mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
> > Mark Sobolewski wrote:
>
> > > I think women increasingly are working more and more as
> > > social safety nets crash down in the United States
> > > and even in Europe.
> >
> > I think all people are working more and more during reigns of
terror
> > designed to oppress the poor and mid-class make the rich richer.
>
> As Barry Goldwater put it: The same government that
> can give you everything you want is the same one
> that can take it all away.
>
Govt. hasn't the power to give or take away "everything"; they can
certainly create havoc during their reign however.  You seem to be
striving for less govt. and I'm ok with that, as it effects spending.
I'm NOT ok with it when it comes to civil rights.


> This is a wonderful example of my point that for every
> single goodie the gimmie-gals got, they usually had
> to make a hidden concession elsewhere.  In a way,
> that's equality don't you think? :-)
>
Not really, men are having the same things taken away, so it's not
really about women, here.

> (edit)

> > > Women got special political victim status, but to achieve it,
> > > racial minorities were needed to build a coalition resulting
> > > in racial violence in the states that women are > always in fear
of
> > (check out most inner city office complexes in the US and see how
> many women walk around past dusk...)
> > >
> > It is well known and historically acknowledged that women face
> rampant > invideous discrimination,
>
> Yes, it's clear from all the preferences women have in education
> resulting in their higher enrollment rates than men and
> all the money they get in family court and lower sentencing
> in criminal court how invideous this discrimination is... :-)
>
Proof is everything Mark; when you're able to proove all that frothing
at the mouth, we can talk.  Simply saying a thing is not proving it.
(edit)
> >
>  but racial violence effects men more than
> > women.  More men are injured or killed in racial violence.
>
> Agreed.  But women feel a stronger emotional impact in the
> situation.

Hahahaha...Actually I prefer logic to emotion, Mark.  I'll leave those
emotional arguments (the ones without proof) for you to offer.

 (edit of Mark's personal stories)

> So, I'm not sure why Mark wants to say that women have been
victimized by their own> feminism?
> >
> > >> Family court bashing men?  Other hand: welfare state
> > > robbing working women to pay for unwed mothers.
> >
> > We all pay taxes, Mark.
>
> Indeed!  Only the hardcore feminists cheered on single welfare
> mothers while most normal working heterosexual women broke ranks.

I myself supported welfare reform, Mark.  No one likes the idea of
welfare, but it is now reduced to it's true intention, that of a safety
net for children.
>
> > Suggesting that women are paying more taxes
> > doesn't work for me.  :-)
>
> Non-sequitur.  I said that women were paying more taxes
> because of feminism OVERALL just as men do.  Nowhere
> in that particular statement is it implied that men
> paid less taxes.

So, you are saying that feminism effects men more?  :-)
>
>(edit)
> Here's the thing: Despite all the so-called "equality"
> and continued chivalrous handouts such as alimony,
> you still have to make women out as being oppressed
> by some boogyman Patriarch somewhere in their hidden
> fortress.

 Alimony isn't provided out of chivalry; it's actually payment for a
sacrifice of career to care for home and hearth.  If we end alimony
altogether, we will also end marriage as YOU know it.  :-)

> (edit)>
> We don't need to force abused women to stay with abusers just to
satisfy your> misogynistic NEEDS.
>
> As many women are discovering, being a single spinster
> woman or winding up working long hours as a corporate
> droid to be a single mother isn't a walk in a rose
> garden either.
>
I never promised you a rose garden, Mark;  equal rights is all I've
ever had to offer.  If a woman wants a sugar daddy (or you a sugar
mommy) that takes extra effort.  :-)

> The so-called abuser at least paid the bills and didn't leave
> the poor woman to yearn for Germanic liberators. :-)

Commenting about the better educations of the French and Germans has
little to do with needing to be liberated, Mark;  all Americans need to
do here is smarten up and vote better people into office.  :-)

>
> > > Men built stuff.  You gals just squandered any power you had.
> >
> > Tell that to the huge number of young women who are now attending
> > college.  :-)
>
> That's just it: ATTENDING college alone doesn't accomplish squat.

Well, there was a recent report out showing that colledge educated folk
of both sexes make more money than there less educated peers.  In that
regard, college seems a very good thing.

> Zilch.  Nada.  Graduating doesn't accomplish anything either.
> Ultimately, the young women's personal lives include
> their family, a healthy work environment they find fulfilling,
> and a cost of living that's affordable for them.

WEll, all that sounds very good, Mark.  I'm not adverse to women
finding any of those things, and once educated, they are more likely to
find exactly what they're looking for, no?

> The urban sprawl and highly competitive environment that
> feminism has thrust such women into is in all ways
> less fulfilling for most women's overall goals.

You're assuming that you KNOW women's goals.  In fact, women have as
many goals as there are women to have them.  One of my son's friends
has a  friend who is in her final year of  a music college back east;
she has already been recruited into a well known orchestra.  Her goals
are unique, and now he must decide whether or not to move to where she
will be working.  I think this is how the world works now.  It's no
longer ONLY the woman who must change her plans to suit his.

>
> regards,
> Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/31/05 8:47:39 PM ---