In this article I can’t help but see the glaring contradiction that this site is built around.

1) Women have taken over and ruined everything for men.

2) There are hardly any women in positions of power.

The number of female judges is around 25%. Only something like 17% of Congress is female. So if you’re right that women don’t like competition and debate and thus aren’t in positions of power, than how did they manage to muck everything up?

Good question. The answer is “they didn’t”.

The changes produced by feminism were not produced by women (they are only experts at whining and complaining, so they produced some set of books and journal articles). The changes were produced by men.

Who gave the vote to women? Obviously men.
Who made the feminazi laws? Mostly men.
For example, who created the Simpson when men are depicted as dumb amb women as intelligent? A men.
Behind any sexist law against men, behind any misandrist piece of art, there is a men or a majority of men.

Men are their better enemies and there’s no need to blame women. Women have always been the same: read the last twenty centuries of literature and you will see that the nature of women has always been understood. It’s men who have produced the mess we are in.

They did it because of:

1. Chivalry. Women whined they were oppressed and the white knights were eager to change the laws.
2. Political and personal gain. Pandering to the female electorate, getting into a woman’s pants, etc. (it is amazing how much men think with their dick).
3. Massive feminist indoctrination by education institutions. So men internalized the feminist credo.

If the feminism had only been deffended by women, it would never have succeeded. Men did it. Until MRA’s don’t understand men are our biggest enemies are men, the movement will keep on moving in circles.

If men deffended their rights, not even all women would be able to defeat us. But we are our worse enemies.

In this article I can’t help but see the glaring contradiction that this site is built around.

-Finny

Finny, this site isn’t a totalitarian domain. There are plenty of contradictory opinions offered here. This is how men figure things out.

Does that make sense to you?

1) Women have taken over and ruined everything for men.

2) There are hardly any women in positions of power.

The number of female judges is around 25%. Only something like 17% of Congress is female. So if you’re right that women don’t like competition and debate and thus aren’t in positions of power, than how did they manage to muck everything up?

Its time that average Americans woke up to the massive damage these Nazi like criminals have brought down on us. Calling them left or right is disingenuous. Morons and lucky sperm don’t represent a coherent political philosophy. So much for debate.

I’m still not sure what you’re driving at. I’m making a pretty common-sense, non-controversial observation about the difference between fiction and non-fiction as artistic mediums. You’re so eager to be confrontational, though, that you can’t see that.

….”All relationships are power struggles. ”

——————

Nope. I don’t power struggle with my friends. The power struggle seems to only present itself amongst parent/child, sibling and sexual relationships. Oh, and at work too.

1,000 hours of one-side debate, perhaps. But, to equate one person writing a fictionalized account which serves to represent (only) their views with the understanding hammered out by the clashing of divergent ideas???? I don’t think so!”

Damn! Your rebuttal was so much better than mine.

No! Were talking about petulant spoiled brats who get mad when they don’t get their way, and go straight to those higher up to demand that they be given their way.

In one instance, a committee had been formed to decide on a new policy to address an area that was an increasing concern. One committee member was a coddled young woman, with high academic credentials, but limited work experience.

Although the other committee members had considerably more experience, she took it upon herself to try to “take over”. She had her own set of ideas on the direction to take.

However, several of the older professionals noted potential problems in her ideas. She became angry at them, and started with the ad hominem attacks against them, and threats towards their careers. But, they brushed her aside, and voted on a differing approach.

She flew into a rage, stomped out the door, and straight to the office of a high-ranking executive. No one knows for sure just what was said in the office, though a secretary reports that she heard the women screaming about how the “men” on the committee treated her badly because she was a woman, and made her feel threatened and demeaned. Apparently she made some none-too-subtle hints at the possibility of filing lawsuits.

The up-shot was that it was quickly announced that the committee had been disbanded, and that she was to be given the task of deciding on new policy.

THAT, and several other examples I’ve heard of in which petulant women didn’t get their way and went complaining to higher-ups, was what I was referring to.

I doubt I’m alone in have witnessed and/or heard about such examples of women who could not handle being told “NO”. Perhaps even you, Todd, have personally observed a woman or 20 fly into a rage when they didn’t get it their way, and either threaten to use the power of higher up, or even actually do so in order to try to get what they had wanted via coercion?

“TW: Well, a good story is worth 1,000 hours of intellectual debate.”

1,000 hours of one-side debate, perhaps. But, to equate one person writing a fictionalized account which serves to represent (only) their views with the understanding hammered out by the clashing of divergent ideas???? I don’t think so!