The thread about "Why wouldn't a woman vote for Bush" got me thinking.

Firstly, women choose a candidate based on feelings and the candidate's looks. Bill Clinton is a dog who sexually harrasses women but chicks still like him because he is attractive and charming. Chicks love Bill. Not to mention how women swooned over Al Bore's mashing kiss of his wife during the Dem convention. A kiss that was about as spontanious as the "everything free for everyone" speach that followed it. But women fell for it.

In marriage, women look for men who are successful, why? Because they want to be taken care of. In politics they also want to be "taken care of" by left leaning candidates who promise them all manner of social programs that will "take care of them". They want family leave so they can take time off for family without regard to what problems this creates for employers. Women want free day care, free health insurance for their kids, etc etc etc, free free free all for me. Since so few women run a business there is a disconnect in their minds that SOMEBODY has pay for all of that free stuff and time off. They do not understand how tough it is to run a business, since so few of them do, only that they are not being paid enough and don't get enough time off. So women vote to hand the government a bludgeon to wield over the heads of business, so that they can be better taken care of.

Well, I think that is enough to stir up the hornets. I expect much rebutal from women, but us real men know what I am talking about, right guys?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 08, 2000

Answers

Unc, let me guess...you really are a man, aren't you? You dog! No George Sand pseudonym nonsense for you!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), September 08, 2000.

You're absolutely right Unk. Women can't do a goddam thing without having some kind of emotional attachment to it. Well, maybe with the exception of very professional prostitutes. Even they get emotional sometimes, but at least they don't let it ruin business.

-- guy (women@are.nuts), September 08, 2000.

Your post is a joke, right?

Few are responding probably because most have never heard such ignorant crap before and are in shock. Out of some type of respect they are just letting this one go I figure.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 08, 2000.

Unca is absolutely spot on. Most women have two goals in life: to drop a litter, and have someone take care of them. Why hassle with a guy, likely a loser just like they are, when "Big Brother" (Republicrats) volunteer to step in.

Ever wonder, for example, why so few women, are interested in libertarianism? It's because libertarianism promotes self-responsibilty. The thought of that gives most women the chills. (Not to say that most men are not also fucked up, but even more women are.)

You can trace the acceleration of the decline of this country as a direct relationship to women getting more political power.

A pussified country can't stand for long.

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 08, 2000.

Alright, you did it again. You started another fight.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), September 08, 2000.

I cannot believe the disrespect being shown to women here, by even raising such a ridiculous issue, replete with all the stereotypes that have ever come from the "good old boys". This is the 21st century, wake up!

Debra: What kind of fight are we talking about? Is there mud involved??

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 08, 2000.

Salvo II

Why is it that women cannot figure out why they need all of this free stuff and government mandated time off? It is perhaps too logical.

Gals want free child care and family leave etc etc so that they can spend more time with their children, and so that they can feel that their kids are being taken good care of while they are out earning a living. But if the government did not take half of the man's paycheck in various taxes (to pay for all of that free stuff) she would not have to work at all, and could raise her kids her self, the way nature intended!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 08, 2000.

Unk, keep this up, and we're not going to give you any more baths. No more cleaning out any knooks and crannies for you!

-- I've.washed.the.Unk.for (the@last.time), September 08, 2000.

I've suspected for a long time that Uncle Deedah is actually a woman with a bizarre sense of humor.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 08, 2000.

Let me guess: 5 beers and three shots of Jim Beam less than two hours. Am I right?

No reefer though, cause then you'd have written something soft and tender about how woman are the greatest creation in this universe. About how gorgeous is the female form in all its shapes, sizes, colors. About how life would not be worth living without the female of the species next to us (keeping this clean).

How's that, Debra? ;^)

Come on Unk, pick up the ball and run with it, man. These ladies are the lights of our lives. Besides, how do you ever expect to get any with a rap like that?

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), September 08, 2000.

Unc I know you posted this tongue in cheek, however... I think there's a lot of truth in that. I grew up with Gloria Stienem (sp?). I felt liberated, extremely independent, that whole women's lib thing down to a tee. Went into a career with only a handful of women, blazing trails. Now I come to realize that women haven't changed one iota. Most still want a man to take care of them. Playboy still has women knocking at their doors to get in. Sex in the city depicting women as lonely needing a man to make their lives complete. Career? Not many women care about a career.

Doc, whaatttt?

Yeah, that kiss (which looked like grandma and grandpa making out on the dance floor - not very appealing in my mind) changed a lot of women voter's minds. Sad

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 08, 2000.

Women are allowed to vote??????

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 08, 2000.

Unk,

Last pregnancy I was working three jobs. One was day shift Monday through Friday. One was second/night shift Tuesday through Saturday. One was third shift Monday through Friday and all day on Sunday. That last one involved handling live rats and feces of multiple animal species.

When my employers found out I was pregnant, two of them laid me off. That's a euphemism for fired me, but that way it wasn't illegal. The third employer wanted to fire me but couldn't find anyone to take my place. We badly needed the money from the other two jobs, and my firing caused financial hardship.

