Anytime you start arguing with a woman about women’s rights, the argument will often stall with the phrase “but we have been oppressed for so long so we deserve more than you”, as if it was on par with slavery of black people or the Holocaust for the Jews. They say that women used to be treated like inferior beings with no rights and that men had it all, and therefore we have to feel guilty and pay for our past mistakes. It seems that nobody ever disputed that statement, because this seems to be widely accepted as a fact. But it’s not.
The woman’s role
If we look at recent western society during the few last centuries, there was a deal between men and women in order to raise successful and prosperous families. Each had their own role and had to fulfill it. Women stayed home, popped as many babies as possible and took care of the house and the kids. They had to do a lot of house chores, they had to teach children the basics of life, and they had to give them their love. It wasn’t easy because the families were a lot bigger than today. They sacrificed their youth and body for the family. They were the supporter of their husband and made his life easier by complementing him on tasks he couldn’t do himself. That’s how society viewed them: as house wives, as caretakers, as allies behind the husbands.
Notice how she does it with a smile
Women didn’t have the right to vote and were excluded from most of the political scene, and they couldn’t legally own properties for a long time. On the other hand, they were treated accordingly, with special treatment. Most of the time, they didn’t need to work for money, because men paid for them. They lived with their parents until they got married, and only then they would leave the house to move with their husband, who took care of them financially. If the husband died, another man from the family would take care of the widow.
They didn’t have to stand up for themselves because men protected them. Men had to be gentlemen around them and if a woman needed help to carry something or was attacked in public, any men, strangers or friends, would come to her aid. If there was a war, women didn’t have to fight, protected by men who put their lives on the line. On sinking ships, in burning houses, and in other calamities, women were saved first and men could be left behind. This was so because women were considered useful to society in a different way than today. They were respected like a mother would be respected and a wife would be respected, and another division of labor was just impossible at the time.
The man’s role
As for their part of the deal, men had to bring food and money to the table. That wasn’t easy either and it was a big sacrifice. There was no affordable university degrees at the time, so the vast majority of men had to do perilous work all day long, ranging from farming to logging and fishing. Back in the day, and even today, these jobs were dangerous and if you didn’t pay for your mistakes and adventures with a limb, you paid them with your life. When the industrial age came about, things didn’t necessarily get better: coal mining was one of the most dangerous jobs at the time. Those men who worked in mines did so under very harsh conditions, sometimes 16 hours a day, 6 days a week. They could die any moment by falling in holes, being drowned by floods, suffocating on toxic gases, being crushed by rocks, or being torn apart by an explosion.
There were no unions to protect your working conditions or social security to pamper you, so if you lost an arm on your shift, tough shit. Not only did you lose your job but you couldn’t find another one because you were handicapped and useless, and you had to rely on church charity to barely survive or become a beggar. All this sacrifice was done so the wife and the kids could have a house to live in and food to eat.
Men were forced to work to the limits of their ability, requiring masculine qualities like courage, resilience and leadership. Women’s lifestyle brought them different kind of challenges that required different skills and attributes, like compassion, sensitivity and gentleness. So when men came home to their wives and kids, they would be soothed and relaxed by that mysterious feminine mystique, something that was non-existent in the deep underground or in the middle of the sea. They would be pleased to be received by a joyful, smiling wife who would make their life lighter.
“How was your day honey?”
That gave them a reason and enough energy to go back to hard work the next time and be good at it. On the other hand, wives needed masculinity to bring order, authority and rational decisions into their lives. The husbands would fix things in the house, solve disputes and spend some time with the kids to teach them about life. They would also take a little time to tell their wives to not worry, that everything is under control and everything is going to be alright.
The deception
Feminists lie when they say that women were oppressed by picking only certain elements from the past and by comparing it with today’s standards of living. They maliciously ignore the context in which those women lived. It’s wrong to say that men had it easier without looking at the entire picture.
In the past, men and women were closely tied together, so how can you bring up women’s misery of the past without bringing up men’s misery as well? Men and women were a team, each had their roles, and families were seen as units living in communities, where everyone did their part for the best of the group. Taking men or women separately from the time and analyzing them through today’s strong sense of individualism, and using it as an argument to further put guilt in the mind of today’s men, is just another effective trick radical feminists use to elevate themselves above others. It’s wrong and it’s dishonest.
Read More : More Women Are Rejecting Feminism
And here I was thinking dying of coal dust induced black lung at the tender age of 41 was male privilege.
LOL
I had a conversation on campus the other week with a rabid fat feminist $$$$ who obviously has had a few kids with separate men look at me in shock and disbelief as I explained my story. How I was denied visitation, and my kid taken overseas, and refused access. She basically said “I’m glad you are not bitter.” Of which I promptly replied “Yeah, I left 93% of work related deaths, 97% of war dead, and 90% guaranteed loss of your kids/wealth/future earnings/54-to42% Social Security checks in retirement/Selective Service sign-up at 18/(a whole lot of others) at the door. Feel free to go pick it up, and I will play holly homemaker whenever she truly wants to switch.”
She called me an asshole, and left.
No one was as happy about it as me. She butted into our conversation about my custody battle; and did not like that I was painting a woman she “gives permission” to call a “biotch” to because of it. But I should not be bitter about not being able to tell CPS/CSEA they can skype with my check for 26.5 out of 28 months of child support without going to prison.
BTW, was she actually confused? Yeah, I think so. Poor thing.
How could you ex take your kid out the country legally? didn’t you try to challenge it, was was the result/reason given for why she could uproot the kids from the country?
She was on military orders, and under cross examination admitted the prior order said she should keep me informed; so she “informed me” a week after the fact.
You will learn the hard way that all judges, even if they don’t possess a distinct anti-father bias like two states we have fought in, exist solely to allow attorneys to extract fees to the point where both parents, usually the dad are broken financially, and only then do they finally give an order. When the attorneys realize they took it too far, and now have to risk a client declaring bankruptcy so as to avoid an enormous bill they can no longer pay.
Don’t try to get your head around it, just know that it is all about money. Every single attorney there was wearing the most expensive clothes, driving the latest car, and probably had a really nice house or apartment. At least every attorney there I saw reflected that. All their cars were top of the line, and brand new. Their clothes, though ratted from late nights and unkempt, were not cheap. Also, the female attorney to a woman, I have seen, all wore extremely nice, expensive, and very high heeled pumps. Kind of like hooker’s stilettos, but way more stylish. Usually suede.
I did challenge it, but it cost me tens of thousands of dollars, and every time she has denied me, they just blow it off. They told me that what she did, though unethical, was not illegal in this case. She has been rubbing it in my face.
Just one more reason not to marry until the laws are better, or never. Also, when we were a couple and I was still a beta trying to shred his skin, we were supposedly “honest” with each other, and she told me she was on birth control. It is what it is.
Never trust a woman, until you know that she is your greatest friend, and potentially never trust her then either. She has a biological imperative she must contend with, as do we, and our character reflects itself off our choices. If a girl is ride or die today, don’t marry her until you know she si ride or die through some seriously egregious things from your past or present. And she still decides to stay with you.
Love is real, but extremely rare. It is so rare, coupled with family courts and feminist inspired legislation; I would recommend 95% of men don’t marry, and arrange child birth with a woman you respect, and has great genes, and understands what it is. Then go off on your own.
Knowing then what I know now, it is only my sons that keep me grounded. If I knew then what I know now, and did not know about my sons; I would discard marriage. I tried, and had a doctor tell me to forget it.
I don’t question anything you say, I was just trying to gain understanding on the matriarchal process. The women make it seem as if the dad doesn’t exist when they take kids abroad so I wanted to here a man’s perspective from what REALLY happens.
But what was the legal reason given that she could take the child out the country?
HAHAHAHAHA
Too right.
I guess if I were a woman I would really hope that this country never breaks down into a civil war or we end up at war with a foreign nation on our soil.
All I know is I will NEVER help a woman with any.fucking.thing.
Nor should you. No good deed goes unpunished. Especially when it’s done by a man, for a woman.
I used to be the kind of guy to open a door for a woman; now if a woman and I are walking toward a door side-by-side, I’ll up my pace, get there first, and let the door slam in her face behind me. 😀 I still open doors for the elderly though; they were the last generation of good women. They’re sweet!
Not allowing women to vote for leaders who would have the power to send men and only men against their wills via draft to kill and die in wars was the right thing to do. Out of respect for those men who’s lives hanged in the balance…it would’ve been wrong to allow women to vote for leaders with that kinda power.
good shit !…. great argument….
Nope. One person, one vote. That is democracy. Any other way, it is the way of fascism. Next you would want to do an education´s test before voting. Every adult must have the possibility to vote.
Why?
Well, 51% of America is complied into only 9 states, for one thing. I’m sure that would make for some interesting campaign changes during election season.
wrong – because sending men off to war on conscription can be coerced by a politician winning the votes of women on women issues that have nothing to do with the war…..
Which is why conscription should be both men and women. Equal rights for equal responsibility.
You Jewish, huh?
You Nazi, huh?
Nope. Just a discerning reader. Why? Was I wrong?
Nope. I just Googled him. One of his base camps is Tel Aviv. He is, in fact, As Jewish as his opinions would lead one to believe.
Nope. Just able to Google names. This dude went to “Tel Aviv University.” And his opinions are Leftist bullshit. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks ceaselessly.
Anything nother than democracy is fascism? False dichotomy.
Yes, one person one vote is democracy. And democracy is flawed.
Then acient Athen was a fascist city state.
Democracy sucks when all on the ballot are bought out by corporatism.
Democracy is over rated, it’s a liberal ploy to replace the good with arbitrary will. This is why women should not have ever had the vote in the first place, now we have tyranny of the majority (of arbitrary will – the fuck-ups and leaches get to vote for their better interest).
It’s the new modern rebellion against God:
1 Samuel 8-
6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.
7 And the Lordsaid unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
Isn’t it a funny coincidence that women started agitating seriously for absolute equality with men at precisely the time the majority of outside jobs became clean and safe?
Now with drones they think combat is safe and they can be equal to men.
45 years of video game history says otherwise.
Men who have gone through the “crucible” of atari, nintendo, sega, turbo-grafx, neo-geo, dreamcast, super nintendo, nintendo 64, playstation 1-2-3&4, x-boxes and 1000 different PC configurations will be the warrior caste of the future!
Unfortunately they all want to save the princess.
When we sell drones to other countries, we should make them coin operated. It was always harder to play in the arcade where your quarter loading skills came into play as well. One nickel in their pocket could cost them the war!
Look at women driving, do you really want them to control your country’s drones?
U forgot Commodore 64
Feminism can only exist in time of excess and surplus. Excess and surplus make a lot of those “clean” (woman-type jobs) possible. When excess and surplus disappear and people have to live by competing with other aggressive people to survive and thrive (defining “aggressive” as seems reasonable by the scenario) men will always rise back into power, weak men will either rise or be collateral damage and women will wisen up and latch onto the strong men. The Anonymous Conservative explains this all using the Evolution Theory of Biology, r/K selection theory – he doesn’t specifically call out “feminism” but feminism is an outgrowth of Liberalism and therefore his theories apply equally well. You can see for yourself how it works: Notice countries without excess due to recent economic collapse Greece, Egypt, some South American countries etc. – Feminism does not exist.
Mina is a female name, but you talk like a dude.
I take that as a compliment. Thank you.
She got female body. Masculine brain.
Depends, if you’re a man i wouldn’t look at it as a compliment.
I’m embarassed to be the same sex as you.
No, you should be proud, instead of following a warped ideology like you seem to do. I take it you’re from the same place as me?
I am shocked SHOCKED that someone with the last name Cohen would have a libtard opinion about something…. my stars.
My “warped ideology” is more fair as well as less arrogant than your misogynist POV.
I’m embarassed to be of the same species as you.
can you stop with the thought-shaming?
Try employing arguments instead of useless name-calling. This is a place for discussion, not for you to vent your anger over the fact you have no substantial argument for your point of view, beyond the fact that you are blindly following it with your pack of feminist lemmings.
Last name Cohen. You aren’t. Relief?
Keep being embarrassed, meanwhile men will mate with feminine women similar to herself, while chucking shrill harpies like you to the wayside.
Shes making too much sense and not acting nearly hysterical enough to be considered a proper woman, right?
So be it. I’d rather be lonely than turned into an obedient robot.
Sorry females have hormones other than testosterone…
And I am discussing my widely accepted opinion. And just take a look at the comments above. “libtard” But that’s ok, because he’s a male, right?
smh. no man wants a robot. but you types will never learn.
So do men. And thats relevant to the discussion how?
Feminism is neither fair nor lacking in arrogance.
Not so fast. I’d take an obedient robot over today’s “empowered,” pseudomasculinized harridan. She drips snark, can’t and won’t competently care for children, and spews toxic fallout on departure… unlike the robot.
My point is that she’s painting a wife who submits to her husband’s authority as some automaton. That’s not the case. She does so willingly and happily, but the husband can’t always be right, that’s just impossible. So in those times that’s when she’ll say “no it should be this.” But this feminazi views caring for the home, caring for her kids, caring for her man, and following her husband’s leadership to be some type of slavery. And that is why she will never learn. She’ll always be a feminazi bitch, and she’ll never get happy because she has the validation of other feminazi jezebel harpies. Misery loves company.
As a Jew I’m offended (–_–)
I’m not going to sumbit to a relationship in which the man is the sole decision-maker. I have ambitions and sitting home obeying a husband is not what I want to put all my hard work towards. Why don’t all women just flunk out of highschool and start popping out babies at age 15?
And I don’t have time for this argument. I have midterms and 4 essays due this week, so I’m done arguing for now.
Because relationships only work when the man is a leader. In the words of the late Patrice O’neal: Women don’t want to win, they want a winner. You can’t have equality because someone will always take on the dominant role. You hate being in charge because you don’t have the skill to lead a man. If you end up wearing the pants in the relationship, you resent him for not being dominant. You want to submit to his leadership without being taken advantage of.
I’m not going to take relationship advice from some random men spending all their time arguing unbacked-up points with a teenager on the internet. sorry, excuse me, but I have to go flunk out of highschool and pop out some babies before I turn 16.
“Why don’t all women just flunk out of highschool and start popping out babies at age 15?”
Leaving aside the medical reasons that this is a bad idea, I would hazard a guess that it is at least partially due to feminists looking down on women that make the choice to have a family young.
That was a sarcastic, rhetorical question. I think it’s a terrible idea.
What age and level of education meets your approval then?
What “ambitions?”Taking orders from a boss (who will probably be a man), and ending up lonely because no man wants to put up with you or because you ended up divorced because you couldn’t stand the one weak man that would? And, nobody said the husband is the sole decision maker. but he is the leader and the head of the household, and that’s something you need to respect.
By the way, nice hyperbole. Because of course I think women should drop out of school and marry young. Please.
If you have that much of a workload, why did you waste time procrastinating by arguing with strangers online? For that matter, why didn’t you manage your time better so that you don’t have to bang out some mediocre essays as well as study for midterms?
I’m not going to sumbit to a relationship in which the man is the sole decision-maker.
Strawman. Dont they teach logic at your school?
arguing unbacked-up points with a teenager on the internet
You did come here and start these “arguments” yourself you realise? Its not like we’re coming to the Justin Beiber message boards, or wherever you hang out, to talk about this stuff. A phrase regarding heat and kitchens comes to mind…
And anyway, if you’re supposed to be studying you shouldnt have been wasting your time on the Internet to begin with. Kids these days, so irresponsible…
You poor thing. Some of us managed to get excellent careers and businesses for ourselves after flunking out of school because we were too busy banging girls than writing essays.
As Patrice would say: And you see the signing that she’s doing about not arguing anymore, that’s because SHE DOESN’T have an answer against your logic and knows that she’s checkmate, and finds a way to deflect the debate!!!
No, actually I have multiple essays due and spending time arguing with a group of people who obviously aren’t considering my points as legitimate arguments (probably because of my sex) is not going to further anything but my anger. So instead of sitting here on my computer arguing, I’m getting an education so that I can actually do something about it.
Because I’ve finished the essays, but I want to edit and revise as much as possible. I can’t study for 3 hours straight, I’m obviously going to take a break after awhile. And this more educational than what most teenagers do on the internet…
Exactly, women argue using emotion. They don’t have the capacity to separate logic from her feelings. Since we’re referencing Patrice: as a man, you have to combat her emotion with your logic because eventually she will tire herself out.
You’re not really making an argument. All you’re doing is deflecting points, making ridiculous hyperboles, ad hominem attacks and trying to make yourself look like a victim
Excellant man!! Keep up the good work to try to convert more men into good soldiers
Do me a favor a save a screenshot of this discussion and write yourself a note in your agenda to go read it when you reach 35-40, which is the age the women WHO REALLY TOOK CARE OF THEMSELVES reach the wall. If your life is a disaster by then, this convo will explain exactly why.
We’re not assholes trying to hold women down. We’re looking out for you because we know that the philosophy that you fallow will NOT make you happy down the road. But we don’t blame you Ms Cohan because at the end of the day the only reason you think like you do is because you just haven’t bee taught another way to see things. Everything you see on TV and magazine just makes you think that you’re right
Keep in mind that as a women you can get almost anything you want, whether it’s money or a date tomorrow night with a men you can control easely while you don’t have to lift a finger to get those, and you know it. Will that make you happy in the long run? Don’t need to respond since we don’t want a war of words that will never finish. I just kindly ask you to save the blogroll somewhere and re read it when you’re older. That’s it
“I am shocked SHOCKED that someone with the last name Cohen would have a libtard opinion about something..” LOL God bless you sir!
You are both!
I’m a guy in high school who isn’t sure what exact side he takes on this issue, as I’m still trying to find out what’s truly the healthiest relationship, but you’re spot on in that this is WAY more educational than what most kids do on the internet (most of them just watch stupid youtube videos).
shit, I hadn’t thought of it that way…
Women were not allowed to own property!?
Any laws that did lean that way were quickly sorted when old-money families decided they’d rather have their daughters inherit their wealth rather than it pass into the hands of ‘upstart’ new-money men who married their daughters.
in spain until 1974 a woman was treated legally like a minor… she was ward of her father until marriage and ward of her husband after that… she could own property but only with her ‘guardians’ permission and in divorce she left with whatever the ex-husband would let her leave the house with… the kids stayed with him….
Spain was on the right track up until 1974. A woman must have a guardian at all times, this for her own benefit. Females that have manbacking are least likely to get fucked with. No man means you’re for the wolves.
yup…. and when my mother divorced my father and took a quick $1m in cash, she’d blown it in 10 years and 20 years later lives in a caravan… but hey… at least she got to express herself…. .brilliant….
“Anytime you start arguing with a woman about women’s rights, the
argument will often stall with the phrase “but we have been oppressed
for so long so we deserve more than you”
Methinks you’re a little out of touch with reality. Only the fringiest of the fringy feminists think we should attempt to have some sort of female dominated society.
The funny thing is that as a feminist and human being, I think men go through quite a bit as a result of sexism. The things you’re talking about…working in mines and shit–that has nothing to do with women. That has to do with the harsh living conditions of the era. To say *women* had it so rosy is just being intentionally obtuse. What about all the women who were beaten half to death by their husbands because domestic violence was viewed as the woman’s fault. The husband was taken for a walk around the block by the police and the woman told that she must’ve done something wrong. Spousal rape has only really been punishable for the past couple decades and even then it’s very rarely prosecuted. What about all the Lysol ads from the 50’s that told women if their husbands strayed it was their fault–picturing domestic situations where women were locked out of the house for having vaginal odor?
Yes, men suffer. This is a fact. But the idea that women are being ridiculous for caring about civil rights because working in the mine is so very awful…you’re comparing apples to oranges.
What about? What about What about? Typical woman unable to frame an argument beyond picking specific rumours and crying about them.
Typical feminist, completely unable to grasp the overarching concept in this article, which is a strong husband and wife team makes all involved happier, regardless of circumstances.
Typical bitch with a smelly vagina who can’t understand why people don’t want to be around her. I would lock you out of my house too.
So feminism prevents “strong husband and wife teams”? Oppression somehow makes them possible? I know plenty of very happy egalitarian marriages.
Now, if the author had framed this in a way that women’s oppression was bad for men too…sure, I’ll bite. I would venture to say that men are much happier now that women have legal access to birth control and women can work outside the home reducing the work load for men. Marriage is now looked at in a very different way–couples date for longer periods and get to know each other before marrying. We have less of a stigma regarding premarital sex, so couples aren’t rushing into marriage for that. Also, women are now free to be single moms whereas before they were scandalized. Men are now free to not marry women they don’t love just to take care of the baby. Men are free to divorce women they don’t love.
I can think of a million ways in which equal rights for women has made the world a better place for men. I don’t think there is any reason to whine about how awful feminists are, given how well the whole thing has worked out for men.
See, you automatically equate a strong marriage with oppression. That’s the problem. And you have won. Don’t worry about that. You have succeeded in turning women into sluts and men into players. Be proud.
The last thing I am working on is removing the whole “Men shouldn’t hit women” thing. A couple of weeks ago, a dyke decided she wanted to get aggressive with me. It was funny watching her head bounce off the pavement. Plenty of people watched her throw the first punch, but I knew I still had up get out of there. Because that sort of situation just never goes well for men.
Lets work on changing that too. Lets work on giving men the right to unload on feminists when they start physical fights like the men they hate.
You just named most of the problems with feminism and said they were good for men.
In high school in the mid 90’s, a bitch tried to kick me in the balls, i caught her foot and shoved her away by it, she went into a wall behind her and bumped her head and started crying.
I was suspended for 10 days and was almost expelled, she got to go home early that day and had no punishment.
And of course the masses really took a liking to me afterwards, always fun being called a “woman beater” repeatedly for protecting your genitals. I dropped out soon afterwards.
I love this headline “Man CAUGHT Punching Woman.” Shouldn’t it read, “Man Defends Self From Rapid Slut?”
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/10/20/man-caught-on-video-punching-woman-after-jets-game/
“I know plenty of very happy egalitarian marriages.”
Sure. Are you with the couple 24/7 to make this observation? Ofcourse couples will act happy when strangers are around. No man of women is going to be happy in – what you call – an “egalitarian” marriage. Is it therefor a surprise that since marriage became “egalitarian” divorces are going through the roof and marital dicord is a given. By the way equalizing marriage is especially stressful for the women..well, atleast in the short term. In addition to chores around the house and raising kids she al so has to generate an income.
Thank you for naming most of the things that are causing the societal downfall of America. I’m impressed….Seriously!
Good job! If a woman wants to put herself in the place of a man, she will get treated like a man would. No sympathy! How many 5’2-5’8 120-150lb men do you know that would pick a fight with a 6′-6’4, 200-240lb man and expect to win? Dumb woman! Thats insane! Who thinks the outcome would be the small guy winning? 99% the self preservation instinct would kick in and the small guy would walk away. Not with women. I honestly think they either expect to win the fight, the man take their abuse or another man to jump in and “save” them.
“I can think of a million ways in which equal rights for women has made the world a better place for men”
So can I.
Lets start with the thousands of unemployed, underemployed and homeless men that cant find jobs because women wanted “equality” in the workplace.
And the young males with 30K of student debt that cant find a decent job because the positions go to the females, niggers, asians, trannies.
Because Inclusion. Because Diversity. Because everyone should get a little gold sticky star. Equality.
People like you make me sick.
I can just imagine the bootlooking pussified Mangina “men” in those “egalitarian marriages” – with their “honey-do” lists.
Fucking blue pill faggots.
So, what do you say to the fact that Marriage 2.0 (as designed by Feminism 2.0) means that if there is a divorce, the guy is automatically going to lose 40% of his income for the rest of his life?
Before people like you came along, there were two allowable reason for divorce: infidelity and abandonment. If the husband runs off with his secretary, his wife is getting half his shit. So, he gives it some serious thought before acting.
Same thing with women. 40 year old housewife goes out for milk and never comes back, she gets nothing. No alimony. No child support. No nothing.
Now, if the guy runs off with his secretary, he loses half his shit. Fine. If the woman does the football team at the local high school and puts it up on youtube, she STILL gets half his shit.
And she needs no other reason to do it, in the feminist mind and propaganda, than the excuse that she was feeling “oppressed” and unhaaapy and needed to explore her poliamorous side in order to feel empowered.
This happens all the time. Maybe not with a whole football team at once, but most “ladies” today are putting up double digit notches. And they feel no shame in it. In fact, the blame goes to those pointing out how gross they are as well as the men they are cuckolding.
So, what do you say to that? .
amen
yeah the dead look in their eye as they spend the weekend tramping through the shopping mall with their fat 3, and several badly behaved entitled hell spawn in tow says it all…. they are as happy as a guy on death row…. at least he gets his smokes, and an hour in the yard once a day…. happiness on a stick…. pure utopia…
Golden dollar well said. Double digits is right. My slut (friends with benefits) had made plans for me to be her boyfriend. Before I asked her how many cocks she took, I would constantly reassure her its awesome for women to be promiscuous, and they at least should have more than 20 dicks before they settle. Just a smoke screen to put her at ease. The first time the lying slut tells me her number “I had maybe 8 to 10 that I remember”…. (at this point I completely disgusted). So I start slowly shaming her, calling her a slut and a whore… throughout the four months that I banging her her notch count went down to FUCKING TWO COCKS! DO YOU SEE HOW THEY FUCKING LIE?
Always put her at ease, support promiscuity, and then when she is tipsy you can ask her notch count. Let the shaming begin and watch the count go down….
Honey-do lists. Hahahahahahahaha, rofl, unfuckingbelievable. Thank you Sir.
So feminism prevents “strong husband and wife teams”? Absolutely. Did you actually read the article to which your ridiculous and totally off base comments are attached? Didn’t think so.
Hold up…you just got done saying that men were suffering because women were leeching off of men and *not* working…
Ten years ago I was a 14 year old freshman in high school. this girl slapped me because I said something she didn’t like but was true, and then I refused to slap her back. the next day I had a female friend telling me that she saw the whole thing and that I had every right to slap her back a female friend.
this chick on youtube copped an attitude with me because I pointed out she was in no position to “exclude from her marriage pool” men who didn’t want to marry women with high partner counts.
Back then kids knew they f-ed up when their mom told them “wait till your father gets home!” now fathers are a joke, especially these fairies.
They also have a tendency to be those feminists that get given an opportunity to implement their vision of utopia.
“The things you’re talking about…working in mines and shit–that has nothing to do with women. That has to do with the harsh living conditions of the era.”
Exactly, and that goes both ways. This is precisely the point we’re making.
Who is responsible for the female dominated – US – society we have today? “Spousal rape” is some real bullshit. Marriage by defnition is an agreement to sex. Insanity. But this is besides the point.
There is no such thing as spousal rape. The wives body belongs to the husband. Check your bible. or if you don’t believe in the bible, check the normal marriage vows. In a marriage, the wife is under the husbands authority, always has been always will be. When a woman runs the marriage it is usually a disaster. When a man is head of his household and is just, things run smoothly. If a husband strays its both of their faults. The woman for not pleasing the husband in bed and the husband for breaking his vow.
You forget the common law of the land:
“whats hers is hers and whats his is “theirs”(“theirs” meaning “hers”)
lol, yep! Thats why men should never marry or divorce in America. Too many White Knights have caused extreme damage to American society.
The sad thing is, I have no idea if you’re joking…
Why would he be joking? When you say yes to the man proposing to you…. YOU voluntarily relinquish all rights and freedoms. The Man is allowed to do as he pleases with your body, for example: even sell you as a quick ruck if rent is due and no money in pocket. Been there, argued with a slut, sold her, paid the rent. Thanks.
Sorry, was just speaking the truth.
>The wives body belongs to the husband.
You might want to take another look at the rest of that verse.
1 Cor 7:4:The wife does not have authority over her own body, but her husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but his wife does.
Additionally…
Ephesians 5:21-33: 21 Be in subjection to one another+ in fear of Christ. 22 Let wives be in subjection to their husbands+ as to the Lord, 23 because a husband is head of his wife+ just as the Christ is head of the congregation,+ he being a savior of this body. 24 In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, wives should also be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, continue loving your wives,+ just as the Christ also loved the congregation and gave himself up for it,+26 in order that he might sanctify it, cleansing it with the bath of water by means of the word,+ 27 so that he might present the congregation to himself in its splendor, without a spot or a wrinkle or any of such things,+ but holy and without blemish.+
28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. A man who loves his wife loves himself, 29 for no man ever hated his own body,*but he feeds and cherishes it, just as the Christ does the congregation, 30 because we are members of his body.+ 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and he will stick to* his wife, and the two will be one flesh.”+ 32 This sacred secret+ is great. Now I am speaking about Christ and the congregation.+33 Nevertheless, each one of you must love his wife+ as he does himself; on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect for her husband.+
Thank you! I need not say more. You have covered everything. Perfectly! 🙂
We never own women, we just rent them one way or another. Who wants to buy anyway when you can trade up for a new model every few years once the lease is finished? 😀
LMAO!!! It actually makes sense in this day and age of feminism and quickie divorces. I wouldn’t advise any man to marry in america or most american women.
A woman is not an object. I’m going to tell you a scoop: it is a human being!! Incredible, isn’t it? It is not a pet you own. And when you own a human being or its body it is just called slavery. It is a human being so you can’t own somebody and do whatever you want with her body against her will, otherwise you would be a monster in denying someone their humanity, integrity and their free will. Your body only belongs to yourself, no one should force you to do something with your body if you don’t want to or if you thing it’s degrading, it applies for women too (another scoop)! I don’t care about your religious bullshit, the world is secular now, the law is atheist. “always will be”, who are you to tell what it will be? It is not the case anymore anyway: spousal rape is prohibited by law. You belong to the past guy and that is making me laugh so much, I would like to thank you for that, it has been a long times since I met someone I could laugh at so much without feeling ashamed of myself. You are the kind of person that make other people feel extremely intelligent (compared to you). I never heard so much comic bullshit before. Thanks. From the bottom of my heart.
I am glad I could be your comic relief. But just a few corrections…When you were saying woman, you were referring to “her” as an it. It is a thing…things are property. You mentioned Slavery. And in your statement you said “when you own a human being or its body it is just called slavery”, And in the very next sentence, you stated ” It is a human being so you can’t own somebody”. Thereby contradicting yourself….as only a woman could. If you are going to attempt to insult me, make sure you don’t make yourself look like an idiot in the process. At least insult me as an intelligent human being…..if you are capable but by your earlier statements, I am assured you are not. I know this is a waste of my valuable time but I will attempt, in vain, to educate you. Now…on to your other points. For your sake, I will leave all biblical references out, for what is the point in referencing morals to the terminally immoral. So lets just go with secular, now….or better yet human nature. It is human nature for a man to dominate a woman. He claims her as His territory and property. She is under him. Human beings have been slaves to other human beings since the beginning of humanity up till present day….yes, there is slavery still today in the world. The laws you quote are made and enforced by….men..not women. You say I belong to the past…Thank you. I could not think of a better compliment. In the past, men were real men and women were women, not the mere shadow of the things they have become now. For your sake, you’d better hope the past becomes the future, because if it doesn’t and your atheist society comes to be realized….women will be actual slaves of men, and rape will be a right of passage for most. Oh ..an there is no such thing as spousal rape.. 🙂
When I was working for a centre offering mediation services, I wrote in to the head of a female rights group foolishly thinking at that time, we could reach out to feminists groups with the promise of mediation being able to ease the pain of a protracted divorce litigation for both husband and wife. I got a nicely worded letter back from the head of the orgsnisation saying that “thank you for the offer but it is not in our current interest to introduce mediation to our members”.
The underlying message was clear and simple. Feminist groups are not interested in equality. What they are interested in is supremacy. The term feminazi truly is an appropriate way to describe your kind. Maybe you are one of the less radicalized kind but the entire ideology is about supremacy.
Needless to say, I don’t do matrimonial mediation cases anymore. I cannot remain neutral anymore after seeing how the majority of men get divorce-raped by the women they once loved.
We may not oppose you individually as a person. But I think it’s safe to say that I and the majority of RoK readers will oppose the ideology of feminism for as long as we live. In this, I’m certainly not neutral.
“women were locked out of the house for having vaginal odor”
Damn right!
My gut tells me women wouldn’t be so eager for equality if we were still a blue collar society
Most women (of any reasonable quality in the looks department) can’t even work fast food jobs. You think those sluts would lower themselves to working in a plant or steel mill? The closest I find is the farmer’s wives, and even they don’t do certain jobs.
