Re: Women Never Earned The Right To Vote

On Jul 8, 11:08 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 10:46:37 -0700, Grizzlie Antagonist





<lloydsofhanf...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 8, 8:06 am, PolishKnight <mar...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1183877707.146180.189...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 6, 6:41 pm, PolishKnight <mar...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 3, 3:09 pm, pandora <pand...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:12:03 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:29:56 -0700, Hyerdahl <Hyerda...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

I have no idea what Mark's on about here. Women still have the rights
to
own property, vote, earn equal pay, control their own bodies. I'm
trying
to understand what he thinks feminists are giving up? :-)

Consider this, under the sociobiological premise that behavior is
heritable: Women now have a choice as to who they will have sex with,
and
independently whose children they will bear. So their selections
strongly
drive evolution. A boy-toy may be fun, but a woman may finally select a
more reliable, more intelligent, and kinder mate to have kids with.

What's going to be the long-term effects of that?

Hopefully, more intelligent and well raised (because they were truly
wanted), children.

Along with fewer losers like GA, contard, and Slobbo
reproducing. I believe that's a benefit to society as a whole.

A recent survey showed that most people disapproved of single
motherhood (on the order of 70%) DESPITE the fact that most children
are raised by single mothers today. Oh, wait, that would tend to make
sense... (Experience and observation is the best teacher.)

Just the opposite Marg: As the left is painfully aware, feminists are
about as successful as the shaker cult at breeding. The only way to
keep feminism alive on the morphine drip is to import racist latino
immigrants who will support the Democratic party machine. But then
again, marxism hasn't exactly been fruitful at women's equality in the
nations these immigrants are coming from.

One of the neat things about the situation is that even a self-
proclaimed misogynist such as GA (he's really a pussycat in person)

Thanks loads!

has plenty of time to "reproduce" and not only just squeeze out kids
into poverty, but to do a decent job of it.

I'm not sure that came out right. I think that I know what you were
trying to say, but your delivery seems somewhat flawed.

I haven't been following this part of the discussion very closely, but
as a publicly appointed criminal defense attorney, I am often brought
into close contact with the parents of children.

Many of my clients have kids, but very very very VERY few of them are
married to the parent who either birthed or sired their kids.

I don't know to what extent single parenthood in general and single
motherhood in particular is being "mainstreamed" but it remains
endemic to those people who are mostly likely to commit street crimes
against others or against society as a whole.

The idea that single motherhood could possibly represent some sort of
"improvement" is crazy.

I represent a number of female defendants, as horrifying as that seems
to some people who consider the implications. Often a female
defendants is a co-defendant in the same criminal case with a male
defendant who is represented by a different attorney.

If a man and a woman are co-defendants in the same criminal case, they
are likely to be shacking up together. They are likely to have kids
together -- though, as I say, VERY unlikely to be legally married.

I'm required to interview my clients to get their side of the story
about the crime that they're charged with.

Assuming that the case involves male and female cohabitng co-
defendants, as it often does, what do you think the woman's side of
the story inevitably is?

"Hey, it wasn't MY fault. I'm just the woman. I didn't know what was
going on. I didn't know what the man was doing. The man is the one
who's guilty. He set up the whole thing. He didn't tell me
anything. I was just along for the ride. And besides, I have kids on
the outside. I'm a mother with kids, so I couldn't possibly be guilty
of anything. They HAVE to let me out. They can't keep me away from
my babies. So when am I getting out and going back to them?"

There'll be variations to that script, but that's essentially what the
woman's side of the story always is.

GA,

You're probably too high-brow to watch this show, but "My Name is Earl"
features a similar scenario.

Earl plays a man whose turning his life around from his previous immoral
criminal days but even back then, he was chivalrous. His ex-wife,
"Joy", is a self-proclaimed psychopath who can go violent, against men
or women, at the drop of a hat. She has two children who were produced
during the marriage to Earl but aren't his children. (One of the cute
lines in the show is when Joy says: "Give me some of that lottery money!
You have children to feed!" and Earl replies: "They aren't my children.")

Joy carjacks a WalMart delivery truck in an attempt to get even with the
store for not giving her a refund for her entertainment center. It
turns out that an employee was trapped in the back of it for a week and
had to eat food out of boxes to stay alive.

When Earl discovers this while trying to help her unload the truck, he
tells her they need to let the guy go. Joy disagrees and proceeds to
chase after the guy with a TIRE IRON!!! and hit him on the head.
Hahahaha, right? That's assault with a f'ing deadly weapon and the show
treats it as if it's some kind of road runner cartoon.

In the end, after Joy also cleans up her act a little bit, Earl takes a
dive to keep Joy, "a mother of two", from going prison.

It's apparent that the writers of the show, and most of their viewers,
don't yet realize how tragic all of this is.

Another film that came out that tries to make light of all this or sweep
it under the rug is "Knocked up" A comedy about a slacker who sleeps
with a girl at a bar and after she discovers she's pregnant, he tries to
become a responsible man and father. The reality is that most slackers
STAY slackers.

regards,
PolishKnight

Actually, somewhat to my surprise, male criminals who have sired
children out of wedlock do want to play some sort of father-like role
in the life of their kids.

To be perfectly honest, I must admit that they'll also use their kids
as pawns in their bid for release back into society as well, but
usually not as an emotional ploy the way that women do.

And when they have their liberty, they actually are anxious to see
their kids and when they have money, they actually will send it to the
kid's caretaker, even if that's the mother that they are ordered to
stay away from.

That doesn't mean that they'll necessarily change their lifestyles and
it certainly doesn't mean that they're willing to tie themselves down
to the mother (whom they may be restrained against seeing anyway) --
but their paternal affection -- to my surprise -- is definitely real.

It doesn't surprise me. There's no stronger force in nature than the
desire to have and assure the well-being of one's own offspring. It's
something that most species are willing to die for, and that some
species are guaranteed to die for.

A salmon leaves the ocean, fights her way upriver, lays eggs, and
dies. A male Mantis mates, knowing he'll probably be lunch for the
female, too. There's a spider that lays her eggs and then allows her
hatchlings to eat her alive.

John



Are you sure that there isn't a young child out there that you'd be
willing to commit suicide for?

.