|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#22
April 8th 04, 05:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
My Wish
Fair For All wrote:
Bob wrote in message ... Fair For All wrote: "Jeff" wrote in message ... "Fair For All" wrote in message le.com... I just wish kids were treated equally regardless of their gender. I just wish kids were treated according to their age and behavior instead of their gender. I don't knwo what gender is when it refers to kids. Gendoer refers to nouns and verbes iand adjectives in some lanquages. Not to people. The proper term is sex. Will my dream ever come true? I hope not. Why not?? The advantage I see would be a miraculous decrease in domestic violence and spousal abuse. As Ralph used to say, "To the moon, Alice." Most men who hurt girls were themselves abused as little boys. Abused by this misandrist society. The boys' abusers were also male and were in all likelihood heterosexual. The boys' abusers were acting out of both anti-male sadism and their urge to blend in with society to be popular. When these poor boys find how they were exploited in childhood, they become jealous of girls and abuse girls. They want revenge. Girls might not have attacked them, however girls benefited from the same society that hurt those boys. Those who benefit from evil are evil. Jealousy and anger is what drives men/boys to hurt girls. More often it's girls/women taunting boys/men to get attention, and/or girls/women emotionally abusing boys/men. No its straight men adapting to societal misandry by abusing boys. Wrong dodo. That misandry don't fly. Q. What is the moral of the story? A. Harming one gender (i.e. boys) eventually results in harm to the other gender (i.e. girls). So if you really care about girls, you'd better care for boys equally. You must *not*: 1. Treat girl children better than boy children 2. Treat boy children worse than girl children If people understood this and behaves accordingly, then perhaps male-to-female violence would decrease by 90%. David Westerfield wouldn't have the girl-hating anger in him to attack Danielle Vandam. Samantha Runnion would be alive and in peace and so would her family. Focusing on male-to-female violence and ignoring female-to-male violence is the same kind of sexist misandry you seem to have argued against in the paragraph above. Female-to-male sexual violence is so rare it might as well be ignored. It is male-to-male sexual violence that is the problem. Female-to-male sexual violence is about as common, or more common than male-to-female violence. Female whining is far more common. Whine, whine, whine. The abuse of boys is perpetrated solely by heterosexual men. Boys' abusers are purely heterosexual and male. That is a total crock of misandrist ****. MOTHERS are the most likely persons who abuse boys. Mothers do twice as much reported child abuse as men, and are twice as likely to abuse boys as girls. Mothers are the *least* likely to abuse boys. Mothers - at least in their hearts - love sons as much as daughters. What a ****ing dream. The safest place for children is with their fathers. The most dangerous place for children is with single mothers. Mommy murder is far more common than fathers hurting children. It is the outdoor society (e.g. school and the public) that are the nasty culprit. They force boys to be "tough", not to cry, not to hit girls. Today's mothers were never taught not to hit boys, and many of them abuse or even kill their own sons. Females are incapable of raping males. Lies and cow****. Many boys are raped by mothers or other older women. No. Boys are raped by straight men. Another failure to comprehend the concept. So the abuse of boys is NOT perpetrated by women, though woman-haters often fantasize about this. Lies and cow****. It makes you look stupid. You need to relax and read some science books. Your lies and misandry is not "science" dumb ****. Gay males are incapable of perpertrating any form of aggression. ROFLMAO!!! Violence in the gay community is MORE common than among straights. What a pack of lies. Please understand the difference between "homosexual males" and "heterosexual males practicing homosexuality". Rump riders are as rump riders do. Your failure to comprehend the concept is YOUR problem. Gay males are totally innocent. People in the gay community aren't necessarily gay at all. Black is white, day is night, truth is fiction, gays are straight, and Fair for **** has his head up his boyfriends arse again. Straight men who practice homosexuality are the danger. They almost always include pedophila, necrophilia, coprophilia, sadism, molestation, and rape in their acts. BTW prison rape is always perpetrated by straight men. Black is white, day is night, truth is fiction, gays are straight, and Fair for **** has his head up his boyfriends arse again. So people