Discussion:
Why Should A Man Bear Responsibility For A Women Who Decides To Have A Baby?
(too old to reply)
Andre Lieven
2003-10-09 15:01:39 UTC
Permalink
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
have a Baby?

http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm

Are women responsible for anything that they do?

The UK has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe.
90,000 women under the age of 19 give birth every year.

However, isn't it incredible that when it comes to having a baby,
the feminist propaganda machine always tries to make us believe
that the man is responsible for such an event, when, in fact, he
has very little to do with it?

How many times do we hear the politically-correct complaining
about the boys who go around impregnating girls and then
abandoning them, as if, somehow, the boys have any control over
what the girls' biological outcomes will be?

It is females who are in control of their pregnancies. And they
have total control.

Females have ready access to all forms of contraception. They can
take the contraceptive pill. They can take the morning-after
pill. They can don the diaphragm. They can insist on condoms.
They can use spermicide. They can have abortions. And they can
keep their legs closed.

To prevent an unwanted baby being born, they can do something
before sex, during sex and after sex.

They are in charge in all areas to do with giving birth -
physically, chemically, biologically, psychologically, socially,
legally and medically.

In the UK today, no man can force a woman to have a baby. It is
entirely her choice. So why do our politicians and the media
continue to blame men (and with such vitriol) for unwanted or
undesirable pregnancies? The answer is, of course, very simple.
It is the vindictive, prejudicial rhetoric of feminism which
always blocks any attempts to make women responsible for
anything.

Unfortunately, promoting this politically-correct nonsense takes
away responsibility from the very group of people - women - who
have the wherewithal to prevent these unwanted events. It allows
them to say, 'it's not my fault'.

I don't know how many times I have seen chat shows where, for
example, women with seven or eight children (from two, three or
four different men) complain about how badly the state looks
after them. And the audience is invariably directed to shift the
blame for this situation on to the reckless men who have
impregnated her.

It never seems to dawn on this feminist-indoctrinated society
that such women have total responsibility for having children.

No-one can make them have them.

No wonder, therefore, that such women never need to consider
their own responsibility and are quite happy for everyone else to
pay for their children, and for the problems that, statistically
speaking, these children are likely to cause, for decades to
come.

And matters are not helped at all when boot-licking politicians
and media folk toe the feminist line and also blame men.

They're blaming the wrong people.

If you want to fix the exhaust on your car, there's no point in
tinkering around with the engine. No matter how long you go at
it. No matter how much money you pay the mechanic. Messing about
with the engine will make no difference. Your exhaust will not
work even if you spend a million pounds on trying to do something
with the engine.

No wonder, therefore, that the numbers of single-mother families
continue to grow together with their armies of dysfunctional
progeny.

Until we remove the deceptions and the deceits of feminist
doctrine from our society, and start to make women responsible
for their actions, we don't really have much hope of solving
anything.

Money that should be going to the NHS, to education and to our
old people is being spent on problems mostly caused by feminist
and politically-correct ideology.

It is such a tragic waste.

But why do we do it? Because politicians and the media have to
appease hysterical feminists and their destructive, short-sighted
ideology which denies that women should bear any responsibility
even in those areas where they have TOTAL control.

And it is TOTAL!

It is mind-boggling to see how the media panders to this
ludicrous proposition that men are the ones responsible for
pregnancies. And they do it daily.

Trisha, one of the trashiest chat programmes on TV, consistently
draws its viewers by verbally spanking working class boys and
blaming them for the ills of all of society.

For example, a recent edition of the programme (ITV 27/3/00) had
the heading, 'He Got Four Of Us Pregnant'.

Jason, apparently, has managed to impregnate four, and possibly
five, women. Two babies have already been born and two are on the
way.

Jason protests that he's only doing what comes naturally by
screwing around, but the mostly female audience rages into him.
"He should keep his zipper closed," says one. "I've got two
bricks in my garden," says the other with venom in her voice.

It doesn't cross the minds of these feckless women that any of
Jason's 'victims' (because this is how they are portrayed) had
anything to do with it at all! They bear no responsibility at
all.

"Why didn't you have an abortion?" asked Trisha of one of Jason's
victims.

"I've already had one termination," she replies, "and I don't
want to go through that again."

We also learn that the council once categorised this particular
woman as homeless, but that now she has been provided with a
flat, because she is going to have a child.

And this is what we do. We remove all responsibility from women
and then provide them with free apartments to aid them in the
process of single-motherhood and the production of hordes of
ill-disciplined children.

My hostility goes out not to them, however. The problems arise
from the way that these women have been brought up thanks to
feminist ideology and political-correctness. After all, who can
blame these women? Why should they opt for hours every day in
poorly paid jobs when they can have children and homes provided
completely free of charge?

How can anyone be surprised that the numbers keep growing when
feminists and trashy programmes keep endorsing their lifestyles?
With programmes like Trisha almost designed to absolve women from
any responsibility what hope have we got in terms of preventing
such situations occurring?

Blame the boys and give the girls a place to live.

It must be obvious even to the most vacuous of TV people that
these programmes bring about numerous social problems.

Jason will shortly have four children on this planet, with four
single women raising them on their own.

You and I will pay for all of this. Their education, their
health, their homes, and all the trouble that the children will
probably cause in the future.

'He Got Four Of Us Pregnant', says it all, doesn't it? Women are
responsible for nothing. 'He did it.'

What is infuriating is that the programme makers get fat on the
advertising proceeds of this trash. And I'm sure that Trisha
herself makes tens of thousands, if not hundreds of them. She can
sit back and afford to escape the consequences of all these
social problems.

I'll bet she doesn't live on a council estate. I'll bet she can
go 'private' when it comes to health or education. She can avoid
all the social problems that her programmes create. The boys of
single mothers don't get to smash her windows or intimidate her
if she goes out in the evening.

But it isn't just trash like the Trisha programme that spreads
this ridiculous politically-correct ideology throughout the
nation. We see this happening even on programmes like BBC's
Question Time.

Some of you may recall a recent incident where a seventeen year
old girl had a baby by a thirteen year old boy. Of course, this
is an illegal act and would have been classed as rape had their
ages been reversed. But only boys are responsible for anything,
remember that.

This girl, apparently, bore no responsibility, and so she was not
punished in any way. If the ages had been reversed, he would have
been locked up.

Here's how the political editor of the Spectator, Bruce Anderson,
started his response to the issue. "The fact that this boy got
this seventeen year old pregnant ..."

Do you see? It's embedded in the language.

This boy, this child in fact, 'got' her pregnant. She is seen as
having no responsibility at all, even though she is classed by
law as an adult whereas he is a child. But it is his fault. He is
a male and, therefore, he is responsible.

Do you remember the Woodward nanny who was convicted of murdering
a little boy in the USA? The media, the feminist lobby, the
people in her town, all drummed up hysteria and antagonism
against the US justice system for finding her guilty!

They eventually got her freed through intensive lobbying. 'She's
innocent,' they all proclaimed.

Of course she is. She's a woman.

Then there were those two nurses convicted of murdering a
colleague in Saudi Arabia. And the feminist-indoctrinated media
swung into action again, even though the evidence against one of
the nurses in particular seemed pretty overwhelming.

And off they got. Scot free.

Of course they did. They were women.

But now think about the little Jimmy Bulger case. This two-year
old was killed by two ten-year old boys.

And what did the majority of the feminist-indoctrinated media say
about this?

They said that the boys should be locked up for the full
fifteen-year term of their sentence!

They were only ten-year old boys! But they were male.

Feminism is a hateful and vindictive ideology which has no valid
concepts of equality or justice.
It allows adult women, literally, to get away with murder, while
even the youngest of boys must be seen as completely responsible
and punished to the full extent.

Women are responsible for their pregnancies. Totally responsible.
Forty years ago this was not the case. A woman had little choice.
If she became pregnant then it was right that the man shouldered
50% of the responsibility. And in other parts of the world the
same is true today. But not now, in this country, because here
women have 100% control.

Women should therefore shoulder 100% of the responsibility.

None of the above applies, of course, if the man and the woman
have agreed to a pregnancy. In this case, both are responsible.
But where a man and a woman have intercourse for the sake of sex
rather than anything else, then the woman has TOTAL control with
regard to any outcome.

If two people want to embark on a journey together in a car, then
the one who is driving is the one in control, and it is the one
who is in control of the car who is responsible for breaking the
speed limit - not the passenger. The fact that the passenger,
together with the driver, also wanted to embark upon the journey,
does not absolve the driver from having full responsibility for
controlling the speed of the car.

Women are in charge in all areas to do with becoming pregnant and
giving birth - physically, chemically, biologically,
psychologically, socially, legally and medically.

They have TOTAL control.

Also see Rant Against the CSA
( http://www.angryharry.com/esRantAgainsttheCSA.htm )

---------------------------------------------------------------


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
C***@thatotherplace.com
2003-10-09 16:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Oh shut up! Haven't you anything better to do?

CB
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
have a Baby?
http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm
Are women responsible for anything that they do?
The UK has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe.
90,000 women under the age of 19 give birth every year.
However, isn't it incredible that when it comes to having a baby,
the feminist propaganda machine always tries to make us believe
that the man is responsible for such an event, when, in fact, he
has very little to do with it?
How many times do we hear the politically-correct complaining
about the boys who go around impregnating girls and then
abandoning them, as if, somehow, the boys have any control over
what the girls' biological outcomes will be?
It is females who are in control of their pregnancies. And they
have total control.
Females have ready access to all forms of contraception. They can
take the contraceptive pill. They can take the morning-after
pill. They can don the diaphragm. They can insist on condoms.
They can use spermicide. They can have abortions. And they can
keep their legs closed.
To prevent an unwanted baby being born, they can do something
before sex, during sex and after sex.
They are in charge in all areas to do with giving birth -
physically, chemically, biologically, psychologically, socially,
legally and medically.
In the UK today, no man can force a woman to have a baby. It is
entirely her choice. So why do our politicians and the media
continue to blame men (and with such vitriol) for unwanted or
undesirable pregnancies? The answer is, of course, very simple.
It is the vindictive, prejudicial rhetoric of feminism which
always blocks any attempts to make women responsible for
anything.
Unfortunately, promoting this politically-correct nonsense takes
away responsibility from the very group of people - women - who
have the wherewithal to prevent these unwanted events. It allows
them to say, 'it's not my fault'.
I don't know how many times I have seen chat shows where, for
example, women with seven or eight children (from two, three or
four different men) complain about how badly the state looks
after them. And the audience is invariably directed to shift the
blame for this situation on to the reckless men who have
impregnated her.
It never seems to dawn on this feminist-indoctrinated society
that such women have total responsibility for having children.
No-one can make them have them.
No wonder, therefore, that such women never need to consider
their own responsibility and are quite happy for everyone else to
pay for their children, and for the problems that, statistically
speaking, these children are likely to cause, for decades to
come.
And matters are not helped at all when boot-licking politicians
and media folk toe the feminist line and also blame men.
They're blaming the wrong people.
If you want to fix the exhaust on your car, there's no point in
tinkering around with the engine. No matter how long you go at
it. No matter how much money you pay the mechanic. Messing about
with the engine will make no difference. Your exhaust will not
work even if you spend a million pounds on trying to do something
with the engine.
No wonder, therefore, that the numbers of single-mother families
continue to grow together with their armies of dysfunctional
progeny.
Until we remove the deceptions and the deceits of feminist
doctrine from our society, and start to make women responsible
for their actions, we don't really have much hope of solving
anything.
Money that should be going to the NHS, to education and to our
old people is being spent on problems mostly caused by feminist
and politically-correct ideology.
It is such a tragic waste.
But why do we do it? Because politicians and the media have to
appease hysterical feminists and their destructive, short-sighted
ideology which denies that women should bear any responsibility
even in those areas where they have TOTAL control.
And it is TOTAL!
It is mind-boggling to see how the media panders to this
ludicrous proposition that men are the ones responsible for
pregnancies. And they do it daily.
Trisha, one of the trashiest chat programmes on TV, consistently
draws its viewers by verbally spanking working class boys and
blaming them for the ills of all of society.
For example, a recent edition of the programme (ITV 27/3/00) had
the heading, 'He Got Four Of Us Pregnant'.
Jason, apparently, has managed to impregnate four, and possibly
five, women. Two babies have already been born and two are on the
way.
Jason protests that he's only doing what comes naturally by
screwing around, but the mostly female audience rages into him.
"He should keep his zipper closed," says one. "I've got two
bricks in my garden," says the other with venom in her voice.
It doesn't cross the minds of these feckless women that any of
Jason's 'victims' (because this is how they are portrayed) had
anything to do with it at all! They bear no responsibility at
all.
"Why didn't you have an abortion?" asked Trisha of one of Jason's
victims.
"I've already had one termination," she replies, "and I don't
want to go through that again."
We also learn that the council once categorised this particular
woman as homeless, but that now she has been provided with a
flat, because she is going to have a child.
And this is what we do. We remove all responsibility from women
and then provide them with free apartments to aid them in the
process of single-motherhood and the production of hordes of
ill-disciplined children.
My hostility goes out not to them, however. The problems arise
from the way that these women have been brought up thanks to
feminist ideology and political-correctness. After all, who can
blame these women? Why should they opt for hours every day in
poorly paid jobs when they can have children and homes provided
completely free of charge?
How can anyone be surprised that the numbers keep growing when
feminists and trashy programmes keep endorsing their lifestyles?
With programmes like Trisha almost designed to absolve women from
any responsibility what hope have we got in terms of preventing
such situations occurring?
Blame the boys and give the girls a place to live.
It must be obvious even to the most vacuous of TV people that
these programmes bring about numerous social problems.
Jason will shortly have four children on this planet, with four
single women raising them on their own.
You and I will pay for all of this. Their education, their
health, their homes, and all the trouble that the children will
probably cause in the future.
'He Got Four Of Us Pregnant', says it all, doesn't it? Women are
responsible for nothing. 'He did it.'
What is infuriating is that the programme makers get fat on the
advertising proceeds of this trash. And I'm sure that Trisha
herself makes tens of thousands, if not hundreds of them. She can
sit back and afford to escape the consequences of all these
social problems.
I'll bet she doesn't live on a council estate. I'll bet she can
go 'private' when it comes to health or education. She can avoid
all the social problems that her programmes create. The boys of
single mothers don't get to smash her windows or intimidate her
if she goes out in the evening.
But it isn't just trash like the Trisha programme that spreads
this ridiculous politically-correct ideology throughout the
nation. We see this happening even on programmes like BBC's
Question Time.
Some of you may recall a recent incident where a seventeen year
old girl had a baby by a thirteen year old boy. Of course, this
is an illegal act and would have been classed as rape had their
ages been reversed. But only boys are responsible for anything,
remember that.
This girl, apparently, bore no responsibility, and so she was not
punished in any way. If the ages had been reversed, he would have
been locked up.
Here's how the political editor of the Spectator, Bruce Anderson,
started his response to the issue. "The fact that this boy got
this seventeen year old pregnant ..."
Do you see? It's embedded in the language.
This boy, this child in fact, 'got' her pregnant. She is seen as
having no responsibility at all, even though she is classed by
law as an adult whereas he is a child. But it is his fault. He is
a male and, therefore, he is responsible.
Do you remember the Woodward nanny who was convicted of murdering
a little boy in the USA? The media, the feminist lobby, the
people in her town, all drummed up hysteria and antagonism
against the US justice system for finding her guilty!
They eventually got her freed through intensive lobbying. 'She's
innocent,' they all proclaimed.
Of course she is. She's a woman.
Then there were those two nurses convicted of murdering a
colleague in Saudi Arabia. And the feminist-indoctrinated media
swung into action again, even though the evidence against one of
the nurses in particular seemed pretty overwhelming.
And off they got. Scot free.
Of course they did. They were women.
But now think about the little Jimmy Bulger case. This two-year
old was killed by two ten-year old boys.
And what did the majority of the feminist-indoctrinated media say
about this?
They said that the boys should be locked up for the full
fifteen-year term of their sentence!
They were only ten-year old boys! But they were male.
Feminism is a hateful and vindictive ideology which has no valid
concepts of equality or justice.
It allows adult women, literally, to get away with murder, while
even the youngest of boys must be seen as completely responsible
and punished to the full extent.
Women are responsible for their pregnancies. Totally responsible.
Forty years ago this was not the case. A woman had little choice.
If she became pregnant then it was right that the man shouldered
50% of the responsibility. And in other parts of the world the
same is true today. But not now, in this country, because here
women have 100% control.
Women should therefore shoulder 100% of the responsibility.
None of the above applies, of course, if the man and the woman
have agreed to a pregnancy. In this case, both are responsible.
But where a man and a woman have intercourse for the sake of sex
rather than anything else, then the woman has TOTAL control with
regard to any outcome.
If two people want to embark on a journey together in a car, then
the one who is driving is the one in control, and it is the one
who is in control of the car who is responsible for breaking the
speed limit - not the passenger. The fact that the passenger,
together with the driver, also wanted to embark upon the journey,
does not absolve the driver from having full responsibility for
controlling the speed of the car.
Women are in charge in all areas to do with becoming pregnant and
giving birth - physically, chemically, biologically,
psychologically, socially, legally and medically.
They have TOTAL control.
Also see Rant Against the CSA
( http://www.angryharry.com/esRantAgainsttheCSA.htm )
---------------------------------------------------------------
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Bob
2003-10-09 17:41:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by C***@thatotherplace.com
Oh shut up! Haven't you anything better to do?
CB
The pig has a new handle.
Bill in Co.
2003-10-09 17:53:06 UTC
Permalink
Was this a rhetorical question? (I think we all know the answer. Keep in
mind that his options are a bit limited, CB, in part because he never seriously
attended college).
Post by C***@thatotherplace.com
Oh shut up! Haven't you anything better to do?
CB
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
have a Baby?
<further Andre whining snipped>
Andre Lieven
2003-10-09 19:46:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by C***@thatotherplace.com
Oh shut up!
No.

