Re: The truth about soc.men "regulars"

In article <1149347160.778949.252680@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Hyerdahl" <Hyerdahl3@xxxxxxx> wrote:

PolishKnight wrote:
In article <1149262070.412939.255800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Hyerdahl" <Hyerdahl3@xxxxxxx> wrote:

PolishKnight wrote:
Hello Andre,

In article <e5ndks$s49$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Andre Lieven) wrote:
PolishKnight (marek1@xxxxxxx) writes:
In article <MPG.1ee6d526b8d60c5898a149@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
knoxy <knoxy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:


[edit]

That's all very well and good, Andre, but even Jayne is concerned
that so-called moderate feminists are not given a warm
welcome on soc.men when they point out the "good things"
that feminism has done.

The authors you mention above probably would agree with the
so-called moderate feminists moreso than us because they
would argue that feminism provided women with voting rights,
and workplace opportunities. Those are the two biggies that
most women, even those who think feminism has "gone too
far", would have to think twice about before giving up.

Not only that, Andre and Mark, but also NO FEMINIST (not even the man
pretending to be 'Jayne' ) is willing to come forward to give up the
rights they've gained. Not one.

Hello Parg. I thought you were going away for a while? :-)

Yes, I don't have as much time these days, so I'm only responding to a
few postors, and then, only once in a while.

Considering you have DSL in Salinas, you should be able
to post a lot faster. :-)

I agree with you. That's probably why there aren't
so many self-proclaimed feminists out there anymore. :-)

Sure. No need to catagorize yourself in any way when you've reached
your goal.

They haven't "reached their goal" if they're still damsels
in distress in need of preferential "equal" treatment. :-)

That's just it: the damsels are running back into the kitchen
now faster than they're going into the workforce. Looks
like it's all downhill from here. :-)

Yet, the misandry we see in this culture (even by
strict or loose definitions of the term misandry) are
due to the stresses created by giving women equal
voting and workplace rights while women have continued
to require traditional support from men and society.
Only by bashing men can it seem "equal" or fair for
women to get voting rights and high paying jobs while
letting men do the fighting and pick up the check.

No one is FORCING men to "pick up the check".

That's largely true. Indeed, men don't have to pick
up the check especially for self-proclaimed feminists.

Sure. No problem.

Perhaps for you and your aging buddies at NOW...

The question is whether women need men to pick up
the check more.

But no one can force them to do so, either. It works both ways, and I'm
suggesting that women may have less incentive to do so.

You haven't gotten out much lately. Then again, neither have I.

But from what I've heard of the younger set, there is little
traditional dating anymore. It's "hook ups". Men don't
have to pay for tail. They get it for free (at least
up front)

Speaking of exchanges, that was what men were willing to exchange
for all the other Patriarchal goodies all put together.

First, women
generically still make less money than men

But this is largely due to their choices, yes?
Social choices aren't civil rights you know.

and secondly, they may not
have the same incentive to bribe men to spend time with them.

Hehehehhuhuhuh. See above. :-)

Consider especially the good looking men: They probably
now have little incentive to "bribe" any woman
to spend time with them. So career women who
are letting their biological clock tick waiting
for such men to bribe them probably will wait awhile.
Howz the "neice"? :-)

Preventing a person from voting is the denial of a CIVIL RIGHT;

So we deny children CIVIL RIGHTS. We also deny
legal aliens CIVIL RIGHTs then.

Not so. Children and illegals have the exact same right to vote once
the criteria is met.

I said legal aliens. So it's ok to deny people CIVIL RIGHTS
provided the proper criteria are met. Interesting...

So what?

So you can't deny a person a civil right, nor need you provide them
with a forced social choice.

But you just said the state does deny people CIVIL RIGHTS
if they don't meet the criteria.

deciding whether or not to pick> > up the check is a social choice.

No one is holding a gun to your head, Andre and Mark.

Indeed. So women aren't victims either when they
choose lower paying jobs, or work less hours
(and consequently aren't equally represented in
the workplace) or become housewives or gestate
children.

