|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 12:55 PM March 9th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
No good news here. Sad, lonely, overweight, single women uninterested in sex does not make men any happier than would the same said of men relative to women.
But this article just HAD to pander some at the end to the fembots didn't it, with the wage gap myth thrown in there for good measure. Goes to show you, some folks will complain there's no ketchup for their fries (even if there is) even as the ship they're on is sinking!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:19 PM March 9th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Well who cares!!, we are just witnesing the fall of western culture, a culture so nauseating and putrid that instead of rewarding men for having children degrades them into slave labor and misery, as a result less and less children, less and less population, and therefore less and less feminism or degenerated traditionalism wich is exactly the same.
Men should turn on spectator mode and enjoy the show, some about it: (Times On line)
Not long ago, Holland prided itself as being the most tolerant and welcoming country in Europe for immigrants and asylum seekers. It had the credentials to prove it. So many have settled there, ethnic "minorities" are often in a majority. In the great Dutch cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and the Hague, the newcomers already outnumber the native Dutch among under-20-year-olds. They will soon be an absolute majority.
Some immigrants came from former Dutch colonies. The two largest groups, however, Turkish and Moroccan, had no historic links with the Netherlands. The Dutch nonetheless accepted the reunification of families, and the practice of marrying partners from the country of origin, even though these can have an eight- or tenfold multiplier effect on overall numbers. Asylum seekers then arrived, in numbers that escalated from 3,500 in 1985 to over 43,000 in 2000.
The figures were pro rata among the highest in the EU. Illegals came, too, mainly after 1990, with estimates running from 100,000 to 200,000. The Dutch supplied funding for mosques, religious schools, language courses and housing. They passed special legislation so Moroccans could have dual nationality, as Moroccan nationality is inalienable under Moroccan law. Political correctness, of the sort that produced Harry Enfield's famously relaxed Amsterdam policemen, reigned. Issues felt at street level — immigration, crime, culture, national identity — were seldom discussed by the political elite.
---- The crowd set off on a march to pay their respects at a mosque not far away. The boys were in a long gaggle at the front. The girls, neater, were in disciplined ranks at the rear. Some had Moroccan flags draped over their shoulders. They chanted in Arabic for a while, and passers-by looked and scurried on.
In a country that can still seem a parody of itself — a magistrate ruled recently that an armed robber was entitled to a tax rebate on the cost of his gun as a tool of his trade — even the leader of the Green party has called for it to be illegal for Muslims to import spouses through arranged marriages.
A recent poll found 80% in favour of stronger measures to get immigrants to integrate — and 40% said they "hoped" Muslims "no longer feel at home here".
Too late, remember " In the great Dutch cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and the Hague, the newcomers already outnumber the native Dutch among under-20-year-olds. They will soon be an absolute majority."
Meanwhile for men in the whole west having children just means, child support, (slave labor),
an excuse for women to rob their houses and savings, and eventually jail.
The judeo-christian culture is dying out, and as long as anyone can see, is the best it can happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:16 PM March 14th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
> Not long ago, Holland prided itself as being the most tolerant and welcoming country in Europe for immigrants and asylum seekers. It had the credentials to prove it. So many have settled there, ethnic "minorities" are often in a majority. In the great Dutch cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and the Hague, the newcomers already outnumber the native Dutch among under-20-year-olds. They will soon be an absolute majority.
This is good news. Once the white culture will be destroyed, feminism will die as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:13 AM March 18th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Not much about race, but abourt values, for example no islamic judge will ever take children from their father gives them to the mother and then force the father to support the child, and performe slave labor for the women, so the woman can become a parsite that has children and do not work to support them neither work for a living.
The simple idea is nauseating, but is the norm in juedo-christian societies, and yes they are mainly white, but again there are white mislims in turkey, alabania, kosovo, Morroco, (berebers), etc.
