This is Martin at his best. This is a jewel, and I intend to in-
sure that a copy of it gets to MOM.
Martin Lindstedt wrote:
> At 05:31 PM 10/28/2000 EDT, A Rash-upon-the-Urf wrote:
> >If you want to use the statistics, why don't you look at the reasons behind
> Figures don't lie but liars figure.
> >Men have been suppressing women for centuries. Women have not been
> >allowed to work or take credit for their work due to the patriarical
> >society we have lived in.
> That is so true. I for one think that this female Rash
> live in a primitive society wherein females are made to do heavy
> agricultural labor as opposed to trying to set up housecleaning
> in mud huts.
> >Meaning men tend to hire men for work that women could do too.
> I am awaiting the time when there are male surrogate mothers.
> >Women are kept in secretarial jobs for example, and not given the
> >opportunities for advancement that men are.
> Perhaps it is not a good idea to give "opportunities for
> to people who think that they should be entitled to something because
> they are of a particular gender.
> >If men can be chefs then women can be machinists, it's about training
> >not sex.
> This is an interesting dogmatic statement absent of any
> >And wage is related to the job. Women have been asking for equal pay
> >for equal work going on decades now.
> Rash-upon-the-Urf thinks that life is a mere matter of
> loudly for something.
> >If you have a single woman (with no children) CNC machinist who has a
> >received proper training, certification, apprenticeship, and has the
> >SAME years of experience, proven profficiency and first rate quality
> >of turn outs as a man why is the man more likely to get the job or if
> >both are hired, he gets a higher hourly rate?
> Because such mythical kritters are likely to spend more time
> bitching about how persecuted they are to the Equal Employment
> Opportunity Commission than they will ever spend on the job. It's
> called "risk avoidance." This is why employers hold extensive job
> interviews in order to screen out if at all possible these female
> >Absenteeism - How many men do you know of that can have babies?
> None. This is why I call men I know who have babies
> >How many men take off work to babysit or take kids to the doctors or
> >dentist or who is more likely to get called by the school (for whatever
> Unemployed men.
> >Dear ol' mom. Even though daddy's numbers are also given. And why is
> >it that we have so many single mothers?
> Has anyone explained to Rash-upon-de-Urf the reason she
> producing children? And, if she is unable to understand how pregnancy
> occurs, shouldn't we immediately try to enforce the case-law of Buck v.
> Bell (1927)?
> >Because the man doesn't want the responsibility but it's OK for the
> >women to have to assume it, but God forbid she should have an abortion
> >or give it up for adoption (for the sake of HER career) because then
> >she is wrong.
> Let me guess. Jewn Pernalenin sent you here.
> >Women are absent from work due to having to care for the children.
> >Our society has bred the differences and the leaders of the society
> >have been mostly men.
> I agree that society has lately been an exercise in
> which explains Pernalenin and this Rash-upon-de-Urf. But pretty soon
> both the States of Californication and Jew Dork shall have a full
> quota of 'jews' and femnishevik u.S. Senaturds to bring them to the
> promised land of Turd-Whirreldization.
> >If you don't like the labor statistics, then allow women to be
> >trained and equally paid for the same jobs, stop training them to
> >be stay at home mommies - a working mother has been seen as a bad
> >mom because she's not home for the kids.
> Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper and easier to simply change the
> labor statistics which none of us like?
> >Teach men to be more responsible for the day to day running of
> >the home, this includes taking care of children.
> Does this mean I get to apply a cattle-prod to Pernalenin's
> & F-W Poley's ritually mutilated genitalia at the George Lincoln
> Rockwell Work&Re-Education Camp for the Rehabilitation of Social
> Parasites & Mamzers?
> >And you want to talk about that portion of the population that is,
> >well, sick:
> Sure, now that you have intruded upon the conversation trying
> to tell us all about your numerous problems.
> >Men are the majority offenders in child molestation, child murders,
> >rape and crime in general.