Deal with it.
Post by C***@thatotherplace.com
Haven't you anything better to do?
Well, I grant that your " arguments " against these posts have, so far,
been... pithy, or was that pissy ?

But, I will do what I want to do. Tough for you, eh ?

<laughs>
Post by C***@thatotherplace.com
CB
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
have a Baby?
http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm
Are women responsible for anything that they do?
The UK has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe.
90,000 women under the age of 19 give birth every year.
However, isn't it incredible that when it comes to having a baby,
the feminist propaganda machine always tries to make us believe
that the man is responsible for such an event, when, in fact, he
has very little to do with it?
How many times do we hear the politically-correct complaining
about the boys who go around impregnating girls and then
abandoning them, as if, somehow, the boys have any control over
what the girls' biological outcomes will be?
It is females who are in control of their pregnancies. And they
have total control.
Females have ready access to all forms of contraception. They can
take the contraceptive pill. They can take the morning-after
pill. They can don the diaphragm. They can insist on condoms.
They can use spermicide. They can have abortions. And they can
keep their legs closed.
To prevent an unwanted baby being born, they can do something
before sex, during sex and after sex.
They are in charge in all areas to do with giving birth -
physically, chemically, biologically, psychologically, socially,
legally and medically.
In the UK today, no man can force a woman to have a baby. It is
entirely her choice. So why do our politicians and the media
continue to blame men (and with such vitriol) for unwanted or
undesirable pregnancies? The answer is, of course, very simple.
It is the vindictive, prejudicial rhetoric of feminism which
always blocks any attempts to make women responsible for
anything.
Unfortunately, promoting this politically-correct nonsense takes
away responsibility from the very group of people - women - who
have the wherewithal to prevent these unwanted events. It allows
them to say, 'it's not my fault'.
I don't know how many times I have seen chat shows where, for
example, women with seven or eight children (from two, three or
four different men) complain about how badly the state looks
after them. And the audience is invariably directed to shift the
blame for this situation on to the reckless men who have
impregnated her.
It never seems to dawn on this feminist-indoctrinated society
that such women have total responsibility for having children.
No-one can make them have them.
No wonder, therefore, that such women never need to consider
their own responsibility and are quite happy for everyone else to
pay for their children, and for the problems that, statistically
speaking, these children are likely to cause, for decades to
come.
And matters are not helped at all when boot-licking politicians
and media folk toe the feminist line and also blame men.
They're blaming the wrong people.
If you want to fix the exhaust on your car, there's no point in
tinkering around with the engine. No matter how long you go at
it. No matter how much money you pay the mechanic. Messing about
with the engine will make no difference. Your exhaust will not
work even if you spend a million pounds on trying to do something
with the engine.
No wonder, therefore, that the numbers of single-mother families
continue to grow together with their armies of dysfunctional
progeny.
Until we remove the deceptions and the deceits of feminist
doctrine from our society, and start to make women responsible
for their actions, we don't really have much hope of solving
anything.
Money that should be going to the NHS, to education and to our
old people is being spent on problems mostly caused by feminist
and politically-correct ideology.
It is such a tragic waste.
But why do we do it? Because politicians and the media have to
appease hysterical feminists and their destructive, short-sighted
ideology which denies that women should bear any responsibility
even in those areas where they have TOTAL control.
And it is TOTAL!
It is mind-boggling to see how the media panders to this
ludicrous proposition that men are the ones responsible for
pregnancies. And they do it daily.
Trisha, one of the trashiest chat programmes on TV, consistently
draws its viewers by verbally spanking working class boys and
blaming them for the ills of all of society.
For example, a recent edition of the programme (ITV 27/3/00) had
the heading, 'He Got Four Of Us Pregnant'.
Jason, apparently, has managed to impregnate four, and possibly
five, women. Two babies have already been born and two are on the
way.
Jason protests that he's only doing what comes naturally by
screwing around, but the mostly female audience rages into him.
"He should keep his zipper closed," says one. "I've got two
bricks in my garden," says the other with venom in her voice.
It doesn't cross the minds of these feckless women that any of
Jason's 'victims' (because this is how they are portrayed) had
anything to do with it at all! They bear no responsibility at
all.
"Why didn't you have an abortion?" asked Trisha of one of Jason's
victims.
"I've already had one termination," she replies, "and I don't
want to go through that again."
We also learn that the council once categorised this particular
woman as homeless, but that now she has been provided with a
flat, because she is going to have a child.
And this is what we do. We remove all responsibility from women
and then provide them with free apartments to aid them in the
process of single-motherhood and the production of hordes of
ill-disciplined children.
My hostility goes out not to them, however. The problems arise
from the way that these women have been brought up thanks to
feminist ideology and political-correctness. After all, who can
blame these women? Why should they opt for hours every day in
poorly paid jobs when they can have children and homes provided
completely free of charge?
How can anyone be surprised that the numbers keep growing when
feminists and trashy programmes keep endorsing their lifestyles?
With programmes like Trisha almost designed to absolve women from
any responsibility what hope have we got in terms of preventing
such situations occurring?
Blame the boys and give the girls a place to live.
It must be obvious even to the most vacuous of TV people that
these programmes bring about numerous social problems.
Jason will shortly have four children on this planet, with four
single women raising them on their own.
You and I will pay for all of this. Their education, their
health, their homes, and all the trouble that the children will
probably cause in the future.
'He Got Four Of Us Pregnant', says it all, doesn't it? Women are
responsible for nothing. 'He did it.'
What is infuriating is that the programme makers get fat on the
advertising proceeds of this trash. And I'm sure that Trisha
herself makes tens of thousands, if not hundreds of them. She can
sit back and afford to escape the consequences of all these
social problems.
I'll bet she doesn't live on a council estate. I'll bet she can
go 'private' when it comes to health or education. She can avoid
all the social problems that her programmes create. The boys of
single mothers don't get to smash her windows or intimidate her
if she goes out in the evening.
But it isn't just trash like the Trisha programme that spreads
this ridiculous politically-correct ideology throughout the
nation. We see this happening even on programmes like BBC's
Question Time.
Some of you may recall a recent incident where a seventeen year
old girl had a baby by a thirteen year old boy. Of course, this
is an illegal act and would have been classed as rape had their
ages been reversed. But only boys are responsible for anything,
remember that.
This girl, apparently, bore no responsibility, and so she was not
punished in any way. If the ages had been reversed, he would have
been locked up.
Here's how the political editor of the Spectator, Bruce Anderson,
started his response to the issue. "The fact that this boy got
this seventeen year old pregnant ..."
Do you see? It's embedded in the language.
This boy, this child in fact, 'got' her pregnant. She is seen as
having no responsibility at all, even though she is classed by
law as an adult whereas he is a child. But it is his fault. He is
a male and, therefore, he is responsible.
Do you remember the Woodward nanny who was convicted of murdering
a little boy in the USA? The media, the feminist lobby, the
people in her town, all drummed up hysteria and antagonism
against the US justice system for finding her guilty!
They eventually got her freed through intensive lobbying. 'She's
innocent,' they all proclaimed.
Of course she is. She's a woman.
Then there were those two nurses convicted of murdering a
colleague in Saudi Arabia. And the feminist-indoctrinated media
swung into action again, even though the evidence against one of
the nurses in particular seemed pretty overwhelming.
And off they got. Scot free.
Of course they did. They were women.
But now think about the little Jimmy Bulger case. This two-year
old was killed by two ten-year old boys.
And what did the majority of the feminist-indoctrinated media say
about this?
They said that the boys should be locked up for the full
fifteen-year term of their sentence!
They were only ten-year old boys! But they were male.
Feminism is a hateful and vindictive ideology which has no valid
concepts of equality or justice.
It allows adult women, literally, to get away with murder, while
even the youngest of boys must be seen as completely responsible
and punished to the full extent.
Women are responsible for their pregnancies. Totally responsible.
Forty years ago this was not the case. A woman had little choice.
If she became pregnant then it was right that the man shouldered
50% of the responsibility. And in other parts of the world the
same is true today. But not now, in this country, because here
women have 100% control.
Women should therefore shoulder 100% of the responsibility.
None of the above applies, of course, if the man and the woman
have agreed to a pregnancy. In this case, both are responsible.
But where a man and a woman have intercourse for the sake of sex
rather than anything else, then the woman has TOTAL control with
regard to any outcome.
If two people want to embark on a journey together in a car, then
the one who is driving is the one in control, and it is the one
who is in control of the car who is responsible for breaking the
speed limit - not the passenger. The fact that the passenger,
together with the driver, also wanted to embark upon the journey,
does not absolve the driver from having full responsibility for
controlling the speed of the car.
Women are in charge in all areas to do with becoming pregnant and
giving birth - physically, chemically, biologically,
psychologically, socially, legally and medically.
They have TOTAL control.
Also see Rant Against the CSA
( http://www.angryharry.com/esRantAgainsttheCSA.htm )
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Mr. F. Le Mur
2003-10-09 23:20:05 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 16:12:04 GMT, ***@thatotherplace.com wrote:

->Oh shut up! Haven't you anything better to do?

