Self-Control: A Masculine Quality

by Female Masculinist on October 21, 2009

Not long ago, a feminist I know slightly was venting on her blog about pro-lifers. “What are women who don’t want to have children supposed to do, keep their legs together?” she demanded sarcastically.

Well, yes. That is what has been expected of women throughout history, that they keep their legs together when the results of not doing so would be bad. And this is precisely what was expected of George Sodini, and of men whose dates get undressed and rub their dicks and then say no at the last minute. Why is this considered such an unreasonable demand?

But it is. So is stating that women should not be allowed to abandon their husbands and turn their children over to second husbands or boyfriends who will abuse them. Feminists seem to believe that when a woman gets wet, she has no self-control whatever. Her clothes evaporate and her knees fling themselves apart with no volition on her part. If she is already married to someone else, her legs, without consulting her, march her into the new man’s bed of their own accord, and her hands grip the children she already has and drags them with her, all without her having the slightest control over any of it. When a woman’s gina tingles, she can only follow its commands! Expecting her to act ethically when she’s wet is absurd!

Female criminals also just can’t help themselves. A woman who makes false rape accusations “is a very troubled young woman in need of much help.” If nine out of ten incidents of civilian parents with military spouses abusing their children while the spouse is on deployment, this isn’t because women are less moral, it’s because “men may be more likely to get help from extended family or other resources”. Recently a teenage girl set fire to a church with fifty people in it. But no one should behave as if she were responsible for her actions: “Fire officials said the goal is to make sure that the girl receives counseling, not to necessarily punish her.” If women who do bad things, it’s other people’s fault for not giving her enough “help” and “support”.

This is the feminist theory: women are never responsible for their own actions and thus the men and children around them must endure whatever they dish out – murder by abortion, physical attacks, impoverishment, etc. – and protect them from the consequences.

Feminists also, of course, believe that men have unlimited self-control. Rape laws, for example, say that having sex with a drunk woman is rape, even if she got herself drunk before even meeting the rapist. There is no extenuation if the man is drunk too. So women not only are legally held to lack the self-control to refrain from getting drunk – or maybe the law just figures that women are too stupid to figure out that if they keep knocking back appletinis, it will cloud their judgment – but a man who is similarly blotto is supposed to retain the discernment to tell if the woman rubbing herself all over him is drunk.

When I posted about how free women feel today to provoke men beyond reasonable endurance, at my wordpress backup a passing feminist declared: “There is no time that you can blame someone else for becoming physical in a domestic relationship (outside of self-defense). You cannot ‘make someone angry enough…..’ to hit. Adults are responsible for having control over their reactions and if they choose to become violent, it’s a CHOICE and if they make that choice, they deserve punishment. Period. Basically your post reads as ‘boys will be boys’ which is total horseshit.”

Notice that this commenter made no suggestion that Katharine Hepburn ought to have controlled her own actions and not destroyed Cary Grant’s property. Self-control is for men!

Men, it seems, can endure any provocation, betrayal or abuse without ever giving in to the urge to retaliate. Women, on the other hand, are so utterly at the mercy of their impulses that they must be permitted to murder the children they conceive, have other people arrested for not babysitting them after they have gotten themselves drunk, and given counseling rather than punishment if they commit a crime in which other people are injured or killed.

Feminists believe that men have infinitely more self-control than women. Luckily for them, they’re right.

Since feminists are so adamant that women never be held responsible for their own actions, let us take them at their word. Let us bar women from entering into contracts, being employed in jobs in which they bear more responsibility than a teenager flipping burgers, or having custody of children.

{ 279 comments… read them below or add one }

Paul October 21, 2009 at 04:03

Recently I was reading an article written more than 100 years ago which was describing much the same thing as is writte about above. The story was the same 100 years ago – women treated as not responsible for her criminal actions. So this type of thing goes back a long way. For sure it pre-dates 1960s feminism by a long way.

Saying this is meant to indicate how hard it will be to change the situation. I fear that a 100 years into the future it will still be necessary to write such article, if such writing is indeed permitted by then.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Rollory October 21, 2009 at 04:49

Roman law treated women as the equivalent of children.

The Romans had a lot of things right, for a while.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 4
Wulf October 21, 2009 at 04:55

And repeal the 19th Amendment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Paul October 21, 2009 at 05:57

I would like to make a point to Rollory that came into my mind as I read his comment. Feminist make a big point of pointing out that in past in Europe boys and girls where dressed the same for many centuries. In fact it could be said that boys and girls where both dressed as girls. Their point is to show that there are no sex differences and to point to the past as proof. This rather misses the point. There came a point in a boys life when he was taken out of child’s clothes and put into man’s clothes. I think this was referred to as ‘breeching’. But the girl remained dressed the same. That is she remained dressed as a child. So the true implication of boys and girls being dressed the same is that the girls remained a child throughout her life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Indomitable Thoughts October 21, 2009 at 07:03

Hahaha nailed it! This article points out a huge contradiction in feminism that I’ve been wondering about for some time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 07:10

Rollory
“the romans had a lot of things right, for a while”

-Want to know where they went wrong??
When they reached a certain level, an elite of women were handed over a small amount of power….
Kind of makes you think, doesn´t it ???

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Black&German October 21, 2009 at 07:30

Rape laws, for example, say that having sex with a drunk woman is rape, even if she got herself drunk before even meeting the rapist. There is no extenuation if the man is drunk too.

Whoa! Please tell me that that’s not true! That’s ABSOLUTELY INSANE. In that case, my husband rapes me at least once a week.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Deborah October 21, 2009 at 07:35

Female, can you post a link to the feminist’s blog so I can read what she said about self control?

If you want to protect her privacy, that’s understandable, I was just curious about the rest of her argument.

As I get older, I become more aware of how paradoxical the nature of Feminism is, and this post does well to open my mind to more of these paradoxes. If Feminism simply espoused a philosophy were men and women were regarded with total equality by the law, it wouldn’t be so bad. Give all players the same amount of chips and see what they can do.

Yet this reluctance on the part of feminists to treat men as equal members of society reveals that they know the truth that civilization has known all along – men are stronger. Feminists accept this truth and therefore give women all the cheat-codes while kicking men out of the game!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
zed October 21, 2009 at 07:46

Whoa! Please tell me that that’s not true! That’s ABSOLUTELY INSANE. In that case, my husband rapes me at least once a week.

Oh, it gets MUCH worse than that. You really need to go to http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/ and read about how much worse it does get.

And, yes, with marital rape laws the way they are, your husband does “rape” you once a week and you can put him in prison for that any time you get mad enough at him to do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hetherington_case
http://www.geocities.com/tiluser/wils_page.html (this one goes away on 10/26, so look quick)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n31_v10/ai_15674644/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 07:58

Deborah
“Give all players the same amount of chips and see what they can do.”

Basically, that´s what the MM is working for, Deb, -We want equality in the true meaning of the word… Not this game , where one player is given all the privilege, -the best of both worlds, and cannot be held accounteble for ANY actions, whatsoever…If we are going to have gender-quota´s, that means quota´s within sewage, construction, garbage, farming and so forth. And, of course, everybody get the same sentence for a crime committed. No more of this “oh, she has been having so many problems, your honor, I´m sure she didn´t mean to kill her kids!-We should set her free!!” .That does not compute any more..Those days are over !! Women have been kicking the tiger for far too long, -now it has finally awoken…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 08:00

B&G

Bless me father, for I have sinned…LOL!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
kis October 21, 2009 at 08:26

I once lived under a couple who fought all the time. I’d hear their voices, enough of what they were screaming at each other to know they we both sometimes “in the wrong” or whatever, but mostly I heard him going from room to room and closing doors, and her following him to continue the fight. Sometimes for hours. She’d be screaming at him about whatever the “problem” was, and he’d be “Just leave me alone. Please.”

I always kept thinking, “Lady, just freaking let it go for now. He’s not closing the door on you so he can ignore you. He’s doing it so he won’t hit you, and here you are begging him to do it.”

But that’s the thing. I like equality, but it needs to be equal. Women shouldn’t be treated as children half the time and adults the other half. When you treat someone like that, that’s a teenager. Teenagers are what women have largely become. They want people to respect them, but they don’t want the responsibility that goes hand in hand with that respect. They want people to treat them equally, but they don’t want the accountability that goes with that.

I mean, teenagers–and I have two, god help me–are tolerable in small numbers. But when they make up more than half the population? Oy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Black&German October 21, 2009 at 08:29

I’m such a lush. :-) Hey, I’m Catholic. We start at First Communion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Gx1080 October 21, 2009 at 08:30

Heh. A personal policy “If a woman isn’t pulling her weight in a job with me and I’m not getting sex for it, then she’s on her own”. I don’t do anything for a cocktease, thank you very much.

And the double standard of this society that give BS insanity pleas to women and throws men in jail without a thought is downright sick.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 21, 2009 at 08:36

I once lived under a couple who fought all the time. I’d hear their voices, enough of what they were screaming at each other to know they we both sometimes “in the wrong” or whatever, but mostly I heard him going from room to room and closing doors, and her following him to continue the fight. Sometimes for hours. She’d be screaming at him about whatever the “problem” was, and he’d be “Just leave me alone. Please.”

My sister and her boyfriend fight like this. She chases him around, screaming at him, bringing up everything he’s ever done wrong, and he just tries to stay out of her way and keep from getting smacked. Eventually he’ll give up and leave the house and she’ll stand in the doorway screaming while he drives off. I can’t stand to visit them, so I don’t.

Sick.

A colleague’s wife beat him to a pulp. He didn’t report her to the police but they came to see him in the hospital to ask him IF HE’D RECIPROCATED. She had claimed (preemptively, I suppose) that he’d instigated the fight by pushing her. She just happened to have a frying pan handy… The fact that he was in the hospital and had a fractured skull while she was walking around just fine was obviously not worth mentioning. Neither was the fact that the argument had started when he found out that she was cheating on him.

Double sick.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 08:40

kis

I have asked a lot of men, over the years, the following:”If we did not have the sex as a factor, would you be speaking to women, then ??”

I still haven´t met a man who said yes to that question.

I have asked a lot of women the same question,
and the answer is always, without even a moment of thinking about it:”YES!”

And that´s true, -women will be standing over a mans gravestone, and talk until her lips turn blue, and her eyes pop out…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
ErikB October 21, 2009 at 08:43

hey there, just thought I’d bring up one point in the article that seemed a bit off kilter.

“Rape laws, for example, say that having sex with a drunk woman is rape, even if she got herself drunk before even meeting the rapist. There is no extenuation if the man is drunk too.”

This is kind of silly if you think about it in terms of wrestling. Wrestling is pretty awesome if both people consent to it; two men competing or dominance etc. But if there isn’t consent, it’s called assault. So now we look at alcohol. If one guy is drunk and the other decides to wrestle with him, it seems pretty clear that the drunk person is being taken advantage of and might not know what he’s getting into–and the other guy saying it’s his fault seemed silly, if he was sober he should be the responsible guy and wait for a ‘fair fight’. OK. Now lets say both are drunk. Now clearly there are times when two drunk people decide to wrestle mutually (even though it may be a bad idea). But if it’s clear from the situation that one person was the aggressor, then it becomes drunken assault.

Same laws apply to rape. If the girl is drunk and the guy is sober, he should wait till she isn’t drunk to make a move; anything less is being a coward imo. And if he KNOWS she is drunk and thus can’t resist, then give me his address so I can hunt him down (if you are actually saying rape is ok if the girl can’t fight back, I think you are just ignoring assault laws in general). If both are drunk and no one can sort out who started it, then the guy doesn’t get charged (burden of proof and all). But if the guy clearly started it without consent (it wasn’t mutual) it becomes assault. Seems just like the rules for physical assault to me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7
Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 08:48

B&G
“a colleague beat him to a pulp..”

He should walk right out of the hospital and return both favors..Starting with the cheating, -go home, tell her and THEN kick the shit out of her…
No, seriously,-instant divorce with no alimony/salary/money/house/kids, at all !!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 08:53

ErikB

I concur-especially on the hunting down part of it !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Black&German October 21, 2009 at 08:54

He didn’t report her to the police in the end, in exchange for full custody of the kids.

Sorry, but I’ve had sex when drunk numerous times and I was in no way raped. I thoroughly enjoyed myself, to be honest. Although I’ve never had sex with a perfect stranger (drunk or sober).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 08:56

B&G

She´d probably get so pissed off, that the court would consider it an even fight !!!LOL!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 08:58

B&G

Men are generally TOO nice for their own good…
So what now, -he thinks she´s not going to do it again, right ???

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 21, 2009 at 08:59

The law says:
“Mentally incapacitated” means that a person is rendered incapable of appraising or controlling the conduct of the person at the time of the alleged offense. [because of the influence of a controlled or other intoxicating substance administered to the person without the consent of the person

In that case, it makes sense. If she is so drunk that she is INCAPABLE of giving consent (like she’s passed out or doesn’t know where she is), then it’s different. But where does “she’s had a few too many” end and “mentally incapacitated” begin?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 09:03

B&G

Good question..All of those law´s need a general overhaul, and need to be updated, to fit society´s norms…Not how it WAS !!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 09:09

B&G

I´ve had a girl consenting and then passing out DURING sex,(Yeah, I´m THAT boring !..LOL!!), -given what you just entered, that means I´m a rapist…Damn!!
I thank my god, it was before the false-rape trend…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Female Masculinist October 21, 2009 at 09:20

Deborah,

The feminist who considered it so unreasonable for women to abstain from sex said it in a comment on someone else’s livejournal in a friends-locked post, so I couldn’t link to it anyway. Sorry.

Female Masculinist October 21, 2009 at 09:21

(Before I just said “her blog” so as not to put this long boring explanation in the essay.)

Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 09:23

B&G

Come to think about it, I didnt finish myself ..Just got very pissed and left..If I wanted to have sex with a corpse, I´d become a necrophiliac…lol!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 09:24

B&G

Although with some girls, you really can´t tell the difference…:(
They´re soooo boring….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 21, 2009 at 09:41

I passed out during sex one time with my husband (then fiance). I was REALLY REALLY drunk. There’s a funny story behind that involving my birthday party and an Italian restaurant.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 09:46

B&G

I´ve done it twice, on to seperate dates!–> Not commendable !!!
JEEEEZZZUUZZZ, they got mad !!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hestia October 21, 2009 at 09:46

Keeping women as stupid perpetual children unfortunately sums up feminism quite well.

WRT to the military statistic you linked to, my husband and I have always been active in FRG with the various units he’s worked in. We used to be naive enough to believe women didn’t find a support network for themselves for a host of explainable reasons. Until we took the time to make up a huge packet together, with the information needed to get in touch with all sorts of community resources and some sound advice, including being sure to take a break before you need a break and make sure to leave the house everyday, even if only to go for a walk or to the park. After all of our work, hardly anybody utilized any of the advice or resources which proved to both of us that these wives simply didn’t care about taking the necessary responsibility to make the deployment a success for themselves and their families. What other conclusion could we come to?

Now our secret plan is to be aware and observers, making sure no poor children are the “canaries in the coal mine”, proving somebody is cracking up at home, and getting them help if they are. *sigh*

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie October 21, 2009 at 09:50

If the girl is drunk, she can still say no. If she doesn’t, it ain’t rape.

“Same laws apply to rape. If the girl is drunk and the guy is sober, he should wait till she isn’t drunk to make a move; anything less is being a coward imo. And if he KNOWS she is drunk and thus can’t resist, then give me his address so I can hunt him down (if you are actually saying rape is ok if the girl can’t fight back, I think you are just ignoring assault laws in general). ”

How can you not resist if your drunk. I’ve seen drunks put up amazing fights. If someone is passed out, then yeah, your point stands, but we are not exonerated of our stupid choices when we’re drunk. The cause of the stupid choice was choosing to get drunk in the first place.

The first half dozen times I got laid in my teenage years was with drunk girls. Are you saying I’m a rapist? I just look better the drunker a girl gets.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Deborah October 21, 2009 at 10:08

This is definitely off topic, and I promise not to bring it up again in this post after this comment, but I recently wrote a post in my blog bringing up the fact that Feminists – most notably Gloria Steinem – have actually publicly stated their wish for a society in which women are the “queen bees” and men the worker drones, and consequently I wrote a retort to her conception of “Patriarchy” as Cataclysmic. In Defense of the “Cataclysm” That is Patriarchy

So much for the Feminist pretense that they only want “equality.”

Let me know if I have any logical fallacies on my post.

Okay, sorry to derail the thread, carry on!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 21, 2009 at 10:12

Kimskinovgorod,

My husband just came home for lunch. He’d like everyone to know that I am remembering completely false. It was actually HE that passed out, not me. Or, at least, I passed out after he did.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 10:13

Deborah

Will it have a deadly impact on my bloodpressure ??

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Karl October 21, 2009 at 10:13

Erik,

“If both are drunk and no one can sort out who started it, then the guy doesn’t get charged (burden of proof and all). But if the guy clearly started it without consent (it wasn’t mutual) it becomes assault.”

The whole analogy falls apart because there are no witnesses in the sexual scenario and you can never really sort it out. And subsequently in our society the burden of proof unfairly falls on him – unlike any other crime. We simply take the woman’s word, after the fact, above everything else.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 10:14

B&G

Thank god, I´m not alone…LOL!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 21, 2009 at 10:16

Sorry, but I’ve had sex when drunk numerous times and I was in no way raped. I thoroughly enjoyed myself, to be honest. Although I’ve never had sex with a perfect stranger (drunk or sober).

Well, I’ve never driven when falling down drunk, or screwed anyone I didn’t already want to screw. But one of the effects of alcohol is supposedly suspension of judgment. I haven’t experienced that to any degree myself–in fact, I was dosed with GHB one night, found myself necking with a guy I barely knew, and managed to think, “Whoa, this is NOT like me. Something is seriously wrong here. Time to get my girlfriend to get me home, pronto!”

But I’ve seen enough guys stagger out of the bar, bumping into shit, after having their keys nabbed by the bartender, only to get in their car and grab the spare keyes from under the mat, to believe it’s true for some people. (And that’s when I phone the cops and rat them out.)

The cause of the stupid choice was choosing to get drunk in the first place.

That’s just it. The precipitating act, with drunk driving or drunk fucking, is the drinking.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie October 21, 2009 at 10:28

God made sex feel good to trick us into having babies. When we developed enough self control to only have sex when it was appropriate, ie. in marriage or with birth control, God invented alchohol. Me thinks God really likes babies for some reason, and lots of them, but its been a long time since I read the bible, so my interpretation may be off. (I joke)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 10:36

Jabherwochie

That would explain the vast amount of stupid people too…;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Globalman October 21, 2009 at 10:59

I have been proposing in a number of places the following. Today men have no recourse to law for a woman who commits a crime against them. The Illuminati corrupted courts hold women not responsible for their actions. Even perjury is not a crime if committed by a woman against a man. When there is no recourse to law men can either walk away or revolt. Right now we are walking away. If we ever have a revolution and put women back in their place woe and betide the women.

I call women children because intellectually they are. They don’t like that? GOOD!! Let’s give them the chance to PROVE they are adults. Let’s challenge them to create dejour juries and judge women for crimes against men. Let women give men an avenue to bring claims of crimes committed against them under common law jurisdiction. This is all perfectly lawful. So far I have one woman considering this. That’s how pathetic women are. They will not step up and judge other womens crimes like men do every day.

If women would step up to the adult role of sitting on a dejour jury and passing judgment on women who commit crimes against men I might be more inclined to believe they are adults. The decisions they issue will inform us men what is considered a crime and what punishment is considered reasonable by ’12 good women’.

For example. Is perjury of a false rape allegation a crime? Is kidnapping a mans children a crime? Is stabbing him with deadly instrument like a knife a crime? Is stealing the family money without his knowledge or consent a crime? Is hitting him a crime? Is endless verbal abuse a crime? Is paternity fraud a crime?

