Re: "Equality" for can't-cope-won't-cope feminist wusses


Hyerdahl wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > Hyerdahl wrote:
> > > Ben wrote:
> > > > Heidi Graw wrote:
> > > > > >"Rob" <robwilard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > >news:1136370310.498117.14600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [...piggy-backing off Rob's post...]
> > > > >
> > > > > (snip)
> > > > >
> > > > > >>Ken wrote:
> > > > > >>Some things need doing in order to maintain and
> > > > > >> expand our civilization and society.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes...like bearing children. Only women can actually gestate and bear those
> > > > > children so you can have that civilization and that society.
> > > >
> > > > Which they don't do alone. And they profit from civilization and
> > > > society as much as men.
> > >
> > > Yes, children gestate children ALONE.
> >
> > They don't get pregnant by themselves, and they don't run off to be
> > alone until they have their children. Perhaps you haven't noticed the
> > huge amount of resources dedicated to healthy pregnancies and
> > childbearing.
> >
> > > You may be confused between the
> > > words 'conception' and 'gestation' but I assure you that men niether
> > > gestate nor deliver.
> >
> > No, and I assure you that women profit from civilization and society as
> > much as men. Is it still a sacrifice when you have as much to gain as
> > anyone else?
>
> Only as much as men's OLD unique contribution was a sacrifice, i.e. if
> we consider men's dying in wars as a sacrifice

Guess that depends on who the aggressor and who the defender is, eh?

>there's no reason we
> can't consider women's deaths in childbirth a sacrifice. Both
> "profit" from civilization and certainly peopling a nation has been
> necessary for that. Of course, today women also volunteer for military
> duties today as well, at least those from which they are not barred.
>
> > > > > In the oldern days, childbearing was incredibly risky.
> > > >
> > > It still is. First, women's bodies are never the same after delivery.
> >
> > They can be if the women want them to be, for the most part.
>
> It's a good thing you included "for the most part". My coment still
> holds true, Ben, women's bodies are never "the same" after delivery.

Not that you could prove that by my wife, or by a lot of female
athletes who have children and get right back in the game. A lot of it
can depend on how badly they want it, Hy.

>
> My wife> is a tiny little thing, and she got huge when she was
> pregnant.
> > Shortly after delivery, her weight was back to where it was before, and
> > to this day, you'd never know from her body that she had a
> > child...you'd have to check the grey hairs for that. ;)
> >
> On her or you? :-)

Now that I think about it, on both of us. lol

> Weight, is not the only thing that changes Ben.
> If a woman delivers a child vaginally, for example, she will not be as
> tight as she once was.

Wrong! :)

> It's just what happens. Her sexuality can be
> extremely diminished by giving birth as well.

I thought the wedding ceremony did that.

>
> > > Most delivering women are subject to weight gain, stretch marks,
> > > bloating and minor surgery adjunct to delivery. Many women also
> > > experience high blood pressure, toxemia, and other things during
> > > gestation. And still other women, like my own sister, risk their very
> > > lives when things develop that cause a pregnant woman to 'bleed out' or
> > > some other event. Some women experience such a fluctuation in blood
> > > pressure as to have a stroke or heart attack.
> >
> > It is very hazardous for some women, but not for most. Going to work
> > is very hazardous for some men, but not for most.
>
> Women work too, Ben. Women fact the same risks men face PLUS the risks
> adjunct to pregancy, gestation and delivery.

Ahhhh...no. By your own admission, men are killed on the job in far
greater numbers than the women. But I got to thinking about maternal
death rates and occupational death rates, so I did a little checking.
According to the CDC, between 1991 and 1999, there were about 4200
maternal deaths. In one year alone, 1996, about 5100 men were killed
on the job (this number is approximately 93% of total deaths that
year). Now, when we look at rates, the picture varies a bit. Men have
a 2.0 per 100,000 rate of occupational death, while women have about a
9.8 per 100,000 maternal death rate. But a 30 per 1000,000 rate among
black women skews those stats badly, as does the higher maternal death
rate among older women. Among white women under 30, the maternal death
rate of 1.8 per 100,000 is just marginally lower than the male
occupational death rate, probably not statistically significant.