Oh fuck off, you little twit. Haven't you anything better to do?
Larry Kessler
2003-10-10 04:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. F. Le Mur
->Oh shut up! Haven't you anything better to do?
Oh fuck off, you little twit. Haven't you anything better to do?
Such civilized, erudite, intelligent debate is what Usenet was made
for. It's heartwarming.
Tony Miller
2003-10-09 15:30:35 UTC
Permalink
On 9 Oct 2003 15:01:39 GMT,
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
have a Baby?
Because he stuck his penis into her.

Next question.

-Tony
--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.
Bob
2003-10-09 17:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Miller
On 9 Oct 2003 15:01:39 GMT,
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
have a Baby?
Because he stuck his penis into her.
Next question.
-Tony
Typical bigot reply.

Bob
Philip Lewis
2003-10-09 19:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Miller
On 9 Oct 2003 15:01:39 GMT,
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides
to
Post by Tony Miller
Post by Andre Lieven
have a Baby?
Because he stuck his penis into her.
With or without her consent?
Post by Tony Miller
Next question.
Sure - since ONLY a woman can get pregnant and since feminists
have established in law that 'her body her choice' - isn't any
outcome also her responsibility?

Phil
Post by Tony Miller
-Tony
--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the
fence, it's time
Post by Tony Miller
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage
Encounter weekend.
Post by Tony Miller
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.
Bob
2003-10-09 21:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Lewis
Post by Tony Miller
On 9 Oct 2003 15:01:39 GMT,
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides
to
Post by Tony Miller
Post by Andre Lieven
have a Baby?
Because he stuck his penis into her.
With or without her consent?
Post by Tony Miller
Next question.
Sure - since ONLY a woman can get pregnant and since feminists
have established in law that 'her body her choice' - isn't any
outcome also her responsibility?
Phil
Her choice, his responsibility --> classic feminism.
Post by Philip Lewis
Post by Tony Miller
-Tony
--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the
fence, it's time
Post by Tony Miller
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage
Encounter weekend.
Post by Tony Miller
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.
Andre Lieven
2003-10-09 20:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Miller
On 9 Oct 2003 15:01:39 GMT,
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
have a Baby?
Because he stuck his penis into her.
Oh ? You know that she didn't stick her vagina over his penis ?

Thanks for showing that you view women, when it comes to sex, as
*passive vessels*.

How... misogynistic of you.
Post by Tony Miller
Next question.
Do your knuckles drag on the ground, when you walk ? <g>

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Society
2003-10-09 19:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Miller
Andre Lieven reported...
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility
for a Woman who Decides to have a Baby?
http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm
Because he stuck his penis into her.
Oh ? You know that she didn't stick her vagina over his penis?
Thanks for showing that you view women, when it comes to sex,
as *passive vessels*.
Miller's view of women might be called "the female eunuch".

<laugh>
How... misogynistic of you.
Hey, it's the way Miller's momma raised her little Tony!

Miller's momma also inculcated him with the notion that
men and boys are always held more responsible for the
decisions of women and girls than the women and girls
themselves. That is one of many beliefs shared by
feminism and the traditionalism feminists mock.
Post by Tony Miller
Next question.
Do your knuckles drag on the ground, when you walk? <g>
Now, now, Andre, don't be too harsh on the Miller tribe's
shaman. Tony and the rest of that clan just stopped clubbing
women over the head and dragging 'em into caves last week.
This week they have the superstition that putting a penis
inside a woman makes her swoon and fall under his power.

Today's feminists (of any sex) have similar belief systems
although they've replaced primitive jabber about domination
by a masculine essence with more modern sounding stuff like
"social conditioning by a patriarchy". See the difference?
Heh heh. <grin>

--
Honor your inner masculine.
Live, love, laugh, think!
Andre Lieven
2003-10-10 13:40:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Society
Post by Tony Miller
Andre Lieven reported...
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility
for a Woman who Decides to have a Baby?
http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm
Because he stuck his penis into her.
Oh ? You know that she didn't stick her vagina over his penis?
Thanks for showing that you view women, when it comes to sex,
as *passive vessels*.
Miller's view of women might be called "the female eunuch".
Indeed.
Post by Society
<laugh>
How... misogynistic of you.
Hey, it's the way Miller's momma raised her little Tony!
Miller's momma also inculcated him with the notion that
men and boys are always held more responsible for the
decisions of women and girls than the women and girls
themselves. That is one of many beliefs shared by
feminism and the traditionalism feminists mock.
Exactly, and it showcases the *sexism* of such a view.
Post by Society
Post by Tony Miller
Next question.
Do your knuckles drag on the ground, when you walk? <g>
Now, now, Andre, don't be too harsh on the Miller tribe's
shaman. Tony and the rest of that clan just stopped clubbing
women over the head and dragging 'em into caves last week.
This week they have the superstition that putting a penis
inside a woman makes her swoon and fall under his power.
<g>
Post by Society
Today's feminists (of any sex) have similar belief systems
although they've replaced primitive jabber about domination
by a masculine essence with more modern sounding stuff like
"social conditioning by a patriarchy". See the difference?
Quite. <vbg>
Post by Society
Heh heh. <grin>
--
Honor your inner masculine.
Live, love, laugh, think!
Spot on, guy.

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Tony Miller
2003-10-10 13:10:49 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 12:14:39 -0700,
Society <***@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:

<Assorted blithering snipped>

You can always tell when there's an elementary school holiday.

-Tony
--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.
Bob
2003-10-09 21:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Miller
On 9 Oct 2003 15:01:39 GMT,
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
have a Baby?
Because he stuck his penis into her.
Next question.
-Tony
Typical misandrist crap. Feminist hate like that has been spewed for
years. But it has no relationship to the question.

An equal answer would be that the man should NOT bear any responsibility
for the child she chose to whelp, because SHE opened her legs.

Neither consider the real question about who's "choice" was it to bear
the child?

Bob
Mr. F. Le Mur
2003-10-09 23:17:18 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 15:30:35 GMT, Tony Miller <***@cigardiary.com> wrote:

->On 9 Oct 2003 15:01:39 GMT,
-> Andre Lieven <***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
->> 20/03/00
->> Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
->> have a Baby?
->
->Because he stuck his penis into her.
->
->Next question.
->
->-Tony

Q: What makes you think your goofiness addresses the
first question?
Ken&Laura Chaddock
2003-10-10 01:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Miller
On 9 Oct 2003 15:01:39 GMT,
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
have a Baby?
Because he stuck his penis into her.
Next question.
I gave you a match, you burned down your neighbour's house, who is
responsible you or me ?

...Ken
Shashay Doofray
2003-10-09 19:06:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
have a Baby?
http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm
Are women responsible for anything that they do?
Of course they are and they suffer for it for the next 18 years of their
life, just like the man does. Even more so, because they are stuck WITH the
kid, whereas the man is only required to help finance the disaster.

If you don't want that horrible fate you either get a vasectomy or, if you
don't want a permanent measure, use a condom. Simple as that.

SD
Philip Lewis
2003-10-09 19:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides
to
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Andre Lieven
have a Baby?
http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Andre Lieven
Are women responsible for anything that they do?
Of course they are
No they are not - they can abdicate all responsiblity within the
first 9 months by choosing to abort, even if the child is carried
to term they can still have the child put up for adoption - IOW
if they do not like the idea of being responsible (fiscally and
otherwise) for the next 18 years they can opt out - but all those
choices are the mothers ALONE - the father (or father to 'maybe')
has NO SUCH CHOICES even tho' by biological disposition he cannot
get pregnant but yet can saddled with responsibilities resulting
from the womans UNLATERAL choices.



and they suffer for it for the next 18 years of their
Post by Shashay Doofray
life, just like the man does. Even more so, because they are
stuck WITH the
Post by Shashay Doofray
kid, whereas the man is only required to help finance the
disaster.
Post by Shashay Doofray
If you don't want that horrible fate you either get a vasectomy or, if you
don't want a permanent measure, use a condom. Simple as that.
Nope - we will do what feminsts like yourself did - CHANGE THE
LAW.

Phil
hes
Post by Shashay Doofray
SD
Marcus Ulpius Traianus
2003-10-09 21:26:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Lewis
Post by Shashay Doofray
Of course they are
No they are not - they can abdicate all responsiblity within the
first 9 months by choosing to abort,
6; third trimester abortions are only legal in very limited circumstances.
Shashay Doofray
2003-10-10 03:53:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Lewis
Nope - we will do what feminsts like yourself did - CHANGE THE
LAW.
Phil
hes
whooooo, I hope you aren't calling ME a feminist! Lordy, nothing could be
further from the truth.

SD
Philip Lewis
2003-10-10 11:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Philip Lewis
Nope - we will do what feminsts like yourself did - CHANGE
THE
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Philip Lewis
LAW.
Phil
hes
whooooo, I hope you aren't calling ME a feminist! Lordy,
nothing could be
Post by Shashay Doofray
further from the truth.
I made my opinion on what you actually wrote - you say you are
not a feminist but being hampered by common sense - I will wait
for further evidence before I believe you.

Phil
Post by Shashay Doofray
SD
Shashay Doofray
2003-10-11 01:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Philip Lewis
Nope - we will do what feminsts like yourself did - CHANGE
THE
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Philip Lewis
LAW.
Phil
hes
whooooo, I hope you aren't calling ME a feminist! Lordy,
nothing could be
Post by Shashay Doofray
further from the truth.
I made my opinion on what you actually wrote - you say you are
not a feminist but being hampered by common sense - I will wait
for further evidence before I believe you.
Phil
Post by Shashay Doofray
SD
Check out my post in the Google archive (as former handle Calico Moon), if
you don't believe me.

http://snurl.com/2mt9

I think that should pretty much convince you.

SD
Philip Lewis
2003-10-12 08:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Philip Lewis
Nope - we will do what feminsts like yourself did -
CHANGE
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Shashay Doofray
THE
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Philip Lewis
LAW.
Phil
hes
whooooo, I hope you aren't calling ME a feminist! Lordy,
nothing could be
Post by Shashay Doofray
further from the truth.
I made my opinion on what you actually wrote - you say you
are
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Shashay Doofray
not a feminist but being hampered by common sense - I will
wait
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Shashay Doofray
for further evidence before I believe you.
Phil
Post by Shashay Doofray
SD
Check out my post in the Google archive (as former handle
Calico Moon), if
Post by Shashay Doofray
you don't believe me.
http://snurl.com/2mt9
I think that should pretty much convince you.
Having seen you agreeing with Andre Lieven on abuses of CS by
money grubbing women (with the help of a corrupt and biased
judiciary) I am even more surprised at your lack of support (even
opposition!) for equity in post conception choices. Perhaps you
have not seen the connection - if so it is time to mull over the
issue somewhat more in depth.

Phil
Post by Shashay Doofray
SD
wd
2003-10-09 19:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to have a
Baby?
http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm
Are women responsible for anything that they do?
Of course they are and they suffer for it for the next 18 years of their
life, just like the man does. Even more so, because they are stuck WITH
the kid, whereas the man is only required to help finance the disaster.
If you don't want that horrible fate you either get a vasectomy or, if
you don't want a permanent measure, use a condom. Simple as that.
I'm intrested in why you think this issue is "Simple As That".

Most 16 year old boys find it hard to ask their parents for a vasectomy
for christmas, and last stats i read on condoms said they were only 86%
effective in stopping an unwanted pregnancy.

But OTHO, women have numerous choices and methods of birth control that
have a far greater success rate then the condom. Some has high as 99.8%
effective.

If a woman has more pre-conception birth control choices, and if a woman
has numerous post-conception choices as well, such as abortion, adoption,
legal drop off, etc, and if it is "Her Body, and Her Choice", then it seems
to me that the woman is the only one here that can "Choose to have or not
to have a Baby". With the one single opprotunity for choice for men being
pre-conception with a birth control method that is not 100% reliable.
So i think the author is asking why should men pay for a choice that only
women can really make.

Of course, men could refrain from having sex, but thats not really a
practical solution because all humans have a sex drive and will act on
those urges.

So, this issue seems to be a bit more complex and not "Simple As That" at
all.
Marcus Ulpius Traianus
2003-10-09 21:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by wd
Of course, men could refrain from having sex, but thats not really a
practical solution because all humans have a sex drive and will act on
those urges.
Well, guys can just go gay.
Tony Miller
2003-10-09 23:30:21 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:57:19 -0500,
wd <***@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

<Snip>
Post by wd
Of course, men could refrain from having sex, but thats not really a
practical solution because all humans have a sex drive and will act on
those urges.
Of course they will.

"God gave men a brain and a penis and only enough blood to operate one at
a time" -- Steve Martin

-Tony
--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.
Bob
2003-10-10 15:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Miller
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:57:19 -0500,
<Snip>
Post by wd
Of course, men could refrain from having sex, but thats not really a
practical solution because all humans have a sex drive and will act on
those urges.
Of course they will.
"God gave men a brain and a penis and only enough blood to operate one at
a time" -- Steve Martin
-Tony
Just keep repeating the man hating crap. It identifies you.


Bob
Shashay Doofray
2003-10-10 03:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by wd
and last stats i read on condoms said they were only 86%
effective in stopping an unwanted pregnancy.
While that may be true, it nevertheless indicates that if EVERY MALE used a
condom there would be, at the very least, 86 percent fewer unplanned
pregnancies, which would be a HUGE improvement.

SD
Bob
2003-10-10 05:13:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by wd
and last stats i read on condoms said they were only 86%
effective in stopping an unwanted pregnancy.
While that may be true, it nevertheless indicates that if EVERY MALE used a
condom there would be, at the very least, 86 percent fewer unplanned
pregnancies, which would be a HUGE improvement.
SD
IOW: If men gave up sex that felt good to men, there would be very few
pregnant women.