need to stop labeling gay men as abusers. NAMBLA's men are purely heterosexual. That is what gives the ability to abuse. These straight male pedophiles harm boys because if they harmed girls, society would lynch them. In adaptation to society misandry, these straight men hurt boys. With as much importance, pre-adolescent boy children are incapable of perpetrating any form of aggression. A boy who kisses a girl should not be labeled as an abuser. A girl who harms a boy deserves as much punishment as a boy who harms a girl. A kid who harms another kid of the same gender deserves as much punishment as a boy who harms a girl. Boys and girls are different, and more just in their sex organs. Their behavior on average, is different. No. Where the science? Yes, boys and girls are different. So are men and women different. Boys are not stronger than girls. Macho *******s should respect this fact and stop telling boys to be "men". The term "macho *******s" is sexist and offensive. Why do you say so? It is the macho men who attack weaker males and male children. They force males to be self-destuctive. Someone ought to have done the world a favor and attacked Fair-ly-**** a long time ago. What a hate filled crock. BTW I have read many of your posts. All lot of people respond to you by calling you "faggot", "sister", "rapist", and other misandrist terms. These are the macho people who hurt you because you are a male expressing your feelings. A lot of misandrist bigots hate MEN who don't kowtow to feminazi domination. By saying that "macho *******" is an offensive term, you are only protecting your attackers. It is the macho men in much of usenet that attack you. LOL. It's rump riders, lesbian dykes, and feminazi SNAG's who hate a strong MAN. Real MEN are supportive of other real MEN. That is because they have innate differences in their interests. Scientific proof? Boys like to play with trucks,, play sports and be rougher than girls while prefer dolls and playing house more than boys. That is because our sick misandrist macho society forces boys to be "tough", artificial, and supress their emotions. Girls are free to do anything they want. Boys are told not to cry or hit girls. The sick misandrist is you fella. Please re-organize your frontal cortex. No offense. Given a choice, boys would express themselves and stay in the house more. They would be equally passive to, if not more than, girls. Boys like softness just as girls do. LOL. What a crock. BTW: Men express themselves too. That feminazi lie about men not expressing our emotions is feminist crap. Men use more subtle forms of expression and don't blather and gossip like women. That doesn't mean we don't feel or express our feelings. Women usually aren't sensitive enough to notice anyone but themselves though, and hence come to believe that nobody matters but HER! Please understand. It is those evil misandrists who force males not to express their emotions. They call these males "sissies" forcing showing any sign of emotion. We're "MEN," not some dehumanized "males" that the feminazis try to call us. You can usually tell which side of the "war on men" someone is on by the language s/he uses. Adult men are much rougher w/ boy babies than w/ girl babies. No wonder boy babies die more frequently than girl babies. Females MURDER boys much more often than girls. Fathers do not murder children any where near as often as females. Once again, you are not understanding that the abuse of boys is perpetrated solely by straight men. That lie don't fly bigot. Mommy murder is far more common. In some US cities mommy murder has gotten to be so common they have put up billboards asking mommies not to put little children in dumpsters. Straight men often adapt to societal misandry by molesting boys. Around the whole world girls are treated better than boys. They always have been since humans entered the world. Girls are treated better than boys mostly by WOMEN who kill boys and abuse boys twice as often as girls. Yes. This occurs even in Islam. If you don't believe, please check out: http://www.theforumz.com/forumz/showthread/t-2345.html I don't care about Islam. Pre-adolescent boys do not necessarily like to be rougher than pre-adolescent girls. Science actually proves the reverse. Cow****! Why do you say so? I am only supporting your pro-male views by saying the above. Cow****. You are repeating sexist feminist dogma. That is just the way it is. No. That is how our perverted society forces it to be. That's just your sick feminist lies. I am not feminist. I just believe that kids should be treated equally regardless of their gender. You repeat sick feminist propaganda and anti-men lies. A feminist is as a feminist does. Bob -- When did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, leading Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.] 