So clearly, women are not facing the same hazardous work that men are.
Black women and older women face higher risk during pregnancy than men
do at work, but far and away, more men than women are dying on the job.


> >
> > > Most pregnant women> > (whether or not they deliver a child) experince morning sickness and> > mood altering hormone changes.
> >
> > Sorry, don't see that as life-threatening.
>
> I don't need to call it "life-threatening" in order to discuss all the
> risks to HEALTH that women face....that men don't when it comes to
> gestation and delivery.

Ah, then it's a 'risk' in the same sense that a cold is a risk...maybe
it will turn into the flu or pneumonia, but probably not.

>
> >
> > > > Life for everyone was risky. But the simply fact is that most women
> > > > don't die in childbirth.
>
> Most women don't have to "die in childbirth" in order to have risks men
> don't share, in the same way that women don't have to be disadvantaged
> in the classroom in order to face discrimination in education funding.
> Logic beats emotion every time.

So you finally acknowledge that girls aren't disadvantaged. Given that
one of the elements of discrimination is unfavorable treatment, it
doesn't appear as if the girls are being discriminated against.
Disparate impact, however, can be considered prima facie proof of
discrimination, and it's clear that boys are suffering from disparate
impact.

>
> > > Women risk life and health in childbirth and since more women have
> > > children than men go to war, more women risk for the future.
> >
> > Most women don't die in childbirth. Most make it through multiple
> > births just fine.
>
> Most men don't die as soldiers in war. More "make it thru" just fine.
> My father served during WWII in Okinawa and he made radios and
> sea-shell necklaces, never seeing one day of action, while my mother
> risked her life giving birth to her children.

They both lived, correct?

>
> > > >
> > > > > And within ancient
> > > > > Germanic society this was known and acknowledged. The custom of the groom
> > > > > given the bride a wedding gift arose from this possibility the wife might
> > > > > die during child-birth. She was given her "weregild" before she actually
> > > > > died and it was given to her instead of her family. If the infant survived,
> > > > > but the mother died, that weregild was then given the child as an
> > > > > inheritance.
> > >
> > > Sure. More women have, historically died in childbirth then men have
> > > been killed as soldiers in war,
> >
> > Your proof?
>
> Common sense and biographical accounts historically recorded about
> marriages, births and deaths. The United Nations posts the horrendous
> figures of women dying in childbirth related ailments 'round the world.

Some areas of the world are indeed horrendous. In those areas, you'll
also find greatly increased rates of death for men as well.

>
> >
> > > which is why so many men historically > remarried, and married much younger women.
> >
> > Well, if you're remarrying to have children, you wouldn't marry older
> > women, would you?
>
> Indeed. You'd use them and 'refuse' them if you were a misogynist,
> which probably defined many, if not, most of our forefathers.

And the women were misandrist. So?

> >
> > > > > Men, on the other hand risk dying during battle. Any loot gained by the
> > > > > warriors was divided out. The portion that the deceased warrior was
> > > > > entitled to had he survived was given his wife, children and other family
> > > > > members. The man was not given a pre-death gift, not like that wife.
> > >
> > > Well, a dead woman doesn't need the ring. :-) A dead man doesn't need
> > > loot. It all goes to the family, no?
> > > > >
> > > > > >>If men are the ones doing this,
> > > > > >> then men are the ones who have EARNED the right to enjoy the benefits
> > > > > >> that their labours have made possible. If women CHOOSE NOT to equally
> > > > > >> participate in the maintenance and expansion of our civilization and
> > > > > >> society, they simply have not EARNED the right to expect to equally
> > > > > >> share in the benefits that MEN'S labour have made possible.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, women are the only ones who can gestate and bear those children to
> > > > > form that civilization.
> > > >
> > > > Children don't "form a civilization"--forming the civilization forms
> > > > the civilization.
> > > >
> > > It doesn't matter, Ben; you can't build an army without men and women
> > > bear men as babies.
> >
> > Well, you can't build anything without raw materials, but it doesn't
> > make the people providing the materials engineers. I send people to
> > court--it doesn't make me a prosecutor.
>
> Ah, but the police force gets rewarded as does the prosecutor, and both
> get credit for what they do, no? I see cops getting their little
> medals and accolades all the time.
> And without the cop, the perps don't get caught. What you seem to be
> doing is finding some false glory for the prosecutor at the expense of
> the cop.

