Hyerdahl wrote:
> Ian wrote:
> > Mr. F. Le Mur wrote:
> > > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:05:24 GMT, "MCP"
> 
> > > wrote:
>
> (edit)
> > >
> > This is feminism at its finest. Having disenfranchised the youth,
and
> > removed the fathers, these lads take pleasure in simply upsetting
the
> > womenfolk, and their neighbours. What else is there to do in the
> > evenings? Dance, or drink, or screw? There's nothing else to do.
>
> Are you suggesting that it is up to women to entertain bitter boys in
> order to keep them out of trouble's door?

I didn't see that suggestion anywhere in there, especially if one reads
the part you snipped.  Maybe you shouldn't set up a false conclusion
and work off that.

>   Bitter boys are perfectly
> free to dance or drink even when they do get into trouble.  As to
> screwing, that is available if a woman is available, and only women
> decide if and when they are available.

I'm afraid you'd be wrong there--again.  How many times do we read
about women--especially on campuses, now--who won't have sex
complaining they aren't getting as many dates as the women who do.  It
would seem that under those circumstances, men have a huge influence on
female availability.  In addition, marriage counselors are noting a big
increase in the number of wives complaining about lack of sexual
interest their husbands are displaying towards them.  One wife noted
that she got it so seldom that she went for it at the least sign of
interest.  So, who would be determining the availability then.

As always, your absolutes prove to be wrong.

>
> > The woman starts shouting, and lads like nothing more than a bit of
> > confrontation. No woman can mentally compete with young lads. They
> know
> > full well there's nothing she can do that can hurt them. They're
> > physically stronger, mentally tougher, and have nothing to lose.
>
> Brutish behavior simply doesn't go very far.  It reminds me a bit of
a
> Rhino, big and ungainly, wanting to charge, but in the end, the only
> place for it is a zoo.  :-)

So you advocate rounding up all the rhinos in the wild and placing them
in zoos?  That's just sad.

>
> > The woman on the other hand is now wrecked.
>
> What ARE you on about?  Women recover from brutish behavior quite
> easily, much the same as men do.

Most do.  Some milk it for pity points for the rest of their lives.

>
> The feminist state has simply failed her, she feels unprotected,
> violated, and abused. To the> lads it's a laugh because as men
they're
> so much more tough than she> is, but to her, it's drove her mad.
>
> Who are you talking about?  What woman?
> >
> > The irony is, before feminism disenfranchised the men of the
> > neighbourhood, they'd have had enough investment in the local
> community
> > to just go out and fill these little cunts in.
>
> Women don't need to give men special rights in order to demand and
> maintain neighborhoods.  Women have the same access to laws, police
> protection and, in America, their own guns that men have, and...more
> women are buying and learning to use guns than at any other time.
>
>  Unfortunately, the government has completely lost the plot, Patricia
> Hewitt, and Harriet> Harman are both pointless wankers without a
> strategic bone in their> body, instead of actually encouraging men to
> keep the peace, and make the streets safe for the womenfolk, they've
> actually banned them from doing it. It's the same in education. "Men
we
> want you to discipline these children, 'Our Way'" This is why there's
> no men in teaching, because feminists are such wankers. Look at Ruth
> Kelly for fuck's sake. When school was safe, how many heads were
> female?
>
> Hahahaha....now I see where this is going; you're upset that women
> aren't the teachers and men are not longer the principals.  :-)
Well,
> times have changed, dear, and female principals are there and the
male
> principals are just as restricted in using brutish force as the
female
> principals.

I don't see this issue as a male or female one so much as I see it as a
breakdown for schools in general.  While I don't advocate teachers of
either gender physically abusing the students, I do think there has
been a loss of expectations of acceptable behavior, and we condone a
coarsening of standards that only hurts students.

> >
> > Sure you can manipulate the education system, to value pointless
> > attributes, in order to make girls have a higher arbitrary mark in
> any
> > given field.
>
> The tasks necessary in today's society is what drives education.
> Companies simply don't need brutish fellows to man the fort.  They
need
> people who can cooperate well with others on projects that are more
> comprehensive, using as much of both sides of the brain as possible.

Men seem to be doing fine cooperating with each other.