Not everything is about looks. Many women I know are successful buisness women and the breadwinner of their household. I know multiple women who own law firms for god’s sake. I don’t know in what generation you grew up, but not every female is a slut.
I find it really disturbing that these men think it’s acceptable to call a woman a slut to begin with.
And why is that unacceptable exactly? Do you feel that women are immune from all criticism? Do you feel that women should not be judged by men using criteria that men find important? Or is it something else?
Look around toots. Probably not the best place for feigned libtard grrrl outrage.
So if a woman knowingly deceives a man into thinking he fathered a child by another man, when she has cheated with multiple men, you wouldn’t say she is a slut? And for that matter, what names are off limits for women to call men, hmmm?
To a man, your looks are always number 1. ALL of us. Accept it, get over it. Oh, and if you’ve been told different by men, they’re lying.
I told my ex that her best friend was a slut on a regular basis. When an older woman gets so desperate for the cock that she pays for the lodging of a penniless but handsome young man half her age in order to fuck him, ha ha, that’s a slut! And she was maxing out her credits cards in order to do so. This was just one of a string of men, but I’d never thought she’d stoop to paying for sex. When I kept telling my wife that it was prostitution, she’d get defensive and say, “She’s just helping him out” Ha ha, sure, and he’s just helping her get off. Women can’t accept that they’re paying for sex in such situations; they try to romanticize it. Men, on the other hand, don’t give a shit: “that was a great fuck, here’s you money, leave!” 😀
Nope, she’s a feminist. Feminist don’t think for themselves. They just parrot what everyone else says.
Of course I’m building off of the original feminist ideology. Because they’re correct. I think for myself, thank you very much. But yes, I am going to repeat statements I strongly agree with.
Yes, that is a slut. Girls have standards. I would call someone like that a slut, but that’s out of context. The earlier comment generalized women as sluts, which is NOT the case. I don’t think that all men are misogynist, arrogant, fools who think with their dicks, so I won’t generalize all males as such. However, those who are, will be told.
Just what the world needs – more fucking lawyers.
But when those lawyers need something built, fixed, or maintained, I bet they call….. a man.
And let’s take a look around their office – every damn thing there designed and built by….. men.
Feminism is 1,000% bullshit. Like you.
I’d love to grab my accountant by the neck, throw her face down on her desk, yank up her skirt, tear down her panties, and fuck her silly! 😀 Sure, she’s well educated and accomplished, but in the end she’s still just a hot wet pussy.
ok well, he was using that as a general term, and you basically retaliated by generalizing all men as finding it ok to call every and all women a slut, while simultaneously implying that NO woman deserved to be called a slut. At least feminazis have some withered form of “standards,” if any.
Don’t you just feel great about calling a little girl bullshit? And when you have a lawsuit on your hands, damn right. You will want the world to have more fucking lawyers.
Correct about what, exactly?
This should be good.
Youre expecting better treatment because youre a little girl? Not very Feminist of you.
The reason the world has become as litigious as it is is because of the over supply of lawyers. We need far less of them than we have.
And watch the potty mouth young lady, or you’ll have to go stand in the naughty corner. Now, off to bed with you, its time for your nap!
That women and men are different, but should still be equal. Men should not be superior because of their sex. Both genders should have equal opportunity, equal pay. I’d love to keep going but I don’t have time for this argument. I have midterms and 4 essays due this week, so I’m done arguing for now.
Like Brian said earlier, sounds like you’re just parroting what someone else has said, and that you dont really understand it. Theres a number of contradictions between what you just said and what Feminists focus on and the actual results of Feminist policies.
I find it really disturbing how turned on my girlfriends get when I call them a slut and a whore in bed.
Female Marine recruits unable to do minimum amount of pull-ups (three). So what does the Corps do? It changes the requirements.
http://www.npr.org/2013/12/27/257363943/marines-most-female-recruits-dont-meet-new-pullup-standard
Smfh.
When I served in the airforce branch in Canada over 20 years ago, someone made a cartoon that circulated around the base. In it were 4 ‘people’: A transvestite, a fag, a dwarf, and a fat chick putting on makeup.
Underneath was this caption: “Want to join the Forces? No problem! We’ll lower our standards to meet yours!”
That shows you how much society has progressed.
Perfect Example!
Sad but true.
The worst part is that real capable homosexuals and/or women are insulted by those that don’t meet ”the standard-standard” and will face discrimination at work and stereotyping as ”less capable” for the negative reputation that the others gave.
True that, an awful lot of standards get thrown away in the name of improving an organisations appearance of ‘diversity’.
I’m Canadian, and that is really pisses me off. Why on Earth would my country LOWER the standards for them!?
The military isn’t for you, you’re for the military-or at least that’s how it should be.
Otherwise it would be racist or sexist. Keep up sluts.
During puberty, women get fat cells, men get muscle cells, so naturally men can, on average, do more pull-ups. This in no way, shape, or form, a measure of mental capacities. So just because women can’t do as many pull-ups doesn’t make them any less of people.
No, the amount of pullups one can do is not a measure of mental capacity. It is however a good measure of physical capacity, which is an important quality to measure when selecting for the armed forces.
You are correct. But physical fighting is not the only part of the armed forces.
Combat is their primary role and main reason for existing. Many of the jobs are physically demanding. Theres a reason for the standards, and its nothing less than a disgrace to have the armed forces weakened in order to serve such a pathetic and craven political agenda.
Right. There’s also group hugs. You empty-headed college freshperson twat.
Which is a feel-good statement that would look great on a Hallmark card or something but here In Real World Land, that’s not going to help people with the important things- like not getting shot.
physical fighting is not the only part of the armed forces.
And? Neither is seeing, I don’t see blind people complaining they aren’t allowed on the front lines because they can pull the trigger as well as any vision privileged soldier.
Yes, they can but if the other side has people with 20/20 vision and im stuck with people who can’t tell the difference between night and day im fucked and why am I fucked? Because blind people need to feel special.
Feminists are literally willing to get people killed just so women can feel special.
So what do you want these women to do, then, if not fight in combat?
Maybe any of the many intelligence, computer-based jobs?
That’s the job that I do, and yeah there are about 50-50 ratio of women to men, which I’m glad for. I love flirting with young hotties in cams.
That would be a first, because most of you want them in combat with men.
You really are fucking retarded, aren’t you? It makes them less capable soldiers.
However, just as men are physically stronger than women, they are also intellectually stronger than women. Its a fact, and why should it not be? There is no principle of biology which states that women ought to be the intellectual equal of men, just because if it were so it would make you feel good. In fact, biology already sets the precedent: men are demonstrably stronger physically than women, and so it follows that men are also stronger intellectually than women.
And indeed we can see that this is true: all of the top chess players in the world are men. Chess is a competitive sport which requires spatial intelligence and intellectual processing power to prevail at. And in chess, we can see that, just like all other sports, women need to have their own women-only divisions, where the standard of play is much much lower, because women are simply not strong enough to compete against men.
Would the movie Braveheart be Braveheart if it were a bunch of fucking women fighting? No, once they started applying the war makeup they’d get distracted and things would have degenerated into a girls’ night out.
Deep inside, men want to fight and taste their enemy’s blood.
Deep inside, women want to give birth to and nurture the children of men who want to fight and taste their enemy’s blood.
My all girl chess team won 4th at nationals a few years ago…
Lol, who won 1st?
and second, and third …
The team that was best… Which also had girls on it…
Congratulations, you can justifiably be proud of that achievement.
I’d like to play against you one day…
Though very intellectual women exist and the genes for intellect are carried on by BOTH the father and the mother I wouldn’t generalize that soon, though a majority of the intelligentsia is male.
That aside, Chess is a horrible example, as a game it’s really easy and I’ve seen intellectuals being beaten by idiots in it, Microsoft’s Age of Empires or so many other games measure intelligence way better than lousy chess. (I’ve been beaten in chess by intellectually inferior people a lot, and I never took the game serious, though in my own competitive way I do, as for checkers which i”s j”ust a game” just like Chess the same still applies, I could get my arse kicked in Chess, but I could hand them their own arses in Microsoft’s Age of Emrpires/emoires/empires).
There are a lot of intellectual women, merits should be sought by individuals, not whole groups. I know hundreds of intellectual men at a personal level and many stupid females, yet I’d never immediately assume of a random man to be intelligent or a random woman to be stupid based on those experiences, as many men can be stupid, and many women (like my awesome Fiancée) could be very intellectual.
Again, chess is not the sport of Brainiacs, Napoleon wasn’t good at chess, he was reasonable, most of his Generals could easily beat him in it, yet on the real actual battle field he wiped the floor with almost everyone, (I really hate Napoleon, but I must recognize this fact) so claiming that chess is directly linked to intellect because some I.Q. studies place higher I.Q’S AT the champions of chess doesn’t make them more capable scientists as for example a scientist with a slightly lower I.Q. but more years of study and is well-respected, I bet if (s)he would read how some gamer (as that’s all what chess-players are) has a higher I.Q. score than him/her that (s)he’ll simply laugh and think ”I.Q. scores are for idiots” (using I.Q. scoring I’m intellectually gifted, and seeing how people with lower scores are more successful than I, I hardly see any reason in it to take it serious).
actually in IQ tests its been proven that women on the whole are smarter than men in the 110-130 category but thats it. almost 90% of the geniuses in the world are men in the 135+ categories but at the same time men far outweigh women in the near retard categories of 90-70. so basically what im saying is that the average woman on an iq test is smarter than the average man but at the same time as this there are way more men in the very smart side of the bell curve. this explains by on the whole why women do better in school and the lop sided nature of colledge and university enrollments towards women and it also explains how a large proportion of the most famously intelligent people in the world are male. all of this however is done via the iq test which is slowly loosing credibility
No, this is nonsense. What the actual study results say is that men are on average 5 I.Q. points smarter than women ACROSS THE BOARD. This is FACT, it is unarguable.
Girls do better at school for two reasons. One is, they actually are smarter than boys of an equal age between the ages of about 8-13. Enjoy those years girls, they’re the only age that you’ll be smarter than your male peers.
But more importantly, because men and boys are DOERS. They’re designed to learn be being out in the field and DOING it. Women are girls on the other hand are much more suited for sitting around and TALKING about things, that’s how they learn.
SO we see that modern day schooling uses completely fem-centric methods, so its no surprise to see that boys don’t perform as well. Indeed 2/3rds of them these days are diagnosed with the sham-illness ADHD and drugged into somnolence.
Also, how would the left-wing schooling establishment react if boys started out-performing girls in schools and getting better results like they should be after the age of about 13? There would be an uproar I guarantee.
And regarding university, I mean its bullshit. I wanted to study something cool at university, like “Epic Battles of the Medieval Era” or “The Rise and Fall of Military Sparta” or something masculine and interesting, but instead there were only subjects like “Aboriginal Feminists in the Modern Era” or “Cultural Diversity Studies and Gender Equality”. I mean, what sort of self-respecting male gives a shit about stuff like that?
[citations needed] you really can’t argue this based on generalizations. Unless you put together a thought-provoking argument with proper citations, thesis, and conclusion, I’m not buying what you’re selling. Just saying something is an inarguable “fact” doesn’t make it so. You need to provide proof and evidence and actual studies that have been done. But to your point, if we can educate men and women together from kindergarten to grad school without major issues for either gender based purely on intelligence I don’t see how this is relevant or valid. It’s also been argued that IQ tests are not an accurate measure of actual intelligence.[source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9755929/IQ-tests-do-not-reflect-intelligence.html%5D and with a score of 120, I’d consider myself unbiased.
“[citations needed]” Truly spoken like a person who has never seen a single scrap of Intelligence research in their life. Although I’m not surprised, the results of Intelligence research are so Politically Incorrect that the powers that be do their utmost to hush them up and sweep them under the carpet.
This is an internet website, it’s petulantly ridiculous for you to demand a “thesis” with “proper citations”. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?
But I’ll throw you a bone by posting a few links, such as this one: “Studies with large representative national samples from Spain, Denmark, and the United States, as well as meta-analyses of a large number of published studies throughout the world, all conclude that men
on average are slightly but significantly more intelligent than women, by about 3-5 IQ points. So this has now become the new (albeit tentative) consensus in intelligence research.”
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200901/why-men-are-more-intelligent-women
And here is my source for my assertion that girls are smarter than boys: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201010/girls-are-more-intelligent-boys-men-are-more-intelligent-w
Demanding “citations” and a “thesis” in the comment section of a game internet site is just facetious. You realise how ridiculous you sound?
But just to prove a point I’ll quote this psychology today article: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200901/why-men-are-more-intelligent-women
“Studies with large representative national samples from Spain, Denmark, and the United States, as well as meta-analyses of a large number of published studies throughout the world, all conclude that men on average are slightly but significantly more intelligent than women, by about 3-5 IQ points. So this has now become the new (albeit tentative) consensus in intelligence research.”
That same author, in another post, goes on to say:
“In an earlier post, I discuss the new consensus in the intelligence research in the 21st century that men on average are slightly (but significantly) more intelligent than women, by about 3-5 IQ points. However, in the same post, I also note that it is not because they are male that men are more intelligent but because they are taller. Taller individuals are more intelligent than shorter individuals, and men just happen to be taller than women. In fact, once we control for height, women on average are more intelligent than men. It still remains true, however, that, without controlling for height or anything else, if you simply compare men and women, men on average are slightly more intelligent than women.
Another little-known fact is that, because girls on average mature faster than boys, the male advantage in intelligence does not appear until after puberty, when boys and girls finish maturing and growing. Until then, girls are on average always more mature than boys
at any given chronological age. So comparing boys and girls, say, at age 10, is like comparing boys at age 10 and girls at age 12. Naturally, older and more mature children have greater cognitive capacity than younger and less mature children. So if you compare boys
and girls at the same chronological age, girls on average are more intelligent than boys. In other words, the sex difference in the rate of maturity masks and drowns the sex difference in general intelligence.”
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201010/girls-are-more-intelligent-boys-men-are-more-intelligent-w
Sure, IQ tests are an imperfect measurement, that’s why I used the example of Chess. We could also look at Nobel Prize winning physicists, or military geniuses who have won many battles, or any other example you can think of, they all show that men are smarter than women.
That’s not to denigrate women, women have many, many noble and virtuous qualities. But being as intelligent as men is not one of them.
You want a “thought-provoking argument with proper citations, thesis and conclusion”?
Here then, read this: http://science-castle.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/normal-0-false-false-false-en-gb-x-none.html
It might not make them any “less of people”, but it certainly makes them less capable Marines.
In the frontlines, combat, yes.
So by the same standards ¿we should lower the standards for men as well if they’re physically less capable but mentally more capable? ¿why doesn’t anyone make that argument then?
You’re absolutely right, but I don’t think his comment was implying that women are less of people.
That’s bullshit. Up here in Canada I remember when all RCMP officers were huge towering men; they commanded respect out of their sheer size. My last encounter with an officer was with an overweight female who stood a whole 5’3″ and had an ass the size of a garbage dumpster (she was ugly as fuck too, but that’s besides the point). While she was chewing me out I had to fight the urge to laugh in her face; I’m sure I was smirking the whole time.
If an officer cannot command physical respect, situations escalate and more violence occurs and the use of weapons increases; not a good scenario for anybody involved.
Also, women are leaving the RCMP en masse, claiming post traumatic stress syndrome, being paid big disability pensions, and costing taxpayers a lot of money in the end. Society’s paying for our so-called “equality”.
If you as a woman think that you’re equal to a man, then you go physically neutralize that PCP-whacked psycho without using your weapons, as I remember the huge RCMP officers of my teenagehood very easily could. 😀
I agree with all of this but one point. Male, large male officers are the ones who are the biggest cowards, quickest to draw their guns and shoot innocent people and make the worse assumptions and decisions when it comes to use of force. Of course they are more competent than female officers. But they tend to be the ones most likely to shoot some syrian kid alone on a ttc bus for wielding a knife. Frankly they shouldn’t be on the police force because they are overly paranoid and tend to escalate the situation more by trying to use “overwhelming force” rather than talking the suspect out of it.
I find it odd myself too, but large white male often make poor officers because they are overly fearful. They are the ones who go beating g-20 protestors like adam nobody.
“Male, large male officers are the ones who are the biggest cowards, quickest to draw their guns and shoot innocent people…”
Yeah, [Citation Needed].
Based on what I’ve observed and I study I read, I think I will have to look it up. Anyways you can just look at officers convicted for using too much force like the one convicted of anal raping suspect, large man, the one who shot that kid to death on the bus in toronto, large man. Its just the truth alot of these big guys are either trigger happy or complete cowards.
Also the cop convicted of beating that guy at the g20 again large man.
Personally I’d respect female marines and other ”government jobs” or just jobs in general more if they’d have the same standards as men, this doesn’t help women by lowering standards for them, it literally proves to a lot of their colleagues ”that women are less capable” while women that actually meet all the standards are being brought down by those other women (yep, NOT MEN), so whining for lower standards to meet quota’s disrespects the women that actually make it a stronger force.
Even more entertainingly it’s often spouted that if women ruled the world there would be less wars because woman are allegedly more inclined towards not fighting.
Meanwhile, back in the 97-2003 period Tony Blair became British prime minister and new labour came to power along with embracing positive discrimination with all-women shortlists (meaning that for loads of constituencies the labour vote was for a women), thus Labour became the party with the most women on the Green Benches, they became known as the ‘Blair babes’. This is important because come the vote to go to war in Iraq nearly 40% of male Labour MPs opposed the Iraq War only 25% of female Labour MPs did. Guess they were all off-message that day…
White women owned slaves (men slaves)… tell me what opressed group owns as property the very group they are supposedly oppressed by?
Oh shit, another Millennial or tripped-out Boomer watches some Leave it to Beaver or similar drek and has a wet dream of nostalgia for a happy golden fairy tale of domestic life that never really existed. Try this instead: hag-faced housewives who looked like shit in their mid-twenties, thanks to constant child bearing. Drooping tits and haunches like a plowhorse. And some poor equally worn-out sap coming home to his frowsy hausfrau and houseful of screaming brats. No thanks.
I’ll take today’s problems over yesterday’s.
So, what you are saying is a worthless, ugly “housefrau” is an affront, while the same woman out banging whoever will stick it in her is glamorous and empowered, right? Get out of town, shit heel.
You sound like a bitter chick. And lol @ the lame ” being a housewife will age you ladies” attempt. Coz you know navigating the rat race every day to a make work cubicle just does wonders for a woman’s looks.
I’m sure a 25 year old housefrau, “hag-faced” from the patriarchy, is still much much hotter than a 38 year old “empowered” woman who thinks she can wait until 40 to settle down.
EQUALITY!!!! what a joke! There is no such thing and has never been such a thing. Feminists claim they want equality with men. That is a foolish notion. Women will never be equal to men. Biblically they are not, Naturally they are not. A woman bleeds 5-7 days a month. men do not. A woman can get pregnant. men cannot. If all women fought physically against all men, they would lose, be dominated, and men would have there way with them. Where is the equality? The simple and honest truth is that Women are not nor have ever been, nor will ever be equal to men. And thats a good thing. Women are different from men, AS THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO BE. When a woman tries to stand in the place of a man, its unnatural. It disrupts the natural order of things. Women, by and large, thing men view them with respect in the workforce. This is folly. While men may respect a woman’s work ethic, if she is remotely attractive, all that is really on our minds is bending her over the desk and having a go at it, boss or no boss. Yes ladies, even if you are the boss, all of the men around you are thinking about banging you when they talk to you (if you look decent). Its human nature. Women get special treatment in the work force. Maternity leave! I can’t come to work today because my cramps are killing me. I can’t do the same amount of physical activity as a man in the same job, so the standard should be changed for me. None of this speaks to equality. It screams inequality. Women trying to fight on the front lines of war does not frighten our enemies, it emboldens them. When ever women have a problem that physically threatens them….they call men. If A woman’s boyfriend/husband is kicking her ass, does she call other women to help her or does she call her brothers, cousins, fathers, uncles, police…all of which are men. Does a lion view a lamb as its equal or as its prey? Does a wolf view a sheep as its equal or as prey? As long as men can physically dominate women, we will never view you as our equals, and we shouldn’t…..its illogical.
amen….. until the robots run things….
Damn Skynet!!! lol
Please watch the Swedish series “Akta Manniskor” to see what would happen in a society where robots slowly awake to consciousness. The series include lots of fembots, mixed marriages (human / robots), extremist anti-robot parties / extremist pro-robot parties, etc. It is very good.
i found a torrent of it with eng subs, downloading now, thanks for the suggestion buddy!
Women and men are not the same, and biology bears that out. Equality between men and women that is actual equality isn’t a bad thing in the least. Actual equality, however, means equal pay for equal work, not demanding equal pay when it’s roughly 60-40 in favor of men when it comes to who works more hours, nor when it’s 92-8 in favor of men when it comes to workplace fatalities.
Equal rights for equal responsibility. I’m registered to vote, but I’m also registered for the draft. Many women are registered to vote without being registered for the draft. Now that women are allowed in combat roles, why shouldn’t they be automatically registered at 18?
I agree with you. Also remember that a nation that puts women on the front lines is weaker, not better for it. Our enemies become emboldened and view us as weak….whether or not it is true….perception is reality.
Man, that post just contained far too much logical. Pity the femtards will probably ignore most of it.
Always hit them with logic.
Feminism is good for the Elite(1%), that’s why governments support it they give shit about us I think, if there is no strong family than they have easier job to control people. I’ve watched some video about Obama speaking (I am Hungarian), maybe I should ask him to teach me NLP and mind control as he’s really adept at that. I preferred the old family model, just my two cents.
Great article.
Hows the horses?
They’re cold, so I have been very busy knitting them all warm winter booties.
You suck, bitch.
Lol.
Thanks
One thing about the past: one person’s salary (usually the man’s), was enough to live a nice happy family lifestyle. These days, it seems to take the combined salaries of two working parents to make it as a family, and even then it seems to be a mere subsistence at times.
Did the world elite use feminism and the rise of the female workforce as an excuse to dramatically increase the cost of living? If it took only one person’s salary to live a middle class lifestyle 50 years ago, whereas now it takes the salaries of two, is that not a massive decline in our standard of living? It sure as hell seems so to me!
don’t blame some mystical ‘elite’ that is pulling the strings… it’s simple market forces…..
if all the women are put into the work force there are that many more people chasing the same number of jobs, so companies can pay less and be more selective about who they employ…
if all women stop working ala 1950s style… suddenly the market place for skilled workers, especially in well paying middle management, sales, marketing, and executive positions is balanced and companies have to compete over a small pool of workers, thus forcing them to pay higher wages.
if it was expected for a middle class man to be able to support a wife and 2.4 kids on a single salary that is what a company had to pay… if it’s now expected that the wife should go to work, then the company has to pay less….
simple market forces… nothing more, nothing less…. thanks to women’s equality we all earn less and cannot have stay home moms and housewives….
My impression of a feminist in response: Boo hoo! You hater! Blamer! Shamer! Blame CAPITALISM, not WOMEN! *screech* *wail*
Well, that is a good argument. Because it is in fact capitalists who saw the benefit to this thing called “feminism”. More workers for them, and more importantly… more women for their harems.
the first wave was wealthy women jumping on the bandwagon of the emancipation of slaves – they were bored – too much entitlement – too many servants….. the second wave was women having to work during WW1 and WW2 for the war effort… and of course all the dead servicemen made single mothers socially acceptable…. it’s been all down hill since then…. i don’t see it as engineered as such… it’s just the typical whining female way of leveraging any opportunity to start pulling things apart and making life worse for everyone…. if women had carried on enjoying their privileges and living with their responsibilities and if feminism instead of trying to create men with tits and cunts had looked to embrace and enhance the female role in society… child bearing and motherhood being just a little bit important in the great scheme of things… doh!…… then the male – female social contract could have continued and society would be far better off….
most ‘male’ jobs and careers from doctor to engineer to sales and marketing and pretty fucking boring at the end of the day… compare that with the joy of incubating your own offspring and spending time with them in better and better home and social conditions…. it’s a gift to be female not a curse…..
Ray, you’ll take great pleasure in reading this, on how suffrage changed the size/scope of government: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf From Harvard, no less.
You have a point. Still, it is a 50% reduction in our standard of living.
And the ‘elite’ aren’t mystical; a relatively few number of people own/control a relative majority of energy/commodity/financial assets in this world.
The because of the Central Bank cartel and “globalization”.
Just to be technically correct, it’s a reduction or leveling in real household income. It’s indisputable that standards of living have risen constantly over the decades. For example, Q: how much would an iPhone have cost in the ’80s? A: Moot–they weren’t even a twinkle in Steve Jobs’s eye.
“Did the world elite use feminism and the rise of the female workforce as an excuse to dramatically increase the cost of living?”
Yes. The benefited are the world´s alpha man elite and its women. The rest (of men and women) must work like crazy to pertain to society (the market). In some countries, you have it better (western Europe and Scandinavia), in the US and the rest… work till you drop.
Difference is today everybody wants a big house, two cars and their children want their own room, their own PC and TV etc etc.
If you want to live 1950 style, 2 adults and 7 children in a 2 room apartment..it is certainly possible.
Pretty much, feminism did originate more from the upper/middle classes of women, which is why most far left groups up until quite recently universally regarded feminism as being a bourgeois ideology, instead preferring to focus on ‘women’s oppression’ (and a regular critique of far-left groups by feminists is that when they talked about ‘workers’ they almost always were talking about male workers while women were supposed to stay at home and raise the kids). Feminism is very much compatible with capitalism, it’s why the countries most afflicted have either been capitalist for over the past 100 years (or longer) or mixed economies. The rise of FEMEN could, if you were so inclined, likely be pinned on the former soviet countries having since transitioned to capitalism.
Rosa Luxemburg even went so far as to describe feminists as being ‘the parasites of parasites’, because at her time the feminists were the wives of the bourgeoisie who would ‘rescue’ girls from the lower classes from prostitution, being busty bar maidens etc – send them to homes to be retrained as domestic servants – to the sort of women who ran the homes ie – the wives of the bourgeoisie, whom freed from her domestic burden could continue to do her ‘good works’. Rosa recognised the class exploitation element intrinsic in feminism, whereby rich women lived of the labour of poor women, while simultaneously policing the poor women’s behaviour and sexuality so that poor women didn’t bring womanhood into ‘disrepute’.
Modern symptoms of this behaviour can be seen in protests against the opening of Hooters restaurants (or strip clubs), anti-porn campaigning, and the consistently confused targeting of prostitution where they come up with bright ideas that selling sex is okay, but being caught buying will send you to jail. Indeed I would not be surprised if the so called ‘feminist sex wars’ were fought along class lines, with the pro-sex lines being drawn from the lower classes while the anti-sex lines coming from the upper classes.
As per usual, misogynists tend to miss the point.
Women want agency, self-determinism; the ability and right to make yourself as happy or as miserable as YOU want or have the potential to become. It’s not about who was happier. It’s about who has power over their own life and their own decisions.
If men think this is so trivial, perhaps we should make entrepreneurship and self-employment illegal and force every man into a 9-5 office job whether they’re suited for it or not. While we’re at it, let’s reinstate the draft. Let’s see how much they praise lack of freedom then.
The draft was never a problem for men. Lets reinstate the draft with the current trend of “equality of the sexes”. Lets have women drafted at the same rate as men, see who complains….
“The draft was never a problem for men”
Is that why my country was filled with draft-dodgers and even today under stop-loss we still get them?
http://blogs.haverford.edu/amongfriends/files/2008/12/we-wont-fight-final.jpg?file=2008/12/we-wont-fight-final.jpg
Look at all those men with “no problem.”
A minority. If you remember there were THOUSANDS of men who were drafted. THOUSANDS. How many women would run to other countries or cry about the unfairness of it all.
Congress ended conscription in 1973 because of overwhelming outcry from men. Unhappy constituents – the same reason coverature was repealed. You can hate women, but you can’t change history:)
the funny thing about equal workplace rights for women, is that not a single feminist group is campaigning for equal rights in mining, deep sea fishing, arctic oil rig work, emergency helicopter pilots, rescue divers and other nasty, dangerous and lonely jobs… that are highly paid…. and women could surely do…..
no they want combat roles in the army because that’s glamorous and cosmo will run a cover story on them storming the machine gun nest.
let’s see equal numbers of women in remote gold mines and container freight shipping and then talk about the army.
Congress ended conscription because OF THE Vietnam War. A war we Could have won if we hadn’t lost public support at home. If you want to use historical facts…geT it right.
Of course, because drafts are un constitutional
The men in the picture aren’t against the draft per se (atleast it doesn’t show that). They’re against fighting a war which they perceive as ‘a rich man’s war’.i.e. the wrong war, a war they can’t seem to support for whatever reason.
We don’t hate women, we hate bitches.
So was coverature.
You define bitches as “any woman not in the kitchen making me a sandwich.”
Speaking of which, I could use a sandwich. Get your bitch ass in the kitchen and make me one before I backhand you 🙂
you are a cunt. i don’t mean to be rude, but you are a fucking cunt. most nations became free, rich or powerful by force of arms or the labour of men, so while you sit around enjoying the benefits that accrue to someone born in a free and advanced society, you get flippant about the sacrifices of those who made it possible. selfish fucking gash.
It’s not a sacrifice if you were forced to make it under duress and not volunteerism. It’s state-approved murder.
You could easily invert that. Men’s groups protest not-equal representation in colleges and universities saying that there should be more men on campus and complaining that schools “cater to feminine interests and pathologize masculinity” which alienates boys and causes them to underperform.
These same men’s rights groups don’t seem to be smart enough to figure out that the boys not attending college are likely attending trade school or doing an apprenticeship to a trade.
You sure do presume a lot. What kind of insane definition is that? A bitch generally is a woman with a huge entitlement complex…she expects many things but gives very little. You know…the complex that a great many of Western women suffer from.
because men traditionally worked on construction sites and built just about everything you can see in your city….. no women want those jobs…. they are hard, tough, demanding, physically exhausting and sometimes dangerous – if not physically then with exposure to industrial chemicals and toxins…..
let’s demand men have equality on maternity wards and see how far that arguments goes… let’s ban all male – female categories in the Olympics and see how many great female sports women there will be…. equality is for dip shits….
if women want equality they should put their eggs in cold storage for a real mother and be sterilized, before stealing valuable years being trained just to end up having kids and staying at home.
damn right… just as feminists define misogynists as any man not lumping out all his hard earned wages for their misguided privileges…
Women do not want you to pay their rent or groceries. They are quite content to do that themselves: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/12/29/mens-and-womens-gender-ideologies-ideals-and-fallbacks/
The draft was ended in America because of the Cold War. Since the Soviets had a mandatory draft (few were against it there — interesting how that works) the paragon of democracy and virtues such as the United States needed to remove it to look better…
Do you think the government gives a shit whether men complain about drafts or not? I don’t. It was motivated by geopolitics.
I fought in the Soviet Army in Afghanistan. You had to be tough to survive there. We would beat the shit out of pansy boys, force them to clean our toilets and do the dirty work because they were weak — they were not men. That is the way things should be. If a man complains of the draft, he should have the shit kicked out of him, maybe then he’ll be a man.
On some missions we’d be sent out deep into enemy territory, and more than once we’d get cut off from contact with HQ. We were entirely on our own, I don’t remember a single time when a man sat down and cried, or got depressed, or gave up. I remember the men coming together and figuring out a way to complete the mission.
funny that… so why do they want alimony, 50% of the assets and child support in a divorce ? why not just build their own life and get a sperm donor ? the women i know all take money from and rely heavily on their husbands, especially while having children… which is just kind of a bit of a major life changing and tricky thing to do…..
No, I am rude to cunts in general and it is by definition impossible to lose in an argument if the interlocutor refuses to engage with the points I have made. There is no denying it- the women of this world owe pretty much everything to the inventions of men, the freedoms won by the shedding of the blood of men, and the rights voted into existence by parliaments made up predominantly of men. As for your actual point- that people who were drafted made no sacrifice since they were forced to fight- I find that to be a very fitting indication of your capacity to appreciate what you have been given.You also seem not to notice how all the old people who fought in those wars show up with their medals to commemorate the non-sacrifice of their dead friends. I also find to be indicative of a deep ignorance- no army of unwilling conscripts could be victorious thousands of miles from home against a fanatical enemy. Now fuck off back to your Womyns’ Studies……in a building probably constructed by men.
