"howldog"  wrote in message 
news:13qj31dmcsivmph77elbohe8u2d6b3ouo9{at}4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:31:31 -0000, "Philip Lewis"
>  wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>
>
> damn.
>
> an entire article on Swedish women and no sexy nekkid chicks with
> blonde nonnies.
>
*lol* I guess that's the downside of subscribing to a non binary group!

Phil



>
>
> 




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/18/05 4:59:44 PM ---