Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 

 

 

"Intelligent" Women

 

The following internet discussion illustrates how women who "think" they are "intelligent" are the most irresponsible creatures on the planet.  Numerous times during this discussion, the magnitude of the serious social pathologies which we are now experiencing were mentioned, and each time this "intelligent woman" deflected the discussion to her own personal problems and accomplishments.  Not once in this entire discourse did she appear to be the slightest bit concerened about how the Nineteenth Amendment adversely affected family stability, how the fifty fold increase in the divorce rate has adversely affected the status and condition of American women, what the *negative* personal savings rate in the country means to the future of the country, nor how some of the highest crime and incarceration rates in the world will bankrupt the entire nation.

Each point was met with a rationalization of some sort, the redirection of the discussion to a personal problem, and the reinstatement that she is "intelligent".

This is why "half the population of the united states [should be excluded] from making decisions about the political representatives this country has".  The female half must be excluded for their own good, and particularly for the good of the nation.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------

5139151 druid

Started on Sun Aug 12 09:13:12 2001

--------------------------------------

druid 8/10/01 10:06 PM hello

fm 8/10/01 10:07 PM how are you?

druid 8/10/01 10:08 PM i'm fine.

 

just wondering if you're serious about the

whole repeal of women's suffrage.

fm 8/10/01 10:08 PM absolutely--what do you think about that?

druid 8/10/01 10:10 PM i wonder why the desire to exclude half the

population of the united states from making

decisions about the political representatives

this country has.

 

i wonder if it's possible to choose a

candidate that will best represent

constituents if half of the consituents cannot

vote.

 

what do you think about that?

fm 8/10/01 10:12 PM you are talking about a social construct which

completely contradicts Christianity, and which

caused our divorce rate to explode--50 fold.

Is it worth all that?

druid 8/10/01 10:13 PM i wonder how you use Christianity as a

political philosophy when the Constitution is

directly prohibitive of establishment of

religion. i.e. the government cannot exist to

promote any religion

fm 8/10/01 10:14 PM this is not quite correct--the Constitution

prohibits the government from prohibiting free

exercise of religion--which is just the

opposite of what you just said.

druid 8/10/01 10:15 PM "Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion,... "

 

to me, this means that Congress does not have

the power to make law based upon one

religion's ideologies.

 

do you see it another way?

fm 8/10/01 10:16 PM when the Supreme Court banned school prayer,

it reversed 2 centuries of case law to the

contrary, and *established* its own

religion--secular humanism.

fm 8/10/01 10:17 PM that's what our Forefathers wanted to prevent.

druid 8/10/01 10:18 PM i don't agree with the banishment of prayer in

a school, though i do think that a school

which receives federal funding should not be

able to choose a religion and make the

students pray.

 

 

if students wish to pray on a voluntary basis,

i support them.

druid 8/10/01 10:19 PM our Forefathers wanted to prevent a lot of

things, mostly involving the ability of

government to deny someone the natural rights

accorded to them by virtue only of their being

human.

 

is there just cause to deny women the same

rights as men?

fm 8/10/01 10:19 PM no school should ever receive federal

funding--but even so, the federal government

was prohibited from banning spoken Christian

prayer in public schools for two

centuries--that is when everything went

haywire.

fm 8/10/01 10:19 PM after school prayer was banned in 1963, that

is.

fm 8/10/01 10:20 PM it's a violation of the HOly Bible to give

women political power.

druid 8/10/01 10:21 PM i'll be honest with you. i am not a

christian. i don't pray. but i also don't

have a problem with christians praying in my

presence, and i'm quite willing to talk to

christians about their faith.

 

i find serious problem with trying to silence

anyone who doesn't share a particular opinion.

fm 8/10/01 10:21 PM sounds like that's exactly what you want to

do, tho.

druid 8/10/01 10:21 PM right, but the Constitution expressly

prohibits Congress from making any law that

establishes religion, including using

religious doctrine to govern the United

States.

druid 8/10/01 10:22 PM i don't want anyone to be silent. i'd much

rather hear everyone.

fm 8/10/01 10:22 PM you want to tell teachers that they can't

conduct spoken Christian prayers--which is a

complete reversal from 2 centuries of

tradition to the contrary--plus another 1776

years before that.

druid 8/10/01 10:23 PM not at all.

 

i fully support any teacher who wishes to pray

in school. the only thing i ask is that they

don't force students who are not Christian

(i.e. Jews) to participate.

 

religion should *always* be on a voluntary

basis for those who believe.

fm 8/10/01 10:25 PM the problem of course is that jews objected to

Christians having spoken Christian

prayers--and they shut the whole country down,

even though they are only 1.9% of the

population.

druid 8/10/01 10:25 PM What I'd like to see are schools in which

there are Christian led groups with teachers

of Christian background speaking to those

students who are are interested, as well as

other groups.

 

I'd strongly encourage kids to go and learn

about people, even if they are different,

because knowledge makes one grow, both

intellectually and spiritually.

fm 8/10/01 10:26 PM 1.9% are telling the other 93% how to conduct

their religious affairs--which is completely

contradictory to the Holy Bible.

 

druid 8/10/01 10:27 PM I don't object at all. I've told you that I

am not a Christian, but I have many friends

who are. We talk about faith, and discuss

beliefs, and they have all told me that they

pray for me. I thank them for this. I do not

share their beliefs, but I understand them.

 

I do think this country would be much better

off if instead of silencing those we disagree

with, we *all* (Christian and otherwise)

learned a bit about each other and listened to

each other.

fm 8/10/01 10:28 PM unfortunately, jews don't have a track record

of doing that--look at what's happening in

Palestine right now.

druid 8/10/01 10:29 PM Well, I do think that any group telling

another how to behave, how to believe, how to

practice belief, is wrong.

 

It leads to so many closed minds..... and in

this day and age, closed minds are truly sad.

We must all learn to accept one another,

differences and similarities, as we are.

 

I find it disparaging that Christians and

non-Christians cannot respect each others

beliefs.

fm 8/10/01 10:31 PM that has (unfortunately for the jews) been

their downfall for thousands of years. Our

experiment proved that this won't ever change.

druid 8/10/01 10:31 PM The violence is deplorable, in both

directions.