|
|
#23
April 8th 04, 05:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My Wish
On 7 Apr 2004 23:11:57 GMT, enigma wrote:
i have no idea how one treats a girl *infant* differently than a boy. infants are just so non-gendered. do you have any cites on how boy infants are treated differently than girls? Actually, I have seen at least one study that says that parents do handle boys and girls differently from the moment they know the gender of the child. http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/ellens/...pap/node6.html The difference in toys cannot be explained purely by the children's preferences --- the expectations of parents and other gift givers play a major role. Numerous studies, cited in [Pomerleau et al 1990, page 360,] have found: When interacting with an infant who was introduced as a girl, adults used feminine toys (for instance, a doll) and talked more to `her'. When the infant was presented as a boy, they used masculine toys (e.g., a hammer) and encouraged more motor activity. Iirc, this study used the *same* infant presented to people as a boy and a girl, so there was no way the adults who were interacting knew whether the infant was *in fact* of the opposite gender when they were introduced. The adults took the word of the experimenter that they were seeing a boy or a girl. -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits
|
|
#24
April 8th 04, 06:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My Wish
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:35:00 GMT, dragonlady
wrote: It was NOT physical cues the babies were giving indicating a preference for one over the other; they did some studies with babies dressed in yellow or green, where they told some folks the baby was a boy, and some the baby was a girl, and the difference was about the same, and pretty marked. Found this reference: http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/ellens/...pap/node6.html Anecdotal evidence suggests that when an infant is dressed in blue, passers-by say how smart he looks; if the same baby is dressed in pink, people say how pretty she is. Boys' clothing is often decorated with cars and trains; girls' clothing rarely is. More rigorously, numerous studies of sex stereotyping of infants are reviewed in [Stern et al 1989], including: Parents in one study, for example, were asked to rate and describe their newborns shortly after birth when the primary source of information about the baby was his or her gender (Rubin et al., 1974). Although the infants did not differ on any objective measures, girls were rated as littler, softer, finer featured, and more inattentive than boys. Other studies have revealed that parents treat male and female infants differently.... Fagot (1978) observed that parents of toddlers reacted differently to boys' and girls' behaviors. Parents responded more positively to girls than boys when the toddlers played with dolls, and more critically to girls than boys when the toddlers engaged in large motor activity [Stern et al 1989, page 502,]. Expecting different behavior from boys and girls can be a self-fulfilling prophecy: If one sort of behavior is expected and encouraged, the child will be more likely to continue it. Children also have been shown to have formed sexual stereotypes as early as at two years old [Weinraub et al 1983, page 33]. For example, Preschool children also have a good grasp of adult-validated sex-stereotyped beliefs about children's behavior. When asked in an interview-like situation which of two paper dolls --- `Michael' or `Lisa' --- would like to do certain activities in nursery school, end up in certain future roles, and have certain character traits, children to years old showed an impressive depth of knowledge (Kuhn, Nash, & Brucken, 1978). Children believe that girls like to play with dolls, help mother, cook dinner, clean house, talk a lot, never hit, and say `I need some help'; they also believe that boys like to play with cars, help father, build things, and say `I can hit you' [Weinraub et al 1983, page 34,]. The careers that children imagine for males and females are influenced by sex stereotypes. By the age of three years, most children ``know that girls will grow up to clean the house, be a nurse, or be a teacher, and boys will grow up to `be boss''' [Weinraub et al 1983, page 38,]. These stereotypes affect the careers that children picture for themselves: Even preschool children express future aspirations along sex-stereotyped lines. Both preschool and elementary school girls choose a parenting role significantly more often than boys (Looft, 1971; Vondracek & Kirchner, 1974). In addition, the range of occupational choice is more restricted for girls, with nurse and teacher being the most popular answers (Vondracek and Kirchner, 1974; Beuf, 1974). Boys' choices include more action oriented occupations (police officer, sports superstar) and more prestigious careers (doctor, public servant, pilot). Taking the question one step further, Beuf (1974) asked children 3 to 6 years of age what they would do if they were of the other sex. Approximately 70 percent of the children replied with a job considered appropriate for the imagined sex. More interestingly, boys frequently imagined themselves as nurses and girls imagined themselves as doctors when asked, `What if you were a girl (boy)?' Several girls confided that they really would prefer to be doctors rather than nurses when they grew up, but couldn't because they were girls [Weinraub et al 1983, page 44,]. Thus, from an early age, girls and boys learn to think of most careers as being appropriate for either