Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Partial summation of what men are up against
> >From: Mark Sobolewski mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com
> >Date: 1/24/2005 7:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id:

> >
> >In article ,
> > hyerdahl3{at}aol.com (Hyerdahl3) wrote:
> >
> >> >Subject: Re: Partial summation of what men are up against
> >> >From: Men's Advocate nobody{at}nowhere.com
> >> >Date: 1/6/2005 1:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: 
> >> >
> >> >On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 13:01:28 -0500, viking

wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On 4 Jan 2005 15:23:55 -0800, "bluesmama"

> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>I'm unsure as to what you mean by "it's a
fight" and "what's
needed is
> >> >>>action" and do you think that men acting
alone, are going to
change
> >> >>>these things? I'm not being sassy or saying men can't
accomplish
> >> >>>incredible things, so please don't see offense
where none is
intended.
> >> >>>I'm just asking how you think things should proceed.
> >>
> >> That sounds fair.
> >> >>
> >> >>I do believe that today, men are in a staggeringly inferior
> >> position>culturally, legally, medically, and more. Much of that is
simply
> >> taken>for granted, as in, if the draft were renewed, it'd be
men-only;
> >>
> >> If men don't want it that way, all they have to do is implement
EQUAL
> >> military
> >> rights; with those rights, equal military duties will follow.
There are
> >> enough
> >> men in Congress who could do that.  There are NOT enough women in
Congress
> >to
> >> change it.
> >
> >Gee, that didn't stop the military from implimenting unequal duties
> >and rights for other conscripts.  Bzzzt!
>
> There are NO "unequal duties", Mark.  Men in the military already
have the same
> rights and DUTIES as the other men there.

You've never seen full-metal-jacket then. :-)

This may come to you as a surprise, but the military is not
an egalitarian, democratic organization that bends over backwards
to treat everyone alike.  Officers very rarely show up for KP
and corporals don't have to attend dinners in their dress
uniform.

> >And about women in congress: You wouldn't argue that women represent
> >women's interests more than men's and vice-versa?
>
> Women's "interests" cannot be fully represented without more women in
Congress.
>  However, some Congressmen do indeed attempt to consider women's
interests, and
> those are the men who would likely get my vote.

I thought you voted for candidates who represented "equal" interests.
:-)

>  So I guess women>who vote for leftist men aren't having their
interests
> represented (oh, wait, that's not becoming as much as a problem as it
used to
> be :-)
> >
> The Left-Right shuffle is not new, Mark; it is part of what we have
in our
> culture that provides balance.   Are you gloating because there are
fewer
> well-educated Americans today ?  :-)

HAHAHAHA!

Yep, nothing brings moderates over like patronizing them.

> BTW, Mark, how's your mail-order bride
> working out?

You seem to be thinking about my wife quite a bit.  Don't you
have your own "partner"? :-)

> >> (edit)
> >>>
>  Men CHOOSE the roles men take; if they want to make healthier
choices they
> > can> do so; risky choices for men are not mandated at law.
> >
> >Just as women choose gestation.
>
> Actually, not all women choose gestation, but certainly some do.  In
America,
> women can, for the most part, opt out of gestation by choosing
abortion.  Both
> of those are accompanied by physical risks.
>
> This may explain why there>are no welfare-queen medals for women who
risk
> death>by squeezing out welfare  recipients...
>
> Bigotry actually explains why society has valued male-only sacrifice
while
> ignoring female-only sacrifice,

Yeah, "bigots" are like that.  They somehow think that other people
don't deserve a medal for gestating children into poverty or that
they should vote for a particular candidate in order to avoid
being called uneducated.

Yep, keep it up.  Please.

> but I don't see too many folks showing up at
> those old WWII celebrations today.

HAHAHAHAHA!

My wife and I were considering going to the WWII memorial dedication
but it wasn't even open for standing room only because there
were so many people.

>  A few old men sitting about talking about
> "The Greatest Generation" does not mean their wives are there.  :-)

Note: This label was conferred upon them by the aging
baby boomer media (probably in anticipation of possible
social security reforms.)

>  the immense institutionalized anti-male practice known as
affirmative action,
>  the judicial war on men that has given the US the highest>fraction
of men
> >in> jail, by far, of any country in the world, the>enormous body of
law used
> to
> >> stifle men and their free
> >>
> >> Men have to share; they can no longer keep the pie all to
themselves.  Boo
> >> hoo.
> >
> >Men have been sharing all along!  It's successful career women>who
are winding
> up dying alone and childless because they love>precious money.
>
> But Mark, women make choices YOU can't control.  If a career woman
ends up
> childless, that is her choice.

Not only do they often make choices _I_ can't control, but they often
make choices they can't control either:

> You see, more and more career women are
> realizing they can't have it "all", so the sexist pig went in the
garbage.
> They can keep the kid and the career.

No.  For ones who managed to keep the kid and the career, it was
because they couldn't find a sexist pig to marry them and
the ones who didn't realize they couldn't have it all panicked
(and continue to do so.)

> >> AA or England's EE is there to make sure there is a diversity in
the
> workforce
> and that a small percentage of rich white men are not suffocating
other
> groups.
> >
> >Wouldn't it be against the law for rich white men to do such a
thing?
>
> There's the "law" and the implementation OF the
"law".  The first is
> accomplished; the second is evolving.

Indeed just as proposition 209 is designed to prevent some from
discriminating against white males.  And the S.C. might evolve
in the near future too.  Yep, it's working out just fine.

> >Aren't they entitled to equal protection like anyone else?
>
> Rich white men?  Sure, but not moreso than poor black women, eh Mark.