I don't see that women need to BE victims, Mark.

Yet, you continue to view women as victims lest they
no longer get handout goodies to be equal...

All they need to do
is address their own civil rights issues as well as refuse to take on
social choices that oppress them, like sexist marriages. :-)

Sure. Those blue stater women can just wait around to have
kids when it suits 'em. :-)

IOW,
civil rights or social choices might be in play for what you mention
above. It depends on the circumstances.

Some people "depend" more than others. :-)

Nobody has a gun to their head either.

If no one has a gun to their head, and if there is no invideous
discrimination present, then you are correct, Mark. That doesn't mean
that women can't address their own social choice issues tho...by
refusing to marry sexists OR divorcing the ones they mistankenly
married. :-)

Didn't you argue that equality had already been achieved?
Oh, wait, women still need a boogyman to blame so the white
knight can come to the rescue.

That's a subtle point that most anti-feminists miss
but it's key to nature of relations between men and
women today and men's daily lives.

Not really. Many men prefer to pick up the check since women offer
them unique SKILLS that men simply don't have.

Yeah baby. :-) And we both know what that is, eh?
Memories... light the corners of your mind... :-)

Poor Mark can't seem to debate the points I'm making without some
attempt at denigration.

You mentioned "SKILLS" and I was addressing specifically
what that "SKILL" was. Do you find that skill denigrating? :-)

IN any event, I'm not talking about me; I'm
talking about women, in general. Having the SKILL to meet a man's
sexual NEED for regular sex and/or NEED for progeny

So you would hope to believe. If men had such a NEED
for progeny, women wouldn't need to go chasing after
them for support. :-)

are certainly
SKILLS women do have. In that regard, there> > is nothing wrong with
such a trade, and if YOU find something wrong > with it, you need not
enter into such an arrangement.

Indeed. And a lot of men are certainly taking advantage of that option.

Not really, Mark. A few posts ago I offered you a survey showing that
more men than women opt for marriage.

Provide a cite. The survey I saw in the news said that
men do want to marry, but they never exceeded women's
desires. Also, they have a lot of time. Their biological
clock tick doesn't tick as loudly or fast.

Don't worry, your neice can work hard to pay taxes so that someone else
can have children. Is she learning Espanol? :-) Or she can pay for tax
breaks> for married couples. Super, eh? :-)

My neice is doing very, very well for herself, Mark. Thanks for
asking. She is dating a wonderful man (not an insecure yahoo like you)
and she enjoys her home and her life style.

Tell her she's free to come by anytime by my place or Starbucks
for tea or coffee with my wife. My life is real enough
that people can say hello.

BTW, my neice already
speaks fluent Spanish. She's well educated. Not only that, but her
ability to speak fluent Spanish has always put her in a better
position, work wise. She also speaks some French, but is not fluent in
French.

That's the great thing about living in a democracy.

Yep. Who won the last two presidential elections again? :-)

In a Democracy, it isn't as important since you can vote the bums
out...eh Mark? :-)

So I hear. :-)

Men need to accept women in the workplace as equals
even as they realize that they still have the lions
share of financial and emotional responsibilities in
a heterosexual relationship.

Well, women who choose to work in the workplace must be treated as
equals, as indicative of their CIVIL RIGHTS. However, a man CHOOSES
whether or not to pay for a woman, whether it's a date or a lifestyle
or a marriage. No one can force you.

Agreed. 100%

Cool! Now you're catching on.

Of course, men have TIME to make up their mind about
such matters. Men are not panicking about a biological
clock unlike certain women who saw aging actresses
having kids (from some OTHER woman's eggs, more likely.)

Actually, Mark, women are making lots of progress in that area and
are expanding their reproductive time frame more than ever.