 

I believe, honestly, that killing fellow human

beings to further religious or political ends

is a travesty.

 

Working toward understanding is the way to

improve oneself, murder (whether it is an

Israeli killing a Palistinian or the other way

round) solves nothing and serves evil.

fm 8/10/01 10:31 PM brb

 

druid 8/10/01 10:34 PM I'm not entierly sure what to make of the

situation in the middle east between the

Palistinians and the Israelis, except to say

that I don't think violence is ever going to

solve anything.

 

I have to say though, I didn't expect this to

be a discussion about Christians vs. Jews,

especially after reading your website.

 

I thought that the main idea was to change the

recent trend towards fatherless families.

fm 8/10/01 10:35 PM absolutely

fm 8/10/01 10:36 PM the only way to get there is through

Christianity.

fm 8/10/01 10:36 PM what is happening in Palestine is OUR

fault--we are funding this mess, and it is

fellow Christians in Palestine who are

suffering.

druid 8/10/01 10:38 PM I definitely don't agree with funding such a

war. If history has proven anything, it's

that "holy wars" result in nothing more than

bloodshed. Nothing is solved by the fighting,

and no one acheives anything in being killed.

 

I'm just not sure where this fits in with

denying women basic human rights.

fm 8/10/01 10:40 PM by giving American women the vote, you are

denying them the right to be married and have

children in legitimate families--there are now

30 million women of marriageable age who are

now unmarried

fm 8/10/01 10:40 PM they still have the natural urge to have

children, so the illegitimacy rate sextupled

fm 8/10/01 10:41 PM and raising children in single-mother

households is the WORST thing that can happen

to both children and women

fm 8/10/01 10:42 PM American women gained absolutely nothing and

lost almost everything because of the 19th.

druid 8/10/01 10:42 PM I have to say that I agree fully with you in

that fathers should always be with their

families, raising their children, instilling

in them the values that can only be given by a

positive male role model.

 

Where I can't make the jump is from that to

believing that women are not equal. I was

raised by two parents, married to each other.

They have been married for twenty seven years,

and this has never been affected by my

mother's ability to vote or have a job of her

own. In fact, she is a teacher, who for years

did not work so that she could put all of her

children into school. It was only after that

time taht she found a need to fill her days

and began teaching.

fm 8/10/01 10:43 PM it's a huge mistake to claim that men and

women are "equal". They are exact opposites

in almost any way you measure

it--complementary, but not "equal", by God's

design.

druid 8/10/01 10:43 PM I can't imagine my mother's life if she

couldn't vote. She's a very happily married

woman who has been with my father, the only

man ever in her life, for twenty-nine years.

 

They're happy together, they raised children

who became very happy productive adults. Is

it so terrible that she votes?

druid 8/10/01 10:44 PM How exactly are they not equal?

fm 8/10/01 10:44 PM butwhat you ignore are the 30 million single

women now--both divorced and never

married--whom American men would be absolute

fools to marry under the current arrangement.

fm 8/10/01 10:45 PM http://christianparty.fsn.net/sex.htm

fm 8/10/01 10:45 PM http://christianparty.fsn.net/mf.htm

fm 8/10/01 10:46 PM http://christianparty.fsn.net/menare.htm

druid 8/10/01 10:46 PM i agree that there are women who are

problematic. women who are welfare mothers

who have no idea who the fathers of their

children are.

 

but is it fair to characterize all women by

that standard?

fm 8/10/01 10:46 PM http://christianparty.fsn.net/genddiff.htm

fm 8/10/01 10:47 PM unfortunately, it's the standard you support

which caused MOST American women to be

undesirable, and even dangerous, to all

American men.

druid 8/10/01 10:47 PM there are differences, yes. but i am not

entirely sure that these differences make

either sex more capable of logical and

rational thought than the other.

fm 8/10/01 10:48 PM the divorce rate is much higher than you can

imagine--in many states, there were more

divorces last year than there were marriages

20 years ago.

druid 8/10/01 10:48 PM undesirable and dangerous in what way?

 

wouldn't you prefer to have a wife that you

could talk to about intelligent subjects?

fm 8/10/01 10:49 PM even women know that women are not capable of

rational thought--that's why women, even

though they are 11.2% more of the vote than

men, have elected less than 10% of women as

politicians

fm 8/10/01 10:50 PM a woman having the right to vote doesn't make

her intelligent, at all. none of them

understand the important political issues, by

their own admission. What's important to them

is the color of Clinton's tie, rather than his

ability to tell the TRUTH.

druid 8/10/01 10:50 PM i'm as dismayed as anyone else about the

divorce rate. i think it's horrible that it

happens, and i'd like to know exactly what's

causing this.

 

i just don't think that the blame can be

placed entirely on women being able to get an

education and vote.

 

the reality is that some divorces are caused

by spouses beating each other senseless, some

are caused because the people who got married

did so foolishly.

 

it's not entirely due to one cause.

fm 8/10/01 10:51 PM men need to control women--they are too

emotional and reactionary, and easily

influenced by sound bytes.

fm 8/10/01 10:52 PM when they vote independently of men, they make

very poor choices.

fm 8/10/01 10:52 PM Japanes women have the vote--but their

religion keeps the divorce rate from getting

out of hand, so women vote according to how

their husbands vote.

druid 8/10/01 10:52 PM it is?

 

i don't really know about that one. i was

absolutely disgusted by clinton's perjury,

sickened by the fact that he used the oval

office to get a blow job, and reviled at his

treatment of cathleen willey.

 

if anyone should be in prison, it's bill

clinton. i don't give a damn what kind of tie

someone wears. i'm an engineer, my life is in

the numbers. science is not an emotional

subject.

 

i'm afraid the only emotion i feel about

clintion is embarassment that he was ever

president.

fm 8/10/01 10:53 PM but women supported hiim in record numbers.

druid 8/10/01 10:53 PM i vote according to fact. i suppose being an

engineer has predisposed me to a very narrow

frame of reference that includes logic and

discards any sort of emotional plea.

fm 8/10/01 10:54 PM if women didn't vote, his name would never

have appeared on the political scene.

druid 8/10/01 10:54 PM those who did were fools.

 

clinton is, was, and always will be slime.