Lisa was probably riding the Cock Carousel while they were shipping home all the body bags from Iraq and Afghanistan. She never even gave it a thought…
And a bunch of raghead camel jockeys with AK-47’s kicked your fucking asses and all your big tanks and helo’s didnt they?
He isn’t rude, Rug Muncher. That’s my job. And there are no arguments being made by anyone here. You’re puking up Women’s Studies cliches and we’re–up to now–being rather too polite, but essentially giving you a collective “Yeah, whatever.”
We don’t give a fuck about what you think your “struggle” is and what you think you need to do about it individually or as a “gender.”
If you swallow, believe and regurgitate feminist thought of any kind on any level, you are a part of the rot killing Western Culture. If you were a decent woman, you’d be married, rearing children, raising them as Christians and shutting the fuck up. But I can see for certain sure you aren’t capable of shutting up or being useful, so I pray the planet won’t have to bear your tedious progeny, though, with the planet’s luck these days, you’ve got the sperm bank on speed dial.
Was the outcry against fighting in Vietnam or the draft? See also: WWII. QED.
Well, to be fair, women call guys who cook “kitchen bitches”, so there’s a happy reciprocity there. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/07/lets-call-the-whole-thing-off/307488/?single_page=true
Holy shit, you are a disgusting hate filled creature. The absolute epitome of everything that is wrong and unnatural in the West.
You forgot to mention the aid, advisors, and – perhaps most significantly – Stingers supplied by the West. Kind of like how the Reds supported the Vietnamese, and we all know how that went.
It’s not like we’re doing that much better in Afghanistan than the Russians did anyway.
Stupid fucking argument.
Its interesting — I’ve recently been reading about the Soviet war in afghanistan — They were around 6 months away from being the first nation in 1000 years to conquer Afghanistan. They had most of the tribes on their side, and one or two were still holding out but were collapsing under the pressure. In desperation America introduced the Stinger missiles which changed the outcome.
So guest, you’re wrong. We didn’t get our asses kicked. At least we didn’t sit in our Green Zones, afraid to stick our nose outside of them. We actually did some fighting. We built Roads, schools, hospitals for the Afghan population. We tried to build electrical power plants.
This article isn’t about “women wanting agency.” You’re the one that missed the point. It’s about women claiming they were oppressed by men and had worse lives. No one is saying that women shouldn’t have power over their own lives.
If you are opposed to egalitarianism and many “traditionalists” who frequent this site are, then yes, you are opposed to women having power over their own lives.
the problem is Lisa is that women want power over their own lives, but not the full responsibility that goes with that….
You can’t pass laws based on subjective opinion, sorry.
We’re not opposed as long as we’re not charged for it. The problem is that women want the power but don’t want the consequences that come with it. This is al so the reason men generally don’t take women very seriously.
You want to talk about egalitarianism? Ok, then.
When a woman cheats on her husband and he divorces her because of it, he gets alimony from her for the rest of his life.
When a man wants a job at a company that employs lots of women, he should be automatically hired in order to keep the ratio of women to men equal, even if he has no skills.
The affordable healthcare act should cover condoms and spermicide for men just as women want it to cover abortions.
That would be an example of true egalitarianism. I’m not saying that’s what I want, either. But what we have today isn’t a fight for equality, it’s a feminists that have a sense of entitlement. On that note, isn’t it about time to register yourself for the Selective Service Lisa?
I am opposed to egalitarianism because I know all people are NOT equal. And we shouldn’t want to be. Everybody has different things they bring to the table.
I believe in the power of meritocracy, where those with the best skills for a certain position rise to the top of it. And that includes the very real skill of raising children. I know you femdoms hate hearing it but women are better at it, provided they have a stable home (this does not include single mothers who are out banging frat boys when they dish the brats off to daddy two weekends a month).
And, yes, I have been that frat boy banging single mothers. I don’t care what anyone says, they were not happy people. They could drink their pain away for a while and rationalize their loneliness, but it was very real and very deserved in most instances. They left their husbands on the hectoring of feminists telling them they have to be sluts to be empowered. As I look back, nothing is more clear.
Why not? Divorce laws prove that fact.
This is the silliest thing I have ever seen a feminist say. Which is saying a lot because feminists say the silliest shit all the time.
What do you think Obamacare is? That is a 2000 plus page compendium of opinions and whims.
And, as Mr. Direct points out, Marriage 2.0 proved that arbitrary and capricious thinking have entered our courts at the deepest levels of society. Get out of town.
You make no sense.
Infidelity is not considered in states with no-fault divorce. That includes male infidelity. Alimony is only rewarded in cases where there is a large income discrepancy in the marriage, and usually only after a minimum number of years that the couple has been married. In the real world this translates to alimony being awarded in under 20% of cases.
Condoms are provided for free at Planned Parenthood which is funded by the state, and men are welcome to go there and get some. Once abortion access is available in all states and there are no further attempts to scale them back, then maybe we can move on and discuss men being able to opt out of providing child support and effectively become a sperm donor without access to or responsibility for the offspring should their partner in an unintended pregnancy choose to opt out of an abortion that the man wants. Such discussions are not possible right now because there are competing interests, with some women – and men – wanting less access to the right to pregnancy termination, and some women – and men – wanting MORE access to pregnancy termination.
I’m not American and I don’t agree with Obamacare either, but only because it’s not true socialized medicine, there is a middleman; the insurance industry. And insurance, being the private sector, is motivated by profit (read: self-interest) and not patient well-being.
In other countries with universal medicine, doctors are given incentives to improve their patient’s health, not fleece them and disqualify them for “pre-existing conditions.”
Obamacare, foolish as it may be, was passed by legislators that were voted in by democratic process.
I have no doubt that you have been a frat boy. It sounds like maturity-wise you haven’t progressed much.
Yes “officially” no-fault divorce is equal as it does not consider infidelity. However, in reality most divorces end up looking like the man’s fault because judgement is typically awarded in the woman’s favor.
What exactly is wrong with a “fault” divorce? Doesn’t it make sense that if one person is to blame for messing up the marriage through infidelity or some other reason, they should pay for it? The only reason feminists in particular support no fault divorce is because they want to be able to be sluts and still take the man’s money. Ridiculous.
Also, I see no real reason that we couldn’t have a discussion on men not having to pay child support if the mother refuses to abort. How convenient for you that child custody and child support always works in favor of the woman, but when it comes to fairness for men the discussion can’t be had because of “competing interests.”
Actually, no-fault divorce rarely works in women’s favour. They get stuck with more childcare because men want them to have primary custody, and the few times this is contested (i.e. the few times when men actually want full-time responsibility for their offspring), it goes to men 60-70% of the time.
Because, like with a car, if you give a woman control over it, she’ll fuck it up and need bailing out. Witness: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/01/single-motherhood-increases-census-report_n_3195455.html
Wait. Didn’t this country just get done rewriting a thousand years of Western legal tradition in terms of marriage because of the subjective opinion of a perverted 1% of the population??
Shove off, skirt.
And if neither the woman nor the man wanted custody of the child, it could be given up for adoption. So while it’s true that men often don’t want custody of their kids, it’s also true that women often actively do want it.
Also, while you may believe that women should be able to have similar incomes to men, the fact remains that men are still usually the main salary earners. Therefore they stand to lose more from a no fault divorce.
Actually it doesn’t, men in America only get sole custody 5% of times. American court rapes men out of their children and make them financial slaves of the women.
Such an odd arrangement considering women acting on their own are twice as likely to kill their own children. Single mothers are also more like to raise criminals and daughters to be single mothers. Single fathers actually outperform them in raising productive citizens.
Americans have such a weird way of doing things…and they think Russia is backwards.
In America, men are like women without the privilege and they call it equality haha
You women and women enjoy good times ahead.
OK, thanks for your contribution. It’s always nice when men reinforce why feminism came into existence.
In cases where both parents decided, without involvement from a mediator or the court 83% of the time the mother ended up with custody because the father chose to give her custody.
Perhaps it’s misogynistic attitudes that men and women internalize that leads them both to feel that women are better-suited to parenting and childcare in the event of a separation. And perhaps that is why men don’t seem to want to fight for their children (unless we are talking about visitation, but they rarely seek full-time responsibility for them). Who knows? But do you know who takes issue with such paternalistic attitudes? Yep, you guessed it. That would be feminists and egalitarians.
You’re welcome.
What a compelling argument you’ve provided here. Please dazzle me with your IQ some more.
Nope, it’s the other way around, 80% of the father still loses when he wants custody if the mother wants sole custody herself.
It only really works out if the mother already agrees to joint custody. Women just rape men in courts in divorce related cases, fighting a custody battle costs at least 30k from start to fish for months of court bullshit. I don’t know many men that have 30k lying around, so that really sucks if men actually want custody.
Mothers on their own are twice as likely to kill their own children and more likely to raise criminals is not a good thing.
Well….we don’t consider that good parenting, maybe you got different standards in murica, I don’t want to judge another culture.
Nope, it’s not what you’ve said at all. You can reference both DivorcePeers.com and the American Bar Association if you doubt it. Most custody arrangements are decided independently of court with the man handing over the kid to the wife. 70% of the time when a man who was accused of being abusive petitions for custody, it is granted. The fact is that men do not contest custody for the most part. Perhaps they don’t want the legal fees, who knows, but they certainly don’t seem to feel that it’s worth it to fight for full custody.
Men are more likely to molest children and yet we don’t assume that men should not be trusted with children for this reason. The hypocrisy of men would be astounding if it weren’t so predictable. Criminals are tied to familial intactness and also to poverty. Child support is in essence an attempt to mitigate the conditions of poverty that aggravate criminality.
Also, I’m not American. Why are you assuming I am?Got a little country envy there?
Or perhaps it’s the natural “motherly instinct” that women display towards their children. Feminists conveniently leave out biology out of almost every argument.
For example, would you really dispute that men in general are pre disposed to be physically larger and stronger than women because of elevated testosterone levels?
Would you also dispute that men are very competitive by nature and because of these things would be better than women at physically demanding tasks? And, dare I say it, more adept at being disciplined and strategic.
This doesn’t mean men are better than women, both are very important to society just in different ways. Just because a woman CAN act like a man and do most of the same things, doesn’t mean she should. Just like I could go act very feminine, but it doesn’t mean I’d be happy doing it.
Now, I understand there are women that have a masculine persona and they should have the right to do whatever they want. I’m not against women’s rights. I am, however, against the destruction of the family unit, which no fault divorce has heavily contributed to. I am also for rights coming with responsibilities. For example, lots of people talk about how women could be infantrymen if they wanted to, but who’s ever seriously talked about including them in selective service? So women have the OPTION to serve in the military but no obligation like men would. That’s not equal in any sense of the word.
Your data is biased since 80% of cases are dropped part way through when the father runs out of money. They are not told the potential total cost from start to finish and get screwed part way. These cases do not count toward completed case files and get wiped from official stats.
As a result they are forced to settle outside of courts. Since they couldn’t get the court to give them joint custody, they are forced to give sole custody to the woman. America has a fucked up system.
There are many conflicting studies when it comes to men raping women and molesting kids. However, every time someone tries to publish new findings that shows otherwise, they get fucked over in their academic institutions by the feminists. Even the media downplays female pedophile criminals.
Here is an example of a British researcher that couldn’t further her work after feminist stunts
http://youtu.be/yPDL78e8UAs
Erin Pizzey, was fled from her own country after trying to unveil unpleasant truths about women…and she was the first one to build women’s shelters.
However, one thing is certain…you can’t fuck up the definition of death and you can’t mess with murder case investigation (unlike molestation/rape/pedophile investigations on women since it’s conducted by university researchers) so the fatality numbers are a figure to look at.
This site is largely about social commentary on the American culture and you’re commenting a lot on it, so there is a much higher chance that you’re American than not American. But common sense probability might not be so common there.
Egalitarianism is a pipe dream for mental children who can’t accept reality so they want a utopia on earth.
I should clarify (english as 2nd language) that I meant ‘unlike ‘Developing’ better molestation/rape/pedophile investigation ‘Techniques’ on women’.
As that researcher found, women can be a lot more emotionally manipulative to get away with it often times and other times it can be down played and dropped because they’re women.
The biggest argument is that women don’t have a penis and can’t penetrate and that researcher suggests women do it with tools and they can be more cruel with those tools. So there needs to be better ways to investigate women for those criminal cases. Unfortunately, she couldn’t finish her work due to feminist oppression.
oh yeah… and the UK which is the poster child for socialised medicine is just a perfect example of how crap socialism is….
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2012-6?op=1
They’re all socialized medicine with varying details.
And here is an example of 14 women who couldn’t further their work after misogynist stunts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre
The main reason being, they were shot to death for attempting to get an engineering degree.
That is the difference between an extremist feminist and an extremist misogynist; the latter are violent.
Hitler was voted in by democratic process. That’s the stupidest argument you can make.
And, I would ask why you think profit and caring for patients is mutually exclusive, but I would want to overheat your hamster.
Your point just further proved how fucked up feminism is. The murderer you referred to killed himself after, if he lived, he would’ve been punished to the highest extend of law.
What happened to the feminist oppressors that fucked over those researchers? Nothing. These feminist oppressors are criminals and the authorities won’t do anything about it. On top of this, female child molesters and rapists are still running free and will continue to damage children for generations to come.
You feminists all use the same tactics by bringing in weak sources and weak arguments with an illusion of legitimacy. All that crumbles under unbiased academic scrutiny. The communist governments have used this tactic in propaganda for much longer. It just works because most of the public are weak and can’t think for themselves.
Also, this site heavily focuses on American culture and the vast majority of visitors and commenters are American, you can get a basic idea from their traffic breakdown. Out of all the articles published here, very little refers to Europe and Australia. Just because you can find odd examples, it doesn’t mean it applies to the whole site. Common sense probability still applies, a random commentator has a higher chance of being American than non-American.
Ah, you’re slowing learning. No, we don’t mature much, and no, we don’t give a fuck. I’m quite happy to be a 20 year old inside a 45 year old body. I can’t get tight little hotties in Canada anymore, but luckily there’s Phils. I’ll be dead and gone by the time Phils ever changes its ways (if ever), so life’s pretty good and will remain that way! 😀
Oh you love it Big Tits! 😀
Okay…um…get thee back to the Cuntery, go.
Get it? Shakespeare reference. Now get your purse and go back to Jezebel where your arguments, such as they are, will be echoed by those who both think like you AND give a shit about your opinion. I think it’s safe to say you’re thoroughly Debbie Downering this exchange.
If you women are so smart then why did I see a segment on the news this morning about a 14 year old girl that was stuck in a washing machine?
I have the response:
http://youtu.be/HHlwhelL6rQ
I guess for the same reason this happened:
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2011/09/02/Police-Man-molested-vending-machine/UPI-21801314983941/
You want power over your life?
Here: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F_PTxpIjGXE
Egalitarianism is a beautiful thing no?
She should see the video. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Well, at least you’re a self-aware scumbag. If only most men were.
A badge I wear with honor, my dear!
I am neither pasty, nor fat. I am tan (by nature, I’m not white), and toned (by habit, I’m not a mom so I have time to work out).
What’s with you men and your projection issues?
Good for you. Too bad about your mentality.
Oooh. POST a nude! Just neck down, for anonymity’s sake. Brown Sugar!
Actually, I may yet marry again and not live out my golden years mongering in Phils, who knows. One of my Filipina employees has a shrine to Jesus in her room, with a few different statues of Him. In contrast, western women have shrines too, but it’s to their clitoris instead of Jesus, and instead of figures of Him stand various sex toys. Guess who’s marriage material?
Whether for marriage or mongering, Filipinas have western women beat hands-down.
OK, that’s fine. I am actually allergic to marriage so I find it hard to care that you have a mail-order bride. But I’m very happy for you, though. People should have agency over their own lives:)
Mail order?! Haven’t you heard of the net?! I prefer Fedex; the mail’s too slow for me
You guys are really misreading the situation. Female oppression isn’t the fault of men. And the majority of feminists don’t feel that way. Sure there were men in there leading the charge, but there were also women in society doing just as much enforcement of misogynist values. Misogyny is a societal problem. Sure there may be feminists who are unreasonable man-hating bitches. But you can’t look at one unreasonable human being and say because she’s being a bitch, women shouldn’t have equal rights or that women weren’t ever oppressed because some woman was being mean to you. That’s about as irrational as it gets.
I’ll summarize this one more time: Irrational feminists have absolutely no bearing on whether women were oppressed or whether that oppression caused suffering.
“It’s about women claiming they were oppressed by men and had worse
lives. No one is saying that women shouldn’t have power over their own
lives.”
Those two things are are not mutually exclusive. Two groups of people can both suffer and that doesn’t magically make the suffering of the other group disappear. Saying “oppression of women was no big deal” because men went through crap too…I mean, seriously?
What you call ‘misogyny’ has been responsible for the survival of civilization as we know it.
Who hunted for food and protected their tribe in the ancient world? Men.
Who did most of the physical labor to build the structures of civilization? Men.
Who made most of the scientific discoveries in the world? Men.
Who fought and died for the creation of nations across the globe? You get the idea.
Men are better at physical tasks like hard labor and warfare because of their naturally higher testosterone and competitive drive. Meanwhile women are better at taking care of children and things at home. This doesn’t make women any less important as without them the children may not have been cared for properly and the early tribes may have died out.
Now, some scientists believe that the earliest human-like species appeared as long as one million years ago. So for one MILLION years this survival strategy has worked and influenced our biological evolution, and you feminists think you can just come in in the past 90 years and prove everyone wrong? Feminism is just one big troll
yes, exactly ! – feminism is what George Orwell would call ‘newspeak’ – it has absolutely zero interest in anything feminine.
feminism is about validating women by comparing them to men, and WORSE – feminism undermines all females by telling them that natural female roles are demeaning…. feminism is about creating low value men who happen to have tits and cunts.
real feminism would be about improving conception, pregnancy, childbirth, early childhood years, and education. real feminism would embrace the very important female role in the world and empower women to be mothers and nurturers. real feminism would embrace the natural male – female polarity that is found in everything right down to the proton and electron.
Thanks, but I think women are just fine in defining what is real feminism themselves, thanks.
They don’t require your input.
xoxo
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-07-authority-women-higher-iq-men.html
Brute strength and a bad temper is no longer needed to sustain a civilization, sorry.
Only because those types of men secured it in the first place can we afford to even sit here and debate about it. Also, I don’t know where you live but there are still many wars in the world, and there is always the possibility of world war 3 breaking out, or a large scale natural disaster in which case the safe little bubble of our society will be burst, and men will be the ones who protect society. When presented with a serious survival scenario, mankind will make the same choice over and over again- men do the fighting/hunting, women take car of things at home.
On top of that, IQ tests are not necessarily accurate and women only scored on average one point higher than men. Does that article even account for possible error? Also, IQ is not the sole decider of who runs civilization. Presidents and CEO’s are not necessarily the ones with the highest IQ, but also have a combination of charisma, assertiveness and other things.
“Also, IQ is not the sole decider of who runs civilization.”
Oh, absolutely. In a real meritocracy, there would be no glass ceiling and America would have had at least one Chancellor Merkel by now.
We’re working on it.
Also, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121119093846.htm
The thing is the US is run by corporations who have tons of money. And the guys who run these companies are not necessarily the smartest, but perhaps the most charismatic or the ones able to screw over others and get to the top. The people who really own the US (and pretty much the world) are the ones behind the big petroleum companies who influence the government to go into illegal wars in the middle east to maintain the value of the petro-dollar. Some politicians are smarter than others but people with the highest IQ’s become scientists, not politicians.
Also, how many generations of people have thought they would see world peace and never did? Only the dead have seen the end of war. You are living in a fantasy land created by the safe comfortable bubble of western society.
You are one dumb bitch. You sit in your office and “work.” You drive home to your efficiency apartment and your cats. You go to the local meat market and find a 20 something to bang you out. You go on a cruise.
Who the fuck do you think maintains the infrastructure supporting your life? For all intents and purposes, 100% of the people working on the sewers, the electrical grid and the physical backbone of the Internet are men. 90% of cops and firefighters are men (and, asa former firefighter, 100% of the useful ones are).
Who builds your cars and your cruise ship? Even if a woman or two gets their hands dirty, it’s men who designed it.
that’s a great attitude to create a balanced male – female team work to raise a good society and have children… perfect….. nothing like hostile unilateralism to get things done…..
talk about entitled….
women don’t want men’s input in regards to feminism but you’ll happily use the car, telephone, computer and all the other nice gadgets men built for you…..
ah… so that’s why 50% of the $2 Trillion dollar federal tax revenue is spent on military… my mistake….
Who is to say that women could not create the same innovations? I mean, their intellectual potential was deliberately stifled for centuries. In a brief time, women have made all sorts of advancements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Kwolek, http://www.black-inventor.com/Dr-Patricia-Bath.asp
“as a former firefighter, 100% of the useful ones are”
Ha ha!
…Quite yet. Wait.
What a joke, why don’t you take a look at the Noble Laureates? Women are a tiny percentage that make world changing discoveries of that scale.
Uh…take a look at the elite levels of every top academic institution. There are hardly any women compared to the men that are driving cutting edge scientific innovation.
Yes it is. Go build something. See how far you and your sisters get. Have it at..
Maybe the fact that they didn’t?
Lisa456’s attitude shouldn’t really surprise you. She’s a middle class/upper middle class white woman. Should you really expect someone like her to go against a movement specifically designed to benefit privileged white women? Even if she were to admit that feminism only benefits a small segment of women, she enjoys those benefits too much to go against it.
Who is to say that women could not create the same innovations? Witness the level of technological and civilisational advancement of matriarchal societies, where women cannot rely on the excuse of “men holding them down”. The ones that havent died out are still living in mud huts with their livestock.
What a statement.Civilisation has always required more than just brute strength and bad temper, and it has always been men who have brought the needed skills to the table.
Advanced socieities need rhe active involvement of men, theres no two ways about it.
No one is suggesting the end of war entirely but statistical analysis shows that warfare is getting more and more uncommon as time passes. This is of course a natural progression as global testosterone levels lower and populations age (young men are the most dangerous demographic and always have been).
No I’m not. I’m a middle class NON-white woman.
Projection much?
Matriarchal societies like Israel. Indeed, mud huts.
Cuba is matriarchal and while they’re not exactly creating tons of innovation what with the communism and trade embargos, they DO have one of the most beneficial healthcare systems in the world.
Do you think men held in prison at gunpoint/threat of violence were creating a lot?
To quote your friend Apollo, “correlation does not equal causation.” Women have only just been freed from their post-agricultural-society role as the houseslave. It’s remarkable how much women DID create when you consider that they never even left the house: http://www.women-inventors.com/Margaret-Knight.asp
Neither Israel or Cuba are run by women nor do they have familial lineage through the mothers side (definition of Matriarchy). There are very few surviving Matriarchal socieities, although the Mosuo from China are one modern example.
Want to tell me about how great their healthcare system is?
lmao that was just stupid.
Yes, Israel has family lineage through the mother’s side. Are you new?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrilineality_in_Judaism
Yes, jewishness (the religious status) is passed through the mothers side, but children still largely take their fathers name. And with the name goes inherited wealth and status. Thats religious lineage vs familial lineage. And Israel is certainly not run by women. The jewish religion isnt either.
“Women have only just been freed”
yeah, for like the past forty years.
“from their post-agricultural-society role as the houseslave.”
Really? Slave? Only a privileged feminazi white girl would say some shit like this. So you’re seriously telling me that women taking care of the house while the men brought home the cash to keep the house over their heads was slavery for women. This is what happens when people don’t know real adversary; idiotic statements like this.
Now, I never once said women NEVER invented anything. Just that most of the major things we use, men did it. Which is true. The women that accomplished, accomplished without bitching about men-like you’re doing.
I’m not white and yes, a slave is someone who works for no pay and/or for whom it is very difficult to escape their circumstances. “Wage slaves” today also exist.
Point still stands. You’re a sheltered, privileged woman that hasn’t seen anything outside of her first world bubble. Thus, the idiotic statements that are in your comments. Like Damien said, people like you have no idea what real adversity is so you find a made up cause to latch on to to give you some purpose to your empty life.
Remember Damien, to a feminazi, being a corporate wage slave is freedom and being a housewife where everything is provided for by her husband is slavery. Really there’s no logic in this thought process.
Yeah I need to remember that-and that’s even one of my own main points.
“So you traded dependency on one man-a loving husband and father-for dependency on the government, your boss and human resources-made up of SEVERAL men. GENIUS.”
“Only a privileged feminazi girl”
still applies. and that just means you have even LESS of an excuse to say bullshit like you said.
No, it doesn’t. Minority women need feminism more than anyone; black women, for instance, suffer higher rates of domestic violence, are more likely to be victims of infidelity, are more educated than their male counterparts and are 5X as likely to have an IQ of 140 or higher. These are the men they are supposed to be dependent on for the good of society? Men who are a joke?
Just, please.
Go peddle your feminazi bullshit to someone who cares.
advancements in the art of sucking my cock…..but in any case it is telling that you can indulge in a sort of reverie about what women could have a achieved in order to deny what men have actually achieved. once again we witness the triumph of feelings over facts, a key marker of an ideologue and a narcissist.
Feminists want to be married to the government. No matter how bad their decisions are, the government will always step in and play the role of the provider. Irony being that feminists hate men, but guess who the entity that they want to be married to was designed and run by?
Marriage is a voluntary act on both parties. That’s why nobody buys into your slavery argument. Nobody is chaining you a stove, you make a conscious decision to be a stay at home mom. You have the worst sense of entitlement I have ever seen.
Funny, I called her the same thing and in both cases, she never denies that she is a privileged feminazi
Correct. Thanks to the efforts of feminists, women at all levels of society have choices today.
And the “men” here (strictly in the physiological sense, of course) have the worst sense of entitlement I’ve ever seen. They are actually arguing that Western women should just quit their jobs en masse and leave them open for men because men are the only ones entitled to work because they’re men – seriously! – and be sitting at home waiting for them to come home from work. They also think they are entitled to “spank” their wives to “keep them in line.” Do you think any woman is buying that bullshit? They make feminists’ jobs easy for them. All we have to do is make a few provocative statements and sit back and watch them dig themselves a hole.
Oh, and by the way, many of the women who voluntarily became stay-at-home moms began to regret their choices when their husbands began fooling around on them and their marriages began falling apart: http://excelle.monster.com/benefits/articles/2701-are-stay-at-home-moms-regretting-their-choices, http://www.salon.com/2011/01/06/wish_i_hadnt_opted_out/
A feminist that actually tells the truth? Shocking!
but they also want all the protection of the state, legislation to force companies to hire equal numbers of women regardless of skill set, and they also want all the rights in divorce even if that’s on a whim….
oh and when the career doesn’t work out as planned or a highly trained phd, suddenly gets the uterine urge, she can dump 15 years of training and have a couple of puppies and still expect all the rights and privileges enjoyed by women and mothers centuries ago.
“Then drop out and have kids” how many trained professional doctors do you know of that are not practising nor attempting to practise? Women make up over 50% of the labour force so they’re not “dropping out” en masse.
Get my tubes tied, well actually I researched that but I’m not prepared for the early menopause so instead have opted for other ways to reinforce the childfree life.
The implication of your final statement is that all female workers are substandard. No one is “forcing” companies to employ women. If you eliminate half of qualified candidates who are applying from consideration then you’re going to have labour shortages and eventually go bankrupt. A year of maternity leave can be shared between the genders (at least where I live), but in the USA, the average mat leave is actually just weeks.
If you seriously think that having a period impedes a woman from being able to do any and all jobs including office jobs, I can see why you would need to eliminate 50% of the labour force from competition. Having failed in comprehension of basic human anatomy, there’s no way you are employable. You should take solace in the fact that your anti-family atittudes towards women are being absorbed by many who are opting for careers instead of children, or opting to have just one. Congrats!
“Women make up over 50% of the labour force so they’re not “dropping out” en masse.”
Sure, but that figure isn’t the most accurate one. Women overal are far less productive employees than men. It would be more logical to look het total hours on the job and output. Women actually make up more then 50% of the US workforce, this in itself doesn’t say much, in case in does it would be a huge negative. A majority female workforce is a sign of poverty (or expected poverty), macroeconomically speaking. A female representation that big is very problematic from a division of labor perspective. I would say it fits perfectly in the decline of a nation.
no one enforcing companies to employ women…? i guess you never heard of the EU….. and yes… women get moody, bitchy and then lose energy on their period…. it is a big deal….. give me 10 men over 20 women any time……
my views are far from anti-family… it was Lenin that first encouraged women into the work force, so the kids could be shoved into state schools and indoctrinated…. kids need a mother…. period.
how is supporting the status of a stay home mother – anti family ?
if women embraced their biology and feminine polarity instead of trying to validate themselves as men with tits and cunts… they world would be a paradise by now…. men did the hard yards with all the technology that makes life so easy…. women stayed as savages and barely moved in 2000 years, until seeing what men built and getting jealous….
if women had put their efforts into better child raising, better education, better child birth and better social webs… which are all feminine strengths… they wouldn’t need MBAs in marketing and PhDs in finance…. to try and validate themselves alongside men… instead they would validate themselves as women, wives and mothers, which is what a female is best suited for…. .
The nations which are most miserable are also the ones that are least egalitarian. Warfare is perpetual, infant mortality is high, and usually polygamy is employed which leaves average men blowing themselves up in anger at their lack of prospects.
The happiest nations in the world are all Scandinavian and/or feminist.
The birthrate in France is at replacement level but they also have state-funded 24-hour daycare and high female participation in the workforce. They don’t penalize women for having kids.
have you been to france recently ? i was there over new year (unfortunately)… it’s a dustbin full of north african arabs with bad attitude….
they don’t penalize women for having kids….they tax the shit out of everyone to pay for their nanny state….. and what kind of women has a kid and leaves it in 24 hour day care ? some great mothering there… is a kid just a trophy to hang on the wall with the MBA and PhD ?
why have a kid and dump it in daycare ? why not just donate your eggs to some poor infertile woman that really wants kids ?
Feminism doesn’t make me happy Lisa.
It also doesn’t make you happy.
I’m happy because I am childfree.
http://www.happilychildfree.com/
Whether you want to attribute this to feminism or not is your call, but regardless, I am happy:)
Sorry if you can’t say the same because of any personality defects that repel women:(
“Sorry if you can’t say the same because of any personality defects that repel women:(”
Shaming statement. You are really a class act.
Hope you are “happier” after getting you little dig in.
Childish little cunt.
I, too, am happy that you are child-free. I mean cuttin’ backflips happy. Thank you!
The happiest countries in the world are also the richest. Co-incidentally, these are the only countries that can afford Feminisim and other egalitarian nonsene. But these countries did not become rich via their embracing Feminism, its a symptom not a cause, and if they continue to support Feminism they will not maintain their wealth. And once the wealth goes, the happiness will go with it.
Right? She’d just be raising yet another bitter feminazi bitch like herself, and no child deserves that type of rearing. ever.
Over under on how many abortions she’s had?
THIS^^!
My sister told me she didn’t realise how happy having children would make her until she actually had children. She told me it really surprised her how a happy and fulfilled it made her life. She is a part-time university lecturer, just got a scholarship to complete her pHD. She is the only woman I know who is smarter than me. She told me that her only regret was not starting her family (*i.e. having children) sooner.
Regarding the number of female doctors that don’t practise, it’s actually a serious problem, you ignorant cunt:
http://www.angryharry.com/esIstheTrainingofWomenDoctorsAWaste.htm
Maybe if men who aren’t breadwinners weren’t so useless and helped out more, they wouldn’t have to: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123144222.htm
Shaming statement, like men here have any trouble with those. I guess your use of the word cunt is not intended to shame?
Typical male hypocrisy and double-standards. You really are whiny little bitches. No wonder women divorce you in droves.
I’m happy for your sister.
However, for every woman like your sister, you get one of these: http://www.blogher.com/frame.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secret-confessions.com%2Fhate%2Fhate-being-a-mom&_back=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogher.com%2Fconfessing-reading-i-hate-being-mom-confessions
Apart from a lack of maternal instinct, there is also the issue of men’s trustworthiness. It’s nonexistent for many men. Many women have had to choose between their dignity (staying with a cheating bastard) and the wellbeing of their child, a most unenviable position.
I won’t find myself in the same one.
No, that’s simply not true. Having their own children and family for the vast, vaaaaast majority of women is the single one thing in this life which makes them most happy.
