|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 27, @09:22AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
My only comment on this is; Instead of buying a pointless book that bashes men, buy a set of encyclopedias, these will outline man's contribution in building and maintaining the infrastructure of society on all levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>buy a set of encyclopedias, these will outline man's contribution in building and maintaining the infrastructure of society.
I think you're mistaken. Men's contribution remains unnoticed. Worse case scenario is 9/11. There are feminists willing to point out that the terrorists were men, but not that most of the rescuers were men or that men built the towers or created the capitalist democratic society in which millions of people have jobs (not many people going and hunting dinner these days, and they were all men then too). The encyclopaedias mention all sorts of things, but to the feminists it is like society somehow just happened. If they go down to the supermarket to buy food, the supermarket is just there. It doesn't occur to them that someone built the supermarket, someone supplies the supermarket and you have to have some structure like money and some sort of law and order before you can have supermarkets.
By the way, I don't if anyone has got a very old encyclopaedia, but if they have I suspect that things like male suffrage are being written out. If you have such a encyclopaedia look up male suffrage and let me know what you found and what year the encyclopaedia was. I'm sure there were once photos around and men marching with women for universal suffrage (votes for everybody), certainly in Britain in the 1910s.
From the article -
"came up with the idea when they heard about a similar blank work"
The originator of the first work could sue. (It happened in England where 2 composers did a period of silence as a piece of music. The 1st one sued the 2nd one and they settled out of court)
Raymond Cuttill
Men's Books/ Men's Radio /Bracknell Home for stray cats, old computers and political incorrectness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 27, @04:08PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Has anybody got 'Microsoft Encarta Reference Suite 2001' on DVD?
I can say that what Ray claims is proven as fact if you check out this piece of software.
Sure, it is packed with an endless amount of information - 6 CD-Roms of the stuff. However there is not much at all in the way of the many great contributions and break throughs men have made. There are various articles about 'Women's Role' in society and how they are continually being treated as second best (AKA Lies!).
Red Kev
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 27, @05:48PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
here is a list of various nations and when men got the vote vs. when women got the vote vs. misc. other data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 27, @01:16PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I attempted to cut through the patronizing, veiled insult of the author(s) efforts, to more clearly analyze the meaning presented to us by them.
It appears that a new Title would give the still blank pages a whole new meaning, one that would more accurately reflect the actual reality of men's lives.
Did I get it right or is my analysis and critique still missing the poignancy of the authors anemic cerebral fart?
"Everything Battered Men Are Allowed to Know About Taking Care of Themselves After Feminist, Women's-Only DV Shelters Came Along."
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday December 27, @02:02PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
an alternative new title would be " Famous Women Scientists, Artists, Composers, Writers, Inventors and Innovators".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take EVERY thing invented by individual men away, and civilization would COLLAPSE.
Take every thing invented by individual WOMEN away, and few people, if any would even notice.
That is not a snide remark. It is a given FACT!
"Men invented war." some feminists like to say.
The fact is, That ANY struggle to survive or protect one's self or family or "tribe" against an enemy is a kind of war. be it on an individual level or mass level. Ergo, "nature" invented war.
Why WOULD men invent something that would put his own life, family and country at risk?!?
"Because men love to kill, and "dominate"", The feminists would say.
No, Men have basicaly fought wars to protect WOMEN and children, You stupid cow feminists. If Men HADN'T fought, laid down thier lives and died for YOU, You would not even HAVE the freedom to print a 'hate-book' to advertise how much you hate the very gender that's had countless numbers DIE countless times!
And one more thing...,
Feminists are fond of saying; "If there were no men, there would be no WARS!"
Really...? Has any one ever seen women at a CLOTHING SALE...?
If that ain't war, then brother, what IS??!!??
TC.
Women gorge themselves at the table of men's ingenuity, all the while curseing the fouders of their feast...,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 28, @02:08AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Reasons People Voted For Clinton
Page 1 His cigar
Page 2 $750,000 donation to a major feminist organtization after the Monica Lewinsky affair in the name of "no smoking education." It worked these hypocrites never complained about his gross insult to radical feminism.
Page 3 Using his face as a catcher's mit for ash trays thrown by the 1st "lady," and for passing the Violence Against Women Act.
