Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up

Why even ask such a profoundly stupid question?
But to answer it, the very foundation of the church is SUPPOSED TO BE based on the love, selflessness, compassion, sharing and forgiveness, NOT luxury.

You are right, it is no more horrible than politicians and corporate executives making bank on lies and false promises but if those people are who you have to look for to make your comparisons then it's fair to say the church is in need of a shake up. FFS even the Pope has that kind of thing on his hit list, or does the RCC in Poland now follow its own rules now that the Pope wants to purge corruption and greed from the church?

The Church in Poland has already been trying to twist the Pope's words - after he said that the Church should be for the poor, quite a few within the establishment tried to claim that it didn't apply to them.

The scum of society so often rises to the top, doesn't it?

Some examples please. If you are right, then I'd have to agree with you. The downfall of ever ideal is egoism and self-itnerest.

Are you telling us that politician is Poland (or elsewhere) are really earning their keep? Living form the taxpayers and it is been worse they force them to pay taxes. Strangely enough I haven't heard you ***** at them nor the EU bureaucrat who doing nothing but making the life difficult for an average Joe.

Each of them makes a lot more than any priest would ever make.
Also saying that priest do not work for their keep is the biggest and vilest ideologically biased lie I even heard bar Soviets lies. You Harry are like ideologically blinded mad dog.


Save that rubbish for gullible.


Polson - son ?politicians produce money like print them? what? that the joke of the day mate!
Not to mention all politically related perks and jobs for few who do not do much just enjoy a good life.

Read again, I said EXCEPT politicians. But glad I gave you a good laugh ;)

That would be because the EU makes life in Poland easier. But I guess people have to live here to know that.


Care to quote me saying that? Oh, no, you can't, because I didn't say that and you are very simply lying, yet again.


Do feel very free to argue against any of the facts I posted. Alternatively simply fall back to your all too common tactics here: insults and lies (as you have used above).

You should talk!!!!!! Sounds like your game plan and ground rules!

Gee what luxury? The only thing that can be pointed out are cars - good cars but by no means lavish or luxurious. So, priests have good cars which are need for them to make their work efficient.

So what? should they all ride on donkeys to satisfy your fancy?
Anyway Are you Catholic that you are presuming on the role of the RCC? Did you write a latter to your bishop?
Ever heard about policy - no pay no say? Do you support financially your local parish?
If not keep your worthless opinion to yourself Sir.


the Church is for all delph.

You must be kidding. Do you need a fancy BMW to go from home to the local church?
A normal car will do just as good.

Is that right? All for free? A Good old uncle the EU.


you said that other work for the keep whereas priests are taking money from gullible?Is that not the same?Of course it is the same as saying that priests do not earn their keep.


I have already argued all those claims, few times already.
I cannot be bothered to do it one again just to be ignored and then after few weeks or days you or somebody else would reaper with the same old dish as if nothing ever happened.

Both taxes and the way the church and priests are taxed and the reason for government payments are easy to find. Do your footwork first if you really don't know.

I suspect you don't want to know.

Paid for by the German and British tax-payer. Poland is massive net beneficiary of the EU budget. But again, one needs to at least visit here sometimes to notice the effects that money is having.


Quote me saying that or apologise for yet another lie.

Even the largest net beneficiary by far.

Believe it or not, I fullly agree with you on that one.
The only problem is that in secular legal terms (and you insist Poland is a secular state) what an organisaiton says it's supposed to be about (love, selflessness, compassion, sharing and forgiveness) is irrelevant. If it is a registered relgious organisation, NGO, public-benefit instituion or non-profit entity (names vary in different countries), then it is entitled to whatever exemptions those categoreis legally entail.

I think it's because some men mistakenly think life is a zero-sum game, and that any gains achieved by women necessarily come at the expense of men.

My perspective on this is the opposite. Like most men, I'm straight. So I hope to marry or live with a woman. If measures are introduced to ensure, for instance, that the woman I love is paid the same as any man doing equivalent work, that she is not barred from promotion and that society is organised in such a way that her career is not adversely impacted if we have children, these measures would surely make my life better as well as hers. And if she can go through life without fearing rape, being made to feel inadequate by advertising that objectfies women and 1000 other forms of sexism, so she is happy and confident, surely that would also make me happy. What kind of man would not want such things?