men or women but not both. This will influence not just their career choice but how they view males and females aspiring to ``inappropriate'' roles. Unfortunately, these stereotypes are so pervasive that it is difficult for unprejudiced parents to prevent their children from accepting the stereotypes: A female computer scientist told me: We ... have a rather non-traditional household, and I'm surprised at how traditional my two daughters seem to be turning out. Both my husband and I work full-time, but when we are home, [John] does almost all the cooking (I make a meal maybe once every three weeks), he cleans up after himself while cooking so I don't do much of the cleaning in the kitchen, I do the laundry (sometimes), and we let everything else go until a friend comes to clean our house and dig us out from under the laundry I never can seem to get to.... [Once,] I asked my 5-year-old who did most of the work around the house, me or her daddy. She said ``you''. Now, this kid is totally guileless --- she has not learned yet how to say one thing to one person and another to another, so I'm sure she wasn't just telling me this because I was the one who asked the question. So I said, ``What kind of work do I do around the house? In the living room, in the kitchen?'' She said, ``You clean the kitchen.'' I couldn't believe it! I might have believed her if she said I occasionally picked up in the living room --- but cleaned the kitchen? Her dad's domain? Where did that come from???? Another parent reported: When our daughter was very young --- about 3 years old --- we audiotaped an interview about what she would be when she grew up. After mentioning a number of possibilities my wife said, `What about a doctor?' Jessica replied, `Yeah, I could be a doctor.' Our son who was 5 at the time interrupted saying, `I think you mean a nurse.` `Yeah, a nurse,' Jessica said. My wife said, `She could be a doctor if she wanted,' and our son replied, `I don't think so...I've never seen any, at least not in Iowa.' -- Dorothy There is no sound, no cry in all the world that can be heard unless someone listens .. The Outer Limits
|
|
#25
April 8th 04, 05:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My Wish
dragonlady wrote in message ...
In article , enigma wrote: (Fair For All) wrote in om: enigma wrote in message ... actually, infant boys are more frail than infant girls. Yet our sick society is gentler w/ baby girls than w/ baby boys. In fact, the proof that infant boys are weaker than infant girls only stimulates the cold-hearted, sadistic, anti-male, sexual perversions of the people who make up our misandrist society. It is through this sick sexual sadism that adult men often treat boy babies so much worse than girl babies. In addition, men who treat girls better than boys often blend in w/ this sick macho society and are actually popular. i think you need to look beyond your sample of one into reality. i'm terribly sorry if you were abused as a child, but your experience doesn't mean all boys are abused or all of society is misandrist abusers. FWIW, my parents raised myself & my brothers equally once they figured out i didn't *like* dolls & girly stuff, which was about the time i became verbal at 2. i have no idea how one treats a girl *infant* differently than a boy. infants are just so non-gendered. do you have any cites on how boy infants are treated differently than girls? It's been a long time since the studies that I'm familiar with were done, but there HAVE been studies that show that people tend to handle boy infants and girl infants differently. They use softer voices and are more gentle with girls, and are more likely to do physical, fast games with boys. Even in infancy, boy babies were more likely to have people hold them up in the air, or do other physical things, while girl babies were more likely to be held very softly, and closer to the body. Even the tone of voice was different: softer and higher pitched with girls, louder and lower pitched with boys. It was NOT physical cues the babies were giving indicating a preference for one over the other; they did some studies with babies dressed in yellow or green, where they told some folks the baby was a boy, and some the baby was a girl, and the difference was about the same, and pretty marked. When my oldest was about 2, she and I spent an afternoon at a park that was nearly deserted. She was in typical toddler-wear: overalls and a long sleeved shirt. She had very little hair. A teenage boy started to play with her in a sterotypical teen-boy fashion: nothing inappropriate, but very phisical. She was having a GREAT time with him. Misandrist society wouldn't believe that even if it were true When he found out she was a girl, he appologized for being so rough with her; Typical misandrist sadist. He probably rapes little boys to show how much he respects little girls. no amount of verbage on my part seemed to make any difference -- he said he only behaved the way he did because he thought she was a little boy. This only shows that men who are nice to girls are rude to boys. He even told me I needed to dress her differently so others wouldn't make the same mistake and treat her like a boy. I hate misandrist perverts like him. Macho men are misandrists. Most misandrists are boy-raping pedophiles. All these men are purely heterosexual. What a sick society I live in! This happens everywhere in the world and happened since humans landed on the earth. Boy babies are more frail than girl babies. Yet our sick perverted misandrist society is gentler with girls than with boys. All heterosexual males are pedophiles!