 

he is a disgrace to america.

fm 8/10/01 10:54 PM so why do women STILL support this KNOWN liar?

druid 8/10/01 10:54 PM the more i talk to you, the more i think it's

not all women that you're in disagreement

with. i'm getting the impression that you

don't like the feminist-apologist "victim

class" women.

 

fm 8/10/01 10:54 PM the answer is that most women don't consider

integrity to be an important issue.

fm 8/10/01 10:55 PM they literally get bowled over by a kiss, like

Gore's, rather than an honest man.

druid 8/10/01 10:55 PM i consider integrity (honor if you will) to be

the most important issue in any person's life.

druid 8/10/01 10:55 PM i bet i can flip your lid.

druid 8/10/01 10:56 PM ready for a big surprise?

fm 8/10/01 10:56 PM without women voters, he wouldn't have been

elected the first time, he wouldn't have been

elected the second time, and he would have

been impeached--Clinton rode on that platform.

fm 8/10/01 10:57 PM k

druid 8/10/01 10:58 PM i am an engineer (B.S. degree in computer

engineering from the university of pittsburgh)

i am ranked 'expert' in marksmanship

i am strongly in favor of a mother-father

married parentage

i voted for george w. bush, and i voted for

his father.

i am an extremely logical pragmatic person and

i absolutely despise dateline, 48 hours,

lifetime tv, and all those other 'women's' tv

shows and emotional programming.

 

 

oh yeah, and i'm female.

fm 8/10/01 10:58 PM that was a given--where is the lid flipping

part?

druid 8/10/01 11:00 PM i seem to buck your stereotype of women.

 

i hate clinton, i'm not emotional, i don't

think that 'fathers are unnecessary'...

 

that's why i wonder about your desire to

repeal the 19th. i can't see a logical reason

that i'm any less qualified than you are to

make rational, well informed, educated

decisions.

 

the only difference between you and i is what

set of genitals we've got.

fm 8/10/01 11:01 PM you view the problem in exactly the opposite

direction that I view it.

druid 8/10/01 11:01 PM how so?

fm 8/10/01 11:02 PM you have repeatedly made the claim that there

are women who are qualified to vote, which

means that you ignored my point that most

women are not qualified to vote.

 

fm 8/10/01 11:02 PM Clinton is just one example of how women vote

differently than men

fm 8/10/01 11:03 PM and how the outcome has been devastating to

the country.

druid 8/10/01 11:03 PM there are many who are not.

 

there are also many men who are uneducated and

incapable of making a rational, logical

decision based on fact.

 

i see this as no reason to exclude those who

*are* capable of casting a well informed vote.

 

do you?

fm 8/10/01 11:04 PM I know that you want to defend your

position--but there comes a time in a man's

thought process that society takes a higher

position than "equal" or "individual" rights.

fm 8/10/01 11:04 PM this never happens with women

fm 8/10/01 11:04 PM you view this as a women's rights issue--men

view it as a social commentary.

druid 8/10/01 11:05 PM we got bush this time. i'm disgusted that

hitlery is a senator. the uninformed masses

have screwed up again.

 

but you better believe i'm damned qualified in

any vote i make, because i actually do

researche and i vote on fact and issue not

emotion.

 

now i'm asking you why you think i shouldn't

have the right to vote.

fm 8/10/01 11:05 PM no woman I know ever grasps this, even though

many of them agree that the 19th must be

repealed.

fm 8/10/01 11:06 PM because in reality, Bush would not have been

elected if women didn't vote.

druid 8/10/01 11:06 PM actually i don't.

 

feminists hate me because i refuse to pander

to them.

 

i believe that fact, logic, values and honor

are above all else. i make decisions in the

voting booth based on only that.

druid 8/10/01 11:06 PM so you'd rather have al gore than have bush,

because women voted?

fm 8/10/01 11:06 PM what do you know about Bush's position on

affirmative action?

fm 8/10/01 11:07 PM no, no

fm 8/10/01 11:07 PM we would have had a QUALIFIED candidate, a

Thomas Jefferson type candidate, if only men

voted.

fm 8/10/01 11:08 PM Bush is a complete whimp, just like Clinton,

which is what gets people elected now.

druid 8/10/01 11:08 PM i know that the republican position is that

affirmative action is a code for

discrimination agaings the white, able bodied,

heterosexual male.

 

by the way, i don't like affirmative action

and i'd like to see it removed from this

country permanently.

fm 8/10/01 11:08 PM do you know what Bush just did?

fm 8/10/01 11:08 PM do you know what he said he would do about aa

BEFORE he got elected?

fm 8/10/01 11:09 PM he is living up to his campaign promise to

extend aa--EVEN THOUGH 91% OF AMERICANS OPPOSE

IT.

druid 8/10/01 11:09 PM he lied.

 

like every other politician has done since the

earliest days of my memory.

 

in my opinion, we need to get rid of all these

no good liars and start getting people in

there who will do the damn job they're hired

for

fm 8/10/01 11:10 PM and that requires a Thomas Jefferson, whom

women will NEVER vote for.

fm 8/10/01 11:10 PM I've been through Mr. Jefferson's papers with

a fine toothed comb, and can't find even one

SHRED of a lie in them.

fm 8/10/01 11:10 PM Bush LIES 100 times daily.

druid 8/10/01 11:11 PM be careful with your generalities.

 

i'll vote for anyone with honor, integrity,

the sack to do something that takes a step

forward.

 

the only thing i ask is that they don't

sarcifice my rights as a human being when they

do so.

 

am i wrong for that?

fm 8/10/01 11:11 PM weren't you misled by Bush?

fm 8/10/01 11:11 PM Bush also won because of the women's vote.

fm 8/10/01 11:12 PM if you're an engineer, then you understand

Gaussian Distribution, which means that you

have an inkling of the overlaps between men

and women.

 

 

fm 8/10/01 11:13 PM Yes, there are some women who may make

responsible voting decisions, and there are

some men who don't.

druid 8/10/01 11:13 PM hell no

 

let me tell you what i thought this election

year.

 

i read the voting records. i looked at all the

statistics. i watched every debate.

 

and i thought to myself 'i have to choose the

least of the evils here.'

 

after much consideration, i realized that the

lesser-evil person to get into the white house

would likely be bush, and that voting for

anyone other than bush would give gore a

better chance.