For the other vanishing few, well, they’re just unhappy people to begin with. If you don’t have children (I don’t either by the way, but I trust my sister on this one), then you simply don’t know how happy having your own would make you.
As for a trustworthy man, well, its only a problem because most women are only attracted to the alpha-type male whom many, many other women are willing to throw themselves at.
If women would be happy to “settle” for a nice guy, a “beta” male, and follow the principles of the three S’s in a marriage (slim, sexual, submissive) in a marriage, I doubt they would ever have to choose between their dignity and the wellbeing of their children, because their husband would be a most loyal and protective provider for life.
Wrong.
African Americans are 20% Caucasian on average because men were constantly cheating on their submissive, dependent wives.
As for “children will make you happy, you just have to have one to see,” that’s killed a “bingo” in childfree communities, and I’d rather risk my own unhappiness than the wellbeing of another human being bringing an unwanted child into the world. That’s not fair to the child.
For sweet, submissive, feminine wives, they realise that its not that big of a deal if their husband has other mistresses. They accept it and don’t let it put a gloom on their happiness. Look at Carl Jung for example.
The idea that women should be possesive and jealous is ridiculous, a product of women these days being too masculine.
The sexes are not equal, they are different, and it is entirely natural and good and proper for men to have a number of sexual sex partners but for women to be utterly loyal to just one. We only have to look at nature to know this is true.
Women have been poisoned by feminism to think that what’s good for the gander should be good for the geese, but that’s not true. Women will be most happy when they follow their nature-ordained role as mothers and child-rearers, it is the Way.
Sisters are incapable of doin’ it for themselves? So much for the strong, sassy, independent womyn who don’t need no man.
You’ll also note that the link she posted has nothing to do with the point that was originally being discussed. Every time she has been proven wrong in this thread she has tried to change the subject with some random but unrelated fact that makes men look bad, or she has just gone silent.
Actually you are the one missing the point. The system as outlined in the article led to the kind of advances that allow you to waste your time thinking about first-world problems today.
“let’s reinstate the draft. Let’s see how much they praise lack of freedom then”
As per usual, feminists tend to miss the point. Your statement above is a perfect example. The fact that you would see an institution in which men give up freedom and are forced to die as being the same as an institution in which women give up freedom and are protected and provided for, shows the lack of empathy for the male experience so typical of feminists.
Feminists are not actually arguing for reinstatement of the draft. Misogynists are arguing to kick women out of the workforce for being women and remove their right to vote.
Who REALLY lacks empathy?
I find it funny that this article is complaining about men having to fight wars to protect women and then men…who seem to agree with the sentiments…have issues with women wanting to join the armed forces and fight.
Um…for every woman who signs up, that’s one less man who has to do so. You were just complaining about having to do it…why on earth are you now complaining about women doing what you don’t want to do?
The issue is that no woman would willingly stay with these men and bear their children. So they must be *forced* to.
It’s more of an entitlement complex than you’ll see from any Marxist, but they rationalize that since they are men, it’s necessary for the good of society:)
I don’t think any man on this board would want to have kids with a skank like you. Go check manboobs. They probably have a beta sperm donor for you.
One can only hope that is true.
I can only imagine how ugly a guy would have to be to take dating advice from a guy who looks like this: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3117/2582519501_4f55a4c6c4_z.jpg
*shudder*
If you are going to be dumb you better be tough. And, if you are going to be ugly, you had better have some game.
Those women can’t even perform 3 bodyweight pulls ups after going through the same training as men. Feminists are demanding to abolish that test because it’s unfair for women and the standards should be lowered for upper body strength tests.
I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t feel safe if I’m in a war zone beside someone that doesn’t even back the strength to pull their chins over the bar 3 times. Plus we’re both wearing 50lbs+ of gear each. I would be screwed if something happened and I need to be pulled up from a trench or wall.
Feminist claim that they can do everything better than men and they were given a chance to prove it. What happens when they clearly can’t perform? They cry about how it’s unfair. How are they supposed to protect a country with that shit? Hence, the complaints from men.
More women should join the military, but they must meet the same physical standard as their fellow men.
However, they shouldn’t require more training than men in the military as that leads to wasting government spending. It’s something women need to prep for before signing up to avoid wasting government resources.
Right now we just got a bunch of whinny weaklings.
What about women in the military that under perform compared men and still demand the same pay? Talk about entitlement issues.
A good looking guy’s success with women can be attributed to looks, why take game advice from such a guy when someone else has figured it out without having looks?
He’s not bad looking at all. http://media.washtimes.com/media/community/viewpoint/entry/2013/03/15/roosh_s640x428.JPG?379e471c94002fe7d49ba0ce33324f5cd82c8630
And if you listen to his New Years message its obvious he is a very intelligent human being.
But then women always just go by looks only – dont they?
Still ugly.
You’re clearly not a woman or you would have felt your vagina dry up at the sight of that picture.
“You’re clearly not a woman” -_-
Real Russia Episode 4 at the 4:30 mark:
This little hottie says “He’s polite, kind, and looks like a maniac.” So there you go, if you want to marry a rooskie look like a maniac. And sure, she says she wants “polite and kind’, but she’s kidding herself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOebW-WWl6k
I gotta admit, you’re right there!
Not bad looking? Are you blind? He looks like a member of al-Quida!
And my appetite is gone in 3…2…1…*barf*
How can force everyone into a 9-5 job without an entrepreneur to hire and pay those people? Fucking idiot.
“It’s about who has power over their own life and their own decisions.” Funny how feminism has stripped women of choices. Now they HAVE to go and be wage-slaves/tax-livestock while strangers are neglecting their childen 40 hours a week in subpar daycare/babyfarms.
I’m actually curious as to what you mean in the last paragraph of your comment. Have women really been so directly oppressed by men that they’ve had no freedom whatsoever? Or has biology played a role perhaps? Think of female mortality during child birth, the lack of contraceptives, the lack of household appliances to make domestic chores easy when we go back just a 100 hundred years. Mind you, when women started demanding more personal freedom, and rightly so, did men in general really do everything in their power to prevent it, or did they actually, GASP, help it along for the most part? Take suffrage for instance, women pretty much gained suffrage a decade or so after the ordinary man did.
You’re obviously making a false equivalency here. Try to be a little more of a freethinker, although I know it’s hard for feminists to overcome the commandments and dogma of the borg.
http://www.blogher.com/most-women-would-rather-divorce-be-housewife
Wait, you’re a professor of sociology? That’s hilarious.
That’s not me but I just noticed the name similarity.
I will grant that that is quite funny. But it’s a coincidence and nothing more.
Okay… Anyway, I don’t really get what you’re trying to say with that link, I think you must’ve replied to the wrong post.
“Funny how feminism has stripped women of choices.”
Women still overwhelmingly choose to have a choice. So no, no it hasn’t.
Yeah, but taxes are so high now, which was really encouraged by pushing women into the workforce. Housewives are not taxable, working women are. A couple who want’s something resembling a comfortable middle.class lifestyle needs to have both the man and the woman working full time. Who loses? Children of course.
yes exactly…. but of course since women want careers and are not so interested in money as accolades to validate themselves with, children have now become something to hang on the wall next to the MBA in social studies…… women have engaged in a pathetic ‘competition’ with men over the last 100+ years… what we have is a football team where the goal keeper (women) is jealous he can’t score goals, and some men running back to start goal keeping when they ought to be strikers out front…. it’s all a fucking mess……
it was a team but instead of improving pregnancy, birthing and childcare and focusing on validating themselves as women, and making the women’s role more appreciated….. that side of society has hardly changed in 10,000 years, women did nothing until they saw all the great things men have done, and then decided they wanted in on the action….
kids are just to hang on the facebook page inbetween chatting to their BFFs and riding the cock carosel….
men want a family unit and a good team work…. women want validation and to compete with men and they also want to have kids….. good luck with all that….. it’s a mess…..
Sometimes I’m not sure who has been lied to the most. Is it men, or the women? Regardless, we all lose. As much as we would like to change things, we’re not getting anywhere until women start owning this mess to some degree or another.
….so basically you’re saying most women don’t give a shit about the state of her shared household with a man. Ya’ll feminazis really don’t care about what men look for in a woman, do you?
Married fathers today are spending more time with their children, so no they don’t.
Men without the influence of feminism contributed very little to childcare including time spent with their children. They were essentially being raised by mothers, but with a male breadwinner around.
Yeah, the worker drone is a modern phenomenon. The average parent today has about an hour of quality time with their own child per week.
Funny thing is that most feminists are ugly and overweight and have the nerve to get mad when a man has expectations of women, yet the same women will have a 600 page list of expectations of what a man should be.
so true, so hypocritical.
Nope, feminists want privilege
I agree with you.
I was drafted for national service (I’m German and it was only recently abolished) and I still feel resentment over it.
I just disagree that it was feminsm that brought that for women. In the US and the UK women could own property and control their own destiny long before that. They just usually didn’t want to because the alternative being provided for by a husband was more attractive to them.
False. Married women in the US could not purchase property until coverture was fully repealed in the mid-1970s, although it became functionally obsolete in 1966.
Before that it was very much a matter of either (a) Being a human being of one’s own which for a woman could only be achieved by way of being single, or
(b) Being marital property
Of course.
That doesn’t change the fact that they could own property under the law.
It merely changes what the institution of marriage represented: An institution which to enter is voluntary.
What you are objecting to is not the lack of self-determinism of women in general in that era but merely the existence of an institution in which they lack self-determinism in particular.
Such institutions existed for men as well. For example, indentured servitude is often overlooked.
It should be said that I am 100% for agency and self-determinism/egalitarianism, so I support this proposed law: http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/why-no-one-forced-parenthood-8212-not-even-163000396.html
We get that you want agency, self determinism. Power. We dont like that you try and get it by forcing men to provide it to you by giving you concessions, to our own detriment, that make up for your natural shortcomings. Did you notice that near everything Feminism asks of society to benefit women is to the detriment of men or the structures that serve society?
Women want to get into the fire services, police, armed forces, but cant meet the standards. Lower them. Women want children, but bad men wont pay for those children. Lets force the taxpayer to fund them. Women keep getting mistreated by the bad men who marry them. Lets allow women to divorce men at a whim, and take their kids and their money, and lets skew all Family law radically in favor of women. Girls arent doing as well in school as boys. Lets change the school system to prefer feminine methods of learning. Women want cheap/free birth control, so they can have “consequence free” sex with certain men. Lets get it included in healthcare plans, so someone else can subsidise it.
As for your comment on how men might get to experience the lack of agency experienced by women: Well your first idea would never happen because its impractical, but the draft? Well, thats been used on men in Western society as recently as the Vietnam War, which happened a long time after women got the vote, and I dont doubt it would be reinstated in a heartbeat if it ever became truly necessary.
back in the summer a girlfriend was hell jealous when i went on a two day trip to another city by car. it was a grueling 700km drive through bad weather and roadworks. i only went to do a qualification exam that cost me a lot of money (although i did mange to slip in a night out in a great underground techno club)
i would have liked to have taken her with me to guarantee a relaxing after exam bang, but she can be a little over dramatic and tiresome and i had a specific agenda… no good ruining the real reasons for the trip by taking the fluff along for the ride…. i left her at home….
so then at christmas time i did a long drive with her and she was hating it… i reminded her of the summer events and stuck it to her…. she won’t do that again….
Women in any society have never suffered as much as men. Men are expected to die for their cunt society. Men are the targets of state’s overwhelming firepower and trained thugs. The legal system expects men to bear the burden for women’s behavior in cases of false rape accusations, unwanted pregnancy, etc. No one ever gives a flying fuck about solving men’s problems like paternity fraud, high suicide rates, early death and single motherhood. In the end, women are treated like princesses, even in the most traditional societies men are beasts of burden working for the benefit of their families and women.
im always blown away that white women in the west used to sweet femine and traditional like a girl from asia. back in the day they even did arrange marigges. this all kept society going. now its dying since they are working movin out of parents homes and sluttin it up with out producing children. population agin is not a healthy society. a nation with a growing population like a devolping nation is perfect for a healthy population. populations must be green not grey.
women cant complain of male privlage it was resposibilites. women are privilaged since she benefits from her mans success.
Please familiarize yourself with the dynamics of the English language.
You must be new here. Instead of picking apart each other’s language, we actually offer logical rebuttals to arguments. Try it sometime.
This is not an argument. This is an opinion expressed in gibberish.
All your arguments with supporting sources are crap, please familiarize yourself with logical arguments with unbiased sources.
You have no supporting articles or data, only opinions.
suthz hte ckfuzz upzzzz cuntzzhozle! zlzlzllzllzllzzlzlzlzlzllzllzz
Here is the thing, we don’t need any. You came here and you’re the one trying to argue against us, the burden of proof is on you.
You’ve failed to make a point every single time and that just keeps making us look better because every single one of your arguments and sources are garbage.
You can’t discredit anything I’ve said you can only stick your fingers in your ear and say, “Nananana I can’t hear yooooou!” while occasionally throwing in that women deserve to be beaten and have it coming. I don’t need to prove anything, I let you guys talk and given enough time you’ll prove why feminism is necessary; men can’t be trusted with women’s wellbeing because they hate women and are violent.
I literally love provoking you guys because you just keep proving the feminists’ most misandrist stereotypes about men.
You’ve been discredited on every argument and source brought up in this thread.
You’re just continuing to help us show how feminism is made up of biased research and arguments full of fallacy. Anyone with an academic background or anyone that thinks for themselves will get it from one glance.
But then again, you’re completely delusional so carry on and continue proving that feminism is full of propaganda.
Except that no one in this article said “Women deserve to be beaten”. That reply is a fail……
Wow, grammar-nazi, you are so sophisticated.
shut-up Cut!
Have you read the article about how women not being slutty enough is the cause of school shootings? I’d be interested in hearing how someone who uses the phrase “slutting it up” feels about that line of reasoning.
well, Indymom, you misread that article. It isn’t that the lack of women being slutty that arguably causes school shootings (by frustrated males), the argument is that back in the 1950s or 1940s, all you had to be was a “good guy”, and “nice boy” who your mother liked, an Andy Hardy or Dobie Gillis type, and you were ASSURED a girlfriend. Back in the day, nice guys got girls, and hoodlum thugs were shunned by society. Now of course, “nice guys” in the math club are considered freaks and treated like shit, while thug alpha males are celebrated and sought after by the entire female population. Most nerds just focus their energy on doing well in school and getting the fuck out to make money, go to college, or travel the world. A few, lately, however, become “unhinged”. that was the point of the article.
This is completely off topic, but I was just running errands and heard a song on the radio by some whiny-voice woman singing “you’re gonna miss me when I’m gone” over and over. I had a thought as I listened that I could only share here: in my experience, the woman who announces confidently that you will miss her as you are dumping her is NEVER one of the ones you miss. The kind of woman who says “You’re going to miss me!” Is usually a relief to be rid of.
yup… my standard line is … “that’s what they all say”
I contest that women were not allowed to own property – if we talk about the US or the UK. I believe that to be feminist propaganda.
I understand it will have been rare for a woman to lead an independent live, but that had entirely different reasons than the courts not upholding the property rights of women.
I don’t see why the argument about female oppression matters, or is even pursued.
Lets take a short excursion into history — the Byzantine Emperor Justinian had a wife named Theodora. Now Theodora did not originate from aristocratic stock but she for a majority of her life (prior to becoming Empress) worked in a brothel serving low status customers then she became a dancer. Apparently Theodora made a decent living on her acting and sexual skills.
Later she drew the attention of the Emperor Justinian who eventually managed to marry her — after much difficulty.
Justinian was a weak ruler, unable to make decisive decisions and closing his eyes to all of his wifes (Theodora’s) indescretions. He let her have her way in everything, to the extent that she soon began to dictate the affairs of state. After she began to dictate affairs of state, we saw a tremendous weakening of Byzantine power.
This was a common theme in the Ancient World. We saw a similar thing with Cleopatora of the Egyptians, of the wives of various Senators and Emperors in Ancient Rome, and elsewhere.
I forgot to add: the instances that I described do not seem like oppression to me. In fact I’d call it Power. Women always had Power over men, especially weak ones.
These women do not seem to be politcally oppressed either
Me: 1
Feminists: 0
Good luck informing any modern day female of this. It’s such a foreign concept to them. I blame the microwave.
This post is an admission of defeat.
Why? Because it adopts the language of victimhood. The Marxists, with their narrative of oppression and compensation, have won. We’re no longer trying to be winners, to be masters, to be men of honor and achievement. No, now we’re just trying to squeeze into a space at the victimhood trough.
Your ancestors think you’re a pussy.
Defeating ideologies that legitimize men bashing is important if we want to progress as a society. But aside from being intellectual at times, we also do other things, like make money, lift weights and bring a lot of women in bed. What do you do for the cause, keyboard warrior?
He is no doubt busy striving to be a “man of honor and acheivement”.
Oh, I mean right after he finishes the companies three-hour meeting on sexual harassment policies, diversity and inclusion.
You don’t defeat the culture of victimhood by claiming to be a victim.
Why do you guys hate women so much?
They don’t. They hate Feminists. There’s a difference.
No I’m actually seeing a lot of hatred of women in general here. It’s kinda freaking me out.
Look to yourself first … that’s the only advice you need.
Some dude *just* posted: This is also the reason men generally don’t take women very seriously.
I have read your comments and most of them are not even remotely applicable to the article in question. Then you pile on by quoting, almost line by line, the typical Feminist blather that all other Feminists bring here when they come. There is a reason you aren’t being taken seriously and there is a reason people don’t want people like you in the conversation. Look to yourself first.
That would be me. The reason many men don’t take women very serious is because women have a strong tendency to act like children, and nobody (with a brain) takes children seriously. This is also the reason women argu alot with children. Hell, even children don’t take women seriously, therefor the frase: “wait until your dad comes home” and the reason single mother households are a disaster.
Mina, this is proving my point^
Some women earn our respect, and our “ear”.
You are not one of them.
“It’s kinda freaking me out”
Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) – The Elevated Threat Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target. Examples:
“You guys are scary.”
“You make me feel afraid.”
You know she’s one of those: A man looks at her a few seconds too long and she’s hollering sexual harassment.
actually you are wrong… there is not hatred for women here…. We all simply want our women, young, beautiful and obedient…
is that too much too ask for?
We also know beauty is kind a harsh deal… not everyone have good genes.
so we’d often settle for 2… Young and obedient…
That’s it…
Lol, do you bury her under the house when she’s not “young” anymore?
Have you actually read any feminist literature? Holy cow, if you have, and don’t see the rampant male-bashing you’re probably a misandrist yourself. Now compare it with the written work of, say, Warren Farrell, a kind, diplomatic and reasonable MRA. Who’s hateful?
Why can’t we just think of the rights of all people? Why does it have to be one or the other?
Rights these days usually means redistributing stuff from some people to other people by the democratically elected assholes in charge. In terms of the sexes, it means more privileges for women by the state at the expense of men, all while men have to endure all the female-sanctioned cultural attacks on their agency and pride in being who they truly are, which is masculine creatures. Too bad, masculinity is a “right” we can’t allow in our new progressive world: “Wait a second. Why are men so spiritually defeated? Must be withdrawal from lack of privilege, let’s ridicule, sneer and jeer and throw rocks at them whenever we can!”
Says the feminist….hilarious.
The notion that women should not have mastery over their own lives is fundamentally hateful.
Probably why there has been no female equivalent to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre
Criticism of female choices/holding women accountable for their actions is not the same as hatefully disallowing women to exercise self-determination, you silly goose.
By the way, Marc Lepine had a horribly abuse mother, funny how we never discuss female abuse of children, especially male children as a factor in violence against women by deranged individuals. Again, I’m sure it has something to with the accountability thing which feminists would champion if they were actually for equality.
Abuse of children is absolutely addressed, that is why we have child protective services, Children’s Aid Society, etc. Abusive women have to be rehabilitated to a social worker’s satisfaction before they can regain access to their kids.
MRAs are against anything that men’s taxes have to pay for that benefit society, women and children (all forms of socialism), so they are opposed to child protective services.
Well, how about the fact that most children in daycare/babyfarms show symptoms of neglect. Neglect is one of the worst types of abuse, because children by instinct know, that they’re helpless. Children who aren’t attended to, touched or nurtured, even when provided food, will simply die off as witnessed in east european orphanages where the daycare workers simply didn’t speak or touch the children, but merely provided the essentials. I believe there’s a documentary somewhere on youtube about that. Daycares are not that different. This new institutionalization of children is a direct consequence of feminism, and feminists even praise this new development as progress. Aren’t children people?
Anyway, many abusers are not spontaneuous abusers and are exceptionally good covering up their abuse. One thing you will often see from abusers is casting themselves as victims, possibly as a way of not owning their own abuse.
No it’s not, female child abusers often fly under the radar. Feminists oppress researchers that are trying to find a better investigative technique to capture them.
And how do they do that? Care to provide examples, cite studies, even complaints from researchers, anything?
I’ve noticed that MRAs often make statements that conveniently cannot be verified with ANY hard data, ever.
http://ideas.time.com/2014/01/02/men-are-obsolete/
Posted TWO DAYS AGO.
They resent that which they cannot control.
It’s very telling that women are most likely to be killed by partners in the period of time following a breakup. MRAs are the mass equivalent of an angry and vindictive recently-dumped boyfriend. He must do anything he can to regain control, even if that means choking the woman.
The funny thing is I really like men. Like, love them. This man hating entitled awfulness they’re projecting on women is really disturbing. I hope these guys are all gay…I pity the women who live with this day in and day out.
I don’t know if they realize that they are in fact having the opposite effect and turning moderates into misandrists with their anti-woman sentiments.
I know that’s what happened to me.
No joke…I really hope this is minority opinion. I have lots of male friends who are genuinely awesome. To think there are very man with this level of hatred makes me squeam.
it’s not a question of control… it’s a question of entering into what purports to be a loving, caring, team work of building a solid homebase and family over a lifetime…. making many sacrifices to do that… and then finding you infact have a vicious, self centered, entitled animal that has no interest in any such thing and worse, has been backed up by the governmental system that has been swamped with unwarranted complaints by aggressive feminists, to put in laws that completely undermine the family unit (which is the basis of 20,000 years of human society), and robs men of all rights to family, while taking his assets and income so she can shove off with the kids and even start having more kids with someone else….
this is not a human society… this is monkeys fucking in the trees….
Who the hell wants to live with a woman day in and day out? 😀
Get over it Big Tits.
There are millions of us and the numbers are growing every day. Men that have been “wondering” what has been happening to them are now starting to “realize” what is happening to them.
The proverbial cow is out of the barn.
As females, you seem pretty smug with your big mouths. Of course you have your big daddy the State and mangina Police/ Courts / Gestapo to protect you all.
At least for now.
What you are seeing is the equivalent of the Fall of the Roman Empire.
And if you think its all going to have a happy ending for all you cunty bitches…
You might want to think again.
Well, as a newly-minted misandrist, it’s my opinion and I’ve come to the realization that men have always hated women and many have an inborn desire to oppress, control, subvert, and even physically dominate (read: beat, rape) them. So I am not surprised. Men unmasked with anonymity are just expressing the baser instincts towards feralism, discrimination, arrogance, and violence that men have always had. Men are not born with the empathy that women have. They are morally inferior, far more likely to posses the “dark triad” traits and be sociopaths. I would not be surprised if a significant number of sociopaths gravitate towards sites like these.
Morally inferior??? You do know it was Eve that ate the forbidden fruit first. You do know that All religions with moral codes were written by men. The bible was divinely inspired by God and written by men. Moses, a man, carried the Ten Commandments down the mountain? Our societies moral code and structure are written, enforced and upheld….by men. It is men that think with their minds and women that think with their hearts. It is rare that you will see a man fuck his best friends wife or girl. It is common place among women. It is women that will stab each other in the back for a man……morally inferior…..Don’t be ridiculous.
OK, you can reserve your sky fairy story for someone drinking your particular kool-aid.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
okay, I’ll play your game. Lets say for a second there is no God. Then the next step is there is no afterlife, which would mean there is no morality, since morality comes from God or religion. So by that thought process, there is NO reason to do anything moral since there is no ultimate consequence for being bad. We all die and then cease to exist. Why not just go and Rape and kill and take whatever you want. there is no consequence for your actions. So what if you get caught or killed. everyone is ultimately headed to oblivion anyway…whats the point. Your thought process doesn’t give a person a reason for living or acting right…it only gives complete chaos and death.
Actually, atheists are a fairly pacifist group: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistfamiliesmarriage/a/AtheistsDivorce.htm, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA
I myself have nihilist leanings. If you know you’re just going to die, what is there to fight about? Chill and have an appletini.
By your own logic, why not just kill yourself and be done with it. If you know oblivion is eventually coming for you…why wait. None of this matters so…why be here. If that was your true feelings then all atheists/nihilists would have killed themselves long ago…..there is no meaning to all of this. But its not…cause you’re still here, cause deep down you want to believe, you need to believe there is more to life than what you see, have lived and are living. If thats not the case then by your own beliefs, you should either be killing yourself or raping, robbing and murdering others and living how you please damn everyone else. You see, even your own belief is flawed.
In other words, lots of manginas you don’t actually respect.
“I’ve come to the realization that men have always hated women and many have an inborn desire to oppress, control, subvert, and even physically dominate (read: beat, rape) them.”
HAHAHA. Wow. Do you hear yourself? Point to me any post you’ve read of a man saying he wants to rape a woman. Oh you feminazis… always a most wonderous source for a laugh.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. 😛
yep, orbiters that she knows she’s not attracted to but will keep them around so they will validate her piss poor decisions and not hold her accountable
So true. No more of that for me! Well, to be fair back in my mangina days I would say “yeah, that was fucked up” but I’d reverse my position once I got that female disapproval.
Women are more likely to use poison to kill their partners after breaking up or while still in a relationship. This sometimes flies under the radar because it can be dismissed or overlooked when drug use (pharmaceutical or recreational) comes into play.
Men also resent that they get raped in court when it comes to divorce and child custody. That’s driving men to take preventative measures
OK, great, then take them.
Maybe the Affordable Care Act can cover vasectomies and you RoK lovers can be the first in line. I support you!
Funny, I felt like choking my ex when we were married, not after we separated. 😀
I love women! Well, the hot ones anyway, and then just their bodies. Too bad about their mouths. Can we genetically modify a breed of sexy, low intelligence women?
Not women, just mouthy cunts. Know any?
for some reason I’m starting to become more desensitized to that word. this comment just made me laugh.
I guess you would have to be a man to understand the answer to that question.
You females really have it made.
Maybe in your next life you will come back as a man.
And then you will know…
You know, it’s kinda sexist of you to presume all women are feminists.
good argument. that arch-cunt betty friedan wrote “the feminine mystique” in the 50’s, describing the alleged plight of stay at home moms. i was forced to read that book in an undergraduate course, and i would actually recommend that RoK readers at least skim the contents as well. it’s important to know what we’re up against….
I was born and raised in the USSR and now live in a Western country. I have a few perspectives to share: The USSR was one of the first nations in the world to introduce equality between men and women (it happened in 1918). At one point women rushed into universities and other work institutions but over time we saw more and more women following the route of what was known as the ‘correct’ course for a woman to take, a course where the woman would choose to live for her family and children rather than for a career.Over time it became more and more prevalent but many women, nonetheless, remained in careers, but only to help their husbands.
It was important for women to know how to be mothers, to be able to give birth to healthy children and raise them (the incidence of single motherhood was very high — especially after The War — as most of the men died) to be the next warriors, scientists, policemen, etc. There were no laws restricting women from what they could be (hell women could be lumberjacks, they could do coal mining, some fought in the army — at least before the war — this is not very prevalent after The War)
I never understood why this is such a big issue for women in the west: we see women in the USSR who had no handicaps on what they become, choose to be mothers and homemakers….
As for women in the military, they existed in the Soviet Military, even after the end of The War. They were incorporated in the service sector of the military and would be present in some Spetsnaz (special forces divisions). Their roles where not combat, but rather gather to gather intelligence. Think of it like this, would it be strange for a group of fit young men to appear in a city during a war? Would it be strange for a group of fit, pretty women to be walking around in a city during a war? Obviously the latter. They could engage in dalliances with enemy officers to find out information and relay it back to HQ, they could be used for asassination of important targets through seduction or the ability to get close, but never combat.
Never where there different physical requirements for women than for men in the Soviet Army. Women were expected to jump at the same heights as men were (at least in the forces where I was), they were expected to run the same distance, do the same number of pullups, etc. If they couldn’t do it, then too bad for them — they could go work in the kitchen.
So to all the women on this comments section giving shit, remember you’re Soviet sisters had it better than you, yet chose to maintain their femininity and become mothers and homemakers — for the most part.
That’s why we love to marry russian women
Russian women (generally) are excellent mothers, I know that much!
Russian women are HOT!! Seriously!!
Meh. When they’re in their 20s sure. But they get jiggly asses and cellulite and wrinkle up just like any other broad. They’re also into breastfeeding (which I agree is the healthiest feeding method), which does a real job on their boobs; I figured since my ex had smaller titties they wouldn’t droop so badly, boy was i wrong. While the accent seems sexy in the beginning, it wears off after a while, as all female squawking is just that, female squawking, no matter the language.
They’re wild in bed, but seriously, how many years can you fuck the same hole, especially when you had her in her 20s and she’s now just a 30s shadow of her previous hotness? That being said, the only squirter I ever had was a rooskie. Slurp! 😀
No one is forever young.
Here here, sir!! lol
Yep! Exactly. Men use women up and then discard them.
That’s why feminism is here to stay!
Can’t trust a man as far as you can throw him:-)
if you can’t trust a man then you should stop using most of the utilities, public transportation, drugs, food, or use of public property or services…
All of that came from man’s work. You know the computer you use, the internet connection you use, your car, TV, Fridge, Air conditioner, and almost every thing else..
It’s common sense to not make deals with untrustworthy people. If you get fleeced or worse, it’s your foolishness.
But as we all know you won’t listen…. logic doesn’t work on fools and women.
Women can’t throw men. Men throw women. http://youtu.be/24SmZwuUaBA
Yes, there are many intelligent men who have invented things.
But the average man is stupider than the average woman; women protect the mean.
Many of those intelligent men were making stuff while proving to be completely untrustworthy in their personal lives.
Men can only be trusted with threat of violence, arrest, divorce, etc. Without regulation, they are notoriously untrustworthy. They are also more likely to commit tax fraud.
If that were actually true, we’d have more matriarchal societies.
But matriarchal societies have been wiped out for the most part. The remaining traces are poor, weak and undeveloped with no way to protect themselves. If they were in conflict with another society over resources, it would be game over.
Men police other men with threat of violence, arrest in patriarchal societies as well. We do not have anarchy, we have men being made to behave themselves at gunpoint.
Big talk, but when there is danger who do the women run to for protection? Men.
Tribes dependant on hunting dangerous game, times when defence is needed against other societies, battling other socities when survival depended on a certain piece of natural resource were all dependant on men.
What happens when there is sickness and dangers of the elements threatening life? They depended on the innovations of men.
This is why matriarchal societies died out, the women thought they could do better and lacked the strength and innovation of men.
What happens during times of peace and safety? Feminist start whining and claim they don’t need men.
Where were the feminists during large scale war? Hiding behind men and happily raising children. There has not been a since case in history that proved otherwise.
During times of war, the vast majority of women were WORKING. They were doctors, teachers, factory workers, nurses.
War is over and you tell them (well, the middle-class ones, anyway, all other women already were working) that they can’t work anymore?
For much of human history in agricultural societies there was only the proletariat and the borgeiouse, and men AND women proles worked. Women were restricted in the type of work they could do. They weren’t taken seriously in the elite, intellectual circles. They were expected to do most of the housework (the bougies had help). But they worked. Oftentimes they did hard physical farmwork. And humanity has carried on. Women working has never stopped men from doing the same. Your attempts to limit human productivity show only your own pathology and recognition of your own inability to compete.
Women working does not stop men from doing the same. If you can’t compete with a particular woman, that is your own failing as a man.
Every single bit of credible IQ research ever done shows that white men are, on average, smarter than white women. Of course, adjusting for specific European geography Is important. You don’t want to compare German women to Italian men, for instance, to keep the research methodology valid. This holds true for any more generalized race/tribe that you wish to research.
The only exception is during a brief period in adolescence wherein the brain of girl develops at a faster rate then that of boys. But the boys catch up and then some.