I believe it. You and I may have opposing views on a lot of things but I've never got the impression you're not genuine in your beliefs.


legality and morality are not synonymous terms
The idea that the church officials/leaders would excuse their own sins by saying "hey it's legal" doesn't really instill any faith in me. What about you?

well said, Englishman.


wanting to control another person is not a sexist issue, it is an unfortunate human issue.
Avoid control freaks, those are not hard to spot.
Also, watch out for passive-aggressives, those are a big pain, too.

The first thing you should ask yourself is this: Is feminism in the west really just a movement seeking political, economic and social equality of both sexes?

I think it is not and that is why I do not support "feminism."

Marginalizing the role of the nuclear family. I grew up in a broken family and feminism's effect has been to undermine the integral role of the father.

Undermining the strength of the nuclear family. That is the most intolerable thing that feminists do. The nuclear family is INTEGRAL to the fabric of Western civilization and should be upheld above all other things.

Villainizing normal male traits and behavior. Men make omelets and feminists often characterize breaking eggs as inherently wrong.

Here's the big one: Women have it easy in Western society and feminists don't acknowledge this.
Allow my man to bring it home for ya:
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XlR6CdJtRWM
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gsghfxYq7DU
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AlvvCYUDHrQ

I think you hit the nail on the head right there!
First, we have to define what feminism is. What do you think it means?
If feminism is putting down women that choose to stay home and raise their children, then I don't support it either.
Consider this example: word Patriotism has been similarly defiled by extreme or fringe groups, which would like it to mean that if you don't agree with some government decision, you're not a patriot. Or by white supremacist, which would like it to mean that only whites can be patriots.

Forgive me if I don't watch your links.. I have a feeling they all try to re-inforce the negative stereotypes, in order to discredit all the work women organizations accomplished, from women vote to peace efforts.

ok, I tried.. I barely got through one portion of first video, and I have to ask - do you really think feminists want to be the first ones off the boat? And, that is the reason they should not be paid same money for the same work? What kind of stupidity is this? And what kind of men are buying into this?

I strongly disagree that it should be upheld above anything else. Incidents of Domestic Violence are the key exception and the safety of spouses, and more importantly the children, trumps any notion that keeping the family unit together ought to be paramount.

Whilst I certainly agree that the family unit ought to be put forward as a tenet of any society, and not only Western Society (including same sex families), sometimes the unit falls apart due to the horrific actions of one or both the spouses. It is far better to separate than to maintain 'the family' with (typically) the female spouse living in absolute misery and the children growing up in that climate and oftentimes perpetuating the cycle of domestic violence in their own future relationships.

If the 'feminist movement' can be credited for one thing, it is bringing to the spotlight issues of domestic violence in the home and making domestic violence an issue for society and not one where it's kept behind closed doors, or seen as something to shirk away from. I say this too in the context of men who suffer domestic violence - at least in Australia, there is equality of standing in bringing about an application for a DVO whether personally or with the assistance of Police.

I shudder to think of the number of spouses (and the effected children) who suffered domestic violence but who refused to get out of the relationship on the basis that they thought it was better to stay together 'for the kids'.

Oh, thanks mate, had no idea. Now it's crystal clear.


Why! Whatever do you mean?
I merely addressed the lady in a complimentary fashion in the vernacular I am most accustomed to. There is nothing wrong with a compliment now is there?

Seeing as I did not mention you in even the slightest, it would appear the problem is all yours my dear.


In the event of exceptional circumstances, one must adapt exceptionally well. I agree with you there.
But, I should have written it more clearly because my comment about upholding the family unit above anything else doesn't mean it should be preserved despite anything else.

It means that the healthier the family is, the healthier society is. The nuclear family works better in our society than other models. That should be respected and the roles both men and women play in the family are different and of equal value. Removing either from the equation is not generally desirable.

+1,f stop. I think we've encountered a man who is a walking vindication of the need for a strong feminist movement.