I worked late ona Friday afternoon, had the baby on the following Sunday, a tubal ligation on Monday, went home on Tuesday, and returned to my remaining job one week later. I missed a total of seven days of work, for which I was not paid.

I took the baby to work with me because state-licensed child care facilities may not take babies who are unvaccinated. The vaccinations were scheduled to be completed by six weeks. I had a provider lined up. My employer insisted that I be replaced. No one responded to the ad for six weeks. No one wanted my shitty job but me. I told my employer that the baby could enter daycare the following week, but that very day ONE applicant showed up and was hired.

That lady is nice, but she can't do the job. I've been called in repeatedly to straighten up the mess. This last time I decided that I really don't owe them any more of my good will.

Was I a good employee? Always showed up early, always stayed late if there was a need. Other than when I had a baby, I never missed a day in a year. I was offered full-time, permanent positions with benefits by two companies who dealt with my office based on their impression of my efficiency. I don't think my employer had a good reason to get rid of me other than the issue of my having a baby.

My child care provider is state licensed and must attend training seminars on her own time. These seminars are held during the day, so I did the paperwork necessary to become a daycare substitute. Why aren't seminars held in the evening so these ladies don't have the hassle of finding substitutes? State workers are day shift. Period.

I pay my provider more than the minimum state requirement and more than she charges other parents. Some of the parents pay nearly nothing. The state isn't making up the difference. My provider views the state as more of a pain in the butt than it's worth, so she provides low-cost care on her own dime.

Do I expect Gore OR Bush to do anything constructive about enforcing the American Family Leave Act? About low-income child care providers? About the necessity of two incomes in most families?

NO.

Will I stop flipping MY coin -- the coin *I* earned -- to choose one evil over the other?

NO.

-- helen (five_miles@way.from.Unk.and.closing), September 08, 2000.

helen, thanks for sharing, very sobering.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), September 08, 2000.

Helen, the rant was obviously needed. Glad you took the opportunity to divest yourself of some tension.

I would hope you do not take the following comments personally. I HAVE to make a couple of points, however.

You stated:

Do I expect Gore OR Bush to do anything constructive about enforcing the American Family Leave Act? About low-income child care providers? About the necessity of two incomes in most families?

Unless you were forcibly impregnated, it was YOUR CHOICE to reproduce. You and daddy created the situation in which all those paychecks were required. I do NOT want fed.gov or state.gov to grab MY money to help you raise your kids.

The following story does not reflect on you, Helen. Nonetheless it is a real life situation repeated in offices all over the country.

Our receptionist is about eleven months pregnant. I love her to death. She is a sweetheart of a woman, but she doesn't perform her job fully and hasn't held up her end of things for weeks now. As a friend I have no problem taking on some of her duties. In fact I relish helping her out. Looking at it from the viewpoint of my boss, her inability to fulfill her job functions pulls me away from my duties, thereby shrinking the sales numbers of his department.

The compnay can't tell her to go home without facing lawsuit, frivoulous though it may be. She should be home waiting to drop her load, not spraying hormones all over the office and shoving food into her cakehole every 13-1/2 minutes at company expense. (Please laugh. It is offered in a jocular way)

Thanks to fed.gov, the company is hamstrung until she decides to go on unpaid leave. So she continues collecting partially-earned paychecks until she is ready to spit out the kid. Good for her. She needs the money. Bad for business. The company needs the money. Tough call, eh?

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), September 08, 2000.

Actually, when I saw this thread on the front page of the board, directly underneath it was the thread, "What an a$$hole".

I figured someone had this covered ;-)

Seriously, I agree with Maria on this one. What "progress" have women made? And I'm not saying that every woman has to aspire to the ideals of career/independence/whatever; it's not for everyone. But it pains me to walk around this town and listen to the conversations some women have, especially those in their twenties. The first question I was asked when I made an appointment for a mammogram was, "Do you have implants?" NOT "Do you have insurance?". Huh? The first time I went to get a manicure the woman looked at my nails and said, "Oh, you want fake nails?" (I was the only one in the salon with real nails; as short as they were.) I work with a woman who talks about nothing but sex -- to anyone and everyone who will listen. All the boyfriends she's had. Whether or not her divorce is final and what she can get from him. How she can't wait to marry her new boyfriend (met him about six weeks ago and moved in with him two weeks later). This is not uncommon in this town. Hell, one of the first billboard signs I saw as I drove in back in March read: "Find Out Who The Father Is -- DNA Testing" and gave an "800" number.

I almost turned around and went back.

(I had been warned before I moved here that the average IQ -- men AND women -- was slightly less than room temp; what I wasn't told was that it was an air-conditioned room. I think that was an underestimate.)

Helen, if I may, that sucks. I'm sorry about what you've gone through. It's just not right.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 08, 2000.

Actually premise is incorrect. The vote had little to do with power though it help. The right to own property was the first truly liberating power.

And women should take full advantage of the right to own property by buying people who spew about Womens' Rights and sending them to work on Women Owned Gally Ships as rowers. CPR Feminist MEMBER and Donator: N.O.W.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 08, 2000.

I'm voting for Gore because his daughters are babes.