The custody laws are "quite logical," Muhammad said. "A child comes from the seed of a man. The woman is the soil in which the seed is planted. A man is fully entitled to the fruit of his seed."
You see, men are no chatle and slaves like in western putrid societies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:22 AM March 18th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Once the white culture will be destroyed, feminism will die as well."
Not the white culture, the white judeo-christian culture, there are white muslims, there were white greco-roman culture, and so on, the comon denominator is christian puritanism.
The more a western society is influenced by christian values the more demeaning the status of men, more men in jail, more men plundered, children taken away, sent to wars, more and more responsabilities, and less and less rights.
This strong correlation is not coincidence, under christian values Women first, Men always, always afterwards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:20 PM March 9th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
And of course if the ship is sinking that's the fault of the "patriarchy".
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 09:42 AM March 10th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
of course!!!! its our fault, how else would rats know before everyone else that the ship is sinking if they werent the ones with the black and decker ship sabotage kits from the patriarchy division? : )
Artfldgr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 07:44 PM March 9th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
The article posted states --
"The federal Minister assisting the Prime Minister on Women's Issues, Kay Patterson, is releasing the research on 19,000 Australian MEN and women, which compares women's lives to 10 years ago."
Where are the MEN allegedly included in the study? Was it a sample of 18,998 Aussie fems and 2 blokes?
Take a glance at the Hon. Ms. Patterson's web site for a truly exhaustive portrait of gender fascism masquerading as a campaign for "equality" --
Note that it will soon be Aussie law to "mainstream" women's issues, i.e. mandate that
"a focus on women's experiences, issues or perspectives becomes everyone's business."
(Gee, what if I just don't care? Do I go to jail for demonstrating utter indifference or lackluster "focus?")
(Site URL here) --
Senator Kay Patterson , Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues
http://ofw.facs.gov.au/index2.htm
Office for Women
The Australian Government Office for Women (OFW) is a policy advisory unit and a division of the Department of Family and Community Services in Australia.
All of our work is founded on the goal of mainstreaming women's issues. This means working to ensure that a focus on women's experiences, issues or perspectives becomes everyone's business.
Explore our site to see how OFW is working towards gender mainstreaming and ensuring that government policies, services and initiatives are evaluated for the benefits they will provide to women, their impact on women and their accessibility by women.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Gregory on 10:25 PM March 9th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
The health risks and vulnerabilities of males are conveniently ignored or minimized in these reports. Women's longevity advantage is downplayed, but the afflictions of elderly women are emphasized. Men's far greater risk of heart disease before the age of 65 is not mentioned, but we hear that heart disease is the leading killer of women as it is for men. The higher male suicide rate, the higher male occupational death and injury occurrence, and the greater toll that violent crime takes on males are all ignored. Males' higher mortality rates for the leading causes of death (including liver cirrhosis) don't seem to be important. Instead we get the predictable feminist stuff about women's sedentary lives and gender discrimination in the workplace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:50 PM March 9th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
is 154 pages long, crammed with detail and freely available on line.
Some ABC hack reduced that a few hundred words, higlighting some - for her - interesting points.
The report details data for both men and women. Even though I'm no great fan of The Hon Kay, the report is not hers - it's an academic exercise of quite considerable integrity, which was a long time in the making. She merely released it - for IWD - so what would you expect the media to hone in on? Periwinkles? Sex, and sex and fat and "relationships" and money - particularly "THE GAP" - (did I mention sex?). Oh, and of course "babies" - everyone is worried about the babies nowadays.
It is interesting to note that the Office of the Status of Women - once in the Prime Minister's department - no longer exist. Its replascement has been moved as a sub of Kay's Portfolio.
Prue Goward, who once had the ear of the PM, also moved with it to Kay's department - and has been remarkably quiet of late - either by choice or on advice - probably the latter.
There is world of difference in what a politician states and promises etc and what she actually does. Kay cannot move without Cabinet - and there the PM is the determinator.