"If it's not touching, it's not sex," says an old wise woman.

Bob
Society
2003-10-09 21:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Shashay Doofray
[unknown person] wrote...
and last stats i read on condoms said they were
only 86% effective in stopping an unwanted pregnancy.
While that may be true, it nevertheless indicates that if
EVERY MALE used a condom there would be,
at the very least, 86 percent fewer unplanned
pregnancies,
If EVERY FEMALE were responsible there would be
zero "unplanned pregnancies". Once again, SD, you
make it obvious that both traditionalists and feminists
expect men to be more responsible than women for
outcomes only women fully control. (Sigh.)
Post by Bob
Post by Shashay Doofray
which would be a HUGE improvement.
IOW: If men gave up sex that felt good to men,
there would be very few pregnant women.
"If it's not touching, it's not sex," says an old wise woman.
<laugh>

The remark you attributed to "an old wise woman", Bob,
demonstrates that if men were more restricted (than men
already are) WRT sex, women would just step up the
intensity of their sperm soliciting.

Anyone who doubts that can scan the local colleges
(in the U.S., anyway) for Ms. Bare-Midriff.
She's everywhere, along with her sister
Ms. Decolletage-Scooped-Down-To-Her-Nipples.
Lately, they've got a new kid sister joining their
flock: Ms. T-Shirt-With-A-Double-Entendre-Print.

Why do these young women put so much effort into
being sexual teases of the men on campus? I suspect
the rising intensity and number of so-called sexual
harassment policies on U.S. college campuses has
much to do with the now omnipresent cockteasing
on campuses. The more the men are restrained from
showing any notice of young women's sexual displays,
the more those very same young women attempt
increasingly extreme and blatant sexual come-ons
toward all the young men around them.

--
Men are not bloodless robots.
Men are people with feelings.
wd
2003-10-10 13:58:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Society
Post by Bob
Post by Shashay Doofray
[unknown person] wrote...
and last stats i read on condoms said they were
only 86% effective in stopping an unwanted pregnancy.
While that may be true, it nevertheless indicates that if
EVERY MALE used a condom there would be,
at the very least, 86 percent fewer unplanned
pregnancies,
If EVERY FEMALE were responsible there would be
zero "unplanned pregnancies". Once again, SD, you
make it obvious that both traditionalists and feminists
expect men to be more responsible than women for
outcomes only women fully control. (Sigh.)
I agree. Women have more contraceptive choices,
and the choices women have are far more reliable then
what men have, yet... the attitude of alot of women today
is the men should be responsible for most of the birth
control.

Thats not logical. Its not practical,it is not
reasonable, and it only self serving.

Anyone with that attitude after they are fully armed
with information on the issue is selfish in their
perspective.
Post by Society
Post by Bob
Post by Shashay Doofray
which would be a HUGE improvement.
IOW: If men gave up sex that felt good to men,
there would be very few pregnant women.
"If it's not touching, it's not sex," says an old wise woman.
<laugh>
The remark you attributed to "an old wise woman", Bob,
demonstrates that if men were more restricted (than men
already are) WRT sex, women would just step up the
intensity of their sperm soliciting.
Anyone who doubts that can scan the local colleges
(in the U.S., anyway) for Ms. Bare-Midriff.
She's everywhere, along with her sister
Ms. Decolletage-Scooped-Down-To-Her-Nipples.
Lately, they've got a new kid sister joining their
flock: Ms. T-Shirt-With-A-Double-Entendre-Print.
And lets not forget Ms. Mary-Sue Flirts-Alot.
She is the one that flirts with actors and 5,10, 15 years
latter makes a claim that she was sexually harassed.

[..]



Well said.
Tony Miller
2003-10-10 15:00:45 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 08:58:44 -0500,
Post by wd
Post by Society
Post by Bob
Post by Shashay Doofray
[unknown person] wrote...
and last stats i read on condoms said they were
only 86% effective in stopping an unwanted pregnancy.
While that may be true, it nevertheless indicates that if
EVERY MALE used a condom there would be,
at the very least, 86 percent fewer unplanned
pregnancies,
If EVERY FEMALE were responsible there would be
zero "unplanned pregnancies". Once again, SD, you
make it obvious that both traditionalists and feminists
expect men to be more responsible than women for
outcomes only women fully control. (Sigh.)
I agree. Women have more contraceptive choices,
and the choices women have are far more reliable then
what men have, yet... the attitude of alot of women today
is the men should be responsible for most of the birth
control.
What is "alot" of women? A few you know? A whole club of them? A
scientifically administered opinion survey?

This isn't what I have seen. Women *I* know take responsibility for the
birth control because the man can't be bothered. Men don't like the way a
condom feels. They want to do it bareback, and if the woman gets
pregnant, so what, it's *her* problem.

Then they get that first child support bill and they *scream*. "It's
*her* baby!!! Why do *I* have to pay for it???" (Like she's the Virgin
Mary and the baby is Jesus).
Post by wd
Thats not logical. Its not practical,it is not
reasonable, and it only self serving.
Men have the obligation to protect themselves. Leaving it up to the woman
and whining about how unfair it is is the behavior of a girly-man, not a
"Real Man(tm)".
Post by wd
Anyone with that attitude after they are fully armed
with information on the issue is selfish in their
perspective.
Anyone who gets caught after being appraised of the situation is just
plain stupid. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over
and over and over again and expecting a different result each time".
Post by wd
Post by Society
Post by Bob
Post by Shashay Doofray
which would be a HUGE improvement.
IOW: If men gave up sex that felt good to men,
there would be very few pregnant women.
"If it's not touching, it's not sex," says an old wise woman.
<laugh>
The remark you attributed to "an old wise woman", Bob,
demonstrates that if men were more restricted (than men
already are) WRT sex, women would just step up the
intensity of their sperm soliciting.
Anyone who doubts that can scan the local colleges
(in the U.S., anyway) for Ms. Bare-Midriff.
She's everywhere, along with her sister
Ms. Decolletage-Scooped-Down-To-Her-Nipples.
Lately, they've got a new kid sister joining their
flock: Ms. T-Shirt-With-A-Double-Entendre-Print.
And lets not forget Ms. Mary-Sue Flirts-Alot.
She is the one that flirts with actors and 5,10, 15 years
latter makes a claim that she was sexually harassed.
[..]
Well said.
"God gave men a penis and a brain, but only enough blood to operate one
at a time" -- Steve Martin

-Tony
--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.
Bob
2003-10-10 17:43:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Miller
Then they get that first child support bill and they *scream*. "It's
*her* baby!!! Why do *I* have to pay for it???" (Like she's the Virgin
Mary and the baby is Jesus).
Classic feminism: Men pay, women get paid. The world of men owes them
a living.

Please explain why men ought to pay women?

The public wants to know?

For years feminists have been claiming to support "equal rights." Now
men are demanding equal rights. They ought to have been careful what
they asked for.

Bob
Bob
2003-10-11 01:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Tony Miller
Then they get that first child support bill and they *scream*. "It's
*her* baby!!! Why do *I* have to pay for it???" (Like she's the Virgin
Mary and the baby is Jesus).
Classic feminism: Men pay, women get paid. The world of men owes them
a living.
Please explain why men ought to pay women?
The public wants to know?
For years feminists have been claiming to support "equal rights." Now
men are demanding equal rights. They ought to have been careful what
they asked for.
Bob
Tony, you haven't told us why men ought to "pay" women?

What is it about being born female that entitles women to get paid by
men? Whatever happened to feminist "equality"?

Bob
wd
2003-10-10 19:41:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Miller
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 08:58:44 -0500,
Post by wd
Post by Society
Post by Shashay Doofray
[unknown person] wrote...
and last stats i read on condoms said they were
only 86% effective in stopping an unwanted pregnancy.
While that may be true, it nevertheless indicates that if
EVERY MALE used a condom there would be,
at the very least, 86 percent fewer unplanned
pregnancies,
If EVERY FEMALE were responsible there would be
zero "unplanned pregnancies". Once again, SD, you
make it obvious that both traditionalists and feminists
expect men to be more responsible than women for
outcomes only women fully control. (Sigh.)
I agree. Women have more contraceptive choices,
and the choices women have are far more reliable then
what men have, yet... the attitude of alot of women today
is the men should be responsible for most of the birth
control.
What is "alot" of women? A few you know? A whole club of them? A
scientifically administered opinion survey?
Since this information has been posted numerous times, i suggest you look
for it.
Post by Tony Miller
This isn't what I have seen. Women *I* know take responsibility for the
birth control because the man can't be bothered. Men don't like the way a
condom feels. They want to do it bareback, and if the woman gets
pregnant, so what, it's *her* problem.
You obvously are not insync with what is being discussed.
Post by Tony Miller
Then they get that first child support bill and they *scream*. "It's
*her* baby!!! Why do *I* have to pay for it???" (Like she's the Virgin
Mary and the baby is Jesus).
What are you on about? Men have fewer choices regarding pre conception as
well as post conception birth control. Thats what we are discussing.

Or are you one of "those men" that use any and every exceus to defend
women?

Free Clue: YOU wont get laid on usenet.
Post by Tony Miller
Post by wd
Thats not logical. Its not practical,it is not
reasonable, and it only self serving.
Men have the obligation to protect themselves. Leaving it up to the woman
and whining about how unfair it is is the behavior of a girly-man, not a
"Real Man(tm)".
I agree with 1/2 half of this. "Men have the obligation to protect
themselves."

Now lets hope science can catch up and offer men as many choices regarding
birth control as science has offered to women in the past years.

Real Men need choices, while "girlie-men" like you become door mats.
Post by Tony Miller
Post by wd
Anyone with that attitude after they are fully armed
with information on the issue is selfish in their
perspective.
Anyone who gets caught after being appraised of the situation is just
plain stupid. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over
and over and over again and expecting a different result each time".
Once again, you simply do not know or understand the subject matter, nor
do you keep insync with what is being discussed. When you have some real
and meaningful information to add to the discussion on the differences in
birth control between men and women feel free to post it. Until then,
please stop wasting your time.

Oh, and...

Seek Professional help for your reading disorders.
Post by Tony Miller
"God gave men a penis and a brain, but only enough blood to operate one
at a time" -- Steve Martin
-Tony
It seems he did not give you enough blood to operate either.

HAND!!

~wd
Michael Snyder
2003-10-10 21:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Miller
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 08:58:44 -0500,
Post by wd
Post by Society
Post by Shashay Doofray
[unknown person] wrote...
and last stats i read on condoms said they were
only 86% effective in stopping an unwanted pregnancy.
While that may be true, it nevertheless indicates that if
EVERY MALE used a condom there would be,
at the very least, 86 percent fewer unplanned
pregnancies,
If EVERY FEMALE were responsible there would be
zero "unplanned pregnancies". Once again, SD, you
make it obvious that both traditionalists and feminists
expect men to be more responsible than women for
outcomes only women fully control. (Sigh.)
I agree. Women have more contraceptive choices,
and the choices women have are far more reliable then
what men have, yet... the attitude of alot of women today
is the men should be responsible for most of the birth
control.
What is "alot" of women? A few you know? A whole club of them?
The OP, for one. Check the subject line.
Tony Miller
2003-10-10 13:10:51 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:51:37 -0700,
Society <***@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:

<Snip>
Post by Society
Why do these young women put so much effort into
being sexual teases of the men on campus? I suspect
the rising intensity and number of so-called sexual
harassment policies on U.S. college campuses has
much to do with the now omnipresent cockteasing
on campuses. The more the men are restrained from
showing any notice of young women's sexual displays,
the more those very same young women attempt
increasingly extreme and blatant sexual come-ons
toward all the young men around them.
--
Men are not bloodless robots.
Men are people with feelings.
"God gave men a penis and a brain, but only enough blood to operate one at
a time" -- Steve Martin

-Tony
--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.
Mr. F. Le Mur
2003-10-10 14:47:15 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:10:51 GMT, Tony Miller <***@cigardiary.com> wrote:

->On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:51:37 -0700,
-> Society <***@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
->
-><Snip>
->
->> Why do these young women put so much effort into
->> being sexual teases of the men on campus? I suspect
->> the rising intensity and number of so-called sexual
->> harassment policies on U.S. college campuses has
->> much to do with the now omnipresent cockteasing
->> on campuses. The more the men are restrained from
->> showing any notice of young women's sexual displays,
->> the more those very same young women attempt
->> increasingly extreme and blatant sexual come-ons
->> toward all the young men around them.

An interesting idea, and probably true.

->>
->> --
->> Men are not bloodless robots.
->> Men are people with feelings.
->
->"God gave men a penis and a brain, but only enough blood to operate one at
->a time" -- Steve Martin
->
->-Tony

It's obvious which one you're using when you post.
Bob
2003-10-10 15:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Miller
"God gave men a penis and a brain, but only enough blood to operate one at
a time" -- Steve Martin
-Tony
Just keep repeating the man hating crap. It identifies you.


Bob
Shashay Doofray
2003-10-11 01:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Tony Miller
"God gave men a penis and a brain, but only enough blood to operate one at
a time" -- Steve Martin
-Tony
Just keep repeating the man hating crap. It identifies you.
Bob
Why does a reference to a penis give you the impression that the statement
was hateful toward men? How silly. It is a comment on human nature that is
all. It ISN'T A BAD THING. Sheesh, get over yourself man.

