Re: THE STONE AGE, THE GHETTO AND THE PROMISCUITY PRINCIPLE


"Hyerdahl" <Hyerdahl3@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1124289479.136350.36570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> MCP wrote:
> > http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Library/Amneus/garbage/g2.html
>
>
> (edit)
> >
> "In the great majority of uncultured societies," writes Arthur Evans,
> "women enjoy a position of independence and of equality with> the men
> and exercise an influence which would appear startling in the most
> feministic modern civilized society." "Women," he adds, had a very high
> status in the Stone Age, as we have seen. Archeology, myth and
> comparison to still existing nature societies all
> > point to their dominant position.
>
> [We have zero records of equality of women in the stone age, and the
> author FAILS to mention any renowned "uncultured society" where women
> were dominent or equal to men. So, his claim fails.]
>
> (edit)
> >
> The matriarchal family pattern is being restored by the welfare system,
> by the feminist/sexual revolution, by women's growing economic
> independence and by the legal preference for mother-custody following
> divorce. Writing of the educated and economicallyindependent women
> created by women's liberation, Elizabeth Nickles and Laura Ashcraft
> say, "The Matriarchal woman who finds th at her relation with a man is
> undermining her sense of self-esteem will not consider it necessary to
> cling to the relation for the traditional reasons, and she will have
> the self-sufficiency to stand on her own." Because "the Matriarchal
> woman" can afford it, she reverts to the mammalian/matriarchal family
> pattern. The choice is hers; the father has nothing to say about it.
>
> [Translation: in a society where equality is the rule of law, women
> will use the same legal rights men enjoy, including the right to
> divorce. Insecure men don't like that, nor do they like the notion that
> women don't need to marry pigs in order to have power in their own
> lives.]
>
>
> She knows she has the chivalrous support of lawmakers and judges who
> suppose that a biological fact needs the help of lawyers, whereas
> merely social arrangements such as the marriage contract do not--these
> can be set aside if Mom decides they should be set aside. The result:
> educated, economically independent women have a divorce rate five times
> greater than the fifty percent divorce rate of other women.
>
> [Translation: Sexist men will not have the same opportunity to marry
> as non-sexist men, and sexist men who have deceived their wives, will
> get divorced more often.]
>
>
> (edit)
> >
> > families will be thought of as sets of divers individuals rather than homogeneous social clusters, and the definition of
"family" will broaden to include many kinds of living arrangements, as is happening now without widespread social recognition. We
may see the
> > advent of the rotational family, in which there is no single, stable cast of characters for a lifetime, but rather a series of
individuals--male and female- -who will be added to or phased out of a continually reconstituted family unit as the needs,
interests, and emotional commitments of the couple, individual, or group dictate.
>
> [Our laws are already designed (by our forbears) to address INDIVIDUAL
> RIGHTS, dears, and not FAMILY RIGHTS. In fact, there is no such legal
> animal as family rights. ]
>
THAT MEANS BY YOUR OWN GOB, PUKE There is NO such thing as WOMANS RIGHTS!!!!!
> (edit)
>
> There are rights that belong to the The promiscuity which
> characterizes the matriarchal system denies men a secure role within
> families and the motivation provided by that secure role. The absence
> of that motivation is why the ghettos are the mess they are--why the
> women of the ghettos enjoy the "freedom to follow their personal
> inclinations in sex relations," but find that the
> > families in which they enjoy their freedom are impoverished and underachieving. Ms. Reed lauds the freedom of such women.
>
> [These authors seem to vainly imagine that women have a duty to include
> men in their families. While men have equal rights, they do not have
> the right to impose such a duty on women. Non-sexist men often find
> themselves important to their families. That does not impose a duty on
> women to create such a condition for pigs.]

