No, we need increases in the social programs and here’s why. First of all, the social programs at the state and local level are being decimated because states, unlike the federal government, states can’t run a deficit. The federal government can and should in order to support these social programs.
The social programs mostly benefit women – these are things like childcare and after school programs and anti-violence programs and training programs. Those things are for women but the interesting thing is a lot of them employ women. So from my point of view, we really need those social programs enhanced – not cut.
There has been much written in the manosphere about how government spending is mainly spent on women. However, for the first time, a feminist and the president of NOW no less, has admitted this. She has also admitted that women are disproportionately employed by government at all levels, another fact widely discussed in the manosphere.
In addition, this shows us that feminists will not bend to the reality of a shrinking economy and shrinking government revenues. Instead, feminists will double down (and triple down and quadruple down) and fight to the last womyn to keep governments at all levels spending on women. The fact that the US and other countries can no longer afford (if they ever could) feminism does not matter to them. The fact that the federal government of the US alone had a $1.4 trillion deficit in 2010 or is projected to have a $1.5 trillion deficit in 2011 does not matter to feminists. Knowing that the federal government is running these deficits already, O’Neill has effectively demanded multi-trillion dollar deficits and doesn’t care about the myriad of problems it would cause, such as hyperinflation.
{ 74 comments… read them below or add one }
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
13 
105
It should be amusing to see how this plays out in Washington and the MSM. My bet is that Imperial DC will continue to kick the can down the road until the final collapse; there’s no preventing it because the system is to corrupt.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
1
Now that women have the ability to control their reproduction and they have full access to participate in the work force the only thing left for feminists to fight over are men’s assets. For everything from health care, education, public assistance, to social security women are net consumers. Men are net payors. Women like O’Niell are estute enough to know that things such as a progressive income tax, unisex insurance rates (women use much more health care than men), life time acturarial payouts on social security and pensions (women out live men) all favor women at the expense of men.
We all should be offended by this statement. I was not put on this planet to financially support the hags at NOW any more than they were put on the planet to clean my house or provide men sexual services.
Men need a new motto: My money, my choice.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
79 
2
The fact that the federal government of the US alone had a $1.4 trillion deficit in 2010 or is projected to have a $1.5 trillion deficit in 2011 does not matter to feminists.
————————————————
Because these women see the state as a surrogate husband and will put up with a shrinking economy in order to prop up their “husband”; this allows them to chase after higher status cock than their beauty, intelligence, or character would otherwise. What is really sad is that a few women are depleting the remaining social and capital that provides meaning for both men and women. I am writing a poem about this, here are a few stanzas:
The Unfit mothers of democracy
Its a politically correct theocracy
Family court knows best
teenage moms now get undressed
________________________
write a few lines and win a prize!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
3
Cutting social programs is the most effective political tool for combating feminism.
Federal welfare programs promote female promiscuity, single motherhood, and fatherlessness in the name of unrestrained female autonomy. Federal funded programs use the pretext of domestic violence to break up families, remove the father.
Spend the money instead on infrastructure jobs that would employ blue-collar males.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
63 
5
Fixed it. After all, what they’re really doing is fighting to the last man to keep women supported by the state. They regard men as completely expendable.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
56 
2
They will get what they want and here’s how: they will lobby in order to have defense costs cut down. Closing down military bases, pulling out of war zones. Also by cutting down on food costs for inmates, implementing forced labor for same inmates.
And if that’s not enough, they will increase the “man tax”, cut down on male education and tighten up the laws.
The only defense against that is to starve the beast. But that means heavy sacrifices. And a willful decrease in one’s standard of living.
The system will continue to work that way until men stop seeing themselves as mere beasts of burden.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
3
Funny how the feminists will talk about women’s empowerment and independence in one breath and then support programs that foster dependence and are disempowering in the next.
If women were truly independent and capable of supporting themselves, they wouldn’t need to depend on government programs and spending to support them.
TDOM
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
58 
4
Mr. Manor,
Welcome!