 

i *hate* politics now, because it seems

there's no one i'm voting for. i'm always

voting against the greatest evil

druid 8/10/01 11:14 PM as there are some men who make responsible

voting decisions, and there are some men who

don't.

 

i can't say i can collectively deny that right

to either gender based on those who fuck

(pardon my french) it up.

fm 8/10/01 11:14 PM There was a time in this country when people

voted to uphold the US Constitution--they no

longer do that.

fm 8/10/01 11:15 PM the SEcond Amendment is another example: more

than half of men oppose "gun control

laws"--but three quarters of women support

them.

fm 8/10/01 11:16 PM it's strictly because of women voters that the

Second Amendment has been trashed--but not

following Constitutional rules.

druid 8/10/01 11:16 PM i'd die for that constitution.

 

but it has to treat men and women as *human

beings*.

 

neither being the master of the other. i

can't have kids, (medical problem), so i'd be

willing to DIE for the constitution.... so

other parents' children could grow up as free

as i did.

 

fm 8/10/01 11:17 PM and as long as American women have that

attitude--they are patently unmarriageable.

druid 8/10/01 11:17 PM to me, gun control means a half inch group,

iron sights at 100 yards with an m-16.

 

i am not 'most women'.

 

do you see now why you can't lump all women

together?

druid 8/10/01 11:17 PM have what attitude?

fm 8/10/01 11:18 PM that the entire country must cater to an

individual woman, rather than recognize the

common good.

fm 8/10/01 11:18 PM you and I are exact opposites on this point,

and neither will change the other's opinion.

fm 8/10/01 11:20 PM there are now 30 million American women who

will never experience what my own mother

experienced--a safe, rich, wholesome family

environment.

fm 8/10/01 11:20 PM my own sisters are two of them.

druid 8/10/01 11:20 PM that's for shit.

 

(i apologize, i talk like a drunken sailor)

 

political correctness and all this damned

feminist apologist shit need to go out the

window.

 

men and women must treat each other like human

beings and not ask the other to change.

 

i know how it is, believe me. i'm an engineer,

and that's a male dominated field.

 

i go into the lab, i'm the only woman among

thirty or so men. i don't ever ask them to

change how they act. i will either play the

game their way, or go the hell home

fm 8/10/01 11:22 PM what do you make of the Gaussian Curves at:

http://christianparty.fsn.net/grebrainsizegrap

s.htm

druid 8/10/01 11:22 PM i'm 23 years old, i graduated from college, i

enjoy my work, and i'm hoping i'll get married

to a man who is every bit as or more

intelligent than me so that we can have great

discussions and treat each other fairly for

the rest of our lives.

 

i don't understand where the problem is

druid 8/10/01 11:23 PM i'd tell you if i weren't getting a server

error that the domain is unreacable.

 

lynx will not cooperate.

fm 8/10/01 11:24 PM well, since you can't have children, you can't

think in the terms that 99.999% of parents

think, so how children fit into the equation

becomes a bit difficult to explain.

fm 8/10/01 11:24 PM is it Lynx, or the particular page? could you

get any of the url's to come up?

druid 8/10/01 11:25 PM i have to think in terms of other people's

children.

 

i think about what i can and must do to make

this a better, safer, more stable world for

them to grow up in.

 

i contribute to the future by making the road

for other people's children to walk on.

druid 8/10/01 11:25 PM i tracerouted fsn.net and can't get a thing on

it.

 

it's dying after 8 hops.

fm 8/10/01 11:26 PM wow.

fm 8/10/01 11:27 PM http://members.fortunecity.com/christianparty/

rebrainsizegraphs.htm

 

What about this one?

druid 8/10/01 11:27 PM i'm getting 100% packet loss on pings.

 

it could be a problem with my isp, if a link

somewhere is down it'll knock out my ability

to see any server beyond that link.

 

the technological world is fraught with

problems.

 

don't worry though, the urls are all in the

history list and i can go back later.

druid 8/10/01 11:28 PM there we go. that page has loaded fine. ooh.

graphics. going to have to move out of lynx.

fm 8/10/01 11:28 PM ah, are you at school?

fm 8/10/01 11:29 PM I got it in 16 hops.

druid 8/10/01 11:29 PM no, i'm running on an sdsl connection in my

apartment.

 

i've got a 1 meg synchronous line with static

ip.

fm 8/10/01 11:30 PM through your phone company?

druid 8/10/01 11:30 PM i'm looking at the graphs here, and i haven't

seen the statistical analysis, but i can say

for the tests i've taken, i'm far above the

mean for women.

fm 8/10/01 11:30 PM which, of couse, is not the question );

druid 8/10/01 11:31 PM no, i've got a contact who runs an ISP, and

from that ISP i got the line and sixteen

static IP addresses.

 

it worked out well for me

fm 8/10/01 11:31 PM lot cheaper than this cable modem, for sure.

druid 8/10/01 11:33 PM well, for SDSL with 16 static ips (thirteen

are usable, since one is the router, one is

the nameserver and one is for ineternal

networking), it's more expensive than your

average subscriber cable line, but here i'm

guaranteed my IP, i can run my own nameserver,

i host two domains (my roommate hosts a third

domain), there's a counter strike server, and

it's not shared bandwith. all in all it's

worth the money.

fm 8/10/01 11:35 PM so you keep the system running all the time?

druid 8/10/01 11:35 PM i've got a network of five computers running

out of here that operate 24/7.

 

two unix boxes, two windows boxes and the

roommate's counterstrike server.

fm 8/10/01 11:36 PM what do you do with all that?

druid 8/10/01 11:39 PM one of the unix boxes is the name server. i

have a windows box for most of my personal

use, web surfing and all, a unix box that i

use for email and playing with new distro's of

solaris, my roommate has a windows box, and he

runs another box that's the counterstrike

server.

 

we keep all of that on a 100 Mbps fully

switched ethernet in the house and use the dsl

line for outside.