Right now a woman in the western world will not be prosecuted in any sensible for any of these actions. Therefore many of us men consider all western women ‘children’ both intellectually and legally. I would never enter into a contract again with a woman and I won’t let one live in my apartment because I already raised 4 children. I don’t need another one.

If women are so ‘grown up’. PROVE IT. Make available dejour juries where men can bring claims of crimes and judge your fellow women in such a way that you send a message to all adults, women and men, as to what is now considered a common law crime when committed by a woman. We do not need the good help of our Illuminati corrupted courts to create our laws, enforce them, and live in peace. All we need are ’12 good women’ who are willing judge the ‘bad women’ who commit crimes against men.

My bet is that I can’t find these women because I’m pretty much a believer there are so few good women left that finding 12 of them is well nigh impossible. If there are good women out there who dis-agree with me, WONDERFUL!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Hestia October 21, 2009 at 11:27

Globalman- My bet is that I can’t find these women because I’m pretty much a believer there are so few good women left that finding 12 of them is well nigh impossible. If there are good women out there who dis-agree with me, WONDERFUL!!
In a previous thread you brought up this same issue, inquiring if I’d be willing to serve on one of these “dej0ur duties”. I advised you then that I was having a difficult time understanding the common law idea of which you speak and had been hoping you might provide a link that discusses the concept more.

Is this similar to the anti-marriage license arguments that can be found online, with people arguing for the old fashioned family bible record/common law way of establishing marriage rather than the government issued license of modern times?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman October 21, 2009 at 11:31

Paul October 21, 2009 at 4:03 am
“The story was the same 100 years ago .. women treated as not responsible for her criminal actions.”
This is true, men were held accountable for the actions of wives. This is why the bible said ‘obey’. Since ‘womens liberation’ we have all the evidence we need to demonstrate women do not like being held accountable for their actions. They are children. Period.

Black&German October 21, 2009 at 7:30 am
“Please tell me that that’s not true! That’s ABSOLUTELY INSANE. In that case, my husband rapes me at least once a week.”
B&G, in Victoria in Australia new ‘statutes’ were introduced that say a woman has up to a week to decide if she was raped by way of having been ‘intoxicated’. Men are now saying ‘no alcohol whatsoever’ at dinner. Men are held responsible for womens decisions. It is just one more attempt to drive a wedge between men and women. The purpose is to divide and conquer.

Next. A recent change to ‘statutes’ in Australia say that a woman who has had an affair with a man can claim the same entitlements as the wife even if there was no cohabitation with the woman claiming the affair. This means any woman who waltzes into family court and makes a claim against a man will get a far more than fair hearing. After all, women are so honest right? This was the largest change and largest transfer of property in the history of Australia. Remember, the burdern of proof will be on the man to prove he did NOT have the affair. How can he prove that? The media hyped it as ‘cheating husbands get what they deserve’. Oh, cheating wives? You wonder why we don’t trust western women and we don’t like them any more? Try finding out about how badly we are treated now. Men like me did not go from loving women and thinking they were the best thing since sliced bread and devoting our lives to our family to ‘indifferent’ for little reason you know. It took 15 year of getting shit on for me to get this far!

And yes, B&G, my wife many times had me ‘all revved up’ and then said ‘no’. The worst was this one. I came home from 3 months OS working. It was chistmas and I joined my family at our regular christmas spot. We finally got into bed and got all intimate. All normal husband and wife ‘warming up’ stuff. Then she just says ‘No, I need some time to get used to having you around before I can have sex with you’. I was really hurt. Stab me with a knife but don’t reject me time and time again. So I got out of bed to go to the bathroom to go do what a man needs to do to get some sleep…she went ape shit and refused to even allow me to go off by myself. There was no lock on the bathroom door and she just kept coming in. She simply would not leave me alone long enough to ‘do what a mans gotta do’ and is was like -5C outside. If I tried to have sex with her I’d be looking at 10-15…

Remember. This is with my wife, whom I loved dearly, who claims to love me, with whom I supposedly had 2 children, whom I had not seen in three months, I’d been working 12-15 hours a day 6-7 days a week for those three months to provide..and all I wanted was a little intimacy with the woman I loved and I might go to jail for trying. Is that bad enough for you yet? We have to put up with crap like this all the time now. It got so bad and I was so hurt after so many years of rejection I finally snapped and lost my temper one day. I could have killed her in that condition. So I vowed and declared to never, ever again ask for sex and I kept that for the last 5 years of my marriage. She could ask me, but I never asked again. She would ask to come visit me were I was working and I would tell her “unless you pre-agree unconditionally for sex, don’t get on the plane because I won’t let you in my apartment.” What is her complain then? “You won’t let me just come and be with you without also giving you sex!! Boo hoo” Correct. No sex, stay at home with the kids. Period. I tell these stories so the young men can realise just how crap marriage is now. I tell them don’t be a fool like me. Don’t get married.

“If we did not have the sex as a factor, would you be speaking to women, then ??”
Nope…apart from professional necessity I no longer speak to any woman I am not interested in for sex.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Puma October 21, 2009 at 11:44

Talking about “women helping themselves” it looks like the Massachusetts Alimony Resistance movement is getting close to scoring a touchdown with the Mass legislature. The steady drumbeat of media publicity continues:

http://anonym.to/http://www.lowellsun.com/local/ci_13608061

If they pull it off, this type of legislative assault (as opposed to judicial pleadings) on “lifetime alimony” can be used as a blueprint for reform movements in other states/provinces. Places like Florida, California, and Ontario still have “lifetime” type alimony on their books.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma October 21, 2009 at 11:48

… ironically it’s the “strong independent womyn” who are trying to kill this bill in the Mass Senate. The most vocal opposition has come from a female Senator and the local Women’s Bar Association chapter. I don’t know what is more “anti-independent” than a lifetime’s dependance on one’s ex-spouse.

Hypocrites.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie October 21, 2009 at 11:57

Nice article. You make some very good points around women taking responsibility for their actions. I also understand the point about women and men having self control. But just wanted to say my opinion on history as I see it.

I don’t think women were meant to keep their legs closed in history. They were more likely under Christianity rule to go to some sort of Catholic place and work until they had their baby and then they were sent home while their baby was adopted out. This culture was forced on countries when they adopted Christianity. In the past many cultures just made the children part of their community. There was a reason to fight for single mothers to keep their children. And this was it.

As for religious rule: Men and women were having sex out of wedlock for ever and even the Old Testament mentioned it when it said a man must marry the women he fornicated with. And many marriages were in the past based on sex alone. Old school feminists say that marriage was just for sex in their day. That they married so they could have sex.

Reminds me of Meat Loaf’s song – ‘By the dashboard lights’
http://tinyurl.com/yfxq8gm

GIRL:
Stop right there!
I gotta know right now!
Before we go any further!
Do you love me?
Will you love me forever?
Do you need me?
Will you never leave me?
Will you make me so happy for the rest of my life?
Will you take me away and will you make me your wife?

BOY:
Let me sleep on it
Baby, baby let me sleep on it
Let me sleep on it
And I’ll give you an answer in the morning

GIRL:
I gotta know right now
Do you love me?
Will you love me forever?
Do you need me?
Will you never leave me?
Will you make me so happy for the rest of my life?
Will you take me away and will you make me your wife?
I gotta know right now!
Before we go any further
Do you love me?
And will you love me forever?
BOY:
Let me sleep on it
Baby, baby let me sleep on it
Let me sleep on it
And I’ll give you an answer in the morning
Let me sleep on it
GIRL:
Will you love me forever?
BOY:
Let me sleep on it
GIRL:
Will you love me forever!!!!

BOY:
I couldn’t take it any longer
Lord I was crazed
And when the feeling came upon me
Like a tidal wave
I started swearing to my god and on my mother’s grave
That I would love you to the end of time
I swore that I would love you to the end of time!
So now I’m praying for the end of time
To hurry up and arrive
‘Cause if I gotta spend another minute with you
I don’t think that I can really survive
I’ll never break my promise or forget my vow
But God only knows what I can do right now
I’m praying for the end of time
It’s all that I can do
Praying for the end of time,
So I can end my time with you!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Grim October 21, 2009 at 12:09

Julie said:

They were more likely under Christianity rule to go to some sort of Catholic place and work until they had their baby and then they were sent home while their baby was adopted out. This culture was forced on countries when they adopted Christianity. In the past many cultures just made the children part of their community. There was a reason to fight for single mothers to keep their children. And this was it.

Christianity forced the end of single mother hood? Many props to them.

How can you think this is a bad thing? Single mother raised children are the worst people around. Kids need both parents and they get that in adopted families. Practices like this made life better for everyone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
julie October 21, 2009 at 12:19

Grim,

How can you think this is a bad thing?

I realise we are speaking about sex out of wedlock because single parents always exited in society. They had no more control over one parent dying that we do today.

Sooo, as for having sex out of wedlock and having a baby out of wedlock, I have seen a good number of children find their parents. I know of accounts when the children were taken overseas and how this conflicted with the children because they were taken from their cultures. I have made my opinion on the matter and I think we don’t need to do that sort of thing any more.

I have also seen fathers ask their wives why they never told them about the baby they never knew they had who had suddenly presented themselves at their door as a teenager or adult. It just wanted the done thing. Men didn’t know and women were forced to keep their mouths closed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie October 21, 2009 at 12:23

Oops, I shouldn’t have said women were forced to keep their mouths closed but instead said, coerced. Sex wasn’t discussed as it is today and back in the day it was shameful to have a baby out of wedlock.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 21, 2009 at 12:23

Kids need both parents and they get that in adopted families. Practices like this made life better for everyone.

They don’t get it in orphanages.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 12:26

I loathe the expression “wedlock!”
-You can almost hear the barred door slam shut after it…;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
julie October 21, 2009 at 12:27

Kis

They don’t get it in orphanages.

That’s a damn good point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Grim October 21, 2009 at 12:33

julie Said

Sooo, as for having sex out of wedlock and having a baby out of wedlock, I have seen a good number of children find their parents. I know of accounts when the children were taken overseas and how this conflicted with the children because they were taken from their cultures. I have made my opinion on the matter and I think we don’t need to do that sort of thing any more.

All of my friends raised by single parents and the urban ghetto disagrees with you. Most people I know who have been raised by a single parent feel abandoned by the other parent and tend to lead rather destructive lives. Not to mention the shear about of damage single parent raised children tend to do. Yes there are exceptions, but in general they are a disaster.

Our crime rate would 1/5 what it is today if we went back to the system of adopting out children born to single parents. Now if you enjoy crime and watching people suffer then the current system is better.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
julie October 21, 2009 at 12:41

Grim,

All of my friends raised by single parents and the urban ghetto disagrees with you. Most people I know who have been raised by a single parent feel abandoned by the other parent and tend to lead rather destructive lives. Not to mention the shear about of damage single parent raised children tend to do. Yes there are exceptions, but in general they are a disaster.

I hear you! Yep, I know this is all true. It is something that has to be dealt with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Grim October 21, 2009 at 13:01

Julie said,

I hear you! Yep, I know this is all true. It is something that has to be dealt with.

I’m glad you agree. And since what the church did in the past worked so well, why don’t we do it again? Everything else have tried has turned into total failure (40+ years of it now).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Zammo October 21, 2009 at 13:13

I loathe the expression “wedlock!”
-You can almost hear the barred door slam shut after it…;)

Think about the term “settle down”. That’s even worse!

Women are not expected to “settle” but men are expected to “settle down

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
kis October 21, 2009 at 13:29

Our crime rate would 1/5 what it is today if we went back to the system of adopting out children born to single parents. Now if you enjoy crime and watching people suffer then the current system is better.

I agree as well. But to be honest, I don’t know if there are enough adoptive families in the world for that. My ex knows someone who spent his first four years in an orphanage until he was adopted. The guy’s been in and out of prison since he turned 18.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
21Guns October 21, 2009 at 14:06

How can you think this is a bad thing? Single mother raised children are the worst people around.

It wasn’t a bad thing back in the days when there were such things as villages and extended families. It’s only in today’s impersonal, isolated society that single motherhood is the disaster that it is.

Kids need both parents and they get that in adopted families. Practices like this made life better for everyone.

Kids need more than both parents, IMO. They also need grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers, sisters, neighbors, teachers, etc. Lots of luck getting that kind of environment today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Harry October 21, 2009 at 17:04

@Female Masculist

Great article. Really enjoyed it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Renee October 21, 2009 at 17:46

*Nods* Alot of good points in this post.

Feminists seem to believe that when a woman gets wet, she has no self-control whatever. Her clothes evaporate and her knees fling themselves apart with no volition on her part. If she is already married to someone else, her legs, without consulting her, march her into the new man’s bed of their own accord, and her hands grip the children she already has and drags them with her, all without her having the slightest control over any of it. When a woman’s gina tingles, she can only follow its commands! Expecting her to act ethically when she’s wet is absurd!

Honestly, from my experience I never encountered feminists with this point of view. Also, I’m really intrugued by the twist in this. Throughout human history or at least recent history, it was believed that females were the ones with self control, especially when it came to sex. Because of this and since males were thought to be a “slave” to their sexual urges, it was up to females to “reign in” those urges….or something like that.

“When I posted about how free women feel today to provoke men beyond reasonable endurance, at my wordpress backup a passing feminist declared: “There is no time that you can blame someone else for becoming physical in a domestic relationship (outside of self-defense). You cannot ‘make someone angry enough…..’ to hit…….”

Notice that this commenter made no suggestion that Katharine Hepburn ought to have controlled her own actions and not destroyed Cary Grant’s property. Self-control is for men!

I don’t think she believed that at all. She also said this:

“I agree that women should NEVER strike a man just because “she can” and if she does, she should expect violence in return….”

“An adult whether male or female DESERVES to sit in jail for abusing their partner. Whether it’s a shove, throwing something, a slap across the face, or an actual punch….it should be treated seriously. Men who hit women ARE cowards. Women who hit men are children.”

Now why men who hit women can’t also be considered children and why women who hit men can’t as well be considered cowards I don’t know. And I also think the reason that she didn’t mention Hepburn specifically was that the main subject of the post was men. Then again this is probably just me being an optimist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 21, 2009 at 18:03

Throughout human history or at least recent history, it was believed that females were the ones with self control, especially when it came to sex. Because of this and since males were thought to be a “slave” to their sexual urges, it was up to females to “reign in” those urges….or something like that.

No, it’s more simple. Women are the gatekeepers of sex. I know women now HATE that, but it is so. It is so in nature and in law. Women are the ultimate deciders of whether sex happens. And yet they foist that responsibility off themselves because they hate having all of it (“after all, he seduced me …”). Oh. Right. You had the last bite at the apple, honey, and so you have the last responsibility, too. That’s the way both law and nature work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
DT October 21, 2009 at 18:25

Honestly, from my experience I never encountered feminists with this point of view.

Feminist inspired laws codify this point of view! How then can you say that feminist don’t share this point of view?

Also, I’m really intrugued by the twist in this. Throughout human history or at least recent history, it was believed that females were the ones with self control, especially when it came to sex. Because of this and since males were thought to be a “slave” to their sexual urges, it was up to females to “reign in” those urges….or something like that.

For most of human history women were deemed to have less self control. As someone pointed out earlier, in Rome women had the legal status of children. You don’t give half the population the legal status of children if you believe that half to have self control.

This hadn’t changed much by the time America was founded. For the first century of our existence we considered it prudent that women be under the authority and discipline of men, first their fathers, then their husbands.

The idea that men have less self control in sexual or other matters is very recent and, I believe, still limited somewhat to “progressive” western nations. I would say the seeds of this change were planted during the Victorian era.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Renee October 21, 2009 at 18:27

Zammo,

One expression I hate is “making a honest woman out of you“.

Seriously now???
————————–

Now about your post over at your wordpress backup. I have some pretty mixed feelings about it. On one hand I can see what you’re saying and that women do sometimes push men too far, especially when hitting them. But on the other hand, it seemed that you were making excuses for violent behavior. The commentor was right in that in the end it comes to choice, for both men and women.
————————–

Sidenote here:
Globalman,

This is true, men were held accountable for the actions of wives. This is why the bible said ‘obey’.

I have a question. You said this over at “We Are All Misogynists”:

Women committed these crimes knowing it was wrong. They did it knowing they would not be held accountable like children. So THEY agreed THEY are CHILDREN by THEIR actions and they KNOW the do not deserve a seat at the table with men. We should not let them back to the adults table until they are adults. I know a LOT of men who agree with this position. There was a reason the bible said ‘Wives, love, honour and OBEY your husbands.’ Because the Illuminati wrote the bible and they KNOW women are children.

You said that Illuminati wrote the Bible but in other posts you speak of a conspiracy concerning them and that they’re bad news. So which is it, are they good or evil? Just wondering……

I think I asked this before, but I’m not sure.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee October 21, 2009 at 18:42

From DT,

Feminist inspired laws codify this point of view! How then can you say that feminist don’t share this point of view?

*Shrugs* I don’t know? I don’t see how getting wet has anything to do with divorce or separation considering that there’s more to it than that, if a woman’s “vagina tingling” has anything to do with it at all.

Well then again……….
———————-

Novaseeker,

No, it’s more simple. Women are the gatekeepers of sex. I know women now HATE that, but it is so. It is so in nature and in law. Women are the ultimate deciders of whether sex happens. And yet they foist that responsibility off themselves because they hate having all of it (”after all, he seduced me …”). Oh. Right. You had the last bite at the apple, honey, and so you have the last responsibility, too. That’s the way both law and nature work.

My first instinct is to say “Well why can’t men decide as well, why is it up to women?” but then I remember having that discussion in another post. I’ll just go over there and get a refresher course lol.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 21, 2009 at 18:52

My first instinct is to say “Well why can’t men decide as well, why is it up to women?”

For the same reason that the rape law relies on female consent — i.e., the buck stops with her consent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Renee October 21, 2009 at 18:56

DT,

Another thing……

As someone pointed out earlier, in Rome women had the legal status of children. You don’t give half the population the legal status of children if you believe that half to have self control.

Do you think that this was a good idea? Why was it believed that women had less self control? Because of Eve….but what about Adam?

This hadn’t changed much by the time America was founded. For the first century of our existence we considered it prudent that women be under the authority and discipline of men, first their fathers, then their husbands.

Was it really THAT prudent? I have a problem with this in that basically this follows the belief of men knowing what’s good for women and that women don’t know what’s good for themselves. It’s just I see too much of an opportunity in that kind of a system going overboard to the detriment of women. It’s an extreme take on what God intended.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 21, 2009 at 19:01

It’s an extreme take on what God intended.

And what is your take on that?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie October 21, 2009 at 19:06

To Grim
Julie said, “I hear you! Yep, I know this is all true. It is something that has to be dealt with.”

I’m glad you agree. And since what the church did in the past worked so well, why don’t we do it again? Everything else have tried has turned into total failure (40+ years of it now).

We do follow the same idea. BTW …

Are we talking about the Catholic Church? If so, … I believe part of what we have going on now is a backlash of what happened to children when in the care of the Catholic orphanages. I too know of a family who were placed in orphanages in Australia who say the conditions and the treatment was appalling. After the orphanages came government homes which were like prisons. They didn’t work either.

Now we have chosen foster homes where children are placed in other families care but only if the single mother can’t take care of her children. She is then given the chance to fix her situation but if she can’t within a few years, her children are adopted out. Yet, sometimes, the state will say the children can’t return even if the mother fixes herself. Sometimes the children are better off in the care of the new family.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie October 21, 2009 at 19:08

To Grim, I forgot to add quotes to your words in my comment above.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 21, 2009 at 19:24

My first instinct is to say “Well why can’t men decide as well, why is it up to women?” but then I remember having that discussion in another post. I’ll just go over there and get a refresher course lol.

