posted on October 28, 2000 07:52:50 PM new
HCQ My mom's a wacko!
krs I vote by absentee ballot so the men don't see me voting. They're so fragile and I hate to upset them.
[ edited by chococake on Oct 28, 2000 07:53 PM ]
posted on October 28, 2000 08:08:02 PM new
Feminists hold all women of the past in complete disregard. Until their movement came along, they believe, all women were no more than donkeys, and
slaves, providing nothing but pleasure and services to men. That which was indispensable for society is trivialized by these confused ladies. With the
exception of just a handful of women, who did not perform the wifely and motherly duties of their peers, the feminist views all women who lived before
their movement existed as insignificant bimbos, oppressed and useless. This from a group who claims to speak for women and to have women’s best
interests at heart.
Contrast this, if you will, with the view of the male chauvinist, with his hated chivalry. He is said to hate women, and to want nothing but to enslave and
use women. Yet what is his view of women? He views them as different than men, special and indispensable. He gives his seat to a lady and opens her
door for her, OUT OF RESPECT. When he marries it is to bond for life with his chosen mate. He will do all in his power to support her, care for her and
protect her. He will attempt to provide her with the best house, car and anything else that she desires. He is focused on her happiness and treasures her
more than life itself. He supports her in the raising of the children, supplying the strong enforcement of the rules that she would not be able to provide
without his help. He has a leadership role in the family but he confers with his wife always, and defers often to her opinion. His family is a team that
is built for durability and designed to last a lifetime. He knows the critical importance of a woman’s role as housewife and mother. He teaches his children
to respect and honor the woman who is their mother. He looks at the women of history as wonderful, hard working and important people, who built all
that we see around us by their efforts.
Feminists are the women haters and have only the destruction of women in their sites. The vast majority of male chauvinists love and respect women and
have only these wonderful creatures’ happiness as a goal. Feminism breaks families up, leaving women as single mothers struggling to get by, and in
danger from the gangs of boys who have not been raised by a functional two- parent family. Male chauvinism builds strong families and provides
protection, security and respect for women.
The distortion of the facts by the politically correct feminists is as common as it is disgusting. The feminist arrogance and accusatory posturing, when
confronted, is a clear indication of their intellectually weak position. The way that they have been able to slander the character of all male chauvinists as
well as all of the honorable, hardworking homemakers in our society should make all honest people angry. The families that have been destroyed and
the countless women left as single mothers because of feminist propaganda is enough to make you want to cry.
We need to start honoring the homemaker and inspiring women to take up that vital role again, or we will pay an unthinkable price. We can do quite well
without female soldiers or sailors. We can do nicely without female judges, lawyers, or CEO’s. But we will collapse as a civilization without dedicated
homemakers and mothers. We must set our priorities back to a sane arrangement or we will suffer a horrible fate.
posted on October 28, 2000 08:09:53 PM new
junkson,You sure did go and get yourself in trouble with some women.The ones who know you,know otherwise.You like women,You really like being in the company of women and you like talking to women.You are crazy about your bride,And Im sure,She is with you as well.
our government must be invigorated with great men who think with their
reason.
junkson,Every woman will tell you,That is not
What a man thinks with.
My memory is bad,and I cant remember what it was, they do think with.
Whatever you do,Don't buy a red Mercedes convertible,And wear one of those New York flat caps.
posted on October 28, 2000 08:41:13 PM new
Well, since our thread originator appears to be incapable of independent thought (or at least won't demonstrate his abilityby answering a question requiring such), I'll actually address the post, not the poster.
As I understand our learned friend's position, women "shouldn't be allowed to vote" because their method of thinking is - well, let's "honor" women and say it's not inherently faulty - just not suited to making logical decisions. And it would appear that that "disability", not a person's gender per se, is our friend's reason for desiring that women not be permitted to vote.
So the issue isn't gender, but reasoning ability. This would make having the ability to make logical decisions a criterion for becoming a registered voter.
posted on October 28, 2000 08:42:06 PM new
We've had some nice rain in central Texas.
So glad to have it,The yard is green.Suppose to get something tonight,Along with tornado
warnings.
posted on October 28, 2000 08:42:57 PM new
You can't expect that I'd try to shunt responsibility after these, err, less than pointed responses. They attack the messenger with vengeance but pay little attention to the message.
Is it that the message is threatening? Or that there really isn't any societal argument against it?