-- Liberated Man (manly@yep.yep), September 08, 2000.

Patricia and Maria-

Women make up over 51% of the US population. It is unfair and incorrect to stereotype them based on your negative experiences.

The women in my life and in my office tend to be very bright and informed. We don't discuss politics too often, but when it comes up they are able to coherently make a case for why they are considering voting for one candidate or another.

I'm sure there are some women out there who are more interested in frivolous matters than actual life. I'm also sure there are some white people out there who are deeply racist, some men who are sexist pigs, and some black people who are ignorant and proud. Does this make all women frivolous, all white people racist, all men sexist, and all black people willfully ignorant? Not by a long shot. If the only women you're meeting are shallow idiots, I suggest you try to meet others.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 08, 2000.

"If the only women you're meeting are shallow idiots, I suggest you try to meet others."

How presumptuous of you? I meet plenty of women who are intelligent, as a matter of fact very few I know are shallow. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Case in point - My daughter got straight a's in high school, yet has decided not to go onto college. She's not shallow by any means but has not taken the steps to establish a professional career.

Look at society as a whole. Where are the feminists? Do you see any? Yes there are women holding jobs that only men used to hold a generation ago but do you see more young women moving into careers than a generation ago? I don't think so. The young women have not taken the "feminist torch". (I have to chuckle at my choice of words :> where's that soap box) The torch has been extinguished. I think the tide is turning; women are starting to move into the "traditional" roles of the 50's. Sad.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 08, 2000.

LOL Unk.

Interestingly enough, I heard this same argument on a local radio talk show this morning. Apparently, when broken down by gender, recent polls show Bush holds a huge ("20+%") lead as reflected by the male vote, and Gore holds a huge ("double digit") lead as reflected by the female vote. In questioning why this huge gender-preference difference would exist, the guy hosting the show came to the exact same conclusions you put forth.

To those who would vehemently disagree with what Unk has suggested... How do *YOU* explain the fact that Gore receives FAR more support from females than males in these polls?

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), September 08, 2000.

Actually, Unk, it's the men's fault for not telling their women "how" to vote. If you men won't think for us, well I guess we'll just have to vote for the guy who's the cutest...!

;-)

Mar.

-- Not now, not like this (AgentSmith0110@aol.com), September 08, 2000.

Has anyone stopped to consider how many men benefit from all that free labour provided at home? Cuba is the only country with legislation saying men must do housework, and even that country's success at such an assignment is minimal. The average working woman does double duty, at her paid job and at home. How many men can say the same thing?

-- viewer (justp@ssing.by), September 08, 2000.

CD,

Covered on another thread>>>>ABORTION. Women have used cold hard unemotional reasoning and concluded it is unwise to have an emotional blowhard in the White House pushing his ignorant social agendas.

Why anyone would likewise want Dubya running things is not based on any logic. If it was, his stance on Abortion alone, and the predictable alienation of over half the voters as a result indicates one not operating with much intelligence. Bush is an emotional twit who is unqualified. Men are the ones having a problem seeing as much according to the polls.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 08, 2000.

I must admit that I have interpreted Mr. Deedah's post in a different light. I believe he was trying to allegorize the American situation, with "women" being the average joe/jolene and "men" being the government entity just hovering over the average person waiting to take advantage of them.

-- theron (theron@freeze.com), September 08, 2000.

Bingo wrote: "She is a sweetheart of a woman, but she doesn't perform her job fully and hasn't held up her end of things for weeks now." (and) "The compnay can't tell her to go home without facing lawsuit, frivoulous though it may be."

It's simple, Bingo. If she is *not* performing her work satisfactorily it is her boss' OBLIGATION to take her aside and counsel her about her performance. If she's a consciencious employee, she will either improve or voluntarily begin her leave of absence. However, if improvement is not immediately shown by her, then progressive disciplinary steps should be taken. If properly documented, your company cannot be held liable.

Sweetheart or not, pregnant or not, if she's costing the company money, your boss needs to "fix" it. If he's aware of the problem and fails to take action, then he's not doing *his* job.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), September 08, 2000.

LOL Doc. Interesting "interpretation".

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), September 08, 2000.

If working males want offspring -- for whatever reason, to continue the race, carry the name, show they can get it up, whatever -- they are going to have to pay a daycare provider to keep the child safe and fed while he's away. Or they're going to have to marry women who can support the family while they stay home. Or they're going to have to make enough money to support stay-at-home mothers-- the 50's thing.

If it happens that a man married a woman based on emotional reasons and not for logical financial reasons, he may find that both he and his wife must work. The family will need safe and affordable daycare. Daycare providers have a high turnover due to low pay and high stress, so they can expect to have problems in that area.

Meanwhile, all those men who entered into sex unsheathed and parenthood unwilling shift the burden of caring for their unwanted offspring to single mothers and/or to working parents and nonparents. All workers must needs work harder to pay the tax burden.