 

we're both computer geeks, so we basically

have a lot of fun with it. he also likes

porn, so the bandwidth is all his for

downloading . (yes, i said i have a male

roommate. we're practically family and each

have our own bedrooms).

fm 8/10/01 11:41 PM my ex-room mate from years ago married a

billionaire a few years ago--and just got

busted for selling about $100 worth of cocaine

to a narc--made the headlines around here.

fm 8/10/01 11:42 PM it was kind of funny watching them put

handcuffs on her on TV ); man, was she

pis.ed.

druid 8/10/01 11:43 PM i'm not into drugs. i drink alcohol and i'll

admit to having smoked some pot, but i'm not a

moron about it.

 

i know i've got no excuse for the weed. i

just have an amazingly stressful life, often

spending 20 hours a day working, and once

every couple of months a joint is in order to

wind down.

 

i'm not gonna be a dip shit though, selling is

not on my table. i've got a hell of a mind,

and i'll be damned if i sell it up the river

to make a quick buck.

druid 8/10/01 11:43 PM can i ask you something?

fm 8/10/01 11:44 PM well, she sure didn't need the money--no idea

why she got caught up in this.

 

what's that?

druid 8/10/01 11:44 PM how old are you?

fm 8/10/01 11:45 PM ancient.

druid 8/10/01 11:46 PM i was honest.

 

is there a reason you don't want to be?

fm 8/10/01 11:46 PM I'm also married--so the question is moot.

druid 8/10/01 11:48 PM it'd only be moot if i were hitting on you,

which i'm not.

 

i'm in a committed relationship with a very

wonderful man, and i've got no need to flirt

with others.

 

the question was out of curiousity, and

nothing more.

fm 8/10/01 11:50 PM what did you think of those graphs? Are you

familiar with them, or are they a surprise?

druid 8/10/01 11:53 PM they're not a surprise in the least. i'm not

100% convinced that they're due to genetic

difference, at least not until educational

equality is completely achieved.

 

i went through most of my pre-college

schooling being ridiculed for thinking that a

female could even go to college let alone be

an engineer. i'm sure that has an effect,

and i'd like to see as many variables as

possible removed before i decide that one sex

is inherently 'smarter' than the other.

 

scientific method after all does include

statics and changing only ONE variable at a

time.

not 'smaller brain and more berating and lets

see how they stack up.'

 

by the way, i got a 650 on my SAT math.

fm 8/10/01 11:55 PM if you got a 650 on SAT math, then you can

certainly do a better job of that in

interpreting those graphs. which part do you

think is genetic, and which part do you think

is social?

druid 8/10/01 11:59 PM until one of the variables is a control and

the other is the difference, i don't think i

can accurately say.

 

and of course, there will always be outliers

on both sides.

 

i'm a computer engineer, i deal with binary

systems and i design microprocesors. i'm very

rigid in the control of all variables but one.

i think it'll take some more time to

determine whether 'nature' or 'nurture' plays

a bigger role.

 

i can't even relate it to my own exprience,

because for as long as i can remember i have

excelled academically. of course, it never

occurred to me that as a "girl" i was supposed

to behave any differently than the boys i grew

up with.

fm 8/11/01 12:00 AM one of those charts is cranial capacity--do

you think that is genetic or social?

druid 8/11/01 12:01 AM i recognize that correlation does not

necessarily mean causation.

 

after all, neanderthal's brain was far larger

than modern day human beings of either gender,

and neanderthal didn't come up with any of the

technological advances that modern humans

have.

druid 8/11/01 12:03 AM capacity as in size is a genetic issue. the

neurologic connectivity that occurs also seems

to be genetic, with females having more

connectiviity across the cerebral cortex than

males (that is, the left and right hemispheres

are more interconnected for females than for

males)

 

but size alone does not designate

intelligence, as is easily demonstrated by

neanderthal and cro-magnon human, both having

brain capacity much larger than madern human,

but achieving none of the technological

advance of modern human.

fm 8/11/01 12:04 AM Neanderthal wasn't designed with intelligence

in mind. within intelligent humans,

comparisons can easily be made.

druid 8/11/01 12:04 AM is that why 56% of college students are

female?

fm 8/11/01 12:05 AM did you note how closely test scores and

cranial capacity correlate?

fm 8/11/01 12:05 AM no, that's not because of test scores--that's

because of affirmative action.

druid 8/11/01 12:05 AM yes i did. have you taken a statistics class?

 

if so you would also note that correlation and

causation are not the same thing.

fm 8/11/01 12:06 AM they certainly can be--and in this case they

certainly are.

druid 8/11/01 12:06 AM is it?

 

i scored 1380 on the SAT and had a 3.944 gpa.

 

do you think i got in because of affirmative

action?

fm 8/11/01 12:07 AM if you look at all of the other correlations

which show r-squared, you will know that there

is only one exception.

fm 8/11/01 12:08 AM why do you always talk about a single possible

exception rather than the rule? The comment

addressed the rule, not the exception.

fm 8/11/01 12:08 AM if admissions were based only on test scores,

three quarters of college admissions would be

boys.

druid 8/11/01 12:08 AM because i'm also looking at these graphs and

the fact that "best fit" curves were applied.

 

the outliers are still on the graphs. what

should be made of those?

fm 8/11/01 12:09 AM which curve are you referring to?

druid 8/11/01 12:09 AM admissions should be based upon standardized

test scores and grade point average.

 

do you see me asking for affirmative action?

hell no.

 

i don't need it

fm 8/11/01 12:10 AM but that's not even the point I was making.

druid 8/11/01 12:11 AM the bottom 9 graphs all show best fit curves

with significant outliers.

 

your data would be more impressive if the

outliers weren't there.

fm 8/11/01 12:11 AM do you see which data point is always an

outlier?

fm 8/11/01 12:11 AM the idea is to show all the data, not to be

impressive.

fm 8/11/01 12:12 AM the one which is almost always the outlier is

Negroid males.

druid 8/11/01 12:12 AM in that case i'd like a look at the raw data.

 

i see what you're trying to prove, i see a

very vauge trend in it, but i also understnad

that there are other variables in play than

strictly cranial capacity.

fm 8/11/01 12:13 AM but it is only cranial capacity which doesn't

fit--all the other parameters do fit.

fm 8/11/01 12:13 AM there are certainly lots of variables. These

are the ones which have the highest

correlation.

druid 8/11/01 12:15 AM some of the discrepancy in salary versus

cranial capacity is easily due to the fact

that women were not allowed to hold salaried

jobs for the majority of american history and

have only begun to "climb the corporate

ladder.'