A few things:
May I suggest referring to yourself as a Man, instead of ‘a dude’. You’ll find that, over time, your conduct could potentially become more aligned with Men. “Fake it ’til you make it” sort of thing.
Also, you will find that very few people here care what sex you are, we will judge you based on the message you represent, as it should be. As a man, you will be held to a higher standard.
I should do my homework before lecturing you about it, but I doubt many people on the site advocate more govt. spending on ANYTHING (except maybe paternity testing), hence the Men Going Their Own Way symbol on the left of the page. MGTOW is, by nature, against excess spending.
Good to have you here
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
3
Jonathan- No matter how hard you try, sucking up to women is never going to get you laid. Sorry dude.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
58 
2
I dont think anyone here is denying exactly what youre saying, youre just saying it in a wishy-washy way and trying to make it sound justified.
Youre right. All feminists care about is me, me, me, me, me. And if the rest of the country is thrown to the dogs, so what? At least I still have MY job.
The real mystery is how you could possibly defend this.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
56 
2
I think of it like marriage. A woman will marry a man of modest means today, and unlike marriage 1.0 where she would work cooperatively to succeed as a family, today, she willfully depletes the family resources as fast as absolutely possible.
Then, when the money runs out, starts fighting, once she can plausibly accuse the man of making her unhappy, she files for divorce, without telling him, and goes for the yet un-erned income via alimoney and child support.
Then back to the cock carousel.
Rinse and repeat.
So, when big daddy government is sucked completely dry, no money for utilities, rent, defence, our American woman will just jump ship and onto the new big daddy, where ever that might be.
Woman are already the biggest converts to Islam and even princess Diana thought muslim guys were sexy, as long as their rich.
So I predict, when the Chinese demand payment, the US will go bankrupt, like Iceland, and American women will start to marry the surplus males from China or the oil barrons of the middle east.
Social programs will never be cut. The minute that money runs out watch for influx of foreign men with money and outflux of any attractive women, just like in todays Russia and Eastern Europe.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
7
This is not entirely unexpected.
First, feminists denied there was a problem.
Then, it was men’s fault.
Now, they dont even bother. They think they’ve won. They dont have to have sound reason behind their judgements at all. If it even remotely inconveniences women, feminists are against it, regardless of what damage is done in the process. They will blatantly say things like “we cant do this because a woman might have to work harder”, and they believe it too. The fems at the top really think that as long as the end is more power for women, any means is justified.
And people, otherwise normal people like you and me, buy into it.
Im amazed.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
42 
1
@ wavevector
Even if a program is “sold” as an infrastructure program that will help blue-collar workers, by the time the money is actually spent most of it will have been diverted to less worthy causes.
Remember the first time that Obama called for “shovel ready jobs”? Feminists noticed that most blue collars were filled with male necks, which were often red. They also noticed that most civil engineers were also hardbitten Y-chromosome cases. They complained about gender discrimination.
As a result, money was diverted to “education” and a bunch of female teachers kept their jobs. About 42% of the jobs that were saved belonged to women, despite the fact that 80% of job losses were suffered by men. Only 9% of the money from the original bill was actually spent on infrastructure, and even then it was mostly spent on short-term projects such as “beautification” instead of roads.
The same basic thing happened to the money that was “supposed” to be spent on preventing foreclosures. Goldman Sachs got more of it than the average citizens.
At this point, we might be better off if we just declared the federal government broken and passed a law stating that only defense (woth some cuts) and interest on the national debt will be paid. Shutting down *all* of the other federal programs might be the only way to stop the final destruction of the USA.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
0
This is what we want! The end is near when they start doubling down! Seriously, this is evidence of the Misandry Bubble entering the ‘Red Giant’ phase.
Start posting flyers! This will bait them into doubling down more.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
0
Take my word for it, tax collection dollars have already peaked as a % of GDP.