Show me your valid research that shows that women have a higher IQ and protect the mean, or go away.
The fact is that it doesn’t exist.
List the women philosophers that definitively prove your assertion that women should have been taken seriously in elite, intellectual circles.
Name the work of a single prolific, historical woman philosopher that ranks with the best of philosophy that has come from the minds of men. Name a single one.
If such philosophy could come from the mind of a woman, it would be known. Gender would be secondary to the body of work, no contest. It would be immortalized.
Inability to compete? With who? Women?
Your luxurious life, thanks to men, has made your mind arrogant and lazy.
I have already thrown down the gauntlet for raw thought. Should we move to inventions and patents? How about modern scientific research? (I’ll give you one guess as to who produces copious research and who, in comparison, does not). How about weapons development that keeps you from being a lower than dirt (likely sex) slave for other people who would otherwise invade and own your ass? Shall we compare literature next? What do you want to comapre in terms of intellectual and other useful output between men and women? Name it and we’ll be happy to oblige you in engaging in a meaningful, specific discussion.
You ladies do a lot of things well. However, your specific ego is inflated to a ridiculous, laughable level.
Sorry to say but you are clearer on the low end of “standard deviation” if you were unaware that women cluster around the mean. There are more geniuses and morons among men. Don’t be lazy, do your research on g. You clearly need to.
Again you are forgetting that average men is actually fixing your plumbing in the house, or electrical equipment, or building your house and guess what, regulating feminist rules… without men regulating those, you’d have no police, no authority, no actual power in the house.
where are the real jobs that women do? Like in Real Science, Engg fields. something that actually contribute to the society.
No one here is arguing that men can’t compete with women.
But you have time after time brought up the age old feminist argument that women would be better off without men. The cultures in history that have actually followed these beliefs died out.
Feminists like you continue to trivialize the achievement and role of men in shaping and maintaining our modern civilization while nothing can be further from reality.
Every single one of your arguments is pure delusion without any credible evidence in reality. It’s why you keep linking gossip ‘news’ sites while failing to pull up any academic empirical evidence.
Feminist like you continue to use biased data and argue using fallacies to obtain benefits while running away from all the responsibility.
Crying and whining about how mean the men are, how hard it is to raise children and how important it is to match men in every single walk of life when non of these things were mentioned during times of extreme danger.
“But you have time after time brought up the age old feminist argument that women would be better off without men.”
Incorrect. The basis of my argument is that women are better off without being dependent on men. Even today, those that are usually end up regretting it. Women and men can work alongside one another. It is only male chauvinists who have a problem with this.
Well, thank God marriage has died and a new generation of fatherless girls gets born each year.
I’m a guy and I’m not like that.
Hell, I can say that women can’t be trusted because they’re all gold diggers; obviously they aren’t all gold diggers, but it’s the equivalent of you saying all men use women up and discard them.
I’m a man and I’m more intelligent than the majority of my peers, men and women.
Yes, these intelligent men may have been untrustworthy around women, but a lot of intelligent men have Aspergers, as do I; obviously, this isn’t a good excuse, but I’m trying to say that in those days especially, people wouldn’t understand why they were so different and socially awkward, and they would get frustrated by this, becoming resentful to people, especially the opposite sex (they would understand them even less).
If you don’t trust them, why use their inventions?
I’m sorry, this is the Russia where the men die young because they drink themselves to death?: http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2009/090626.html
The Russia where women vastlitytnumber men because the men either leave or kill themselves with alcohol? http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8612141-women-far-outnumber-the-men-in-russia
The Russia that has a fertility rate no higher than ours here in the West? http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=rs&v=31
OK, just checking. lolz.
It’s easy to slam Russia when you don’t understand their mentality. Russian men simply don’t give a shit about anything. They believe in having fun and and adventure, health be damned! While I don’t try to emulate them, they are pretty damn cool.
Before I met her, my ex was a facilitator between American and Russian business people. If you want to do business with Russian men, first you go party with them: drink vodka and fuck whores (if you’ve seen Eastern Promises, it’s the same vibe as the initiation scene) and then sweat out your sins in the banya the next day. Russian men don’t give a shit how bad a shape their bodies are in; they’re not ashamed to sit naked next to you and shoot the shit in a 90 degree celcius banya. If you pass their macho test, they do business with you.
It’s not just booze my dear; heroin is rampant in Russia too. If you had a clue you’d know that.
And yes, you’re right about women out numbering men, especially in Sankt Peterburg (one of the coolest cities in Europe by the way).
Russian men know they have the advantage and they treat their women like shit because if one leaves there are a half a dozen more to take her place.
As a matter of fact, I think I’ll return to Saint Pete’s this spring! 😀
Why are you talking about their men? Yep they have problems, but their women are still a lot more desirable than American women. No one here is talking about how awesome their men are.
Good job with reading comprehension.
I was talking about the USSR in my post, not Russia. The USSR had higher fertility than in the west, almost no crime (largest police force in the world), no drugs (you couldn’t find them before around 1987-1988 when the liberals came to power), men where actively supported by the government and encouraged to get into sports, military or science… Yeah totally men die young….
Only reason that there are more men than women is because the USSR had conscription and more men than women would die in wars, protecting the women and children. I’d say that is much more admirable than American men, who shit their pants at the first sign of trouble.
Also, just a suggestion. Next time you use stats, use official Russian sources not British or American, these are not very accurate.
The Russian government is not denying the census data; women live 13 years longer than Russian men because they drink themselves to death.
Russia is taking active steps to try and stop them from doing this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-tries-to-improve-life-expectancy-with-laws-curbing-drinking-smoking/2013/02/20/7ad5c290-77ab-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story.html
Stop using ‘data’ from Washington Post. Find an actual Russian source (it can be in Russian — I can actually read Russian).
Again, look up the difference between the USSR and Russia, It’s not the same thing. I expect a report in your next post on the fundamental differences between the USSR and modern Russia. How many republics did the USSR have?
Lisa546, your education starts now.
Good for you that you can read Russian. Why are you not living there? Could it have something to do with the fact that it’s a shithole filled with alcoholics and neo-Nazis?
I mean, even Cubans live longer. And they’re STILL communist!
Jesus woman! Read.
I moved out after the collapse of the USSR because the economy of the country collapsed and neither me or my wife got paid for 8 months. We had no food and the children where starving.
I would never have moved from the USSR — by choice.
Furthermore, all that stuff about alcoholics is BS. I have lived there.
So little girl, how many republics did the USSR have? Do you know the answer, or should I send you to the corner for not doing your homework?
OK, so why not go back there now?
You choose to build your life and family in the feminist/egalitarian West. You vote with your feet; these societies are superior.
I do go back. I have a home here and there.
The only advantage of the West is greater job opportunities. Even to this day (21 years later) the economy is still weak and there is little in terms of jobs.
Fuck eglitarinism/feminism. I expect my daughters to know how to cook, sow, take care of the house, take care of a man, and take care of her parents. If she fails in any of this, she knows I will permanently cut her off and I tell her boyfriends to do the same. She is very happy with this arrangement.
I know a few Russians who never drink, my ex’s brother included. Many Russians drink just moderately or binge on the weekends only. But you can’t deny that there are many alcoholics in Russia. It is what it is.
Sure there are many alcoholics in Russia. But that doesn’t mean that men are dying from it in such amounts to cause a significant effect on population. It may have been the case in the 90’s when times were very bad, but not now.
Indeed. It’s the older ones who die off anyway.
The economy is shit, and you’re expecting your girls to take care of everyone including her parents? No wonder so many girls are just saying fuck it and only worrying about themselves. That’s a hell of a lot of obligation for people who don’t even think she’s a whole person worthy of rights.
“Taking care” = show love, clean, cook, mend clothes. It does not mean working.
I can work myself to provide for myself and my family. As it should be.
Ok. To many men, “taking care” means “pay for stuff.” For women who actually want emotional fulfillment, we would rather pay for ourselves and have loving and faithful boyfriends.
Who we can easily leave if they cease to be loving and/or faithful.
“For women who actually want emotional fulfillment, we would rather pay for ourselves and have loving and faithful boyfriends.”
Translation ; Have a beta boyfriend who will never leave and provide money for me while I fuck hot alphas/players/studs on the side to get my vagina tingles and emotional fulfillment.
“Who we can easily leave if they cease to be loving and/or faithful.”
Translation : If the beta boyfriend does not do his beta duties like provide us with money and be our emotional tampon, we ditch him and find another beta boyfriend while we fuck alphas/studs on the side.
It is also the country where female suicide bombers kill atleast 16 people:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/29/us-russia-blast-idUSBRE9BS02S20131229
OK, just checking. Lolz.
This is a mans world
This is a mans world
But it would be nothing,nothing
Without a women or a girl
You see, man made the car
To take us over the road
Man made the train
To carry the heavy load
Man made the electrolight
To take us out of the dark
Man made the boat full of water
Like noah made the arc
This is a mans,mans,mans world
But it would be nothing, nothing
Without a women or a girl
okay james brown lol
CRUSH your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of the women! Conan got mad pussy!
I understand that the men described in this post are the people who have helped advance and maintain society, and that their reward is a loving wife and 2.5 happy children and an obedient dog; however, thinking with a red pill mentality: how many of us would want to live the way these men lived? How many of us would be willing to sacrifice ourselves for others even if we had that loving wife? Is it worth it in the end? Does having a loving wife outweigh the personal sacrifices we’d make as individuals?
Perhaps it’s difficult for me to comprehend how life was and am too modern…but isn’t that kind of life putting the pussy on the pedestal?
Aren’t these men blue-pill? Do we want to be blue-pill if that means we’ll have a loving doting wife?
Good questions. Being blue pill is not about being a family man per se, it’s about being a family man in a context where society is against you, where you’re not a real man, where your wife bosses you, etc. If those elements are not present, there’s nothing blue pill about having a family. Anyway, If family life is not appealing to you, you’re free to be an international playboy traveling around the world to meet women, that sounds interesting too.
Misogynists lie when they say that women were oppressed by picking only certain elements from the past and by comparing it with today’s standards of living. They maliciously ignore the context in which those men lived. It’s wrong to say that women had it easier without looking at the entire picture.
Oh, you mean it wasn’t a “benefit” for a woman to be routinely battered and deal with serial infidelity with no options of leaving because she couldn’t even buy herself her own car? You mean that if a woman’s spouse passed away and left her nothing she had no choice but to remarry or hope she could get work as a seamstress or schoolteacher so she wouldn’t starve to death was not a cake walk and blessing? Well, surely, you must be joking…
Women were routinely battered? Would you like to provide some evidence for this? I will concur with your point about women in the past being dependant on men though. Not that this has changed much now however. It still beats the deal men got in the past however – dying in wars, doing dirty dangerous jobs, having to take on the burden of a wife and children.
Yes, mens lives have improved substantially, due largely to advances in technology, and due to the accrued advantages of supportive civilised culture. Their lives would have improved a lot more without Feminism, and other associated Socialist causes, which given enough time will undo all the work thats allowed Western society to reach the priviliged position it currently has.
The negative outcomes from Feminism are only starting to become apparent. Cultural movements take time to get into full swing, and negative outcones that become apparent only in their effect on the next generation obviously cannot notived straight away.
Sure, no problem.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408041/Burning-question-day-1950s-newspaper-clipping-shows-far-womens-rights-come.html, http://www.icadvinc.org/what-is-domestic-violence/history-of-battered-womens-movement/#martin
“1966: Beating, as cruel and inhumane treatment, becomes grounds for divorce in New York, but the plaintiff must establish that a “sufficient” number of beatings have taken place. A study in Chicago reveals that from September 1965 to March 1966, 46.1% of the major crimes perpetrated against women took place in the home.
It also found that police response to domestic disturbance calls exceeded total response for murder, rape, aggravated assault, and other service crimes.”
As for the woulda-been, coulda-been, shoulda-been, well, frankly, you can’t know that, and I don’t care. The fact is that their lives HAVE improved – as have women’s (who are both less likely to be raped and less likely to be killed by men today) – and doomsday prophecies and scare tactics from right-wing men are rather predictable. They just can’t accept that society is ticking along just fine without their domination over women. Which is too bad for them. Oh well. Maybe you should go cry into your beer about it.
So, to clarify, under fault divorce, a woman would have had to call the police multiple times to report being beaten before she could get a divorce.
Similarly, under fault divorce, without photographic evidence of a husband’s infidelity he could be out screwing the whole town and she had to put up with it. These are two big reasons that we now have ‘no-fault divorce.’
Look at her dishonest tactic, suggesting that spanking is akin to being battered. That woman needs to be spanked and learn proper behavior.
Lots of isolated incidents in that history of battered womens movement link you provided. Which is exactly what I expected to see. Your lot has a lot of interest in playing up the numbers to support your “women have been oppressed for everz!” narrative here, but even then you dont have a lot of numbers to support you. Take the study that you quoted – while the wording is (deliberitely I presume) suggestive, theres much room for interpretation. For example, the total numbers of crimes, the definition of “major crime”, the assumption that a crime that takes place in the home must have been committed by a man who lives there. Crime stats are manipulated regularly by Police departments to serve political agendas, and few agendas have been as popular in recent decades as domestic violence.
And the fact that peoples lives have improved is not proof that Feminism is not harmful. Correlation is not causation. The harm from it can be seen in the below replacement birth rate and poor social performance of children raised in the rising number of single parent homes if nothing else. And of course there is also the marginalisation of younger men in society, something which even some Feminists have begun to note. Not that youd have any concern for them of course.
Yep, and thats ruining our society. Remember, women screwed around on men just as much…..before DNA testing, she could get pregnant by another man and have her husband raise the child never knowing it wasn’t his. There are some abusive men out there that beat on women without cause…this is VERY true. There are wrong and should be dealt with accordingly. But there are also women out there that instigate there own ass whippings. Why would you yell and get in the face of a man that is bigger than you? Why would you insult and try to demean a man that is twice your size and expect him to do nothing? Common sense would tell you to talk calmly and get your point across or just leave…but no, women do the exact opposite and are surprised or in some cases even happy to get their ass whipped. Its a serious mental problem!
*thumbs up*
Are you trolling?
If this is what men have in support of “their rights” then, lol… No wonder you guys in your traditionalist movement are fucked and feminism has just spread to countries like Brazil and Barbados as well.
Women are no less likely to be killed or raped today than at any other time. Evil men will do what evil men will do no matter what era they are in.
Soooo, what you’re saying is, men cannot physically control themselves and are little more than feral beasts?
Well, there’s a misandrist statement if ever there was one. I’m glad we agree?
Also, 1 in 25 fathers are speculated to be not the paternal father of their offspring a number which suggests since the rates have actually increased that female infidelity was historically very low. So yes, women were routinely victims of cheating and abusive husbands whom they had little recourse to divorce.
“Society” is only ruined if you exclude women. And by the way, men today invest more time in childcare as well as being less likely to beat their wives: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/aug/11/childrensservices.uknews.
False.
http://mattbruenig.com/2013/03/23/the-dramatic-decline-of-rapes-and-sexual-assaults/, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800610.html
Even prison rape is down: http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Prisons-chief-says-rapes-are-down-40-1710789.php
So women were less likely to call the police and report battery then. That is not exactly shocking when beating your wife was LEGAL. Or did you miss that part?
In typical male hypocrite form, you completely dismiss women’s experiences with abuse due to a lack of numbers, but expect women to acknowledge men’s supposed “custody crisis” when there are no numbers to support that they are fighting for and being denied primary custody of their children, in fact, the numbers show the exact opposite.
Why should women care about what men say is happening to them when men are blatantly flippant about something as substantial as WOMEN BEING BEATEN BY THEIR HUSBANDS, AND THAT’S LEGAL?
No, I’m saying women are foolish enough to poke the bear. I’m saying women cannot close their mouths. I’m saying women are insane enough to try to instigate physical confrontation that is to their detriment. When a man insults or gets in the face of another man, what do you think will happen? what should happen…a fight. One man is trying to show dominance over another man with incendiary words, which ultimately results in a physical confrontation to settle who is dominant. Women expect to play that game with different consequences….look though out history….when has that EVER been acceptable. NEVER!
Society cannot exist without men. We created society. It is our REASON with each other over logical things that made everything possible….not feeling with our emotions and hoping what we feel is right but using our minds and making logical conclusions. This is why society prospers…through men, not women. You would argue that society is ruined if you exclude women. I argue that women have been excluded from society for thousands of years. Roman Empire, all of the empires and dynasties over the centuries. Society functioned perfectly.
As for the “poor social performance of children raised in the rising numbers of single parent homes,” I don’t deny that there is a discrepancy with intact homes, but you can’t acknowledge that without also acknowledging the overall decline in crime and increase in postsecondary education – in spite of its rising costs – over the last 2 generations. Yes, birth rates are lower. Some of that is due to unwanted children who would likely have been impoverished and criminal simply not having been born.
On a macro scale there is simply no evidence that female agency is harmful to society. “Society” has made some real gains over the past while, as well as areas of improvement that are needed. Just as it has always been, actually.
And you are foolish enough to believe in a poll. If that is the case….feel free to walk anywhere you like in the dead of night and feel perfectly safe.
I do, actually. The crime rate in my city is 1.59 murders per capita. It’s a city of almost 3 million. I feel very safe basically wherever I go.
Did I mention the custody crisis?
Your own link told me that laws specifically targeting the prohibition of men beating their wives started to appear in the 1800s. Where exactly are you referring to when you say that women being beaten by their husbands is STILL LEGAL? Nowhere in the Western world that Im aware of. Oh dear, I do think Ive made the delicate little flower upset.
By the way, I dont actually think that its a good thing for men to beat their wives. My point is that the incidence of this happening is purposfully inflated by Feminists in order to paint all men as abusers.
I did not say that it’s still legal (nice interjection of a nonexistent word) I said you clearly had no problem with the existence of that law and its reinstatement, so why should anyone care about what your concerns are when you are in favour of spousal battery?
There was a “rule of thumb” wherein men could beat their wives with a strap no thicker than the length of their thumb. Guess what? That’s not okay, either. I just thought I’d point that out since your moral compass is clearly defective.
And you’d better never mention the alleged custody crisis because guess what? It doesn’t happen. No data. Your logic. Remember that.
Sure you do. When do you go to the underbelly of your city..the bad neighborhoods etc. I would surmise never. Lets not play that silly game.
We don’t really have ghettos here. What do you think this is, America or something?
LMAO!!!! Okay, that was actually funny! Where are you from?
Yes, there has been an overall decline in crime. Are you suggesting that positive can be linked to Feminist policy, because the negatives of single parents can.
Birth rates too. Destroy the foundation for building families and its bound to have a negative effect on birth rates.
And theres still the disenfranchisement of men, which you dont care about. Apparently your moral compass is off there.
Society can exist just fine without individual men and individual women. After all, it IS women who protect the mean. There are more stupid men than there are stupid women. And stupid men are dangerous. Like you for instance, who thinks that violence SHOULD happen when there is a verbal altercation.
Stupid women are not violent, they just tend to breed too much. That effect can be mitigated with birth control and abortion.
Society would actually be better off with a majority of women and only intelligent men. Which would ultimately result in fewer overall men. But I don’t really see how we diverge here. If you think women are not needed, then just go your own way and don’t worry about us. We won’t miss you. I mean, millions of men kill themselves every year proving just that.
The rule of thumb is a myth (http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html). Dont believe EVERY reason your gender studies professor gives you for hating men.
And I have no problem with it being illegal for men to beat their wives. I just dont think wife battery was ever “routine”, and I think promotion of that myth is a problem. Not all men are violent psychopaths who love beating women you know.
I might care if the “disenfranchisement of men” wasn’t presented by you “men” as “bitterness over loss of dominance and control over women.” If what is “disenfranchising” men is that women can go to college and get a job now too and that it’s no longer illegal to beat your wife and force her to have sex with you, then frankly, they need to suck it up and be men.
If they have legitimate issues worthy of consideration, I’d love to hear those. Hasn’t happened yet.
I’ve said before that traditional marriage was like a corporate monopoly with no regulation and no auditing. It corrupts.
I can’t say for certain that many women given complete and total dominion with no repercussions over men wouldn’t behave in the same way. I am for agency. No gender should have to be dependent on another for their livelihood. Everyone should have the opportunity to determine what their role will be for themselves, whether that’s mother, astronaut, or whatever the heck they want it to be.
That wasn’t a healthy dynamic and it wouldn’t be in the reverse, either.
How do women protect the mean? Please…elaborate. I don’t think violence should happen when there is a verbal altercation between men, I’m citing the history of the human race as proof of that. Abortion brings a curse on the woman an on the generations that do it. When have you ever seen women in general who live with no guilt from having abortions? Society has had many intelligent men, those men created wars to protect their country or to advance an empire. You logic is severely flawed. I’m perfectly fine with a society with more women than men as most men would be…..more pussy for us. But unfortunately that also would mean our society would either eventually crumble or be taken over by a society with majority men. VIOLENCE is the end all be all solution to all problems throughout human history. If two people or nations can’t agree, they use violence to solve the issue. the person or nation that wins is right, no matter if he was wrong. That is FACT! You give me a society of intellectuals and I’ll give you a society ripe to be conquered by violent men.
Yep, beating women is mens second most favorite activity. After sports. Thats literally my entire argument.
Maybe listen to it from a woman instead and read some Dr Helen Smith or Christina Hoff Sommers. But be pre warned, you’ll have to come up with some other excuse other than “bitterness” and “desire for women beating” for why you’re still not going to give a shit about anyone who doesnt share your gender though.
Historically, there have been more male geniuses and more male idiots with women being average and tending to not be too extreme in either direction: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx. There did persist, however, a 5-point differential, and this was evident in male overrepresentation in the top distribution, which was used to justify the “glass ceiling”, with some pointing to it as “biological determinism”: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1274952/Men-ARE-brainy-women-says-scientist-Professor-Richard-Lynn.html.
However, this has recently been turned on its head with women gaining a 1-point advantage in average IQ over men: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/women-have-higher-iq-scores-than-men-james-flynn_n_1677963.html. In any case, with the “average” woman being more civilized than the “average” man in all levels of behaviour, society would function best with mostly women and only intelligent men.
Yep, whole MRAs devote lots of time to whining about how the loss of marital rape oppresses them: http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/wives-demand-what-the-farce-of-household-equality/
You can’t make this stuff up!
Men: the whinier sex.
That society…The nonviolent, intellectual one with mostly women and intellectual men. How long do you imagine it existing before it is destroyed…either from within or from without. You show me a society with mostly women and intellectual men and I’ll show you a society beholden to everyone else for its continued existence. You probably believe that nonviolence is a good thing. You be nonviolent and wait till the violent people come around and take everything from your society including their lives.
Everyone should have the opportunity to determine what their role will be for themselves, whether that’s mother, astronaut, or whatever the heck they want it to be.
I dont think thats realistic. Its a nice sentiment, but I dont think its realistic. And I dont believe humanity is at the point where it can design a functoning and stable society along such lines. I dont know if if will ever be at that point. Theres still a lot of selfish animal instinct in our species, as well as a lot of physical and mental inequalities. Trying to force an environment of equal and fair outcomes over that is anathema.
I dont recall either of those two women I mentioned talking about marital rape. I presume you couldnt find anything objectionable that they said quickly enough, so you just picked a random MRA article, that I never mentioned, to rail against?
I thought you said you’d “love to” hear “legitimate issues worthy of consideration”? Apparently finding something to get offended about to justify your complete lack of interest in the fates of those who dont happen to share your gender is more important. But I know, we men here are mean, which completely justifies you not giving a shit about all men, everywhere.
If men are feral beasts for that course of action, how would you define someone that insists on yelling, insulting, invading personal space, etc?
I completely agree.
I think there should *also* be an institution that allows those people who cannot provide for themselves, but are young, beautiful and potentially fertile, to offer themselves to stronger, experienced, independent people.
Obviously the typical case for that scenario would be a man and a woman and *that deal* was what used to be called marriage.
Of course you can (and could) become a woman astronaut, you can become a woman entrepreneur and you can become whatever you want, now and two hundred years ago – men won’t stop you.
It’s just that there are a lot of women who have no desire to do these things, want to be lead and protected by men, and want to be mothers. There are also a lot of men who want to be the providers and protectors of a beautiful wife as well as a father of children.
Those are the ones who needed the institution of marriage, an institution that now no longer represents the deal it used to.
I would be absolutely satisfied if marriage contracts could just optionally allow “spousal rape” and “battery” (ie spanking) clauses. Then everyone can choose what kind of relationship they want.
You still here? Close your facegina and go home.
As usual, you’re full of shit. Brazil and Barbados has become more stable, allowing women the luxury to think about that shit in the first place. Where were the feminist in the times of dangerous turmoil?
They only came out of the woodworks when men starting getting that shit under control. Notice how little police women there were in the field when the slums were a death trap and a lot of the police partly acted as urban military units in Brazil.
Granted, they still have a lot of stuff to work out and it’s still very corrupt, but the improvements within the last 30 years were massive…where were the feminists fighting for equal rights at that time? They could’ve been on the front lines as equals with men during the worst times.
Nope, no-fault divorce in the US was established because of the lengthy and tiresome process of proving fault. It became lengthy because the man and woman would accuse each other of infidelity and the evidence would go back and forth.
The number of divorce rates started increasing during that time and there was a a lot of pressure to create a more efficient system. The courts didn’t want to deal with it so the no-fault divorce was established.
American police also didn’t required multiple calls. There just had to be proof of being beaten…like all crime. If you accuse anyone of anything, you need proof. So this included signs of injury or 3rd party witnesses, standard procedure.
Now, you don’t even need proof in a lot of cases. In the UK, all a woman has to do is make a single accusation and the husband would be banned from his home for at least 48 hours. This is bullshit since no proof needs to be presented and it’s not how crime is investigated.
But I’m sure in the future, women will suffer from this as well. More and more research is revealing that women are responsible for just as much spousal abuse and are often more dangerous since they use weapons. Europe is just starting to shows signs of taking sexual harassment against men more seriously.
Actually, according to the cross-cultural examination by evolutionary psychology, researchers put the number as high as 10%. 1 in 10 of us don’t have the father we think we have, this was conducted quite a while ago.
It’s part of basic female mating strategy and it has nothing to do with domestic abuse as new research shows that women can be worse.
Feminists are trying to get men to pay for child support even though it’s not their kids. So far, if illegitimacy is discovery early on, the man doesn’t have to pay anything, as it should be.
This will just push us in the direction in the way of getting an automatic paternity test upon birth and reveal the truth, that illegitimacy is actually a lot higher and continue to create distrust between men and women.
Matriarchal societies are weak, poor and undeveloped. You’re free to go out into the wild and start your own with the fellow women. A society with a majority of women is a weak society since we live under democracy. And since the majority of all people are stupid, the decisions will be made by stupid women.
The most prosperous societies today were established on the blood and innovation of men. Even the blood of stupid men were required to make it happen. It’s what happens when resources are limited and survival depends on them. Didn’t think something this simple needs to be explained.
In the immortal words of Al Pacino — “Banshee’s”
Wrong, all of our modern technological benefits from the work of men. Newton started the science revolution, Einstein fathered the first pillar of physics, godfathered the second and paved way for the unification of both. And the leading scientists working on this unification are mostly men.
Take a look at the Noble Laureates, the number of women in the sciences are negligible. Those are the people that drive advancement as a human species.
Those links are irrelevant. As for the quote, the law makes sense. Why would you put someone in jail or divorce someone if they beat you only once? It could be the women was acting like a bitch and deserved it. The beating was merely a means of putting a woman back in her place.
Now if a woman is being beaten constantly, then there is a pattern and it is likely that the man has problems. Then you can divorce.
Lisa, I expect a well reasoned response, that does not use any common feminist ideology. I expect your own original analysis, research to disprove my point (my logic is solid). Currently your arguments and aggression is hilarious. Prove that you are capable of logical argument.
Women are even worse, they can falsify rape and domestic abuse charges when they’re the ones that start it in the first place.
Women are more likely to be the perpetrators of domestic abuse with emotional abuse and they far more likely to use weapons.
You seem to think that just because men commit crimes, women don’t. In reality, women are worse.
Single mothers are more likely to raise more criminals and daughters to be single mothers.
In Europe, they take more resource from society than contribute.
Single fathers raise their children to perform better in school and they go on to become more productive citizens.
Fields of medicine with more women perform worse than fields with more men. They work less, take more breaks from work, creating slower progress and service.
Women work significantly less over their life time compared to men in the same field. For the same about of resources that society commits to women, society gets significantly less return.
When resources are limited, it’s just poor investment.
“Where were the feminist in the times of dangerous turmoil?”
As someone whose matrilineal family descends from one of those parts of the world, I can tell you for a fact it is “trying to survive and feed their families.” Not always an easy feat when you have 8 children and a husband who abandons you to start a family with someone new. Yes, this really happened to my grandmother. Sisters and children raised themselves in poverty. Men, as per usual, could not always be trusted and therefore depending on them to survive was always a poor bet for women.
Once things became more prosperous, the women who had been surviving for themselves just became more vocal about it.
People *should* be accountable for abuse and no one should have to depend on an abuser for their very survival. So if people – that includes women – are being held accountable for abuse, that can only be a good thing. And if people – that includes women – are feeling less pressure to stay in a toxic and abusive marriage, then that is a good thing.
Can you please cite your sources? Because mine are credible and based on DNA testing going back several decades: http://www.livescience.com/375-surprise-1-25-dads-real-father.html
Re: automatic paternity testing, I see no problem with that. If someone is committing paternity fraud there should be consequences for that.
It’s too bad women don’t have such an easy method to determine infidelity/lying given that 1 in 3 men admits to cheating on his wife.
Actually no, I was in bed. I awoke to find 45 notifications from obsessed and butthurt men.
Man, I’ve got your collective panties in a bunch.
I agree that this needs to change. Women are not pursuing careers in math in the numbers they should given their actual ability: http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/12/19/girls-good-at-math-half-as-likely-to-study-stem/
The numbers of Canadian women pursuing an engineering degree never did fully rebound after the 14 women were shot for being female engineers by a crazy and deranged MRA, but my hope is that internalized stereotype bias can be overcome within my lifetime.
It’s unfortunate that women are downplaying their potential because of men: http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/articles/2013/11/19/dating-in-the-stem-fields-can-women-in-science-be-sexy-and-successful.html
A man today who beats another man goes to jail immediately. That’s actually called ASSAULT. I know you think it doesn’t matter if a woman gets beaten because “she probably deserved it,” but as per usual, I thank you for your contribution to showing the necessity of feminism and its perpetuation. You just demonstrate that many men are sociopaths who could not be trusted with power over women and who actually think beating women is acceptable. You make the feminists’ misandrist argument for them. So thank you. Thank you very much:)
It’s selection bias. Men are substantially more likely to be deadbeats than single fathers. Single fathers are a very small group and a man who fights for custody of his kids (as opposed to refusing to pay his child support) are just particularly zealous and loving dads. If the numbers were the same we could make a comparison, but that will never happen because men don’t care about their offspring as much as women do.
I frequent MRA blogs and the only things they ever have to say is how shitty women are because they have jobs now, are fatter (they don’t care that men are too), have more sexual partners today and men are no longer allowed to beat and rape them with impunity. They also frequently assert that women are inferior but they still deserve to come to one every night.
All “concerns” are just variations on this same theme. And the same can be said of this website.
I frequent MRA blogs and the only things they ever have to say is how shitty women are because they have jobs now, are fatter (they don’t care that men are too), have more sexual partners today and men are no longer allowed to beat and rape them with impunity. They also frequently assert that women are inferior but they still deserve to come to one every night.
All “concerns” are just variations on this same theme. And the same can be said of this website.
You failed to provide a logical refutation to my post.
I think that if a man hits another men, and doesn’t kill him, he shouldn’t go to jail. That’s a symptom of feminism.
You failed because you resorted to ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem attacks means that you cannot provide a better argument.
Your little sob story just further supports this.You survived didn’t you? During times of dangerous turmoil, the men that have fought to do the actual protecting died.
Why didn’t women battle for equal rights then? Fight for the men to stay home and raise the kids. Not a single attempt was ever made by women when it was during times of war.
Lots of men would’ve been happy to stay home and raise kids instead of getting shot in the face and die in a mud puddle.
Women were all happy to stay home and raise kids during times of war and let the men die in their place. Apparently things were equal and they didn’t need more equality. Once the war was over, they start bitching how unfair everything was.