SD
Bob
2003-10-11 01:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Bob
Post by Tony Miller
"God gave men a penis and a brain, but only enough blood to operate one
at
Post by Bob
Post by Tony Miller
a time" -- Steve Martin
-Tony
Just keep repeating the man hating crap. It identifies you.
Bob
Why does a reference to a penis give you the impression that the statement
was hateful toward men? How silly. It is a comment on human nature that is
all. It ISN'T A BAD THING. Sheesh, get over yourself man.
SD
Just keep repeating the man hating crap. It identifies you.

It's the misandrist male bash about men not being able to think idiot.
That kind of crap is standard feminazi hate. Bigots like Miller and
Shashay think hate is cute.

Bob
Shashay Doofray
2003-10-11 04:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Bob
Post by Tony Miller
"God gave men a penis and a brain, but only enough blood to operate one
at
Post by Bob
Post by Tony Miller
a time" -- Steve Martin
-Tony
Just keep repeating the man hating crap. It identifies you.
Bob
Why does a reference to a penis give you the impression that the statement
was hateful toward men? How silly. It is a comment on human nature that is
all. It ISN'T A BAD THING. Sheesh, get over yourself man.
SD
Just keep repeating the man hating crap. It identifies you.
It's the misandrist male bash about men not being able to think idiot.
That kind of crap is standard feminazi hate. Bigots like Miller and
Shashay think hate is cute.
Bob
Take a pill, Bob. You are reading far too much into this.

SD
Bob
2003-10-11 04:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Bob
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Bob
Post by Tony Miller
"God gave men a penis and a brain, but only enough blood to operate one
at
Post by Bob
Post by Tony Miller
a time" -- Steve Martin
-Tony
Just keep repeating the man hating crap. It identifies you.
Bob
Why does a reference to a penis give you the impression that the
statement
Post by Bob
Post by Shashay Doofray
was hateful toward men? How silly. It is a comment on human nature
that is
Post by Bob
Post by Shashay Doofray
all. It ISN'T A BAD THING. Sheesh, get over yourself man.
SD
Just keep repeating the man hating crap. It identifies you.
It's the misandrist male bash about men not being able to think idiot.
That kind of crap is standard feminazi hate. Bigots like Miller and
Shashay think hate is cute.
Bob
Take a pill, Bob. You are reading far too much into this.
SD
Feminist definition: "taking meds" --> A man who refuses to kowtow to
feminism. See "sick."

Feminist definition: "Sick" --> A man who refuses to kowtow to feminism.
Bill in Co.
2003-10-11 05:15:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Bob
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Bob
Post by Tony Miller
"God gave men a penis and a brain, but only enough blood to operate one
at
Post by Bob
Post by Tony Miller
a time" -- Steve Martin
-Tony
Just keep repeating the man hating crap. It identifies you.
Bob
Why does a reference to a penis give you the impression that the statement
was hateful toward men? How silly. It is a comment on human nature that is
all. It ISN'T A BAD THING. Sheesh, get over yourself man.
SD
Just keep repeating the man hating crap. It identifies you.
It's the misandrist male bash about men not being able to think idiot.
That kind of crap is standard feminazi hate. Bigots like Miller and
Shashay think hate is cute.
Bob
Take a pill, Bob. You are reading far too much into this.
SD
What I find interesting is that those that throw out all these labels (like
bigot), often tend to be that themselves - but yet they refuse - or are
unable - to see it. What is that behavior called in psychology?
Projection?
Bob
2003-10-11 06:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill in Co.
What I find interesting is that those that throw out all these labels (like
bigot), often tend to be that themselves - but yet they refuse - or are
unable - to see it. What is that behavior called in psychology?
Projection?
Bill, on the other hand, never says anything interesting. All Bill ever
does is go from NG to NG posting insults. Pathetic.
Bill in Co.
2003-10-11 02:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Bob
Post by Tony Miller
"God gave men a penis and a brain, but only enough blood to operate one at
a time" -- Steve Martin
-Tony
Just keep repeating the man hating crap. It identifies you.
Bob
Why does a reference to a penis give you the impression that the statement
was hateful toward men? How silly. It is a comment on human nature that is
all. It ISN'T A BAD THING. Sheesh, get over yourself man.
SD
Because the presumption is he (generic) doesn't know how to act responsibly,
which seems to be born out in more than a few cases. You know, the guy who
gets a girl pregnant, and just walks away from, it w/o any care: "It's not
MY problem or responsibility!" (I can hear the echo down the hall.....and
you've heard some of it right here, from the soc.boys camp).
Bob
2003-10-10 14:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Society
Post by Bob
Post by Shashay Doofray
[unknown person] wrote...
and last stats i read on condoms said they were
only 86% effective in stopping an unwanted pregnancy.
While that may be true, it nevertheless indicates that if
EVERY MALE used a condom there would be,
at the very least, 86 percent fewer unplanned
pregnancies,
If EVERY FEMALE were responsible there would be
zero "unplanned pregnancies". Once again, SD, you
make it obvious that both traditionalists and feminists
expect men to be more responsible than women for
outcomes only women fully control. (Sigh.)
Post by Bob
Post by Shashay Doofray
which would be a HUGE improvement.
IOW: If men gave up sex that felt good to men,
there would be very few pregnant women.
"If it's not touching, it's not sex," says an old wise woman.
<laugh>
The remark you attributed to "an old wise woman", Bob,
demonstrates that if men were more restricted (than men
already are) WRT sex, women would just step up the
intensity of their sperm soliciting.
I gave credit where credit was due. Lots of men and women don't like
condoms. "If it isn't touching it isn't sex." Might just as well go
bowling.
Post by Society
Anyone who doubts that can scan the local colleges
(in the U.S., anyway) for Ms. Bare-Midriff.
She's everywhere, along with her sister
Ms. Decolletage-Scooped-Down-To-Her-Nipples.
Lately, they've got a new kid sister joining their
flock: Ms. T-Shirt-With-A-Double-Entendre-Print.
Why do these young women put so much effort into
being sexual teases of the men on campus? I suspect
the rising intensity and number of so-called sexual
harassment policies on U.S. college campuses has
much to do with the now omnipresent cockteasing
on campuses. The more the men are restrained from
showing any notice of young women's sexual displays,
the more those very same young women attempt
increasingly extreme and blatant sexual come-ons
toward all the young men around them.
With the increasing unbalance on college campuses the women will have to
compete harder and harder for men. When I was in college my large
University had about 2/3 men/females. Men had to compete for women.
Today the numbers are reversed, and so is the competition. Its not easy
for females at colleges to get their Mrs. degree any more, there aren't
enough college men to go around, thanks to feminism. They have to
compete hard and be willing to take what is available even to get laid.

Bob
Post by Society
--
Men are not bloodless robots.
Men are people with feelings.
Shashay Doofray
2003-10-11 01:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Society
Post by Shashay Doofray
[unknown person] wrote...
and last stats i read on condoms said they were
only 86% effective in stopping an unwanted pregnancy.
While that may be true, it nevertheless indicates that if
EVERY MALE used a condom there would be,
at the very least, 86 percent fewer unplanned
pregnancies,
If EVERY FEMALE were responsible there would be
zero "unplanned pregnancies". Once again, SD, you
make it obvious that both traditionalists and feminists
expect men to be more responsible than women for
outcomes only women fully control. (Sigh.)
Yes, but the world is as it IS - not as it SHOULD BE. And until things
change it is wise to be prepared for the worst. Don't you agree?

SD
Bill in Co.
2003-10-11 01:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Society
Post by Shashay Doofray
[unknown person] wrote...
and last stats i read on condoms said they were
only 86% effective in stopping an unwanted pregnancy.
While that may be true, it nevertheless indicates that if
EVERY MALE used a condom there would be,
at the very least, 86 percent fewer unplanned
pregnancies,
If EVERY FEMALE were responsible there would be
zero "unplanned pregnancies". Once again, SD, you
make it obvious that both traditionalists and feminists
expect men to be more responsible than women for
outcomes only women fully control. (Sigh.)
Yes, but the world is as it IS - not as it SHOULD BE. And until things
change it is wise to be prepared for the worst. Don't you agree?
SD
Are you trying to talk some common sense in here, Shashay? The nerve. :-)
Philip Lewis
2003-10-12 09:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill in Co.
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Society
Post by Shashay Doofray
[unknown person] wrote...
and last stats i read on condoms said they were
only 86% effective in stopping an unwanted pregnancy.
While that may be true, it nevertheless indicates that if
EVERY MALE used a condom there would be,
at the very least, 86 percent fewer unplanned
pregnancies,
If EVERY FEMALE were responsible there would be
zero "unplanned pregnancies". Once again, SD, you
make it obvious that both traditionalists and feminists
expect men to be more responsible than women for
outcomes only women fully control. (Sigh.)
Yes, but the world is as it IS - not as it SHOULD BE. And
until things
Post by Bill in Co.
Post by Shashay Doofray
change it is wise to be prepared for the worst. Don't you
agree?
Post by Bill in Co.
Post by Shashay Doofray
SD
Are you trying to talk some common sense in here, Shashay?
The nerve. :-)
Since this thread is crossposted to FIVE different newsgroups -
one can only wonder what newsgroup your 'in here' is referring
to.
BTW - 'Sashay' is once more being very shallow and wandering once
more off topic.We are not having this discussion to determine how
to avoid a pregnancy
but rather the state of play wrt the sexes once conception has
already taken place.

Phil
Mr. F. Le Mur
2003-10-12 13:23:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 01:36:01 GMT, "Bill in Co." <***@earthlink.net> wrote:

->Shashay Doofray wrote:
->> "Society" <***@feminism.is.invalid> wrote in message
->> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
->>> "Bob" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
->>> news:***@hotmail.com...
->>>>
->>>> Shashay Doofray wrote:
->>>>>
->>>>>> [unknown person] wrote...
->>>>>> and last stats i read on condoms said they were
->>>>>> only 86% effective in stopping an unwanted pregnancy.
->>>>>
->>>>> While that may be true, it nevertheless indicates that if
->>>>> EVERY MALE used a condom there would be,
->>>>> at the very least, 86 percent fewer unplanned
->>>>> pregnancies,
->>>
->>> If EVERY FEMALE were responsible there would be
->>> zero "unplanned pregnancies". Once again, SD, you
->>> make it obvious that both traditionalists and feminists
->>> expect men to be more responsible than women for
->>> outcomes only women fully control. (Sigh.)
->>>
->>
->> Yes, but the world is as it IS - not as it SHOULD BE. And until things
->> change it is wise to be prepared for the worst. Don't you agree?
->>
->> SD
->
->Are you trying to talk some common sense in here, Shashay? The nerve.
:-)

No, Shashay Doofray is saying "the laws are unfair to men, but rather
than mention that fact or try to change it men should quietly put up
with it." Don't you agree?

wd
2003-10-10 13:46:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by wd
and last stats i read on condoms said they were only 86%
effective in stopping an unwanted pregnancy.
While that may be true, it nevertheless indicates that if EVERY MALE used a
condom there would be, at the very least, 86 percent fewer unplanned
pregnancies, which would be a HUGE improvement.
SD
I understand what you are saying, but the numbers would not work out the
way you describe. What we need on this issue is real edcuation and not
myths or half truths.

Not every act of sex results in a pregnancy when a condom is not
used. It would hardly be at the very least, 86 percent fewer unplanned
pregnancies. There would be a 14% margin of error because condoms are not
100% effective. And this 14% would be random because each act of sex does
not result in conception.
Andre Lieven
2003-10-09 20:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
have a Baby?
http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm
Are women responsible for anything that they do?
Of course they are and they suffer for it for the next 18 years of their
life, just like the man does.
Cowshit. Women, and women, *only*, have the right to unilaterally and
legally adopt *out* an infant, and to unilaterally, and legally, *abandon*
an infant.

So, your claim that women are stuck with their state of parenthood,
is, well, ignorant cowshit.
Post by Shashay Doofray
Even more so, because they are stuck WITH the kid,
ROTFLMAO ! You don't know *anything* about Family Law, do you ?

She can sign away her legal rights ( And, obligations ), in the
ways that I mentioned, and in the way of signing the child, later
on, over to the father.

So, no, she is *never* " stuck "... unless she *wants to be*.
Post by Shashay Doofray
whereas the man is only required to help finance the disaster.
LOL ! You MS-spelled " pay the bulk of the costs, with NO choice
to him, unlike to her... "

BTW, thanks for shoing us all you view kids as " disasters "...
Post by Shashay Doofray
If you don't want that horrible fate you either get a vasectomy or,
if you don't want a permanent measure, use a condom. Simple as that.
Funny how, like other misogynists, you see men as having to be
*responsible for the woman, and for themselves*...

If she doesn't want kids, why doesn't *she* get her tubes tied,
or use multiple methods of BC ( To whit, men don't *have* " multiple
methods " available... ).

Because, to you, its the *man's sole job* to do *for the woman*...

That, of course, is your... sexism. Got it.

Next !

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Tony Miller
2003-10-09 23:30:27 UTC
Permalink
On 9 Oct 2003 20:40:41 GMT,
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
have a Baby?
http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm
Are women responsible for anything that they do?
Of course they are and they suffer for it for the next 18 years of their
life, just like the man does.
Cowshit. Women, and women, *only*, have the right to unilaterally and
legally adopt *out* an infant, and to unilaterally, and legally, *abandon*
an infant.
Wahhhhh wahhhh wahhhh... post coital choices!!! wahhhh wahhhh wahhhhh.
Damned feminists... Wahhhh Wahhhhh...

Whiny girly-man.