Bingo, we planned financially on my continued employment during my pregnancy at ALL three of my jobs, never dreaming they would break the law and fire me for being pregnant and not for any failure to perform the job. One employer said flat out that they were afraid I would miscarry and hold them responsible in spite of my offer to sign a document releasing them from liability. I might add that both employers who fired me were never able to replace me. One went out of business because the work load was too heavy after I left. The other called me to come back right after I'd given birth, but I refused. You just can't get good help these days. :)

This election is nearly meaningless. Neither candidate can or should fix this country's problems.

People make less than optimum choices all the time. Having been poor, hungry, exhausted, demoralized, fearful, and grieving in any combination and sometimes all at once, I've personally taken paths that looked like the only way. Only from a more financially comfortable perspective was I able to see that I had better choices at the time and didn't know it.

Bush and Gore are not the solution. *I* am the solution. YOU are the solution. Take on some little part of the world near you and make it better. Take care of a child for a single mother so she can take a night class at college. Take an elderly person to a doctor's appointment. Spend a Saturday with a volunteer organization. Do something outside of taking care of your own business. Nothing big, just what you can handle. You can't make people make better choices, but you can become friends and THEN influence them a bit here and there.

(She's falls off the soapbox with a resounding thud...)

-- helen (b@t.f), September 08, 2000.

"If the only women you're meeting are shallow idiots, I suggest you try to meet others."

How presumptuous of you?

Maria, please go back and read Patricia's response to you. Once you've done that, please go back and read the portion of my post where I addressed both you AND Patricia.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 08, 2000.

Liberated Man, have you seen Bush's daughters? They are also babes!

-- I kid you not (trust@me.ok?), September 08, 2000.

Firstly, women choose a candidate based on feelings and the candidate's looks. Bill Clinton is a dog who sexually harrasses women but chicks still like him because he is attractive and charming. Chicks love Bill. Not to mention how women swooned over Al Bore's mashing kiss of his wife during the Dem convention. A kiss that was about as spontanious as the "everything free for everyone" speach that followed it. But women fell for it.

In marriage, women look for men who are successful, why? Because they want to be taken care of. In politics they also want to be "taken care of" by left leaning candidates who promise them all manner of social programs that will "take care of them". They want family leave so they can take time off for family without regard to what problems this creates for employers. Women want free day care, free health insurance for their kids, etc etc etc, free free free all for me. Since so few women run a business there is a disconnect in their minds that SOMEBODY has pay for all of that free stuff and time off. They do not understand how tough it is to run a business, since so few of them do, only that they are not being paid enough and don't get enough time off. So women vote to hand the government a bludgeon to wield over the heads of business, so that they can be better taken care of.

Well, I think that is enough to stir up the hornets. I expect much rebutal from women, but us real men know what I am talking about, right guys?

Jeez Unk, I am surprised by this.

1. Neither Al Gore, nor Bill Clinton do I find to be attractive. So there goes that generalization. {major MAJOR eye roll}

2. Gee for someone who "wants to be taken care of", I've spent the majority of my life taking care of others. No one has taken care of me. Nor do I EXPECT anyone to. If all I cared about was finding someone who was successful to take care of me, then I would have been married a long time ago. I'mlooking for more than that. I can take care of myself quite well, thank you. And there goes another of your generalizations down the shitter.

3. If women weren't there to take care of their children, then who do YOU expect would be?! Obviously most men aren't going to do it.If men expect and appreciate women to stay home with their children and tend to home matters, then they'd better damn well stay with their families and support them. Bills don't get paid all by themselves, honey!

4. Free health insurance and free childcare? WHERE?!

This ignorance sickens me. Excuse me while I throw up.

-- cin (cin@=0).cin), September 08, 2000.

helen for president!!!

-- cin (cin@=0).cin), September 08, 2000.

You'll have to explain a little further Tarzan. You address both Patricia and me at the beginning and never diverge to single one or the other out.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 08, 2000.

p.s. The family medical leave act doesn't just apply to women. It also applies to men. And I've seen men use it to be with their wives while they are giving birth.

****Gals want free child care and family leave etc etc so that they can spend more time with their children, and so that they can feel that their kids are being taken good care of while they are out earning a living. But if the government did not take half of the man's paycheck in various taxes (to pay for all of that free stuff) she would not have to work at all, and could raise her kids her self, the way nature intended!****

Unk, having kids is not like having dogs. No matter how much you believe it to be.

You should be pushing for more and better child support systems and better and more traditional family values. Because without that, American children are doomed.

-- cin (cin@=0).cin), September 08, 2000.

Helen. You wrote: ...never dreaming they would break the law and fire me for being pregnant and not for any failure to perform the job. One employer said flat out that they were afraid I would miscarry and hold them responsible in spite of my offer to sign a document releasing them from liability.

If true, your employer's actions definitely were illegal. Did you take the initiative to pursue this? Contact a lawyer perhaps? Based on the information you have given us, there was a strong likelihood that you could have been reinstated at your job AND received back-pay for the time lost. I ask because previously you had written: "Do I expect Gore OR Bush to do anything constructive about enforcing the American Family Leave Act?" Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my opinion you are making the rather broad generalization that the American Family Leave Act is not being enforced based solely on your experience. I find it very difficult to believe there is *any* non- enforcement of this act when violations are brought to the attention of the legal system. I ask you again, did you take the initiative to bring this to attention or did you "let it slide"?