Sir, I agree with you completely. All of this going to jail because two men settle an argument with a fight just started 40 or so years ago. It used to be you won or lost the fight, licked your wounds and went about your life. This is just another example of the pussification of america.
Well I dont frequent MRA blogs, but I have read them in the past, and from my recollection they do talk about things other than the few ridiculous straw men you mentioned.
Regardless, your bringing them up is certainly a diversion from the work of the two women I suggested you check out. You know, because of your stated desire to find out about legitimate issues faced by men.
I remain completely unsurprised that you have apparently made no effort to do so. Thats just something you said so you could have the appearance of being fair and egalitarian, right?
Read Sperm Wars and Red Queen or take a course in evolutionary psychology that covers human mating strategies. You can spend weeks going through all of the research in those books. Those works are actually peer reviewed and uses published scholarly papers.
New research shows that over 40% of women now admit to have cheated, that’s higher than 1/3 men.
Every single one of your sources have been complete junk, why don’t you get some actual credible ones?
Compared to how long feminist has been going on, there is no competition, they’ve been whining for decades longer.
When women tried to join the marines and couldn’t even perform 3 bodyweight pull ups after going through the same training as men, all feminists have done was whine about how it was unfair.
Nope, not selection bias. Comparing single mothers and single fathers are perfectly valid under the scientific method.
Besides, 85% of cases, the woman gets sole custody. Why the hell should the man pay child support? Most men can’t even fight for custody because they don’t have the money to go through the court process.
It was also legal to beat your child and women were responsible for the vast majority of that. The children that were beaten by their mother had no one to call. The difference between a small child and a woman is a lot bigger difference from grown women and men.
Why do you put women rights above children’s?
I like that. When have men been “allowed” to beat and rape women. As if it were sanctioned by women. Oh you mean it was sanctioned by other men….hmmmm! The men who are in power. The men who decide to change society and the rule people live by. Feminism has never changed anything ever. it has no power to do so. Any and all changes that have happened have been by men instituting them..not women. women have no power in this world other than sex and raising children. Who gave women the ability to vote in america….men. Who tolerates feminism…men. Women have no power base. Even feminists had and have to go to men to ask for any changes they want. Of course we want to cum to women every night, you feel great to us and bring us pleasure…thats logical. As for being fatter…men and women should take care of their bodies but Men will never lose out on a mate because they are fat…they will lose out on a mate because they are jobless. A woman’s initial worth to men is in her beauty. Why do you think women go to all the trouble to look “sexy” with make up etc. to attract men so they can find a mate and be taken care of. Society views older single women without kids as failures ….as it should.
“and from my recollection they do talk about things other than the few ridiculous straw men you mentioned”
Such as?
I’ve stated on another post AND here that I support reform to the current mandates around child support (as proposed here): http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/08/opting-out-women-can-have-an-abortion-some-men-say-they-should-have-a-choice-over-parenthood-too/ which would make it easier for men to abandon their children (a favourite activity of theirs). I mean, fair is fair, and women have the right to choose. I support free reproductive choice for both genders on principle regardless of my personal feelings about men. I just find it interesting that when men take a stand on something in an organized way it’s invariably how they can better abandon their offspring and force women to stay with them.
Children should not be beaten. That is why today we have child protective services and foster care to remove children from very unfit homes.
Men, however, being as self-serving as they are don’t want to fund anything with their taxes that benefits women or children, including child protective services, welfare, etc. They’d rather children just starve to death or be forced to stay in abusive homes (same goes for women).
“Men will never lose out on a mate because they are fat…they will lose
out on a mate because they are jobless. A woman’s initial worth to men
is in her beauty.”
Feminists would agree with you. That is one chief reason why women need education & incomes of their own, because they can’t depend on men to protect them and remain faithful to them. Their sole value to men is their youth and beauty. Therefore, women need to depend on themselves.
Women end their lives feeling less fulfilled then me do due to not having achieved their goals: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080729133605.htm. Getting married and having children alone did not help the old women today to find fulfillment (More than 90% of those unhappy older women did). They needed more. Feminists are trying to change that.
Child support is not for the benefit of the woman, but for the child.
I find it very telling that men don’t think they should have to pay for their own children unless they have them full time. Men seem to view their offspring in a transactional way. That’s soulless, but that’s men for ya!
So beating people should be legal as long as you don’t kill them?
You can’t reason with sociopaths. And statistically, most sociopaths are male. Just symptomatic of their moral inferiority to women.
Sperm Wars? rofl. I’m sure that pro-promiscuity drivel is interesting but I would take it with a grain of salt.
Re: female infidelity rate, please cite your sources. Because mine are credible (the National Science Foundation’s official numbers, peer-reviewed annually following the GSS): http://www.examiner.com/article/infidelity-study-has-major-flaw-researcher-says
Nope, it’s because the amount of time that’s needed to get into those fields. At the elite levels, researchers put in at least 80 hours a week.
Women in the entire western world work significantly less than men as a whole. They choose jobs with more flexible hours, take more time work and retire earlier than men when it’s possible. If you can’t pay your dues, you can’t get the results of those men.
Child custody issues, the unfairness of imputed income assesments to determine child support payments, imprisonment for failure to meet child support demands, false rape accusations, the lower standard of evidence in US schools for expelling male students after sexual assult claims are made against them, the higher rates of depression, suicide, imprisonment and homelessness of men (compared to women), the issues with primary aggressor clauses in domestic violence laws. Thats just a few things off the top of my head, that I can remember being discussed at MRA blogs. Other than the posts where they advocate for rape, beating women, abandoning their children, kicking puppies and worshipping almighty Satan of course.
Im guessing you didnt notice all that stuff because there wasnt any easy way to twist it into some fanciful justification for your hatred of men. Now that Ive mentioned them though, Im sure you’ll give it a go with at least one of the things I mentioned.
I have a feeling you have a poor understanding of the English language. Either that or you are purposely twisting what I wrote. Mr Direct, below, seems to fully understanding what I’m saying.
Beating implies that the other person does not fight back. Fighting implies that the other person fights back.
In fact, I do think that hitting should be legal as long as you don’t kill them, You got a problem with that?
If you were my wife, I’d bend you over the knee and spank you with a belt until you begged for mercy. Then you’d have no choice but to go cooking for me, as a remedy for poor behavior.You’d have no choice but to like it.
When I was in the Red Army as a young man, intellectuals where hated the most, for often times they’d be weak as kittens, have weak shoulders and would never fight back when insulted — they never stood up for themselves.
Since they never stood up for themselves, they would be beaten brutally, made to do all the dirty work in camp, etc.
I have seen much of this behavior amongst “intellectuals” while working in STEM fields in the West and in the USSR. For some reason, intellectuals have a problem standing up to people.
If you have an intellectual society the same thing will happen.
Nice, shows how uneducated you are. The research in sperms wars was game changing for the establishment of evolutionary psychology.
Your source is crap as usual:
“But again, the authors acknowledged that an inherent flaw is that they did not define what constitutes infidelity.”
Produce a credible source to support your argument first, otherwise, I don’t need provide one to further disprove your arguments.
Many women volunteered to put themselves in war zones nursing those men back to health and comforting them. Had they been allowed to join the army they might have volunteered to do that too (as they do today).
Yes, 7 of the 8 children survived to see adulthood. But not without many of them emigrating here. Thanks for trivializing it, though. Nice to know that you don’t care if women and children starve to death just so long as women “know their place.”
That is less true of women today than any previous generation:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/millennial-women-wage-gap_n_4424939.html
And http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html?pagewanted=all
Again, we are working on it. I hope to see a reversal in my lifetime.
In theory, but the woman doesn’t need to present proof that the money was actually spend on the child.
A man shouldn’t need to pay a woman that has sole child custody without any accountable proof that the money is actually being spent on the child.
Fathers that have joint custody pay for child support just like mothers. The only difference is that when a woman doesn’t pay, it’s more rare for the law to enforce it with jail time.
No, that’s in the study that showed the infidelity gap had all but closed that they discredited. Then they reference the GSS in which it WAS defined. Please read the article in full before you comment on it so you don’t sound like an idiot.
And evolutionary psychology is not a respected field of “research.” Many evo-psychs themselves laugh at Sex At Dawn.
Your example is laughable. Comparing raising kids and dying in a war. Lots of men would’ve loved to have switched roles with the women.
Sure there were Nurses. Check the death toll from WW1 and WW2. Women’s death toll doesn’t hit the triple digits and you want to compare their sacrifice with the mens?
Again, where is the equality? Why didn’t women fight for the right to make up at least 40% of the war effort like in the modern work place? That war was not equal by any means when it came to women and men.
Feminism takes a backseat when there is war and death at risk. It only comes out when things are safe, very convenient.
I agree completely sir.
It’s still not happening at the elite levels, even in the most ‘equal’ countries in Europe.
The president of Harvard had to step down after pointing out the 80 hours/week required and women not putting in the hours. Since women are so sensitive to anything resembling criticism, I doubt they’ll ever make it.
Women DID fight to join the army and die alongside men. it’s only in the last year they’ve been granted permission to do so: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/24/us-military-lifts-ban-women-combat
Except no link to the ‘defined’ study was even provided.
Here ya go: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/women-cheating-men-study/story?id=1388551
I should warn you, I’ve researched this topic quite a bit. Men have always cheated more and continue to do so. It’s especially pronounced among black men with estimates from 33 – 44% of black married men cheating: http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/02/14/reviews/990214.14fonert.html, http://anepigone.blogspot.ca/2010/03/infidelity-rates-by-ethnicity.html. For white men the number is closer to 1 in 3. For Chinese men there’s no telling but the number appears to be very high: http://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/10/the-secret-factor-in-chinas-housing-bubble-mistresses/280468/
The rare woman died, but the death toll numbers don’t lie. Female fatalities don’t even make up 0.00001 of the male fatalities.
No feminist effort has ever been put towards making up 40% of the war effort like 40% of the workforce.
Now we’re reached the most peaceful times for millenias and finally they make a push to join the forces. They physically under perform compared to men and still want the same pay. Convenient.
Germany’s labour laws mean that workers can’t exceed 35 hours per week. They have a persistent labour shortage and this has only helped their economy. When you have too many workers and an excess of labour, each individual worker is worth less. Chronic labour shortages force employers to pay more. An 80-hour workweek may be more noble and necessary in the field of medicine, but it certainly isn’t required for the average office drone.
The fight for equality has not existed in a vacuum. They have been fighting to repeal DADT and make the military safer for women (read: minimize the risk of rape) for decades: http://www.vvawai.org/archive/sw/sw48/rape.html. And they’re still working on it. Do you really think the decision was made at the beginning of 2013 because they JUST started asking for it? Get real.
Dying for your country is honourable; getting raped before doing so is not.
They’re not hitting the same levels because they don’t put in the same time and work as men.
At least 80 hours a week is required at the elite levels and you basically throw away your family and social life. Every report by every census in the western world shows that women just don’t put in those hours. Even in the most ‘equal’ countries as you call them, this is apparent.
So according to you, the average office drone are comparable to the elite levels of innovation? I don’t think anymore needs to be said.
Actually, the military is perhaps the best example of how women cannot trust men to police themselves and their own behaviour around them.
When women and men are left to their own devices in a male culture, they routinely rape women.
Going through your crappy article links are just going to be a waste of time. You have been discredited on them every single time so far and it has been many times.
Post your sources as a credible study for the raw data itself. Directly to the academic institution hosting the pdf, spingerlink, pub med, or even a abstract from jstor, etc…
Pull up even one that has a good sample size with fairly even numbers of men and women from a credible source and only then will you have a worthwhile argument.
Keep the excuses coming. Hell, fight for more female only divisions. Why not? With their performance record, they’ll die in war missions and waste government resources. Anything to get out of it right?
Isolated reports of crimes shows nothing of the big picture, just something to hide under.
The bottom line is that feminists only push for more benefits when it’s safe and convenient. And not a single effort has been made during times of large scale war to make up more of the war effort.
You can pull out all the isolated cases you want, it’s not going to change the nature of feminism.
The studies referenced here are older, but here ya go: http://www.ipedr.com/vol19/34-ICAMS2011-A10054.pdf
This picks apart research from the Kinsey Institute and Cornell University: http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/01/5-things-you-didnt-know-about-infidelity/#ixzz2Zxq1NqOz
Here is data from I’m sure he’s much-beloved to you evo-psych Satoshi Kanazawa: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201004/why-more-intelligent-men-not-women-value-sexual-exclusivit
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2013/03/22/how-common-is-cheating-infidelity-really/
The GSS surveys some 6000 families every year. You can deny it lal you want but one of the risk factors for infidelity is maleness.
If the objective is to get out of it, they wouldn’t have fought for the right to get INTO it.
Germany’s workers cannot exceed 35 hours per week. The country has not fallen apart and in fact, they have one of the best healthcare systems in the world. If it were really essential for doctors to work until they fall down dead I doubt that would be the case.
You’re funny, there isn’t going to be a single elite of r&d working 35 hours a week. But if that’s the feminist stance on working, then that’s all they’ll amount to.
Why do you think the US to continues to hold the most Noble prize winners? They attract talent and the talent works their ass off to push the fringes of research and development.
Evolutionary psychology is not credible. For instance, American evo-psychs speculated biological reasons why American women experience more jealousy at emotional infidelity than sexual and American men experience more jealousy of sexual infidelity than emotional, while completely ignoring that the results are different everywhere else: http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/sex-jealousy-and-violence/
The US has all the Jews, that’s why.
Jews win a lot of Nobel prizes.
The last 3 links are more of your random ‘articles’ and not worth looking at since raw data from a credible source is what counts.
I checked your first link since it actually had an illusion of academia, but it was disastrous as usual.
It was just a review that briefly touched on studies around the world starting early 70’s. The only times it hinted at presenting male and female infidelity rates was not sourced with an annotation.
This doesn’t even make sense since you’re trying to show that men cheat more than women in modern times.
The whole thing was also written by this person:
“Bahareh Zare of Islamic Azad University, Marvdasht branch, marvdasht, shiraz, iran.”
What?
While Azad University actually seems legit. The Marvdasht branch’s psychology department is a joke and their humanities department might as well not exist, just look at their published work:
http://www.researchgate.net/institution/Islamic_Azad_University_Marvdasht_Branch/publications
Just about any first year university student in their first semester can put together a better review.
The easiest way to find any good sources is to use google scholar or your own university/college database and you’d never get shitty sources like this.
If you actually use legitimate channels, you’ll notice something very quickly, there is little credible raw data and research (if any) directly comparing infidelity between men and women. The most respectable academic institutions in the world all stay clear of publishing papers on this direct comparison since whatever data is available, it’s easy to dismiss and not taken seriously.
The shit you come up with is just ‘infotainment’ for the masses that’s meant to spark a little controversy. Easily dismissed as it does not carry any real weight.
Going by that train of thought, the establishment of psychology is not credible. But in the academic world, it has been recognized as our best working model on the subject and papers that are published follow proper protocol. The means that the Red Queen and Sperm Wars uses proper empirical data to support its theories.
Besides, physicists complain that the current working models and theories are a mess at the higher levels, people complain that string theory is made up fantasy and the second pillar of physics doesn’t even make sense. But they are the best working models we have and it’s support by empirical evidence that the academic world recognizes and it gives us actual technological benefits.
The infidelity gap is actually a joke if you haven’t figured it out already.
Right, because now we’re enjoying the most peaceful times in millenias (arguably the most peaceful in human history).
Awesome, keep the feminist wisdom coming.
If single fathers are the only ones who can successfully afford the court process as you allege, then it would be more accurate to say that men of a high socioeconomic status make good single parents. Oh, I don’t doubt it.
I agree; it IS a joke how many men cheat on their wives and how busy prostitutes have been keeping.
Well I do agree with you on one thing; research papers aren’t necessarily very telling.
Particularly for women, you get far more credible results from online surveys because the anonymity keeps women feeling safe enough to be honest. That’s why this one of 70,000 found the highest female infidelity rate (1 in 5 for 30 year marriages): http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17951664/ns/health-sexual_health/t/many-cheat-thrill-more-stay-true-love/
What I find so compelling is the results have not changed one bit for men; 1 in 3 for 30-year marriages, with married men having the highest infidelity rate.
I mean, the surveys just tell us what common sense would also tell us. Men cheat more than women do, and rich men and black men are the worst.
“Overall, Jews have won a total of 41% of all the Nobel Prizes in
economics, 28% of medicine, 26% of Physics, 19% of Chemistry, 13% of
Literature and 9% of all peace awards.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates
If Europe had the same number of Jews as America does, they’d win more prizes.
You do realize that majority that are sexually assulted in the military are men right? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/us/in-debate-over-military-sexual-assault-men-are-overlooked-victims.html?pagewanted%3Dall&_r=0
OK, people in masculine/male-dominated cultures are not safe.
Thank goodness for integration.
And yet resources are dedicated to helping women, even though the majority of the sexually assulted are men, feminist logic for you.
And the women dominated cultures just died out period.
No, they’re Americans first and foremost with Jewish ancestry and America is made up of people from around the world.
Here is a simple test for you, where do the most Jews live?
Israel
How many noble prizes does Israel hold?
Hint….a tiny fraction of what America holds.
It’s the American foundation that allows talent to flourish.
Also, progress is dependant in the progression of physics and mathematics. Without these as the foundation paving way, human civilization progresses very slowly. Why do you think progress exploded after Newton and Einstein?
There is a reason online surveys are laughable, there is absolutely no academic accountability and it’s easily manipulated by a 3rd party. Even the Times surveys were gamed for entertainment.
At least academic papers follow a guideline so you can spot bias with a single glance. Scholarly works also has researchers monitoring the entire controlled process, following proper protocol to avoid bias. Their entire academic careers depend on it.
All of your ‘sources’ are trashy gossip at best. Maybe the majority of feminist buy into it, but not the educated person.
Here is an actual study where the researcher continued to publish over the years and gets featured in the Journal of Sex Research (which is peer reviewed and as good as it gets when it comes to research in this area):
Muehlenhard, C. L. & Cook, S. W. (1988). Men’s self reports of unwanted sexual activity. The Journal of Sex Research, 24, 58-72. (A questionnaire examining unwanted sexual activity was administered to 507 men and 486 women. Findings reveal that 97.5% of women and 93.5% of men had experienced some form of unwanted sexuality activity with significantly more men (62.7%) than women (46.3%) reporting having engaged in unwanted sexual intercourse. The main reasons men engaged in unwanted sexual behavior compared to women were peer pressure and the desire for popularity.)
The source you provided wasn’t even a research paper. You clearly never went to University where you were required to use credible research as sources.
You presented a poorly written review by some person in a 3rd world country educated in university with a garbage psychology department.
All of your other sources and arguments are no better.
Speaking of universities, researchers from Alliant University in San Francisco conducted a study with 6,864 participants in 1975 and then in 2000 and found that infidelity has declined, down from 28 percent for men 20 percent in 2000, and from 23 percent for women down to 14 percent. No matter the source though, and there are many, the differential for men always persists.
I don’t expect misogynists to acknowledge the truth though, they’re too self-serving and self-pitying to be objective.
Men wouldn’t need to sleep with prostitutes if their wives were having sex with them on a regular basis, but then that would be too demeaning for a “strong, independent” woman.
Society would also be better off with only smart women. I’m thinking 130 plus. Most other women are intolerable in the workplace (due to inferior logic skills and an inability to control their inevitable workplace butthurt and feral, vicious group instinct) and in relationships (making them utterly useless) unless they are so sweet and nice that it hurts.
At least less intelligent men make perfectly good soldiers and competent policemen. Which you require, like it or not.
I can’t think of many uses for less intelligent women, other than as assistants to men. We don’t need many of those.
What’s your IQ? Be honest.
Oh, and by the way, you just posed an argument against the legitimacy of the mean. As you imply, fuck the mean and those around it. Men and women. The bad news for you is that there are many more men than women in the second and third standard deviations.
A smart woman might have known that.
What should we do with the stupid women? At least the men can be soldiers and cops to protect your ass (that is, if you test out of the SD that we are apparently going to do away with).
That leads me to this next point:: when talking IQ, only standard deviations matter. Therefore, you sound like a MORON when speaking of a “1 point advantage” or a “5 point differential”. A very nice display of feminine intelligence you are. Ladies, be proud of LIsa546, as she represents you all here with her intelligence and eugenics logic. Let’s hope that she gets it right, for her sake and yours. She isn’t off to a very good start.
As I before touched upon, you will necessarily be including all men and women in the standard deviation of IQ tested subjects that you say we have no use for. That means that the swing is 15 points.
Again, where do you test?
The feminists logic: 35 hour per week maximum correlates with a great healthcare system.
Are you sure that you don’t do research for a living? 🙂
This isn’t always the case.
Early training is the key.
If you have an intellectual kid, just enroll him in wrestling at a young age and support him as much as possible to be good at it.
It’ll give him as much heart, physical strength, and courage as his potential allows for. You might be surprised.
No need to repeat yourself, freak. I’m guessing from your various enraged posts that are you butthurt?
Yes, a standard deviation is 15 points but researchers regularly acknowledge that factors influence g by as little as two points such as baldness, spanking children (5 points), smoking (7 points), etc.
I tested at 127 and 116 respectively.
What are the leading researchers names?
How many women were sampled, how many men were sampled?
How did they select the participants?
Which peer reviewed journal was it published in?
I don’t expect feminists to be objective enough to provide credible and unbiased evidence.
P.S. gossip sites and ‘pretend’ news sites makes stuff up all the time, they are not a credible source. But that’s where you get all your info, which explains why you’re so ignorant.
Naturally, men who are hypocrites by nature had no problem pointing out the small differential when it favoured men. Now that it doesn’t it’s “inconsequential” and “within a standard deviation.”
You have to love the statistical spin… “More than 90% of those unhappy older women did (have children)”
Hilarious. Keep it up. Hopefully, we won’t get so dizzy that we puke..
By the way, try linking to the original research that we can read and evaluate for validity. The science direct articles don’t cut it, especially for the notoriously poorly designed research in the social sciences.
If you don’t have access to the original article, then you’re just bullshitting your positions.
That’s quite funny given that earlier ‘guest’ was asking for sciencedirect, pubmed links, etc.
The fact is that misogynists will never acknowledge any research that doesn’t support their delusions, no matter the sample size, who published it, or where the study appears. They provide no data ever to support their stances, but are the first to dismiss actual data.
Men are not capable of objectivity. They have always been hypocrites. That is why they cheated on their wives while forcing them to wear chastity belts.
Dr. Robert-Jay Green of the Rockway Institute and CSPP Alumna Dr. Gabrielle Gotta. The research originally appeared in USA Today but of course, that’s not a peer-reviewed journal only a well-respected publication, so you can go ahead and dismiss it now. rofl.
Fictional generalizations and made up, hateful reasons for those generalizations will get you nowhere outside of your women’s studies class.
The politics for welfare are much more complicated then your lazy straw man implies.
Are you done yet? I thought that after the thumb/strap remark the bullshit was getting thick, but now…
Maybe you’d like to slink away before you become a complete mockery.
Yep, you got it! Not credible, dismissed.
You do realize that 6,864 participants is an absolutely massive number for a legitimate study in that field. There is no way it would fly under the radar of any respected journal if it was actually academically credible.
Like I said, men will never acknowledge the truth (about male moral inferiority) because they are self-serving and hypocritical by nature.
It’s the same reason they always cite this study: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=men-who-do-housework-have-less-sex and ignore this one: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/men-want-more-sex-do-the-laundry-12-09-2007/ in spite of the larger sample size and more recent date of the latter data, and in spite of the fact that the same study they’re touting as reason to be as lazy and useless around the house as they’re inclined also showed that couples in egalitarian marriages reported higher overall marital satisfaction.
They only see what they want to see, and that is what allows them to be selfish.
Anyway, at 140+ notifications in a single day, I simply cannot respond to you “gentlemen” anymore.
Unlike the bitter male rejects that frequent this website, I have a life, a job, and partner to attend do.
No-fault divorce is going nowhere, and neither is egalitarianism in the foreseeable future. My best advice to you all is to get over it.
I don’t know what guys you’re talking about, but neither of those links prove anything, they don’t have any credible stats.
You have failed to provide a single piece of credible research in your arguments. I even gave you an example of what good research looks like when I showed you that women were more likely to coerce men into sex. A study of around 1000 participants with even sex ratios, following proper research protocol revealing an interesting finding gets peer reviewed and published in one of the most respected journals in that field, it’s as simple as that.
A proper study with almost 7000 participants would’ve eclipsed any past findings on direct comparison infidelity between women. But clearly, it wasn’t properly conducted as you can’t even find the perimeters.
The reason you were unable to find any legitimate evidence was because it doesn’t exist, just like why you couldn’t find any legitimate evidence on your other arguments.
You are everything that you accuse the misogynists of and you can’t even see it. Classic feminist behaviour.
Marriage and birth rates will just keep dropping until the divorce process gets fixed, feminism will continue to be called out on its bullshit, and sites like this will just keep gaining more momentum.
My best advice to you is to get over it.
1.59 murders per capita? I think, like the rest of your bullshit, you just pulled that out of your ass. Think about your silly little statistic… more than 1.5 people get murdered for every resident.
Right, here you are crying about how immoral men are and how much harder it is to raise children than to fight in a war on the front lines.
It is really simple: men just have to stop killing each other over territory. If men could just learn to overcome their base, feral instincts, we could have a more peaceful world.
And if pigs had wings they could fly. This is human nature, unchanged for thousands of years. You’re delusional if you think thats going to change. But then again, you are a Feminist, so delusional beliefs about human nature are kind of your thing.
Men are prone to violence, especially when contesting needed and limited resources, like territory. They are also the ones who build advanced civilisations and who are responsible for the easy lives you and I have today. Its a double edged sword, but judging by the outcome, the overall excellent quality of life for those in the West, Id say that one side cuts harder than the other.
I find it funny, although not at all surprising given your Feminism, that you are so willing to heavily castigate men for this negative quality, while completely ignoring and trivialising the positives. Even while the evidence for the positive impact men have made in your life stares you in the face.
And this is what happens when they are given the right to do so:
http://news.yahoo.com/marines-delay-female-fitness-plan-half-fail-203830967–politics.html
Good luck ladies, welcome to the meat grinder.
You just described feminism.
The annual General Social Survey is funded by the National Science Foundation: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1991-98874-000
Those are the most respected, referenced and peer-reviewed sociological numbers you are going to get. They have more than 20 years of follow-up. The official numbers for the male infidelity rate is 28% for men over 60, and 15% for women over 60.
It’s really sad that in order to defend your perspective of women cheating as much as men, you have to deny the existence of statistics and credible studies.
The annual General Social Survey is funded by the National Science Foundation: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/34802
Those are the most respected, referenced and peer-reviewed
sociological numbers you are going to get. They have more than 30 years of follow-up. The official numbers for the male infidelity rate is 28% for men over 60, and 15% for women over 60.
It’s really sad that in order to defend your perspective of women cheating as much as men, you have to deny the existence of statistics and credible studies.
“Marriage and birth rates will just keep dropping until the divorce process gets fixed”
Oh, you must be living on the imaginary planet where women care. In Sweden few young women are married NOW and they don’t miss it.
In Germany 1 in 4 women are childfree.
“sites like this will just keep gaining more momentum” wonderful. Keep whining and being butthurt on the internet. Nothing will make women want to marry and be dependent on men quite like statements like “women need to be spanked” and “women are substandard workers.”
Sounds a lot like the cheating women who blame men for their indiscretions.
Victim mentality, lack of personal responsibility. You call yourself a man? Sounds like you’re a bitch to me.
Funny how the chauvinists here do not acknowledge any recent science.
Einstein constantly had affairs.
Just because a man is professionally adept doesn’t mean that he’s a decent guy deserving of his wife, or any wife.
You guys would be well-served to get over your entitlement complex.
So you’re going to pretend women never batter men or serially cheat on men as well? So much for “equality.”
When women do that, men have always had the ability to leave, dipshit. And they always had jobs to support themselves. They were not dependent on anybody.
Thank you for proving my point.
And thank YOU for proving my initial impression of you; you’re a shrill, feminazi legbeard unworthy off my time. By the way, what you stated is inaccurate. Men’s jobs were dangerous jobs and they were very much dependent on their jobs. Whereas women were able to get a brother or a father to handle an abusive husband at the very least. And, only a woman’s serial cheating results in paternity fraud. Not a man’s.
Women who were not upper-middle-class also worked dangerous jobs but unlike the whinier men, they still get no acknowledge for it. They also faced sexual harassment at work until they began to have workplace rights in the 1980’s. Not all women had “brothers and fathers” who would handle an abusive husband; the cultural climate at the time was that it was fine to beat your wife and even today you have men saying that.
If it’s fine for a man to beat a wife, then it’s equally fine for the same man to pay for someone else’s kid.
More from you about how everyone thinks beating women is A OK, and always has been?
Theres a link below. It collects a number of old newspaper articles from the 19th century relating to the community response to domestic violence. In short, the Feminist agitprop about the supposed old timey enthusiasm for women beating that youve been endlessly going on about is a less than faithful representation of community attitudes.
http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2013/03/domestic-violence-was-not-tolerated-by.html
Here’s a few links describing how many in the 19th century routinely kept concubines and lost no standing in the community for doing so: https://blogs.lt.vt.edu/hist3164s13/2013/02/21/mulattoes-in-the-world-of-slavery/, http://books.google.ca/books?id=TVgWlOBl99cC&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=men+kept+mulatto+mistresses&source=bl&ots=_aKk8DZABF&sig=UIuamI_nIH0JnHZqmy9TZ9tM4vk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i8fKUtu1NuHu2wX3uoHwBA&ved=0CHIQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=men%20kept%20mulatto%20mistresses&f=false
Well, this is familiar. I refute a point you’ve been enlessly prattling on about, that men used to routinely beat their wives and society accepted it, and you… refute a point I never even made.
Dont change the subject, just admit you were wrong.
First of all, you’re full of shit. Sure things like that happened on occasion, men were also poisoned by their wives and raised illegitimate children unknowingly since they didn’t have DNA testing.
But that was the exception because despite all of that, not once did women rally together and make an attempt to fight in the wars as equals to men during any past wars. They rather keep their roles, hide behind their men.
More and more I am convinced that Patriarchy evolved to protect women from themselves.
Women need to be led
I am a firm believer that women need to be lead.
I never met a dame who didn’t understand a shlap in the face or a shlug from a .45.
I think they need to be laid
Oh yes, it sees giving them good dick fixes the problem almost every time.
Let’s compare women’s status with that of children. Do we regard children as “oppressed?” If we emancipated them at the age of 10 and said: “Go out and find a job and good luck!” and cut them loose, would that be a service or disservice?
Being provided for by men was a benefit. Certainly if women truly regarded this as oppressed then most women who agree with feminist principles in the workplace and the ballot box wouldn’t want traditional providers. Women aren’t oppressed by men paying for things.
But sure, there are cultures that do oppress women but they are not western and therefore often have good wife material. Ironically, they do treat women as equals in the sense that there is no hyper chivalry for women such as unconditional protection
and support. If a woman can’t support herself or find a man to provide for her, she and her offspring starves to death. That’s equality.
When the USSR was in operation, it was in many ways similar to Sweden. 2 year long paid maternity leave. High paying jobs for women. The works. But the economy didn’t work. Sound familiar? Obamaconomy is working on printed money. When it stops, there goes the so-called “equality” as feminists define it. Workers will be hired on ability rather than by gender quota.
The pic of the housewife looks like it’s from the 50s. The 50s were a different period for women because it was the era of the largest middle class. Therefore, most women had just a little bit easier. Before the 50s, the majority of women in urban areas had to work alongside their husbands to bring additional income for the family. You can say that life isn’t fair for the majority of people who were born on the lower totam pole.
Indeed. That period of time was a historical anamoly.
(sp)
Return Of Kings needs more articles like this and less trolling Clickbait.
I concur.
While I don’t think either gender has ever had an easier role to play, this article quite clearly relies on assumptions instead of evidence.
During the first wave of feminism, there certainly were housewives. But they sure as hell weren’t married to coal miners. You’ve forgotten to factor in social class. Women of the lower class weren’t the pampered house-tending pets you make them out to be; they worked as well as their husbands, and in conditions just as dangerous. It was mostly women who worked textile factories, where accidents were common – women and girls fourteen and younger lost limbs, fingers, or were caught in machinery. Women didn’t have unions either, and factories had no safety procedures for fires and other emergencies. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, for example, killed 123 women and 23 men who worked there. Married to your oppressed coal miner was a woman who worked a monotonous job in an unventilated factory, also facing lung damage, limb loss, or death every day.