 

i expect that much of the discprenancy will

play out within the next fifty years as women

begin to gain the seniority to take on the

higher salaried jobs such as CIO, CFO, CTO,

and CEO.

fm 8/11/01 12:16 AM one thing you might consider is that Negroid

males would be a perfect fit if they had a

cranial capacity closer to 1265 cm3

fm 8/11/01 12:16 AM the economy wouldn't survive such a thing.

druid 8/11/01 12:16 AM any inclusion of salary must also include the

blatant fact that high salary white collar

jobs have traditionally not been open to

women, thus there is a major discrepancy based

on the limited ability of women to obtain a

job through no fault of their own.

 

it's rather easy to look at salary figures and

say 'men have bigger brains and earn more' if

you ignore the fact that women, historically,

have been completely forbidden from competing

for the same types of jobs that men have.

fm 8/11/01 12:17 AM do you thing that giving women these jobs is

going to increase their cranial capacity, or

their GRE scores, or their SAT scores, or

their TIMSS scores?

druid 8/11/01 12:18 AM regardless of the change in brain size, given

another fifty years those graphs are going t

change, big time.

 

women who were kept in the kitchen, barefoot

and pregnant half a century ago making little

to no money are only beginning to reap the

beneifits of uninhibited advancement up the

corporate ladder. the higher they go, the

more the curves are going to balance out.

druid 8/11/01 12:19 AM i think that women *earning* these jobs will

change things.

fm 8/11/01 12:20 AM affirmative action is dead. CAlifornia

outlawed it, which makes it illegal in the

entire country. women will be leaving the

workforce by the millions, unless Bush pulls

his scam off.

fm 8/11/01 12:21 AM do you realize that American family purchasing

power was 3 times in 1973 what it is

today--before women joined the workforce in

record numbers?

druid 8/11/01 12:21 AM i won't be leaving.

 

i've earned everything i have, from my degree

to my job.

 

i'm appreciated and respected for my ability,

and if i didn't produce results and working

products, i'd be shit canned.

 

fm 8/11/01 12:22 AM and that Japan today, with women being less

than 1% of their managers and administrators,

now has family incomes twice American family

incomes?

druid 8/11/01 12:22 AM and what should i do about that?

 

it's like you're asking me not to use the mind

i was born with simply because of what set of

genitals i've got.

fm 8/11/01 12:23 AM once people grasp the significance of our

economic collapse, they will be clamouring for

every solution they can find.

druid 8/11/01 12:23 AM japan also has total and complete gun control.

 

 

do you want that here?

druid 8/11/01 12:23 AM am i a human being to you?

fm 8/11/01 12:24 AM we have 4 timesa as many Americans in PRISON

for gun control law violations than Japan has

in prison for all crimes combined.

druid 8/11/01 12:24 AM what's the population of japan vs. the united

states?

fm 8/11/01 12:24 AM we DO NOT have the right to bear arms--women

voters eliminated that in the 1960s with

22,000 gun control laws.

fm 8/11/01 12:25 AM half

 

druid 8/11/01 12:25 AM please answer the question.

 

am i a human being?

fm 8/11/01 12:25 AM which means that per capita, we have twice as

many people in prison for gun control laws

than they have for all crimes.

druid 8/11/01 12:26 AM what should we do with people who break the

laws, since it is clear that you do not wnat

them in prison?

 

japan is a completely different culture. what

works for japan is not what will work for

america.

fm 8/11/01 12:26 AM you're back to asking questions that have

nothing to do with the subject of the 19th

Amd.

fm 8/11/01 12:27 AM what works in Japan today is exactly what

worked for this country a century ago--before

women had the vote, before we had 22,000 gun

control laws, before the divorce rate

increased 50 fold.

fm 8/11/01 12:27 AM Japan's society today is a mirror image of the

US in the 1900s.

druid 8/11/01 12:27 AM actually, i'm not.

 

if i'm a human being, i can't be denied the

same rights as any other human being in the

united states simply because one is male nad

one is female.

 

this country has made a guarantee of equal

protection under the law, which means even

*if* the 19th amendment were repealed, as a

citizen and a human being, i retain the right

to vote.

fm 8/11/01 12:29 AM you're dead wrong. The word "equal" appears

nowhere in the US Constitution, and women lost

the right to vote when the Constitution was

ratified in 1776.

fm 8/11/01 12:29 AM for 145 of our best years, women didn't have

the vote.

druid 8/11/01 12:29 AM oh no it's not.

 

japan's society is a totalitarian regime that

does not derive rights from god. rights are

granted by an all powerful government.

 

the united states has NEVER been such an

institution. rights in the united states

belong to the poeople by virtue of their

human-ness and power is only ON LOAN to the

government from the people.

 

very, very different.

druid 8/11/01 12:30 AM you really want to go back to the times of

slavery?

fm 8/11/01 12:30 AM except that right now, today, Japanese people

have far, far more individual rights, and

responsibilities, than Americans.

fm 8/11/01 12:31 AM slavery ended half a century before that.

druid 8/11/01 12:31 AM do they have a bill of rights? do they have a

constitution?

fm 8/11/01 12:31 AM yes, and we wrote it for them.

druid 8/11/01 12:31 AM except that women in wyoming were voting since

the 1860s.

druid 8/11/01 12:31 AM they don't have the right to keep and bear

arms

fm 8/11/01 12:32 AM neither do we.

fm 8/11/01 12:32 AM 22,000 gun control laws make the Second

Amendment an absolute sham.

druid 8/11/01 12:32 AM speak for yourself.

 

i keep and bear arms that are completely in

line with the constitution, and there's not a

single legal or judicial body in the country

that has been able to deny me those arms.

druid 8/11/01 12:33 AM do they?

 

i can carry concealed in several states :)

fm 8/11/01 12:33 AM If we had NO Constitution, we would have fewer

gun control laws than that.

fm 8/11/01 12:33 AM you just watch how fast that changes.

fm 8/11/01 12:33 AM we're not done passing these laws--Congressmen

are proposing more and more each and every

day.

fm 8/11/01 12:34 AM once the Second Amendment was violated--all

hel. broke loose.

druid 8/11/01 12:34 AM there are ninety million law abiding gun

owners in the united states who possess two

hundred fifty million privately held firearms.