Are you talking about Condelezza Rice?  Yep, there were some
bigoted anti-black and anti-women democrats who opposed her
nomination but fortunately, she beat her critics.  :-)

> >> association-from stalking laws unequally applied to draconian
> >> sexualharrassment
> >> laws that destroy men's lives without reason to
automatic>>arrest-the-man
> >> domestic violence laws,
> >>
> >> There is no such law in ANY state in the US.  You're simply making
up laws
> >> that>> don't exist, little bitter twitter.
> >
> >Indeed.  A new SC might just discover a new meaning to the
constitution.
> >I like their recent court decisions in florida! :-)
>
> Sorry, I've been out of the country, and haven't kept up here.  But
I'm
> assuming you're talking about the swing to the right and it's effect
upon civil
> rights?

Apparently, people want someone who is commited to their civil right
to be protected from enemy attack and not someone who has
a memorial to him in North Vietnam for his Anti-American
war activities.

>  to the violence against women>>act when there's no such for men, to
the>fact
> >that
> >>
> >> There is also a Bradey Law that applies to more than the Bradey
Bunch, but
> >> don't let logic stifle you.
> >>
> >> women-only gyms are now expressly legal, but mens-only not,
> >>
> >> What do you call "Cuts" for men?  :-)  You are so
out of touch.
> >>
> >>  the 13.7x as much funding for
> >> >>breast cancer than prostate cancer when more men die from the
latter
> >> >>than women from the former,
> >>
> >> Both women and men die from breast cancer while ONLY men die from
prostate
> >> cancer.  Plus, the age at which folks die from BC is earlier than
for >
> prostate
>  cancer.> Plus govt. funding is equally avaialable to both while
private
> funding is
>  what> it is .
> >>
> >>  to the depiction of men as scum and morons>>in the media,
> >>
> >> Women have been the butt of jokes for the last century ('take my>
> wife...please')

Actually, that routine by Rodney Dangerfield was meant to make him
the butt of the joke (part of his not getting any respect.)

> and now it's men's turn.  So what?

So your tit-for-tat rationalizations are in opposition to your
claims for being dedicated to equality and not judging others
based upon their race or gender.  You're just repackaging bigotry
(and not a very good repackaging at that since women
have been protected and supported by men.)  You're inferior
to the very bigots you exploit.  (I guess that wouldn't
surprise them.)

> As to art imitating>life,
> there's not much women can do about that when it isn't women who wage
the >
> kinds of violence men do, or make some of the risky choices men make.
> >>
> >> to the anti-boy nature of the schools which has caused>>the
colleges and
> >> universities to approach 40% men, 60% women (ie, 50%>>more women
in college>
> than men), to the funding taxed out of men for
> >>
>  Both sexes pay taxes, and we tend not to blame those who do more of
the >
> unpaid
> >> work of society for paying lower taxes, nor do we blame those
discriminated
> against for making less money.  ? Plus, you seem to want to blame
women for >>
> boys>> and men not learning.  Let us all know when it's
discrimination
> responsible for> that.
> >
> >Aren't the purposes of percentage goals supposed to establish
> when>discrimination occurs?
>
> No.  Discrimination occurs when there are actions or inactions of
those doing
> the discrimination, sometimes accompanied by declining opportunity.
>
> women's shelters when there are virtually none for men,
> >>
> >> The 2.6 men in my county who routinely seek DV shelter don't
generall
> >warrent >> a> facility built for them;  they get vouchers and
counseling if
> they want it. It's the sam reason they have not built homeless
shelters for
> single women.
> >
> >Probably because no facility is available.  Imagine if such
reasoning
> >was used in Title 11 about denying women access to male only
> >sports facilities: sports are't popular with women.
>
> Actually, there is a huge difference between a public accomodation
like a
> sports facility and a social program.
> But, I don't expect you to understand
> the difference.  BTW, in my neck of the woods, they had a Lillith
Faire at one
> such public accomodation.  :-)  BTW, most sports facilities are
funded by
> public taxation.  Surely you wouldn't want women to have taxation
without
> representation?

This argument is specious since social programs are usually funded
with taxpayer dollars as well (VAWA).

> >>  as well as>>women's "opportunity centers"
when there are none for
men,
> >> women's>programs when there are none for men, women's centers when
there
> >are>> >>none for men,
> >>
> Programs designed for a particular social group are formed on the
basis of>a
> >> provable NEED.
> >
> >How about Halliburton taking your tax dollars for the needs of>rich
white
> guys.  I love democracy. :-)
>
> Are you gloating about some rich white notion of Robin Hood, Mark?

Yeah, you got me there.  :-)  I sometimes wander over to leftist forums
at washingtonpost.com and tease the leftists crying in their soymilk
because (gasp!) the taxdollars they intended to rob from conservatives
to pay for their programs are instead being robbed from them!
That's just plain unfair!

I have a great time.

>  I've
> already suggested that what goes around, comes around.

News flash: That's been said for a lot longer than you've been
around (although that may be a rather long time :-)

The difference is that the left are being such SoreLosers about it.

>   Halliburton will go
> down in history as will the other bitter twitters who rob from the
poor to give
> to the rich.

Yeah, I'm sure all the rich white guys will be crying all the way to
the
bank about that. :-)

In the meantime, just view it as an "affirmative action" :-)

>  Have you heard of the new idea regarding "The United States of
> Europe"?  :-)

No.

>  Men don't appear to be disadvantaged when it comes to taking over
most of the
> world
> >
> >Indeed.  Good point there.  Abilities are a wonderful thing.
>
> You mean greed and avarice?  Well, Hitler might well agree with you,
Mark, that
> such are "abilities".

Godwin's law.

If you're talking about National Socialism, it was based upon
a similar ideal of getting even with certain privileged groups
and judging people by their ethnicity to create their measure of
justice.

In conclusion: reading the above would conclude that your

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100