Re: The male pill

In article <1128607743.115863.20810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Hyerdahl" <Hyerdahl3@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> mark_sobolewski@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >(edit)
>
> > > >But again, I don't see how it would matter one way or the other in terms
> > > >of the many single women out there who prefer to be alone than be with
> > > >men like you.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure there's plenty of room in Montana for such women
> > > > to build one room cabins. :-)
> > >
> > > Why would most women WANT to live in Montana? This just seems
> > > nonsensical to me. Most people from the red states appear to be
> > > migrating to the blue. :-)
> >
> > That's an interesting claim. I was under the impression that
> > the rust belt states (which are mostly red) are moving to the
> > formerly dixiecrat states such as Texas and Florida.
>
> TX is considered red, but FL is generally a blue state, as are most of
> the states having some ocean frontage. :-) And, CA is still growing
> rapidly.

Oops! Correction: I meant people from _blue_ rust-belt states
moving to red.

Yeah, Florida is really blue. Jeb Bush governor, voted
for GW as president, really blue. :-)

And sure, California is growing rapidly. Pity it's economy
isn't growing to match...

> > > > Feminism was supposed to EMPOWER such women, not reduce them
> > > > to embittered spinsters waiting for Germanic rescues.
> > > > Really, your agenda is a failure on so many levels.
> > >
> > > Feminism HAS empowered women, so much so that fewer men are finding
> > > submissive wives here in America.
> >
> > The above statement, however, isn't about female empowerment
> > so much as masculine disempowerment.
>
> Not really, Mark. More women to choose the kinds of lives they want to
> lead is always empowering.

Ahhhh, but that's just it: Your agenda doesn't empower such
women to really lead the lives they _want_ with men, it
gives them a paycheck to support themselves if they
have personal problems. Didja ever hear of a self-fulfilling
prophesy?

> This also comes through rather clearly from your posts and agenda
> which seems
> > totally focused upon bashing western civilizaton and
> > men rather than improving the lives of women.
>
> Improving the lives of women TODAY

Oh really! Please do tell us how your agenda is improving
the lives of women TODAY who

1) Want to marry a breadwinning man to fulfill her
natural, biological urges.

2) Help her to have children when she's young and
be able to easily support them and balance work
without a man's help financially or physically.
(Note: No German rescues allowed! :-)

3) Help SAH mothers lower their tax burden for their
families.

Whatcha have here, Carol Ann, is the good ol' "mommy wars".
Even worse, the political compromises made to get
so-called equal rights for women speedlined required
giving special privileges to illegal immigrants at the expense
of European-American career women. Many of these
women vote Republican because they're "greedy" and
don't want to pay for other women's kids or special
privileges for illegal immigrant men AND women.

> includes two large topic, one in
> making sure women have equal opportunity in the work place (which tends
> to disempower sexist men) and two, making sure women need not BE men in
> order to maintain equal rights.

That's precisely what proposition 209 does: It says that
a white woman cannot be discriminated against because
of her race. Is that what you mean by equal rights?

> You seem both at the same time happy that illegal immigration and high
> birth rates are marginalizing white women and lowering the standard of
> living requiring women to
> > work longer hours while at the same time planning to> pack your bags and
> > leave the whole mess.
>
> I was FORCED :-) to watch "The Sound of Music" the other day...totally
> against my will. :-) It's a long story. In any event, there was an
> amazing scene that I had forgotten where Captain Von Trapp is speaking
> about HIS Austria. Right now, I can identify with him, because that's
> how I feel, now, about MY America.

Gee, didn't you just say above that the future was bright,
couldn't get better, gotta wear... shades...? :-)

Except now you're a bittergirl. Too bad, so sad.

> He sings "Eidlewiess" a song about
> an Austrian flower, that, in leaving his country due to his imposing
> service to the Third Reich, he knows he may never see again. I HOPE,
> for the USA I love, that the people grow up and come to their senses
> and stop choosing greed and stupidity over doing what is right. In the
> film, his friend is a self-admitted "non-political" as were many of the
> Germans growing up in Hitler's Germany. They treated the German
> take-over and loss of their civil rights more as a whim of chance than
> as something to buck and fight. I see myself in the same position as
> Capt. Von Trapp in that, for the first time, the PEOPLE in the country
> I have loved, are allowing their rights to be usurped.