Your housewives were middle to upper class, married to men with cushier jobs – businessmen, bankers, journalists, all those less labor-intensive jobs. It was a sign of status to have a wife who didn’t work, because it meant the husband made enough money to support her. The family structure you describe, where the wife stayed home while her husband worked, was limited to the middle class. Never would a factory worker or coal miner have a wife waiting for him at home with dinner ready on the table.
There’s a little bit of truth to this article. Women worked less than men and their husbands typically provided for them, and men usually didn’t have to do the chores. But this article compares the life of middle class women to that of lower class men to make men look oppressed, distorting the facts to make a case for discrimination where there wasn’t.
You’re confusing many concepts together and you’re missing the point. This article is not about men being oppressed or discriminated. It’s about the lie that women were treated badly in the past and that men took advantage of them, lie that is still spread around today.
So beating your wife and keeping concubines was NOT mistreating them.
Once again, thanks for proving feminists’ points.
And no one is saying that all men did that, only that women should not have to be dependent on or stay with a husband that does. Men are not entitled to wives no matter what.
So men and women were similarly repressed throughout history? Or am I missing the point of your post. So you are roughly in agreement with the above article? Oh and just back in 2012….lot of pics of men getting shot….
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513189/Marikana-miners-strike-South-African-police-ordered-vans-carry-32-bodies-shooting-34.html
I agree that complimentary roles were needed at the time for a family to survive, and even though that the roles were different, they were no less important than the other. However, the industrial revolution and the progressive era changed all of that.. Modern appliances made women’s roles easier, and collective bargaining rights made sure than the working class men had been paid a living wage feminism was a result of the industrial revolution, not the cause.
Let’s not forget WWII and that women had their first taste of work, and after the men came back from the war, they returned to their roles, only the rise against it 25 years later.
Only the rich had male privilage and this was about 5% of men. The rest of the men were workslaves. Something Femtards will never understand.
Can someone explain to me why Lisa546 isnt banned yet?
Great article 🙂
It’s good to see that not everyone is swallowing the non-sense you keep hearing on T.V. I agree that people should pay for their past mistakes, but if you didn’t make those mistakes and it wasn’t YOUR past you shouldn’t pay because someone with the same thing between your legs did it, also as the women born today are also children of men (as somehow you need both a father, & a mother to reproduce) they descent from the same people that somehow ”oppressed” them. I’m a black man who descents from the slave-owner and trader (a German noble), so somehow I should pay for the mistakes of my Slave-owner ancestor despite my family being more slaves, again, the logic that many Feminists make is plain senseless.
Men and women were never a team on equal terms, women were excluded economically, politically, socially and religiously. Also it’s not true that women never worked outside the home even today majority of the worlds food is produced by women but they don’t even own the land they work on. The first workers in the factories were also women. Only the wives of rich men didn’t work but they had to spend their lives as prisoners pretty much. Women were seen as property exchange between a father and a husband, women’s choices and desires mattered little, even rape was seen as a crime against the male owner (father, husband, brother) and not a crime against the women, heck often women were even blamed for it. In short women weren’t counted as human beings. I could go on and on there are centuries of patriarchal legacy and misogyny. And the love of women under patriarchy is so great that even today you have more than 200 million females missing in the world because they were concieved the wrong gender.
“majority of the worlds food is produced by women but they don’t even own the land they work on”. I have worked in agriculture for the last 20 years. Vast majority of food on the planet is produced on large industrial farms with the majority of farm owners and workers men. In those 20 years I can count on my one hand the number of women doing manual labour on farms. I grant you I’ve worked mostly in western countries. I would like to see where you got your evidence for the above statement.
Maybe if you go out of the western countries you will see who works on the fields.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0262e/x0262e16.htm
The article states that the men aren’t slackers either: They’re migrating to work in the cities in factories and other jobs that presumably pay more than local farming (otherwise, why would anyone migrate for factory work?)
In other words, men earn more and send that money home.
Another thing to keep in mind: One reason why so many people are starving is because food prices have spiked due to “global warming” lobbyists and crony-capitalists demanding ethanol subsidies which doesn’t save any net energy but consumes corn and wheat harvests. If that food was instead sent to the third world in trade for factory goods (produced by those worthless men), then there would be more food overall for the kids. Win win.
But simply providing more food isn’t the solution to poverty as our own welfare state has shown.
Just saw your reply. A report from 1996? And the UN? Such a reputable organisation.
http://www.fao.org/documents/en/detail/21841
Also the vast majority of food is produced on intensive mechanised farms throughout the world. Countries and regions such as China, India, Brazil, the US and Europe. Incidentally these also have the largest populations. According to your study Asia, most populace continent on the planet, is 50:50 when it comes to labour contribution by the sexes. Guess its women and men out in the fields.
In other words, men earn more and send that money home.
Problem is they don’t, they invest way less into their families.
‘But simply providing more food isn’t the solution to poverty as our own welfare state has shown.
No it’s not, that’s why the pograms focus on education and empowerment.
What does it matter from what year it is? If countries get industrialized then they are progressing, we are talking here about the past and the patriarchy and this is the picture of it.
Just take a look at what happened in Rwanda. The patriarchy there ultimately ended up in a genocide in which 1 million people got killed in a matter of weeks. The country got totally devastated, ruined homes, half a million orphans and 70:30 female to male population ratio. The women and the men who survived changed the constitution and the laws and implemented gender equality plus women got into politics and all other spheres of life, before that women couldn’t even own property. 20 years after the genocide Rwanda is the safest place in Africa and one of fastest developing countries in the region. They still have a long way to go and still lots of problems to solve but for african standards their recovery is miraculous.
It matters as you are presenting it as recent information, “you will see who works in the fields”. I would like to know how much time you have spent in third world countries rather than Googleing obscure statistics.
Also I would point out that the statistics you provided show that Asian countries split the labour between the sexes in agriculture equally 50:50. China and India produce the vast amount of food on the planet for their own populations.
I’ve heard this statistic before and it’s dishonest and misleading: “But it has been found that women also spend a significant part of their
household income – a much larger part proportionately than men – on
buying additional food for the family”
Aren’t women so noble! It makes them sound like they’re supporting the family and not men, right?
This statistic ignores basic economic realities. For example, a majority of a farm’s spending may have nothing to do with directly harvesting food. There’s fertilizer, labor, taxes, gasoline among others. When you buy a burger at a restaurant, only a fraction of that money goes to the actual ingredients of the burger. Every business owner or heck, even educated employee understands this.
Men spend a lot of money on business expenses but in the long run, they produce more income. So who does a better job of providing for their family? The man who spends $100 on his truck driving business and nets $200 or the woman who has a backyard and produces $50 worth of food? Women’s own personal choices shows that they prefer the bigger breadwinner.
I also chuckled about the pride of the article that women do so much agriculture in the third world. Aren’t these the same regions that require westerners to donate food to lest these women and children starve to death?
Well women invest 90% of their income into the development of their families compared to 30-40% of men. That’s why all the international organisations now work with women mostly to fight poverty and to change the communities. You may not like those facts but noone cares. The international community has been pouring billions in the developing world for decades with no much effect. The only thing that has been found to work is to educate and empower the women and then the entire community gets lifted off the ground.
Another appeal to authority: “noone cares”. Facts and logic don’t require a consensus. I stand by my observation above that percentages without context don’t mean a lot. You’re probably one of those women who sees a 50% off sale on designer shoes and thinks you’re saving money, don’t you?
The bottom line is who produces MORE income for the development of their families. The way that developed economies work is by accepting that a large percentage of income is spent on expenses but more is produced. A big factory costs millions of make and then millions more are needed for labor and materials and then it puts out a million 1 dollar twinkies a year. This is the kind of business that developed nations are able to handle. The micro-businesses that these business loans to women produce are a nice start, but won’t produce the kind of affluent lifestyle that western women are used to and that such women aspire to. You can’t have a cat scan machine made by a small woman business on a microloan.
And in the meantime, not helping the men has it’s own negative consequences as is seen by our inner city matriarchies.
You haven’t provided any evidence for your first statement referring to women producing the majority of food on the planet. Reliable evidence would be preferred. As I mentioned before I have worked in the agriculture sector for 20 years and not once heard this statement.
If you have any objections don’t adress them to me adress them to all the international organisations who have come to those conclusions and have seen solid results after years of going the other way. Tell them they lack logic, tell them how an investment into a child’s health and education is a waste of time etc. Good luck.
‘And in the meantime, not helping the men has it’s own negative consequences ‘
How is investing in the family not helping the men too is beyond me.
Wow! You sound like a high priestess for these organizations and you have so much authority! Not!
Hey, I’m just making observations that’s all. Sure, these are the same organizations that claimed in years past that their programs were going to end poverty in Africa and they didn’t work and now they’re trying something else and saying the same thing. Dollars to doughnuts they are probably funneling most of the money to their white male buddies in NYC or Brussels to buy lavish estates in Martha’s Vineyard.
Regarding your assertion that helping families isn’t the same thing as helping men, again, look at the way the welfare system works: Once boys reach the age of 18 or so and the mother no longer gets a check for them, they are usually out on the streets. On the other hand, a man whose a breadwinner for his family is the single, best way to get a family out of poverty rather than waiting for a World Bank loan to show up in the village in a decade or so. Maybe.
One solution for the third world has been to come to Western countries and then go on welfare and then demand Sharia law. So rather than the patriarchy dying, it appears to be taking over western matriarchal cultures!
‘Once boys reach the age of 18 or so and the mother no longer gets a check for them, they are usually out on the streets. ‘
In a poor family with uneducated mother who has not many opportunities sure. Your theory that only the father’s education and opportunity matter while the mother’s do not is simply bogus.
As for your suggestion how islam is taking over the world sorry but first birtrates are falling all around the world including in the muslim communities and they will stabilize at around replacement level in 2050 after that the world population will begin to decline a bit. And currently the fastest growing religion in the world is no religion Globalization wins and the old system is slowly dying.
[violin playing]
P.I.D., This is one of my favorite excuses I hear about welfare mothers and other modern women victims. Wasn’t the whole point of “The patriarchy dying” to give women choices and opportunities?
The neat thing about welfare is that the mother isn’t consuming her whole day with work. Most libraries are free in America, yes? And she had abortion choices, right? And “safe havens” too! (Safe havens are a nice word for infant abandonment centers.) All those choices, and more. A whole section of the phone book has blue pages with dozens of government agencies for the poor, helpless, easily dominated woman to call to get advice and guidance in getting an education, cutting down on the crack, and moving forward with her, and children’s, lives.
But the patriarchy you claim is dead is needed, and always shall be needed, to rescue the helpless damsels in disdress.
Regarding world changes. Whatever the rate of population growth in the world in general, immigration from the patriarchal nations to the USA continues with little in the opposite direction either in the form of people or ideas. Travel to these countries outside of the white male influence if you want to escape white male dominance. Bring a burka.
Hmm no, most people who raise kids alone are actually working. You’re suggesting that if this sole provider is the father instead of the mother the family will somehow prosper economically every time, while this is simply not the case it all ultimately depends on the social status of the provider(s).
As for the rest of your rant first I thought you said the western countries were matriarchal lol. And second if patriarchy is so cool why the need to thteaten with it? Pretty hilarious.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/traditional-family-model-of-fathers-as-sole-breadwinners-is-leaving-children-in-poverty-8937510.html
Yes, I was being sarcastic when I referred to western white male chivalrous patriarchies as matriarchies, but still, you blew off my main point:
All the Patriarchy’s horses and all of his men, can’t stop women from being helpless.
Of course, I never said that a father provided family would prosper everytime, but even with all the choices of feminism and special preferences for women, single mothers are still a mess. And always will be.
I remember when I was living in California and met a man in my apartment complex that inspired me. He was disabled and had become a single father. I didn’t know the circumstances (didn’t ask) but he told me he did his best and went to a trade school. Then from there, to architecture school. While hanging out with him in his apartment, he showed me some of his building plans he had made and we discussed architecture. As his kids came in, he would talk to them and they’d do their thing.
He made it look so easy. And he’s not alone. I know several other single fathers and I know they wound up with the kids because of divorce and the mother couldn’t take care of them. They got by. They never made a big deal about it.
Honey, walk a mile in our shoes and you’ll stumble in our footsteps.
‘All the Patriarchy’s horses and all of his men, can’t stop women from being helpless.’
Dude, there are more women currently going for higher education than men. Just saying.
YOU were the one who just tried to use poverty as an excuse for single mothers living their lives (and their children’s) in poverty.
Sure, when the going is easy, middle class women and affirmative action get more women into college. But when the going gets rough, the men get things done. I was just thinking about that as I saw in email you had responded and before i even read your response, I thought to myself how amazing it is how most men just get stuff done or if they don’t, at least admit they messed up.
You gals brag a ton when you get something handed to you or cry a river and blame someone else when you mess up.
Congratulations, but I’m not impressed. ‘night.
‘Sure, when the going is easy, middle class women and affirmative action get more women into college. But when the going gets rough, the men get things done. ‘
Nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s take the black community for example. The difference in college attendance is even higher there between males and females. You obviously have no clue what you’re talking about.
It’s common parlance even among HR employees I know on college campuses that black women are referred to as “twofers”. Google the term.
Indeed, the so-called civil rights movement and feminism has railroaded black men from the welfare ghettos into prison. Blacks during the Obamaconomy has suffered far more than anyone else in the working and middle classes.
And why are those black men going to jail instead of college? How is stripping the rights off the black women and prevent them from progressing further will make the situation of the black community better than it is now? Or you simply don’t care as long as men are on top and women are in their ‘rightful place’. I got it.
http://www.examiner.com/article/black-women-enroll-college-more-than-any-race-and-gender
In answer to your question: Whether black women matriarchal families are on welfare, or get an affirmative action quota degree, it leaves black men behind and since most black women, like most women overall, are uninterested in non-breadwinning men then these men are left behind to become criminals or homeless. In the long run, this harms the black community including blame women.
Feminists often ask “Do you care about your daughter? Do you want her to be empowered and happy?” but of course never ask “What about your son?” Feminists drown their baby boys in the riverbed like the Chinese women drown their daughters.
In answer to your last claim as to my position: It’s not about men being on top so much as being what women want them to be. Most women,as I observed above, want men “on top” or in a particular role. Feminism undermines heterosexual relationships by emasculating men and making women into men (but not in a good way since men pay their bills unlike feminists who want to stick their expenses on the taxpayer.)
Ah so the progress of women is the cause of men’s failure. And then you get the nerve to say that women are finding excuses. Just lol. Get those black women back to the kitchens it doesn’t matter how many children are going to starve to death the ‘natural order’ should be restored and what matters is that men don’t feel emasculated.
It’s not men who should reevaluate their behaviour and elevate themselves it’s women who should be put down. Then we will prosper.
Do you ever wonder why noone takes your cavemen reasoning seriously in the civilized world?
‘It’s not about men being on top so much as being what women want them to be. ‘
If a woman wants a man to be on top she’s most certainly looking for a genuine one, someone with qualities and not a mindless bully for whom the only way to get on top is to put her down. She’ll run from this one like he’s the devil himself which he trully is.
That’s a twist that I would make. Kudos. Indeed, I agree with you that the men failing have been emasulated but consider who raised them! The Matriarchy (or at least the one that depends upon white male patronage) in the form of welfare, affirmative action, and “child” support produces weak men that most feminists or career women don’t want. On the other side of the coin of the observation you make, women’s progress hasn’t HELPED men, or society or kids for that matter either . When men become successful, they “share” the wealth or level the playing field as the rationalization for Affirmative Action often goes.
Feminism often portrays the societal policies of the past giving men jobs as if the men got the money and partied while their wives died at home. But the opposite was true: It was married men who were given preferences and even widows who also got preferences. Young, bachelor men were often little better off than women even keeping in mind that the men were expected to support themselves while the young women often had their fathers expected to take care of them. In a way, it was a welfare policy of old where families took care of each other. This was rather civilized which leads us to:
When you accuse me of being a caveman (which, like the old Geiko commercials, is rather quaintly prejudicial if you think about it. I’d like to see you survive in the wildnerness without white male designed/Chinese built technology), it’s another specious appeal to authority that you didn’t the consquences of. Let me guess what ‘civilized’ world means: Europe, Canada, Australia and American occupied Japan. In other words, white male controlled. Feminists politically welcome peoples from “non civilized” regions and grant them special preferences in order to help them “progress”. I work with many of them. They do not share YOUR opinions. Or even mine for that matter. They think I’m far too chivalrous and gentle on women.
In the end, when feminists talk about relationships beyond lesbianism, of course, they have these special magical circumstances that sounds a lot like an old Disney film. Sure, in theory, the liberated gal will find a liberated guy who fits this magical mold but in most cases, it’s just harmed relationships between men and women as feminists crave “uncivilized” maucho men. If this wasn’t the case and American women had IMPROVED due to feminism, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Marriage rates would be improving and child poverty would be decreasing. The Matriarchy hasn’t “progressed” and certainly hasn’t helped men. Being an anti-feminist, for a man, is a no brainer. But even for most (modern) young women, taking on the label of feminist means they’ll get stuck with a dinner check so most would rather wear a burka. That’s an appeal to authority as well but one I know has some credibility. I read about young women rejecting the feminist label all the time. Because women never really fought the patriarchy. Most can’t even figure out how to pay for dinner.
That’s a twist that I would make. Kudos. Indeed, I agree with you that the men failing have been emasulated but consider who raised them! The Matriarchy (or at least the one that depends upon white male patronage) in the form of welfare, affirmative action, and “child” support produces weak men that most feminists or career women don’t want.
And again the solution is to put women down doesn’t matter that they will be living in an even greater misery than before. I won’t even go into the moral aspect of things about wanting to keep half of the population down intentionally, because Ive long given hope that people like you actually care about this but the economic aspect of it just blows my mind too. But hey it only matters for some men to not feel emasculated, they should be allowed to be lazy and good for nothing sobs and drag everyone else down with them but let’s not hurt their ego. And of course they hold no responsibility for anything.
women’s progress hasn’t HELPED men, or society or kids for that matter either . When men become successful, they “share” the wealth
Women’s progress is barely a couple of generations old and there is still more to go and meanwhile women have helped society in more ways than you can imagine. About sharing… women invest the biggest part of their income into their families
I’d like to see you survive in the wildnerness without white male designed/Chinese built technology
And since you mentioned this here is the thing: the biggest share of discoveries and contribution to science and technology was made by jews, a matrilineal society in which men are raised to value brains over brawn, the jewish male is what a caveman like yourself would consider to be effeminate while in fact that’s just civilized. Not that they can’t kick ass too if they have too both men and women together.
If this wasn’t the case and American women had IMPROVED due to feminism, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
We are having this discussion because there are still guys like you who feel angry they no longer hold ownership on women and spend most of their time trying to figure out a way to turn the clock back. So maybe, just maybe the problem is with you and not with the rest.
Wont even bother to comment on the rest of the nonsense.
It’s useful to pause and reflect and write something more comprehensive than a tit-for-tat response because at some point, things get out of sync. So here goes.
Your observation that a “real” man shouldn’t be able to be emasculated by women was a challenging one as I said, but it’s not the first time I heard it. The “be a REAL man” shaming ploy is commonly used by modern women. Traditional women wouldn’t dare to utter it, ironically, because a real man wouldn’t put up with it! But yes, I agree with you, that a real man shouldn’t let obstacles get in his way of living up to a decent value system and being a good husband and father but in a society that doesn’t respect real men, it’s easy for boys to get lost on that journey. This is why single mother households tend to produce irresponsible young men. The mothers don’t know how to teach them (shaming ploys aren’t instructive) and society won’t guide him towards a personally constructive future so they never get started being real men.
But when a man has some resources, not everything but some, they do wonders as I illustrated in my stories. On the other hand, even when women get equality, as you define it, handed on a platter you make excuses for them. They had them for just a few generations so let’s not be too hard on the widdle helpless girls. Real men would say absolute balderdash to that excuse used by either man or woman. Immigrants come here with the shirt on their backs and within a generation, they own a factory. This leads me to a point you just made about whether we should “put down” women in order to let men become irresponsible fools and just switch places.
I agree with you that’s not the answer either, but due to the chivalrous traditions that are still in place in western society and even exacerbated by feminism, it’s unlikely that would happen. Men are rarely in a position to use a baby as a hostage for “child” support or welfare and women certainly would put their legs back together and not hand out sex so (seemingly) freely to wealthy men without trying to parlay that into support. In fact, I’m a bit critical of the men on Return of Kings who want to find ways to pump and dump women as sex objects (granted, that’s what these women present themselves as) while decrying feminism. Feminism has produced such heterosexual women. I find it regretful.
I don’t want to go with the observations about Jews because it’s such a hot, controversial topic. I simply can’t go there.
Is the clock moving forward with women’s equality? Useful analogy and let’s try this: If taxpayers and society needs to spend trillions a year to push the clock forward and if the clock is continually sputtering because it’s just got started, then I wouldn’t call that irreversible progress. Natural or even sustained actions move forward of their own accord while feminist equality comes across as artificial and even a product of white male chivalrous patronage. A real woman with real accomplishments wouldn’t be so quick to cry victim. Sometimes, men are victims but we aren’t quick to cry it. And I don’t think men should become that way either. But so far, I don’t see women adopting the equal traits of men in the sense of personal responsibility and forming adult relationships. Career women becoming single mothers by choice are socially on the same level as Ted Kaczinski hiding in a cabin in the woods.
Finally, I chuckle at you labeling me the problem. I’m so weak according to you and unworthy of consideration yet… here you are darling. Right? I’m not as irrelevent as you think because the only places feminism really takes hold is in white male western European nations and the weak beta males are not going to protect them or their cultures from the hard core, non-chivalrous patriarchal men immigrating into them or being produced by the welfare matriarchy. And you know it. Listen to a rap song sometime. Those men do NOT respect women as equals or even as women.
“a matrilineal society in which men are raised to value brains over brawn, the jewish male is what a caveman like yourself would consider to be effeminate while in fact that’s just civilized.”
Pardon my intrusion, but apparently for you a patriarch is a no brainer, while a matriarch is civilized and smart?
Divid men to reign over them? He is actually smart but disagrees with you.
This has nothing to do with his level of intelligence, but more on how you are trying to shut him down because he disagrees with you.
Why not put him in a competition against another male?
“You see, I know what a man is.
I am telling you, look at those good boys…raised by their mama.”
We do not fall for this anymore
Here is my word of to you and your friends.
You are nobody to define my masculinity, and i do not give you the right to do it for me nor for my brothers.
Reminds you of something?
I have my destiny in my own hands and you are nobody to tell me how I should live the way I live, or think as a man.
I do not need you to “matronize”me either.
There you go, good old control.
So let me try to diffuse a bit your statement.
You do not want patriarchy, you do not want equality either. You want a matriarchal system to replace the old patriarchal structures.
So it is not really about gaining souls and hearts to your cause and wanting both gender to be equal.
It is about replacing as what you perceive as a male hierarchical system by a female one.
You are just actually as power hungry as any patriarch that you despise.
Which leads me to my next point that power supersedes gender.
Your ideology is flawed, and wants to take over like any other ideology that pretends to rule over society.
I have to precise that I am French and Arabic, attended the Trotskyist struggle and made my way into the streets of Paris, I reside now in the US.
I am very familiar with the principles of the enlightened avant-guarde, the Maoists and communists ideological guerrilla tactics. It is the best school for political science training ever.
In the 60’s the Komintern enacted few guidelines.
One of them was that anybody who was criticizing communism should be shunned as a blue collar exploiter, no matter how small was the criticism. This was an attempt to shut down any opposition against the cause and rally the masses…
Another argument constantly brought was:
There was never enough communism and, society needed more of it in order to reach that yadiyada moment of liberation.
So you could sum it up this way:
“I know how the society should function with X ideology therefore I think we need more of X against Y and if Y is still here it is because there is not enough X.”
Never enough of X right?
I think Freud called it hysteria.
Capitalist Globalization works the same…there is still poverty? It is because there is not enough of it.
Women are oppressed? It is because there is not enough feminism.
Oh by the way you guys are criticizing feminism?
You must be against women, which proves that there is still work to do in order to reach the goals of our ideology.
But who is going to say stop, we reached the goals of our “petite entreprise”?
Nobody. It is all about who is going to be the biggest victim.
It was all a lie from the beginning.
Or maybe a hamster.
Alea Jacta Est,
Best,
Matrilineal is not matriarchy. And I just mentioned that as a fun bits because it just freaks out a lot of guys here. That’s not what matters though it was the brains over brawn that’s the important bit.
You are nobody to define my masculinity
Sure enough but you also have no right to impose your version of masculinity on others as the pinnacle of civilization while taking credit for something that’s in direct contrast with this so called masculinity.
Women are oppressed? It is because there is not enough feminism.
You must be against women, which proves that there is still work to do in order to reach the goals of our ideology.
But who is going to say stop, we reached the goals of our “petite entreprise”?
Actually feminism is probably the most successful social movement of the 20th century.
This is why single mother households tend to produce irresponsible young men. The mothers don’t know how to teach them (shaming ploys aren’t instructive) and society won’t guide him towards a personally constructive future so they never get started being real men.
Poverty and the educational and social status of the parents and not the number or the gender of parents are the biggest cause for this. In your perfect version of a traditional family you praise so much in which the father works 14 hours a day and he’s basically a stranger and spends little time home the kids are raised by the mother only, the father rarely sees the kids. And thanks to evil feminism now men spend more time with their kids than ever before. Telling men to spend more time home and to share the child care is probably an emasculating evil plan to destroy real manhood.
Sometimes, men are victims but we aren’t quick to cry it.
You are in fact constantly crying but you are just oblivious of it.
I wouldn’t call that irreversible progress.
Is this why you bunch are constantly hoping for an apocalypse to happen in order to reverse it? You’d be happy to see the world burn so it will be your time to shine in the race of who shows the biggest brutality. I’ve heard all kind of stories from islam to aliens to some natural disaster.
there is still poverty?
There has been a 50% decrease of extreme poverty worldwide for the last 20-30 years. So yeah while there is still poverty there is also a lot of progress.
I don’t buy the excuse of education and social status to excuse bad parenting. I grew up in a working class neighborhood and there were bad parents (I give mine, personally, a D). BUT they instilled the importance of basic personal responsibility in us. That if we got picked up by the police, there would be hell to pay. But even before then, we were expected to do our homework. No excuses. We had to have a career plan, boys and girls, for supporting ourselves. Again, no excuses. Studies have shown that single mothers generage the worst offspring, adjusted for education and social status, behind single fathers and two parent families. It’s a FACT. If you like, I can google it for you.
I chuckled at your claim that thanks to feminism, men spend more time with children. That’s like throwing a man into a concentration camp and telling him he’s getting more exercise. For starters, due to skyrocketing divorce rates and unwed mother homes, statistically, children spend a lot less time with their natural father. Dumping chores on a man and telling him he should be thankful is similar to a man telling a woman she’ll still be paid less than a man, but she should pay 1/2 the bills now. If men were getting less financial expectations than before feminism, then expecting them to share chores would be reasonable but that’s not what happened.
Regarding the seemingly absent patriarchal father. Consider the Queen of England. It’s largely a ceremonial role and indeed, despite claims by feminists women were largely empowered in the old days. Men worked themselves to death in the coal mines while women stayed home or worked part-time and spent time with their children. Now, we all get 60 hour workweeks, 30 year mortgages, and skyrocketing taxes and healthcare expenses. Thank YOU feminists! Single mothers have problems balancing family and paying the bills?
Welcome to the world of men, darling! Hahahaha! Here’s a batch of coal to shovel!
Anyways, back to the father role. When my father and other working class fathers were home, it was important time. For starters, even when he’s not there, he is showing a work ethic of supporting the family. To kids, that means a lot. I know people who get divorced and simply knowing that the parent isn’t coming home is traumatizing. Then there’s the quality time: Fishing (yes, fishing. It’s a stereotype but often true), helping them fix a car, etc. He’s just there. But let’s try this idea I often use in this discussion with feminists.
Feminists advocate women pursing men’s careers such as CEO or doctor. Women who are in those roles aren’t baking cookies, obviously. What about their kids? Are they neglected? Is their mother less loving than a stay at home mom? Saavy feminists refer to this as the mommy wars.
I don’t think the RoK forum is about constantly crying. In fact, it offers a lot of solutions to the problems. Saying foreign women are better is different than merely crying that American women such. It puts responsibility on the men to meet foreign women.
Regarding apocolyptic solutions: You’re not the first one to observe that this is rather bleak and I’ve said so myself. I think it’s possible for society to correct itself much like a market but markets usually correct in nasty ways. Consider the housing bubble. Or recessions. They aren’t pleasant but they are facts of life. It would be great if society could fix its problems more effectively, but that rarely happens. Just an observation.
I don’t buy the excuse of education and social status to excuse bad parenting.
It doesn’t matter what you buy. Poverty usually breeds poverty, ignorance breeds ignorance and violence breeds violence in majority of the cases unless that cycle is broken.
Studies have shown that single mothers generage the worst offspring, adjusted for education and social status, behind single fathers and two parent families.
From the single parents the single mothers are the majority group, you cannot compare it to a minority group such as the single fathers. As for two parent families those are on double income.
For starters, due to skyrocketing divorce rates and unwed mother homes, statistically, children spend a lot less time with their natural father.
66% of all divorces are of couples without children. When there are children in more than 90% of the cases the custody is decided out of court.
Unwed children doesn’t mean fatherless, there are plenty of people who don’t marry but they cohabitate, in Iceland the percent of such children born is 66%.
Dumping chores on a man and telling him he should be thankful
Nice to see that you’re simultaneously complaining how children spend less time with their fathers and at the same time that fathers spending time with their children is a chore similar to a concentration camp.
If men were getting less financial expectations than before feminism, then expecting them to share chores would be reasonable but that’s not what happened.
Majority of the couples are double income plus in some cases the wife is the primary breadwinner or the only provider.
For starters, even when he’s not there, he is showing a work ethic of supporting the family.
If he’s not there he simply isn’t there, by the same logic he could provide a child support check what’s the difference.
Feminists advocate women pursing men’s careers such as CEO or doctor. Women who are in those roles aren’t baking cookies, obviously. What about their kids? Are they neglected?
Lots of people advocate different things but most of all flexibility in the workplace from which both men and women would benefit.
I don’t think the RoK forum is about constantly crying.
It’s not just this forum it’s the whole manosphere. I rarely read something that’s not batshit crazy.
I think it’s possible for society to correct itself much like a market but markets usually correct in nasty ways.
I’m far from considering the society perfect or without problems there is always a room for improvement but if by correcting itself you mean going back a century ago or even 50 years ago the likehood of this happening is slim to none.
So if you’re looking for a foreign woman supposedly uncorrupted by ‘evil feminism’ hurry up because soon there wont be that many places left in the world.
But that’s just my point PID: Even with all the goodies the patriarchy supposedly gave men while “putting women down” in the past, we still see (most) women clinging to the patriarchy in the form of wanting men as breadwinners. It’s almost as predictable as a sunset that you then said that women only had equality for a few generations, blah blah blah. Listen, children grow up so why not women? Then again, some kids don’t. Men or women, I know some who live in their mother’s basement saying: “Well, I just got out of school a decade ago! I need more time!”
Two parent families are not necessarily on double income and even if they are, keep in mind that many working class families don’t bring in as much money as section 8 unwed mothers. In addition, single parents get head of household status giving them effectively the same tax break status as a married couple!
Yes, sometimes the wife is the sole provider but this is not due to feminism, FYI. Ever hear of a guy named Karl Marx? He penned his socialist ideas while living above his sister’s factory. There would be no art if it wasn’t for rich gals subsidizing boyfriend artists (ok, and the wealthy Italian families of the 1500’s). And Stephen King wrote his books while his working class wife supported him. But ponder… these are the exceptions rather than the rule. Feminism seeks to mainstream equality for women (for women in that women get goodies such as higher pay) while ignoring that most women won’t live up to the breadwinner male role. If you want to use one-offs to justify social policy, then women have always had equality such as Queen Elizabeth and Cleopatra.