It’s quite simple, so simple, it’s kind of weird. In sex, men are the “givers”, women are the “receivers”. That is, the man is the penetrator and the woman is the penetratee. The man is placing his body part in the woman, and just as when you answer the door, you have the final decision as to whether to let them in your house.

Switch it around. (These examples are of two adults, not a 45 year police officer and a teenager.) If you have two gay men, and there’s a question of rape/consent, the one who penetrates is the alleged rapist. Say you have a kinky couple and the dude likes to get it in the rear from his willing girlfriend and her trusty strap-on. In that case, HE is the one who gives consent. Welcomes her in, or tells her to take a hike.

Sex for a woman is very different than sex for a man in that fundamental way. You’re inviting someone into your body, your personal space. As long as men have the dicks and women have the pussies, that’s how it will be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Black&German October 21, 2009 at 19:29

Novaseeker,

And what is your take on that?

Isn’t wifely submission supposed to be something that a woman does to honor God? It’s not done to please her husband and isn’t supposed to be dependent upon his behavior. They are each called to their roles: wives to obedience and men to love.
There shouldn’t be laws forcing women to obedience or men to love. That would be a perversion as it would take away our calling and our free choice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 21, 2009 at 19:35

Isn’t wifely submission supposed to be something that a woman does to honor God? It’s not done to please her husband and isn’t supposed to be dependent upon his behavior. They are each called to their roles: wives to obedience and men to love.

Yes, but this doesn’t get at what Renee was saying.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie October 21, 2009 at 19:48

Kimskinovgorod says:

I loathe the expression “wedlock!”
-You can almost hear the barred door slam shut after it…;)

Zammo says:

Think about the term “settle down”. That’s even worse!
Women are not expected to “settle” but men are expected to “settle down“

Agreed! What about the words, “Grow Up”?
Grow up to be what exactly? A zombie? No thanks. :D

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Harry October 21, 2009 at 19:50

@Renee

” I have a problem with this in that basically this follows the belief of men knowing what’s good for women and that women don’t know what’s good for themselves.”

I disagree.

Men know much better how to deal with the world out there – especially if it is a horrible one; like it used to be.

Besides which, if my job is to protect you and support you, then you will have to do what I say. Or, No Deal.

That was the situation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
julie October 21, 2009 at 20:03

To 21Guns

How can you think this is a bad thing? Single mother raised children are the worst people around.

It wasn’t a bad thing back in the days when there were such things as villages and extended families. It’s only in today’s impersonal, isolated society that single motherhood is the disaster that it is.

Oh, I am so pleased to hear someone say these words.

Kids need both parents and they get that in adopted families. Practices like this made life better for everyone.

Kids need more than both parents, IMO. They also need grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers, sisters, neighbors, teachers, etc. Lots of luck getting that kind of environment today.

And ever so pleased to see these words written. Yep, I agree family is the best thing for children but IMHO it is our environment that has created the different culture. It has changed so much.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
21Guns October 21, 2009 at 20:16

julie

Thank you. I am firmly convinced that postwar social isolation, NOT sexism, is what gave rise to modern feminism.

There is a reason why feminism has always been associated with white, suburban, middle-class women: it’s because the working class, immigrants, and rural folks were a lot slower to give up the old ways of extended families and close-knit communities. They didn’t go rushing headlong into little suburban boxes the way the white middle class did after WW2.

It’s no wonder the women went bugshit, they were ALONE ALL THE TIME. If people back then had been into the kind of socialogical navel-gazing that we practice today, they may have figured out the reason and done something about it. Instead, they looked around for the easy target–men–and here we are today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
julie October 21, 2009 at 20:19

Kis says

It’s quite simple, so simple, it’s kind of weird. In sex, men are the “givers”, women are the “receivers”.

I think this is a good point. And all the rest you said. ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Eumaios October 21, 2009 at 20:21

Novaseeker: “Women are the gatekeepers of sex.”

Fortunately, Wyrd has decreed that we are the keymasters.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
julie October 21, 2009 at 20:29

To 21Guns, …. you don’t write a blog of your own?

I am firmly convinced that postwar social isolation, NOT sexism, is what gave rise to modern feminism.

There is a reason why feminism has always been associated with white, suburban, middle-class women: it’s because the working class, immigrants, and rural folks were a lot slower to give up the old ways of extended families and close-knit communities. They didn’t go rushing headlong into little suburban boxes the way the white middle class did after WW2.

It’s no wonder the women went bugshit, they were ALONE ALL THE TIME. If people back then had been into the kind of socialogical navel-gazing that we practice today, they may have figured out the reason and done something about it. Instead, they looked around for the easy target–men–and here we are today.

How did you figure this? It is brilliant.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
21Guns October 21, 2009 at 20:41

julie

I read a lot of books on a lot of different subjects, and a few years ago I came to the conclusion that suburbia is one of the worst things ever invented. It’s bad for the environment, bad for our health, and bad for society.

I never gave much thought before as to how feminism figured into the equation, then something just clicked and it all made sense. Feminism is just one of the many negative effects of social isolation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 21:06

21Guns

Have you talked to kis ??

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie October 21, 2009 at 21:07

To 21Guns, I am impressed. And I am 99.99999% sure you are the type of man who will help join the 2 sides.

But did you seriously just figure this out on your own? My gosh, I am stunned. You must be very clever.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
kis October 21, 2009 at 21:28

I read a lot of books on a lot of different subjects, and a few years ago I came to the conclusion that suburbia is one of the worst things ever invented. It’s bad for the environment, bad for our health, and bad for society.

It wasn’t quite so bad when people stuck with neighborhoods for a long time. You built up friendships with the women close by. My mom had her coffee ladies who would bring knitting or hand-sewing over and chat for a couple hours every morning–they lived next door and across the street and a block away. We kids practically lived at their houses, and they shared all kinds of chores like shopping and yardwork, and traded off babysitting.

But even so, you’re not walking anywhere, because there’s nowhere to walk to–it’s all too far away. And now that people move so much, everyone seems to keep to their own yard and no one even knows their neighbors’ names–unless they do something to piss you off.

I live in a small town, and I constantly bemoan the inability to even run out for a quart of milk in less than 45 minutes, because everyone stops to chat. But it’s good. I’d never go back to the city or burbs now.

When I asked one of my stepson’s summer friends if the restaurant where she worked was hiring because I’d just separated and might need to pick up some more work, she arranged to have both her restaurant and the local firefighters donate Christmas hampers for our family. Two turkeys, presents for my kids, gas cards, and bargain and grocery store gift cards–about $900 worth of donations. I can lean on any parent at my kid’s school to give him a ride home if my car breaks down, or to babysit him in an emergency–and these aren’t people I invite over for coffee, they’re not friends. They’re members of a close-knit community who feel an obligation to help out when one of their own is in trouble. One of my neighbors asked if I’d give their daughter rides to and from school for six months, offered me gas money. I was “What are you talking about? I’m happy to do it.”

And you can’t even imagine the looks I get from city slickers and suburbanite tourists when I serve them. They seem bemused at first by a waitress who’s so chatty and friendly, but they warm up quickly and seem to really like the small town mentality.

Nope, never going back to the burbs. This is the life right here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 21:31

kis

21Guns has an extensive list of 3d stuff, you should get for youe son !!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 21:32

your

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 21, 2009 at 21:38

Got it, Kimski, LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
21Guns October 21, 2009 at 22:14

To 21Guns, I am impressed. And I am 99.99999% sure you are the type of man who will help join the 2 sides.

Hate to tell you this, but I’m not a man. LOL!

But did you seriously just figure this out on your own? My gosh, I am stunned. You must be very clever.

aw, don’t give me a big head.

kis:

The animation info is over on the video games thread. Tomorrow I’ll see about setting up a temporary email address in case you want to contact me for more info on the industry.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 21, 2009 at 22:44

The animation info is over on the video games thread. Tomorrow I’ll see about setting up a temporary email address in case you want to contact me for more info on the industry.

Thanks! You rock, man! Wait. You rock, woman!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 21, 2009 at 22:50

21Guns

Thumbs up, 21Guns, lets make a computer wiz out of kis´son !!
I concur,-You rock, girlie…:)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anakin Niceguy October 21, 2009 at 23:45

A lot of PUAs, oddly enough, have the same view on women as feminists do in this matter.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 22, 2009 at 05:52

Yes, but this doesn’t get at what Renee was saying.
Then what was she getting at?

A lot of PUAs, oddly enough, have the same view on women as feminists do in this matter.
That’s not odd, at all. PUAs feed on the wasteland that feminism-run-wild has wrought. So they make a point to understand it. Some of them study and discuss it in-depth.

I have a problem with this in that basically this follows the belief of men knowing what’s good for women and that women don’t know what’s good for themselves.
When you’re married the question isn’t “what is good for the woman”, or the man, or whatever but rather, “What is good for the family?” Both spouses cannot lead; there would be chaos. A wise man will consult his wife in any major decisions but if they can’t come to an agreement someone must have the final say. Or they will end up bickering about it, as is so common nowadays.

I sometimes hear, “But what if he’s wrong?” So be it. We sometimes make wrong decisions and we have to live with the consequences. Being the decision-maker isn’t always a cake-walk either. Sometimes it really sucks. Just look at the men who despair and kill themselves because they feel that they have failed their families (I’ve been to a few of those funerals).

For what it’s worth, I have a very egalitarian marriage. But that is simply due to the closeness and intimacy of our relationship, not because we don’t believe in the traditional roles.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 22, 2009 at 05:57

Anakin Niceguy
“A lot of PUA´s ….”

It´s a great weapon, -they think they´re talking to one of their own, and then you *BOINK* them…Lol!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee October 22, 2009 at 09:01

Novaseeker,

And what is your take on that?

Let me see. I understand that the husband is the head of the household, but to me that means more in a spiritual sense. He guides his family in making sure that they’re heading in the right direction. One thing that the Bishop in my church said if that God holds the husband/father responsible for the spiritual direction of his family.

I know that the Bible said for wives to obey their husbands. In fact I recently went to a Bible Study session that separated the men and women. My church’s Elder (or as you all would call the First Lady) taught the women and she spoke of the First Sin and why God had women be submissive to their husbands. I don’t know whether it’s the “tone” or context but to me saying for women to be under the discipline of men is too extreme. The husband is over us and is our “master” in the idea situation. In other words, he himself is supposed to be working in the Godly way, and shouldn’t do or ask his wife to do anything contrary to the Word of God. I guess I should ask you all what authority/being the head of the household and master means to you.

About that authority, one thing that she taught was that women have influence over men and that men need guidance. That’s why women are their helpmate. In fact she said that God Himself gave women the gift of influence. The problem is when it’s used negatively. When Eve offered Adam the apple, he should have shut that down immediately. While Eve influenced him negatively, he should have known better. And interestingly enough, God only appeared when Adam ate the apple. Anyway, one thing that the Elder said that surprised me was that in part of Genesis 3:16, not only can it be read “And though your desire will be for your husband, he will be your master.“, it can also be read as “And though you may desire to control your husband, he will be your master.”

So in the end, the Great Punishment had nothing to do with the idea of women acting like children because if she acted like a child Adam did too. Personally I think any oppression that took place (and I’m only talking about early history here), and some negative /ideas/myths/views toward women in the past involved taking that idea, wherever it came from, and going really overboard when it came to those passages in the Bible. Or just misunderstanding it.

Quick question. A few of you apply being “head of the household” or being the authority to men and women in general, not only in marriage. Honestly, I’m pretty sure that it only applies in marriages.

Sorry if I went a little off tangent here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 22, 2009 at 09:05

kis,

If I may, I was thinking about your marriage and what “went wrong”.

It sounds to me like you went into the marriage with good intentions and were expecting the same from your husband; that he would be a protector, provider, loving mate, and spiritual leader in your home. (I don’t know if you are religious but even non-believers want their husbands to be spiritual leaders.) Instead he acted like a spoiled child and became a corrupting influence on your children. You may have made your own mistakes (and are obviously worrying over them in hindsight) but his behaviour is his own responsibility; it is not conditional upon yours.

Based upon what you have told us, I think you were right to remove your children from his presence because, as a parent, your first duty is to your children NOT to your spouse (in the case of believer it would be God, children, husband). His behavior at the end was abysmal and he was unfit to be a leader in his home. I don’t know if I would have filed for divorce in that case, but I certainly would have formally separated from him (I don’t know the Canadian laws concerning that).

I think you did the right thing. But I can imagine that it was quite painful. I’m glad your doing better now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Frank October 22, 2009 at 09:05

Seems this trail didn’t inspire anyone to consider more than what duds women are. Through affirmative action, we are handing them the keys to the vault. Thankfully I learned how useless most women are. Now I’m seeing the abuse they dish out at work, in the government, reality programs, etc. Women HAVE become teenagers, and they are adeptly skilled in being able to choose which personality will yield the best outcome for the situation they are in. Women are abusive, evil, and unfortunately don’t seem to know the difference. To give them any power to cry rape whenever they want without there being a position for the guy to be able to have “innocence until proven guilty” is a travesty. So, you go girls. In time you will be seen for what you are. Personally, I’m tired of looking at your bodies, ginas, hair, jewelry, skimpy clothes, fingernail polish, and immature actions, as well as having to smell your perfumes. Women are nothing more than men with vaginas, yet we treat them like they are stable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
zed October 22, 2009 at 09:46

I am firmly convinced that postwar social isolation, NOT sexism, is what gave rise to modern feminism.

There is a reason why feminism has always been associated with white, suburban, middle-class women: it’s because the working class, immigrants, and rural folks were a lot slower to give up the old ways of extended families and close-knit communities.

I agree with this 1000%. I’ve said similar things many times. Great observation and analysis!!

In a previous post I made the comment that the real conflict is not between men and women, but between agrarian (or working class) values and urban/suburban values. Urbanization/industrialization underlies many of the social pathologies we see today, down the problems of diet and weight.

In the urban/suburban-industrialized setting, there is a clear distinction between “life” and “livelihood.” On a farm, the process which ended up with mashed potatoes on the plates for Thanksgiving dinner started the previous March when the seed potatoes went into the ground. Fried chicken started when the egg got laid, then hatched, then fed up to pot size, then the head chopped off, the bird dressed, and finally went into the hot grease.

Everything people did in those days made sense because it was part of a process that led directly to sustaining their lives.

When “life” and “livelihood” got separated, however, “work” lost all inherent meaning. In the suburban nightmare, men went off to “work” in the morning, did something stupid and meaningless all day, and came home to wives and children who had spent the day so bored they were reduced to watching drivel on TV. None of them saw anything of what he “did” to make a living, and all they saw of him when he got home was his temperament – which was usually stressed out from dealing with meaningless work and corporate personality disorders all day.

Working class and farm women who either worked side-by-side with their husbands, or at least in some similar sort of environment, knew and understood what their men went through in order to bring home a paycheck and thus appreciated it. These were not the women whose husbands sat at the apex of the power pyramid, and competion with them for one of the few positions at the apex was obviously self-defeating and self-destructive to such women.

A few years ago I had a conversation with a woman that left me absolutely stunned over her complete cluelessness and how destructive ignorance can be. She made the statement that she had never given any thought to how men actually made money, she just always assumed that it was “something men just did.” I suppose she thought we grow it like we grow hair.

This magical mode of thinking that does not connect money with what might be hours of back-breaking or soul-destroying work led indirectly to complete contempt for the level of effort and sacrifice actually required to produce income. If money “just happened” to men as a result of leaving the house every day, then it would make perfect sense to women that if they left the house every day in the same way, that money would start “just happening” to them, too.

And, if it didn’t, it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that they were not doing the same things the men did to make money, but must be due to “sexism!!” and “discrimination!!!”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Renee October 22, 2009 at 09:53

Black&German,

When you’re married the question isn’t “what is good for the woman”, or the man, or whatever but rather, “What is good for the family?” Both spouses cannot lead; there would be chaos. A wise man will consult his wife in any major decisions but if they can’t come to an agreement someone must have the final say. Or they will end up bickering about it, as is so common nowadays.

I agree with this completely. That part you quoted was more of a response to what DT said about authority and women in early history.

I sometimes hear, “But what if he’s wrong?” So be it. We sometimes make wrong decisions and we have to live with the consequences. Being the decision-maker isn’t always a cake-walk either. Sometimes it really sucks. Just look at the men who despair and kill themselves because they feel that they have failed their families (I’ve been to a few of those funerals).

I’m sorry that you had to experience that. Yeah, I can’t imagine how being the decision-maker is a cake-walk myself. We’re all human, wrong decisions will be made. As the head of the household, if their decision is wrong, then their supposed to pick up the pieces and work from there. Make it work. Wives are supposed to allow them to make a mistake and let him fix his responsibility. Let them be men and don’t do everything for them.
——————————

Harry,

Men know much better how to deal with the world out there – especially if it is a horrible one; like it used to be.

Besides which, if my job is to protect you and support you, then you will have to do what I say. Or, No Deal.

That was the situation.

I see what you’re saying but I think that perhaps this idea was taken to extremes sometimes. I don’t know, I mean do you think it’s not ok for women to live their own lives? I mean for grown women to be under that authority AND discipline of the men in their lives. But perhaps I’m thinking in too much of a modern mindset.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 22, 2009 at 10:19

do you think it’s not ok for women to live their own lives?

This is one of those kinds of absolutist statements that causes so much argument.

I’m about as far from a traditionalist as it is possible to get, but I realize that traditional values make a lot of sense given other aspects of human behavior.

So, to add context to your absolutist question above – if a woman is truly “living her own life” that is one thing. That means she is self-sufficient, not dependent on a man or other men for income, and takes the responsibility for the consquences of her own choices, and most of all balances her own wants with the impact her decisions have on others.

The problem is that culturally this is very hard to make happen. Calling something like “abortion” by the term “choice” dehumanizes the most helpless form of human being. If “living her own life” requires that someone else must die, then you are going to find society as a whole quite resistant to that idea.

To take another, recent, example, which is very relevant to the entire scope of discussion here, it would be great all around if Danmell Ndonye had been able to “lead her own life” and when she decided to do several young men in a college bathroom be honest enough to say “Yes, I did it” instead of lying about it and nearly destroying the lives of 5 young men.

I think Harry’s point, and the point of some of the other posters here who have such negative attitudes toward women, is that they are so consistent in refusing to take responsibility for their actions, and so consistent about trying to shove the consequences and blame off on someone else, that the only way to contain the destructive effects being able to do this is to restrict women’s choices.

If women would step up and take responsibility for their actions, I would be happy to let them do whatever they please. But, as long as they want to push the costs onto me and everyone else, I’m not going to go along with that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
kis October 22, 2009 at 10:24

Instead he acted like a spoiled child and became a corrupting influence on your children. You may have made your own mistakes (and are obviously worrying over them in hindsight) but his behaviour is his own responsibility; it is not conditional upon yours.

Thanks, B&G. I’ll grant that at the start, he really tried to be a good husband and father, and succeeded most of the time. But yes, after the first few years he was more a teenager than a man. A child behaves like a child, but at least he will tolerate being treated as one. I teenager wants the autonomy and authority of an adult, while still wanting to be treated as a child–having his needs met by others and expecting them to bear the burden of his mistakes and failures.

I don’t know if I would have filed for divorce in that case, but I certainly would have formally separated from him (I don’t know the Canadian laws concerning that).

Divorce laws are different here. You have to legally separate for a year before you can even file, and I’ve been putting off finalizing things because I don’t like dealing with him on contentious issues. And I have a feeling no matter how generous I am, he’s still going to be difficult. But I need to do it–especially now that he has a girlfriend.

I think you did the right thing. But I can imagine that it was quite painful. I’m glad your doing better now.

