From: dallagata@udphvx.cineca.it
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: Intellectuals & women
Date: 22 Jan 93 11:55:47 GMT
Organization: None
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov

In article <1993Jan21.203507.29863@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, jbl3g@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Jason Basinger Linkins) writes:
> In article <1993Jan21.020528.1@udphvx.cineca.it> dallagata@udphvx.cineca.it writes:

>>> Your definition though, of a "wonderful" woman, however, is one that falls
>>> exclusively into your backward, throwback scheme.  
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Everybody has a scheme.
> What kind of retort is that??  Ducking the obvious?

You said exclusively. I said "Everybody has a scheme". All 
the schemes are different. None is the right one. Neither 
*your* scheme. That was the retort.
>>
>>That's a point moron. I don't belive that the *ONLY* purpose 
>>of women is to reproduce, but I *do* belive that one of the 
>>*first* purpose of women is to reproduce.
> 
> Who are you to say that it is their first purpose??  Do you honestly expect
> all women to go along with that?  Can't you admit that this logic may
> be right for some but not for all?

It is not a matter of logic. It is a matter of proportions. 
Your idea is dangerous. If all the women decide to have not 
children anymore, humanity will die. That's the worst case 
of your idea. The worst case of my idea is that there will 
be a little bit much people, but there will still be an 
humanity.

I come from a country where there are more deaths than 
childbirths. It seems stupid to me.

>  That's the *only* 
>>difference between men and women. Or you don't want to agree 
>>with that?!?
> 
> If you think that is the only difference, then it is clear you do not have
> a clue.  There are societal differences, physical differences, psychological
> differences...if you maybe read a book once in your life you would know that.

Yes, that's right. But there is a problem that I wanted to 
avoid saying that it was the only difference: To adit that 
there are differences between two "class" of people, is the 
first step to have a discrimination. You know what I mean.
If I was not serious I could use your point to flame you.
>>
[lames deleted]

>>Maybe. It does not mean to be stupid or cold as you are.

> Considering I have never come across as stupid or cold, you have no ground
> to stand on.

You are cold and you know it. 
> 
> Oh, to find the REAL WORLD of michele, where women only want to have children
> and blissful ignorance is cherished.

And now you are stupid, also. I never said, in this 
discussion, that women have *only* to have children. 
>>
[another lame deleted]

>>> Yes, women will tell you that they would like to have children.  That's
>>> fine.  
>>Yes, that's what *they* told me.
>>> But there is much more to a woman's life than having children.  
>>Nope, that's what *you* say, and you are not a woman.
> 
> To use a Liz, this is the pot calling the kettle black.  You are not a woman
> and yet YOU KNOW that having children is the most wonderful experience they 
> can have!  Wake up!  You contradict yourself at every turn!

I did not. I was reporting what women that *had* children 
told me. You were reporting *your* idea. there is a 
difference.
> 
> Well if it's a question of semantics I would be happy to say "create new life."
> You say, "I like women for what they are."  But you would have all women fall
> into a category!  

Maybe. I like "real women". A woman that behave as a man, is 
not *for me* a real woman. I have the right to think/feel in 
this way.

>You don't like women for what they are, you like women for
> what you think they should be in your eyes!

Let me put in this way: I like the majority of women, for 
what they are. It can happen that sometime I don't like some 
women. It is human. I belive that the same happens to you.
>  
> If they don't give a fuck about that, I don't 
>>give a fuck about them. 
> And that is your biggest problem.  Michele, this is cold, this is heartless,
> this is uncaring.

Eh, no! A woman that decide to have no children is for 
sure *cold* in a point. She can be a perfect manager, a good 
actress or what the fuck you prefer, but she is cold.
And I do not like cold people.
> 
[another lame deleted]
> 
>>But, I *do* belive, that to create a new life can be 
>>something *wonderful*, probably the *most* wonderful thing 
>>on the universe. For sure better than make *big money*...
> 
> I'll completely agree, that as far as I know, having children is probably
> for many, very wonderful.  And if someone finds this to be true, then bravo!

That was time that you said that, man. I was really going to 
think that you were sick.

> BUT, it is not the be all-end all for everybody.  

Ok. I know what you mean. But I do not like such a "women", 
ok? It is a feeling. 
>>
> No, you don't understand.  You would have all women be creators of new life,
> and nothing else.  

Nooo-Ooo. Who said *nothing* else?!? You, not me! Don't put 
your words inside my mouth, please, ok?

>That is your expectation.  You have bitterly complained
> about women who wont create new life, 

That's true.

>and refuse to see any alternatives.
> Thus, these are your expectations.  As for my mother, you are wrong.

You are wrong, baby. You have a lack of logic. You are 
confusing the fact that I don't like women that do not like 
to have children, with the fact that they have *only* to 
make children. NO. They can do both, so they can have 
*double*  personal gratification. In another post I wrote 
that my idea is the part-time mechanism for women with 
children (or the father, too, Benetton in Italy is 
experimenting it).

That's my real point: to let the people to work and to care 
about their children. 
>>
>>I have tolerance for such a women. But I do not have respect 
>>for a woman that do not *want* to have children. For sure. 
>>She is not a woman. She is a stupid *thing*, I can fuck her 
>>only for her body.
> 
> Exhibit A:  You claim to have respect for, but no tolerance of a woman who
> does not have children?  How does that work?  

It doesn't work because you are *drunk*. I thought about that 
before to write it, and, you can notice that I said that I 
*have TOLERANCE* but I do *not have RESPECT*. Read above and 
you'll see it. You misunderstood. Such a moron.

> Exhibit B:  Your definition, written right above states:  A woman who does
> not have children is not a woman.  She is a stupid thing.

With the middle-age definition, YES!

> Exhibit C:  You are a blatant misogynist in your statement "I can fuck her
> only for her body."  Must women be fucked?  Haven't they anything else to 
> offer?

But, my dear boy, again with the *same* mistake?!? They have 
many things to offer. BUT, since I don't respect such a 
woman, since with such a woman I can only discuss 12 hours 
per day, the *best* thing that she can offers to me, (or 
that I can get from her) is her body. With the other women
the situation change.
> 
> These exhibits show an overwhelming hatred of women.  Case Closed.

Pfui, it is still open. I don't hate women by definition. 
>>
>>But I don't have bad feeling against women, generally 
>>speaking.  
> Please see above, you have contradicted yourself again. 

Bullshit. You are drunk (ah, I demonstrated that, poor boy, 
think before to post).
> 
>>> Hate to say it, but it is you who are confused about life.  I never said
>>> making a baby was intrinsically subjugating.  
>>
>>I hate to say it, but that's what you said and what you are 
>>saying.
> 
> WRONG.  Allow me to quote my post again.
> 
> " It is not.  The subjugation
>  occurs when man like you say, "The purpose of a woman is to have children
>  and there is nothing more important than that."  

Right. It is just a feeling.

> You are forcing a woman into a mold.  You are enslaving them.  That is subjugation."

But LOOK! Enslaving a woman because I say that to have a 
child is the most important thing on life. FUCK YOU! YOU ARE 
COLD, SHIT! What's important on *life*?!? Can you think a 
little more deeply than the bullshit that you said up to now?!?

My God, yes "intellectual". OVERFUCK YOURSELF, MAN! What do 
you think to be, IMMORTAL?!? What do you think, that your 
existence is going to change the meaning of Universe?!?

Was your mother a slave because she had you?!?!? If your 
mother instead to make you, thought *only* about her career 
(if she had one) you would not be here. I do not know about 
yourself, but it is important for me to be *here*. Thank you 
to a woman that fucked with a man, ok?!? (do not try to 
flame now).
> 
>>YOU ARE OUT OF MIND. OK, lets' stop the routine. Starting 
>>from tomorrow, no women have to make children anymore. Just 
>>do it. For you it is not natural, it is *routine*. Puah, I 
>>thought you had a mind, but now...
> 
> YOU MISS THE POINT AGAIN!!!!  COMPLETELY!!!  YOU ARE A MARVELOUS EXAMPLE OF
> DENSITY!!  What if you were a woman, and you grew up in a world where the 
> only thing that you were really given credit for was having children. 
  ^^^^

AGAIN! FUCK, FUCK AND FUCK! You are a moron, man. I *never* 
said *only*

> It would become routine. 

Anyway, now you proove to be an idiot, again. ROUTINE?!?!? 
To have a child is routine for you, BECAUSE AT MOST EVERYBODY DO IT?!?!?
So, to fuck for you is routine because everybody do it, 
right? You are a moron. Absolutely. You lost here.

> In your world, you would devalue children.  

Really, that's what *YOU* are doing.

>It would
> become an endless cycle of reproduction that the woman could not identify with,
> because she has been forced into doing it.  

Who is God, now?!? How do you know it?!?!? You are saying 
bullshit, man. You are using your "brain" with your *male* 
psychology, and you are trying to apply it to a woman. You 
are Wrong.

>You are the one who would render children worthless.  

YOU are the one that already do it on his mind.

>I'm sorry, I am an actor and I love the profession
> dearly, but if someone forced me to do it, it would become routine and it
> would lose all of its lustre.  This is how you would render childbirth.

I was not speaking about *forcing*. You are trying again to 
define me as a guy that think about women as baby making machine.
That's not right. My point is (if you did not understand it 
yet), that I WOULD LIKE THAT ALL THE WOMEN WOULD LIKE TO 
HAVE THEIR CHILDREN.
> 
>>That's your point. If *I* was a woman, I wanted to have 
>>children (you now, like your mother did). But I can't speak 
>>for women. 
> But you have done nothing but try to speak for all women!  You assume that
> having children is IT.  The BIG ONE!!  NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT!  

Ok, let me put in this way: IT IS ANYWAY A LIFE EXPERIENCE, OK?

>I'm not
> saying childbirth isn't wonderful, I'm just saying that it might not be
> wonderful for everyone!

They can not know it before that they *TRY*.
> 
> YOU ARE SPEAKING FOR WOMEN. YOU HAVE BEEN FROM THE BEGINNING.  You have the 
> right to think, not to dictate.

Dictate? Again? Just because I think that a world where 
every woman is happy to have their children, where the women 
don't do abortion for the same reason could be a wonderful 
world? You did not see my points, you just wanted to think 
that the macho bullshit that I wrote (and that I will write 
again, don't worry), was exactly what I thought. 

I don't dictate anything, but there are many problems 
involved on saying that a career is more important then a 
child. I don't want to discuss about abortion (I just give 
you my point: the society must have a law to permit it, but 
*I* would like that nobody do it, I feel that it is a murder), 
but this problem is related on this other. 
>
>>Pessimist?!? No, just a scientist. This wprld will stop its 
>>sinning one day. That's reality, poor boy. That you belive 
>>it or not.
> 
> Someday, I would like to welcome back into reality.  You have been away far
> too long, my child.

No, no. That's you that live on your small world, dear boy.
> 
> What do you think I care about?  Have you ever asked me?

Yes I did when I asked you what is wonderful for you.
> 
> 
>>Bullshit. You seems to hate women that have children.
> NEVER HAVE I SAID THAT. NEVER.  Sorry...thanks for playing.
> You seem to hate women who don't have children!

I do not hate them. But, I repeat,I do not like them if they 
decided in this way.
> 
> Who is to say what is right or natural? 

Well, I think that to have children is something "natural 
enough" for a woman... Don't you?

> Not you!  I have never claim to know
> what is right or natural...but I keep an OPEN mind.  You don't seem to have one.

BHAHA. "Open mind". Gimmi the definition of open mind, 
please. For example, in Italy 10 years ago, if you were not 
communist you were supposed to be not "open minded". 
Bullshit. 
> 
>>> I have no idea what is a wonderful experience for anyone but me.  
>>That's *your* problem.
> 
> That's everybody's problem.  That is what life is, a search for the experience
> that really fulfills us, that really makes us feel good, feel human.  

Yes, I agree. Don't you think or feel that women can feel 
alot more human having a child? And more, is it *smart* on 
your definition of life, to try not an experience so big as 
to have a child?
Just curious.

>When you claim to know it for everyone, I get offended, because you haven't a clue.

I do not know it for everyone. But I strongly *belive* that 
to have a child can be something wonderful for all the women. 
>>
>>> Perhaps some women do not find childbirth to be the most wonderful experience
>>> in life.  

Ok, suppose that I give you this point. Isn't it anyway a *
wonderful* experience?
>>
>>So they are as wrong as the real machos.
> WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THIS?  GOD?

I am Satan.
>>> 
[another lame deleted]

>>> Actually, many of my female friends think that you are an idiotic, sexist 
>>> boor with a primitive viewpoint on life.
>>
>>So I think that they are just rural girls. My friend was 
>>right.
> Rural girls.  I'm sorry...perhaps I didn't explain.  In Charlottesville is 
> the University of Virginia.  At that University are people from all over
> the country, Hell, all over the world.  Places like New York City, San 
> Francisco, Washington D.C., Atlanta...etc.  These places are NOT rural!
> 
Hmm, interesting. From all the world, but you wrote only USA 
cities. There two cases:

1> You are nationalist, and so you think that anyway only 
   the USA has the right life style.

2> You are not nationalist, but you do not have 
   international friends. That's sound pretty close minded to me.

In both cases you know *only* the american reality. Your 
world is *smaller* than my, remember.

	Michele
From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:52:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Republican Winners (RE: Republican Losers)
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.