Hahahaha! You mean the "stupid" people who voted for
Pat Buchanon on Democrat designed ballots? :-)

> And,
> Mark....you and I disagree on most BUT NOT EVERYTHING regarding
> immigration laws. As to high birthrates, the birth rate in the USA is
> NOT that high. I do plan to leave and I will MISS my country of birth.
> Like Capt. Von Trapp, I can no longer trust the USA I love to sustain
> it's previous values. And yes, I find that very sad.

Except... don't most of these illegals ultimately want
to vote DEMOCRAT. Are you saying then you share the values
of their opposition, GW Bush? :-)

> >(edit to slightly different subject)
>
> And, no one is waiting for Germany, Mark. In fact
> > > the NYC teachers union just secured a nice pay raise for teachers. In
> > > Albany, NY schools have been instructed to include more people of color
> > > in their teaching of history, and the trial on "intelligent design"
> > > seems to me to be highlighting just how stupid Republicans can be.
> > > What's not to like? Even 'Ahnold' is having a bit of trouble with
> > > teachers and nurses these days. :-)
> >
> > I'm sure teachers and nurses' unions stuffing their pockets
> > is of great comfort to career women paying a huge chunk
> > of chain in taxes after they get home from their 2 hour
> > commute to their expensive home in the suburbs.
>
>
> Well, you and I seem to see different cultural problems in America, but
> I guess I will use my Pollyanna-like source of hope to continue hoping
> for my country of birth.

Sure. Just as soon as you can figure out for women who've
been told that childbearing is oppression and to wait to
have kids until they're nice and old have plenty more
kids than red-staters to vote.

Good luck!

I'm sure your feelings are similar to the "Shakers" who
aren't around anymore (a religious sect that believed
that sex was sinful) and aren't around anymore. Maybe
dying aging feminists ought to get into the furniture
business. They should have SOMETHING to show off on
Antiques Showcase 40 years from now! :-)

> > Really, if there is a description of hell I imagine it might
> > not be too far away from the world that your agenda has
> > created for many women: Working long hours as a corporate
> > droid to pay taxes and high real estate and commute costs
> > and social security taxes that are now largely recognized
> > as a joke. It's like the Russian joke that America
> > is one big work camp, but the food is better.
>
> So, now you're complaining that women are having to work as hard as
> men? :-)

Er, nope. In fact, they get to enjoy all the same privileges
as men do paying taxes for the welfare state utopia your
Democratic buddies are getting all the credit for. Isn't that wonderful?

Or is that too much like "being like a man?" :-)

> > > > > > > How many times they pay another woman for sex is totally
> > > > > > > irrelvant to
> > > > > > > them. And the state,> well, the taxpayer doesn't want to pay for
> > > > > > > either of your bastards (if> you're lucky enough to get to ever
> > > > > > > pass on
> > > > > > > your seed).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Germany has much better healthcare than the US" --
> > > > > > > > Women's reproductive rights marcher, DC 2004
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ????? And when the Americans wake up from their stupid stupor,
> > > > > > > perhaps
> > > > > > > they'll call you on that. :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > You were just bragging that the American taxpayer is cheap.
> > > > >
> > > I think to vote Republican, one has to be either greedy or stupid,
> > > >
> > > > This must sure endear moderate republican swing voters. :-)
> > >
> > > Who cares? I'm not running. And, even the hard-core Repubichairs are
> > > saying what a terrible president he has been.
> >
> > I would say such dissent is for different reasons than
> > from the left. Indeed! Republicans are a far more
> > intellectually diverse lot than compared to the Trotsky left.
> > This is what makes the right more electable year after year.
> > Don't forget to take Gwyneth Paltrow and George Clooney
> > out with you!
>
> Gee, when I checked with them, they had decided to stay and fight. :-)

Yeah, I'm sure people are just shaking in their boots over
them staying here.