There is no way to squeeze more tax, as a percentage of GDP, from the US economy. An increase in the tax rate will actually yield fewer, rather than more, tax dollars.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
41
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
12 
41
@MRA: why did you stop using your old name, Sean McCloud?
btw your arguments are still bullshit. but you know that.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
39
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
31
While many Republicans are definitely pedestalizers who bow to feminism (see here) :
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/11/why-republicans-will-not-shrink-government.html
It is undeniable that the feminist agenda requires massive taxpayer resources. A reduction in government spending would very quickly reduce feminism. In fact, the reduction would be parabolic.
The fatal flaw of present-day US Republicans is that their core value is not free markets, low taxes, or national security, but pedestalization of women. This need supercedes any other principle they claim to have. They would rather die that receive shaming language from a woman, even an ugly woman.
This is why Republicans will usually support any and all government expansion as long as it is packaged as ‘chivalry’. Do you want Republicans to pass global-warming taxes? Find some way to say global warming harms women. They will fall over each other in an attempt to out-left a leftist.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
9 
35
The feminist/marxist wants the system to collapse so that a new egalitarian, quasi-socialist government will take it’s place. The heartless “white male power structure” controlled free market system does not help women appear to be equal, but rather exposes them as lesser.
If a new socialist order reigns, women won’t have to compete with men to be equal; the government will mandate a 50/50 power structure in every facet of life, (except of course things women prefer not to do).
Feminists WANT to be provided for and protected by the government so they can be wholly independent from individual men, other than the redistribution of his wealth to her. Feminism can’t win without a socialist state firmly in place, and they know this.
Ms. ONeill and the sisters have been to the White House 4 times so far during Obama’s tenure. They did not visit the Bush White House once.
It’s about a 15 minute walk.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
2
Reagan signed America’s first no fault divorce law into law when he was governor of California. That is not the action of someone serious about anti-feminism. I have spent a lot of time point out how conservatives aren’t really anti-feminist.
Around here there has been plenty of talk about reducing the defense portion of government especially as it takes on more and more feminist social engineering nonsense.
The UN is the largest sponsor and promoter of feminism with the goal of world marxism being the end game. No amount of political gamesmanship will alter their goal of a one world Guv.
Terrorist’s, feminist’s, nihilist’s, insurrection’s, anachisist’s, libs and cons are all fueled and funded by the good folk’s at the top of the pyramid. They’re all one big happy family running the world media, education, finances, WHO, The UN and politic’s.
The metranome ticks as the music plays and the dancers dance. The table has been set and the big boys are about to feast on the blood of billions.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
1
This is off topic and I apologise to the op, but I just wanted to bring it your attention.
I have finished my 3 part blog post summarizing ‘The Stern Review’.
‘The Stern Review (2010) – A Report by Baroness Vivien Stern CBE Of An Independant Review Into How Rape Complaints Are Handled By Public Authorities In England And Wales.’
Part 1: The Stern Reviews main conclusions, and the 6% rape conviction rate myth.
http://antifeministmedia.blogspot.com/2011/01/stern-review-2010-report-by-baroness.html
Part 2: The ‘Sexual Offenses Act 2003′, and false rape allegations.
http://antifeministmedia.blogspot.com/2011/01/stern-review-2010-report-by-baroness_25.html
Part 3: My opinion, and the WAR (Women Against Rape) organisation.
http://antifeministmedia.blogspot.com/2011/01/stern-review-2010-report-by-baroness_28.html
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
@ Rebel,RE: “They will lobby in order to have defense costs cut down, closing down military bases, pulling out of war zones.”
Fat chance of that ever happening. That would involve feminists actually doing something good for the country.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
Eric-“They will lobby in order to have defense costs cut down, closing down military bases, pulling out of war zones.” Fat chance of that ever happening. That would involve feminists actually doing something good for the country.
Seconded. Feminism serves the same masters that also benefit from US imperialism. If you need proof, notice how all the Leftist anti-war protesters vanished after Obama got elected.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
23
“They will get what they want and here’s how: they will lobby in order to have defense costs cut down. Closing down military bases, pulling out of war zones.”