Yeah, young women now have the freedom to freeze their eggs
when they're least financially able to afford it or
think they'll need it. :-)

Did your neice put some on ice? :-)

Now they
are even using single ova in vitro to assure the woman that she can
have ONLY one child. It's truely amazing, and sperm banks are also
available to women who prefer using their own ova. As to men, didn't
you get the memo that they too have a bio clock and that they produce
INFERIOR sperm as they age? :-) Tough noogies, Mark. The world is
not going your way.

My sperm are already inferior because they're mine. :-)
Seriously though, you have not provided a cite that shows
men have a significant risk of sterility as they age.
Their risks increase significantly but whether that
risk is significant to begin with is never stated.

Of course, life isn't fair. Even with the society we have today, we
still > > don't have a an active draft, for instance, so many
men of the WWII generation might still be happy to
trade places with a modern gen-Yer.

Sure. I agree with that.

But that doesn't change the fact that we are in an unstable society
that will require further transition. And that's
what makes the debate on this forum so lively.

I find our society fairly "stable" as compared to many other societies.

Stable is in quotes, I see.

In the spirit of the thing, Mark. No problem.

Consider that Islam, for example,> has had quite a stable culture. Not
much change there. :-)

Actually, they have been fueding over there for centuries, Mark. That
doesn't seem very stable to me.

Or India. Or,say, the Patriarchal cultures of South America...

Mark, South American women are changing their culture as well. You
simply can't keep good women down these days.

Hahahahaha! Yeah, good luck with that. :-) Do you realize
the rates of spousal abuse in these countries? How women
have children at a young age?

As to the Catholic
Church (which promotes the ideas of oppressed women) they are having
problems of their own with child-raping priests and the DaVinci Code.
:-) I'm not a bit worried.

On the contrary, the Catholic church would seem to promote the
idea of women using their "skills" (as you put) to their
fullest potential: Having lots of children while
your childless neice pays taxes for them.

I mean we do HAVE equal rights, and that is a democratic principle.

No you don't.

Women don't have equal military rights. Oh, wait, the> ladies don't want
them. Too risky. :-)

Who are you talking about, Mark? Women in the military have tried to
GET equal rights to combat duty.

Didn't you say above that women got equal rights? Now you're
saying they don't...

It's the MEN who don't want women
there. I'm ok with equal rights and duties, EVEN in the military.

So if men don't grant women rights, they don't get them.

I couldn't agree more.

It is the soc.men portion of society that you may perceive as being
"unstable" since many men who post here are so insecure about their
place in society.

Men don't need all the social goodie programs to equal things
out. Pity that funding is going more and more for other
things. You don't want your fellow senior citizens to
starve, do you? :-)

There's no reason why they should, Mark. The amount of money made in
US society can more than pay for both. :-)

I'm sure your neice would love to pay more taxes then
for more medical care for seniors and illegals. :-)

Where I used to live,

You mean salinas which is where your post originated by IP:
71.102.6.36

they
had after school programs and may even have more after the next
election. Time will tell.

Perhaps. It's less certain whether they'll have the jobs in the
bay area to pay the taxes for them. I'm sure there will
be an adequate supply of gardeners, construction workers,
and nannies to look after the shrinking numbers of middle
class families fleeing to other states...

Hyerdahl's posts are nowhere near as bad as some of the posts made by
other posters in soc.men

No proof EVER offered ? MS-directing claim fails.

:-) Well, I consider myself an egalitarian, which is why, when I read
the report today about women's gyms being forced to admit men, I
thought, "cool". :-)

So with proposition 209, any white women discriminated against
because of their race would also enjoy protection.
Do you think it should be ok to discriminate against white women?

I think discrimination should be addressed, as well as the effects of
discrimination wherever it is found.

Great! Proposition 209 allows white women to seek redress
for such discrimination as well. Super!

Also, NOW doesn't seem to want to deal with the sexism
and racism that allows white women to get fewer traffic tickets.

????? I don't know what you mean there. What discrimination?

A study commissioned by a civil rights group found,
surprisingly, that white women were getting off of
traffic tickets more than black men.

So perhaps to make up for previous discrimination, police
should have quotas to hand out more tickets to women.
Unless you think discrimination is ok?