On the contrary: I think that spoiled movie stars who run
their air conditions on high while telling the little people
to conserve energy are falling out of grace as opinion leaders
in the states as compared to the days of old.

> > > > In the meantime, I have noticed that many working class and career
> > > > women often lean Republican because of their greed or self-interest
> > > > (if not stupidity). Apparently, they don't like the idea of
> > > > their tax dollars going to other women either.
> > >
> > > I don't know ANY Republican career women, Mark.
> >
> > Argument of ignorance. Yes, SOMEONE had to be voting
> > for GW for him to win twice, yes? :-)
> >
> > > In fact, at the last two Republican conventions, they had to find women
> > > in the crowd to move
> > > up closer to the cameras, no?
> >
> > I think that this pandering probably went over better
> > than Kerry trying to look maucho with his own outlawed
> > guns and pretending to eat at Wendy's only to go for
> > French catered food afterward. (Note: I remember you
> > claiming that the Republicans were moving women and
> > minorities up to the front at a convention back when
> > Dole was running but since then, they'd really put
> > women up on center stage with the "W is for women"
> > slogan. So if they are doing this, they're doing a good
> > job of it!)
>
> Well, it's easy to deceive sheep; look what happened in Austria.

Godwin's law.

> But,
> it is my opinion that folks tend to GET the kind of goernment they
> deserve.

Indeed! You wanted women to have equality with men and they're
getting it. Apparently, just as in France, people are less
than happy with the direction the welfare state is going.
Bon apetite!

> And, since I find myself more 'deserving', I'm moving. :-)
> BTW, I thought it might make you smile a bit if I told you that I
> actually helped to host a 'breakfast' for LIbby Dole. :-) Yes, I'm a
> Democrat. As to Kerry, I never really liked him or Gore that much.
> But ...I did like Edwards more.

I'm happy you had a good time! I'm sure you had a fantastic
conversation with her similar to the ones you have with your
partner and your ultra successful daughter, er, son. Whatever. :-)

In regards to Edwards, I think a slimey trial lawyer
was the perfect opening for GW to talk about reducing health
care costs by reducing exorbitant lawsuits. Slam and dunk!

You talk of Austria but it's funny that these two really did
treat people like suckers. The key is not be too obvious about
it: "Vote for me, you stupid poor people you! I spit
on your values and will tax you to death (oh, I promised
not to, but that was before I promised!)" and "Ladies and
Gentlemen of the jury! Do you want me to smile and make
you feel good by soaking someone else for money?"

Absolutely amazing and hilarious. Almost as funny as
Sore Loserman. Maybe GW can be credited as stupid if only
because the democrats choose such incredibly loathsome
candidates as competition.

> > As it turns out, GW himself has been putting women and minorities
> > in many key positions only to have the left make a fool
> > out of themselves for attacking Rice and now the next
> > S.C. nomination.
>
> I have nothing against Rice...I like her. I might not mind voting for
> her someday. ' I don't think the new SC pick is a good one tho...I'd
> rather see someone with more judicial experience.

Apparently, 1/2 of the S.C. justices that have served didn't
have any in the past and they apparently knew how to interpret
the constitution.

Indeed, bashing her credentials as not ivy league really helps.
I'm sure Kerry can lecture about how the snob factor is
turning on Americans lately.

> She is just not the best candidate.

Yes, that often happens when gender is used as a factor
rather than qualifications. :-)

Indeed, this sets up GW to nominate a white male conservative
with the proper credentials. Happy? :-)

> Unlike other liberals, I also had
> few concerns about Roberts.
> You may remember, that I have said good things about Rhenquist opinions
> and really nasty things about opinions written by Thomas.

I think you were biased against Thomas, as with Schwartzenneggar
because they were accused to sexual harassment with nothing
in court unlike some other candidates who think the law
didn't apply to them. (Guess who can't practice law
in Arkansas and was sanctioned for lying in court, impeachable
offenses according to Hillary Clinton writing in 1973...)

