On 11 Feb 2005 10:08:27 -0800, "Hyerdahl"  wrote:

>> Marriage is just another way the government ensures that people
>without
>> the ability to survive on their own, get money from people who can.
>
>If the marriage contract itself allows for the unjust enrichment of one
>party at the expense of career of the other, society can indeed protect
>the intersts of those involved in such a contract.>

That means nothing. You're saying nothing. "can indeed" doesn't
translate into anything, because when it comes to me, it translates
into "won't" as you well know.

>> Other ways are taxation, sex discrimination laws, maternity pay etc.
>>
>We all pay taxes;

Men far more than women. And social security is another way huge
amounts are taken from men and given to women.

>discrimination is inherently wrong,

Not to hear you tell it when it comes to discrimination against hiring
men, for example.

>and maternity pay
>benefits mothers and fathers and is just the right thing to do.

It's called maternity pay, not paternity pay, and as the name
indicates, it's not been equally implemented for both parents.

>> Since women had the vote it's been the case that our countries have
>> moved away from feudal society to marxist society.
>>
>We don't like fuedal lords;  look what happened in Iraq.

A weird comment; by associating with this "we," it appears you're in
favor of the Iraq war. Is that what you intended?

By the way, Iraq was not "fuedal"; such a system centers on
fiefdom/lord/fealty, involves serfdom and other formal servitudes, and
survived for 1500 years in Europe. And until the emancipation of the
serfs in Russia in 1861.

>> This progress will continue for a few more years and then there'll be
>a
>> big war. Women will be thrown into poverty again.
>
>Women collectively would say "bite me", dear.

Show us the results of the poll indicating that. You don't speak for
women. A poll might.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/11/05 2:44:27 PM ---