|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday February 26, @02:07PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Martha Burke, being the humor impaired feminist that she is, actually thought this was a funny when she wrote it. Who knows, she must have run out of people to sue that particular year. Not that I think that this type of satire can't be funny, it just isn't, the way that Martha chose to write it.
The passing use of the phrase "A modest proposal" is supposed to be a reference to the Revolution era satirical work of Jonathan Swift, titled "A modest proposal", which includes references to infant cannibalism.
I guess this is the way coneheads get their kicks. She must have been picked on by jokesters who actually had a sense of humor back in junior high school, so the only way she could get her clitoral erection was by pretending to be smarter than them. Subtext: "Hey, if you guys weren't so dumb, you'd think my joke was funny!" (Uh-huh. Why don't you go back to your mom and have her tape your glasses back together?)
Of course, even if she were serious, her plan would never work anyways. Even if we succeeded in sterilizing 90 % of the male population (good luck), slags would still be getting pregnant anyways.
Not only that, baby eating is pretty incredible. But given the recent Ohio (?) Supreme Court ruling that threatened to put a man in jail if he sired any more kids, one can see that her proposal is not to far off base from ideologies of a select few normal individuals, and certainly are harbored by a select few feminists (a.k.a. Scum Manifesto, authored by the woman who shot Andy Warhol).
How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Feminist response: "That's not funny."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martha Burke published this in a couple of places, not the least of which was "MS. Magazine" but it wasn't until *AFTER* she got taken to task on cable TV about it did she weakly proclaim that it was all satire. At best, it was a trial balloon, to see how many people would buy into the crap.
Yeah. She was on Crossfire (on CNN) last fall. After Carlson and Schlussel dug into her, she changed her story and went from defending the piece to saying it was a satire.
Yeah, right, whatever you say, Martha.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday February 27, @09:59PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Burk IS a jerk. (Burkey the turkey...?)
Anyone remember Al Jolson?
He was the white guy who painted his face black (Black-face) and "spoofed" Black people. Black people didn't think it was too funny...,
Anyone remember some of the old WARNER BROTHERS cartoons?
I can't count the times, as a kid, that I would see Indians being "spoofed".
"Ugh, Me scalp 'em...", "Ugh, me get'um paleface...", "Ugh, Me sell'um NewYork for beads, Now me rich cheif, Me rich SUPER cheif...!"
Yeah, My people thought that was a riot.
You know like the Jewish people "Enjoyed" being gassed.
What's my point...?
Just that simply because something is labled "comedy" or a "spoof" doesn't mean it's funny or doesn't cause certain types of damage.
Speaking from personal expirience, I can tell you that to this day there are still TONS of Indian desendants who will not admit openly to being so, because they are ashamed of it.
I should know, I was ONE of those people once.
All largly because someone thought it would be funny to shame a group of people, by "spoofing" them.
And now we see it, yet again in a new form, compliments of Burkey the turkey, and her ilk.
Only this time the targets of "spoof" are not Blacks or American Indians..., It is men.
Do people EVER learn...?
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But then again, if all the women are sterile, does it MATTER that a man can sire an entire army? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This theory has been considered before and rejected. You can try to control male sexuality (as she is proposing and is increasingly the case in the larger society) but if you are only 99.9% effective there is still enough sperm left in that remaining 0.1% to cause plenty of problems. This is why societies tended to focus their control on female sexuality.
-------------------------------------------------- ----------
/* Not All Men Are Fools -- Some Are Martian Bachelors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This theory has been considered before and rejected. You can try to control male sexuality (as she is proposing and is increasingly the case in the larger society) but if you are only 99.9% effective there is still enough sperm left in that remaining 0.1% to cause plenty of problems. This is why societies tended to focus their control on female sexuality.
Actually, the reason for this is simply that you ALWAYS knew who the MOTHER is!
Let's face it: if the woman is sleeping around, the child's father be just about ANY man who even slightly resembles the husband, but no DNA test was ever necessary to know who's thighs the kid is popping out from between.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The dates of these articles, including the rightous one of Wendy, are rather old. I can't describe the pain that I felt when I read the article. That woman, who wrote it, is a sick egotistical individual that also is just trying to make a fortune out of a terrifying situation. People like that are just minutely removed from serial killers. Con men, or con women, that are intelligent enough to use the system to further their own designs are usually brought down by justice; I guess it is up to the rest of us to bring people like that down. Expose her for what she is, a self serving opportunistic woman that doesn't care about responsability, or what the future holds. That is what differentiates a productive citizen from a piece of scum, social responsability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People like this need to be exposed, but we can't hope for too much since such exposure is typically fed to their sheep-followers as simple mudslinging by those whom their beloved demagogue threatens to expose instead; just look at Billary and the fiasco regarding the "vast, right-wing conspiracy of Clinton-haters." Remember the rhetoric before the analysis of the stain on the infamous blue dress, and the last-minute ass-covering historical revisionism immediately afterward?
"Not milk!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This sounds typical of the average hypocrite, i.e. claming that if a sick statement wasn't meant seriously after it's met with derision.
However this article proves the author is not only mentally degenerate, but that she can't even do math OR biology, since every child sired by a man requires a participating woman (unless one goes with the position that "all sex is rape"). Therefore, to claim that "men can have more children than women" is sheer idiocy when tallied over the whole of both genders; rather, her attempt is to perpetrate a "selective stereotype" whereby the simple POTENTIAL for one man to parent more children than one woman, is somehow to be applied to all men as an actual possibility for all men, even though it's purely mathematically impossible!
I guess it's that "feminist logic" at work again, i.e. padded-cell straightjacket thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