> > > :-) But certainly it makes sense that dicklickers would vote stupid or
> > > greedy.
> >
> > So you now doubt aren't greedy and don't mind your tax
> > dollars being spent at Halliburton and for GW's buddies.
> > Come on! Be generous!
>
> ???? Sorry, I'm not taking your meaning here. I think most folks
> (even stupid greedy Republicans) believe that Bush is all about making
> his friends richer at the expense of our nation.

Yeah, that's why Kerry won. Oh, wait...

> However, I also think
> that most Americans don't take the time or make the effort to change
> things, which is what I find most scary.

Yeah, they go out and vote and disagree with you. Democracy
is not supposed to work that way! Bad democracy! Stupid
voters! :-)

> > It's funny to hear Democrats s*** over the prospect
> > of taxing the "rich" (namely, middle class people who have jobs)
> > and then turn around and squeal like a pig when, gasp,
> > THEIR money is spent for someone else's agenda!
> > How awful! It's like someone going out to on a robbery
> > spree and coming home to find their home lock jimmied.
>
> You're free to see it that way. Of course, you might want to keep in
> mind that "I" am not your enemy here. I'm fairly conservative
> regarding spending issues,

Yeah, sure. You're conservative as a Frenchman. :-)

> and don't forget, I was a believer in
> welfare reform since long before the term was parsed.

Yeah, because of the free daycare provisions. Good luck
to the middle class women getting them. Oh, wait,
you're not sticking around to find out. Wonder why...

> I also support a
> much, much tighter immigration policy.

Talk about being between a rock and a hard place:
The only way the feminists can hope to stay in power
is through illegal immigrant birthrates. Gee,
will these Catholic have the same agenda as
previous rockefeller white gloved schoolgirls?
(Hmmm, that would seem to answer itself.)

> I think where you and I differ
> on immigration and welfare issues is more about civil rights.

??!?!

> > > > > which is a tad different from just being cheap. :-) And, not
> > > > > wanting
> > > > > to support the bastards of feckless men, is actually a very smart
> > > > > idea,
> > > >
> > > > Versus the bastards of feckless women? I guess men
> > > > can do everything women can do PLUS sire children. :-)
> > >
> > > Society has reformed the laws on welfare, no? I supported that,
> > > remember?
> >
> > Agreed. Your motives may not necessarily be in line with what "society"
> > wanted, but you still supported the law and I give you credit for that.
>
> Thank you. Society does not always "want" what is in it's best
> interests TO want, i.e. slavery, and handouts that are much too
> generous. And before I leave this country and this NG it would be good
> for the two of us to explore where we DO agree.

I think we have a lot of time before that. :-)

> > But still, society isn't yet getting what they want: lower
> > taxes rather than just transferring the money from welfare
> > into daycare programs for a certain class of women.
>
> Well, there's more than one way to skin a cat Mark. If you don't like
> giving handouts to certain groups of people, the way to handle that is
> to try to eliminate what you don't like about that group.

Why don't you tell that with the illegals? :-)

> The group of
> people you don't like is still going to be there. :-) Correcting your
> bias may be the first step, and trying to create situations that will
> raise folks out of poverty might well be the next.

Once again, you don't have to leave California to learn that. :-)
Comprende? :-)

> BTW, Mark...there
> are no day-care programs for women; they are for children, no?

Shouldn't people be responsible for their children? Or
do you think the state should forgive deadbeats?

> >
> > But I'll say it's a good START. That's why more
> > saavy leftists were fuming over Clinton: Apparently,
> > he lied to them too. The laws are going in the right
> > direction.
>
> Liberals LOVE Clinton.

I'm talking about the hardcore guys. The ones with some
real brains who had a direction they wanted to take the country.
That's why you're moving out: He helped build the boat that
GW got on.

> They still do. And some laws are going in the
> right direction. Of course, laws that result in a loss of rights are
> what concern me most right now.

