (likely more) then how come 50% of medical is not directed towards men?

Because that would be fair and equal, and Feminists are... *neither*.

>> (see http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/prostate/prostate.htm).
>>
>> In other words, we _know_ what to do about prostate cancer.
>>
>>> > I will agree that it seems a larger amount is spent on
women's medical
>>> > issues.
>>>
>>> And, thats why women live longer.
>>
>> I think you have it backwards.  Women use more health care resources
>> _because_ they live longer (on average).

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

Andre


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


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/8/05 12:08:36 PM ---