🚀 go-pugleaf

whos...@mailmasher.com wrote in article
<1997010211...@mailmasher.com>...
> In article <01bbf791$3d287200$5af9...@px50.dial.pipex.com>,
> "Simon P. Smith" <wolf...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> 
> > I don't know who you are, but I do know that you are one ignorant and
> > misogynistic sonofabitch - I can't think of any other way to describe
you.
> 
> So what?

So what? So please stop proving it, that's what! Like in your last dozen or
more postings to all these newsgroups, that are irritating me and just
about everyone else:

> When I see increases in productivity then I will believe in them.
> I said it before and I will say it again:  if computers are so
> wonderful, we would be seeing ever improving standards of living,
> but we are, in actuality, seeing quite the opposite.

YOU may be seeing "quite the opposite", but everyone else in the Western
world has seen their average standard of living rise by about 20-25% in the
past ten years or so and the number of people in paid employment greater
now than at any time in history. The US standard of living has been rising
faster in the last five years than at any time in the last 20 years. Have
you actually visited Earth recently?
 
> Well, you have to admit that there seems to be quite a correlation
> between the passage of the equal employment and housing laws and
> the deterioration of U.S. society.

Er, what deterioration are you talking about here? You talking about
increases in violent crime and drugs perhaps? Perhaps you're suggesting
that giving women equal rights means that they feel that they have an equal
right to run a drugs cartel maybe? Or that giving women equal rights makes
them more likely to shoot somebody in a robbery? Since you are not in touch
with reality (see above) I suppose a "deterioration of U.S. society"
probably means a society in which people are not judged by their colour,
creed, age or sex.

> I never said that women were not good at launching new enterprises.
> A new business is a very undefined or ill-defined situation, and
> women seem to do well under such circumstances.  However, there
> comes a time when the organization matures and needs just that -
> that is, ORGANIZATION.  This is why, historically (most notably
> prior to equal employment opportunity) females would turn over
> their enterprises to professional male managers.

And it never once occurred to you that it is precisely because women have
until recently found it so hard to succeed in business, and still do so
according to the EOC, that they had to do this because they had little
choice? Don't you think that they wanted the businesses they launched to
have their best chance of success?
 
> So tell me, Simon, to what would you attribute this dislike of
> males for working for a female boss?  There's a saying:  "One
> billions flies can't be wrong!"  Right?

I attribute this to simple antiquated prejudice, a lingering attitude that
women are "not fit" for anything other than secretarial and house work and
having babies. It has nothing whatsoever with personal experience of
working under a female boss, since most of the dislike was from men who had
NEVER had a female boss before and thus could not have known what it would
be like!
Oh yes, and how nice of you to equate you and your kind to dungflies ...

Simon
wolf...@dial.pipex.com

PS. TO THOSE WHO FIND THESE POSTINGS AS PAINFUL TO READ AS I DO: I agree
with the rest of the responses to these postings - there is a woeful lack
of facts and an abundance of prejudice and blind bigotry. Indeed not only
has "anonymous" been unable to substantiate a single one of his claims with
hard evidence, the figures on economic growth and increases in productivity
and consumer affluence which are readily and widely available completely
contradict those claims!
So please, whoever you are, we all know what you are, we have been patient
and listened to you for far too long and we know that you are unable to
speak or hear the truth. To quote Oliver Cromwell, In the name of God,
GO!!!!!!