Declaring a father whose at work most of the time as no different than a child-support check slave is something family courts commonly do. Except there is a difference: The custodial father has RIGHTS. If he doesn’t like the son listening to gangsta rap glorifying beating up women and he hears about it from his wife or a school official, he’s there to discipline the kid. (Something to keep in mind about all those violence emerging from those unwed and divorced mother households.) In addition, if the kids are in mommy dearest’s hands, then she should accept responsibility for them regardless of whether she’s poor or not. Otherwise, why are the courts and society letting her raise them?
Ah, the flexible workplace. We know what means: MORE goodies for women advocated by feminists (what a surprise. An ideology named for women advocating more stuff for women.) Here’s how feminists think the world should work: Handout jobs for women with high pay. Welfare for those who can’t or won’t get a job. The world owes her a living. When she bothers to show up for work, she should be able to leave and spend time with her kids because the guys who earned their jobs should do her work for her. Fiddle dee dee. Then of course, the state should also provide free daycare so she can just skip her work and go shopping for blood diamonds and complain about how oppressed wealthy white women are.
Gee, great deal that and sure, men can qualify too if we can squeeze out children and then use them as tools to demand benefits. Oh, wait, we can’t.
In the meantime, most of the people using these free goodies are immigrants often from Patriarchal leaning cultures. I’m not being apocalyptic at this point but merely observing that this “make men into slaves so white women can all live lives of leisure” plan isn’t working out. When you steal, others steal from you.
I think many of the things on RoK are generally good advice for anyone. Develop social skills. If they whine, it’s about truly making equality rather than seeking preferences. I don’t see RoK asking for government programs or preferential treatment. Heck, I’m all for just removing the equality handouts and letting women compete with men in the workplace, drop alimony and “child” support, welfare and then… we’ll see how long the equality lasts.
Which we know means: Not that long.
Regarding us being the ONLY ones to go back: It’s not just us. As I said, it’s women who love sexism so much. They read romance novels dreaming of being 19th century princesses. Or rich men who own large slave plantations taking care of them. Or heck, most career women instantly want to turn back the clock the second the dinner check arrives on a date.
In other words, we haven’t really moved forward.
About foreign women: It’s a mixed bag. A lot of foreign women are actually highly educated, intellectual, and even independent in ways that American women haven’t evolved to. Simultaneously, they want to retain their femininity and dress nice and look pretty, do the cooking, and take care of the kids. It’s a TOUGH double standard THEY choose to live up to. I personally think it’s stupid much of the time, but that’s the choice they make or their culture tells them to live up to. Note that it’s not working there either (otherwise, why would they want foreign men?) The foreign men often are not living up to “real” men standards as I would describe them: They drink or cheat. But keep in mind that the era of the whole world wanting to be like the USA is over and feminism is largely considered a USA movement. These other cultures like to think they’re superior to the USA. My foreign wife regards American women as fat and unintellectual. I don’t worry about her being contaminated by American thinking. She likes it here for the jobs, the great Chinese food, the waterparks, etc. but if you think about it that advantage won’t last forever. They are slowly figuring out how to make Cantonese in Eastern Europe. The best Vietnamese food I had was in Krakow.
Cheers.
I wish she had gone missing.
delusional feminist troll alert
seem to be a lot of them lately, RoK is hitting them where it hurts
I’m chuckling about the assertion that wealthy women are prisoners. For all the claim the patriarchy is dying, there’s no shortage of women, including feminists, who dream of marrying a rich guy and then being a “prisoner” and shopping at Madison Avenue stores selling wares procured from oppressed peoples of the third world.
It’s now obvious at this point in western history that feminism is hopelessly a hate movement against men. There are these types:
1) The stupid, clueless young woman (or man) who buys into feminism as about “equality” but doesn’t think it through. They largely could care less about feminism though as most young women care more about what tweets their friends make about shopping.
2) Open man-haters who preach about women’s victimhood and make up ridiculous stories such as above.
3) Feminist apologies such as Cathy Young who try to clean up feminism not in an effort to help men but rather to salvage feminism’s reputation long enough to procure more goodies for women (or to keep the barbarian horde of men at bay lest they stop holding up the fake pretense of feminist equality)
Finally:
4) The feminists who try to deny that feminism is man-hating and that it’s about equality and then as they rationalize their position, reveal their man-hating agenda.
And that’s it. There are no “nice” feminists because feminism doesn’t work.
I guess you should tell government think-tanks that, they don’t agree with you: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2013/sdn1310.pdf, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/global-economic-growth-may-depend-on-having-more-women-working/article13379659/
When you make an appeal to authority, you really ought to consider the authority you’re appealing to.
Are these the same folks who gave us Healthcare,gov, the public educational system, and LBJ’s welfare program that promised to end poverty by the end of the 60’s?
Feminism is part of Liberalism and both believe in the State as a replacement for people – specifically family and community. It is because they cannot tell the difference between friends and foes therefore everyone must be lumped into the same basket of “enemy” – which translates into complete trust in the state to replace the functions of both. This is why Liberals forward the agenda of Communists and Socialists. They all work together to destroy family and community while simultaneously redistributing the prosperity that family and community created. It is a classic case of rabbit/sheep prey species behavior – the problem is that they necessarily need to downplay or eliminate the wolf/sheepdog predator species behavior otherwise they cannot advance. Hence the major plays to remove all traces of masculinity from our culture. Masculinity drives competition and aggression and these two features of men also work to strengthen family and community. Therefore masculinity must be destroyed in order that the weak/prey types can artificially level the playing field for themselves. Classic case of the r/K selection of evolutionary biology playing out exactly as predicted and as history has shown us over and over (see r/K selection theory and “Fall of Rome” http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/1997/vol1/fog_a.html)
Liberalism is much like a religion which reminds me of folks, (often educated and thoughtful) who join cults to improve their lives or make a difference in the world and then before they know it, they’re living in a field eating hay and starving while selling flowers on the roadside to keep their leader living in his mansion.
I’m equally hard on the right which worships free markets while ignoring and even belittling their electorate.
One thing I have to say about the left, however, is that most of them have rational reasons to drink the cool aid: entitlements and goodies, back room deals, etc. In the long run they may get thrown under the bus but in the immediate short term, they’re on a gravy train. Being a white male leftist is a sign of mental retardation. What idiot continues to believe in a party that regards him as the source of the world’s ills? But equally so, those on the right who don’t look at immediate, pressing political issues are fools too.
I don’t look at it as left vs right any more and certainly the USAs two political parties cannot possibly represent all views or all behaviors. I believe that the r/K selection theory as outlined by the Anonymous Conservative has a lot of the answers that thoughtful, observant people are looking for, take a look and see what you think: http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/home-page/
Thanks Mina. It gave me food for thought (from what I read so far) because it applies not only to the welfare state, but also to most of us men as well. Unless you’re an entrepreneur who takes risks or a criminal or a politician or some other kind of person who lives with high risk, the rest of us are regular folks who go to work and try to lead no-risk lives. We get addicted to high credit scores and frequent flier mileage accounts.
While that is good for society (when a society is constructed in a way to enable us to advance in many ways such as moon shots, science, technology, etc) when it becomes corrupt as it has, it leads to an inability of the host to eject the parasite. We don’t risk cutting off a valuable arm to get rid of an infection. We don’t want to make too many waves and risk our comfy lifestyle.
All that said, it’s funny that the welfare state men are probably more brave in their personal lives than we are. They don’t think twice about committing crimes, or rioting, etc. because what do they have to lose?
Maybe it’s because they are bunnies but they mistake themselves for wolves. Alternatively you they may be masquerading as wolves in order to elevate their status to provide themselves more chances to mate. Because at the end of the day, for the r-types mating and procreating is all – it doesn’t matter if any one individual is competitive or capable, the horde will continue on. In other words: It’s ok to lose a few, they can always make more.
I’m reminded of a study I saw on a documentary about a mice habitat that was allowed unlimited food and procreation BUT limited space. Eventually, as they crowded each other out, the population become suicidal.
Anyways, conservatives hesitate to truly embrace social darwinism because of their opposition to abortion and restrictions of breeding. They deplore single mothers but simultaneously can’t pull the trigger (pardon the pun) on telling rabbits they cannot breed. Once the bunny is born, they don’t know what to do with it.
The male headed household achieved a number of things: It kept the family supported more effectively than the welfare state (who wants to live in section 8 housing?) and it inspired women to remain chaste.
What annoys me about a wonderful blog such as Return of Kings is that the men here love the idea of pump and dumps and sleeping around with women but simultaneously don’t want sluts and ho’s but that’s what such a culture encourages women to become. My wife is a truly conservative woman who is dedicated to family including me her husband so I didn’t want her as a girlfriend. I wanted her as a wife. If she had been a dozen guys’ previous girlfriends, she wouldn’t have been good wife material.
Also, conservatives seem to have a problem with legalized prostitution which solves this paradigm rather well. Let those women make money and don’t make the rest of women into whores. Saint Thomas Aquinas had this figured out a millenia ago.
Agree. The political “right” in the US definitely has some illogical/irrational blind spots. They explain them using the moral imperative of religion. There is hypocrisy there, maybe almost as much as you find with the Liberal left. It’s based on different principles but it’s still hypocritical. That’s why ACs theories work so well – we can explain all of the behaviors of people across the board regardless of their political affiliation and make it clear just what type of person we are dealing with. It is 100% honest and not concealable so it becomes very easy to discern whether you are dealing with a human being or a rabbit in pretty much any situation.
Actually, I said something a bit different. I think all ideological followers have a religious quality about them. You know the saying about not discussing religion and politics at the dinner table. It’s because they are in many ways the same thing.
With the right, I think their problem is their process which leads to inaction. It truly is, in a way, a conservative agenda: If you can’t fill in all the blanks, then do nothing. I appreciate where they are coming from in terms of limited government or the humanity of the abortion issue but I’m more a practical person in my old age. I care about seeing people having decent families and living their lives in a harmonious, constructive fashion. If that means some “sin” from time to time, I’m ok with that. The problem with limited government and limited principles, etc is that it’s a natural lead to inaction while the commies and the special interest power grabbers have something going for them in that they don’t have any reason to not push their agenda further. I wish the right had as much energy as the left does.
“Being a white male leftist is a sign of mental retardation.”
Being a white male social conservative is a sign of mental retardation. You uphold “family values” and yet your women divorce you more than the women in blue states divorce their men. No one can stand you, not minorities and not even your women.
Agreed. All excellent points.
John B. Calhoun; see Behavioral Sink, Universe 25 [0].
Calhoun was immensely influential, and his work has affected much today. But, if I may play an odd-sort of devil’s advocate, Calhoun’s works have been drastically misinterpreted and taken out of context. Taken out of context of reality itself by none other than Calhoun himself. Calhoun and his peers proceeded with zero self-awareness, creating pseudo-science driven by deep bias and emotional instability. Damnable pseudo-science framed from inception to prove undesirable human deviance was related to overpopulation and limited space (the hot-button politic issues of the time). Not that this conclusion was wrong, but it was predetermined. It was blind to its own hands, it sought to attribute fake reasons to real end-points, and its lies are repeated to this day by massive omissions of truth. Sound familiar?
In short, Calhoun created a universe (actually called Universe 25) that was destined to fail because he made it that way, not because of nature. Look at the ‘Universe’ itself [1]. The cages all faced inward toward a large open free-kmart fuck-space; there was nothing natural about it! Of course the mice population exploded and went homicidal; all the mice could see and hear and smell each other eating and fucking left and right. It was new environment to the mice: a brave new world with zero privacy, zero purpose, zero life from the very beginning. And Calhoun even admitted as such in a small one-liner buried deep at the end of his treatise (Mortality-Inhibiting Environment for Mice) deemed: ‘irrelevant’.
A perfect example of a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. Or why depressed people shouldn’t be allowed to touch anything important. Or how the mind, trapped by blind indoctrination, will warp reality precisely because it just can’t see where it is blind. The broken mind will recreate its own prison despite itself. Calhoun’s literal universe literally failed by his own hand. Was it some amorphous inevitable over population bogeyman and we’re all doomed to become gay if we eat too much? Or was it because he blindly created a wholly unnatural mouse society of infinite risk-free female movement, zero male purpose or achievement, and endless free state resources? Sound familiar?
People can come so close, stare truth right in the face, and never ever see it pass them by. Calhoun will never know how close he came either (he’s dead). But maybe society at large will one day realize the lie that ‘limited space’ was ever relevant at all; it was the dismissed simultaneous ‘ands’ set from the very beginning that made the society-system fail.
[0] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1644264
[1] http://www.futilitycloset.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/2013-07-11-crowd-control.jpg
You sound fat.
Never, ever, allow a woman to get away with the “Men are the oppressors” bullshit. That is the first and most unforgivable big lie of Feminism.
Here is the truth: Men have been fighting and dying for 100 thousand years to protect women and children from starvation, disease, slavery, and death. Men have been the ultimate UN-oppressors of women. That’s who we are. That is our essential nature, our essential role as men. The history of the human race is entirely a history of sacrifice and pain of men, suffering wounds, scars, burns, and pain, war, horror, cold, misery and danger unending, suffering quietly and stoically, to protect women and children from the real horrors of the world.
For all of history before the 1900-1960 transition era, people starved horribly. Every single person could expect to face a famine where they would have to watch their families starve to death. Every women could expect to watch half of her babies die of a variety of diseases. People were enslaved, eaten by hyenas, abandoned. There was no government, no social security, no doctors, no nothing. There was one and only one thing that made life slightly less horrible: the sacrifice of men, brothers, sons, and husbands, to provide that one haunch of meat or that protection against wolves.
For 100 thousand years, women have been saying to their men: “thank you, thank you, thank you for protecting us. You are heroes.” Having a husband was considered the greatest and most complete win for any woman, because a husband meant life and health. Marriage and husband was literally the reason the human species survived at all.
Then, about 1960, for the first time, human technology, created by men, evolved to the point, where, as if by magic, our entire society was freed, utterly, from starvation and disease. The first time ever, women and children were truly safe. It was accompanied by horrible wars and dangerous weaponry, but really, what a historic accomplishment…our species turned the corner.
Then…unbelievable as it may seem, at at that same time, a group of insane asshole scumbags called “Feminists” created a twisted philosophy which for no real reason, cast men as “oppressors”. They called marriage “slavery for women”. They twisted and distorted every single fact of human life to fit their neuroses and narcissism. Unbelievable lies. Horrible lies.
After thousands of years of sacrifice, for the first time, women are freed from the horrors of history. What do they do?
Do they say: “Thank you men for your years of sacrifice…now we want to start taking care of ourselves now. We appreciate all you have done but we want to start having equality in jobs, in education, in this huge fantastic civilization you’ve built.”
Do women say this nicely? Nope, quite the opposite. Instead they say “Fuck you men, forget your years of sacrifice and pain. Fuck you, fuck you, and fuck everything you’ve ever done for us. YOU are the oppressors. Forget starvation and disease, we’re spoiled brats and we won’t even acknowledge that. We are instead going to adopt this horrible, hateful philosophy of feminism, and as soon as we get power, we are going to fuck you and fuck young boys over every way we can.”
By every historical measure, modern Feminism is the biggest act of scumbag betrayal, the most horrible act of ingratitude, ever, anywhere, any time.
Backstabbing and betrayal. That’s all it is, and it’s ugly beyond measure.
Women have destroyed whatever love we men have for them, or any honor or dignity that they as women possess. They have blown it, beyond belief, because we the men of the world are now beginning to recognize how they have stabbed us in the back. We sense, intuitively, how utterly it vile and low and disgusting this betrayal is. We see just how unworthy women are of the magnificent society we have built for them.
Betrayers and traitors to our world. That’s what Feminist-inspired women have shown themselves to be. May they burn in hell.
Well said
Hmmmm, how did I miss this? Compelling. Theres a few issues with your timeline, and a few bits I might reword slightly myself, but overall a very compelling thesis, and with a largely original presentation too. Good job.
You know, I’m curious. Based on the tone and rhetoric of the vast majority of articles on this site, the authors genuinely hate women, with a fiery passion. And yet the banner ads, the sidebars, even the ‘subscribe now!’ box all offer ways to meet women. Why? Why would you all want to get together with someone you seem to completely despise? That’s not fair to them or to you. Why not try the flip side of that coin? Maybe it will curb some of that seething anger that seems to be boiling just below the surface….
Don’t try to find much logic in this behaviour it’s all filled with mutually exclusive statements like:
We hate those bitches but we spend 90% of our time trying to find ways to be with them.
Women should be banned from the workplace because their place is in the kitchen but all women are evil golddiggers leaching off men for resources.
We are opressed, we unlike women have to go fight wars, but women have no place in the army.
Women are to blame if some random guy starts mass shooting because they ignored him and didn’t give him the sex hes entitled to but all women are whores who should be put in their place.
We love women, we really do, we are nice guys.
etc. etc.
It’s all beginning to look like a lot of misdirected bitterness, to be quite honest..
No. You are just speciously connecting statements that are non sequitur in order to justify a false criticism. Let’s cover each one off:
People, not just men here, or men in general, dislike “bitches”. Bitches have behavior like self-aggrandizement, entitlement issues, inability to accept they cannot argue a point, resort to childish taunting, etc.
In contrast, men love to find ways to be with mature women, and will spend a lot of time on that favored past-time.
There are many supporting arguments for the equal pay for equal production or abilities. Those who demand more for less shouldn’t be allowed to disrupt any workplace. Also, if one party within a partnership can command a greater wage than the other, and if the lesser earning potential cannot justify the added expense of a housekeeper… well the solution is quite easy to come about.
Many women are searching for a meal ticket. Some are evil too. Only “feminists” think that the world has to bow to them and pretend these things do not exist.
When it comes down to it, real combat is a down and dirty business even in this “tech” world. Eventually, the “cutting edge” of conflict degrades to hand-to-hand. Even if it didn’t the physical extremes of a combat zone will put any human to the test. Tell us where you think that women as a whole even come close to equalling men in enduring psychological and physical stress, much less besting a man in hand-to-hand.
You “feminists” can’t even win a contest with rules (like a debate on the Internet) what makes you think you even have a remote chance in a real life hand-to-hand situation. You’d all be cowering like the little children that you are.
There’s obvious reasons why combat is left to men, little girl.
People like you who think you are entitled to badgering others with your childish need for attention that are to blame for the cases where an individual has had enough.
Those who choose a murderous route are misplacing their anger on innocent victims. You attempt to slip away from the responsibility of building that rage when your type refuses to acknowledge the contempt you ask women to have for anyone that doesn’t suit their particular fancy. The irony is that you “demand” respect and “equality” but offer none of those civilities to any man who isn’t the improbable combination of model looks and Millionaire assets. While you do that, you offer nothing but ungracious attitude towards those who don’t worship you (not just women, but particularly you in all your unattractive “allure”) as God’s gift to mankind.
Innocent victims should never have to pay the price for hate-mongers like the trolls that come here.
Most guys here love women that want to, and behave like women. Nobody likes immature cowards like you that think they are “winning” when they are just whining.
Besides, it’s quite obvious that “you”, ”beware of nice guys” are actually just Diaspora. You are just creating a post that Diaspora vaguely agrees (so she can claim, “I never said that”).
Tits or GTFO, slut.
Yawn. Boring, stupid comment.
Yet you feel the need to reply and tell me how boring and stupid you found it. Which means it resonated with you on some level.
Very interesting…..
I think the comment resonated with him as being stupid and boring, and he felt the need to tell you how stupid and boring you are because you dont seem to realise that you’re stupid and boring.
I also agree with him that your comment was stupid and boring. It resonated with me as such, which is why I also feel the need to inform you that you’re stupid and boring.
I also feel I need to repeat my opinion in the fear that you wont understand it, or may read too much into it, like you misinterpreted what asdf was trying to convey with his comment. Which probably happened because you’re stupid (as well as boring).
Why, though? Tell me what specifically makes you think my comment was ‘stupid and boring’. You have to admit, the vast majority of rhetoric to be found her is quite violently anti-woman—-and unless you’re seeing different sidebar ads than I am, the message ‘come meet women! here’s how to get women!’ is splashed all over the site. Now does that make any sense at all? It’s like a forum for allergy sufferers having advertisements for local dog shelters or ‘try ragweed today, it’s great!’
I look forward to your response.
Explain your position first, since the ads clearly demonstrate that your premise is false.
Why are you stupid and boring? Because you’ve said nothing that other, more intelligent Feminists haven’t already said better than you did. And we didn’t agree with the message the first time around.
So, stupid because you’re poorly conveying an already bad argument, and boring because we’ve already heard it many, many times before.
What, were you under the impression your “insight” was unique or clever or something?
What makes you think I’m a feminist? I’m not. And what specifically do you object to? The idea that you hate women, or having your hypocrisy pointed out? I’m just curious, here. Perhaps it’s best not to poke the zoo animals, but in this case I simply couldn’t resist!
Id be happy to explain, but I feel that you’re too stupid to understand the answer. As well as being boring of course.
So, to sum up, stupid and boring, thats you.
You’re just trying to argue semantics. You are clearly the typical malcontent that probably thought she could argue her case, got shot down, and are now resorting to trolling.
You still haven’t elaborated on your position as many have pointed out that premise is pure fallacy.
Try again, troll.
Fallacious how? Do you deny that the majority of the rhetoric espoused here is very anti-woman? Are you seriously attempting to argue that point?
Ah, I see. Turning tail and fleeing. Well, it was nice interacting with you while you bothered making the effort!
No, not fleeing. I am in fact hanging around, ready to remind you that you’re stupid and boring, just in case you forget that you’re stupid and boring. And don’t worry, its no effort at all to tell you that you’re stupid and boring. Happy to do it in fact (to tell you that you’re stupid and boring that is.)
It’s not “anti-woman” as it is not against “all” women. That’s a fallacious foundation. Are you seriously thinking that people don’t see that.
Try again, troll.
(Yes, Apollo has it right, You are showing how stupid you are.)
He’s not fleeing. Although, you seem to be avoiding answering most of those that have called you out here. Lol.
ROFLMAO.
You’re just *Lisa* or some other troll that knows she doesn’t have any case to argue. It’s always the same old, “You guys hate *all* women”. Nah. Most guys just don’t like spoiled little crybabies like you. Self-appointed ambassadors of the female population… LOL.
I think *she* might be fleeing however. Perhaps the “zoo animals” weren’t making the right type of noises when she “poked” them? Or she got distracted by something shiny, and forgot all about us? Or maybe the obvious Troll objects to being Trolled?
Yes. Diaspora is like the typical troll. She is just looking to irritate others. It’s a form of control. When people aren’t getting bothered (and why should we? Our position is correct, and everybody sees that), it gets “boring” to her.
Yeah, she was definitely just trying to get a rise out of us. I dont mind debating with Feminists when they use reasoned arguments. Those arguments dont need to be nice or even insult free – Im not concerned with politeness. I did actually spend a bit of time proving “Lisa” wrong on just about every single point of hers in this very thread, and she acted like a nasty bitch the entire time.
But it was fairly clear from the start that this one was only going to be dealing with assertions and snark. Its a waste of time to try and engage logically with someone who refuses to provide any specific evidence for an obviously controversial claim like “youse hates all womenz!!!!!”. The goal of these types is often just to get you to expend effort and get frustrated trying to defend your position with reason while they just snipe, snark and insult and provide nothing of substance to logically refute. In short, Trolling.
Insulting said Trolls can be fun though, especially when you give them just enough encouragement to make them think you’re about to engage logically, and then you switch right back to the insults. Its a pity she left so soon, I had plenty more “stupid and boring” material in the bank.
Off topic
How so?
Seriously? Ok.
The article brings up a comment commonly made by feminists, examines the historical evidence, and then makes a counter point.
Your comment is not related to any of those three parts. You just have a complaint about this website in general and picked a random article to post it on. And by doing this you’ve lowered the level of discourse on the article which was actually quite interesting. And by asking how doing that is off topic. you’ve considerably lowered the average intelligence of the comments here.
Meta-analysis isn’t allowed, I take it?
HAHAHAHA ‘lowered the level of the discourse!’ Oh, Christ that’s rich! You lot are fucking hilarious!
No. Meta-analysis is fine. It’s Meta-analysis based on tired old false assumptions that are a flushed down the diaspora hole.
You represent the hilarious lot that know they don’t have any real argument, but arrogantly think nobody else can figure that out. Your facade of civil curiosity will soon crumble away to the usual child-like taunting and name-calling expected of angry little self-proclaimed feminists.
Of course it’s allowed. Even the off topic diarrhea that seems to continually erupt from your keyboard into the comment threads is allowed, no one is deleting anything you say.
But calling it meta-analysis does not change the fact the subject of the post on the subject of your comment are entirely unrelated. There are posts on this blog where you comment would not be off topic, but this is not one of them, a fact that you clearly lack the combination of honesty and intelligence to grasp.
Rightly stated.
Diaspora is just another troll that over-estimates her ability to deceive others into believing that her concern is earnest. In reality it is based on nothing but a fallacy and an inflated sense of righteousness.
She obviously realizes her insincerity, but foolishly thinks no one else does.
This is a site for masculine MEN, you pathetic little attention whore. Grow the fuck up, little girl.
Now tits or else GTFO
Based on your tone and rhetoric, you seem to be a man hating Feminist, so why would you be posting a comment on a forum frequented by men? Why? Why do you want to communicate with people you genuinely despise? That doesnt seem to be fair to, well you mainly. Because the men here are more than familiar with anything other than complete agreement with Feminism being distorted then labelled as misogyny, and as a tactic its become predictable and boring. This isnt even a particularly clever or interesting example of the method. You could at least try and be funny or something, so we get some entertainment value out of your blather.
Tell you what, how about you include a joke or funny anecdote in any further comments? How many woman-haters does it take to screw in a lightbulb, or something like that.
You’re right, that’s why I tend to avoid women altogether. I dumped my GF of 2 years, and won’t bother talking to a girl if she doesn’t put out on the first date.
Diaspora is unintentionally selling us MGTOW, and that’s not a bad thing.
Yes, MGTOW is actually the best way to fight feminism. Stop giving any attention to these worthless bitches. Avoid long and short term relations. Pump and dump these sluts, is all.
You know, I’m curious.
Based on the tone and rhetoric of your flawed assessment, you are disingenuously suggesting an interest in the discovering that which you already are self-satisfied with.
Your reasoning is based on a falsehood which echoes the same falsehood shared by misguided feminists in order to stay in their state of denial.
Yet, one thinks they are somehow graced with greater acumen on the subject here than those you attempt to agitate. How? Are you so far in denial that you need to feel validated via a false sense of superiority?
Admit to yourself that the identification and criticism of behaviors that are a by product of initially well-intended society changes, but in it’s realization, is poorly administered, is both appropriate and worthy. Once you do this, you will be able to better deal with the denial that you obviously nurture.
Tits or GTFO, bitch.
For me, the worst way in which men suffered alongside women during the pre-1950s era was that there was simply very little chance young men could get laid with multiple women without any intention of marrying them. There could be thousands of men who were probably virgins until they had earned enough to marry, probably not until their late twenties. If this is not suffering, what is ?
Ever hear of brothels?
It’s no mistake that countries with legalized or even decriminalized prostitution have much better women. There’s no reason for men to go on dates to beg for sex when they can pay the exact same price to get nookie without any trouble. And it’s amazing. Mind blowing.
By the same token, when a man takes out of a woman in such a country they can have an honest conversation without him trying to game his way into her pants out of desperation or her playing that game. Women don’t like sexual beggars even if they exploit them. It’s the reason why American women often hate men: They can’t help themselves in wanting gamma orbiter weak men to beg for sex for the privileges but they despise such men and are angry at them for leaving them unfulfilled. Being female, they usually lack the ability to use logic to connect responsibility for their actions.
Who gives a flying fuck what American women like or don’t like.
As you pointed out, they want to keep prostitution illegal so that they create an artificial scarcity of pussy.
But it’s the duty of men to not settle for lower quality women. In countries where prostitution is illegal? I’d recommend just avoiding women in general. By giving women in those countries ANY attention, you are re-inforcing their selfish mentality.
Women want to create an artificial pussy scarcity? We can win by boycotting ALL women in those countries. Let us turn their own policies around on them.
Of course this won’t work in America because there are so many pathetic beta males there. Fuck the betas, they deserve to suffer. I laugh when those betas get fucked over by women.
Seriously, learn some history. It was not the case for farmers and the working class. In France, in the 19th century women worked in farming, coal mines, textile mills, children too, and they were less paid, while undertaking the same risks and doing the same efforts and they still had to look after children and to do the house chores. Do you really believe that the wage of a factory worker was enough to feed a wife and 4 children? Boy or girl, you begin your career at 8 (as it was the case for my mother and my two grand-mothers). The stay-at-home wife was for the bourgeoisie (and in this case, the job of the husband was not demeaning at all), and later in the 20th century (mainly during the post-war economic boom), when one income became sufficient to support a family. Just do some human sciences sometimes, you would look less stupid. Sorry for my English.
This thing this guy describes in his article has never been the case for most of humanity for most of human history. It’s a really lame attempt at rewriting history.
This is not true even today in the developing countries:
women feed the world, LOL!
I’ve been to 3rd world countries. I’ve been to the rural areas. The majority of farmers are MEN, actually.
You miss the point of the article. It’s about showing that women were not oppressed by men, that gender roles were a necessity and that men didn’t have a better deal than women. Yet you’re talking about women’s misery again. If you want to hear more about how women are victims you can just open any biased TV channel or newspaper.
It’s all rather simple. If you choose to be resentful of what others have and intentionally place yourself in a victims group then you will mostly live your time on this Earth with very little satisfaction, wealth, or knowledge. Cherry-picking past brutalities of history no more makes you owed than it makes others liable to pay. It is a hustle that a select few at the top use to keep themselves in opulence. Men have never had it easy. Look at the photos in the early 20th century of young boys in cities working 12 hour shifts at factories. Hard to believe we allowed that to happen just such a short time ago. Talk to any old timer and they will tell you similar stories of boys being sent to farms to work endless hours for cruel owners, white, black, Asian, whatever. Read up about the building of the Hoover Dam and the Empire State building. The brutal conditions and terrible pay. Or read about how men would wait in tents and hope a man would get killed or injured while working on the golden gate bridge so they could have a chance at his job. For women to say men have had it easy is disturbing as it is incorrect. You don’t want a man, fine, don’t have one. You don’t need a man, fine, don’t use one. But I don’t owe anyone in this world a GD thing. Remember that.
This chilling video sums it up perfectly.
Amen
Technically speaking, true feminism pulls for the rights of both men and women. In other words, human rights for all humans.
Maybe we could all try that sometime instead of whining and bitching about the opposite sex like a bunch of twelve year olds that just got beat by Suzie May on a spelling test.
Theorically speaking yes. But in practice, feminism is about giving advantages to a particular subset of women, at the cost of men and most women. Also, to be a real humanist, you need to truly understand human nature as it is, and feminism doesn’t. It’s a lot more based off wishful thinking than rational analysis.
I agree about the hatred, we need to reconcile with the opposite sex. But it won’t be possible until we clear the air from the amount of bullshit that is still around.
How presumptive you are. Women must have wanted to do all that stuff….because no one else would, because they are seen as weak, and the being treated special crap, what a load. Having to sely on someone else, like a pet, is not being treated special. That is controlling behaviour. It is no different to how you treat an animal you have the care of – you give it what you think it wants and tell it that that is what it wants without caring what it does actually want. When women were set Ty work when men went off to war, they started to learn real freedom. They earned their own money, and got to leave the dull life that they had been programmed to live. Women were treated as incapable of being able to do anything other than care for others, and with that men pretended they were incapable of showing compassion. So now, more men commit suicide than women because they’re so ingrained to not “cry like a girl” by their fathers and they learn to not show any emotions. Whereas women, we like men that can actually talk and show they’re not just all about money and chasing pussy. But I guess you know what we want more so than we do, because, well men are such experts at women…and that’s why feminism still exists, because you won’t let up be equal to You because it takes away your control. Get over it, and start controlling yourselves.
“So now, more men commit suicide than women because they’re so ingrained to not “cry like a girl” by their fathers and they learn to not show any emotions. ”
Women attempt suicide at four times the rate of men. Whether you try to explain it away as “self-harm”, “trying to get someone’s attention” (i.e. attention whoring, something this site observes about women in general) or “a cry for help”, it demonstrates women are actually pretty shit at managing their emotions all round. It’s men who are better psychologically than women.
“Whereas women, we like men that can actually talk and show they’re not just all about money and chasing pussy.”
Your actions as a gender show otherwise.
I’ll just leave this here: