Obama Writes off Men in Presidential Campaign (Romney Appears to do Same)

by W.F. Price on April 6, 2012

I think it’s unprecedented for a president to stake his position so heavily on the female vote, but demographics have changed over the last decade, and perhaps Obama’s strategists think a coalition of minorities and women is the solution for permanent victory. They may be correct, but it’s new ground, so we’ll see how it plays out. Unfortunately, Romney will likely do what he can to pander to women as well, in the false assumption that he has the white male vote locked up.

This is why we see the president once again inserting himself into an issue that really shouldn’t be any of his business, namely the Augusta golf club’s status as a men’s golf club. Romney agreed, of course. Obama spokesman Jay Carney said “we’re kind of long past the time when women should be excluded from anything.” This comes on the heels of a forum on Women and the Economy (not men, mind you), a few years after Obama’s creation of the White House Council on Women and Girls, and amidst rock solid Democratic support of the Violence Against Women Act.

So, as the federal government creates and supports a number of programs designed to benefit women exclusively, the candidates denounce a private men’s sports club, paid for by men – not taxpayers – and engaged in nothing more than walking around and knocking balls into holes. What an outrage that this club can continue to exist! How dare women not be allowed in so as to drink mimosas and attract attention from wealthy golfers. It’s one thing for women to have publicly funded organizations dedicated entirely to their benefit and power, but entirely another for men to have any clubs of their own whatsoever.

the shameless political pandering to women has gone so far that it really looks as though politicians have bought the entire “End of Men” spiel, and are willing to throw men under the bus, as though they are no longer necessary. These kinds of things don’t tend to end well, because although women’s political support certainly looks attractive from a democratically-elected politician’s perspective, when you disenfranchise men bad things tend to happen.

{ 54 comments… read them below or add one }

James April 6, 2012 at 10:46

Obama is the biggest fucking mangina ever. He is a disgrace to the male gender.

Anyway, BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN and simply avoid them and refuse to date, marry, or even talk to them, and once enough men start doing this, we will see these bitches have a total U-turn in attitude change. They will try to become submissive again so that men will be interested in them again, but by that time it will be too late. Men will have lost all respect for women and they will treat the women like total shit.

The future is VERY DARK for American and western women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 72 Thumb down 11
Rebel April 6, 2012 at 10:46

“These kinds of things don’t tend to end well, because although women’s political support certainly looks attractive from a democratically-elected politician’s perspective, when you disenfranchise men bad things tend to happen.”

Sorry, but I do not believe a single word of that.

On the contrary: the worst men are being treated, the better they seem to feel. No amount of unfair treatment will ever get men to wake up: they deep asleep. It’s a lost case.

No wonder men are discounted.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 28 Thumb down 17
Tom936 April 6, 2012 at 10:46

And this is what Feminists call “male power”. Obama’s nearly a Feminist. Romney’s not as bad, but clearly not on men’s side either.

But because they’re both men, it’s “male power” and “male privilege”, no matter how much they do for women and how much they do against their fellow men.

And then we’ll still have the retarded crowd saying “Look! Men in power! It’s Patriarchy! Stop oppressing women!”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 66 Thumb down 1
Geography Bee Finalist himself April 6, 2012 at 10:49

when you disenfranchise men bad things tend to happen.

As long as the bad things happen exclusively to feminists, who cares? They deserve all their misfortune. Real men, not white knights or manginas, need to be trained to blame feminists for all male misfortune.

(I realize the Libyan civil war was about removing Qadhafi but if Qadhafi was a mangina he got what was coming to him.)

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 4
Opus April 6, 2012 at 10:53

Your President, by appealing to the women voters is judging, I would expect, that they will vote for whoever promises them the most (particularily given that in a contest for most handsome contestant he will lose to chisel-jawed white-hunk Romney); whereas male voters tend to vote on bloody-minded principle. What greater proof can there be that granting women suffrage is a disaster.

As for Golf: It is a good walk ruined (unless accompanied by hot-totty).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 3
Ryu April 6, 2012 at 10:56

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 30
Stoltz April 6, 2012 at 11:14

Let’s not forget the CONSAD report released a few years back that was commissioned for the U.S. Dept. of Labor on Gender Wage Gap. Shortly after concluding their non-biased results which showed there WAS NOM/b> GENDER PAY GAP, the report was abruptly taken off the government web site. Of course, a few weeks later, President Obama was all giddy signing yet another useless piece of legislation (I can’t recall the name … Fair Pay Act?) to “help” women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 43 Thumb down 0
beta_plus April 6, 2012 at 11:18

Whiskey of Whiskeysplace has done an amazing job of calling this. It’s absolutely eerie how some of his old posts describe word for word what is now happening.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
Reality April 6, 2012 at 12:29

When Obama was first elected someone pointed out that Obama is not the first ‘black’ president- that was Clinton (as in he was so popular with blacks, and all of his ideas) No, Obama is the first WOMAN president. (First bisexual president as well).