The above is not happening, is not going to happen, and feminists certainly aren’t campaigning for it.
Though (neo) conservative will pretend or contend the above, to suit their own agenda.
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
21
@Keyster
“””The feminist/marxist wants the system to collapse so that a new egalitarian, quasi-socialist government will take it’s place.”””
If that’s the case, they have a nasty surprise coming. The endgame, history teaches us, is far from being a peaceful, quasi-socialist, egalitarian utopia.
Quite frankly, I do believe more social spending is a good thing. Triple the yearly deficit! Quadruple it! More mutual bailouts to keep the Euro afloat! More taxes! More pressure! European Central Bank takeover of all Euro states sovereignty! Quantitative Easing x100!
Seriously, let’s get this over with.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
0
“Quite frankly, I do believe more social spending is a good thing. Triple the yearly deficit! Quadruple it! More mutual bailouts to keep the Euro afloat! More taxes! More pressure! European Central Bank takeover of all Euro states sovereignty! Quantitative Easing x100!
Seriously, let’s get this over with.”
Keyster misrepresents things on two primary levels.
1. Conflating feminism and “marxism” (what Keyster means by “marxism”: socialist statism, the welfare state).
2. Saying that feminism is about “egalitarianism”. Saying that feminism wants an “egalitarian” regime, it wants a socialist state. Feminism wants a gynocentrist regime, and will team-up with any system that helps them achieve that, including liberal democratic capitalism.
On the “50/50″ issue; you’ll notice that feminists adopt arguments that Keyster is partial to when females achieve advantage compared to men in whatever the area is (e.g. education, politics, etc.). They say, echoing the Keyster classical liberals, “we are all just individuals, let us be judged on our individual merits, men don’t need any form of support even when they form an diminishing presence in [x] area”.
There is no such thing as “egalitarian” ever – either in the classical liberal (so-called “negative liberty”) or “socialist” (“positive liberty”) sense. Especially, there is no “egalitarianism” between the sexes.
And feminists certainly don’t believe in “egalitarianism”. (Even if they did, it would never work out like that.)
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
25
So, the u.s can no longer afford these “social programs” that mostly benefit women.
Does that mean that to all intents and purposes the u.s. can no longer afford women?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
0
@ Herbal Essence
How true. Today you wouldn’t even know there was an anti-war movement. What I here from the femisphere is talk of increasing military involvment justified by the flimsiest of assertions of assistance for females and daughters only.
Nice pick up.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
1
@ mananon
The US economy consists only of social programs. All manufacturing, research and invention have been lost or de-funded. NASA’s budget is gone, we outsourced it to Russia and there is talk of draconian cuts to cancer research.
But the VAWA stays fully funded and there is ongoing continued talk of expansion.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
1
@SingleDad
The UK economy experienced much the same as the US: the wholescale destruction of proud industries and the throwing away of literally millions of men’s jobs onto the scrapheap; many parts of my country are still feeling the effects now, more than 20 years on.
The UK, once known as the workshop of the world, is now effectively the warehouse of the world. We used to manufacture and sell to the world, now we mostly import other countries’ goods and sell or re-export them…
And the person I blame is Margaret Thatcher (you may have heard of her
). And the interesting thing is that although many don’t consider her a feminist her economic policies affected men more negatively than women: most of the jobs lost in mining and shipbuilding were held by men, and even now many young men struggle to find decent jobs in the old “industrial north” of England. This in turn led to enormous social breakdown, higher divorce rates and an elevated suicide rate among young men.
People say Thather was no feminist but she was certainly no friend of men.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
9
@ manonon
I enjoy sailing and I sail in the area of Los Angeles that is probably the largest port on the entire US west coast.
I watch the huge cargo ships filled to the brim and nearly submerging bringing goods from Asia to the US. There is probably a ship every 5 minutes. I have to dodge them in my little sailboat.