Page 4 My God all those Republicans voted for Ross Perot! My vote for Clinton actually counted. Oh, no!
Page 5 I have never had sex. According to the Presidental interpretation I'm a virgin again.
Page 6 I'll vote for Slick Willie so when he gets out of office, he and Hillary can steal everything they can carry and and maybe they'll split some of the loot with me.
I'll have to stop it's just suppossed to be a single volume book, but this topic could turn into an encyclopaedia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If not for Marie Curie's contributions, we probably wouldn't have X-ray machines, or if we did, they'd have been invented much later. Don't be so quick to knock womens' contributions to society. It's perfectly fine to honor men's vastly more numerous contributions but to belittle womens' contributions is going too far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 28, @12:19PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
You Wrote:
"Don't be so quick to knock womens' contributions to society. It's perfectly fine to honor men's vastly more numerous contributions but to belittle womens' contributions is going too far."
My Reply:
Who's knocking their contributions? We are calling attention to our societies accommodation of their glaring deficiencies, and the unfair advantages that our government favors women with in order to take away men's superior performances (wherever those superior performances might be).
You may have noticed that calling attention to men's deficiencies is something that some women endlessly do to us. Those individuals are constantly telling us that in any area where women are not excelling it is due to the historical, patriarchal suppression of women's opportunities. They ask to be "spotted a few links" in most competitions, except for the areas where they hold clear advantages. In those areas (child rearing/custody, etc.) men are held to their subordinate standing and receive less than equal opportunity (no government accommodation).
In a certain college, although men make up 42% of college enrollment, sports under Title 9 must be funded 50/50 according to enrollment figures. Women get more than a straight 50/50 of the athletic budget based on their higher enrollment numbers. They get 58%. Men Get 42%. You don't see any real mandated efforts to get the enrollment to 50/50 now do you? It's always O.K. when women exceed their fair representation in an area.
Let's face it, government subsidies and government sanctions are often the only way some of these women have of ever excelling in a man's world. With a few exceptions they (female losers) don't have what it takes to compete equally with men in a number of areas, and in those areas where they excel over men, men are not accommodated with quotas that allow them equal representation. In area after of society we see a tearing down of the achievement levels of men. Government as husband and Father mandates, "Tear the achievement level of the highly qualified man down to the inferior level of unqualified female performance in those areas where men excel and then tell the men that their performance is subordinate to the superior female."
It is politically incorrect for this policy, or any man, to ask,
#1. "Are there innate differences between men and women leading to different academic and athletic results based on sex?"
#2. "Are these differences due to nature and not nurture?" (same question, but it bears repeating)
#3. "Do men and women's minds work differently based on their differences in physiology? (Oh my goodness, same question again, but again worded differently)
In area after area of law and government men are denied equal representation. Women's Commissions exist to address the special needs of women at every level of government, all the way from the city levels of government, to the state, to the federal, and even to the United Nations. Not one Men's Commission can be found to counter the radical feminist deluge of misinformation, or present an honest plea for the rights of men. When was the last time you saw a self-defense class for battered men, let alone a battered men's shelter, or the mere fact that men are even battered at levels much higher than feminist allow to be reported?
"To belittle the numerous contributions of females is going to far," you say. "Present a balanced picture," say I. I have always been for equality, not sexist favoring of inferior ability to the detriment of both sexes and society as a whole. Those areas of prejudice I will belittle with a great exuberance, and if I emphasize men more than women in doing so, it is only to counter the glaring assault that men have relentlessly been under for decades by the radical feminists and their ilk.
Women's Studies programs in colleges are nothing more than the spawning grounds for the teaching of hatred of men, and this is paid for by the tax dollars of hard working men and women. Tax dollars even pay for the recruitment of people into these programs so they can more expediently tear down the male sex and build up the female sex.
