"Philip Lewis"  wrote in message
news:39t13jF66qj3oU1{at}individual.net...
> http://www.angryharry.com/
>
> Comments by AH
>
> Swedish Feministas "We want to take back the official space. We want the
> same rights and have the same respect as men do in this society. If laws
are
> necessary, well, then we demand them," they continued. [
> http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1066&date=20050308 ]
>
> Do you know what?
>
> AH really, really, really hates feminists.
>
> They are bad enough when it comes to creating hatred and disharmony in
> relatively wealthy countries, but can you just imagine how much more
> horrible will be the outcomes in poorer countries who might come under
their
> malicious influences?
>
> And in the following article we see, yet again, the permanent economic
> turmoil and hopelessness brought about by feminism.
>
> + Ninety percent of Swedish women would be better off if they were on sick
> benefits, a new report has shown. The study, by academics at Stockholm's
> Karolinska Institute, showed that non-professional women are effectively
> being deprived of incentives to return to work. [
>
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=962&date=20050212&PHPSESSID=aa558ed66effa0ba3fade0d997f9e642
]
>
> Basically, women get paid handsomely for staying at home, so they do not
go
> out to work. And because they do not go out to work, the feminists blame
> their allegedly lower pay packets, so-called employment discrimination,
and,
> of course, men.
>
> But, the larger is the incentive for women to stay at home, the more that
> must be done for them to get them out to work!
>
> In other words, a never-ending cycle of goodies must be handed out to
women
> no matter what they choose to do - all paid for by men, of course.
>
> Indeed, if women who stayed at home were paid via government handouts
> exactly the same amount of money as men who went out to work, then women
> would not go out to work.
>
> Unsurprisingly.
>
> And the feminists would then argue that the men were holding them back!
>
> And this, of course, was pretty much the situation that prevailed some 60
> years ago. The men went out to work and the women stayed at home. The
women
> did not receive government handouts because the men were financially
> responsible for their families - and take it from AH, they were forced to
be
> financially responsible for their families.
>
> There were no-opt out clauses!
>
> And what did the feminists do?
>
> They moaned about it.
>
> And they claimed that the women who stayed at home were the victims of
male
> oppression and that the men were holding them back.
>
> But now the feminists keep demanding that their governments give money to
> women so that they can stay at home!
>
> It does not matter what men do, western governments and feminists will
> continue to heap hatred upon them and to blame them for what women
> themselves decide to do.
>
> Goodness me. Even when women actually kill their partners they are deemed
> mostly to have been their victims - in one way or another!
>
> For example, ...
>
> Domestically Violent Women They [women] struck out in reaction unlike men,
> who typically strike out to show power and control. Women interpreted
their
> violence as self-defense or a way to show a man his aggressive behavior
has
> to stop. Most learned the power of violence from their parents, boyfriends
> and spouses. [ http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/news/2392.html ] Cynthia
> Taggart - suggesting that domestically-violent women are 'victims' whereas
> domestically-violent men are not.

AH!! Angry Harry a MAN after my own heart.

MCP






--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/18/05 4:59:39 PM ---