 

i fucking *dare* the government to try to

collect.

druid 8/11/01 12:34 AM i'll live free or die.

 

do you have the same balls?

fm 8/11/01 12:34 AM they just did--in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and

Australia

 

we're one step away from that.

druid 8/11/01 12:35 AM if you believe the battle is lost, then it is

lost.

 

i'm not giving away my freedom. are you?

fm 8/11/01 12:35 AM I took an oath to uphold the US Constitution

against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC.

 

and I will honor that oath.

fm 8/11/01 12:36 AM there is much more to this than the 19th--but

that is a prerequisite.

druid 8/11/01 12:36 AM the us military has problems with me going

into combat, which makes me a member of the

"unorganized militia."

 

i will defend the constitution if i have to

die for it. though i'd much rather make some

other son of a bitch die for his beliefs.

druid 8/11/01 12:36 AM you disappoint me.

fm 8/11/01 12:37 AM we can't unload these 22,000 gun control laws

until the 19th is repealed.

fm 8/11/01 12:37 AM not ONE of them can be proven to have saved

ONE life.

druid 8/11/01 12:38 AM these gun control laws have nothing to do with

the 19th amendment.

 

you're confusing constitutionalism with hatred

of women

fm 8/11/01 12:39 AM you're confusing protection of women with

hatred of women--the best way to destroy

American women is to let them fester in

feminism.

druid 8/11/01 12:41 AM i am a woman, which means i know, first and

foremost what would destroy me.

 

the kind of society you're talking about,

where i'd be nothing but a subservient slave,

unable to use my mind, prohibited from using

my voice....

 

i'd rather be dead than live there.

 

what you're asking for, it's no better than

the taliban.

 

no rights for women, just men to control them.

and if i piss you off, what then? will you

stone me to death?

fm 8/11/01 12:43 AM right now, most American women don't even have

the protection of a family, where they would

have a two fold higher standard of living. But

women in the workforce plunged American

incomes so much that now Japanese women live

in households which earn more than twice of

ours.

fm 8/11/01 12:44 AM that's just part of the difference--Japanese

households now have net savings of more than

$1 million each, while American households are

in debt, with a zero personal savings rate.

druid 8/11/01 12:44 AM it's not all about money....

 

it's about me. i'm a human being, i have a

mind, and i would be tortured if i couldn't

use it.

 

what about me? do i not deserve to have a

career that i am happy with?

fm 8/11/01 12:44 AM even though you claim to be an engineer, you

don't seem to be too impressed about these

absolutely shocking figures.

 

fm 8/11/01 12:45 AM it's not "all about money", but money measures

the value of a society

druid 8/11/01 12:45 AM you know what's shocking?

 

that you care more about money than you do

about quality of life.

druid 8/11/01 12:45 AM the hell it does.

fm 8/11/01 12:45 AM right now, ours is in DEBT, incomes are still

plunging, savings are NEGATIVE.

fm 8/11/01 12:46 AM quality of life just 30 years ago in the US

was about what it was in Japan 30 years

ago--today Japan is so far ahead of us that I

can't even begin to describe it.

druid 8/11/01 12:47 AM i'm not in debt. of course to you, i don't

count.

 

i'm a nothing. a woman who should be

barefoot, in the kitchen, pregnant, unable to

use my mind and totally dependent on a man.

fm 8/11/01 12:47 AM Same with Germany, and even Russia. Ther are

many shortcomings about Russia--but their

quality of life has improved vastly recently.

druid 8/11/01 12:47 AM i don't consider a 'quality' life living with

six people in a 500 square foot apartment in

tokyo.

fm 8/11/01 12:48 AM do you notice how I make a comment about

society, and you retort with claims that you

are an exception to the rule? your exception

is meaningless in the face of $20 trillion in

debt.

fm 8/11/01 12:49 AM you also don't know Japan--what they have in

the country would knock your eyes out. the

flats in Tokyo are just for sleepovers.

druid 8/11/01 12:50 AM i've been to japan. i wasn't impressed.

fm 8/11/01 12:50 AM you went to the Ginza, and came home. That's

not even a millionth of Japan.

druid 8/11/01 12:51 AM i went to okinawa as well, and i can't say i

found anything there i'd rather trade my life

in america for.

fm 8/11/01 12:52 AM well, I lived in Okinawa and know lots of

places that you can't even imagine.

druid 8/11/01 12:53 AM places with geisha ?

fm 8/11/01 12:53 AM I watched American tourists tripping through

there as if though they knew what they were

doing.

druid 8/11/01 12:54 AM it's not my life, and i never want it to be.

 

i'm sure you've figured out that i am by far

not a meek woman. i think, and i speak my

mind.

fm 8/11/01 12:54 AM lots of different places,though I was

referring to the way Okinawans live--which is

exactly the opposite of your image of 600

square foot apartments in Tokyo.

fm 8/11/01 12:55 AM do you think this is a quality that men want

in women?

druid 8/11/01 12:55 AM not all men.

 

men like you, it seems.

fm 8/11/01 12:56 AM why would you think that?

druid 8/11/01 12:56 AM because everything you've said to me has been

your assertation that women are beneath you

fm 8/11/01 12:59 AM You said:

 

Im sure you've figured out that i am by far

not a meek woman. i think, and i speak my

mind.

 

And I asked if you thought this was a quality

men want in women, and it seems that you

suggested that this is something that I

appeared to want.

 

My question is what is it that makes you think

that?

druid 8/11/01 1:00 AM i thought you were referring to the 'geisha'

type.

 

i don't really think you want a woman like me.

i'm open minded, thoughtful, intelligent,

outspoken and very willing to defend my

position.

 

i think you're the type of guy who wants a

geisha, and i'm thankful not all men are like

you.

fm 8/11/01 1:01 AM so evidently your betrothed appreciates this

quality in women?

druid 8/11/01 1:03 AM he'd be extremely unhappy with someone who

wasn't at least on his level of intelligence

and didn't have a capacity to engage in

serious intellectual discussion.

fm 8/11/01 1:05 AM do you know for a fact that he regards a

discussion with you as the same as a

discussion with his fellow classmates, or

fellow workers, or fellow athletes, or fellow

military men?

fm 8/11/01 1:06 AM iow, do you believe that you really are

capable of a similar class of discussion, as a

woman?

druid 8/11/01 1:06 AM hell yes i am. we graduated from university

with the same degree and work in the same

field (though for different companies).

fm 8/11/01 1:08 AM why do you want to be like a man?