See above. Proposition 209 and future S.C. justices will
help protect a white woman's right to not be discriminated
against because of her race. :-)

> > > > > so perhaps you can get your C4m legislation passed if you call it
> > > > > something 'ginchy' like 'Relief For Fatherhood Act'. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > How about "safe havens" and "Lacey Peterson" protection act? :-)
> > > > Do you have something against protecting pregnant women?
> > >
> > > Hahahahah...go for it; now's actually a good time to propose it, just
> > > before the public wakes up and smells the coffee.
> >
> > Indeed. Here in N. VA, we just had a baby abandoned
> > and the neighbors who found it argued "Why
> > couldn't SHE ABANDON [my emphasis, their words] the
> > CHILD at a local center just around the corner?"
>
> They (and you) are perfectly free to call her action what you like; I'm
> ok with that. OTOH, legally, she does not abandon a child turned over
> to a safe harbour house. So, I'm ok with that too. :-)

It's also the same wording used both by the supporters of
the laws and also the legal code itself. Go look it up.
Even they couldn't spin it too far without undermining
the law.

> > Imagine what stories like this do to public perception
> > of men as "abandoners". No wonder America isn't moving
> > towards a more German model welfare state to empower
> > such women, eh?
>
> So, Mark...you seem to be agreeing with me that the American public is
> so STUPID they actually believe that an itsy bitsy number of these
> newborns,

Yeah, those newborns aren't important because there's
too few of them. People don't get too upset if a dead
or abandoned baby is on the evening news. There's
more important stories like stupid pet tricks! :-)

> abandoned by some few women equal the vast number of paternal
> abandonments that results in unsupported children?

Hmmm, didn't you argue that liberated women didn't need sexist
men, hmmm? Oh, wait, that's real for about 10 seconds
before the women and their kids starve to death in a cave.

And are you saying that men "abandoning" babies are putting
the children at risk because it's with the mother? Is the
child unsafe with her?

> Hmmmm....well then
> you just make my move to another country that much easier. ;-)
> >
> > > > In the meantime, as I pointed out, technology is scheduled to
> > > > do the trick within the next decade (even if you don't view
> > > > it as a threat) and existing social spending dries up or
> > > > becomes less and less effective.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about here. I love new
> > > tech.
> > > >
> > > > > But it doesn't make all that much difference to those of us who have
> > > > > already raised our families and turned out professional making
> > > > > wonderful incomes. ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Indeed! YOUR generation is moving on and it's time for
> > > > > > newer generations to make their mark. (pardon the pun)
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure; that's the way life is. I'm in a time in my life where I'm
> > > > > finally able to concentrate on my own interests. It's a wonderful
> > > > > time.
> > > >
> > > > You've been at that time for quite some time now. :-)
> > >
> > > Yes, and no. I've had responsibilities that are now shifting.
> > > >
> > > > > > > > Indeed! While most western countries offer unconditional
> > > > > > > > taxpayer benefits to single mothers with *** children
> > > > > > > > such as nationalized daycare and healthcare, the
> > > > > > > > taxpayers of the USA disagree with that sentiment.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I guess in your view, that makes us advanced. :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What's wrong Mark; have you been disalusioned by all those after
> > > > > > > school
> > > > > > > programs? :-) I'm leaving this country for one that is less
> > > > > > > easily deceived.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have nothing against them. I'm sure the same fine
> > > > > > public schools will do an equally great job with their
> > > > > > after-school programs.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what's the problem here? You're happy; I'm happy; it's all good.
> > > > > :-)
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely. You get the past, I get the future. It's all good.
> > >
> > > Actually, I get the future; I'm going to a place where people are still
> > > evolving. America is headed toward another dark ages.
> >
> > I'm sure America is crushed to hear that.
>
> Edelweiss, Edelweiss
> Every morning you greet me
> Small and white, clean and bright
> You look happy to meet me
>
> Blossom of snow may you bloom and grow
> Bloom and grow forever
>
> Edelweiss, Edelweiss
> Bless my homeland forever

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

If you seem to recall, this guy was a patriarchal man
who demanded, and mostly got, a submissive SAH wife
(well, not totally submissive, she didn't respond
to a whistle).

It looks like you're going home after all!

regards,
Mark Sobolewski
.