_TR_ wrote:
> bluesmama wrote:
> > stanfieldsarah{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Is there a statement or are you just assuming that a picture is
worth
> >> a thousand words?
> >
> > That only men were slaves?
>
> Were they?  Who claimed such a thing?

It was - perhaps - implied. See the punctuation mark? That indicates a
question, not a statement.
>
> > That because men were slaves, women weren't oppressed as well?
>
> Where is that written?  Where is the mere suggestion, other than in
your
> mind?

See above.

> > Only guesses,
>
> Not guesses.  Spindoctoring.
>
> > but it would be interesting to see what point the OP thought he
> > was getting across.
>
> The point he was getting across is the one that feminists avoid
zealously:
> that BOTH men and women suffer.

Some feminists avoid that truth because it serves their purposes. Some
do not. Some men interested in men's rights avoid the truths that don't
serve their purpose. Some don't. I understand how confusing that must
be, trying to fit those grey areas into your black and white world.

Spin? Take a look at the juxtaposition of the picture and the title of
the post. There's your spin.

> Point to the fact that men are oppressed along with women, and the
feminist
> propaganda mill goes into overdrive, as you and your feminist mate
have
> casually demonstrated.
>
> There is NO sex-specific monopoly on suffering and oppression, in
spite of
> you feminists' jealous fantasies of exclusive ownership.

Tell that to the guy who posted the picture and titled the post the way
he did. And then run along and find a post of mine that says only women
have suffered injustices.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/30/05 8:47:57 PM ---