Nope, what I'm doing is finally steering you around to my point of
view. :) Each part of the process has a role to play, without which
the desired outcome couldn't be achieved. You do indeed need children
to build--and sustain--a civilization, but bearing children alone
really does nothing. Which was my point to begin with.

> >
> > > Society doesn't buy your biased view that only
> > > men's sacrifice has value, nor do I.
> >
> > Doesn't really matter what you buy or not, I'm simply stating that it's
> > not just the women who do the work or 'sacrifices', regardless of how
> > you'd like to present it.
>
> I never said that ONLY women sacrifice, Ben. What I have said in the
> past here is that I don't honor what has been male only sacrifice
> BECAUSE that which has been female only sacrifice has not been honored.
> Do you see the difference?

Part of it is because I don't really buy the "male-only" or
"female-only" perspective. You do, apparently.

>
> > And I would not buy it regardless > of what society does.
> >
> > So?
>
> So, I'm consistent. :-)

That you are.

>
> >
> > > It's simply a phallic view of the world, that> ONLY what men provide has value.
> >
> > I'm just countering the gynocentric version presented here, since you
> > attach no value to men.
>
> That's not true, at all. First, I've made the comment here many times,
> that men have intrinsic value...just like women.

Except that as soon as the debate gets heated, you invariably make some
general misandrist remark that you apply to all men. So your statement
rings a bit hollow.

> I've also suggested
> that individual men who make themselves valuable ARE valuable. I'm not
> looking for special rights or perks, just equal rights.

And I want what's fair for the boys in schools. One of the bits of
information that was in the cite I gave you--the one you called a "puff
piece" and didn't read--was that school activities spending typically
amounted to 3% or less of the total budget. So, disparities in
spending can't possibly amount to more than a fraction of that.
Unfortunately, it's also in an area that many boys--more boys than
girls--find very important in keeping them engaged in school. But a
feminist distortion of Title IX that is more concerned with social
engineering and equality of outcome over fairness and equality of
opportunity really amounts to nothing more than discrimination against
boys.

> What I don't
> do is try to pretend special value just to make men look special.
> :-) Men/boys don't deserve or need that. They can be valuable in
> their own right.
>
> > > > > They're also typically the ones nurturing and
> > > > > caring for those children to make sure they actually reach adulthood. And
> > > > > when the men laboured out in the field or were away on one of their forays,
> > > > > the wife was sewing the clothes, cooking the meals, feeding the children and
> > > > > the domesticated animals. The wife was cleaning the pigpen while the hubby
> > > > > was out looting some church across the Channel. ;-)
> > >
> > > Colorful view of the world, you have matey! :-) In any event, in
> > > those days women had little to say about their roles, and perhaps the
> > > smartest women of the time, simply remained alone in a cottage on the
> > > edge of the city (at least until witch burning became the most popular
> > > way to steal their property).
> > >
> > > >So, if men> CHOOSE to share the benefits they have earned with women,
> > > > >
> > > > > The women, too, *earned* their benefits. The bore the people needed for
> > > > > that civilization,
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, but I just don't see masses of women getting pregnant with the
> > > > idea that they're providing a societal service. Generally, the motives
> > > > are more centered around their own families.
> > >
> > > Ben, you have a phallic view of the world, which is really nothing much
> > > new in this NG.
> >
> > Howso, Hy? You're the one who thinks paying women to have children is
> > a fine thing, when in reality it's very selfish and self-absorbed.
>
> That's a crazy notion since men find having families just as rewarding
> as women.