The ONLY PIG here is you,oink,oink,oink!!!!
>
> But thereis a complementary freedom which is denied them. If they
> exercise their freedom to be promiscuous, they cannot enter into a
> stable and binding contract to share their reproductive lives with men
> who need to rely on their loyalty and chastity as a precondition for
> having legitimate children and stable families.
>
> [Obviously, women should have no greater duty than men to be 'chaste'.
> And the stats show us that more men than women are NOT chaste and that
> more men than women commit adultry. Women can and do enter into stable
> relationships with NON-SEXIST men all the time, but they cannot be
> forced to do so, and no one can make them marry or remain married to
> pigs, which is why all this belly-aching exists today.]
>
> (edit)>
>
> > Here is the way today's women are coming to perceive their responsibilities towards society and society's responsibilities to
them. The speaker is Byllye Avery, Director of the National Black Women's Health Project: "I have a right to life, to a house,
education, job, food, a good, high quality standard of living, and a right to control my reproduction." This is the fruition of Ms.
Friedan's program to make women stand on their own feet--and make demands upon others.
> >
> [I don't know that Ms. Avery has a "right" to all of those things, but
> she certainly has as great a right as a man has to them.]
>
> > Let us now turn from the two-hundred-million-year-old biologically based mammalian/matrilineal reproductive arrangement and
examine the patriarchal system which succeeded it a few thousand years ago and made civilization possible--the artificial, fragile
patriarchal arrangement designed to elevate male sperm- providers into fathers and to allow them an equal share in human
reproduction.
>
> [Even in times when patriarchy ruled, men had no right to force a woman
> to share in her reproductive abilities. While illegal, at certain
> times in history, women could abort a fetus she did not want, even tho
> it was less safe, at times. AND, today's laws serve women and men
> equally regardless of ones ability to reproduce.]
>
Men still rule puke,who do you think is doing all the dying for the right's you keep bleating
on about.NOT WOMEN!!!!

> It is the purpose of the feminist/sexual revolution to do away with
> this manmade superstructure built on the foundation of female
> reproductive biology and to restore the original mammalian/matrilineal
> arrangement--a purpose only vaguely perceived by a minority of radical
> feminists and as yet uncomprehended by the patriarchal males whose
> responsibility it must be to
> > restore and stabilize it.
>
> [Since western women already enjoy equal rights, and since other more
> backward nations are now in the grips of dealing with these unruly
> women :-) I suggest the time of patriarchy is gone. We are now
> basking in the dying embers of it's glow, warm to the hearts of bigots
> and insecure men everywhere. There is nothing "radical" about
> feminism. After all, how equal is too equal? And let's face it,
> fellas...there's not much value in marriage today. Women have taken
> the hard road to gain their freedom, and I don't see any of them
> standing in line to give up their equal rights.
> Women don't OWE YOU a uterus. It's just that simple. ]
> >
> > AND MEN DON'T HAVE TO DEFEND YOUR RIGHT'S,Puke!!!
> >It's just that simple.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: THE STONE AGE, THE GHETTO AND THE PROMISCUITY PRINCIPLE
    ... author FAILS to mention any renowned "uncultured society" where women ... RIGHTS, dears, and not FAMILY RIGHTS. ... > families in which they enjoy their freedom are impoverished and underachieving. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: Share Your Childhood ?
    ... than death. ... No, repeat NO, right or freedom is total, 100 percent, absolute. ... Anarchy not a society of rights and freedom. ...
    (soc.senior.issues)
  • Re: Share Your Childhood ?
    ... than death. ... No, repeat NO, right or freedom is total, 100 percent, absolute. ... Anarchy not a society of rights and freedom. ...
    (soc.senior.issues)
  • Re: Wintrolls killed CSMA
    ... >>Please specify these special rights. ... can legally get married to other mentally competent human adults. ... obvious moral and practical reasons why society doesn't want more people ... rejecting *your* morality is not the same thing as rejecting ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Knoxys InGratitude to Men
    ... For the society you take for granted to ... Mark. ... the rights and freedoms that men grant them. ... who did the excluding, even when those men were our founders. ...
    (soc.men)