> Perhaps that is what really chaps your hide, eh?
>
> (edit)
> >
> > When men drop out, men may lose, but women lose more. Women can
have
> > all the houses, but who will then protect them from the homeless?
>
> Here in America, women can buy and use guns to protect them from
anyone
> who threatens their lives.  Why would women give men special rights?
>
> > Sure you can jail a 12 year old for raping his teacher, but since
> > they've created the society which made the 12 year old, one of the
> 1170
> > lads born every day will just take his place.
>
> A gun has many bullets.  Of course, as one woman historian commented,
> the way to get rid of an ultra violent society is to send boys off to
> war,

You honestly think so?  I think killing off the fathers and leaving the
boys without one is the best way to create violent boys...wait, isn't
that what's happening now, with the disenfranchisment of fathers from
the family?

No, this woman historian would be a fool.  You don't create a less
violent society by glorifying violence.

> and that appears to be what Bush has in mind.

So you don't see any improvements in Iraq?

>  Sad tho.
>
>  Harriet Harman and> Patricia Hewitt's policies actually made this
boy.
> He wasn't born a 12 year old rapist Clarice, he was made one.
>
> Lately, it appears that school and churchhouse shooters are raised in
> ultra fundy religious two parent homes, no?  What do you think THAT
> does to the psyche of a 12 year old?

I think we see a LOT fewer school shooters than we do boys who are
damaged by the lack of a father in their lives.

>
> > All of this, just so girls can feel good about their ability in
> liberal
> > arts, en Patricia and Harriet can scare women into voting for them,
> > maar women are  forced out to work, in order that Harriet can stop
> > women ironing their men's shirts so they've got to do it themselves
> the
> > bastards.
>
> Women in America don't have time or inclination to stay home to iron
> men's shirts.

Some do, some don't.  You don't speak for all women.

>  Women in America have freed themselves to pursue their
> own interests.

Some have, some haven't, just like men.

>   Working women have dominion and control over their own
> work product today.

Some do, some don't just like men.  The difference is that when some
woman doesn't, it's considered tragic for her.  When a man doesn't,
he's living up to his responsibilities.

>  Win-win.  And, more and more women will get into
> the sciences as more and more women enter them TOGETHER.

So you seem to be saying that women don't have the right stuff to
accomplish things on their own?

>  Women enjoy
> learning with other women.
>
> > In 1970 Feminism said "We can do anything. Men have it all, we'll
> > simply take it from them.
>
>
> Hahahahaha....Women ARE doing it all, Plus gestating.

Well, let's look at that for a minute.  Women aren't present in all the
professions to the same degree that the men are, so they're obviously
not doing everything men are doing.  In addition, they aren't
"gestating" as much as they used to.  Sooo...what are you crowing
about?

>  It's not a
> matter of taking something that didn't belong to women; equal rights
DO
> belong to women.

Absolutely.  Women should have the same rights and opportunities as
men.  I just think the enforcement of these rights and the extensions
of these opportunities are slanted too heavily towards women.

>
>  We'll destroy the family, and women can live their choices supported
> by welfare or whatever.
>
> Patriarchal families are a blast from the past;

Not really.  Just last month, my mother (strong Italian heritage)
informed me that because I was the oldest male, I was the "head of the
family".  I protested this, telling her I didn't see that in my job
description anywhere.

> we laugh at them today

Not all of you.

> and the families we are creating are more just and allow women to
> spread their own wings, enjoying life the same way men do.

The women in intact families appear to be doing just fine.

>
>  We don't need men.

Sure you do, just like we need women.

>
> Some men are wanted, which is much better than just being needed.
> Bitter boys are left alone, and that's why you're bellyaching.

And yet, all the "bad boys", some of whom you would call
"bitter boys",
appear to be having no problems getting women and reproducing.

>
> When we>want children, we can all just pick the best looking
"male",
> the one that will get us really wet like,and then have his kid and
get
> rid of him.
>
> Yeah, I'm sure that's what women think and say to themselves as they
> walk down the isle.  :-)  In any event, if the guy turns out to be an
> egalitarian sweetheart, she would have little reason to "get rid of
> him".
> The men women are leaving are men who are sexists, and men who won't
do
> their fair share of the unpaid work.

And you'd be wrong yet again.  Consistency is a good thing, but not
when it means you're always wrong.  :)

>
>  All the men we don't want, fancy, or need, well they can just pay
> > taxes to keep us, and they can be happy, and if they aren't, well
let
> > them eat cake."
>
> ??????  Women pay taxes too dear.

Not as many as men do, or in the same amounts.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/31/05 1:44:18 PM ---