Do you know what goes out? Nothing. Empty ships, each and every one, riding high on the ocean. Nothing to weigh them down.
I watch my son’s future drifting away.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
26
@SingleDad
Interesting. The English Channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes on the world. It’s extremelu congested, packed as it is with ships from around the world. Now I’m no expert but I’ll be willing to bet a large number of those cargo vessels come from China. Just think – all that manufacturing might, and all from a country that hasn’t yet begun to realise its full potential…
Maybe as you both look out over the waters of the Pacific you are looking to where your (and dare I venture your son’s) future may lie…
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
So I predict, when the Chinese demand payment, the US will go bankrupt, like Iceland, and American women will start to marry the surplus males from China or the oil barrons of the middle east
US females don’t want those little beta men and the handful of oil barons don’t want fat fugly US females with bad attitides when they can get the best.
The minute that money runs out watch for influx of foreign men with money and outflux of any attractive women, just like in todays Russia and Eastern Europe
Fewer than 1% of Rusian females marry a foreign man and that includes foreigners living in Russia. And those who do marry men from outside Russia marry men who are of the same class. It’s actually the men who are getting the best of the deal because many Russian girls have advanced degrees like in Medicine and once they qualify in their new country can be put to work to make a decent salary. The typical US college girl generally has a degree that is near worthless in the marketplace.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
0
@MRA
So, between feminism that is supposedly on the left and Thatcherism/neo-liberalism on the right are ordinary (that is 98% of us) men like us.
So the question is: what now?
Maybe we need something along the lines of what I could call “male socialism”, in which the emphasis is on cooperation and egaliterianism amongst men incliding economic policy. Or failing that a new individualism that stresses that each man is responsible only for himself, and that no man should be forced to do what many are forced to do at present ie fund individually and collectively women’s lifestyle choices (and by that I mean gratuitous alimony and child support on the one hand, and taxation funded “social programmes” on the other).
I feel it’ll take some bright spark to come up with a new ideology and politics that benefits the men of the “west”.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
With all due respect, the problem is not really with those programs that the feminists support, but the fact that males are not equally able to access them.
I personally have cousins and aunts AND UNCLES on social programs, and the fact is that most of them would prefer to not be on those programs. Why do they have to stay on them? Lack of a living wage.
Unless we are going to say that people can starve to death on the streets, getting rid of those social programs is a BAD IDEA, feminist or not.
Like or Dislike:
3 
13
@mananon
“People say Thather was no feminist but she was certainly no friend of men.”
You might be happy to listen to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4fgmxgorq8
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Correct, but they’re not actively pro-feminist either.
Liberals, obviously are.
How many women’s groups support the Democratic Party?
How many women’s groups support the Republican Party?
Have you ever heard Rush Limbaugh rant about the “Feminazis”, as he openly calls them? Have you ever heard Ann Coulter say how much she hates them? Have you ever heard of Mike Adams, who regularily skewers them?
You can’t equivocate conservatism to liberalism in supporting feminism. I understand there’s some selective “truthiness” to it, but even then its a stretch. If that’s what anti-feminist liberals have to do to reconcile this conflicted view, so be it. I won’t knock it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
1
If you wrap plastic around any mammal’s head, it dies in a few minutes.
If you take away the substitute husband that is the welfare system, the entire feminist movement dies as quickly as an asphyxiated mammal.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
3
The fact that socialism is unaffordable is of no concern to socialists.
Its someone else’s problem and they better fix it.
Or The socialist will eat… themselves.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
0
@MRA
where did you gleen this information? I’d like to read some of your sources to gain some insite into it.
Since most academic feminists self-identify as Marxists first. Are you making the argument that they are not in fact true Marxists? In which case, where you’re arguing towards is that, we still haven’t tried a correct application of Marxist theory in order the create our Utopia.(?)