> Not to mention being the cause of warts, scrofula, and
> >Men are the majority offenders in fatalies caused by "traffic
> >accidents" due to drunk driving or drugs.
> Let's not get into the gender which causes another gender to
> or use drugs.
> >I reiterate, I'm not interested in a battle of the sexes.
> >Men and women need each other.
> All those who need a Rash-upon-de-Urf, please signify by
> [ X ] YES, I need a Rash-upon-de-Urf as much as I need
> score of venereal
> [ ] NO, I need a Rash-upon-de-Urf as much
as I need another few
> score of venereal
> >We have different strengths and weakness that compliment each
> >others. We rely on each other. A women properly trained to use
> >weaponery can be just as deadly, but yes, owerpowered by a man
> >(unless smaller) in hand to hand combat.
> I suppose the above paragraph is supposed to mean something.
> However, I am relieved that it doesn't mean very much to me.
> >My husband is an ex-Army Ranger with strong views that women should
> >work like men and that men should help out around the house
> And to think that I spent two years in the Army and never met
> such a mythical critter until now.
> >women should be properly taught to use weapons to defend themselves, if
> >the man's not around. That we should work together and know how to do
> >the same things, in case the other isn't around.
> Is it me, or did I miss the entire point about
> wanting to be a machinist and with P-W.D. Power-Arranger wanting to
> grow tits and take up nursing?
> >Let's not even get on the subject of domestic violence...I don't know
> >where you got your statistics on that one but they are WRONG.
> Speaking about John Knight's statistics showing that the
> statistics show a greater female propensity towards violence and
> mayhem. Which goes to show that the best thing one can do about
> inconvenient statistics is to either ignore them or make up some
> better ones.
> >Most domestic violence cases committed are by men who needed no
> >provocation - and women who have stayed in these situations are
> >stupid fools who need serious treatment, as well as the man
> >committing it. There's no excuse for it period!
> What I especially like, after hearing femnisheviks like
> de-Urf pontificate, is to look at pleasing soothing statistics from
> such Turd-Whirrld paradises as India or China or Mexico, where there
> are not nearly as many old c--ts running around, witlessly yapping and
> wasting perfectly good air as there are in the the whiggeroid effeminate
> eunuchoid post-Western world. Do you know that in India that there
> are only 725 females to 1000 males, and that less than three out of
> a hundred of them get to live beyond 65 years of age?
> Now who says that I don't appreciate a good statistic as much
> the next man? I made up the above statistic -- but not by very much,
> and already I am enjoying this manufactured statistic of mine a very
> great good deal.
> >This mother has worked a full-time job at the same time as a part-time
> >job so that her husband wouldn't have to, when we hit hard times.
> I approve of the style in which you have kept him.
> >I still work two jobs technically; an office job and part-time "virtual
> >assistant/bookkeeping" business from home. I love my hubby and enjoy
> >having him around, so naturally don't want him working too many extra
> This is so rich. I seldom come across so much absurdity
> concentrated in a 99.8% pure nugget of stupidity.
> >We take turns taking off for the kids, share home-care duties (luckily
> >I had a grandfather who believed that women should be self-reliant and
> >helpful in "handy-man" chores). We can work together in
> >plumbing and electrical fix-er-ups. We enjoy fishing and hunting, or
> >just going to the range together. And by golly he can cook too, not
> >just BBQ. That comes in handy when I can't. Yes I realize that this
> >is unusual, but it shouldn't be.
> I'll just bet that he lays in the wet spot on the bed after
> every time too.
> When are you going to let him in on the 'opportunity' of him
> being sure to bring along a towel first?
> That is, without ordering him to do so.
> Some chairborne ranger you got, Rash-upon-de-Urf.
> --Martin Lindstedt
> Director, New (&Unproved) Bureau of Labor Statistics
> P.S. Have you by any chance ever gone by the alias "Roxy Johnson?"
> cf. http://www2.mo-net.com/~mlindste/roxy2.html
> * Visit Patrick Henry On-Line