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), September 08, 2000.

Sorry, Tarzan, I just don't get it either. The way I read it, you are presuming that the only women I or Maria "meet" are shallow. And that could not be further from the truth.

In addition, you make the assumption that Maria and I are "[stereotyping the entire female population of the U.S.] based on [our] negative experiences". That's quite a leap there.

The women I am "stereotyping" (and I put that in quotes because it simply fascinates me that someone will act like a stereotype and then be completely amazed when that one IS stereotyped) are the ones who act as I described above. No more, no less.

Neither my friends nor most of my co-workers fall into this category.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 08, 2000.

When my wife and I decided to start our family there were many elements of this decision that required planning and sacrifice. We both wanted her to be able to be a full-time mom so there were financial adjustments to make. We knew that we could have no more than two children and that is exactly what resulted. Not for a second did we ever expect to have our efforts supported by public funding. This is where things get a little dicey.

Having children is a god given right. Having them and you supported with other peoples money is not. Too many women are irresponsibly giving birth to babies that they cant afford. Do the math.

-- I (h@ve.spoken), September 08, 2000.

I'm voting for Dubya because obviously he has trained his woman well and she knows better than swelling up like some big old water buffalo

-- you go george (we can see you h@ve her.trained), September 08, 2000.

I'm sorry Patricia. I thought you wrote:

But it pains me to walk around this town and listen to the conversations some women have, especially those in their twenties. The first question I was asked when I made an appointment for a mammogram was, "Do you have implants?" NOT "Do you have insurance?". Huh? The first time I went to get a manicure the woman looked at my nails and said, "Oh, you want fake nails?" (I was the only one in the salon with real nails; as short as they were.) I work with a woman who talks about nothing but sex -- to anyone and everyone who will listen. All the boyfriends she's had. Whether or not her divorce is final and what she can get from him. How she can't wait to marry her new boyfriend (met him about six weeks ago and moved in with him two weeks later). This is not uncommon in this town. Hell, one of the first billboard signs I saw as I drove in back in March read: "Find Out Who The Father Is -- DNA Testing" and gave an "800" number.

I almost turned around and went back.

(I had been warned before I moved here that the average IQ -- men AND women -- was slightly less than room temp; what I wasn't told was that it was an air-conditioned room. I think that was an underestimate.)

Clearly that was written by another person who was merely posting as you. Looks like we have another troll on this board.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 08, 2000.

Cin..oh dear sweet cin...

Your post quoted me:

****Gals want free child care and family leave etc etc so that they can spend more time with their children, and so that they can feel that their kids are being taken good care of while they are out earning a living. But if the government did not take half of the man's paycheck in various taxes (to pay for all of that free stuff) she would not have to work at all, and could raise her kids her self, the way nature intended!****

And then you said:

You should be pushing for more and better child support systems and better and more traditional family values. Because without that, American children are doomed.

What better child support system is there than a stay at home mom? What is a better support of traditional family values than having the mother raise her kids and instilling her values in the child, instead of some government mandated social program doing it for her?

Thank you for making my point for me, even if it was by accident.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 08, 2000.

****Too many women are irresponsibly giving birth to babies that they cant afford.****

Haven't you heard? It take an egg as well as a SPERM to make a baby. Why is it only the woman's responsibility?

What is irresponsible is men (and I use the term loosely) whipping out their dicks and impregnating every female they get a woody for.

DO THE MATH, ignorant asshole.

-- cin (cin@=0.)), September 08, 2000.

***What better child support system is there than a stay at home mom? What is a better support of traditional family values than having the mother raise her kids and instilling her values in the child, instead of some government mandated social program doing it for her?***

That's great Unk. I agree. So...who is going to pay the bills, if the woman is a stay-at-home mother? And shouldn't the father have some part in raising the children? It's funny how you don't mention child and father in the same sentence. Why is that?

-- cin (cin@=0.)), September 08, 2000.

Unk, you are truly a shameless troll monkey. I salute you!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), September 08, 2000.

Helen: If you "desperately" needed all those jobs, maybe you should have considered ABORTION. You dumbfuckpussies are so desperate to get pregnant, and so reluctant to get an abortion -- you just want to drop your litters, then worry later -- if ever -- how you gonna feed and raise your litters.

I use "litters" because most women drop litters with no more forethought than cats, dogs, and rats.

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 08, 2000.

OK, eve. Now is the time for you to step in and post the lyrics to that great Monty Python hit tune, Every Sperm is Sacred from the film Meaning of Life. Please, please?

"Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate..."

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), September 08, 2000.

The formatting may get ugly...First attempt:

Every Sperm Is Sacred Composers: David Howman & Andre Jacquemin

Authors: Michael Palin & Terry Jones

From the Movie 'The Meaning of Life'

DAD: There are Jews in the world. There are Buddhists. There are Hindus and Mormons, and then There are those that follow Mohammed, but I've never been one of them. I'm a Roman Catholic, And have been since before I was born, And the one thing they say about Catholics is: They'll take you as soon as you're warm. You don't have to be a six-footer. You don't have to have a great brain. You don't have to have any clothes on. You're A Catholic the moment Dad came, Because Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

CHILDREN: Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

GIRL: Let the heathen spill theirs On the dusty ground. God shall make them pay for Each sperm that can't be found.