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
When the money runs out american women will double and triple down. So anyman that marries will be rode hard. That dumb man will be the funding for femminism. Men will learn to naturally reject women.( someone posted an article about japenese teenagers and young men just flat not considering any kind of relationship with females.) This will feed itself , as the money runs out women will double down on misandry. (and will fight to the last man) The definition of marrige will be expaned to get more men into the marriage trap. It will be nearly to the point that any contact with a woman will be legal justification to remove wealth from said man. The white knights/manginas will really take a good will deserved beating. Fewer men will make contact with women. (they will get to the last man) MGTOW will be culturally normal for men. Only then will anything change for men.
Maybe a grand daughter born ten to twelve years from now will grow up understand the value of honor and commitment ( see laura ingles) . I have my doubts,we’re talking about people that can “rationally” justify cutting a newborn baby’s spinal cord and claiming that has a “woman moral choice”
Women are basicly selfish and stupid when all is lost they will still feel intitled to live without responsibility. And as seen have the emotional and mental capacity to justify anything that fits their selfish wants up to and including killing others.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
“Have you ever heard Rush Limbaugh rant about the “Feminazis”, as he openly calls them? Have you ever heard Ann Coulter say how much she hates them? Have you ever heard of Mike Adams, who regularily skewers them?”
The only reason these neo-conservative rabble-rousers/brainwashers dislike feminism is because they perceive that feminism is part of a “pro-socialist/welfare state, anti-war, anti-capitalist” coalition.
The proposition is basically inaccurate, and is increasingly a strawman on the part of the neo-cons.
If only the feminists could en masse could get on board with capitalism, the free market, and America’s wars – the neo-cons would be fine with feminism and its gynocentrism and misandry. (Feminism’s objection to these things is greatly overstated to begin with.)
This is the same in fact, for neo-cons anywhere: including the neo-cons that are present on The Spearhead.
-
These neo-conservatives are also known for trying to “out-feminist the feminists”. They regularly argue that they are the true feminists – by their support of American/Western wars against non-feminist countries… By their support of capitalism which is good for females and feminism. They argue that (neo) conservatives really care about “women’s rights” as opposed to “the 1960s anti-capitalist anti-war leftists”… And feminists who ally themselves to this anti-war etc. “left”.
The neo-conservatives are largely correct in this contention. But that means that the neo-cons are (crypto)-feminists. Why should we as anti-feminists and pro-men advocates see them as allies?
Neo-con anti-feminism is not real anti-feminism. It is an anti-feminism that comes with serious caveats; which is basically dishonest and tactical.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
25
This article once again points to the correlation between feminism and progressivism. People like MRA are probably still suffering from afflictions like “Bush Derangement Syndrome” and can’t percieve this. Rather than combating feminism, they are still compelled to rail against the so-called hypocrisy of conservatives, and in such causes they spend their ire. That is why they are useless.
“They say they are against ‘big government’, but they don’t want to reduce the military!!! OMG, the military is part of the government!”
That’s a clumsy argument. For the record, I think the military budget should be seriously cut in a comprehensive effort to reduce the debt. But the primary reason people don’t like ‘big governement’ (as fiscal concerns rarely inflame the passions of the common man), is that it is intrusive. The military is NOT intrusive in the lives of U.S. citizens (just intrusive in the lives of citizens of certain other countries, ha-ha). They sit on their bases, otherwise.
Geez, I thought liberals were supposed to be capable of grasping “nuance”. But no, it’s just resorting to the same old leftist talking-points. , I guess I’ll go back to finishing the morning’s coffee.
Like or Dislike:
16 
2
Oh, I suppose I should add, MRA, as you likely have some trouble reasoning if subtlety is required, that I don’t think Republicans are anti-feminist (probably willfully blind to the issue overall and thus neutral), just that Democrats are PRO-feminist (I’m sure it’s enshrined somewhere in their party platform, since McGovern).
So no Manichean good/evil-black/white rebuttals, OK? You can trot out and lash a straw man, though, if you like.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
1
Welcome Jonathan
There is a post about the reality on the ground, just search it.