-Tony
--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.
Shashay Doofray
2003-10-10 04:05:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Andre Lieven
Are women responsible for anything that they do?
Of course they are and they suffer for it for the next 18 years of their
life, just like the man does.
Cowshit. Women, and women, *only*, have the right to unilaterally and
legally adopt *out* an infant, and to unilaterally, and legally, *abandon*
an infant.
So, your claim that women are stuck with their state of parenthood,
is, well, ignorant cowshit.
Post by Shashay Doofray
Even more so, because they are stuck WITH the kid,
ROTFLMAO ! You don't know *anything* about Family Law, do you ?
She can sign away her legal rights ( And, obligations ), in the
ways that I mentioned, and in the way of signing the child, later
on, over to the father.
So, no, she is *never* " stuck "... unless she *wants to be*.
Post by Shashay Doofray
whereas the man is only required to help finance the disaster.
LOL ! You MS-spelled " pay the bulk of the costs, with NO choice
to him, unlike to her... "
BTW, thanks for shoing us all you view kids as " disasters "...
Post by Shashay Doofray
If you don't want that horrible fate you either get a vasectomy or,
if you don't want a permanent measure, use a condom. Simple as that.
Funny how, like other misogynists, you see men as having to be
*responsible for the woman, and for themselves*...
If she doesn't want kids, why doesn't *she* get her tubes tied,
or use multiple methods of BC ( To whit, men don't *have* " multiple
methods " available... ).
Because, to you, its the *man's sole job* to do *for the woman*...
That, of course, is your... sexism. Got it.
Next !
Andre
Apparently there is a misunderstanding here. The gist of the OP was that
women are the ones who are making the decisions re children and the men are
hapless victims who have no choice except to go along with the decsions that
are made. *I* got the impression from the OP that the women get pregnant
without the knowledge or consent of the male involved thus causing a
life-long OBLIGATION to the male (financial).

The point I am trying to make is that YES the woman can "opt out" of the
pregnancy or motherhood as you pointed out, but that would defeat the
purpose of having a child so that someone would support it (and ostensibly
her) for, at the least, the next 18 years of its life.

However, what most women fail to realize is that having a child
(particularly having one for the purpose of being a source of income) is
often not all its cracked up to be. Wait, let me rephrase that - is NEVER
all it is cracked up to be, whatever the reason. Eventually, the woman will
come to realize this and regret her decision, even despite the money
involved.

And believe me, no one can "sign the kid over" to the father without his
consent in the matter.

And yes, having a kid is pretty much a disaster. Sorry but speaking as a
childfree individual who has not made this horrible mistake I pity those who
have.

SD
Andre Lieven
2003-10-10 05:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Andre Lieven
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Andre Lieven
Are women responsible for anything that they do?
Of course they are and they suffer for it for the next 18 years of their
life, just like the man does.
Cowshit. Women, and women, *only*, have the right to unilaterally and
legally adopt *out* an infant, and to unilaterally, and legally, *abandon*
an infant.
So, your claim that women are stuck with their state of parenthood,
is, well, ignorant cowshit.
Post by Shashay Doofray
Even more so, because they are stuck WITH the kid,
ROTFLMAO ! You don't know *anything* about Family Law, do you ?
She can sign away her legal rights ( And, obligations ), in the
ways that I mentioned, and in the way of signing the child, later
on, over to the father.
So, no, she is *never* " stuck "... unless she *wants to be*.
Post by Shashay Doofray
whereas the man is only required to help finance the disaster.
LOL ! You MS-spelled " pay the bulk of the costs, with NO choice
to him, unlike to her... "
BTW, thanks for shoing us all you view kids as " disasters "...
Post by Shashay Doofray
If you don't want that horrible fate you either get a vasectomy or,
if you don't want a permanent measure, use a condom. Simple as that.
Funny how, like other misogynists, you see men as having to be
*responsible for the woman, and for themselves*...
If she doesn't want kids, why doesn't *she* get her tubes tied,
or use multiple methods of BC ( To whit, men don't *have* " multiple
methods " available... ).
Because, to you, its the *man's sole job* to do *for the woman*...
That, of course, is your... sexism. Got it.
Next !
Andre
Apparently there is a misunderstanding here. The gist of the OP was that
women are the ones who are making the decisions re children and the men
are hapless victims who have no choice except to go along with the
decsions that are made.
Indeed, and from my read, the OP was OK with that state of affairs.
Post by Shashay Doofray
*I* got the impression from the OP that the women get pregnant
without the knowledge or consent of the male involved thus causing a
life-long OBLIGATION to the male (financial).
Indeed, based on choice for her, NO choice for him...
Post by Shashay Doofray
The point I am trying to make is that YES the woman can "opt out" of the
pregnancy or motherhood as you pointed out, but that would defeat the
purpose of having a child so that someone would support it (and ostensibly
her) for, at the least, the next 18 years of its life.
Even if the woman has the child, she can unilaterally adopt it out,
or legally abandon it, with NO consequences or obligations to her.

What we're saying here, is that since these are non-biological and
non-medical choices, that *men ought to have the same right to void
any presumption of paternity.
Post by Shashay Doofray
However, what most women fail to realize is that having a child
(particularly having one for the purpose of being a source of income) is
often not all its cracked up to be.
So ? Not any man's problem... Unless he *chooses* for it to be, for
him...
Post by Shashay Doofray
Wait, let me rephrase that - is NEVER all it is cracked up to be,
whatever the reason.
Really ? Then, you MS-ed the coverage of a case that went to the
Canadian Supreme Court a couple of years ago.

Facts of the case: At the time of the divorce, the couple each
worked, and each made ~$60K per year, gross. Two daughters, mom
keot custody, and dad paid CS.

A few years later: Dad's company goes huge, his net worth goes
up to seven figures, and income to six, per annum.

Mom, still with the two daughters, now wants $60K *per girl*, per
year. NOte: These CS payments are *tax free* to the recipient.

So, she earns $60K, *gross*, and demands $120K, *net*, as CS.
IOW, three times her net income, as CS.

She *got it*. Her mouthpiece's argument was " hes got it. "

Thats not profiting from the kids.... Riiigghhttt. ( Dr. Evil voice ).
Post by Shashay Doofray
Eventually, the woman will come to realize this and regret
her decision, even despite the money involved.
Nice belief, it just happens to be untrue...
Post by Shashay Doofray
And believe me, no one can "sign the kid over" to the father without his
consent in the matter.
Sure. More dads *want* their kids, than don't.
Post by Shashay Doofray
And yes, having a kid is pretty much a disaster.
Hmm... And, folks on asm were calling *us* " anti-kids " ?

[...../]
Post by Shashay Doofray
Sorry but speaking as a childfree individual who has not made this
horrible mistake I pity those who have.
Well, I have no children, but I was a step dad with my ex, for her son
from her first divorce. I wasn't bad, either, and that part wasn't
a " mistake "...

And, friends who are married, and have kids, well, no " mistakes "
there, either...

Funny thing, eh ? You were one of those " mistakes ", once...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Shashay Doofray
2003-10-10 06:50:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andre Lieven
Really ? Then, you MS-ed the coverage of a case that went to the
Canadian Supreme Court a couple of years ago.
Facts of the case: At the time of the divorce, the couple each
worked, and each made ~$60K per year, gross. Two daughters, mom
keot custody, and dad paid CS.
A few years later: Dad's company goes huge, his net worth goes
up to seven figures, and income to six, per annum.
Mom, still with the two daughters, now wants $60K *per girl*, per
year. NOte: These CS payments are *tax free* to the recipient.
So, she earns $60K, *gross*, and demands $120K, *net*, as CS.
IOW, three times her net income, as CS.
She *got it*. Her mouthpiece's argument was " hes got it. "
Thats not profiting from the kids.... Riiigghhttt. ( Dr. Evil voice ).
God that is soooo true. I always have to roll my eyes in disbelief whenever
I hear about the child support that "rich" people have to pay. Like Donald
Trump (I don't remember the exact figure) but it was some ungodly amount
like $100,000 a month or something like that. Holy cripe man! Just how CAN
anybody spend that kind of money on a kid? Of course they don't NEED that
much money to raise a kid - they are just USING the kid to get more
bucks!!!! argthhhhh I hate that.

I worked with a person who actually GOT pregnant so the guy would marry her,
and then dumped him so she could get great child support for 18 years.
Seems he had a very good paying job. I'll never forget something she said
to me once. She told me her purse cost more than I probably made in a
month. But her xhusband got some sweet revenge on her. He quit his high
paying job and took construction jobs where he was paid under the table.
Then he took her back to court to get the child support lowered.
Hahahahaha. Of course, it wasn't 6 months later that she pulled the same
stunt on another poor unsuspecting slob.

makes me sick.

SD
Andre Lieven
2003-10-10 13:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Andre Lieven
Really ? Then, you MS-ed the coverage of a case that went to the
Canadian Supreme Court a couple of years ago.
Facts of the case: At the time of the divorce, the couple each
worked, and each made ~$60K per year, gross. Two daughters, mom
kept custody, and dad paid CS.
A few years later: Dad's company goes huge, his net worth goes
up to seven figures, and income to six, per annum.
Mom, still with the two daughters, now wants $60K *per girl*, per
year. NOte: These CS payments are *tax free* to the recipient.
So, she earns $60K, *gross*, and demands $120K, *net*, as CS.
IOW, three times her net income, as CS.
She *got it*. Her mouthpiece's argument was " hes got it. "
Thats not profiting from the kids.... Riiigghhttt. ( Dr. Evil voice ).
God that is soooo true.
Indeed. It applies to even average folks, too...
Post by Shashay Doofray
I always have to roll my eyes in disbelief whenever I hear about
the child support that "rich" people have to pay. Like Donald Trump
(I don't remember the exact figure) but it was some ungodly amount like
$100,000 a month or something like that. Holy cripe man! Just how CAN
anybody spend that kind of money on a kid? Of course they don't NEED that
much money to raise a kid - they are just USING the kid to get more
bucks!!!! argthhhhh I hate that.
One might expect that the men so stuck, aren't thrilled with it, either...
Post by Shashay Doofray
I worked with a person who actually GOT pregnant so the guy would marry
her, and then dumped him so she could get great child support for 18 years.
There you go... as "Society" here well puts it, its the systemic use
of children as begging bowls...
Post by Shashay Doofray
Seems he had a very good paying job. I'll never forget something she said
to me once. She told me her purse cost more than I probably made in a
month. But her xhusband got some sweet revenge on her. He quit his high
paying job and took construction jobs where he was paid under the table.
Then he took her back to court to get the child support lowered.
Good.
Post by Shashay Doofray
Hahahahaha. Of course, it wasn't 6 months later that she pulled the same
stunt on another poor unsuspecting slob.
makes me sick.
Indeed. Now, consider the legal system, in that it *encourages*
such behavior...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
Bob
2003-10-09 21:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
have a Baby?
http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm
Are women responsible for anything that they do?
Of course they are and they suffer for it for the next 18 years of their
life, just like the man does. Even more so, because they are stuck WITH the
kid, whereas the man is only required to help finance the disaster.
Women are ONLY "stuck with the kid" if SHE CHOOSES to be so.

Men are stuck with the kid if SHE CHOOSES that he be so.

Classic feminism. She chooses, he is responsible.
Post by Shashay Doofray
If you don't want that horrible fate you either get a vasectomy or, if you
don't want a permanent measure, use a condom. Simple as that.
SD
Nice that you advocate surgical injury to men. It would be easier just
to toss all the feminists in dumpsters.

Bob
Courageous
2003-10-10 01:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Nice that you advocate surgical injury to men. It would be easier just
to toss all the feminists in dumpsters.
Personally, the way I feel is that it would be nice if there was
something like a vasectomy, but completely reversible. The source
of the tension is obvious: men feel a strong need to have sex, but
have no control over whether or not child payments will result
from the act.

C//
Rauni
2003-10-10 01:26:56 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 01:11:10 GMT, Courageous
Post by Courageous
Post by Bob
Nice that you advocate surgical injury to men. It would be easier just
to toss all the feminists in dumpsters.
Personally, the way I feel is that it would be nice if there was
something like a vasectomy, but completely reversible. The source
of the tension is obvious: men feel a strong need to have sex, but
have no control over whether or not child payments will result
from the act.
C//
I understand the medical community is working on that.
Bob
2003-10-10 01:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rauni
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 01:11:10 GMT, Courageous
Post by Courageous
Post by Bob
Nice that you advocate surgical injury to men. It would be easier just
to toss all the feminists in dumpsters.
Personally, the way I feel is that it would be nice if there was
something like a vasectomy, but completely reversible. The source
of the tension is obvious: men feel a strong need to have sex, but
have no control over whether or not child payments will result
from the act.
C//
I understand the medical community is working on that.
Yep. Two whole generations after BC pills were available for women, the
medical community FINALLY gets around to starting work on the medical
needs of men.

If it weren't for the growing number of MEN demanding equal rights to
family planning it would be another two generations.

Bob
Bob
2003-10-10 01:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Courageous
Post by Bob
Nice that you advocate surgical injury to men. It would be easier just
to toss all the feminists in dumpsters.
Personally, the way I feel is that it would be nice if there was
something like a vasectomy, but completely reversible. The source
of the tension is obvious: men feel a strong need to have sex, but
have no control over whether or not child payments will result
from the act.
C//
Indeed. Sex is a normal and pleasurable human activity. Twenty years
of indentured servitude is not.

