Dave Symn wrote:
> On 1 Apr 2005 12:37:08 -0800, Hyerdahl wrote:
>
> > Viking wrote:
> >> On 29 Mar 2005 10:26:24 -0800, "Hyerdahl"

wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>bluesmama wrote:
> >>>> howldog wrote:
> >>>> > Sandra Bullock to Matt Laurer this morning:
> >>>> >
> >>>> > "I needed you to play a guy who was man
enough to let a woman
> > beat
> >>>> him > up".
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >>>Why?  She was talking about the other male actors in the film she
> > just>>>made where she and another actress play FBI folks.  I don't
see
> > where>>Bullock was inciting violence against men.
> >>
> >> Some has to be "man enough to let a woman beat
> >> him up" and you don't see a problem. That's just typical.
> >>
> >>>> Another name to add to the list beside Jennifer Lopez.
> >>>
> >>>What did she do?  She did provide a film where  a woman could
defend
> >>>herself against an abusive asshole.
> >>
> >> Yet another straw man, set up only to be shot down. Endless movies
> >> like that.
> >
> > Again, I have no reason to condemn women for making the same kinds
of
> > films and jokes and magazine contributions about men that men make
> > about women.
>
>
> YOU ONLY SPEND ALL DAY LONG ON HERE CONDEMNING MEN FOR DOING IT.

I condemn men for promoting inequality.  There's nothing unequal with
women fighting back.  :-)

>
> hypocrisy meter, off the graph.
>
> And you wonder why you are eternally ridiculed.

I know EXACTLY why you'd rather make fun of me than address the issues.
That's ok tho;  I still have both the debate and the moral high ground.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/1/05 8:48:01 PM ---