The bigger the ship, the longer it takes to turn it around. It may move at a speed so slow that it would excite Phillip Glass - but there is movement. So, be ye of Good Cheer
I suggest you download the report, clear your mind of clutter and read it attentitively. You might actually learn something. Then you could make sensible comments and not get all excited about some lefty's precised version spawned from her ignorance.
Judge not by what she says, but by what she does
(or fails to do, as the case may be).
Remember, to you who do not live here, Australia is a foreign country - we do things differently there - here, I mean.
All the same, it's true: men have far more options than women - that's was irks them most. Let's hear it for the Single Life. Rarara!
Neale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Gregory on 11:10 PM March 9th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, you make a good point. I was commenting on a news article *about* the report. I haven't seen or read the entire report and you may be right that the report itself is objective and balanced. Sometimes these reports are underwritten by feminist organizations which are interested in producing "advocacy research" to help further their ideological agenda. I'm not sure I agree with you that men have more options than women -- at least not when it comes to balancing work and family. As a matter of fact, IMO women's longevity advantage says volumes about who has the real power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 09:48 AM March 10th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Neale,
"Then you could make sensible comments and not get all excited about some lefty's precised version spawned from her ignorance. "
Interesting point, except that the reason that we are upset isnt because whats in the report. its because the people will read her and her take over the actual report! so the report can be 500 pages long and if they only report on a paragraph on page 499 then everyone will think thats what the whole 500 pages covers, or thats the only thing in it.
it could be the worlds most fair and even handed report with 110% accuracy, yada yada, but if the only info that gets wide reception is this dips words then what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:48 PM March 10th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Dodger!
If you were an Australian, you would know that the first thing sensible people here do is ignore the ABC - the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It's ratings are so low, it sometimes doens't even register. It is ultra-left - "Liberal" in US-speak. (In AU "Liberal" means "Conservative" - just so you know)
By giving it currency through sites like this, one gives it importance it doesn't have. Now, if you were to take a straw poll and ask any 100 Australians if they knew about the report - you'd find they mostly don't. I rang my local Federal MPs office - and they were unaware of it and had to look for it. The ABC news item was a 15 second sound-bite - here today, gone and forgotten tomorrow, replaced by more and really importent stuff - like Cate's Oscar.
Yet, those who matter (teachers, lobbyists, politicians, academics, researchers etc) will read the report and will find it sad readings - ideologically speaking. It is also ammunition. It documents "life choice" as a reason why women earn less (Warren had to write a large book about it and cop a lot of shit. We just state it as fact in a report). It documents that parity in income comes with increased level of responsibility and that at the top, there is barely a difference and that such as there seems to be is owing to levels of experience and time served. It comprehensively demolishes the arguments of "The Gap".
It documents female criminality and documents the female preference for deception and fraud in this - the so-called victimless crimes, which may account for lower sentences. It acknowledges Female DV. It documents Female Sexual Assault It, by implication, apologizes for the inclusion of the 1996 amd 2000 data on DV, but announced a new survey (2005) which will also survey FonM DV. It documents "female dominated" occupations (e.g teaching, nursing) and postulates women's preference for these occupations to their liking of part-time work and flexible hours and mentions the recent tendency for men to this type of work. However, this also leads to reduced pay, even though there is equal pay for equal work legislation. But: work less, earn less. In addition, part time work does not accrue normal employer obligations, such as holiday pay, paid sick leave and compulsory superannuation - it's all in their choice. In AU one is automatically insured for medical costs through tax deduction and pharmaceuticals are mostly free or at minimal charge. Unlike the US, medicines are funded through tax payer funded PBS).
It also analyzes the future prospects for women as they age. Working less, earning less, saving less, contributing less to the Compulsory Superannuation Schemes and being increasingly more likely to be alone and unmarried - and generally dying later than men - they face a bleak future of increasing penury and will increasingly have to rely on Social Benefits, such as Old Age Pensions. These, although at present adequate to keep body and soul together, do not allow for an affluent lifestyle. The picture for women is not rosy. In that, the sound-bite is correct and reflects the tenor of the report. You may have come a long way, baby, but look where it got you! Maybe you should have stayed at home.