|
|
#26
April 8th 04, 05:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My Wish
toto wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:35:00 GMT, dragonlady wrote: It was NOT physical cues the babies were giving indicating a preference for one over the other; they did some studies with babies dressed in yellow or green, where they told some folks the baby was a boy, and some the baby was a girl, and the difference was about the same, and pretty marked. Found this reference: http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/ellens/...pap/node6.html Anecdotal evidence suggests that when an infant is dressed in blue, passers-by say how smart he looks; if the same baby is dressed in pink, people say how pretty she is. Boys' clothing is often decorated with cars and trains; girls' clothing rarely is. More rigorously, numerous studies of sex stereotyping of infants are reviewed in [Stern et al 1989], including: Parents in one study, for example, were asked to rate and describe their newborns shortly after birth when the primary source of information about the baby was his or her gender (Rubin et al., 1974). Although the infants did not differ on any objective measures, girls were rated as littler, softer, finer featured, and more inattentive than boys. Misandrist macho ******* pedophiles applying adult qualities to infants. Other studies have revealed that parents treat male and female infants differently.... Fagot (1978) observed that parents of toddlers reacted differently to boys' and girls' behaviors. Parents responded more positively to girls than boys Is this sick perversion of society ever going to end?! when the toddlers played with dolls, and more critically to girls than boys when the toddlers engaged in large motor activity [Stern et al 1989, page 502,]. Expecting different behavior from boys and girls can be a self-fulfilling prophecy: If one sort of behavior is expected and encouraged, the child will be more likely to continue it. So the victim-perpetrator cycles continues Children also have been shown to have formed sexual stereotypes as early as at two years old [Weinraub et al 1983, page 33]. For example, This is the fault of adult heterosexual pedo misandrist men! Preschool children also have a good grasp of adult-validated sex-stereotyped beliefs about children's behavior. When asked in an interview-like situation which of two paper dolls --- `Michael' or `Lisa' --- would like to do certain activities in nursery school, end up in certain future roles, and have certain character traits, children to years old showed an impressive depth of knowledge (Kuhn, Nash, & Brucken, 1978). Children believe that girls like to play with dolls, help mother, cook dinner, clean house, talk a lot, never hit, and say `I need some help'; they also believe that boys like to play with cars, help father, build things, and say `I can hit you' [Weinraub et al 1983, page 34,]. The careers that children imagine for males and females are influenced by sex stereotypes. By the age of three years, most children ``know that girls will grow up to clean the house, be a nurse, or be a teacher, and boys will grow up to `be boss''' [Weinraub et al 1983, page 38,]. These stereotypes affect the careers that children picture for themselves: Even preschool children express future aspirations along sex-stereotyped lines. Both preschool and elementary school girls choose a parenting role significantly more often than boys (Looft, 1971; Vondracek & Kirchner, 1974). In addition, the range of occupational choice is more restricted for girls, with nurse and teacher being the most popular answers (Vondracek and Kirchner, 1974; Beuf, 1974). Boys' choices include more action oriented occupations (police officer, sports superstar) and more prestigious careers (doctor, public servant, pilot). Taking the question one step further, Beuf (1974) asked children 3 to 6 years of age what they would do if they were of the other sex. Approximately 70 percent of the children replied with a job considered appropriate for the imagined sex. More interestingly, boys frequently imagined themselves as nurses and girls imagined themselves as doctors when asked, `What if you were a girl (boy)?' Several girls confided that they really would prefer to be doctors rather than nurses when they grew up, but couldn't because they were girls [Weinraub et al 1983, page 44,]. Thus, from an early age, girls and boys learn to think of most careers as being appropriate for either men or women but not both. This will influence not just their career choice but how they view males and females aspiring to ``inappropriate'' roles. Science totally disagrees with the sick society that views infants as adults. Unfortunately, these stereotypes are so pervasive that it is difficult for unprejudiced parents to prevent their children from accepting the stereotypes: Boy children who don't accept those stereotypes are abused by our society of misandrist heterosexual male macho pedophiles!
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