It is not that they don’t care, they dismiss it as fantasy, and anyone pointing it as a tin-foil hat wearing raving lunatic that oughta be locked up. Care is a verb that is reserved for people, not abstract concepts. You don’t care about something you care for a person, animal, or object.
To them it is a god given right. There is no thought to keeping it until it is gone. Then it is their “right” to have your job, that is how they manage not lose something.
Personally I keep track of something I don’t want to lose, and when I’m careless and do lose that something, I don’t go and point a gun at you and demand “yours.”
See the difference?
Like or Dislike:
14 
1
According to Wikipedia “her first husband beat her after a dispute when she was 22 years old, and she escaped to live with her parents in New Orleans. She is amicably divorced from her second husband.”
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
But they are. Duh.
Your run-of-the mill conservative isn’t better, BTW.
Also, history repeats itself. Just like in Rome, prepare for a bachelor tax.
Like or Dislike:
12 
5
I’ll interrupt the water-cooler gripe fest to insert: You hate the Liberal Democrats because of their traditional ties to Feminism that have plunged this country into the abyss.
You hate “neo-cons” because they “pedestalize womyn” – with the true underlying pathology being you hate Repubs because they didn’t defeat Liberals.
Then, you hate the Tea Party (all 8 of them with actual legislative power) for not Crushing Feminism in 20 minutes so you can get back to WoW.
I never hear any logical answers – just ranting about some flavor-of-the-week news item.
WHAT u gonna do when your “Femenimies” don’t run in fear from your strongly worded letters to The Editor, but instead make things worse by neglect? NO political party will do your dirty work.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
9
And that starts with income taxes, alimony and child support. Men are well advised to stop paying these. If women want social programs? Let women pay for them. Men get f*** all benefit from social programs as a group.
Like or Dislike:
12 
2
Yep. Their target is to get the population down to 500 Million people.
But don’t worry. It’s just a co-incidence someone paid millions to put up some f***ing huge granite blocks that refelect exactluy what the UN is doing. Nothing to worry about.
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
SIX Billion and rising. You’re a nut.
peopleofwalmart.com
Enough said.
This is getting pointless………….
Yeah, that’s really working out here. Remember all the dads paying child support in countless thread here? How about that Brand Spankin’ NEW Barnes & Noble thread where men get the boot for merely being around kiddies. You’re nuts.
Hellooooo?
The ever-growing US Gov’t bureaucracy. LMFAO.
I’m out of here. Instead of nut harvesting, I’m out for something productive like Bourbon and poontang.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
WOW
#7 – The UK is overrun with useless officials and petty laws…when can we start?
I, for one, welcome our new lizard / alien / whatever over-lords…
#8 (and some others) sounds okay with male outlook
#9 is a bit hippy-ish, I guess that there’ll be drugs aplenty?
Just such a shame that I doubt that I’d be invited, not being a ‘beautiful person’, I’m guessing Posh & Becks, Blair & Slot-gob, lovely lefty people and other such ‘worthies’ will be in
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Men get f*** all benefit from social programs as a group.
**Such grand ideas. I CAN’T WAIT to see how you actually come down to earth and implement them.
Oh, and stock up on those mottoes: they’ll make grand revolutionary poetry carved into your NWO prison cell.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
So Firepower, it seems the best thing we can do is organise as a voting bloc. After all feminism never had a party of its own, they simply ‘injected’ their philosophy into existing parties both in the US and UK. They never founded their own mainstream parties because they never had to. (And I recognise the many male feminists within those parties). Put simply women organised as a voting bloc and made it difficult for parties to ignore the female vote.
We must do the same. We need to stop voting as black men or white, rich men pr poor and start to organise specifically male-oriented voting and policy forums. It’ll be difficult; look at Dominic Raab who is labelled ‘brave’ from some quarters and a ‘mosogynyst’ from others – all for speaking the truth – but this is about moral courage in the face of amorality.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Goody!
