From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:50:14 CST

In article 14483@u.washington.edu, rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.080057.13807@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov4.164528.1352@u.washington.edu> rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov3.135216.15641@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com writes:
>>>> Would one bleepin' feminist explain to me why a married man in Wisconsin
>>>>can't get a bleepin' loan without the wife's consent? 
>>>>
>>>> ERA my ass. 
>>>>
>>>>Jon (I don't make stupid financial mistakes twice, I'll stay single)
>>>
>>>I don't have to be a bleepin' feminist to explain it to you.  Men
>>>control wealth and they control access to it.  
>>
>>.59 cents to the dollar and all that rot.  Nay.  `Twas brillig.  Women
>>have equal control of the wealth.  Although they are not directly paid
>>50% of the income in the US, they somehow manage to independently spend
>>50% of the money.  Also, the single sex/age group with the most money is
>>women past retirement age.  Seems men don't hang around all that long
>>after retirement, and everything they worked for typically becomes all
>>her's.  Yes, the starving elderly women and diamonds....
>>
>
>I think you should check out the list of the world's wealthiest people
>- all men by the way.  Maybe you thought I was talking about income.
>Even when it's income it's not 50-50, but when it's wealth it's more
>like 90 to 10 in favor of men.

  Logic follows..... All men suck because .0003% of the worlds population
is made up of male billionaires. Jesus Christ, aren't 
you a little old to be taking your first Marxist economic course? Think
about this.

>>>This was not
>>>accomplished with the permission of women, they just took it.  
>>
>>Want to give it back, I bet.  Those evil, monster men....  You try
>>washing them off, scraping them off, and still they just keep coming
>>back for more.  So, why did men need permission to take 50% of the
>>wealth, so they could will it back at their early demise, perhaps?
>>(Don Southern accent)  If we could just put 'em all on the moon, and
>>give 'em fish and bicycles or something lyack that....
>>
>
>Your real problem is not with women, but with the rich.  It is they
>who are concentrating the wealth in their hands and leaving the rest
>for us to fight over.

Fidel could use a few good economists. Float south and check it out.
They have zero unemployment and no poverty. No billionares either, except
ol' Fidel. And don't tell me they would be better off if ol' JFK hadn't
have been killed either.

>
>>>The one
>>>thing men don't control about women is their ability to have children
>>>(I think your emotional reaction to this issue is evidence of the
>>>difficulty men have dealing with this).  
>>
>>So, women can have children by themselves.  Interesting.  I hadn't heard
>>that one.  Does this mean they can support them by themselves?  Hey,
>>why do we have all these icky men around here, with their B.O. and their
>>beer-bellies and razor stubble faces?  Hmmmm....  (Don Alice Kramden
>>accent)  To the moon, Ralph.  One of these days, one of these days.
>>Pow, right in the kisser.
>>
>
>In fact it is possible to fertilize an egg with an egg.  So far they
>haven't succeeded with human eggs, but when they do men will have
>become biologically obsolete.  Let's hope that we won't be obsolete
>for other reasons. 

 Ok, they can fuck themselves. I noticed you didn't answer the question
whether it was possible for a women to support herself, let alone children.
Try answering it without it being a male's fault. OK? 
>
>
>>>Thus if women are to have any
>>>control over their standard of living, they have to use the one bit of
>>>leverage they have over men.  
>>
>>Translation:  If women are to have anything of signficance (read my
>>lips, "Wealth"), they must leverage/wrestle/steal that "control over
>>their own standard of living" from men.  Women cannot possibly attain
>>any of the things that men can.  Aside.... Girls, if you want to have
>>diamonds, tie a bed to your back and put on lots of lipstick.  Or as my
>>ex2b's parents said, "Hey, get a job as a waitress in a nice
>>restaurant, one where doctors and lawyers like to dine.  Then, marry
>>one of them.  Of course, because you're a GIRL, you could never be a
>>doctor or lawyer yourself."
>>
>
>You are quite right.  In my parent's generation women had no option
>but to establish their standard of living through marriage.  And was
>it women who wanted it that way?  Men wanted it that way and so why
>should they complain if women use the only advantage they've got,
>their ability to raise children.

 Ok, good logic again. Revenge!! That explains the vile angry look
in P. Ireland's face. What logic would you apply to all the raping
going on, could it be that they are only reacting naturally. Geez, 
I thought they were sick men who need to be jailed and castrated.
You would give them sympathy.
> 
>Even today most men I know - even the politically correct ones - want
>to marry women who will cook and clean and raise their children for
>them. 
   Wrong bimbo-et. I want them to work so I can stay home and go
to Harley Davidson Fund raisers and have SNAP-ON Tool parties.

> And more then than they want them to get jobs and bring in
>income too. 

 What pisses me off is my ex wife didn't bring in enough, so I cut
her off and screwed the mail women. 

 Many middle-age men I know who married independent women
>during the 60's and 70's are now dumping their wives and marrying
>younger women.

See above.
 > The fact is men want the financial advantage they
>have.  So can it be any wonder that women want to hang on to their
>biological advantage?
Wellfare?

>
>
>>>Certainly some women may be abuse this
>>>leverage, but there are many more men who do worse (women are not
>>>different from men in their ability to be venal, but they are
>>>different in their lack of access to power and wealth).  
>>
>>Evidence?

 Evidence, Ms Richard?


Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women