Bob
Courageous
2003-10-10 04:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Indeed. Sex is a normal and pleasurable human activity. Twenty years
of indentured servitude is not.
There is, without argument, a certain element of discomfort to be
expected here, and what's likewise naturally disturbing is that
the man really isn't entirely in control of something that can
jeopardize his future. A woman can indeed "make a terrible mistake,"
and then "make a decision that the burdens associated with it will
not be undergone at this time." The man makes the mistake, and the
outcome is different. He can be required to pay for the mistake
over the significant course of a lifetime, and not even be afforded
the ordinary privileges of fatherhood. This isn't a situation that
is likely to facilitate a spirit of cultural justice.

I can't say that I entirely disagree with those men that say that
fatherhood ought to be as optional as motherhood. I can forsee a
world where male contraceptives of various sorts greatly achieve
this effect. Should men have the option to opt out, legally? It
bears the occasional thinking about, no matter if you decide against.

Unlike some here, I believe that some of the soc.men "curmudgeons"
perform a valuable social service. Andre appears to be, in my
brief auditing time here, to be quite lucid. He may bit a bit
frothy about the mouth, but impassioned people often are. He
asks questions, and challenges assumptions.

People who buy a "party line" without question *need* to face
questions. People that believe that certain assumptions ought
not be questioned are *worse*. Any movement that uses
"equality" as its insturment is really just a movement in search
of its own interests with equality as an essential tool for that
end. Sometimes equality is achieved, sometimes not.

Those who assume that all movements that *claim* equality are
strictly associated with the achievement of same are beyond
naiive.

C//
shinypenny
2003-10-10 16:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Courageous
Post by Bob
Indeed. Sex is a normal and pleasurable human activity. Twenty years
of indentured servitude is not.
There is, without argument, a certain element of discomfort to be
expected here, and what's likewise naturally disturbing is that
the man really isn't entirely in control of something that can
jeopardize his future. A woman can indeed "make a terrible mistake,"
and then "make a decision that the burdens associated with it will
not be undergone at this time." The man makes the mistake, and the
outcome is different. He can be required to pay for the mistake
over the significant course of a lifetime, and not even be afforded
the ordinary privileges of fatherhood. This isn't a situation that
is likely to facilitate a spirit of cultural justice.
I can't say that I entirely disagree with those men that say that
fatherhood ought to be as optional as motherhood. I can forsee a
world where male contraceptives of various sorts greatly achieve
this effect. Should men have the option to opt out, legally? It
bears the occasional thinking about, no matter if you decide against.
Unlike some here, I believe that some of the soc.men "curmudgeons"
perform a valuable social service. Andre appears to be, in my
brief auditing time here, to be quite lucid. He may bit a bit
frothy about the mouth, but impassioned people often are. He
asks questions, and challenges assumptions.
People who buy a "party line" without question *need* to face
questions. People that believe that certain assumptions ought
not be questioned are *worse*. Any movement that uses
"equality" as its insturment is really just a movement in search
of its own interests with equality as an essential tool for that
end. Sometimes equality is achieved, sometimes not.
Those who assume that all movements that *claim* equality are
strictly associated with the achievement of same are beyond
naiive.
C//
Very well said, and I agree that it is important to challenge
assumptions and question. However, I have to question whether Andre is
here to truly effect change, or provide a valuable social service. I
believe he may have started out that way, but somewhere along the
road, it seems to me he has become much more interested in scoring
points.

He seems to have lost sight of the purpose of the debate, and now only
debates for the sake of debate. In transactional analysis, it seems to
me he and others are playing a game of "Creditor" and "Now I've Got
You, You Sucker." That may be serving them a personal purpose -
avoidance? strokes? entertainment value? passing time? - but it
doesn't seem, to me, be to effect change or provide a valuable social
service.

The sad part is that those who make it a lifetime habit to play
Creditor often find themselves swept up in transactions with those who
play "Debtor," or "Try and Collect." The two types tend to find each
other quite easily. A classic example of a Debtor type would be
exactly the type of woman that Andre derides, i.e., a woman who would
poke holes in a condom, and then expect him to pay up for 18 years
while preventing access to his child.

So you see, if Andre really wanted to free himself from the claws of
all such women, he could do so simply by giving up his own game. Those
who play games seek those who will play with them. Stop playing your
own games, and you are much more likely to encounter quality people
who aren't interested in games, either.


jen
Tony Miller
2003-10-10 16:50:25 UTC
Permalink
On 10 Oct 2003 09:29:00 -0700,
shinypenny <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

<Snip>
Post by shinypenny
So you see, if Andre really wanted to free himself from the claws of
all such women, he could do so simply by giving up his own game. Those
who play games seek those who will play with them. Stop playing your
own games, and you are much more likely to encounter quality people
who aren't interested in games, either.
One overriding theme I've found in this discussion is the reluctance on
the part of some of the male participants to want to take responsibility
for their own future financial safety. I'm saying it like that because
their son or daughter seems secondary to having to fork out the cash, or
"keeping the bitch from my wallet".

What amazes me is that people can have sexual intercourse without once
discussing "who is using birth control?" and "what would you do should it
fail?" Chastity until marriage notwithstanding (which I consider would be
the ideal) these questions seem to be a requirement before engaging in
such a life-giving activity as sexual intercourse.

I guess it's the 60's "la... la... la la la la live for today!!!"

-Tony
--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.
Doug Anderson
2003-10-10 18:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Miller
What amazes me is that people can have sexual intercourse without once
discussing "who is using birth control?" and "what would you do should it
fail?"
This kind of amazes me too.
Post by Tony Miller
Chastity until marriage notwithstanding (which I consider would be
the ideal) these questions seem to be a requirement before engaging in
such a life-giving activity as sexual intercourse.
You'd think.
Post by Tony Miller
I guess it's the 60's "la... la... la la la la live for today!!!"
Actually the drive to have sex has always been stronger than fear of
the consequences for a huge number of people. You surely don't think
that unwanted pregnancies are a recent phenomenon?
Courageous
2003-10-11 01:05:39 UTC
Permalink
... and "what would you do should it fail?"
This is by no means any kind of contract, and means
absolutely zip if she should change her mind about it.

C//
Courageous
2003-10-11 01:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by shinypenny
Very well said, and I agree that it is important to challenge
assumptions and question. However, I have to question whether Andre is
here to truly effect change, or provide a valuable social service. I
believe he may have started out that way, but somewhere along the
road, it seems to me he has become much more interested in scoring
points.
Par for the course for usenet, really. It's hard not to do it,
even when you see that in yourself, and would rather that most
days be otherwise. Such is my experience, anyway.

C//
Shashay Doofray
2003-10-10 04:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Courageous
Post by Bob
Nice that you advocate surgical injury to men. It would be easier just
to toss all the feminists in dumpsters.
Personally, the way I feel is that it would be nice if there was
something like a vasectomy, but completely reversible. The source
of the tension is obvious: men feel a strong need to have sex, but
have no control over whether or not child payments will result
from the act.
C//
Ok so explain to me the difference between getting some bimbo knocked up in
highschool and ending up paying child support for 18 years versus having a
child with someone in a marriage and paying child support for the next 18
years. It's the same thing. The only difference is that when the child
lives with you you have to put up with all the other crap that goes along
with it.

Kids are kids. Support is support. Money is money.

SD
Bob
2003-10-10 05:15:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Courageous
Post by Bob
Nice that you advocate surgical injury to men. It would be easier just
to toss all the feminists in dumpsters.
Personally, the way I feel is that it would be nice if there was
something like a vasectomy, but completely reversible. The source
of the tension is obvious: men feel a strong need to have sex, but
have no control over whether or not child payments will result
from the act.
C//
Ok so explain to me the difference between getting some bimbo knocked up in
highschool and ending up paying child support for 18 years versus having a
child with someone in a marriage and paying child support for the next 18
years. It's the same thing. The only difference is that when the child
lives with you you have to put up with all the other crap that goes along
with it.
Kids are kids. Support is support. Money is money.
SD
Isn't it amazing how willing fembots are to grab some man's money.

Men pay, women get paid. Circumstances don't matter. Standard feminist
bigotry.

Bob
Bob
2003-10-10 05:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Courageous
Post by Bob
Nice that you advocate surgical injury to men. It would be easier just
to toss all the feminists in dumpsters.
Personally, the way I feel is that it would be nice if there was
something like a vasectomy, but completely reversible. The source
of the tension is obvious: men feel a strong need to have sex, but
have no control over whether or not child payments will result
from the act.
C//
Ok so explain to me the difference between getting some bimbo knocked up in
highschool and ending up paying child support for 18 years versus having a
child with someone in a marriage and paying child support for the next 18
years. It's the same thing. The only difference is that when the child
lives with you you have to put up with all the other crap that goes along
with it.
Kids are kids. Support is support. Money is money.
SD
Okay, explain to us once again why men are supposed to pay women?


Bob
shinypenny
2003-10-10 16:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Courageous
Post by Bob
Nice that you advocate surgical injury to men. It would be easier just
to toss all the feminists in dumpsters.
Personally, the way I feel is that it would be nice if there was
something like a vasectomy, but completely reversible. The source
of the tension is obvious: men feel a strong need to have sex, but
have no control over whether or not child payments will result
from the act.
C//
Ok so explain to me the difference between getting some bimbo knocked up in
highschool and ending up paying child support for 18 years versus having a
child with someone in a marriage and paying child support for the next 18
years. It's the same thing. The only difference is that when the child
lives with you you have to put up with all the other crap that goes along
with it.
Kids are kids. Support is support. Money is money.
SD
Okay, explain to us once again why men are supposed to pay women?
Bob
In my state, it's not necessarily the man that pays the woman. It's
the higher income earner that pays the lower income earner. In fact,
in my circle of acquaintances, all of the divorced women I know are
paying child support to their ex-husband, regardless of the custody
situation. I have one friend who's in a blended family. She pays out
to her ex, who has their child 50% of the time. Meanwhile, she and her
second husband, who have full custody of her step-son, receive a check
from her step-son's BM.
jen
Bob
2003-10-10 16:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by shinypenny
Post by Bob
Post by Shashay Doofray
Ok so explain to me the difference between getting some bimbo knocked up in
highschool and ending up paying child support for 18 years versus having a
child with someone in a marriage and paying child support for the next 18
years. It's the same thing. The only difference is that when the child
lives with you you have to put up with all the other crap that goes along
with it.
Kids are kids. Support is support. Money is money.
SD
Okay, explain to us once again why men are supposed to pay women?
In my state, it's not necessarily the man that pays the woman. It's
the higher income earner that pays the lower income earner. In fact,
in my circle of acquaintances, all of the divorced women I know are
paying child support to their ex-husband, regardless of the custody
situation.
Oh pleeeezzze. What part of Uranus did you say you are from again?

In California, for example, NOW is bellyaching because 15% of fathers
get legally mythic "joint custody" with the woman retaining actual
physical custody.

Bob
Post by shinypenny
I have one friend who's in a blended family. She pays out
to her ex, who has their child 50% of the time. Meanwhile, she and her
second husband, who have full custody of her step-son, receive a check
from her step-son's BM.
jen
Ignoramus19432
2003-10-10 16:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
In California, for example, NOW is bellyaching because 15% of fathers
get legally mythic "joint custody" with the woman retaining actual
physical custody.
could you post some references to their bellyaching?

i
Bob
2003-10-10 17:40:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignoramus19432
Post by Bob
In California, for example, NOW is bellyaching because 15% of fathers
get legally mythic "joint custody" with the woman retaining actual
physical custody.
could you post some references to their bellyaching?
i
Where have you been? NOW California ran a big political campaign last
year with that complaint.

Bob
Ignoramus19432
2003-10-10 17:58:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Ignoramus19432
Post by Bob
In California, for example, NOW is bellyaching because 15% of fathers
get legally mythic "joint custody" with the woman retaining actual
physical custody.
could you post some references to their bellyaching?
i
Where have you been? NOW California ran a big political campaign last
year with that complaint.
I am not in california. I am merely curious, I am not trying to
disprove anything. Just wondering what NOW was up to.

i
Michael Snyder
2003-10-10 19:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignoramus19432
Post by Bob
Post by Ignoramus19432
Post by Bob
In California, for example, NOW is bellyaching because 15% of fathers
get legally mythic "joint custody" with the woman retaining actual
physical custody.
could you post some references to their bellyaching?
i
Where have you been? NOW California ran a big political campaign last
year with that complaint.
I am not in california. I am merely curious, I am not trying to
disprove anything. Just wondering what NOW was up to.
California NOW published this report a year or so ago, in which
they claimed that family courts were heavily biased against women
(eg. mothers could never get custody of the kids), and made some
totally wacky accusations about fathers rights groups being in
league with satanists (Really -- I'm not making this up).
It was so far out in the grass that the national organization
distanced themselves from it -- but the local chapter still
sticks by it.
Doug Anderson
2003-10-10 19:45:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Snyder
Post by Ignoramus19432
Post by Bob
Post by Ignoramus19432
Post by Bob
In California, for example, NOW is bellyaching because 15% of
fathers get legally mythic "joint custody" with the woman
retaining actual physical custody.
could you post some references to their bellyaching?
i
Where have you been? NOW California ran a big political campaign
last year with that complaint.
I am not in california. I am merely curious, I am not trying to
disprove anything. Just wondering what NOW was up to.
California NOW published this report a year or so ago, in which
they claimed that family courts were heavily biased against women
(eg. mothers could never get custody of the kids), and made some
totally wacky accusations about fathers rights groups being in
league with satanists (Really -- I'm not making this up).
That is good enough for Dave Barry, but since I can't find this
report, I wonder if you'd be good enough to indicate when and where
it was published and by whom?
Ignoramus19432
2003-10-10 19:52:08 UTC
Permalink
that's why I was curious what the crazy man hating dykes were up to.

i
Post by Michael Snyder
Post by Ignoramus19432
Post by Bob
Post by Ignoramus19432
Post by Bob
In California, for example, NOW is bellyaching because 15% of fathers
get legally mythic "joint custody" with the woman retaining actual
physical custody.
could you post some references to their bellyaching?
i
Where have you been? NOW California ran a big political campaign last
year with that complaint.
I am not in california. I am merely curious, I am not trying to
disprove anything. Just wondering what NOW was up to.
California NOW published this report a year or so ago, in which
they claimed that family courts were heavily biased against women
(eg. mothers could never get custody of the kids), and made some
totally wacky accusations about fathers rights groups being in
league with satanists (Really -- I'm not making this up).
It was so far out in the grass that the national organization
distanced themselves from it -- but the local chapter still
sticks by it.
Bob
2003-10-10 20:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignoramus19432
Post by Bob
Post by Ignoramus19432
Post by Bob
In California, for example, NOW is bellyaching because 15% of fathers
get legally mythic "joint custody" with the woman retaining actual
physical custody.
could you post some references to their bellyaching?
i
Where have you been? NOW California ran a big political campaign last
year with that complaint.
I am not in california. I am merely curious, I am not trying to
disprove anything. Just wondering what NOW was up to.
i
Try this link

http://www.canow.org/issues/famlaw_resolution.html



Bob
Courageous
2003-10-10 16:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Courageous
Personally, the way I feel is that it would be nice if there was
something like a vasectomy, but completely reversible. The source
of the tension is obvious: men feel a strong need to have sex, but
have no control over whether or not child payments will result
from the act.
Ok so explain to me the difference between getting some bimbo knocked up...
I don't get it. Why ask me this?