It’s weird, but telling him to go was the least painful thing. It’s like when you’ve eaten something bad and you know you’re going to puke, and you just don’t want to do it. So you risist and resist and feel worse and worse, and then you realize finally that it’s inevitable and barf your guts out and feel better.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie October 22, 2009 at 10:27

To 21Guns

To 21Guns, I am impressed. And I am 99.99999% sure you are the type of man who will help join the 2 sides.

Hate to tell you this, but I’m not a man. LOL!

Very sorry about that. I hadn’t been paying enough attention.

But did you seriously just figure this out on your own? My gosh, I am stunned. You must be very clever.

aw, don’t give me a big head.

Well, if the shoe fits. :D But seriously, I am impressed. You speak differently from the normal speak I read.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 22, 2009 at 10:34

I think Harry’s point, and the point of some of the other posters here who have such negative attitudes toward women, is that they are so consistent in refusing to take responsibility for their actions, and so consistent about trying to shove the consequences and blame off on someone else, that the only way to contain the destructive effects being able to do this is to restrict women’s choices.

They act like teenagers. Maybe this phase in our culture is a step along the way to women growing up? At least, I hope that’s the result–that society can survive the growing pains of having more than 50% of the population behaving like teenagers (more than 50 because we have, you know, actual teenagers, too) long enough for us to achieve true equality.

Because I don’t think we can go back, but we can’t stay where we are. And I’ve seen some teenagers behave so badly and make such poor decisions, they destroy the whole family.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 22, 2009 at 10:44

Because I don’t think we can go back, but we can’t stay where we are.

Indeed, and therein lies the problem. I think it will be hard to move beyond this “phase” without consensus values, and we’re pretty far off from having consensus values, really.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed October 22, 2009 at 10:53

Maybe this phase in our culture is a step along the way to women growing up?

That’s always been my strategy – to force women to grow up by abandoning them, the same way a parent bird pushes a baby bird out of the nest and basically says “Cope!! Now get lost, quit depending on me, and make your own life.”

I think it will be hard to move beyond this “phase” without consensus values, and we’re pretty far off from having consensus values, really.

Moving beyond this “phase” is inevitable, simply because it is not stable and cannot sustain itself. When a building collapses, there is a new “order” established, even if it is nothing more than the order of a pile of rubble.

This is where the cold-hearted Darwinist in me kicks in – let those smart enough to get out of the building before it goes down survive, and let everyone else pay the price of being stupid.

Wasting time trying to save those who do not want to be saved from their own folly is personally destructive because it fritters away all that time and energy which could have been better spent assuring one’s own personal surivival.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 22, 2009 at 10:53

God holds the husband/father responsible for the spiritual direction of his family.

Yes, spiritual leadership is important. But, to be frank, the Scriptures don’t limit their leadership only to the spiritual realm. Ephesians 5:22 says:
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

That doesn’t really leave a lot of room for interpretation. Neither does that passage (or any other) mention that she should submit “only if the husband loves her” or “only if he is Christian”, etc. Each spouse is commanded to their role (submission or love) and neither is given an exception — other than, in other places in the Bible, obeying the laws governing a “higher role” (as parent or Christian). Men are commanded to love their wives even if their wives are disrespectful and disobedient and women are commanded to obey their husbands even if he’s not loving.

Isn’t that what makes it so difficult to follow the laws? If every husband was perfectly loving and every wife was perfectly obedient, life would be a cake-walk. Rather we struggle against our natures: I try not to nag or act resentful about a decision he has made that I disagree with, he struggles to speak gently and control his temper, etc. We’re only human, after all.

About that authority, one thing that she taught was that women have influence over men and that men need guidance. That’s why women are their helpmate.

Definitely! We are certainly their helpmate and most husbands I know look to their wives frequently for advice and guidance. In fact, I would argue that some men think TOO highly of their wives; they nearly worship them and are reluctant to see their faults. And even if they have asked their wives for guidance they must still view her suggestions through a moral lens. They aren’t off the hook if they can say, “But my wife told me to do it.” (Genesis 3 makes that clear.) The responsibility rests with them in the end.

So in the end, the Great Punishment had nothing to do with the idea of women acting like children

If you read the passage, it is very clear that Eve was simply punished for disobeying God — not for her motives or childishness. Adam’s punishment is actually worse because he not only disobeyed God, he then tried to place the blame on his wife for his own sin.

This magical mode of thinking that does not connect money with what might be hours of back-breaking or soul-destroying work led indirectly to complete contempt for the level of effort and sacrifice actually required to produce income.

I see this with women who are poor stewards of their husband’s income; the ones who spend their families’ money on frivolities. They don’t have enough respect for the effort their husbands put into earning the money to begin with. In their minds, they live a life of drudgery and their husbands are out having fun all day at work.

My husband may enjoy his work most of the time but I also know that as his family’s provider he is not free to simply quit and move on to greener pastures as he likes. He’s tied to his work in a way that a single man never is. I also usually enjoy my work but I’m also tied to it in a way I never was as a single woman. There are too many people depending on me to get things done and be a reliable participant. Hence my lists, routines, calendars, etc. I struggle with laziness and a habit of procrastination.

Of course, it’s often women who aren’t appreciative of their husbands’ efforts that are neglectful of their own duties.

And, if it didn’t, it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that they were not doing the same things the men did to make money, but must be due to “sexism!!” and “discrimination!!!”

Absolutely! There’s a reason why married men have the highest average income: they face the most pressure to succeed professionally and continually increase their pay.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee October 22, 2009 at 10:55

Zed,

Honestly, when I made that comment I was thinking in the time period that DT originally mentioned. Now since I don’t entirely know what it was like back then, my comment was perhaps pointless. But yeah, in today’s day and age, that is what I would consider “living your own life”.

Doesn’t each gender have their own issues and bad behaviors though? Don’t men act like children or teenagers in some ways too? Why single out women when it comes to limiting choices and what kind of choices/rights would you take away? Is it mainly due abortion, biases in sentencing, false accusations…..

Ugh I don’t know. Maybe I shouldn’t have even posted that last section lol.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 22, 2009 at 11:08

Kis,

Thanks, B&G. I’ll grant that at the start, he really tried to be a good husband and father, and succeeded most of the time. But yes, after the first few years he was more a teenager than a man.
Basically, you were a witness to and a victim of his spiritual decline.

But I need to do it–especially now that he has a girlfriend.
Oh, yes! I forgot about the new girlfriend. In that case, there’s not much point putting further effort into the marriage; he’s obviously moved on and so should you. Divorce is really the only thing you can do in such a case of blatant adultery.

So you resist and resist and feel worse and worse, and then you realize finally that it’s inevitable and barf your guts out and feel better.
Yes, I meant that the decision must have been painful, after you had tried so hard for so many years. But I’m sure that it was a relief when you finally decided. I know what you mean about that.

I think it will be hard to move beyond this “phase” without consensus values, and we’re pretty far off from having consensus values, really.
Is it really about “values”? It seems to me that the general problem is selfishness and self-absorption; a general unwillingness to sacrifice. That people do as they like despite knowing what is right and wrong. Both women and men (and myself) are guilty of this; it’s endemic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 22, 2009 at 11:14

Honestly, when I made that comment I was thinking in the time period that DT originally mentioned. Now since I don’t entirely know what it was like back then, my comment was perhaps pointless.

There are a few things that we can realistically guess about what things were “really like back then.” First of all, there was not a lot of government. There were not thousands of social programs and agencies designed to shield everyone from the slightest unfortunate consequence of making bad decisions. Doing really stupid things tended to ruin your entire life, and potentially the lives of your family. Thus, it made a lot more sense to restrict people’s ability to make stupid and destructive decisions than to allow them to blunder through their own lives leaving the destruction of everyone else’s lives as a debris field in their wake.

It is absolutely pointless to keep focussing on how things were “back then.” First of all, as you have pointed out – you really don’t know. You weren’t there, you didn’t see it first hand, and you have nothing but an extremely distorted history to go on. Second, no matter what it was like “back then”, it isn’t that way any more. It would be absolutely idiotic to keep discussion focussed on the issues involved with managing a culture which depended on draft horses for its industrial power in today’s environment where that is no longer the case.

From my perspective, given the way women have behaved in an unrelentingly selfish and self-centered manner over the past 40 years, the restrictions on their behavior probably made pretty good sense from the perspective of a culture practicing self-defense against selfish and infantile impulses.

And, oh yes, we have the perpetual pout “Well, MEN DO BAD THINGS TOO!

Yes, they did. But –
1) We never had any mass scale spontaneous movement of men arise demanding to be “liberated” from their restrictions, they mostly rode along on women’s coat-tails, and
2) Women like you give the impression that you would rather cut off your own tits than admit that MEN USED TO BE EVERY BIT AS RESTRICTED AS WOMEN WERE!!!!!!!!!

You can’t “liberate” one sex without the unintended consequence of “liberating” the other.

Now that both sexes have plenty of examples of people behaving like absolute shits, we probably ought to back off from pig-headed absolutism and maybe consider that those restrictions were not arbitrary and did make some sense from a point of view of social stability and protection of most people from the pathology of the few.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 22, 2009 at 11:17

Now that both sexes have plenty of examples of people behaving like absolute shits, we probably ought to back off from pig-headed absolutism and maybe consider that those restrictions were not arbitrary and did make some sense from a point of view of social stability and protection of most people from the pathology of the few.

Agreed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
21Guns October 22, 2009 at 11:47

julie:

No apologies necessary; I just refrained from mentioning that little detail up until now.

zed sed:

zed
“If women would step up and take responsibility for their actions, I would be happy to let them do whatever they please.”

Yes, and that is what makes me so freaking angry at so-called feminists who talk out of both sides of their mouths, demanding equality and then telling us we’re not really ready for it.

Which always makes me feel like that obnoxious kid from Pee Wee’s Big Adventure, who screams, “I am ALWAYS ready! I have BEEN ready since first call! I AM READY! Roll!”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry October 22, 2009 at 11:57

@Zed

“This is where the cold-hearted Darwinist in me kicks in – let those smart enough to get out of the building before it goes down survive, and let everyone else pay the price of being stupid.”

The problem with letting ‘everyone else pay the price of being stupid’ is that we also have to take the consequences.

In essence, this is where I disagree with many MGTOW, Gamers etc.

Many of them seem to THINK that they can avoid the horrors but, in the end, these horrors will catch up with them unless enough people wake up and ACTIVELY do something about all this.

The future looks positively horrible if nothing is done to counteract those huge forces that seem to be pushing in the direction of massive state control – with the constant threat of major disorder taking place without such control.

How long before we reach the tipping point?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 22, 2009 at 12:25

The problem with letting ‘everyone else pay the price of being stupid’ is that we also have to take the consequences.

In essence, this is where I disagree with many MGTOW

I know what you are saying, Harry. At some level all of us MRAs have to do some soul-searching and ask ourselves whether at the deepest level we are funamentally any different than the leftists we rail about. At what point do we determine that a strategy is failing because it is inherently flawed, and not because we simply have not pursued it vigorously enough?

If you look at the failed social policies in the US and the UK, the answer given by those responsible for those policies always claim that the reason they failed is not because they don’t work, but because they weren’t given enough money. So, the response is to put more money toward policies which have never had one iota of success based purely on the fanatical belief that they will work – some day.

Likewise, do MRAs share with the leftists the mistaken belief that humankind is perfectable if only we put enough effort into the right kinds of attempts to do so?

I don’t have the answer, but I do have a sense that what “we” (both at the cultural level in general and MRAs in particular) have been doing has not been working. One definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results. There comes a point in time when it begins to appear that no matter how much effort one puts toward something, the chosen method just is not working, so it is best to try something else.

So, let’s start with the question of whether “we”, as a group with little to no direct political power, can change the course and direction of the culture as a whole. Given the very consistent competitive nature of men and the difficulty I have seen them have in cooperating over the past 40 years, I think the probability is that we won’t be able to shape political change in the direction we want.

That being the case, we may be forced with the unpleasant reality of having to ride it all the way down.

If we end up having to do that, we will end up doing what we have to do in order to survive while we are doing what we can to make a difference.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 22, 2009 at 12:33

Renee,

I mean for grown women to be under that authority AND discipline of the men in their lives. But perhaps I’m thinking in too much of a modern mindset.

Or perhaps the modern “value system” just doesn’t allow for submission or sacrifice, in any form. But certainly not for a woman. She will be immediately labeled as a “doormat” and ridiculed. It’s a hard thing to own up to.

Quick question. A few of you apply being “head of the household” or being the authority to men and women in general, not only in marriage. Honestly, I’m pretty sure that it only applies in marriages.

It only applies in marriage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee October 22, 2009 at 12:42

Zed,

2) Women like you give the impression that you would rather cut off your own tits than admit that MEN USED TO BE EVERY BIT AS RESTRICTED AS WOMEN WERE!!!!!!!!!

Oh please. 1)I love my tits and 2)I’m aware that men faced restrictions as well. It’s just that with men didn’t it depend on their circumstances, like whether they were born into wealth or not or whether they owned their own land? With women, to my understanding, it depended on the fact that they were….well….women. I just acknowledge that the scenerios surrounding those restrictions were different. But they were restrictions none the less.

It is absolutely pointless to keep focussing on how things were “back then.” First of all, as you have pointed out – you really don’t know. You weren’t there, you didn’t see it first hand, and you have nothing but an extremely distorted history to go on. Second, no matter what it was like “back then”, it isn’t that way any more. It would be absolutely idiotic to keep discussion focussed on the issues involved with managing a culture which depended on draft horses for its industrial power in today’s environment where that is no longer the case.

Well I wasn’t focused on nor do I want the discussion to focus on how it was back then. DT made a comment about women, authority, and the first century of human existence. I then made a comment about that. Now if it seemed I kept bringing it up it was because I myself was being responded to and asked about my comment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 22, 2009 at 12:47

Of course, it’s often women who aren’t appreciative of their husbands’ efforts that are neglectful of their own duties.

And vice versa. My parents had a great way of working together. My dad is slightly OCD–which is a good trait to have in a heavy duty mechanic (he always knows where his tools are, and tests the brakes more than once before he deems them safe)–and was always a bit of a workaholic. My mom stayed at home and instead of nagging him to not work so much, did her best to make home as pleasant a place as she could, so he’d want to be there.

And she’s the one who taught me to be frugal. I mean, I could win a million dollars and I’d still think it’s stupid to spend more than 15 grand on a car or more than $50 on a pair of jeans.

Of course, her frugality earned her and my dad a stack of RRSPs and the financial freedom to do pretty much what they want now, because my dad didn’t say “Cool, now I only have to work part-time!” I look at my future and I’m seeing some serious shit. Fifteen years, and I’m no further ahead, really, than when I was 20. I have a house with 55 grand left on the mortgage, but three kids who keep my bank account drained. Oy. Now I’m depressed.

In other words, he himself is supposed to be working in the Godly way, and shouldn’t do or ask his wife to do anything contrary to the Word of God. I guess I should ask you all what authority/being the head of the household and master means to you.

Okay, this is all gobbledigook to an agnostic like me. If we’re supposed to fill these roles because god says so, you’re going to have to explain why god feels this way. (No, you don’t have to explain to me, because I get it–don’t agree with ALL of it in EVERY case, but I get that as a rule it’s ideal–but to others like me who just start humming in their heads when talk of god comes up.)

Oh, yes! I forgot about the new girlfriend. In that case, there’s not much point putting further effort into the marriage; he’s obviously moved on and so should you. Divorce is really the only thing you can do in such a case of blatant adultery.

I don’t see it as adultery. The marriage is over. It was over the day I asked him to leave.

I think the law here requires a year waiting period because many who file right away waste a ton of money (both their own and the government’s) and then end up working things out, unless they’re forced to have a taste of the consequences before they make the final decision. If I was the kind of person to drag my kids back and forth, back and forth, now we’re back together, nope, I kicked him out again, I’d have left him about eight years ago. But I’m a rip the bandaid off quick kind of girl. I was sure. I might forgive him at some point, but there’s no trusting him again. And I let him know that–the decision was made and he should just move on instead of wasting what time he has left.

Now that both sexes have plenty of examples of people behaving like absolute shits, we probably ought to back off from pig-headed absolutism and maybe consider that those restrictions were not arbitrary and did make some sense from a point of view of social stability and protection of most people from the pathology of the few.

Those restrictions don’t have to take the same shape as they did–in fact, I don’t think they ever can or will. But yeah, permissiveness and selfishness are ruining us. The pathology has become the norm.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 22, 2009 at 13:16

DT made a comment about women, authority, and the first century of human existence.

If the current interpretation of the anthropological record is correct, the “first century of human existence” occurred about 60,000 years ago – when modern Homo Sapiens first appeared on the scene. Beyond a few clay pot fragments, we really don’t much about what life was like back then.

I’m not one of those guys who think women are naturally inferior, but the input I have seen from you so far could get me to change that opinion.

This kind of thing is what I am talking about –

It’s just that with men didn’t it depend on their circumstances, like whether they were born into wealth or not or whether they owned their own land? With women, to my understanding, it depended on the fact that they were….well….women.

Women who were born into wealth faced nowhere near the restrictions on their lives that men who were not born into wealth faced. Everyone’s lives started with restrictions based on the class they were born into. From there, each sex had a different set of restrictions which made sense given their sexes role in the reproductive process. Wealthy men faced just as many restrictions as wealthy women, just different ones than poor men or women faced.

As long as you hold on to the idea that women had it worse than men and always did have and always have had, this dicussion is going nowhere but deeper into the tar pit.

Either women were so weak and stupid that men could dominate them, in which case men probably earned their dominance, or women supported the social restrictions and social structures all the way around because they worked out largely to women’s benefit.

Either your sex are congenital idiots, or they went along with the way things were and helped shape them because it was in their best interest.

Now, if you want to claim that they had no part in it, which must be the case if they are nothing but victims, then you are actually supporting the congenital idiots position which you seem to hate so much.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee October 22, 2009 at 13:24

Black & German,

It only applies in marriage.

I thought so. It’s just that looking at some of the comments on this site, I’m getting a different idea.

That doesn’t really leave a lot of room for interpretation. Neither does that passage (or any other) mention that she should submit “only if the husband loves her” or “only if he is Christian”, etc. Each spouse is commanded to their role (submission or love) and neither is given an exception — other than, in other places in the Bible, obeying the laws governing a “higher role” (as parent or Christian). Men are commanded to love their wives even if their wives are disrespectful and disobedient and women are commanded to obey their husbands even if he’s not loving.

But where to draw the line. God expects both in walk in the “Godly path” if you will or at least try to. Of course marriage isn’t easy and takes patience, but there has to come a point……

I’m sure I’m not telling you anything new though lol.
—————————–
Kis,

Okay, this is all gobbledigook to an agnostic like me. If we’re supposed to fill these roles because god says so, you’re going to have to explain why god feels this way. (No, you don’t have to explain to me, because I get it–don’t agree with ALL of it in EVERY case, but I get that as a rule it’s ideal–but to others like me who just start humming in their heads when talk of god comes up.)

LOL, I hope I didn’t make you feel uncomftorable or anything.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee October 22, 2009 at 13:38

Zed,

I’m not one of those guys who think women are naturally inferior, but the input I have seen from you so far could get me to change that opinion.

And if one person makes you think that all of womanhood is naturally inferior, then I don’t know what to tell you lol.

Now I admit, as soon as I hit that “Submit” button and read my post, especially the part which was the second quote in your post, I began to realize that perhaps I didn’t think things through enough :P .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 22, 2009 at 14:13

””””Or perhaps the modern “value system” just doesn’t allow for submission or sacrifice, in any form. But certainly not for a woman. She will be immediately labeled as a “doormat” and ridiculed. It’s a hard thing to own up to.””””””’