(edit)


This is an interesting time to point out that soc.men
is probably quite vitrolic by nature perhaps because
it challenges the notion that women should be able
to act like a drunken sailor while still being treated
like "ladies".

Actually, as long as women are treated as human beings with rights, I
don't think it much matters how you perceive women. Women have the
same rights men have, drunk or sober.

Absolutely! Your neice will be happy to know that she
has the same rights as men to go childless after she
passes her 30's and pay for illegal immigrants to have children.

My neice can have a child how and when SHE chooses, Mark.

"It's my party and I'll cry if I want to!"

Yeah, good luck to her. :-)

And the
immigrants affect all of us the same, even you. :-)

Agreed. But us men don't need quite so many handout programs,
yes? :-)

Women don't have
to give up their rights in order to maintain a white-only society. :-)


Oh, wait, that right doesn't apply to men since the vast
majority of us can still have kids after 40. Too bad, so sad.

Now women can as well, Mark.

Sure. Except us men have our own. :-)

And men have bio clocks where their sperm
becomes inferior after 40.

Percentages?

So I guess if you have kids at all, we know
what kind you will father, the inferior kind. Good luck on that.

Let's just say that's not a problem in my family.

Your neice should try visiting North Paris. Tell her to not forget to pack
a headscarf!

Mark seems to think that Paris is Iran. :-) I find that amusing.

No, it's not. Iran has fewer riots and car vandalism. :-)

Quite. The general consensus here is that men and women should be
held accountable, equally, for such attempts to double dip.

Are you talking civil rights or mere social choices? :-)

Indeed. Taxpayers aren't willing to foot the bill for someone
to make the social choice to have children and expect
the taxpayer to pay for daycare. Oh, wait, there's talk
about that in California, yes? Yep, that will really
help that thriving economy along. Have all the tech jobs
moved to Texas and Nevada yet?

:-) Well, I don't know if prop 42 will pass, but I can tell you there
CA will experience a change in leadership this next election. In the
meantime, when I moved, the schools in my district all had afterschool
programs.

Try not posting from a verizon DSL line in Salinas when you
write that...

Sadly, that's not the case. Maybe you're referring to the
pro-men's-rights regulars. Also, the nature of modern
leftism is to redefine words to mean their opposite
in an orwellian fashion: Not discriminating against
someone due to their race, for example, is discrimination
depending upon the person's race if that person's race
has had "unfair" advantages. Women are "equal" based upon
the rationalizions that justify more goodies for them.

Women are a suspect class when it comes to discrimination, just like
men. The only difference is that because there was no passage of
ERA...women, as a class, are only provided an intermediate level of
scrutiny when discrimination charges are present, while race or
alienage are provided a higher level of "strict scrutiny".

You mean like when blacks drive around Beverly Hills.
Pity those racists think the police shouldn't be able
to protect the public, yes?

I don't know how the two relate, Mark? Are you suggesting that you're
a racist as well as a sexist?
(edit)

You mean because I was saying that police was discriminating against
black men and maybe something should be done to address
such discrimination against them by gender? Gee,
that doesn't make much sense.

regards,
PolishKnight
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Bird Twitters (Parg)
    ... Whatever perception of rights you ... I never said "all women" have equality, Mark. ... existing discrimination. ... shorter and less prone to violence than ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: The truth about soc.men "regulars"
    ... so-called moderate feminists moreso than us because they ... rights they've gained. ... No one is holding a gun to your head, Andre and Mark. ... discrimination present, then you are correct, Mark. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: The truth about soc.men "regulars"
    ... so-called moderate feminists moreso than us because they ... rights they've gained. ... because of their race would also enjoy protection. ... Women are a suspect class when it comes to discrimination, ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: paradigm shift wi/o a clutch was OT - "Out, damned spot! Out, I say!"
    ... Read it again Ed - and on each subject concept - make a mark. ... discrimination in public accommodations, ... public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent ... to establish a Commission on ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • 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)
Loading