C//
Shashay Doofray
2003-10-10 04:07:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Shashay Doofray
If you don't want that horrible fate you either get a vasectomy or, if you
don't want a permanent measure, use a condom. Simple as that.
SD
Nice that you advocate surgical injury to men. It would be easier just
to toss all the feminists in dumpsters.
Bob
Personally speaking I hate vasectomies and would never advocate them to
anyone. However, if a man is going to have sex, it is the only way to be
100 percent sure that she isn't going to get pregnant. As for your
statement about feminists, I agree with you completely.

SD
Bill in Co.
2003-10-10 05:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Shashay Doofray
If you don't want that horrible fate you either get a vasectomy or, if you
don't want a permanent measure, use a condom. Simple as that.
SD
Nice that you advocate surgical injury to men. It would be easier just
to toss all the feminists in dumpsters.
Bob
I think we should just toss Bobbo in the dumpster, and call it a night.
Bob
2003-10-10 14:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill in Co.
Post by Bob
Post by Shashay Doofray
If you don't want that horrible fate you either get a vasectomy or, if you
don't want a permanent measure, use a condom. Simple as that.
SD
Nice that you advocate surgical injury to men. It would be easier just
to toss all the feminists in dumpsters.
Bob
I think we should just toss Bobbo in the dumpster, and call it a night.
Do you ever add to a discussion Bill in Colorado, or do you just go from
NG to NG spewing insults?
Marcus Ulpius Traianus
2003-10-10 06:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shashay Doofray
Personally speaking I hate vasectomies and would never advocate them to
anyone.
Unless I'm totally mistaken about your sex and gender, you don't have the
requisite parts to have a vasectomy -- so why would you hate them? Or really
have any opinion of them whatsoever?
Mr. F. Le Mur
2003-10-09 23:18:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:06:19 -0500, "Shashay Doofray" <***@email.com> wrote:

->
->"Andre Lieven" <***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
->news:bm3t8j$nru$***@freenet9.carleton.ca...
->> 20/03/00
->> Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
->> have a Baby?
->>
->> http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm
->>
->> Are women responsible for anything that they do?
->>
->
->Of course they are and they suffer for it for the next 18 years of their
->life, just like the man does. Even more so, because they are stuck WITH the

Only if they want to.

->kid, whereas the man is only required to help finance the disaster.

Only if they want to.

->
->If you don't want that horrible fate you either get a vasectomy or, if you
->don't want a permanent measure, use a condom. Simple as that.

Or be held respoinsible for what women chose to do.

Yup - that's what the article said, so apprently
you can read.


->
->SD
->
Ken&Laura Chaddock
2003-10-10 02:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
have a Baby?
http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm
Are women responsible for anything that they do?
Of course they are and they suffer for it for the next 18 years of their
life,
Which is *reasonable* since SHE decided to turn the fetus which THEY
created into a baby which SHE ALONE created...

just like the man does. Even more so, because they are stuck WITH the
Post by Shashay Doofray
kid, whereas the man is only required to help finance the disaster.
He shouldn't even be required to do that unless he voluntarily accepts
that responsibility...he *fundimentally* SHOULD NOT be held responsible
for the result/consequence of what is purely an exercise in HER sole and
sovereign authority over the gestation process...
Post by Shashay Doofray
If you don't want that horrible fate you either get a vasectomy or, if you
don't want a permanent measure, use a condom. Simple as that.
Which "sounds like" a reasonable response...he *did* something so he's
"responsible"...*however* it doesn't explain why a 13 year old boy who
was raped by his baby sitter is *STILL* held responsible for the child
that was born to that baby sitter (while she was in prison for the rape)
or the 15 year old boy who was seduced by his 32 year old teacher
(statutory rape)is also held responsible for the child who resulted from
his abuse...can YOU explain these to me ???

...Ken
Shashay Doofray
2003-10-10 04:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken&Laura Chaddock
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
have a Baby?
http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm
Are women responsible for anything that they do?
Of course they are and they suffer for it for the next 18 years of their
life,
Which is *reasonable* since SHE decided to turn the fetus which THEY
created into a baby which SHE ALONE created...
just like the man does. Even more so, because they are stuck WITH the
Post by Shashay Doofray
kid, whereas the man is only required to help finance the disaster.
He shouldn't even be required to do that unless he voluntarily accepts
that responsibility...he *fundimentally* SHOULD NOT be held responsible
for the result/consequence of what is purely an exercise in HER sole and
sovereign authority over the gestation process...
I couldn't agree more. You should run for office. You got good ideas.
Post by Ken&Laura Chaddock
Post by Shashay Doofray
If you don't want that horrible fate you either get a vasectomy or, if you
don't want a permanent measure, use a condom. Simple as that.
Which "sounds like" a reasonable response...he *did* something so he's
"responsible"...*however* it doesn't explain why a 13 year old boy who
was raped by his baby sitter is *STILL* held responsible for the child
that was born to that baby sitter (while she was in prison for the rape)
or the 15 year old boy who was seduced by his 32 year old teacher
(statutory rape)is also held responsible for the child who resulted from
his abuse...can YOU explain these to me ???
...Ken
When it comes to kids the world is totally fucked up. Even when people's
fundamental rights are concerned it seems that nothing matters except the
kid that wasn't even wanted in the first place. YES a woman should be solely
responsible if it is solely HER decision to get pregnant. That would be
fair. But unfortunately, that isn't how it works so men have to PROTECT
themselves from getting in a situation that they will end up paying for.
Don't you agree?

SD
Tony Miller
2003-10-10 03:40:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 23:07:33 -0300,
Post by Ken&Laura Chaddock
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
have a Baby?
http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm
Are women responsible for anything that they do?
Of course they are and they suffer for it for the next 18 years of their
life,
Which is *reasonable* since SHE decided to turn the fetus which THEY
created into a baby which SHE ALONE created...
Hahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!! That is the stupidest f^&$ing thing I've
ever heard. Thanks for the comedic moment.

-Tony
--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.
Mr. F. Le Mur
2003-10-10 13:49:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 03:40:19 GMT, Tony Miller <***@cigardiary.com> wrote:

->On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 23:07:33 -0300,
-> Ken&Laura Chaddock <***@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
->> Shashay Doofray wrote:
->>
->>> "Andre Lieven" <***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
->>> news:bm3t8j$nru$***@freenet9.carleton.ca...
->>>
->>>>20/03/00
->>>>Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
->>>>have a Baby?
->>>>
->>>>http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm
->>>>
->>>>Are women responsible for anything that they do?
->>
->>> Of course they are and they suffer for it for the next 18 years of their
->>> life,
->>
->> Which is *reasonable* since SHE decided to turn the fetus which THEY
->> created into a baby which SHE ALONE created...
->
->Hahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!! That is the stupidest f^&$ing thing I've
->ever heard. Thanks for the comedic moment.

Well then, if she didn't make that decision, who did?

->
->-Tony
Ken&Laura Chaddock
2003-10-10 22:56:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Miller
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 23:07:33 -0300,
Post by Ken&Laura Chaddock
Post by Shashay Doofray
Of course they are and they suffer for it for the next 18 years of their
life,
Which is *reasonable* since SHE decided to turn the fetus which THEY
created into a baby which SHE ALONE created...
Hahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!! That is the stupidest f^&$ing thing I've
ever heard. Thanks for the comedic moment.
In the Frank Herbert novel Dune, Paul Atreides says "he who can destroy
a thing, controls that thing". To paraphrase this in terms of gestation
"she who can abort a fetus, determines whether that fetus becomes a child".
The one, overriding fundamental concept of western jurisprudence is
"Natural (sometimes called "fundamental") justice" which is the belief
that no individual should be held responsible for something which is
outside of their control or influence. In the case of gestation, men
have no control or influence over the outcome, the women has absolute,
sovereign control of the process, she can decide to abort the fetus at
any time (non-medically necessary abortions as late as the 37th week
have been recorded) OR she can decide to carry to term and give
birth...it is HER choice. If she makes the choices she should accept the
consequences, she who calls the tune should have to pay the piper...it's
just simple fairness.

...Ken
Michael Snyder
2003-10-11 03:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Shashay Doofray wrote in message ...
Post by Shashay Doofray
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
have a Baby?
http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm
Are women responsible for anything that they do?
Of course they are and they suffer for it for the next 18 years of their
life, just like the man does. Even more so, because they are stuck WITH the
kid, whereas the man is only required to help finance the disaster.
If you don't want that horrible fate you either get a vasectomy or, if you
don't want a permanent measure, use a condom. Simple as that.
Then women must be limited to the same choices. Simple as that.
Get yourself snipped, use a diaphragm, or keep your knees together.
Fair is fair, equality is equality.
Society
2003-10-11 20:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Andre Lieven reported...
Post by Andre Lieven
20/03/00
Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
have a Baby?
http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm
Are women responsible for anything that they do?
Of course they are
<laugh>
and they suffer for it for the next 18 years of their
life, just like the man does. Even more so, because
they are stuck WITH the kid, whereas the man
is only required to help finance the disaster.
<laugh++>

Yeah, sure. If wimmins _truly_ believed they were
"stuck with the kid" and that is a "disaster" as you
claim, Doofray, then they'd demand that fathers
be "stuck with the kid" while the wimmins would
be "only required to help finance". However, no
womenfirsters of either the feminist or traditionalist
stripes ever, ever, ever make such a demand.
Therefore, dem wimmins -- nor you, Doofray --
truly believe what you claim.

Rather, you and all dem wimmins who have ever
pulled that pity-party ploy you just tried, Doofray,
are doin' nuthin' more than the ol' Brer Rabbit
"Puh-leeze don't throw me into the briar patch"
trickery. You may be able to snow the suck-ups
to women sorts, Doofray, but you're not fooling
any honest, thinking adults.
If you don't want that horrible fate you either
get a vasectomy or, if you don't want a permanent
measure, use a condom. Simple as that.
Doofray, if you're against the so-called "women's
right to choose" abortion _or_ putting her sprog
up for adoption, just say so. Otherwise, the adults
'round here see little more than you putting your
self-serving prejudices on public display. Sheesh!

--
When do men get a "right to choose"?
Mr. F. Le Mur
2003-10-09 23:15:59 UTC
Permalink
On 9 Oct 2003 15:01:39 GMT, ***@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) wrote:

->20/03/00
->Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to
->have a Baby?
->
->http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyShouldaManBearResponsibility.htm

->
->It never seems to dawn on this feminist-indoctrinated society
->that such women have total responsibility for having children.

That's true.

->
->No-one can make them have them.
->

Also true. It's alswya a choice.

->No wonder, therefore, that the numbers of single-mother families
->continue to grow together with their armies of dysfunctional
->progeny.
->

See below.

->Here's how the political editor of the Spectator, Bruce Anderson,
->started his response to the issue. "The fact that this boy got
->this seventeen year old pregnant ..."
->
->Do you see? It's embedded in the language.

It's also true that the Popmedia is damned bad.


http://cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html
...[welfare causes crime snipped...]
At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability
of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have
been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability
of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found
a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these
studies is the work done by June O'Neill for the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of
variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban
setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value
of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in
the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by
Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of
Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200
per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births
among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)
...
Michaela
2003-10-10 21:45:42 UTC
Permalink
"Andre Lieven" wrote

"When we let go of our victim mentality about members of the opposite
sex, we open our hearts to each other and find wonderful people to
love." ~ Susan Jeffers

- Michaela
Michael Snyder
2003-10-10 22:37:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michaela
"When we let go of our victim mentality about members of the opposite
sex, we open our hearts to each other and find wonderful people to
love." ~ Susan Jeffers
- Michaela
Words to live by [kate...]
Kathryn
2003-10-11 02:41:32 UTC
Permalink
takes two to tango
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...