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!

Jeeez! Do you wanna beleive this?

They want massive incentives to encourage women 
to stay at home and then, when they do stay at 
home, the bloody feminazis want even more 
incentives to go out to work! What nexet? Yeah! 
I know.

D.


> 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.
> 
> 


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/18/05 4:59:41 PM ---