The fewest acts of domestic violence (from least to most) take place in:
-- in the households of sacrametnally married parents
-- in the households of parents married in civil ceremonies,
-- in the households of informal hetero partnerships (konkubinaty);
-- in the households of same-gender partnerships.

Anyone who doubts this is free to surf the net. If not interested, don't bothter.

I won't bother- I knew enough "good, full" families to know they are no better or worse than the rest presented by you.

I don't know where Polonius got his statistics from, but I firmly believe his list should read most to least.
Below is the closest official statistic I could find.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, between 1998 and 2002:

Of the almost 3.5 million violent crimes committed against family members, 49% of these were crimes against spouses.
84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.
Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers

That is quite an emotional outburst,

The facts are that you don't like the numbers f stop provided so have "looked into" the methodology used by these agencies to gather and analyse the data, you then decided that they were failing. Perhaps these agencies are failing, perhaps they are not I would like to see your research, is it published?

That is a very interesting point. Perhaps Polonius could be so kind as to tell us where those statistics are from? Or is there a very good and obvious reason why he will refuse to tell us where he got those laughable 'statistics' from?

Actually no, only one thing you've stated would constitute something akin to a fact.
I have no emotional attachment to those numbers, I neither like nor dislike them (except for the murders as 1 would be too much).
I did not look into them but expressed my doubts as to whether those numbers truly reflect the situation.

Look I know it doesn't take much courage to join a mob and fair play to you for working with what you've got but are you really suggesting that examining how stats are gathered is unwise?


Why not do your own research?

You said


Then proceeded to tell all that the figures must be wrong because you say they must be wrong, that doesn't exactly make you a tower of logic does it?

You claim to have no emotional attachment to any figures and to "not let facts get in the way" yet you have not produced any facts.

It is not mob activity to point out bollox.

Evidently you didn't care to look at the link which shows women verbally foaming at men. Since you've previously confessed that you don't look at facts that frighten you, I doubt if you'll see this important link which has additional links for fuller facts. It's shows what I and other people have experienced from feminists. renewamerica.com/columns/roberts/050503

From the link: ""Hello, my name is Mary Man-Hating-is-Fun," she explained. "Ever since I learned to embrace my feminist nature, I found great joy in threatening men's lives, flicking off frat brothers and plotting the patriarchy's death. I hate men because they are men."


Oh you poor naive dreamer, you dare not read the link above, do you?


Are you young? You present yourself that way (wish I was young again:))
I've been a businessman and have experienced feminism at its worst. I've had women who didn't know anything about me get in front of my face and swear what a "pig" I am because I'm male. This occurred during a business conference featuring diversity. I find it amazing that rude people want to be treated with respect.

Feminism has negatively affected men in many ways. For instance, in the U.S. Title 9 mandates that men and women's sports receive equal treatment. How does that affect men? More men play sports than women so to equalize the situation many male sports (like wrestling) have been in "politically correct" manner eliminated. Male scholarships were taken away. usa-sports.org/TitleIX.pdf

From the link: " More than 2,200 men's athletic teams have been eliminated ... to comply with the proportionality prong of the 1979 Title IX Policy Interpretation (a rigid affirmative action quota system). Thousands of male athletes have been prohibited from participating in collegiate sports while men's athletic scholarships and coaching positions have evaporated. The law, which was designed to end discrimination against women, is now discriminating against men"

You probably don't think 'out of the box' so you aren't aware that many 'womens government offices cater to women only. No such equivalency exists for men. Let's take health as another example. There are several such outlets for women such as the "Office on Women's Health - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services" and another is the womens health office in the FDA. None exist for men and when several legislators proposed a health office for men several womens groups appeared to testify against it on the basis that it would affect their funding. Even Obamacare will add an additional 2 womens health departments but none for men. Can anyone objectively doubt the second citizen status of men when it comes to health concerns? Oh, I forgot, feminists oppose such rational considerations of real equality.

[


LOL; my gawd, are you really unaware of how advertising portrays men these past 2 decades? It's not even arguable that men are shown to be stupid buffoons, often hit or even kicked in ads, etc. The female is the wise one who knows what product is good. Often she is shown with her hands-on-her-hips or her arms crossed which shows her superiority. For you to not have noticed this shows what a good enslaved 'white knight' you have become.