What can you expect from participants in a movement that began in part with women's objections to being perceived merely as sex objects and expressing that objection by removing their bras, thereby making themselves even more sexually objectified than they had been?
posted on October 28, 2000 09:05:56 PM new
hcq,
I don't respond to your questions for two reasons. One is that I long ago decided your responses were reactive and not reasoned, and the second is that when you ask a question it is invariably colored by your personal perception of whomever you ask and seldom well enough versed with any post you make query of to warrant a response.
Your post above is fraught with insulting innuendo, as you are so often wont to do in:
"Well, since our thread originator appears to be incapable of independent thought (or at least won't demonstrate his abilityby answering a question requiring such), I'll actually address the post, not the poster".
Yet yyou go on with:
"As I understand our learned friend's position, (VERY smarmy) women "shouldn't be allowed to vote" because their method of thinking is - well, let's "honor" women and
say it's not inherently faulty - just not suited to making logical decisions. And it would appear that that "disability", not a person's gender per se, is our friend's reason for desiring that women not be permitted to vote.
So the issue isn't gender, but reasoning ability. This would make having the ability to make logical decisions a criterion for becoming a registered voter".
Had you ewad the last paragraph of the first post to this thread you would, or should, know that that is not at all what was said there.
Your having decided for yourself and for your own purposes what was or is the premise presented in error, how can you expect to receive any but a flippant response to your interpretations?
Jus t go your way, whatever way that is. I'm not here to try to persuade you nor am I here to add fuel to your arsonistic defensive tendencies.
posted on October 28, 2000 09:36:17 PM new
My mother was a teacher, then after getting married she was an A+ fabulous homemaker, wife and mother. She and my dad have been married for over 20 years, and although they have a good life together, she has regrets and I know she feels trapped in her dependence on my father. She has warned me very explicitly never to become financially dependent on a man.
I'd make a terrific homemaker, but there's also a lot more that I'm capable of doing. I'm not interested in having children, but if that ever changes my husband will be the one who stays home, which makes sense for us from a financial standpoint and it's what we both prefer.
I agree with the idea that the nuclear family is ideal, but gender shouldn't dictate "who does what." Everyone and evey case is different.
The world could do just as well without male judges and CEOs as it could without women in those roles. Don't kid yourself... men are wonderful, but not indispensable.
posted on October 28, 2000 09:44:16 PM new
Well, KRS, I for one thought you were just stirring the pot with a great big old stick trying to get some interesting conversation going and perhaps looking for a particular response.
I'm not really voting for G.W.[the "W" stands for women"Bush
posted on October 28, 2000 10:00:09 PM new
No, of course not. You're voting for Al. After all, he has repeatedly presented his regard for family values; the feminist ideal.
The wacko lesbian man hater can be ridiculed in certain circles but when Bob Dole's wife talks of running for president as the Republican candidate, no one is laughing as they should.
_____________________________
How many months ahead do you type those up in email before you post 'em?
posted on October 28, 2000 10:14:53 PM new
I am voting for Al because I can't stand Beady Eyed G.W. and I would be wasting my vote to vote for Nader or I would definatly go that way. I am an enviornmentalist,not a feminist. I wish like he** I could convince myself not to vote this time.The field has never looked as dismal. It gets worse every time, I am sick to death of having to vote for the lesser of the evils.
Oh yeah! I hate the term "Family values" and I really hate everything being done "for the kids". STTTTTEEEEEERRRRIKE!
I do hope you get the answer you were seeking here. I always like to see who it is that "finally gets it" !
posted on October 28, 2000 10:48:20 PM new
Well, like a joke I saw, Thrinworks,
"A man rushed into the doctor's office and shouted,"Doctor, I think I'm shrinking!!"
The doctor calmly responded, "Now settle down. You'll just have to be a little patient."
posted on October 29, 2000 06:07:17 AM new
Good morning to you, C.! How's things?
"Do ya suppose you could hug 'im and kiss 'im and shut 'im up?" Well, I could, but it seems to me that was pretty much how I ended up in 27 hours of labor...some man, "doing his part," so to speak.
Ken, I'm mopping, I'm mopping...sheesh! Don't be bragging anymore about your "aim"...it's about 4" off...or were you going for a 'bank shot'?
posted on October 29, 2000 06:11:21 AM new
There's always the danger in presenting such profundity that some bozo will lift it and present it as, ostensibly, his own. Then it might show up on a site like this -