The thing is though woman are allowed to submit in the workplace all the time. I go out to eat and the waitress submits to my wishes for token money. According to current views of some it is just not ok to submit to the husband. Who would have the best interests of the woman in mind her husband or the resteraunt?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 22, 2009 at 14:14

Gunslingergregi October 22, 2009 at 2:13 pm
””””Or perhaps the modern “value system” just doesn’t allow for submission or sacrifice, in any form. But certainly not for a woman. She will be immediately labeled as a “doormat” and ridiculed. It’s a hard thing to own up to.””””””’

The thing is though woman are allowed to submit in the workplace all the time. I go out to eat and the waitress submits to my wishes for token money. According to current views of some it is just not ok to submit to the husband. Who would have the best interests of the woman in mind her husband or the resteraunt?

I think this one helps my point about us womans thinking from a feminist perspective.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 22, 2009 at 14:22

I think the fallacy is not that women had it worse than men, but that they had it worse than men in every way. I mean, yeah, women had it worse than men in some ways, and men had it worse than women in others.

I do think the system used to be geared toward allowing men who wanted to abuse their position as “masters” of women to be able to do that, because a woman 500 years ago would have faced the choice of being either tied for life to a husband like mine, or filling him full of liquor and smothering him in his sleep. And likewise, the system is flipped mirror image now, with women largely as the abusers because the system allows them to be.

Men and women–in their traditional marital roles–always had a symbiotic relationship that benefited both parties. And frankly, for a woman who wanted to opt out of the marriage thing altogether, the ways in which she could be useful to society were much more limited than those men had–she was still stuck in “mother” or “companion” or “domestic” roles, such as governesses, kitchen wenches, whores. In other words, she was still stuck doing women’s work which was largely measured against her value to men and children. Whereas men could write off women altogether and just go into a trade and live as a bachelor, because men’s work was not necessarily measured by its value to women and children, but by its value to society as a whole. Unfortunately, a lot of that work was stuff that could and likely would get them killed.

So yes, in many ways I think women’s roles were more limited than men’s. But that didn’t mean men had it easier.

And there are cases where women as a gender really are trapped, regardless of their class. When the Taliban came into power in Afghanistan, well, that’s as much a perversion of the natural order as what we have now in the west–just in the opposite direction.

LOL, I hope I didn’t make you feel uncomftorable or anything.

Nope. Just thought I’d mention it because I’ve seen others here sort of say, “well, this is how it should be because that’s what god commanded,” which is all well and good if you, you know, actually believe in god. But if you don’t, it’s going to take a more concrete and practical argument to sway you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 22, 2009 at 14:27

”””””””’kis
And there are cases where women as a gender really are trapped, regardless of their class. When the Taliban came into power in Afghanistan, well, that’s as much a perversion of the natural order as what we have now in the west–just in the opposite direction. ”””””””’

Please site examples of the pervasive perversion you are referring to in afganistan?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 22, 2009 at 14:28

Unfortunately, a lot of that work was stuff that could and likely would get them killed.

Ah, an inconvenient little detail, to say the least. But, by god, at least they weren’t RESTRICTED (gasp!)

I do think the system used to be geared toward allowing men who wanted to abuse their position as “masters” of women to be able to do that,

Look up “The Skimmington.” There were plenty of men who were dominated by their wives, which lead to extreme social ridicule by both men and women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 22, 2009 at 14:32

Now I admit, as soon as I hit that “Submit” button and read my post, especially the part which was the second quote in your post, I began to realize that perhaps I didn’t think things through enough .

It’s a lot of fun yanking your chain, Renee – even if you are thicker than a brick. ;)

Yes, you don’t think things through enough, which is why no one takes your input very seriously other than to have fun poking holes in it.

That appendage which sits on top of your shoulders can serve other purposes than as a platform to try out new hairdos.

Shooting off your mouth (or keyboard) without thinking things through and presenting a coherent argument does simply make you look stupid and destroys your credibility. Thinking things through and saying things that are intelligent instead of stupid adds to your credibility.

Try it. I guarantee that you will like the results more than the ones you are getting now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 22, 2009 at 14:34

Yea zed I think men where more restricted. A woman would of maybe had opportunity to raise her class through use of feminin whiles. What did a man have to be able to magically raise his status nothing. A peasant would have to of been one heck of a fighter in order to take out a noble. Since the nobels where trained in fighting and the peasants weren’t. Take a mma fighter vs a regular guy off the street who is gonna win?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 22, 2009 at 14:41

Please site examples of the pervasive perversion you are referring to in afganistan?

Female doctors (of which there were many) were not allowed to practice, but male doctors were not permitted to treat women. Which led women and babies both to die in childbirth, and more women to die of treatable diseases than men, etc, etc.

Girls and women prevented from going to school, kept behind closed doors, that sort of thing.

I don’t think their whole belief system is sick, necessarily. Just that they’ve taken it way too far. And I’ll grant that it’s probably no more fun to be living under Taliban law for a man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 22, 2009 at 14:44

And I’ll grant that it’s probably no more fun to be living under Taliban law for a man.

Supposedly, none of the 19 members of the suicide squad who flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11 were female. Oh, I know that is because women were “restricted”, but life has got to be fairly bad for young men to think that being human bombs is better than the life they can expect to lead.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 22, 2009 at 14:50

Look up “The Skimmington.” There were plenty of men who were dominated by their wives, which lead to extreme social ridicule by both men and women.

Of course. Because the man was expected to not put up with being abused and dominated by his wife, but in the reverse scenario, it was expected that the woman tolerate it. The fact men were ridiculed for it, and that women were NOT, but told “that’s just the way things are” tells me that the social systems leaned toward allowing or accepting the one behavior and not the other.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 22, 2009 at 14:52

Supposedly, none of the 19 members of the suicide squad who flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11 were female. Oh, I know that is because women were “restricted”, but life has got to be fairly bad for young men to think that being human bombs is better than the life they can expect to lead.

That’s just it. The extremes to which they’ve taken their core belief system are a perversion. When the only contribution women are allowed to make is to be silent and give birth, and the only one men are allowed to make is to pray and die for god, that’s a perversion of the belief system.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 22, 2009 at 15:00

This conversation is getting really good!

Renee,

But where to draw the line. God expects both in walk in the “Godly path” if you will or at least try to. Of course marriage isn’t easy and takes patience, but there has to come a point……
I’m sure I’m not telling you anything new though lol.

LOL. Yes, that’s exactly the difficulty. When have you tried enough? How much are you supposed to help and when does help turn into nagging? Etc., etc., etc.

The thing is though woman are allowed to submit in the workplace all the time. I go out to eat and the waitress submits to my wishes for token money. According to current views of some it is just not ok to submit to the husband. Who would have the best interests of the woman in mind her husband or the restaurant?

Submitting for money is allowed and even praised. Even a prostitute having sex with her client will be regarded more highly than a wife submitting to her husband in bed.
It will be assumed that the restaurant has her interests in mind (as a valued customer) and that her husband has HIS interests in mind (as a selfish patriarch).

Nope. Just thought I’d mention it because I’ve seen others here sort of say, “well, this is how it should be because that’s what god commanded,” which is all well and good if you, you know, actually believe in god. But if you don’t, it’s going to take a more concrete and practical argument to sway you.

We were talking amongst ourselves in religious-eze. It doesn’t seem necessary to sway you with practical arguments as you already largely agree with us. No sense preaching to the choir.

Oh, I know that is because women were “restricted”, but life has got to be fairly bad for young men to think that being human bombs is better than the life they can expect to lead.

Wasn’t a major motivation economic? It seems that there is pervasive unemployment among young men in many Muslim communities. Not just Arab countries but also places like Berlin, Paris, Frankfurt, London, etc.

Although in the end it’s still about women: the lack of employment is hindering marriage. Many young men in these communities are living in celibacy until their 30s or even later. Sex outside of wedlock is forbidden but their inability to support a family makes it impossible to marry. Hence, hordes of young, horny, underemployed men reacting with violent outrage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 22, 2009 at 15:01

Because the man was expected to not put up with being abused and dominated by his wife, but in the reverse scenario, it was expected that the woman tolerate it. The fact men were ridiculed for it, and that women were NOT, but told “that’s just the way things are” tells me that the social systems leaned toward allowing or accepting the one behavior and not the other.

I agree.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 22, 2009 at 15:05

The 9/11 situation reminds me a bit of the Chicago situation. Except the men are black and often nominally Christian. Scary thought.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 22, 2009 at 15:07

The fact men were ridiculed for it, and that women were NOT, but told “that’s just the way things are” tells me that the social systems leaned toward allowing or accepting the one behavior and not the other.

kis, kis, kis. The behaviors which were accepted versus not accepted were different for the sexes, but both had a set of prescriptions and proscriptions – this which were demanded and things which were punished. For men who wanted to dominate their wives, or for whom it came naturally, the social order as it was probably worked ok. But, for the men who didn’t, things didn’t work any better than for women who didn’t want to be dominated. The fact that those types who went against the grain probably ended up with each other more often than not just made things worse.

Everyone is losing the “oppression Olympics.” If you are so damn sure that women in the old days had it worse, then your complaints about your husband not living up to his old “traditional” roles come across as pure hypocrisy. You must certainly have it better than women used to, yet you use the Spearhead as a platform from which to complain endlessly about how your husband just wasn’t one of those “old fashioned guys.”

This is why men are opting out. At least as bachelors we don’t have to enage in this perpetual argument except when we feel like sparring for fun.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Gunslingergregi October 22, 2009 at 15:39

If you look at the environment in afganistan saudi kuwait and iraq for instance. What you find is people living in the middle of dessert. There is going to have to be some serious serious teamwork in these living conditions. Having woman cover up there bodies would have protected them from the sun and also other men who where walking around outside in those harsh environments. There are no shops just down the road. There is only self suficiency. Both people would have been expected to work the heck out of themselves just to survive and that includes today in a lot of circumstances.

”””””’Submitting for money is allowed and even praised. Even a prostitute having sex with her client will be regarded more highly than a wife submitting to her husband in bed.
It will be assumed that the restaurant has her interests in mind (as a valued customer) and that her husband has HIS interests in mind (as a selfish patriarch).””””””””””””

Is that your view or a qusai feminist what is now expected of woman view at the detriment of their families even.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 22, 2009 at 15:52

Everyone is losing the “oppression Olympics.” If you are so damn sure that women in the old days had it worse, then your complaints about your husband not living up to his old “traditional” roles come across as pure hypocrisy

I wasn’t saying women on the whole had it worse than men. Just that society was generally more accepting of a woman being beaten black and blue by her husband than it was of a husband being browbeaten and henpecked by his wife.

In the instance of a wife’s abuse of her husband, society ridiculed him because such a dynamic was unacceptable. In the case of a husband’s abuse of his wife(and I mean fairly rare cases of real abuse by a bully, not against a haranguing harpy of a wife but against someone naturally submissive), the wife got sympathy, not ridicule, because it was understood that she had to just accept it, or try to be a better wife (which would be doomed to failure, because for bullies, no one is ever submissive enough).

It should be okay to say society’s views of marriage roles back in the 1400s were not perfect, though perhaps they had a greater potential for perfection than they do now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry October 22, 2009 at 15:55

@all

I have seen various politically-corrected BBC reporters recently frequenting places like Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Morocco, and such places, and asking the women various leading questions such as, “What is it like to be treated as second-class citizens when compared to men?” – or words to that effect – and nearly all of these Muslim women do not accept that they are being treated as second-class citizens at all! – though, of course, I am sure that it will not be too long before the feminists manage to poison these Muslim women against their own men with their usual catalogue of ploys and lies.

Also, I do occasionally receive emails from women in Muslim countries who tell me- usually very politely – about the oppression of women in their countries, and I usually reply – also very politely – by asking them to think about the men in their lives and think about their responsibilities, chores and expectations; the final question being very specific, … “So, all in all, do women really have it worse? I would really like to know your genuine opinion.”

And the usual reply that I get is that, in fact, their men are, indeed, burdened with just as much themselves – now that they think more carefully about it.

Indeed, I don’t think that I have ever had a Muslim woman from one of those countries suggest otherwise.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 22, 2009 at 16:02

Well, I’m not talking Islam, I’m talking the Taliban’s interpretation of Islam, which is just detrimental to everyone who lives under it.

The ways women suffer under the Taliban make them look like victims (she didn’t choose to die in childbirth–men’s laws prevented her from getting treatment), and the ways men suffer make them look like perpetrators (he chose to strap a bomb to his chest and blow himself to smithereens), but really they’re all victims of a religion taken too far.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
21Guns October 22, 2009 at 16:06

but really they’re all victims of a religion taken too far.

yes. Which brings us back to the whole top-of-the-pyramid thing…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 22, 2009 at 16:08

I wasn’t saying women on the whole had it worse than men. Just that society was generally more accepting of a woman being beaten black and blue by her husband than it was of a husband being browbeaten and henpecked by his wife.

So what in the world is your point? In those days society was also accepting of an army coming through and conscripting every able-bodied man whether he was willing to go or not. Things were different back then, so what?

All that this perpetual back-and-forth does is to get people sick to death of each other. I’ve only dealt with you online and already I’m sick to death of you. Are you really interested in ever having a relationship again? If you get involved with a woman who constantly does what you are doing, how long do think it will take before you start screaming the second you hear her voice?

Maybe those old roles had some real purposes in allowing people to get on with life instead of spending all their time and energy haggling over things without any real point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 22, 2009 at 16:13

Harry

In Denmark, they have been showing two video-clips,(as an excuse to go to war down there, poised by the national tv-station/feminists/goverment), about how bad the womens situation was down there. One of them was about a bunch of women the Taleban wanted to get in a line, and the women wouldnt do it, -they were screaming and yelling and all over the place, no matter how badly they were beaten. They showed this one over and over and over. The second one, was a bout a bunch of guys, -same scenario.All the guys was standing in a nice tight line, looking at their feet, saying nothing.So the interviewer asked, why the Taleban soldier didnt hit on the men, and one nasty looking soldier just smiled and said:”They didnt have to.Men get it the first time, you hit them !!”They aired that on only ONCE !!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 22, 2009 at 16:16

one

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 22, 2009 at 16:17

””””’not against a haranguing harpy of a wife but against someone naturally submissive), ””””””

It is dam near impossible for a man to beat something that is normally submissive after he gets past the burning ants phase of childhood. I believe this would be a rare occurance. Now beating for a reason sure that can happen anytime.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 22, 2009 at 16:26

Harry

Guess it didn´t fit in the greater sceme of things..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 22, 2009 at 16:39

Maybe those old roles had some real purposes in allowing people to get on with life instead of spending all their time and energy haggling over things without any real point.

You’re right. But I still feel for people who are trapped in those roles, when the roles oppress them–whether they’re male or female. I feel just as bad for a man today whose wife beats him with a rolling pin, who faces a system that tells him there’s nothing he can do about it but just accept it, as I would for one of those women truly abused by her husband in the past.

It’s weird, because things haven’t flipped over completely yet. Women like Hestia who are traditional wives face ridicule the way those dominated men used to, but the men who are abused by their wives and the system don’t get sympathy. They get ridicule, too, or scorn, or indifference. When they start getting sympathy from everyone, I don’t know what that’s going to mean. The end days?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 22, 2009 at 16:44

It is dam near impossible for a man to beat something that is normally submissive after he gets past the burning ants phase of childhood. I believe this would be a rare occurance. Now beating for a reason sure that can happen anytime.

Beating is not something I would condone in any instance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 22, 2009 at 16:58

Even when a woman is screaming at a man for days what would be the appropriate response she should expect from a man?

What resources are available to him in that situation?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 22, 2009 at 16:59

Would you rather get screamed at for 10 days or slapped once?

Which one is going to do more damage to your circulatory system or overall health do you think?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 22, 2009 at 17:35

Is that your view or a quasi feminist what is now expected of woman view at the detriment of their families even.
Obviously the latter, if you have read anything that I have written.

Beating is not something I would condone in any instance.
Co-sign. Why is that even up for discussion?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee October 22, 2009 at 19:21

Zed,

Clearly you took that one comment and ran with it lol. I actually do think about my comments before I post them, at least 9 times out of 10. If anything, it’s that I really don’t have a way with words like say, Kis does. Now of course, I’ve been enlightened on a few things, I admit that. With the comment that I mentioned, it was just something just didn’t sit right about it, but I couldn’t put my finger on it. And you did indeed have a point, and so did Kis.

And believe it or not, I’m actually not thicker than a brick. But I admit that alot of things on this site made me think about and consider some things. No big deal.

Seriously though….at the risk of sounding ~sensitive~ although I’m far from it, no need to be an ass about it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee October 22, 2009 at 19:26

“Point” as in what you said about women, men, and restrictions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 22, 2009 at 20:22

It is dam near impossible for a man to beat something that is normally submissive after he gets past the burning ants phase of childhood. I believe this would be a rare occurance. Now beating for a reason sure that can happen anytime…..

Even when a woman is screaming at a man for days what would be the appropriate response she should expect from a man?

What resources are available to him in that situation?

I wasn’t talking about a situation where a woman is screaming at a man–in that case, I’d expect him to retaliate in some way–but physical violence should always be a last resort. And I would assume that the type of woman who screams at a man for ten days would not be cowed by getting smacked around, anyway. It shuts her up for now, but in those kinds of hostile situations, one slap or even one good beating isn’t going to work. I’ve seen it too often. In fact, I think some women seek that response because it provides an emotional release from anger. Kind of an exclamation point on her hostility. She’ll almost always do it again and again.

But I was talking about people who just like to beat on others. In my experience, bullies don’t always grow out of their behavior. And they don’t require provocation. Add in substance abuse like alcoholism, and it’s like a perfect storm. Avoidance doesn’t work, and most of the time presenting yourself for an ass-kicking doesn’t stop it either.

I have a visceral, negative reaction when I think of society returning to the old ways. On the one hand, I can see why society as a whole would benefit. On the other, I have a hard time with the concept of sacrificing the few for the good of the many.

And there is also the fact that I would have no place in that society. Where does a genderqueer bisexual woman fit in a world where the gender roles are so distinctly drawn? I can tell you right now, I might have been a pretty good wife by today’s standards, but by Victorian ones, not a chance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
21Guns October 22, 2009 at 20:45

I have a visceral, negative reaction when I think of society returning to the old ways. On the one hand, I can see why society as a whole would benefit. On the other, I have a hard time with the concept of sacrificing the few for the good of the many.

I have the exact same problem, but I’m coming to terms with it.

I look at it this way: No matter what direction society takes, I’m always going to be living on the fringes of it. because that’s just the kind of person I am. I have never fit in anywhere, never have, never will.

I might have been a pretty good wife by today’s standards, but by Victorian ones, not a chance.

It’s funny, but when I read stories about Victorian women who went against the grain, I kind of envy the fact that they even had something to rebel against. As it is now, I’m slightly eccentric. In a more traditional society, I’d be a full-blown renegade, with all its attendant risks and dangers.

Scary, yes. But also exhillarating. What a way to live…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 22, 2009 at 21:02

And believe it or not, I’m actually not thicker than a brick.

I don’t believe it, Renee. The good news comes in 2 parts –
1) I’ve arranged my life so that women like you can’t screw it up by not getting it,
2) life does a whole lot better job of teaching lessons than I can.

The quality of your life will depend on the quality of your beliefs. If what you believe is correct, it will work out well for you. If it isn’t, then you can keep blaming it on someone else until you get sick and tired of having a tough life and decide to think about doing something about it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 22, 2009 at 21:05

21Guns

Stop !!!
I like you already !!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 22, 2009 at 21:49

Scary, yes. But also exhillarating. What a way to live…

It would be exhilarating. And something best suited to a single, childless woman, I think. I couldn’t imagine dragging my kids over onto the fringes, but I don’t think I’d be capable of burying who I am forever.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie October 22, 2009 at 22:15

Harry says:

I have seen various politically-corrected BBC reporters recently frequenting places like Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Morocco, and such places, and asking the women various leading questions such as, “What is it like to be treated as second-class citizens when compared to men?” – or words to that effect – and nearly all of these Muslim women do not accept that they are being treated as second-class citizens at all! – though, of course, I am sure that it will not be too long before the feminists manage to poison these Muslim women against their own men with their usual catalogue of ploys and lies.

Ah, good ol’ free speech at work. Makes you wonder why they want democracy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 03:28

””””””And there is also the fact that I would have no place in that society. Where does a genderqueer bisexual woman fit in a world where the gender roles are so distinctly drawn? I can tell you right now, I might have been a pretty good wife by today’s standards, but by Victorian ones, not a chance.”””””””

In the 2nd world country I go to no one cares if your bisexual or gay it is called a free country. In the us is it constructed where you are supposed to feel shame for being who you are. Like it is supposed to be a big deal that people accept you. When your a human being why shouldn’t you be accepted.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 03:29

”””””””’Black&German October 22, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Is that your view or a quasi feminist what is now expected of woman view at the detriment of their families even.
Obviously the latter, if you have read anything that I have written.

Beating is not something I would condone in any instance.
Co-sign. Why is that even up for discussion?

”””””””””

Because woman use there mouth to do evil men use their fists. It has become a very unequal playing field when men cannot retaliate through a slap to a crazed woman.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 03:31

There are worse things than death. Just seeing a man I knew yelled at all day. Jesus he had no options other than to leave or kill her. I mean she just wouldn’t listen to reason even from me. He was a “nice” guy though and just took it to try and make relationship work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 03:32

Make no mistake though the devil was there and eating his soul through her fucking mouth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 03:34

”””””julie October 22, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Harry says:

I have seen various politically-corrected BBC reporters recently frequenting places like Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Morocco, and such places, and asking the women various leading questions such as, “What is it like to be treated as second-class citizens when compared to men?” – or words to that effect – and nearly all of these Muslim women do not accept that they are being treated as second-class citizens at all! – though, of course, I am sure that it will not be too long before the feminists manage to poison these Muslim women against their own men with their usual catalogue of ploys and lies.

Ah, good ol’ free speech at work. Makes you wonder why they want democracy.
””””””””’

They don’t more than likely. It is forced on a conquered country. Just like in bosnia where the divorce laws where forced on the now split countries. So you will now have men in those countries getting treated just like the slave men of the us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 03:36

””””””’It’s funny, but when I read stories about Victorian women who went against the grain, I kind of envy the fact that they even had something to rebel against. As it is now, I’m slightly eccentric. In a more traditional society, I’d be a full-blown renegade, with all its attendant risks and dangers.

Scary, yes. But also exhillarating. What a way to live…
””””””””’

Yea there is no fringe unless your a man in the us then your always walking on the razor wire with spikes on each side.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 04:26

Harry

“What is it like to be treated…”

Well, weve all seen that particular stragedy used before, haven´t we??
A couple of years back, when the feminists were walking around, asking american women;”-have you ever had sex, although you didn´t want to?” They then took the numbers, did a little mingling around with them, and “Ta-daa!!” -Suddenly there´s a report stating, that one out of four women will be raped during their lifetime. I´ve even seen numbers such as 1 out of 2 !!-I don´t even know if that´s possible, when you think about it. -I´ve also noticed, how they will just keep throwing numbers and statistics into the air, -very seldom without backing them up with a source, and when they do, and you check it out, -they very rarely have any validation, or none at all. It seems to be the rule, rather than the exception that theyré just straight out lying, most of the time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 04:29

””””” Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 4:26 am
”””””””’

Can you imagine if you added all of the aids statistics together right now from all the studies. We would not be on this blog right now. The world should be empty of humans.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 04:29

statistics on aids.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 04:30

But definetly is you put together all the other statistics everyone would have one leg and be completely fucked up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 04:35

Gunslingergregi

True. You and me would definitely be the only ones in here, that´s for sure..
You´re a King fan, right ?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 05:09

lol Yea I have tried to pattern my life after the gunslinger.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 05:11

Same theme of way of life going away and disintegration going on. Plus I already found the rose yet still alive kind of fucks things up a little he he he

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 05:12

Plus only 33 so yea uhh wierd shit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 05:33

Same here-a gunslingers life doesn´t seem to bad, in comparison with some of the sad married guys, you see around…
Like his Bachman books the most.
“The Long Walk” is my favourite…
Now, there´s a movie someone should make..It would be cheap do, too!!
Haven´t found the rose, and if I did, I probably woulsn´t sit and stare at it..LOL!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 05:34

A movie like that would put a whole new meaning to the word “Reality Show” !!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee October 23, 2009 at 05:36

Zed,

1) I’ve arranged my life so that women like you can’t screw it up by not getting it,

Oh good for you *claps hands*

2) life does a whole lot better job of teaching lessons than I can.

But of course.

The quality of your life will depend on the quality of your beliefs. If what you believe is correct, it will work out well for you. If it isn’t, then you can keep blaming it on someone else until you get sick and tired of having a tough life and decide to think about doing something about it.

Well since the core of my beliefs is Christianity and my belief in God, I’m pretty sure that it’ll work out well for me. And anyway, I’m not one to blame someone else for any hard time I have in my life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 05:37

I found the rose and married her he he he

Yet failed in my objective to die a heros death.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 05:39

There was a movie done on the long walk somewhat. Soldier has parts of that the kids are running one falls out and is shot. Guys need some scenerios like that in their lives to make it meaningfull all this papertrail that ruines your life for mistakes forever but leaves you alive is female shit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 05:40

Yea which is better for a man and more humane. Jail for 20 years or the long walk. The answer is obvious.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 05:41

But society can only be nice to people not kind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 05:44

”””””’Well since the core of my beliefs is Christianity and my belief in God, I’m pretty sure that it’ll work out well for me. And anyway, I’m not one to blame someone else for any hard time I have in my life.”””””

So then you took the easy way out and believe in god and you will go to heaven. Why are you even on here worrying about anything. Your path is easy it is already chosen you just have to ride along till death.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 05:45

Gunslingergregi
“Yet failed in my objective..”

There´s still time..lol!!

Know where I canget that movie-I collect!!
And yeah, three fall downs, and you´re out….permanently…
A protected life is female shit.
Control=No fun=Lobotomized existence…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 05:45

I did marry a foreign woman and of course will not move her to us. That is the key to being happily married he he he

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 05:48

Just go amazon order “soldier” kurt russell.

Yea there is still time but not as easy as you would think. I have placed myself in situations to be a hero 100′s of times but yet still haven’t gone the distance lol

Not as easy as it looks in movies. I have come up with some goals on my blog but they pale in comparison to the ultimate. Oh well may have to tone it down and live like a normal guy whos gonna take over the world he he he

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 05:48

Danger=Feeling alive..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 05:56

Gunslingergregi
“I have placed myself in situations..”
You´re supposed to do something important, in the greater scheme of thingsfirst,me thinks…Life is hard to someone, who has to learn an important lesson…Buddism..Always worth it in the end…But..A Long Walk..;)

Got Soldier with Russel, -that´s not the Long Walk that I read..!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 05:56

Yea kind of like the hurt song.

I focus on the pain the only thing thats real.
Try to kill it all away but I remember everything.
Everyone I know goes away in the end.
You could have it all my empire of dirt.

Don’t want to go out like that want to go out vibrant and for something.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 05:57

I know just a little bit of the theme.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 05:58

Yea I am beginning to think purpose while living is to make woman free not equal. There is a difference.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 05:59

When you see injustice though it hurts and what better way than to go out blazing making a statement on injustice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 05:59

Gunslingergregi
“so then you took the easy way…”

Justice !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 06:00

sorry, thought that one were for me !!-hehe..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 06:01

Gunslinger

Thumbs up on all accounts !!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 06:04

TORA!_TORA!!-last word of the kamikazee-pilots

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 06:06

Gunslinger
“when you see injustice…”

You´ll be remembered well…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 06:08

Even a small percentage of men unwilling to accept slavery would tilt balance so there was slavery for no man.

With the preponderance of religion maybe slavery is embedded in most men. Still working on that one. I myself have chosen slavery when not needed. My rose has no problem with being free. I think the west is the best at raising good slaves to be cogs in the machine and just be able to take injustice and loss of freedom as a normal thing. Still breaking free of the mental chains that bind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 06:17

I also see the west as the place, where you are most likely to see a large percentage of the males, wondering why the are joining the corp-wheel, and choosing to go against the grain. I think that, that also is inbedded in the human nature..The desire to find out “what will happen, if I do this?” and “I wonder what´s on the other side of that hill?” and “Just because everybody is doing this, does that mean that I have to do it, too?-What will happen if I don´t??” and so on…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 06:18

No new inventions without that…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 06:20

Yea that is a point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 06:23

It´s very much a guy-thing, as opposed to:”I need to fit in, so they will like me!”-which is a very female way of thinking.I don´t care, -if people don´t like me, it´s usually a mutual feeling, and I will just go away…Easy as that..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 06:27

I will go away…lol…got stuff to attend to..Cya!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 06:29

Maybe it is time to give up the dream of hero as I have already proved what I wanted there and was willing to go distance and focus on committing energy to making those I love comfortable in this world. But yea ok maybe my fear is the long walk and the pain that entails.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 23, 2009 at 06:40

Seriously though….at the risk of sounding ~sensitive~ although I’m far from it, no need to be an ass about it.
I agree. Zed, no ad hominem attacks. It’s poor form, bad rhetoric, and very… feminine. Address the points she’s making instead of attacking her person.

Kimskinovgorod,
Suddenly there´s a report stating, that one out of four women will be raped during their lifetime.
Have you read “Who Stole Feminism?” and “The War Against Boys“? “What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us” is another good one.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 07:00

B&G

Nope, -will ask my female librarian for them. She starting to look at me, in a most perculiar way, anyway, so..;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 07:01

she´s..ups.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 07:35

Gunslinger

If that is what truly makes you happy…That is what you should do!!
-Easy as cake..
If you change your mind, I´ll probably be hanging out in the next ghost town, just over the hills in the distance, and we can go raise some hell, and go out in a blaze of Glory, whaddayasay…? ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 23, 2009 at 07:48

Address the points she’s making instead of attacking her person.

Sorry, B&G, she is a 25 y/o clueless child. The “points she is making” are uninformed, based on bogus information she has been given, and coming from an immature perspective.

Legitimacy and the right to be taken seriously is not an entitlement. It is earned by having something to say which is worth listening to and considering.

As my grandmother used to say to me when there was a similar age difference and I was trying to “correct” her wrong beliefs – “You ain’t got nuthin’ to teach grandma about sucking eggs.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 08:16

”””””’Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 7:35 am
Gunslinger

If that is what truly makes you happy…That is what you should do!!
-Easy as cake..
If you change your mind, I´ll probably be hanging out in the next ghost town, just over the hills in the distance, and we can go raise some hell, and go out in a blaze of Glory, whaddayasay…?
”””””””’

Sounds like we should hang out sometime. And yea if change of mind I’ll try to let you know lol

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 08:20

Gunslinger

Could be a problem..I´m in Denmark, Europe…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 08:23

Had my first marriage in denmark. You could come hang out in indo check the rice fields see how people live without a grocery store being a requirement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
rebel October 23, 2009 at 08:28

Women are children. Always have been. Always will.
That’s why men are responsible for allowing a woman into their lives.

The only way that women will accept responsibility and accountability is when men will abandon them wholesale.

True equality = everyone for him(her)self.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 09:06

gunslinger

Indo sounds great–denmark is really, really cold, now !!!
Doing some scuba-diving in indo right now, would suit me juuust fine…;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 23, 2009 at 09:18

True equality = everyone for him(her)self.

That would work but the result would be absolute chaos and a steady decline in population. Are you an anarchist?

Wouldn’t it end up that men fight over women MORE in that scenario?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
21Guns October 23, 2009 at 09:30

“Who Stole Feminism” is a good read, I second the rec. Haven’t gotten around to the others yet.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 23, 2009 at 10:08

Wouldn’t it end up that men fight over women MORE in that scenario?

Some would, some wouldn’t. It would pretty much be a return to the law of the jungle with the most aggressive men fighting each other for the chance to mate, and the rest spending their time fishing and watching the big monkeys butting heads.

I made the comment several years ago that we are in the middle of a vast, unplanned, impromptu experiment in selective breeding – I called it “building better predators.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 23, 2009 at 11:02

In the 2nd world country I go to no one cares if your bisexual or gay it is called a free country. In the us is it constructed where you are supposed to feel shame for being who you are. Like it is supposed to be a big deal that people accept you. When your a human being why shouldn’t you be accepted.

In the west, not that long ago and down through most of history, people cared. Granted, they cared less about same-sex feelings in women than in men, but they still cared. And it’s not so much feelings of shame or having to hide that would be my worry–it’s what kind of productive life would someone like me be able to have if I simply can’t fulfill the strictly delineated role of “woman”?

That is, if there are only real men and real women and everything else is scorned or ridiculed, or worse, would someone like me have anything of value to offer society?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 11:25

”””””’Kimskinovgorod October 23, 2009 at 9:06 am
gunslinger

Indo sounds great–denmark is really, really cold, now !!!
Doing some scuba-diving in indo right now, would suit me juuust fine…;)
”””””””’

Man the world really does get pretty fucking small. I am still in us at moment working out my medical leave shit though. Thinking back in december.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 11:28

What does that have to do with it kis?

Freedom shouldn’t be just a word.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 11:28

Free to lay on the street and die if that is what ya do.

Freedom.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 11:37

But not the ability to infringe on a mans freedom just because your a woman. How would you being bi infringe on anyone elses freedom?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 23, 2009 at 11:43

That is, if there are only real men and real women and everything else is scorned or ridiculed, or worse, would someone like me have anything of value to offer society?

I haven’t gotten the impression that having anything to offer society concerned you very much. Isn’t it more of a case of “will ‘society’ allow me to do what I want to do”?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 23, 2009 at 11:49

I made the comment several years ago that we are in the middle of a vast, unplanned, impromptu experiment in selective breeding – I called it “building better predators.”

Actually the “selective breeding” is causing all sorts of problems. Specifically in the 130+ IQ families.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 23, 2009 at 13:44

I haven’t gotten the impression that having anything to offer society concerned you very much. Isn’t it more of a case of “will ’society’ allow me to do what I want to do”?

Contributing to my community is important to me. And in the absence of the opportunity to do that, not being a net drain is pretty freaking important. At the moment I’m a net drain, but that won’t last forever. I’m slowly recovering and adjusting to my new reality. But at the very least, my position now has a lot to do with wanting to raise kids who aren’t going to be just a waste of space. My boys, especially. They’re both doing better in school and are more willing to contribute to making the household work, now that they don’t have the poor example of their father to emulate.

And yes, I do care about society allowing me to do what I want. What I want is to exist as I am, while at the same time being productive in ways that have value to society and are fulfilling to me (I don’t need everything to be fulfilling, but I do need something). I mean, I can go be a bi, gender queer female all alone in the woods if I want. But it’s not what I want.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 23, 2009 at 13:47

Actually the “selective breeding” is causing all sorts of problems. Specifically in the 130+ IQ families.

Like what?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 23, 2009 at 13:48

””’They’re both doing better in school and are more willing to contribute to making the household work, now that they don’t have the poor example of their father to emulate.””””’

So now it comes out she is infringing on a mans freedom while at the same time putting him down to her kids while at the same time raising boys to wash dishes while at the same time thinking the kids are her personnal servants to make the household work infringing on the childrens freedom from slave labor. Great its all clear now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 23, 2009 at 15:21

So now it comes out she is infringing on a mans freedom while at the same time putting him down to her kids while at the same time raising boys to wash dishes while at the same time thinking the kids are her personnal servants to make the household work infringing on the childrens freedom from slave labor. Great its all clear now.

How am I infringing on his freedom? How was I when we were married? He was free to work his 20 hours a week and play WoW 12-16 hours a day, and I was “free” to do everything else–including being the main breadwinner.

Now we’re apart, he doesn’t pay me anything. I haven’t asked him to. He was free to pursue a new relationship and he has, because he only sees the kids 5 hours a week, if that, and only because I practically shove them down his throat. And if you think I infringed on his freedom by having kids–he wanted them. He protested me getting my tubes tied because he wanted more. Of course, I’m now free to continue doing it all while not dating because I have the kids full time. Yup, I really infringed on his freedom…

I’ve never put him down to my kids. Ever. Not while he was here, not now that he’s gone. What I want for my kids is a dad they can respect, and they can’t respect him if they hear him put down. I AM glad his boys can now see him as a single guy standing on his own rather than a stunted teenager who lets his wife carry him.

My older boy cuts the grass, keeps his room clean (sort of) and yes, he does the odd load of dishes–he’ll have to do that when he moves out on his own–and helps me with heavy lifting, household repairs, getting the seats in and out of the van, taking garbage out, etc. My younger boy helps tidy the living room (mostly his mess anyway) and keeps his room cleaner than he did before, and does most of the care for the dog. My daughter and I do the majority of the cooking and dishes, and I do all the laundry, floor mopping and bathroom cleaning. So no, I’m not raising my boys to be sissies or servants. I’m just not raising them to be bums.

And since when is it bad for kids to have to do chores?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 24, 2009 at 06:45

Chores are good for kids as long as they’re age-appropriate.

Zed,
Autism, Einstein Syndrome (speech delays coupled with high nonverbal IQ), ADHD/ADD, panic attacks, etc. are rampant in high-IQ kids. Then there are the allergies, myopia, morning sickness during pregnancy, etc.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 24, 2009 at 08:05

Zed,
Autism, Einstein Syndrome (speech delays coupled with high nonverbal IQ), ADHD/ADD, panic attacks, etc. are rampant in high-IQ kids.

True. Higher IQ people tend to have more squirrels running around in their brains than average folks. One big concern I have is that it is the most gifted kids who are most likely to be diagnosed with ADD and medicated out of their normal maturation processes. Not only is the culture probably killing its brightest future creativity, they are creating some experiments that the full effects might not be known for another 40-50 years, just to keep some kids quiet so the teachers don’t have to, you know, teach.

Then there are the allergies, myopia, morning sickness during pregnancy, etc.

Are these worse with high-IQ kids? I was under the impression that those issues just went along with having kids in general.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Gunslingergregi October 24, 2009 at 09:02

Kis does he have to pay child support?

Glad your not putting him down although you where the one with him and already 2 posts on him the second being one of sneering degradation of his manhood. I find it hard to believe this would not be carried over to your sons.

I envision scenerios like this:

Son: I don’t want to do a womans job and do dishes.

You: Do you want to end up like your worthless father?
Do you?

Hopefully scenerios like this are not going on and if that is the case I would give credit where it was do to keep the poison you feel towards not being able to make a relationship work fall onto childrens emotional shoulders.

”””’And since when is it bad for kids to have to do chores?””””

I will be raising my children to do skilled labor and understand how the world works. Chores are for the working class.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 24, 2009 at 09:30

My children are raised with both skilled labor and chores. The one does not exclude the other.

One big concern I have is that it is the most gifted kids who are most likely to be diagnosed with ADD and medicated out of their normal maturation processes. Not only is the culture probably killing its brightest future creativity, they are creating some experiments that the full effects might not be known for another 40-50 years, just to keep some kids quiet so the teachers don’t have to, you know, teach.

I agree. Being gifted and having ADHD (as is the case with myself and my daughter) is a difficult subject. A lot of typical gifted behaviors correspond/overlap with both ADHD and autism/Aspergers so it’s very difficult to diagnose. In fact, it is often argued that there is no true line between gifted and gifted+LD but rather that it is a continuum and some people just end up a bit to far off to one end.

There’ s no need to medicate except in the most severe cases (like the worst 1%). For the vast majority, occupational therapy, lots exercise, diet, and homeschooling will eliminate the negative aspects of the condition. A lot of people with ADHD (like myself — never been medicated) positively thrive in the real world (there are numerous advantages to having ADHD), we just aren’t very good students. Being bored out of our minds does NOT help things at all.

Are these worse with high-IQ kids? I was under the impression that those issues just went along with having kids in general.

They’re worse with high-IQ kids. However, cause-and-effect is not yet certain.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 24, 2009 at 11:18

Kis does he have to pay child support?

Technically he does, and should have since September of 2008. I haven’t asked him to, but we haven’t finalized our divorce yet–you have to wait a year here. I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the house. We bought for $65k and it’s worth about $120k now–vagaries of the market rather than any improvements we’ve done. If I have to pay him a share of the equity, my mortgage payment will go up approximately equal to the amount of support the guidelines would require him to pay, so I’m hoping to just do a trade–one for the other. I don’t want to have to hound him for support, but I can’t pay $350 more a month on the mortgage without it. Sort of an “I’ll pay you $350/month on your share of the equity and you pay me $350/month support, and as long as neither of us are paying, we’re both living up to our obligations.” I don’t want arguments and resentments over money to put stress on his relationship with his kids, or our ability to make parenting decisions together.

Glad your not putting him down although you where the one with him and already 2 posts on him the second being one of sneering degradation of his manhood. I find it hard to believe this would not be carried over to your sons.

Posting here, emailing friends, all that kind of thing, is a way for me to deal with my resentments in a forum outside my chidren’s hearing. Those resentments have been festering a long time, and I’m slowly coming to see the part I played in things and what I should have done differently. I think if I didn’t have other forums in which to vent those feelings, yeah, I’d be venting them on my kids, which I do not want to do.

I have gone so far as to tell the kids I was upset at the way their dad dealt with the issue of his new live-in girlfriend, because the dishonest way he went about it (he not only didn’t tell them ahead of time–it was just “surprise, here she is!”–but his not telling any of us made them think it was a big secret so they extrapolated it would hurt me or make me angry or jealous and they had to keep it from me) put a lot of stress on them. I mean, they came home and instead of talking about all the fun stuff they did, as usual, they went out of their way to avoid any conversation at all. Once it was out in the open, I think I said, “For crying out loud, I wish he’d have just told us. Don’t worry about it, guys, you can talk about what you guys do together, and it’s okay for you to like her. Your dad’s allowed to have a life.”

I envision scenerios like this:

Son: I don’t want to do a womans job and do dishes.

You: Do you want to end up like your worthless father?
Do you?

Actually, the scenario usually goes like this:

“DD, do the first load of dishes, please, and DS, would you clean up the mess around the computer?” [Note: mostly his mess, lol]

“Why can’t DD clean up the mess? I’d rather do dishes. They’re… straightforward. Step-by-step, you know? Picking up shit is…random.”

“Whatever you’d rather.”

I generally ask less of my sons as far as domestic chores than I do my daughter. For instance, when I’m at work, DD is in charge of getting dinner and keeping an eye on her little brother. I prefer to ask the boys–especially the older one–to do “man things”. But there are simply more “woman things” required to run the house from day to day–the grass can wait, power washing the siding or helping repair the dryer don’t have to be done every day, etc. So they do some of the general chores, too.

I will be raising my children to do skilled labor and understand how the world works. Chores are for the working class.

I hope that works out for them. Coming from the working class, I have to be more realistic about this stuff. It’s my hope that they’ll all be successful in a skilled trade or profession, but they may never be able to afford a housekeeper, and you can’t count on getting married these days.

When they’re bachelors living on their own, they’re going to have to do those things. Especially as students–because options for post-secondary ed are nil here. They’re going to have to live on campus somewhere and they’ll need to know how to maintain a living space at least to the point it won’t be condemned by the health department.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
kis October 24, 2009 at 11:35

Hey, B&G, I just googled Einstein syndrome, and it fits my older two to a tee–especially my daughter who didn’t have any grasp of the grammar part of language until after she started kindergarten at age 4, but had a huge vocabulary and could read and do arithmetic by age 3. Her first psych-ed test in grade one showed her verbal IQ at 95 (she’d gained about 4 years of progress in two, with minimal LA), but her performance IQ was in the mid 150s.

I’ve had teachers, doctors and psychologists and psychiatrists giving me conflicting diagnoses from the moment she started school. The pediatrician said, “This is the worst case of ADHD I’ve ever seen”, a diagnosis her teachers scoffed. The teachers all said autism or Asperger’s. The psychiatrist who administered her first psych-ed test said “She just is who she is, but she’s not on the spectrum.” Her superior, upon reading the report, revised the finding to one of severe autism. At that point, there was no way I was putting a diagnosis of any kind in her school file.

By grade 4, her language had caught up, but she was still socially awkward with her immediate peers from having been ostracized for so long. Straight A student all around. She got another psych-ed test at the end of grade 8, at which point a different psychologist told me “She’s not on the spectrum. Too many contra-indications. She relates too well to adults and younger kids and has a sophisticated sense of humor–she’s just stand-offish with kids her own age. She is who she is.” Yet her special ed worker (she still goes to LD because it’s a safe social environment, but she doesn’t do anything there other than chat with friends, lol) insists she’s HFA. Argh.

Einstein Syndrome fits. So thanks!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
21Guns October 24, 2009 at 11:38

(apologies for OT-ness)

kis

Here are some links for open-source animation software that your son might be able to use:

Blender (3d)
http://www.blender.org/

SAM (stop motion)
http://www.samanimation.com/

Hope this helps.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 24, 2009 at 11:48

Thanks, 21Guns! I’ll have him check them out when he’s ready to get off the couch. He’s still running a fever, and my daughter just spent all morning puking her guts out and shooting liquid out her backside like a firehose. Ahh, good times….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 26, 2009 at 08:00

Einstein Syndrome fits. So thanks!

Both of my children have that. Although describing a healthy child developing unusually but successfully and referring to that development as a “syndrome” is a pathology in itself. My daughter, for example, has ADHD but that’s just her personality, not some sort of disease. Sort of like the idea that introverted people need therapy to cure them.

Both of them acted REALLY autistic when they were younger and have since dropped all of the autistic behaviors. That’s typical of Einstein Syndrome and it’s the reason why some doctors are claiming that they can cure autism: they’re often “curing” children with Einstein Syndrome that would grow out of it anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 26, 2009 at 08:03

By the way, my son is speaking better-than-average now in both German and English. A year ago he couldn’t even say a 3-word sentence in either language. My daughter’s speech has also improved dramatically in the last few months. She went from not even responding to her name (at 2 years) to speaking 2-word phases, asking simple questions, following directions, etc. (at 2.5 years). She’s also now at age-level in her abilities.
Both are way advanced (98th and 99th percentile) in their nonverbal abilities.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 26, 2009 at 08:27

Are you serious?

So my wife teaching my son to say papa in 8 months is pretty good then I was wondering.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 26, 2009 at 08:30

Yeah, my daughter shows more signs than my son did–she talked much later than him (huge single word vocab by 3, but no understanding or use of sentences until she was 4+), but walked at 8 months, and was doing 100 and 500 piece jigsaw puzzles when she was two. Her gross and fine motor skills were WAY ahead of her age, as well as her physical problem solving (she was an excape artist extraordinaire). Reading was easy for her to pick up mostly on her own, because deciphering written words was just another visual puzzle to her. We just gave her the pieces.

Because I never allowed a diagnosis to be put in her file, she didn’t qualify for anything but the minimum learning assistance at school, and despite the lack of serious intervention managed to get the top student awards in science and English last year–highest marks of any student in grade 8. She has close friends and acts like a typical teenager at home (complete with occasional slamming of doors and assertions that “You’re ruining my life!”).

My dad’s a heavy duty mechanic with mild OCD, but the school he went to tried to get him into engineering. My ex was a professional musician in his youth, who got bumped up a grade as a kid. My mom’s brother is an engineering professor, the other an electrical engineer. My sisters and I hit 98th and 99th percentiles in everything on the standard aptitude tests in highschool–and none of us has ever needed to take notes or study because we only have to see or hear something once.

Don’t see how doctors can claim to “cure” this shit. I mean, we barely did anything–never even pushed her to talk–because we could see through all the weirdness to a social child who loved interacting with others, but just didn’t have the tools yet to do it effectively. All we did was encourage her in her aptitudes. But it’s been a loooong struggle with a school system that wants to pigeonhole every kid who isn’t 100% plain white bread.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 26, 2009 at 08:32

”””””’I generally ask less of my sons as far as domestic chores than I do my daughter. For instance, when I’m at work, DD is in charge of getting dinner and keeping an eye on her little brother. I prefer to ask the boys–especially the older one–to do “man things”. But there are simply more “woman things” required to run the house from day to day–the grass can wait, power washing the siding or helping repair the dryer don’t have to be done every day, etc. So they do some of the general chores, too. ”””’

Yea no problem with woman doing domestic chores as that is part of what makes them sexy. When I see my wife doing mundane shit for me it make me want to make some love.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Gunslingergregi October 26, 2009 at 08:35

”””””When they’re bachelors living on their own, they’re going to have to do those things. Especially as students–because options for post-secondary ed are nil here. They’re going to have to live on campus somewhere and they’ll need to know how to maintain a living space at least to the point it won’t be condemned by the health department.”””’

That would be the reason to have a girlfriend.

”””””I hope that works out for them. Coming from the working class, I have to be more realistic about this stuff. It’s my hope that they’ll all be successful in a skilled trade or profession, but they may never be able to afford a housekeeper, and you can’t count on getting married these days.
”””””””’

Yea just teach them to understand certain things and most important the ability to save money and buy shit that makes money and that retiring from having to work at 30 is ok.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi October 26, 2009 at 08:36

The problem is we raise kids to be good slaves rather than raising free men.

Woman on the other hand yea probably enjoy being owned by their man to an extent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 26, 2009 at 18:09

So my wife teaching my son to say papa in 8 months is pretty good then I was wondering.
Language follows a natural progression. Barring gross neglect, most children will learn to talk when they are ready and not a moment sooner.

Sounds like textbook Einstein Syndrome to me, Kis. Your kids sound a lot like mine.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee October 28, 2009 at 09:30

Gunslingergregi,

I will be raising my children to do skilled labor and understand how the world works. Chores are for the working class.

And women right? Seriously though, you can teach your sons all about the world and how to be skilled laborers, and teach them the basics of taking care of themselves and their homes.

”””””’I generally ask less of my sons as far as domestic chores than I do my daughter. For instance, when I’m at work, DD is in charge of getting dinner and keeping an eye on her little brother. I prefer to ask the boys–especially the older one–to do “man things”. But there are simply more “woman things” required to run the house from day to day–the grass can wait, power washing the siding or helping repair the dryer don’t have to be done every day, etc. So they do some of the general chores, too. ”””’

Yea no problem with woman doing domestic chores as that is part of what makes them sexy. When I see my wife doing mundane shit for me it make me want to make some love.

I’m scratching my head at the idea of a woman doing mundane chores as being sexy (especially since the last thing she’ll be feeling is sexy lol), but hey I’m a woman so I’ll take your word for it.

”””””When they’re bachelors living on their own, they’re going to have to do those things. Especially as students–because options for post-secondary ed are nil here. They’re going to have to live on campus somewhere and they’ll need to know how to maintain a living space at least to the point it won’t be condemned by the health department.”””’

That would be the reason to have a girlfriend.

But I highly doubt that everytime a guy’s hungry, need’s to iron his clothes, or clean his room, his girlfriend would be at his beckon call, especially if he’s in a dormroom. If he’s not and if they aren’t living together, he would need to learn to take care of his home and cook for himself. In fact, even if they are, he needs to know how to clean up after himself and not always leave a mess at his wake for her to clean up.

Anyway, I thought you would be all for a bachelor being able to take care of himself.

Woman on the other hand yea probably enjoy being owned by their man to an extent.

Ummmm….I don’t think so.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
crella October 31, 2009 at 22:09

“Just that society was generally more accepting of a woman being beaten black and blue by her husband than it was of a husband being browbeaten and henpecked by his wife.”

Well, you’ve brought me out of lurkdom with this.
Baloney. According to Elizabeth Pleck’s “Wife-Battering in Nineteenth-Century America”:

” It has often been claimed that wife-beating in nineteenth-century America was legal… Actually, though, several states passed statutes legally prohibiting wife-beating; and at least one statute even predates the American Revolution. The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited wife-beating as early as 1655. The edict states: “No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense, or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine.”

By 1870 it was illegal in all states. Before that, men were brought up on charges under assault and battery laws for beating their wives.

Christina Hoff Summers and others have done a good deal of research debunking most of the BS concerning wife beating being condoned in America.

I often wonder why women who hear this kind of thing never question it. Ask old people, your grandmothers and grandfathers, other elders, if it really was ok to beat one’s wife ‘way back when’. Research it yourself. Don’t just swallow everything whole.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jaclyn December 7, 2009 at 02:42

mainly @ Black&German-

I can’t get over how these married women, who claim to be anti feminist, can come to a site like this and discuss their sex lives with random men. I suppose the things I despise about women aren’t only directed at anti feminists. It always disgusts me when a woman can cheerfully chatter about her personal sexual experiences, having no respect whatsoever for her husband. It’s also disappointing that no man bothers to point this out, and in fact it seems to be encouraged by some. This is part of the problem in marriages today. Learn some discretion, ladies. This makes me wonder if women should be on the internet at all. It seems too easy to play with fire.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Fiercely Independent John Nada December 7, 2009 at 03:05

Jaclyn December 7, 2009 at 2:42 am

mainly @ Black&German-

I can’t get over how these married women, who claim to be anti feminist, can come to a site like this and discuss their sex lives with random men.

***
That particular poster was supposed to have packed her toys up and left in a fit of rage, supposedly never to return.

It appears the temptation of attention whoring was too great to resist. Kind of like a moth to the flame.

Or perhaps I’m mistaken.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 7, 2009 at 13:51

Ummm….how often has a woman had to “mass murder” men because she “couldn’t get laid”??? Never.

Women have far more self-control than men do. Why would you attempt to excuse men for not being disciplined honorable people? Any man who “loses control” once a woman gets his dick hard is a man who should have been in therapy long ago.

That’s like saying if a man has sex with a woman….and she “thinks” that he loves her because they had sex, then she cannot be held responsible for losing her mind, stealing his sperm, and murdering him while he sleeps for not “loving her” when he ACTED like he was going to.

Women who “excuse” men as “boys will be boys” are women who DESERVE to get raped and murdered. The problem is that the only women who say things like this are women who would KILL to have that kind of male attention…..ANY male attention.

Its’ sort of like how whenever you hear a woman shriek “OMG I would NEVER be a stripper!!! It’s so DEGRADING!” and yet the ONLY women who say that are usually toothless, fat, angry housewives who no one would ever want to see naked OR dancing.

There is no way that this person is a woman and if she is, she’s clearly very sick in her mind or has been conditioned by a cult to believe that men are “allowed” to not have any sort of self-control.

However, I will agree that men truly CANNOT control themselves because they are indeed weak of mind and will in general. Women like this one are the ones who RAISE them that way. Who raise them to be entitled, weak, whining, schoolgirls who cannot control their mind, their bodies, or their lives.

I sincerely hope this woman never reproduces and raises a boy, because she is raising the next rapist, serial killer, and mass-murderer.

This particular blogger, though is making an easier case for Feminists in PROVING that men cannot and will not control themselves without a woman to do it FOR them.

Women for whatever reason, don’t seem to have this “self control” problem.

And you wonder why women (feel) superior to men in almost every way imaginable. I really do hope and pray that someday this person’s daughter is walking home from her part time job and smiles politely at a stranger…..and then he drags her into an alley and rapes her because her “smile was an invitation and she was asking for it”.

Then we shall see how much “self control” you expect men to have.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 7, 2009 at 13:57

And stop using “olden days” to back up these ridiculous arguments because our Grand-daddies would have shot a man on site who leered and groped at their daughter or wife (and they would be rightful in doing so). You think they’d agree that men shouldn’t be expected to have “self-control”? I think not.

That is the problem with modern men….they think they have a right to women and sex and children. Men who leer, look, grope, and try to grope are indeed the slime of society and the ONLY time it ISN’T rape is when a woman decides AFTER the sex that she “didn’t want it”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
wow December 7, 2009 at 14:09

LR:
“Women have far more self-control than men do.”

To invent, innovate, and create civilization takes self-control. Try repeating a science experiment 5000 times and discover a new medication. Still waiting for women to demo this self-control you speak of and actually contribute something to society other than kids and sucking the teat of government.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Steezer December 7, 2009 at 14:22

Stop feeding the beast

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 7, 2009 at 14:50

wow–

You know as well as I do that everything you just said is a straight up lie. I am a Machinist, so by your standards…..I do not exist and am an imaginary character.

So was Madame Curry. You know….the inventor of Curium?

How about the inventor of bullet-proof vests? Also a woman.

The list goes on and on. Even if only ONE woman had ever invented ANYTHING up until about 1970, that would STILL be amazing considering that you conveniently leave out how women weren’t ALLOWED to be inventors, work in engineering & technology, and even if they WERE they still would never have been given the funding or the credit for their inventions.

Your statement is so stupid and uneducated that I pray you made it just to attempt to insult (me?) or women in general and aren’t actually THAT uneducated.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
not an idiot December 7, 2009 at 15:15

@Lady Raine

Do you call yourself lady rain because you piss on everything?

Maybe Cougar-Skank would be better.

Curium was first synthesized at Berkeley in 1944, ten years after Marie Curie died.

Never heard of Madame Curry. Did she invent Bollywood?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Steezer December 7, 2009 at 15:20

So was Madame Curry. You know….the inventor of Curium?

That is pretty good. I’m sure LR has an excuse for having posted this, though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 December 7, 2009 at 15:34

@LR

It maybe is that women only have to go in a bar and say “hi guys, I’m available” and will got a dick in her vag faster than you can say slut.

And women lack self control, if they didn’t they wouldn’t go in blogs and post rants after being told in clear terms that they are extremely disliked in there. Case in point: you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
wow December 7, 2009 at 15:36

LR…you dumb ass, you assume I am talking historically…I am talking in the last 40 years…you know, since feminism “liberated” your great self-control. All we have is single slut mothers like yourself, and women singing kumbaya in socialist/government jobs while men still invent and make virtually everything. The reality is, there have been few major advances in science in the last 40 years compared to when men ran the whole show. The major inventions and innovations, like the internet, wirless, computer software, etc…..still all men!!

What’s the score anyway?
men: 10 000 000 innovations?
women: 3 innovations?

Jaysus, the machine you work on and the industry you’re a slave too was entirely invented by men…In other words, thank a man or you’d be unemployed (or a prostitute). Now shut the fuck up and make me a sandwhich…but wash your hands first you machine grunt.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Lady Raine December 8, 2009 at 08:10

wow–

You really are a silly person. I do the programming. I don’t even have to touch a Machine 90% of the time. Programs are indeed written on computers, yes…..and then loaded right into the machines by USB ports.

I have never cooked and “making a sandwich” certainly applies. I didn’t “take a man’s job” to be bad-ass. I took it because I like it….and because I am good at it…..

Oh, it’s sooooooooo sinister of me. Maybe I’m trying to infiltrate the world of engineering so that I can spread the seed of Feminism there, too right?

Even countries like Japan, women are a MAJOR force in technology as a whole and employ just as many women in the field as they do men. Are you really that out of touch with reality?

Funny how during the Wars, the housewives who had “no experience or skills” in ANY job were able to jump in and keep the industrial economy running and saved the collapse of the nation since the men were off fighting. Even with no prior experience, no feminism, and “chaotic” circumstances…..

