">> Feminists Have More Fun
>> By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer
>> posted: 17 October 2007 08:00 am ET
>> Share this story [...]
>
> Where's the link?
>
> I heard a 10 second blurb about this on the A.P. Radio news
> service's top-of-the-hour rip-and-read segment.  I suspect some
> heavy spin at work.
>
>   [What] feminism pretends to be is nothing more than a
>   demand for fair treatment for women. But I have never met
>   a man who disagreed with this principle. ... So the rational
>   reply must be that you don't need to be a feminist to
>   believe in equity or even to support a struggle for it.

I'm against equality, it is a silly abstract idea which is out of touch with 
Natural Law. Sure, we want to have some sort of fairness if only to placate 
the proles but just remember that 99% of the people you extend fairness to 
would gladly be a tyrant over you if they had the brains or opportunity.





>
>   Feminism in the Men's Movement
>   by Henry Salivator
>   Thought Crime Research Institute, source at:
> 
> <http://www.users.bigpond.com/sarcasmo/sexpolitics/personifestopart1.html#4>
>
> Remember, masculism is the belief that men deserve equal
> rights too.  Therefore, everywhere the word "feminist" appeared
> in that article, one could substitute "masculist".  Odd tho' that
> no one has, eh?
>
>   [A] movement called Feminism isn't about equal rights
>   between men and women anymore than a movement called
>   Masculism would be.
>
>   Raj Kumar Singh
>   http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/votemale/raj.html
>
> Color me distrustful of anyone who considers "egalitarian"
> to be feminist until the feminists (as Rutgers researchers
> define them) march on Washington in the millions to demand
> that women be subject to military conscription just as men are.
>
> The media spin being placed on that Rutgers study is a
> variation of this tired, old feminist bit of trickery:
>
>   Trick:  You can't criticize Feminism because no statement
>           you make is true of _all_ Feminists.
>
>   This trick tries to block discussion by making it impossible
>   to express your thought. The writer simply specifies that by
>   "Feminism", he means mainstream Feminism, misandry.
>   Another approach is to qualify the term: "Gender Feminism",
>   "Biofeminism", or "Radical Feminism". And if Feminism
>   really was so random, by the same token you wouldn't
>   be able to say anything positive about it.
>
>   From the post "FAQ: Feminist myths and tricks
>   frequently used to disrupt discussion".
>   by Steve Reynolds, stever@cygnus.ieu.comtra.org
>
>   The entire FAQ can be found at:
> 
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=stever.FADC.0079@cygnus.ieu.comtra.org
>
> I suspect that had that "study" been done in the Bad Old Days (tm),
> say the 1950s, as many or more of the women would have put
> themselves in the "more fun" category and self-labeled their
> relationships with men "egalitarian".  (Duh.)
>
> Let me know when there's something peer-reviewed
> published in a reputable journal and the data those
> researchers used is made available.  I remember
> feminist Arlie Hochschild's hoax and how that
> furthered feminist propaganda efforts.
>
> -- 
>   If feminists are as egalitarian as Rutgers researchers claim,
>   feminists would be picketing these bastions of campus sexism:
>
>   http://wrrc.ucdavis.edu
>   http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/women
>
>   They aren't picketing.
>
>   http://mrrc.ucdavis.edu
>   http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/men
>
>   Feminists _would_ picket these sites,
>   if they existed.
>
>

"Rob"  wrote in message 
news:1193298507.226917.21160@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On 25 Oct, 07:38, "Avenger"  wrote:
>> ">> Feminists Have More Fun
>>
>> >> By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer
>> >> posted: 17 October 2007 08:00 am ET
>> >> Share this story [...]
>>
>> > Where's the link?
>>
>> > I heard a 10 second blurb about this on the A.P. Radio news
>> > service's top-of-the-hour rip-and-read segment.  I suspect some
>> > heavy spin at work.
>>
>> >   [What] feminism pretends to be is nothing more than a
>> >   demand for fair treatment for women. But I have never met
>> >   a man who disagreed with this principle. ... So the rational
>> >   reply must be that you don't need to be a feminist to
>> >   believe in equity or even to support a struggle for it.
>>
>> I'm against equality, it is a silly abstract idea which is out of touch 
>> with
>> Natural Law. Sure, we want to have some sort of fairness if only to 
>> placate
>> the proles but just remember that 99% of the people you extend fairness 
>> to
>> would gladly be a tyrant over you if they had the brains or opportunity.
>
> Its not really about who is 'for' it and who is 'against' it. Its
> about what works.

I only care what works for me.


 Feminism diverts its adherents away from
> reproducing.

Who cares. The world is overpopulated and besides I don't want to spend any 
of my money paying to send other people's kids to school and a 100 other 
things that don't benefit me.



 It is a socially infectious virus whose sufferers bully
> others to maintain them in their short term, environmentally
> destructive 'fun' cocoon.

So destroy it if you have the will. Stop fighting by the Marquis of 
Queenabury rules when your opponent will lie, cheat and use every dirty 
trick in the book to get her way and what she wants. And the funny thing is, 
is that females don't even respect the honest fair man but consider him a 
fool and pushover. Kindness is viewed by females as weakness. They respect 
the bad boy   lol


>
> --
> Rob
> There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
> physical child custody.
>
>

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:48:27 -0700, Rob wrote:

> On 25 Oct, 07:38, "Avenger"  wrote:
>> ">> Feminists Have More Fun
>>
>> >> By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer posted: 17 October 2007
>> >> 08:00 am ET
>> >> Share this story [...]
>>
>> > Where's the link?
>>
>> > I heard a 10 second blurb about this on the A.P. Radio news service's
>> > top-of-the-hour rip-and-read segment.  I suspect some heavy spin at
>> > work.
>>
>> >   [What] feminism pretends to be is nothing more than a demand for
>> >   fair treatment for women. But I have never met a man who disagreed
>> >   with this principle. ... So the rational reply must be that you
>> >   don't need to be a feminist to believe in equity or even to support
>> >   a struggle for it.
>>
>> I'm against equality, it is a silly abstract idea which is out of touch
>> with Natural Law. Sure, we want to have some sort of fairness if only to
>> placate the proles but just remember that 99% of the people you extend
>> fairness to would gladly be a tyrant over you if they had the brains or
>> opportunity.
> 
> Its not really about who is 'for' it and who is 'against' it. Its about
> what works. Feminism diverts its adherents away from reproducing. 

Now I know you're a loon.  I, and other feminists of my acquaintance, have
ALL *reproduced*, thanks.  We just had other fish to fry as well.  Sorta
like men.

It is a
> socially infectious virus whose sufferers bully others to maintain them
> in their short term, environmentally destructive 'fun' cocoon.

WE don't want anyone who doesn't wish to join us.  You can be left out if
you wish.  I certainly won't mind.  Ta.

"pandora"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2007.10.26.00.39.43.835807@peak.org...
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:48:27 -0700, Rob wrote:
>
>> On 25 Oct, 07:38, "Avenger"  wrote:
>>> ">> Feminists Have More Fun
>>>
>>> >> By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer posted: 17 October 2007
>>> >> 08:00 am ET
>>> >> Share this story [...]
>>>
>>> > Where's the link?
>>>
>>> > I heard a 10 second blurb about this on the A.P. Radio news service's
>>> > top-of-the-hour rip-and-read segment.  I suspect some heavy spin at
>>> > work.
>>>
>>> >   [What] feminism pretends to be is nothing more than a demand for
>>> >   fair treatment for women. But I have never met a man who disagreed
>>> >   with this principle. ... So the rational reply must be that you
>>> >   don't need to be a feminist to believe in equity or even to support
>>> >   a struggle for it.
>>>
>>> I'm against equality, it is a silly abstract idea which is out of touch
>>> with Natural Law. Sure, we want to have some sort of fairness if only to
>>> placate the proles but just remember that 99% of the people you extend
>>> fairness to would gladly be a tyrant over you if they had the brains or
>>> opportunity.
>>
>> Its not really about who is 'for' it and who is 'against' it. Its about
>> what works. Feminism diverts its adherents away from reproducing.
>
> Now I know you're a loon.  I, and other feminists of my acquaintance, have
> ALL *reproduced*, thanks.

That is a pity.


 We just had other fish to fry as well.

You smell like fish you mean.




  Sorta
> like men.
>
> It is a
>> socially infectious virus whose sufferers bully others to maintain them
>> in their short term, environmentally destructive 'fun' cocoon.
>
> WE don't want anyone who doesn't wish to join us.  You can be left out if
> you wish.  I certainly won't mind.  Ta.
>

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:39:46 -0700, pandora  wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:48:27 -0700, Rob wrote:
>
>> On 25 Oct, 07:38, "Avenger"  wrote:
>>> ">> Feminists Have More Fun
>>>
>>> >> By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer posted: 17 October 2007
>>> >> 08:00 am ET
>>> >> Share this story [...]
>>>
>>> > Where's the link?
>>>
>>> > I heard a 10 second blurb about this on the A.P. Radio news service's
>>> > top-of-the-hour rip-and-read segment.  I suspect some heavy spin at
>>> > work.
>>>
>>> >   [What] feminism pretends to be is nothing more than a demand for
>>> >   fair treatment for women. But I have never met a man who disagreed
>>> >   with this principle. ... So the rational reply must be that you
>>> >   don't need to be a feminist to believe in equity or even to support
>>> >   a struggle for it.
>>>
>>> I'm against equality, it is a silly abstract idea which is out of touch
>>> with Natural Law. Sure, we want to have some sort of fairness if only to
>>> placate the proles but just remember that 99% of the people you extend
>>> fairness to would gladly be a tyrant over you if they had the brains or
>>> opportunity.
>> 
>> Its not really about who is 'for' it and who is 'against' it. Its about
>> what works. Feminism diverts its adherents away from reproducing. 
>
>Now I know you're a loon.  I, and other feminists of my acquaintance, have
>ALL *reproduced*, thanks.  We just had other fish to fry as well.  Sorta
>like men.
>
>It is a
>> socially infectious virus whose sufferers bully others to maintain them
>> in their short term, environmentally destructive 'fun' cocoon.
>
>WE don't want anyone who doesn't wish to join us.  You can be left out if
>you wish.  I certainly won't mind.  Ta.

Ah, so femminists then have no tollerence for anyone who does not
agree with their position/point of view. Just as I have observed.
Well, at least you are honest about it.

So from this we can also conclude, then, that femminists are not
interested in discussing issues of equality with various take-holders
and groups - they are interested only in superiority (as the sinlge
permissable point of view and voice allowed).

Not to worry, the real world wont miss you either.

On 25-Oct-2007, NewMan  wrote:

> >WE don't want anyone who doesn't wish to join us.  You can be left out if
> >you wish.  I certainly won't mind.  Ta.
>
> Ah, so femminists then have no tollerence for anyone who does not
> agree with their position/point of view.

A lie, of course, because that's not what she said.
Not "no tolerance", just the normal wish to not want to insist
everyone has to join in when they don;t want.
Do stop projecting.

>  Just as I have observed.
> Well, at least you are honest about it.

Unlike you & Avenger, etc.
Or did you miss that?

[snip rest of similar stupidity]

Susan

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:09:52 +0000, Avenger wrote:

> 
> "pandora"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.10.26.00.39.43.835807@peak.org...
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:48:27 -0700, Rob wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Oct, 07:38, "Avenger"  wrote:
>>>> ">> Feminists Have More Fun
>>>>
>>>> >> By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer posted: 17 October 2007
>>>> >> 08:00 am ET
>>>> >> Share this story [...]
>>>>
>>>> > Where's the link?
>>>>
>>>> > I heard a 10 second blurb about this on the A.P. Radio news
>>>> > service's top-of-the-hour rip-and-read segment.  I suspect some
>>>> > heavy spin at work.
>>>>
>>>> >   [What] feminism pretends to be is nothing more than a demand for
>>>> >   fair treatment for women. But I have never met a man who disagreed
>>>> >   with this principle. ... So the rational reply must be that you
>>>> >   don't need to be a feminist to believe in equity or even to
>>>> >   support a struggle for it.
>>>>
>>>> I'm against equality, it is a silly abstract idea which is out of
>>>> touch with Natural Law. Sure, we want to have some sort of fairness if
>>>> only to placate the proles but just remember that 99% of the people
>>>> you extend fairness to would gladly be a tyrant over you if they had
>>>> the brains or opportunity.
>>>
>>> Its not really about who is 'for' it and who is 'against' it. Its about
>>> what works. Feminism diverts its adherents away from reproducing.
>>
>> Now I know you're a loon.  I, and other feminists of my acquaintance,
>> have ALL *reproduced*, thanks.
> 
> That is a pity.

Not at all.  I find it wonderful that such as you have no say in what
feminists can do and do.  Keep on whining about it though.  You're SO cute
when you whine.
> 
>  We just had other fish to fry as well.
> 
> You smell like fish you mean.

I said what I meant.  Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
 
> 
> 
> 
>   Sorta
>> like men.
>>
>> It is a
>>> socially infectious virus whose sufferers bully others to maintain
>>> them in their short term, environmentally destructive 'fun' cocoon.
>>
>> WE don't want anyone who doesn't wish to join us.  You can be left out
>> if you wish.  I certainly won't mind.  Ta.
>> 
>>