CHILDREN: Every sperm is wanted. Every sperm is good. Every sperm is needed In your neighbourhood.

MUM: Hindu, Taoist, Mormon, Spill theirs just anywhere, But God loves those who treat their Semen with more care.

MEN: Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great.

WOMEN: If a sperm is wasted,...

CHILDREN: ...God get quite irate.

PRIEST: Every sperm is sacred. BRIDE and GROOM: Every sperm is good.

NANNIES: Every sperm is needed...

CARDINALS: ...In your neighbourhood!

CHILDREN: Every sperm is useful. Every sperm is fine.

FUNERAL CORTEGE: God needs everybody's.

MOURNER #1: Mine!

MOURNER #2: And mine!

CORPSE: And mine!

NUN: Let the Pagan spill theirs O'er mountain, hill, and plain.

HOLY STATUES: God shall strike them down for Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

EVERYONE: Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is good. Every sperm is needed In your neighbourhood. Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite iraaaaaate!

Every Sperm Is Sacred

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), September 08, 2000.

Oh, Bingo...I'm sorry I missed my cue. Thanks for finding and posting that classic, though. You know, Bingo, we should never let a week go by without posting a Python moment.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 08, 2000.

Bit off-topic Bingo, wouldnt you say?

-- that guy (annoys@me.sometimes), September 08, 2000.

cin, oh dear sweet, sweet cin.

That's great Unk. I agree. So...who is going to pay the bills, if the woman is a stay-at-home mother?

Dear cin, let me try again, please read my post *carefully* one more time, and concentrate on the part about the government taking half of the man's paycheck.

And shouldn't the father have some part in raising the children? Yes It's funny how you don't mention child and father in the same sentence. Why is that?

Because I am talking about the woman's role and "needs" right now, and how substituting government for daddy will ruin our freedom.

AisAisA,

Don't talk about helen that way unless you wish for me to kick your ass but good, thank you.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 08, 2000.

From CD we got: To those who would vehemently disagree with what Unk has suggested... How do *YOU* explain the fact that Gore receives FAR more support from females than males in these polls? -------------------------------------------------------

That is "recent" and it is temporary. But the sad part is that GWB may not be able to move to the center and maintain any semblance of a "principled person" (his sales pitch) because of positions taken in the Spring (especially in the primaries in the South). Unlike Democrats who change positions with the latest polls, Bush can'tdo that and get the hard and medium hard Right to get in their cars and vote for him. If he tries to move to the center, their leaders will not be able to convince the hard rank and file in the pews that GWB is anything more than a politician like his Father (whom they universally hated).

However, "shifts" happen and its algore's to lose (which I certainly expect). He has begun to give back some of the lead and is down to 6% vs. 10% in today's Reuters. Should that continue "Big Mo" enters the picture and then algore will stumble because he always has. Meanwhile GWB is trapped with an image (unfair) that he is almost anti-Woman. There is too much of the "good ole boy" image and most women flat out do not like that no matter what their political beliefs are. Laura can't help much and only Barbara Bush might be able to recapture swing female votes. VERY tough job.

What the Presidential election "system" does is filter down and reject all the impossibilities and the "almosts" until only one is left. That one almost always wins the swing vote by "well, he's not perfect but he was better than the other one (clown, joker). NOBODY really knows what goes on in the Boothes. I do know that if NADER "backs off" on algore, Bush has a serious problem. I do not expect Nader to do that and while no body who knows me believes this, I say Ralphie boy would probably end up being a better Pres. than anyone except maybe Cheney. Of course, I say that about HILLARY (God Forgive Me PLEASE). I would fight everything they would ever try but at least I would know that Nader and Hillary had some talent to draw upon in case of "emergencies". Truman, LBJ and Nixon all had that but there have been few before or after that were more than "Image". The swing and polarizations is a reaction to L.A.... and women feeling "more comfortable" with algore than GWB. I doubt many men have changed their minds over either recently but women of the "don't know" set did go algore. Again, its now algore's to lose and he will because he is such a cipher.

It will not be easy for the GOP to turn this around. They had the Press almost but not quite "neutralized" until L.A. Now that algore has convinced the Press thanks to his Stage Managers, makeup artists and Directors that he at least is a breathing human, all the forces of the liberal press will kick in to "play nice" with algore because they have for 25 years. In short, they don't have "the robot" to kick around anymore (to borrow from the Sainted Richard). Instead, they have turned on GWB and that will continue until Nov.

What seems to have happened here is that algore did NOT "screw up"(something he is good at) and GWB did (strange for someone who tries not to leave a shadow). I also think that the Cheney select was wrong even though Cheney would make a better Administrator than all of them put together. He really comes over like the Corp. Manager, women try to avoid working for because he resembles all those who control the "Glass Ceiling" many women are more than familiar with (this BTW is now just my view but the view of a lot of Republican women I know here).

So "what" is it that algore did that GWB did not. If anything algore filled in the "gaps" of the understanding of the algore "IMAGE" and GWB left too many doubts. I think if Bush had tried to niche himself as everybody's brother who works hard and plays hard, he could have gotten much further. After all, look what that did for Clintstone.

There is no big mystery to this. Pols have to be "all things to all people" and algore's rap at LA was more "encompassing" than GWB's spiel about "principles" and "we will". Instead of asking what algore did for the people that Clinton and the GOP congressional votes did not do, GWB is doing the "we can do more for you" bit. WRONGO. Common sense tells anyone that the Swing Vote will first say, "like what" and then when they vote think: "lets not rock the boat"(the Economy). You can look for "don't rock the boat, baby" to be algore's next meeting house hymn just like "Can't help thinkin' bout tomorrow was..." when coupled with "are you better off...blah,blah". Since I have stated that I would rather see Clintstone spend another 4 years in the WH rather that algore, it is very painful to watch GWB pandering for votes to people his Father and certainly his Mother would never tolerate, the loopies of the Fringe.

GWB has been walking a very strange wandering path that does not make me very happy. There were some (maybe too many) concessions made to the Fringers on the right and then he tried to tack to the Center when it looked like McCain has some legs. What is necessary is for GWB to pre-empt the Center and show that algore is exactly what algore claims to be, a creature of the DC beltway mentality he was raised in.

To WIT: I find it very hard to believe that GWB has a strong stance on Choice vs. abortion the "litmus test" for the Fringers. VS. algore's very strong stance. And algore can even get votes from the anti-abortion people in the Catholic dominated Eastern unions who will simply overlook that and vote for their wallets. (Don't dismiss that.) The Pollsters on both sides know that and any shot GWB had at the Unions probably went down the tubes now that the Teamsters have endorsed Robo.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 08, 2000.

wow cpr

great post

-- cin (cin@=0.)), September 08, 2000.

Ah cin, so far Ive managed to communicate with the ladies without stooping to profanity but in your case an exception might be in order. In reading your various comments it is readily apparent that you are somewhat of a bottom feeder so Ill just avoid you altogether.

-- I (h@ve.spoken), September 08, 2000.

I love you, Uncle Deedah!

A -- our family has never been on welfare. All of our children were conceived within our marriage. You perhaps missed the fact that I had a tubal ligation in order to avoid that sort of hardship in the future. If our situation had been hopeless, I would have given the child up for adoption. If you don't think it's ok to forbid abortion for those who are willing to do it, you might consider that it would be equally wrong to force abortion on those who are unwilling to do it.

That baby is the light of our lives and a blessing. I wish all babies were as welcome.

-- helen (counting@my.chicks), September 08, 2000.

CD -- no legal aid. To be honest, sometimes it's easier to walk away. America is too litigious.

-- helen (b@t.s), September 08, 2000.

Tarzan, I guess I'm just dense because I still don't understand what you're getting at. I detailed my experiences to date in this town. Where in what I wrote do I stereotype all women, either in this town or in this country?

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 08, 2000.

"Why allowing women to vote will eventually destroy America."

Well now, how illogical can you get Unk? Geez-louise! You need a few good smackin' right on the smooth-as-ass head of yours, to get those marbles back in line.

Hasn't this country become a super-power and the richest on earth AFTER women got the vote?

Wassamatta with you guys, want to go back to the "good ol' days"? You guys are lucky to have us to straighten your drawers for ya! Both kinds!

...as for me personally, I'd vote for Gore not just because he's much cuter than Bush, but because Gore could chew Bushe's brains and spit them out with no mental efforts. And women's instinct on picking out the good looking smart guys have served our species well since the begining of times. And hey, if I get a free ride in the bargain, so what? Haven't you guys ridden on our backs for free for eons? Shoulda feel guilty about it?

Gore's our next prez. What we must do now is put men like him in the house. Then you guys can thank us women again for saving this country.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), September 08, 2000.

I dont know a single woman who is supported by her husband or the government. Two of my closest girlfriends do, however, financially support their husbands (both of whom are dyed-in-the-wool liberals). One of my girlfriends, a paralegal, has by dint of hard work managed to obtain regular raises throughout her career. She is now sending her husband, who just returned from a leisurely tour through India, back to college, where he will study computers. She is paying his tuition.

My other friend runs a successful advertising agency with her brother. Her husband recently left off his job teaching English as a second language, apparently with some relief. I ran into him yesterday around noon. He was reclining in a metal cafi chair off Broadway, reading "The Nation" and sipping coffee. He looked happy in his tweed jacket.

Hey Jim, I said. Hows it going?

Oh, fine, he said.

Whatre you up to today?

Not much, he replied with a shrug. Then, looking a little embarrassed, he added, Gotta buy a flea collar.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), September 08, 2000.

cpr- Thanks for the in-depth analysis. That was very interesting.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), September 08, 2000.

Bingo1: Monty Python Good. Thanks.

Unca: A dumbfuckpussy is a dumbfuckpussy (dfp). And if they are religious and anti-birth-control and/or anti-abortion, to boot, increase that "dfp" rating by a factor of 10.

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 08, 2000.

Hasn't this country become a super-power and the richest on earth AFTER women got the vote?

Smarty, you are ignoring the delay factor. Give them time, we'll end up just like Cuba.

AisA,

Ahhhh, nevermind.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 08, 2000.

An observation. Per capita, we consume vastly more goods and services today than in yesteryear, which benefits businesses enormously. Thus if businesses (in the aggregate) wish this level of consumption to continue or even to expand, then it seems incumbent upon them to make some allowances for employees in households where both parents are wage earners.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 08, 2000.

Unk Dee,

Man oh man did you stir up the pot this time. LOL

Well, if you are going to limit voting to just men, then I'll have to buy a strap on, so that I'll have mine.

I vote! I vote based upon the ISSUES, not looks, not hair, not smile, not religion, but the ISSUES. Granted some females may vote for the person they feel is the cutest or has the most charm, but hey at least they are voting.

How about dealing with the issue of the people that can vote, but don't? That is where I have a problem. I know many people that don't vote then all they want to do is Bitch and Complain. I tell them that if they don't vote, they have no right to BNC. Period!

Now, if it is a simple counting issue, I can see where you men just might want to cut out the women voters... that way you won't have to remember all those high numbers. :)

Sheeple

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), September 08, 2000.

***Ah cin, so far Ive managed to communicate with the ladies without stooping to profanity but in your case an exception might be in order. In reading your various comments it is readily apparent that you are somewhat of a bottom feeder so Ill just avoid you altogether.***

Awe, feeling humiliated? Did I do that? teehee

Avoid me you say? I can guarantee you, oh weak little man, you will not be missed by me. Buh bye {giggle}

-- cin (cin@=0.)), September 08, 2000.

Unk,

I haven't thoroughly read this thread yet, so my apologies if you've covered this.

I understand that you'd like to focus on the dependent and weak- willed women for purposes of this thread. As long as you realize that perhaps just as many men (if not more -- maybe somewhat less) are dependent and weak-willed. It's just that the programs they'd like to take advantage of are different. For example, most farmers are male and they're very happy with farm subsidies. And most heads of businesses are male. And theyre only too happy to lobby congress for money for pork barrel projects and cheaper-than-market loans. Or to whine about tough competitors until their daddy government takes care of the competitor for them (e.g., Microsoft being the victim here).

Hey there Dave,

You said,

"An observation. Per capita, we consume vastly more goods and services today than in yesteryear, which benefits businesses enormously. Thus if businesses (in the aggregate) wish this level of consumption to continue or even to expand, then it seems incumbent upon them to make some allowances for employees in households where both parents are wage earners."

I disagree. To the extent businesses are forced to subsidize, we have less people in the workforce, or producing, yet no corresponding reduction in wages. Production goes down and, assuming demand doesnt change or goes up, prices naturally go up. And we now have the same amount of dollars chasing fewer goods. Thus --- inflation.

Further, the familys wage increase or benefit is illusory, as prices will have increased.

Also, other workers in effect are subsidizing this familys benefit because their wages are stable, yet prices will have increased; so theyre worse off.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 08, 2000.

Some excellent points, eve.

-- cin (cin@=0.)), September 08, 2000.

Hi eve,

The "allowances" need not entail monetary sacrifice by the company. Examples:

1. Providing flexible working hours (business permitting).
2. Allowing working from home (business permitting).
3. Providing on-site day care. Even if employees were charged a "fair" cost to use it, this could save those employees both time (don't have to drive out of the way to day care) and money (don't have to pay for the child to be in day care while the parent is commuting to or from work).

Also, I'm not sure that subsidizing working parents would necessarily reduce employment. If enough businesses saw fit to invest in on-site day care (for example), that might induce enough additional consumption (through people entering the work force and having more disposable income) to compensate for the original "investment."

The key though, is having "enough" businesses do this. From the perspective of any one business, the subsidy is an almost sure money loser unless their employees happen to also be heavy consumers of the company's products. I'm not advocating that companies be forced into providing such subsidies, although I'm not necessarily against tax credits or other incentives.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), September 08, 2000.

"Smarty, you are ignoring the delay factor. Give them time, we'll end up just like Cuba."

Or just like (horror!) Canada. They're rated #1 for highest standard of living/best place to live for the 4th year in a row.

-- (Smarty@wannabe.one), September 08, 2000.

I always liked your posts Smarty. Now I know why. Your one of us girls! I didn't realize that before. :)

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), September 08, 2000.

They're rated #1 for highest standard of living/best place to live for the 4th year in a row.

As rated by pantywaisted fruits who want to be mollycoddled.

-- Fotios Astopopoulous (it's@ll.greek.to.me), September 08, 2000.

"As rated by pantywaisted fruits who want to be mollycoddled."

Even pantywaisted fruits who want to be mollycoddled can tally up statistics and facts.

-- (Smarty@wannabe.one), September 08, 2000.

Eve, that was good.

-- helen (b@t.f), September 09, 2000.