Those women STILL jumped in and performed “men’s jobs” just as well and certainly didn’t “crumple and cry” to a man. These things that you are speaking of only exist in your mind.

I cannot remember the last time I heard a girl shriek that something is icky and go running for a man because we are just so “helpless”. If women were as useless and as helpless as you say that we are, then it’s pretty weird how you gentlemen have to form “communities” (cults), classes, lectures, books, and blogs to figure out how to handle us, huh?

Yes, darling ……keep sounding the horn of the sinking ship you call Misogyny and once you’re gone…..we’ll still be here.

You can put all the excuses and lies and ridiculous stereotypes on it that you’d like, but the fact is that whether men are “bigger and stronger” or not, women hold the key to life (reproduction), families, children, and of course sex.

This is something that (some) men will NEVER get over. The “unfair” power women were given in that way.

So sure, if you want to shriek and cry all day that women (by nature) were born with things you don’t have the ability to do ….that’s a really rational argument.

Men are like the 63 moons orbiting Jupiter. You’re useful….you’ve always been there….you get the job done…..but if all 63 moons burn out….Jupiter would still be there and not be any less a “planet” without them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Lady Raine December 8, 2009 at 08:18

OH, jesus you guys are right. I actually INSULTED Madame Curry in that remark.

She is responsible for pioneering Radioactivity (obviously something girly and useless)….the FIRST person who ever was awarded TWO Nobel Prizes (one in Physics and one in Chemistry)….

and also was responsible for isolating radioactive isotopes….and Founded both Polonium and Radium.

So although I am clearly mistaken in using the word “invented” Curium…..The element Curium WAS indeed named after Madame Curry and if you sincerely didn’t know that, you are an idiot indeed.

But, yeah we all know radioactivity, isotopes, and chemicals are TOTALLY useless and contribute nothing to the world but “making a better sandwich”.

Dumb ass.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 8, 2009 at 08:20

GX–

Ummm how does “being slutty” correlate with “posting on blogs”? I’d really like to hear this connection because its’ clear to me that you are easy to manipulate and have no control over your emotions. It takes only a sentence or two from me (and prob any woman) to incite you to a rage. People only become angry at things they either 1. don’t understand OR 2. cannot control.

Guess we know what your “woman issues” are now, eh?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 8, 2009 at 08:23

In all sincerity many of you here lack ANY education, knowledge, or even the ability to pose a lucid and engaging debate.

I mean “women have contributed to what….like 4 innovations”?

Uhhh yeah I just listed 4 for ONE woman, you half wit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 8, 2009 at 08:32

@ Gx1080-

Did you see my post responding to you at The Mythology of Marraige thread?
Just let me know when you want me to pull the trigger again. I can at least keep Lady Claim busy so ya’ll don’t have to mess with her. I think she’s starting to like me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary December 8, 2009 at 08:38

In all sincerity many of you here lack ANY education, knowledge, or even the ability to pose a lucid and engaging debate.

It is amusing to me that you elect to make such an accusation in the face of your inability to correct the spelling of Madame Curie’s name when it was pointed out only slightly less explicitly than I am now, particularly when you were the one who brought her into this argument as a point of support for a complete misrepresentation of the views espoused by others here.

The claim was not and is not that women with atypically high degrees of self control do not exist. The claim is that women with that degree of self-control are statistically much rarer than men–a single counterexample proves little beyond your petulant desire to insist that we are speaking in absolutes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 December 8, 2009 at 08:54

@LR
Angry? LOL. I don’t need to be angry to call people on their bullshit and, on the Internet, I can be as clear, concise and curse filled as I like. And really, my examples are a) how women go to abusive alcoholics, playas, thugs because they make their ginas tingle and b)how they go to blogs that are against their philosophy and post rant after rant after rant will all kinds of details about their lives, mostly to people that don’t care.

The former is impulsed by gina tingles, the latter for a obsessive need of attention. Following said impulses in those cases are detrimental to women, but they still do it because they can’t resist said impulses. Hence, they lack self control.

@Jabher

You can answer if you desire to, but plain phisical threats are a sign of weakness. The Internet is made for calling people on their bullshit, nothing more, nothing less. Enjoy the process.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 8, 2009 at 09:02

@Gx1080-

Oh, I see. I make those all the time. They are obviously not meant to be taken as literal, more a trasposition of rage from what would normally be a physical release for me into a linguistic one. They are meant to be emotional qualifiers, or rather complex metaphorical adjectives to describe my state of mind. I understand your concern now, as I’m sure I come off as abrasive during my rants, but I’m not a raving lunatic. I just have fun acting like one. If I wanted to completely be myself, I wouldn’t be on the internet using the pseudonym Jabberwocky.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 8, 2009 at 09:09

Of course, Lady Drain isn’t really as fun to play with as I thought. She really is too easy to disect. She contradicts herself immensely, makes statements supporting our views, and doesn’t even attempt to appear to argue in good faith. She may not be a sociopath (shame really, socipaths are better sport), but borderline personality disorder, narcissim, or histrionics is a definite likelyhood. I tend to like to scuffle with people of superior skills, as that is how you learn best. She has nothing to offer me as an easy target. She is so long winded to. I don’t know where to begin half the time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 8, 2009 at 09:37

Arbitrary–

If that were true, then women would be the ones out raping, mass-murdering, and forming groups and communities to talk about how to “get laid more”.

Clearly you know your point is an outright lie. All humans are born with the “ability” to be murderers, rapists, violent offenders, etc.

But who is the group who overwhelmingly ACTS on those things? Men.

That pretty much lays the “self control” argument to rest because the proof is in the stats. Men are “emotional” criminals who act on impulse, aggression, and emotional trauma.

Women don’t. Once women start committing all these “crimes of passion” like men do, then come back and try to pose this argument again.

Jaber–

I still don’t know what you are talking about because from what I have seen you haven’t thrown a single “barb” in my direction. Your random insults don’t even pertain to me. It would be like if you called me a Nigger or a Spic.

No offense, Jaber but I wouldn’t bother going “head to head” with someone like you. It would be a like kicking a puppy having any sort of engagement with you…as you appear to have the mentality of a 17 year old boy. I didn’t even realize you were addressing me that’s how “hardcore” you are, lmao….

Seriously….don’t toss your hat in the ring with the big kids if you can’t be a worthy opponent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 8, 2009 at 09:44

GX–

I genuinely don’t see your argument there at all. Sooooo having a blog, posting comments on a blog, or being on the internet at all is an example of females lacking “self-control”????

You MUST realize how silly and ridiculous you sound in saying that. In case you weren’t aware, the whole purpose of a “blog” is for humans to post details about their lives, maybe their opinions on life, and to read about the opinions of others.

WHAT in the unholiest of hell does that have to do with women, self-control, or ANYTHING that you are trying to make a loose connection to???

Do you have people give you weird looks in person all the time when you say things? I bet you do. And I’ll also bet that in your mind when people do this you think to yourself “Silly, stupid people…..they just don’t GET my intellect level.” and probably believe that’s why you are getting those looks to start with.

It’s sort of like when someone makes a joke that totally sucks and no one laughs and then the person gets all indignant and says “Clearly, you aren’t intelligent enough to GET my humor. It’s above your heads.”

Thanks for the laugh, today though pumpkin :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
not an idiot December 8, 2009 at 09:46

@Lady Raine

This is starting to be fun! You must be a masochist, since you keep bringing a paddle and then bending over.

Since you are so educated, I am surprised that you have never heard of a dictionary.

“She is responsible for pioneering Radioactivity (obviously something girly and useless)… and Founded both Polonium and Radium.”

How, exactly, does one “pioneer” a natural process or state, or “found” natural elements? (You do know that “founded” isn’t the past tense of “find”, right?)

Next, you will be telling us that a woman found herself pioneering the invention of water.

Since you can’t decide whether you are an engineer, a machinist or a programmer (do you even know what those occupations entail?), here is a pop quiz for you:

To the shaft of a Drill Press, one attaches:

a) drill bits

b) dildos

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 8, 2009 at 09:49

as I’m sure I come off as abrasive during my rants, but I’m not a raving lunatic. I just have fun acting like one

No, you come off as silly and uneducated. Type of guy who has a “word-of-the-day” calender in his cubicle and stews all day about how he deserves a position of authority and honor…..then kisses his female boss’s ass on a daily basis pretending that it’s all part of a grand scheme to “overthrow the evil feminist machine”.

There you go, I addressed you personally Jabher…..are you happy? Do you feel like you got my attention? *pats Jabher on the head*

There you go sweetie, now you can die happy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 8, 2009 at 10:05

Since you can’t decide whether you are an engineer, a machinist or a programmer (do you even know what those occupations entail?), here is a pop quiz for you:

You just proved your stupidity in that statement. We are not talking about “Machine Operators” here. Those are entry-level (usually a Mexican Temp’s) position such as in factories and assembly plants. The “drill press” you reference is NOT a CNC machine and actually has absolutely nothing to do with my trade. MOST “drilling” of any kind is done on a CNC Mill now…..not a drill press…..lmao. (strike one on your knowledge of modern industry)

Anyone who HAS worked as a Machinist knows that all of those things directly correlate to eachother in every sense. You have to train through a Journeyman to be a Machinist (and usually attend trade school as well). You cannot just “be a Machinist” without an education in it…..or doing your time with a Journeyman (basically you are some old guy’s bitch for a few years).

I know that even once I explain it your tiny male-brain won’t comprehend it, but drill presses (the kind you are referring to) aren’t even operated by a CNC. I am a CNC Machinist/Set-up/Programmer. Drill presses have nothing to do with my job at all. Do you even UNDERSTAND what a Machinist DOES?

There are all different kinds of Machinists, yes that’s true. But pretty much anyone who chooses to train as a Machinist starts by just Operating, then being taught “Set-Up”, then moves on to Programming and writing the G-Code Programs (and using/learning Master Cam for most places), then moves onto to QC Inspection, Engineering, etc. That is the normal chain of events in a CNC Machinist’s journey in the trade.

Clearly you don’t even know what Machinist DOES let alone the obvious fact that in order to be a good CNC Programmer/Machinist you have to understand how to read and interpret the prints, understand measurements and tolerances, understand G-Coding and Master Cam, understand the QC standards and ISO’s of companies associated with the Military, University, and Medical, and even have to understand Tool & Die Making in order to actually be a “Machinist” and not be a “machine operator”.

The fact that you laughed and didn’t see the obvious reasons why all of those skills are directly related to each other tells me that you don’t even know what CNC Machinist/Programmer IS.

Anyone who understands this kind of thing feel free to jump in here, but if you are a man and think that by default you know more about MY OWN TRADE than I do, you are going to make yourself look really stupid.

(PS, it’s cute though how you tried. Since you obviously think drill presses are what CNC Machinists work on maybe you should at least know what CNC means. Say it with me: Computer-Numeric-Control.)

I will say, however that there ARE Machinists that have never dealt with the “CNC” end of things, but those are a dying breed because nearly every company and every type of machine (whether mill, lathe, CMM, etc) are controlled by the CNC panels now and not by a man pumping the handle of a drill press up and down….lmao.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary December 8, 2009 at 10:13

You argument is fundamentally fallacious, and again misrepresents both my position and reality. The fact of the matter is that the distribution of ability for men with respect to self control has a greater variance than that of women (just as the distribution of most traits has a greater variance among men than among women); men thus occupy a greater fraction of both the top and the bottom of this curve.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lady Raine December 8, 2009 at 10:26

Arbitrary–

I understand the point you are trying to make, but that doesn’t mean that it’s true.

You can not say my argument isn’t “reality” because Criminal Statistics PROVE who the “loose cannons” of this world are. Men are more inclined to starting wars over nothing, becoming violent, lashing out aggressively, “controlling” through rape and murder, and even mass-murdering complete strangers because of something “women” did to him once.

How often do you see women do that? Look at the stats. It’s rare. You cannot call “statistical fact” an “opinion” on my part.

What I am saying is that I understand that women are more emotionally mutable than men in general (meaning going from one end of the spectrum to another without any rhyme or reason) …..but in terms of “self-control” women have ALWAYS been expected to be the ones who exercise “control”.

Think about how women were supposed to remain “mysterious” and “elusive” and NOT jump on the first dick that walks by….(self-control). That women are supposed to be able to handle raising the kids without losing their minds (self-control) that women have always held the keys to sex & reproduction…why? Again….self-control.

Can you deny that if men “held the keys” to things like sex, reproduction, and the function of “family” that it would be like a Hedonistic Resort/WarZone all across the planet in a matter of days?

I am not trying to “insult all men” in my statements….it’s just that what (most) the posters here are saying is absolutely ridiculous, factually inaccurate, and statistically just plain old UNTRUE.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary December 8, 2009 at 10:48

Criminal statistics do indeed demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of the people who have the least degree of self control are male. This does not reduce the validity of my point; an overwhelming fraction of inventors and philosophers of ages past were also male, and they exemplify my point regarding the opposite end of the spectrum.

Women, statistically largely occupying the space somewhere in between, are more consistent in their degree of self-control which makes them a more stable choice for the tasks you have suggested in maintaining social structures that are the mainstay of society. Assessing where the average of the two populations is or was is a difficult task at best, and an impossible one at worst. but to disagree with the claim that the highest heights of ability are generally statistically male is indeed to disagree with reality.

Furthermore, surely you must realize (based on the list of feminine self-control tasks you have provided; namely, waiting to be chased, selecting with whom to reproduce, and being primary caregiver to young children) that feminism has worked directly against the standards of self control society has previously placed upon women. When you lower the standards, you reduce the quality of the results, even amongst those who could have met higher standards. This causes women today to tend to have significantly worse self-control skills than those of generations past, even if the distribution of talent is the same.

The idea that self-control is a masculine quality is, to some extent an illusion induced by this (together with its importance to the masculine form). But the fact of the matter is that, like most other qualities, self-control exhibits greater variance among men than among women; the paragons of self control to which one can thus look are typically male rather than female.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
not an idiot December 8, 2009 at 11:01

@Lady Raine

A sharp stick of a few words leads to many paragraphs of rant.

Indeed an excellent return on investment, heh heh!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 8, 2009 at 11:19

“I still don’t know what you are talking about because from what I have seen you haven’t thrown a single “barb” in my direction. Your random insults don’t even pertain to me. It would be like if you called me a Nigger or a Spic.”

So your son isn’t a bastard?

“No offense, Jaber but I wouldn’t bother going “head to head” with someone like you. It would be a like kicking a puppy having any sort of engagement with you…as you appear to have the mentality of a 17 year old boy. I didn’t even realize you were addressing me that’s how “hardcore” you are, lmao….

Seriously….don’t toss your hat in the ring with the big kids if you can’t be a worthy opponent.”

Funny how I was tagged as gifted and talented in elementary school, was considered the same in highschool ( I pretty much did whatever the fuck I wanted at school, how do you discipline a kid aceing his classes and standardized tests) and consistently had college professors comment positively on my intellect and creativity. Funny, how after all the praise and accolades I began to doubt the validity of it all, so I had my IQ tested more than once starting in High School. My IQ has scored in the low 140s. Unlike you, I have nothing to prove, so I feel free to take chances in my debates, as I don’t mind looking like a fool once in a while if I can occasionally score a unique zinger. Sorry I’m not boring. This isn’t highschool debate team. I’m here to have fun, mostly at your expense. Do try harder to follow. I assure you there is meaning behind everything I say. Specific examples of where I’m not making any sense or off target would help, otherwise you’re just hiding behind a smoke screen of dismissiveness.

“”No, you come off as silly and uneducated. Type of guy who has a “word-of-the-day” calender in his cubicle and stews all day about how he deserves a position of authority and honor…..then kisses his female boss’s ass on a daily basis pretending that it’s all part of a grand scheme to “overthrow the evil feminist machine”.””

I take silly as a compliment. Obviously I don’t take myself very seriously, although I’m serious about men’s issues (I have my reasons, but you don’t seem intellectually curious, you just like to spout off.) Have you read the poem “Jabberwocky”. It’s very basis is silly and childlike. Sorry that I have the creative spirit of a 17 year old, many great thinkers are attributed with possessing an inate childlike sense of wonder and awe towards the world. You wouldn’t know anything about being young at heart, not since you had your bastard child anyways. And uneducated? I graduated college with honors and read books on a regular basis. I’m currently reading Howard Gardner’s “Creating Minds”. What do you read, Cosmo?

And I was fired as an art teacher by the female vice principals because they were feminazi’s who were intimitated by the magic a rookie male teacher was working at their low socio-economic school, so they trumped up some charges about classroom management issues, and during a transition of male principals, axed me. I’ll tell you the whole story if your interested. I didn’t bow down to bullies when I was a little kid, I don’t bow down to anyone, and yet manage to show respect where respect is due, like to several of the people you are condescendingly engaged in debate with, despite their moderate tones.

And right now I work for a guy (no women here at all thank god) that I grew up down the street from. Cushy job is an understatement. How do you think I debate on blogs all day. My true passion is to be an artist. Status in the art world is all I aspire for. If I cared about money and the finer things in life, do you think I’d be a struggling artist. Plus, I grew up solidly middleclass, bordering on upper middleclass if my mom hadn’t divorced my dad and split his assets, so I know what its like to have material possessions. Its overrated. I’m pursuing my bliss, not happiness. Its a very important difference.

And I use big words because little words are less fun. Indubiously.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 December 8, 2009 at 11:24

So, the attempt of deviating EVERY SINGLE thread in a conversation about your and several posters personal lives, no matter if it’s relevant or not is the purpouse of all blogs?

Please. Just because women have a bunch of Nice Guys ™ orbiting around them doesn’t make them the center of the universe. That goes for LR, B&G and several others.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ghostnation January 3, 2010 at 14:03

Human beings of either sex will show the self control they are expected to have- and generaly no more.

Our particular society does not hold women to account. You can be pretty sure that women behave quite differently in Saudi Arabia for instance. You will probably also find that men behave worse over there than they do here.

I usually tell women that I expect them to be adults when I am around. Generaly it works- though sometimes they simply avoid me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Suigintou January 16, 2010 at 07:51

>>If we did not have the sex as a factor, would you be speaking to women, then ??
If sex wasn’t a factor, and it wasn’t something they could get people to bend over backwards for, then they wouldn’t have the annoyingly self-obsessed personalities that they do. Because if they ever acted like that around civilized people, they’d be asked nicely to STFU or GTFO.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robert January 19, 2010 at 23:34

Wulf October 21, 2009 at 04:55
And repeal the 19th Amendment.

Strike down VAWA or reform it. For some women it has become a license to falsely accuse men and boys of crimes they did not commit. Also, feminist jurisprudence must be reigned in as it erodes the rights of falsely accused males.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robert January 19, 2010 at 23:42

I am a member of the MM, not a misogynist. I do support equal rights and justice for all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous October 24, 2011 at 11:24

Rape laws, for example, say that having sex with a drunk woman is rape, even if she got herself drunk before even meeting the rapist. There is no extenuation if the man is drunk too.

Whoa! Please tell me that thats not true! Thats ABSOLUTELY INSANE. In that case, my husband rapes me at least once a week.

Actually that is explicitly what feminism says. Read more Dworkin. She’ll inform you of how you can’t actually consent in a patriarchy and that every single time you have had sex, or your husband thought about it, a rape occurred. That filthy rapist you share a bed with should be in jail for life!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Anonymous February 12, 2014 at 14:48

Murder by abortion? Funny , call me a murderer then lol guilty as charged lol

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Andres April 16, 2014 at 07:03

Feminist are right on saying they have no responsibility on their acts. (Because have no sense of justice like kids) thats wy men should have the control of both women and children in the same grade as they truly are. But who want that Responsibility now….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: