Re: Knoxy's InGratitude to Men
- From: "PolishKnight" <marek1@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 May 2006 09:51:52 -0700
Hyerdahl wrote:
PolishKnight wrote:
(edit)
It's not just good enough for a majority of men to be
between bad and good. For the society you take for granted to
exist, most have to be good. _MOST_ have to be willing to take
personal risks to defend and improve their society rather
than just demand entitlements. _MOST_ have to be willing
to financially support their families, including their spouse.
Even more AMAZING, they need to be able to take these risks
and still be useful citizens and heads of families.
Want to see the utopia where this isn't true? Check out
some local matriarchy's a quick bus ride near you...
You're wrong on several counts, Mark. First, this is the old con game
that you want women to reward men for fighting other men.
1/2 of what I talked about was men supporting their families.
But I'll take on the other 1/2 too.
Well, if you consider the vast number of younger women today who also
support their families, you'd be wrong there as well.
You mean the ones you excuse from raising their children in poverty
because men "abandoned" them?
Societal evolution, even business, is often about "fighting".Yes, it's the oldest congame around.
One of the most popular books in business is "The art of war."
Cultures, in order to evolve, often involve rebellion
and violence.
Indeed, evolution is pretty old going back a few billion years or so.
But that's how it works and you seem to prefer reaping the benefits
of that dichotomy. There are plenty of primitive, stable cultures
you could live in if you liked. Just leave that big bundle
of U.S. social security cash at home where it belongs. :-)
That gets me to thinking that women really can only get
the rights and freedoms that men grant them. When men
stop listening to women's complaints, that's the end of
their "equality." Care to take us up on that protest
in Saudi Arabia yet?
Well, that is certainly your opionion Mark, but in the US women have
rights and guns.
Yeah yeah yeah, unless men say the women can't have them which
is your excuse for why women don't have equal risks in combat.
But even so, such gun rights are protected by right wingers,
not leftists.
???? That you voted for a complete idiot who sold his own country downIt's one> > mafioso protecting for profit, from the other mafioso.
Indeed. Kind of reminds me of some people thinking
that the government would be honest and rob from
hardworking two parent families and reward single mothers
and then they realized that their honest theif gave
it all to Halliburton. :-)
the drain really speaks to your ethics Mark.
Que? :-)
You don't mind the country being sold down the drain provided it
suits your agenda. That's what makes your whining so laughable.
You seem to suggest that
the end of feminism justifies the means. :-)
Just consider it an affirmative action. :-)
Of course, feminism has
not only NOT ended but is growing stronger in all parts of the world,
even in Arab nations.
Such as North Paris. :-)
Yes, it is all a shell game, but who gestates these bad men?
Could you educate us as to that?
The only human being who CAN gestate is womankind, Mark. But, of
course, womenkind can't prevent testoterone from taking over the brains
of men unless, well
unless....you know....unless they choose to not have male babies.
Whose the primary caregiver for these young men? :-)
Women gestate such children AND raise them. The fruit doesn't
fall far from the tree.
We don't blame women for being excluded by men, Mark; we blame the menSecondly, it> > doesn't take "most" men to create the kind of society we prsently enjoy here in the west; it takes most people. And today, women are cops,
soldiers, etc.
Gee, I must have missed all the founding mothers who wrote
the constitution. :-)
who did the excluding, even when those men were our founders.
In other words, we blame the men who take action and do the job
that needs done winding up with the largest economic powerhouse
in HIStory. :-)
The founding fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence
risked their fortunes. The practitioners of your agenda can
barely pony up for dinner. The founding fathers are admired
by history for achieving what has been nearly impossible
elsewhere: staging a revolt and establishing a productive government.
You
see, Mark, I am perfectly able to compartmentalize here. Our founders
were brilliant in their concept of liberty, but they failed to include
women,
Maybe if women had included themselves in the risks from the beginning,
rather than waiting for an engraved invitation, they wouldn't
have been forgotten.
and I'm quite sure you believe them brilliant in that.
I don't think it requires brilliance to do the obvious:
Recognize those who have the greater public burdens and risks.
But
nevertheless, women have rights; they're not giving them back, and
there's nothing you can do about it.
Yeah, "they" as in men in the military that women have no problems
with being excluded from serving in equal capacity.
It's not easy and for many cultures and much of history,
men didn't live up to that ideal.
And for many cultures they still don't. For successful societies
there must be some form of working democracy and that means that men
have to share.
Indeed. It's only men who share since it's men who build these societies to begin with.
Well, it's men who excluded women because they're so insecure and
jealous.
There's another reason: They had the _ability_ to do so.
If women didn't like it, they could have used their fantastic
gestation abilities to change things, oh, say, 10,000 years ago or so.
By other men. :-) Until then, and when the going gets> rough, youSome men in some cultures have to be knuckle-dragged to
that idea ...kicking and screaming.
gals go behind the lines. :-)
Women are still being excluded there, Mark. Even those women who ask
for combat duty, don't get it.
Plenty of men, you know, don't get combat duty just for asking either
you know.
Some are declared too old. Open homosexuals are also excluded.
But those are exceptions, as you know. And so are the "GI Janes"
who typically don't want combat _duties_ on the same terms as men.
But Mark, most men are so insecure as to want a placid wife who closeBut let's face it, Mark...I don't see you running to live in Afghanistan.
True. But many men do. Afghanistan and Iraq are
extreme examples, granted, but men often do work in
other countries even at risk to themselves to earn
enough to help their families at home.
their eyes and think of England. :-)
So you're bringing up sex again. :-)
Men generally don't have issues with sex even with women who
aren't gorgeous. Sex itself isn't a burden to them.
The first thing western> women did, when men graciously handed them
rights that> > men won with their blood, was to bash men and the society> that has been > > their benefactors.
Men cannot "give" what they never owned, Mark...and they never owned
the women's vote.
Possession is 9/10's of the law. :-) By that declaration,
Al Gore must be president right now.
You mean by your declaration ....yes. By mine, men still never owned
the women's right to vote.
You're free to hold that opinion if you like. Men gave you that
freedom too.
Indeed, the largest threats to freedoms aren't from evil GW's
but rather from thin skinned leftists with speech codes, sexual
harassment (BC learned about that the hard way), and political
correctness in the media where people are terrified to state
the obvious for fear of being accused as witches, er, I mean
racists or sexists.
Honey, not only have you not earned the rights you've been
so over-generously given by men but you have shown quite
well why they shouldn't have been given to you in the first place.
That they took it without owning it is more reason> > for women to distrust men in general.
Took it when? When did women have such rights for
men to take them away?
In a true democracy, all human beings have the right ....the same as
all other human beings.
You mean the "true" democracy that men took the risk to create
while women gestated children for tyrants.
IOW, when an adult citizen reaches the voting
age, they can vote.
So "adult citizens" are not "human beings". OK...
Oh, wait, you're "compartmentalizing". You use the broad
(pardon the pun) "human beings" as a smug moral gesture
but then close it down with limitations where it suits you.
(This must be similar to how
men "abandon" children when such children aren't bornMen can only abandon children when there are children Mark, and that
yet and women supposedly don't need men anyway :-)
you don't understand that is not my problem...or the law's problem,
because judges DO get it.
Judges aren't necessarily right all the time. Some Sore Losers
disagree with them at times. :-)
In the meantime, society is slowly beginning to pick up and realize
that the matriarchy isn't doing such a great job after all.
Bill Clinton had to sign off on welfare reform limits and
they've been wildly popular.
Ah, but you still were overly broad in your suggestion, and I wanted toEquality with men isn't just a matter of looking to get goodies
thrown at them with both hands by generous, protective
white males.
Poor Mark believes that no men of color fought in any American wars.
Indeed. Men of color fought in these wars even when
they enjoyed fewer civil rights and human than white women.
There was no call on the Titanic for "women and black people first".
point that out. And today no man (or woman) would expect to have
duties without equal rights, even in the military. We have evolved;
times change.
Er, men do expect that they often have more duties than rights
when women are promoted ahead of them without having similar
combat duties. Or when men register for selective service
lest they lose voting rights.
:-) It goes along with his old "black gene' theory. :-) And
shhhhhhhhh....he doesn't know women were excluded from duty by men
Apparently, women aren't rushing for duties today either. :-)
Duties are a lot less fun in equality than goodies.
Women don't have to rush for that from which they are excluded unless
it is in their intersts,
Or even when it is in their interests. Without training wheels,
feminism doesn't go so far and even with them, it's sputtering.
just like men, but some women have indeed
asked for combat duty. And there are many historical accounts of women
wanting to go.
So if a man washes a few dishes and changes a diaper or two,
does that make him an equal primary caregiver? (I suppose
more men will need to abuse their own children before
a judge will grant him preferential custody and welfare benefits.)
Mark, trying to be cute won't help your argument here.or> > that women have tried to fight in wars and were turned back.
Men have all the fun. :-)
Abilities stand on their own. And you know it.
Your agenda is morally and logically bankrupt. You and I both
know it. It's about as well founded as your neices "30 percent"
equity.
Give me a metro area. I dare you.
regards,
PolishKnight
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Soc.feminists go Drinking
- Next by Date: Re: From Mom to Dad as villain
- Previous by thread: Re: Knoxy's InGratitude to Men
- Next by thread: Re: Knoxy's InGratitude to Men
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