I find sex with my wife very rewarding and satisfying. I suspect I
wouldn't with someone that I was forced to pay for sex.

> I ran into a divorced man the other day; he's about 55 years
> old, and he was telling me how he loves to take his daughter and grand
> children camping. It's his favorite thing. I think you'd have some
> difficulty explaining to him how his ex-wife was "selfish" in giving
> him that opportunity. But be my guest.

Sure. Next time you see him, ask him if his wife refused to have kids
until he paid her.

>
> > And, with the childbirth rates dropping like stones in most western
> > style civilizations, to the point where there's a very real danger that
> > these civilizations will be unrecognizable in their current form by the
> > end of the century, it's obvious that women as a group aren't concerned
> > with having children for the larger good. So we're back to my
> > statement that most women have children for self-motivated reasons and
> > little else. But, to be fair, the same applies to men--I don't think
> > they run around looking to get women pregnant in order to prevent the
> > fall of the West.
>
> Whatever individual reasons women have for having children or men have
> for joining the military, both of them sacrifice. Women sacrifice
> their health and risk their lives every time they gestate, and men and
> women who join the military also risk their lives when deployed in war.

Which skirts my point nicely.

>
>
> >
> > > But that won't change how most of society views women
> > > and the huge sacrifice they make when bearing each future generation.
> > > And it certainly wouldn't change my mind, in any event.
> >
> > Hy, changing your mind is the least of my concerns.
> >
> Well, good. That might well lead you to start changing your own. :-)

Do you really see that happening? lol

>
> > > A woman who > FEELS she is unvalued by society has several choices. She can marry a > master and never love him or find an egalitarian man who understands
> > > and agrees with her plight, OR she can become a 'witch'. :-) But
> > > today, most women can simply vote, own their own property, work for
> > > demanded equal pay, and ignore bitter boys who don't find their efforts
> > > equal. They raise their eyes to the heavens, laugh at you and move
> > > forward.
> >
> > What *are* you babbling about?
>
> About freedom, Ben; that's what women want, and that's what they're
> headed toward in this modern time.

Freedom is fine for both men and women, Hy. But people in affluent
societies tend to become soft and self-indulgent, and the rot begins
from within. Men are no more immune to it then women, but women have
more to lose.

> This is a time for women where they
> may well choose more and more to buy that 'witch' house. :-) They
> seem to want to practice living on a different level, and the only men
> they will take with them

You seem to think it will be entirely their choice--it probably won't
be. :)

> are those egalitarian, and enlightened men who
> are not insecure. The only way to end that would be another Spanish
> Inquisition. :-)

Will Islamic Law suffice for you?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Statins again.
    ... event or death) using a risk score such as the Framingham score, ... the amount of cholesterol lowering achieved. ... percent greater risk of death over 10 years compared to a placebo.33 ... reduction in LDL levels, some had a moderate fall in LDL and some had ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Statin disabling Adverse Effects put patient AND spouse at risk
    ... An important new study done by the Harvard Medical School and published in ... the New England Journal of medicine has identified and quantified some risk ... every waking minute to being a champion for my spouse, ... than the 17% increased risk of our death upon the death of a spouse. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • John R. Lott, Jr. Death as Deterrent
    ... Death as Deterrent ... Capital punishment clearly increases the risk to criminals of engaging in various crimes, especially murder. ... When defined as executions per murder committed, academics find that the death penalty deters murders and saves lives. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: yet another major disaster in the fossil fuel industry....13....
    ... immediate death with shortened lifespans.... ... "..the LLE is the product of the probability for a risk to cause death ... lives shortened at all. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)