Let’s let this discussion slip into irrelevance by discussing UN policy decided 1000 miles away in anonymous backrooms…
…while 1 MILE AWAY you get reamed by your lady boss and the HR dept.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
Your comment must have been held up in modding. My UN/HR contrast was not directed at you.
As for your above comment, voting is only a delaying action for coercion. The ONLY groups that obtain justice are those that instill fear in ruling elites.
Perhaps in a homogeneous culture like the UK, alliances amongst diverse groups are easier. But, as the UK becomes Islamicized, that nation will become like the USA with antagonistic ethnic groups competing for dwindling resources.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
No problem Firepower, there’s probably three or four comments crossing each other at any one time here. And the worse thing is the browser on the mobile I’m using has real problems catching up at times.
As for the UK we’re already seeing the doctrine of ‘multiculturalism’ appearing in our politics. I doubt islamisation of the UK is imminent but who knows…
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
In theory, this is a good thing. On paper.
In practice, what you get in the end – after all the yapping – is a melting pot of special interests. You get America. You get America with all its fragmented disunity spiraling into a blithering talk fest where nothing gets done.
Getting races to unite behind a core issue would be as successful as getting genders to unite – like women on the side of MRM.
Not happening. Time has expired. The Titanic has sunk and it’s time to feel the icy waters.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
You in the UK can better understand us if you imagine a country drifting apart on racial fault lines – spurred on by racial hucksters looking to cash in on all that money and power. Toss in extra fragmentation based on gender and queerness issues.
Here, give free money to black welfare mommas and Mexican anchor babies – and the blacks and Mexicans hate whites for it. All, while demanding ever MORE money.
Imagine your country as it once was. Imagine how well the Normans got along with the Angles. How well did the Angles mesh with the Saxons, or the Vikings, or the Welsh or the Irish.
Here, the groups will always be separated by appearance and language. As England imports more Pakis etc, it will see similar discord.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
And after all that’s been said on this forum and elsewhere we have arrived back where we started. All that you’ve said points to everything we already knew about feminism: that it is a supremacist movement that is obsessed with power. And one way to gain power is to divide and conquer. Split the black man from the white, and even hetero from gay. And while men fight among themselves the ‘wimmin’ can sneak up from behind and nick all the power.
I personally think we need to go beyond nationality and race and cooperate with eachother rather than allow ourselves to be divided. We need a spirit of Brotherhood to counter the excesses of the Sistaz.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
So what’s your suggestion, Firepower?
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
As Archimedes said 2300 years ago, “That what gets measured, gets done”. And he was someone who really knew about getting screwed.
The teeth of Afirmative Action, Title IX, and all the other laws aimed at transfering wealth and power to politically favored groups is the government’s ability to collect data to see if there is a disperate impact. Colleges, employers, and even the government its self is able determine whether or not hiring and funds are distributed in proportion to the demographic population rather than in a meritocratic fashion. This is as close to a quota system as could be devised without expressely instituting them.
Men need to turn the tables. If it is discriminatory to apply benefits and jobs disproportionately to men or whites then it should be discriminatory to acess payment for those services in an unequal fashion. We should demand that our Federal Government explicitly keep records of who is paying taxes, who is receiving government benefits such as Social Secrurity, Medicare, and soon to be Health Care.
After all, we are a minority, arn’t we?
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
18
Never happen. Pie in The Sky never does.
Think what you want. Think happy thoughts even. If that were all it took, I think Brooklyn Decker should be dating me, and cooking 5 course meals – instead of her married to a Famous Athlete.
There’s how the world should be – and how it really is; I truly fear that recent generations have had fantasy instilled as reality by their Government Teachers.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Read accounts of successful movements. From Thomas Paine to Ho Chi Minh.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
hm.
Looks like The Thumbs-Down Mob around here is too stupid to read Ho.
Nevermind. I’m sure The Outrage! Action! Bulletin 2000 ™ will get things moving on the next 20 minute news cycle.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
{ 1 trackback }