I hope I have conveyed a clearer elucidation of the overall contributions of women to American, and Western society.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes indeed. Marie Curie made a wonderful contribution. However, let's not forget that she and her husband Pierre worked as a team and in fact both won the nobel prize in physics as a team not as individuals. The sad fact is that the newer textbooks are cropping the old picture of Marie and Pierre to exclude Pierre and include only Marie! The story is now told leaving out Pierres contribution. If Marie knew of this she would surely have a fit! She loved him so and was so grateful for his mentorship and encouragement. (He was 8 years her senior and already settled in his academic pursuits) They were inseparable and both instrumental to the other in their refinement of their scientific ideas. The feminist spin is misleading, untruthful and generally sickening.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 28, @07:30PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
SO true. Marie Curie is doubtlessly turning in her grave because of the amount of feminist spin she is being subjected to. In a recent Irish National Physics exam students were asked , in a short question, to identify a photograph of a famous physicicist. Was it Newton, or Einstein,orBoyle or Faraday? Of course not. Feminist influence ensured it was Marie Curie. The aim of feminists in Education is to re-write history so as to destroy the gender pride of young men. The feminists know that destruction of self-esteem is the most effective way to destroy a person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, Hunsvotti.
In truth, I was not belittleing 'women's contrabutions'.
Basicaly, I was saying to feminists who "wrote" that book; "You DON'T wanna go THERE! because if you want to get into the argument of "contrabutions to society" pretaining to gender, you ladies will come up very short."
So, yes, You are right, ANY good idea is a good idea, no matter whom it comes from.
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will tell you, I did not know Marie and Pierre received the prize as a team - and most of the pictures I've seen have left him out completely. Interesting.
I think the comment was mostly directed towards "if you take out women's contributions nobody would notice."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will tell you, I did not know Marie and Pierre received the prize as a team - and most of the pictures I've seen have left him out completely.
No surprise there. It's typical, feminist, revisionist history.
A few extra, interesting tidbits: Marie Curie became the first person to win two Nobel Prizes when she followed the 1903 prize in physics, which she shared with her husband and with Antoine Henri Becquerel, with the 1911 prize in chemistry. In addition, the daughter of Pierre and Marie, Irene Joliot-Curie, shared the 1935 prize in chemistry with her husband, Frederic Joliot. This made a total of five Nobel Prizes for the four members of the family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the 1903 prize in physics, which she shared with her husband and with Antoine Henri Becquerel
It's also worth noting that Becquerel received half of the award, "in recognition of the extraordinary services he has rendered by his discovery of spontaneous radioactivity", while Pierre and Marie each received one-quarter, "in recognition of the extraordinary services they have rendered by their joint researches on the radiation phenomena discovered by Professor Henri Becquerel."
So, who do we hear most about? The woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll bet I just found where these two insensitive airheads got the idea for their blank book. I'm in the process of reading a book by Mark Victor Hansen and Robert G. Allen entitled, "The One Minute Millionaire." It's divided into two books, one a novel, the other non-fiction, one printed on the left side pages, the other on the right side pages... for the benefit of the two basic types of people reading the book (either predominantly left or right brain). The purpose of the book, as the authors state, is to teach and encourage a million people to become millionaires in the next decade. So far it seems like a really good book. Anyway, the novel side is about a woman who gets herself into a predicament where she must make a million dollars in 90 days to get full custody of her two children back from her father-in-law who took custody of them from her through the court system when her husband was killed in an auto accident. I just got to page 149, (on the novel side) and one of the women, in trying to come up with an idea to help make the money, remembers where she came across a woman at a gift show, Cindy Cashman, hyping her blank book entitled, "Everything Men Know About Women." When she asked the woman how business was, the woman told her she'd already sold over a million copies. They cost her $.50 apiece to print. She sold them to stores for $1.50 each, and the stores sold them for $2.95 each. And then she exclaims how this woman became a millionaire selling a book with no words in it!!! Looks like these women are trying to become copycat millionairesses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We could do something similar.
It could be a book entitled, "ANATOMY OF THE FEMALE BRAIN".
...Only this book would be INVISIBLE!
...Think of the money we'd save, on paper, printing, etc. AND it would be really EASY for bookstores to stock!
Okay, I'll stop now.
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, and before I get flamed by any feminist trolls, I don't mean for the book "ANATOMY OF THE FEMALE BRAIN" to be insulting to women.
It's just an idea to cheese of the FEMINISTS.
So, no offence meant to any female readers or posters.
TC.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