 

why would he want a woman who is like, or

wants to be like, a man?

druid 8/11/01 1:08 AM what do you mean by that?

 

i'm a woman, i just happen to be a very smart,

independent, capable one.

fm 8/11/01 1:10 AM but you seem to pride yourself as being like a

man to your betrothed? howcome?

druid 8/11/01 1:13 AM i'm not 'like a man'

 

i know he doesn't see me that way.

 

i'm 100% woman..... and he can relate to me on

all levels.

 

he's my best friend, my partner, my other

half. we've got a good thing going.

fm 8/11/01 1:16 AM do you think that I view you as "intelligent"?

druid 8/11/01 1:16 AM i think you see me as a second class citizen.

 

maybe i'm intelligent to you, but i doubt you

see me as being just as capable as men are.

fm 8/11/01 1:19 AM men tend to be concerned about the issues we

covered above--you weren't the least bit

interested. Some men have amazing memories

for such things and mention them years

later--but I don't know any women at all who

haven't attempted to make excuses for this

social pathology.

druid 8/11/01 1:22 AM you're not in a position to judge my interest

in something.

 

as far as making excuses, i'm telling you that

until you control everything except one

variable, you can't tell me you've got a

scientific study.

 

i really don't give a damn that you're going

to call that an excuse. i read your site, i

made an educated guess as to how you'd treat

me when you found out i was a woman, and so

far i've been right on.

fm 8/11/01 1:23 AM the fact that you are a woman was no surprise.

that was obvious right away.

fm 8/11/01 1:24 AM This is what gave you away:

 

"i wonder how you use Christianity as a

political philosophy when the Constitution is

directly prohibitive of establishment of

religion. i.e. the government cannot exist to

promote any religion"

 

druid 8/11/01 1:25 AM hence why through this entire discussion you

have tried to describe yourself as "right" and

me as "wrong"

druid 8/11/01 1:25 AM actually, that's because i'm a buddhist. not

because i'm a female.

fm 8/11/01 1:25 AM because if you attempted to build a society

based on the self-centered female ego, it

wouldn't last 3 minutes.

fm 8/11/01 1:26 AM you forget that I grew up with Buddhists--I

know how Buddhists think better than

"Buddhists" like you.

druid 8/11/01 1:27 AM i grew up buddhist

 

nowhere in the eightfold path or the tipitaka

does it advocate treating any group of human

beings like second class citizens.

 

that's your schtick.

fm 8/11/01 1:30 AM whew--most Buddhist countries never gave women

the vote--and even in Japan, women really

can't vote independently of their husbands.

and in all of China, regardless of how Mao Tse

Tung attempted to establish "equality" in

China, Buddhism reigns supreme.

fm 8/11/01 1:31 AM how Buddhism works and how you think it's

supposed to work sound like they are opposite

ends of the field.

druid 8/11/01 1:33 AM siddharta would be disappointed.

 

treating half a population as if they are

non-persons is definitely not in in line with

the tipitaka.

 

not that it matters to you.... all you give a

damn about is maintaining your macho power

over others.

 

i bet it bothers you to no end that i don't

need a man to tell me what i think.

fm 8/11/01 1:35 AM how you think is certainly a concern--but not

in the way you think it is.

druid 8/11/01 1:38 AM i'm surprised you admit i can think at all,

what with my brain being smaller than a male's

and the fact that women are just 'emotional'

and don't use logic at all.

fm 8/11/01 1:39 AM how do you account for the difference in the

approach we take to problem solving?

druid 8/11/01 1:40 AM different educations?

fm 8/11/01 1:42 AM you seem to believe that having a negative

personal savings rate is no big deal--you

think this difference is due to different

educations?

druid 8/11/01 1:43 AM where did i say that being in debt was no big

deal?

fm 8/11/01 1:45 AM you diverted the discussion to the size of

apartments in Tokyo, rather than addressing

the point. even disputing it would have

indicated more interest than just ignoring it.

druid 8/11/01 1:46 AM i don't think that being in debt is a good

thing, in fact i think it's terrible. people

should be saving money, instead of spending

more than they have.

 

i can't tell you that i (or you) know where

that kind of consumer mentality comes from,

but i can say it's not helped by watching the

boys in washington run a deficit constantly.

fm 8/11/01 1:48 AM it actually has little to do with consumer

spending and everything to do with the boys in

Washington.

fm 8/11/01 1:49 AM government costs us 42 cents of each wage

dollar, it costs the Japanese only 20

cents--the 22 cent difference is what they put

in the bank (plus some), while we have no

income left over after taxes for personal

savings.

druid 8/11/01 1:50 AM my parents, both of whom work, are very

responsible about their money

 

the only debt they've got at all is the

mortgage on their brand new house. granted,

they're only one example, but i don't think

that because some americans have a massive

tendency to put themselves in hawk, that all

families with working women do the same.

druid 8/11/01 1:51 AM we need to strip government spending like

crazy.

druid 8/11/01 1:51 AM out with every program that is losing money

and doesn't work.

fm 8/11/01 1:51 AM do you realize that it costs more for working

wives to go to work than they add to family

incomes?

fm 8/11/01 1:52 AM they all lose money--but some are

necessary--like defense, which ought to be the

only federal program.

druid 8/11/01 1:52 AM usually only if paying child care.

fm 8/11/01 1:52 AM most married couples who work pay child care.

druid 8/11/01 1:53 AM the only cost i have that i wouldn't if

iweren't working is tax.

druid 8/11/01 1:53 AM many do not. my parents never did. i never

will.

druid 8/11/01 1:59 AM ok, it's 5 am. i have to get up in 2 1/2 hours

and be functional.

 

i'm gonna have to head off and catch a nap now

fm 8/11/01 2:00 AM ok, sleep tight--

 

later

 

 

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition

 

Hit Counter

 

Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party