Much of the bitterness of contemporary women stems from their realization that the game is up, that they have been conned - deceived into believing they could have it all - and now when reality bites and it's time for them to pay up and face the music - they blame men for it, which is, of course, absurd. They should blame their women mentors for it - which they will do. That will be the second stage of the Counter Revolution. It is interesting to note that at the last elections (2004) women overwhelmingly rejected the "pro-feminist" stance of the opposition - annihilated them in effect.
But that is womanhood for you - so nothing new there. They know the tide has turned and resent the decline in their ability to further con their way to generous freebies. Men are finally learning the power of "No"! To paraphrase "The Good Book" (Isaiah liii:8) - "[They are] despised and rejected by men".
If we combine the information in the report with the Government's proposed obligation for welfare recipients to "work" for their money or show cause why they shouldn't (this will greatly impact upon the "single mother" families), and the abortion debate that won't go away (no federal funding), we see a sustained offensive against the - largely female - entitlement generation - in which offensive the Government will - to a large extent, at any rate - succeed. The economic arguments are just too convincing - the Nation can't afford it.
Policy is not made by those who read newspaper reports or the few who listen to the ABC. The ABC left-bias is wel recognized and under sustained attack. The ABC is a Government (that is Tax Payer) Funded broadcaster - and relies entirely on Government funding,(they are forbidden to accept donations or advertising) so they have to watch their step very carefully. At regular intervals they have to go cap-in-hand to Treasury to plead for funds - and such requests are carefully scrutinized by the Parliament and not always granted. Complaints regarding their bias have been made by senior politicians and have been upheld by independent tribunals.
It doesn't matter what people in other parts of the world think about it - or us - we will deal with our problems according to the wishes of the people as expressed in our Parliaments.
So, the uninformed comments as expressed in so many posts are perhaps therapeutic for those who express them, but they are a waste of effort, as, being insubstantial, they have no effect and, being uninformed, diminish the credibilty of the Man's Movement. Ultimately they may result in people tuning out to the legitimate concerns of Men as being the gripes of just another lot of wankers. Which would be a pity.
We have to be precise and always on the ball and aim our attack at where it can do the greatest harm - and so deliver the greatest victory.
Sounding-off doesn't do that.
Neale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Clancy
(long_ponytail@yahoo.com)
on 03:07 PM March 9th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have they never thought that maybe, just MAYBE if we stopped kicking Dad to the curb, we might have more time for ourselves. Maybe if we shared our children with their OTHER PARENT, EQUALLY, our lives might be a little easier on ALL of us. Hell NO. It's DV and that Damn wage gap that's to blame. It's all these kids I chose to have with my EX before I decided I didn't need him anymore. Doesn't that large "child support" check make up the difference? No mention is made of 'ole Dad who is living out of his car, eating beans out of a can, watching his kids through binoculars for fear of violating that restraining order. Nope, it's the poor old fat, lonely, sexless women that get all the press. In this case, I read with no sympathy whatsoever. Women of the world are soon going to realize that men are really the ones that need a woman "like a fish needs a bicycle". We have beer and poker nights when we want company. We have football, baseball, basketball, cars ...... and we have HOOKERS when we want sex and a box of kleenex when one of them isn't available. Men are improvisors and inventors. We don't sit around and feel sorry for our self. Except, of course, the men who have been driven to the precipice by a system that's so one sided that the caring, feeling men who've lost the most important thing(s) in their lives find life no longer worth living. So, sit on your fat asses, lonely hags of the world and eat the fruits of your own deceit. Wow, I should win the Misogynist of the year award. NEVER underestimate the Y factor.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
ArtflDgr writes "You can read the whole text