As women are so incredibly focused on just female centric goals/interests/causes/financial support exclusively for women and have that part of their brain missing that is able to see the bigger picture, the over all good for the country, or any long term concerns, unfortunately I have to say they very well may get him re-elected. Except for the obvious hardcore older right wing females, I haven’t heard any women saying negative things about Obama- and I have to deal with female clients all day (I’m in a B2B business).

Women are just not intelligent enough to think their way out of a wet paper bag and have zero ability to think for themselves. That is why they are the ultimate conformists.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 59 Thumb down 3
akmaniak April 6, 2012 at 12:46

It’s interesting to note that the last two Democratic presidents were raised by single mothers. Clinton and Obama learned early that ‘If mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.” I wonder if the Democratic Party will ever again nominate a man who grew up with a father in the home.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 0
RhettOrician April 6, 2012 at 12:46

Because of their innate acquisitiveness and narcissism, women are on course to destroy the last bastions of Western Civilization. They are, I think, biologically incapable of exercising voting rights responsibly. Instead, they are driven by their biology to vote for ever larger, ever more intrusive, ever more confiscatory welfare states. Giving women the right to vote was the death blow for western democracies. It’s just taking time for them to finish the destruction.

This election may be the turning point in the US. If women put Obama back in power, he will permanently cement America’s path toward that of Europe or Sweden: stagnating, totalitarian welfare states overseen by women for the exclusive benefit of their daughters. That is what Matriarchy looks like. At that point, about all that good men can do is search for places to ride out the decline of America. Some might escape to other countries, but most probably won’t.

Ultimately, of course, Matriarchal cultures are self-destructive: they can’t harness the creative fire of their male populations; they can’t control run-away spending on welfare programs; they can’t muster up men willing to fight for them; and eventually, they become mere shadows of what they were, or more aggressive cultures and religions take over entirely.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 67 Thumb down 2
Szebran April 6, 2012 at 13:28

I agree with this. Thats why for any political office, don’t bother worrying about the candidate’s party affiliation. Instead worry about feminist affiliation. Any candidate openly endorsing feminism, I automatically vote for their opponent.
Unfortunately for this presidential race, they are both pandering to feminism so they can both go to hell. Whoever gets elected will NOT be a representative of men. They will be strictly a women’s president.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 1
Annonymous April 6, 2012 at 13:55

The thing is men, we’re all a silent majority of closet manginas and dejected white knights.

It cannot have gotten so much so, without actually and really being so.

I’m sorry saying it, mind you.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1
dragnet April 6, 2012 at 13:58

@ Ryu

Obama has two daughters.

Though I’m guessing it will shock no one that the WN doesn’t read much…

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 18
Anti Idiocy April 6, 2012 at 14:00

Men have the right to have times and places when and where they can get away from women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 0
Rod April 6, 2012 at 14:20

So, women are demanding to be admitted to the Augusta club? Are there no women’s golf tournaments? Are they not free to create their own private clubs if they wish? Why is it that, whenever three or more men gather together, women immediately want to break it up? And yet these same women will insist on their female-only space. Such brazen hypocrisy. I wasn’t surprised to hear Obama’s opinion, since he always feels he has to weigh in on everything that takes place in the country, but it was disheartening to hear both Romney and Santorum offer their superfluous opinions.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 37 Thumb down 1
Bizzman662 April 6, 2012 at 14:22

Obama met with N.O.W. at the White House in his first year and a half MORE than ANY OTHER group.

Josephine Biden is a fucking sellout and I hope his wife decides to divorce him one day and while doing so calls the cops and says “I’m Afraid”…….let’s see that motherfucker deal with a little VAWA.

Called VAWA his greatest accomplishment…….only a man named JOSEPHINE would say some shit like that. FUCKING SELLOUT.

Fuck these bitches thinking they can make Augusta allow them membership……you don’t see me going to N.O.W. meetings demanding to be a member.

So this is what Obama said today: Obama also touted that women will have greater access to preventive care like “domestic violence screening”

WTF is Domestic Violence Screening?

Does that mean that domestic violence is morphing into a “minority report” style of law that will now start to label men as abusers once her “preventive screening” is completed?

I can see the doctors visit now:

He looked at me with “Angry Eyes” last night Doctor……..

ANGRY EYES! ANGRY EYES! We best call the police right now and let them know about his angry eyes…….you do know that’s domestic violence and as your doctor, I must call the police to put a stop to this abuse………..

WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING AROUND HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 57 Thumb down 0
NWOslave April 6, 2012 at 14:53

@Bizzman662

Your take on “domestic violence screening” would be hilarity incarnate if it wasn’t true. That’s already the training used in determining whose at fault in a DV dispute. The one who can act afraid, hysterical, talk non-stop and turn on the waterworks in the presence of the authorities is the victim. I wonder whose got that little maneuver down pat?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 0
keyster April 6, 2012 at 15:24

Obama is keeping Romney and the Republicans on the defensive
This is Alinsky style tactics.
He forces them to have to respond, keeping them distracted and off balance.
They (Paul Ryan) propose a budget and they “Critical Theory” it to death, without proposing any solutions themselves.

Romney should have responded by saying Augusta National is a private entity that’s entitled to admit whomever it wants. And then counter-balanced the “war on women” narrative by saying “more women are unemployed under Obama than they were 4 years ago”.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/04/republicans-women-gender-gap-economy/1

Democrats set the class-warfare, culture war/gender war traps – – and Republicans fall for it every time. Suffice to say this election is ALL ABOUT WOMEN! Should be interesting for us raconteurs here.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
Jim R. April 6, 2012 at 16:07

While I do believe there will be a male revolt, sadly I don’t foresee that happening anytime soon, in fact most of us will be dead before that comes to light and believe me I truly hope fate proves me wrong on that comment. Contrary to popular belief, men are very slow to anger but once the fire is lit up our asses, woe to the cause of it. It’s just a vicious cycle if one looks at history, many have to perish before anyone takes notice.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
Lovekraft April 6, 2012 at 16:47

Obama is a complete and utter failure.

As for Romney, his role will be to ease the demise, and any expectation that he will be able to reverse the course of excessive regulation and moral decay is folly. He is the latest face of the right and an empty suit.

As far as giving feminists another opportunity to dilute male-only spaces, girlwriteswhat over at youtube has some excellent insight on this matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlvMAS_20K4

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
gateman April 6, 2012 at 17:16

When they close down all women-only gyms they can go after Augusta.
Until then, fuck off.
http://americanwomanfitness.com

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 0
bruno April 6, 2012 at 17:53

Peter Schiff is not an MRA, but he calls “free birth control for women” exactly what it is: Obama is buying the female vote by giving them things for free: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U73xKgbXh68

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
AAvictim April 6, 2012 at 18:37

Why do you think Ron Paul doesn’t do well with Women…it is because he doesn’t pander to them.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
James April 6, 2012 at 19:03

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 39
Anonymous age 69 April 6, 2012 at 19:10

This is not the first time the name Josephus has been mentioned to you, but you happily ignore it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
ecnayonnA April 6, 2012 at 19:31

if women are so equal to men, why do we separate them in our sports for? let the women compete in the 100 meter dash. lets look at the tables from wikipedia…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres

oh dear, the women still havent broken the 10 second mark. i know. lets try motor racing and see where the highest lady stands for that since its less physical…

http://www.nascar.com/drivers/list/cup/dps/

thats not very good either. oh dear.

if there where both women only gyms and men only gyms i would be fine with this sort of thing. same with clubs and so forth. but when they keep getting their women only sports clubs and invading the mens only clubs. i get really annoyed.

if i really was a privileged white man i would be able to walk into a women only gym and demand they set up a section i can work out in, not get asked to leave the premises with the threat of a call to police to back them up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Buck Swamp April 6, 2012 at 19:57

If Obama gets 95% of the black vote, 65% of the Hispanic vote, 55% of white women, and 45% of white men, by my calculation he will end up with about 55%, which is better than the 53% he got in 2008.

By my calculation, Romney will have to get 50% of white women and 60% of white men to win the popular vote, and that’s assuming that the white turnout is higher than non-white.

The Electoral College is a little more promising for Republicans, but if I were betting, I think I’d go with Barack Hussein.

Either way, men are screwed.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
keyster April 6, 2012 at 20:43

“The Electoral College is a little more promising for Republicans, but if I were betting, I think I’d go with Barack Hussein.”

The election has already been decided except for Florida, Virginia and Ohio. Romney has to win two of those states. Break it down even further by county and this entire election comes down to Independent women in a few purple counties in each one of those states.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
MKP April 6, 2012 at 22:02

@ Keyster

” The election has already been decided except for Florida, Virginia and Ohio. Romney has to win two of those states.”

Oh, I wouldn’t be so sure about that. What’s your feeling on PA? Which side has that one in the bag?

Not that it even really matter who wins PA or even who wins this election … just, you know, making conversation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Nemo April 6, 2012 at 23:03

PA is a “blue” state because of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, which gives the Democrats a big edge in registered voters.

There are some smaller cities (Erie, Harrisburg, etc.) that are also Democratic.

The rest of the state is gun-toting solid Republicans.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Murray April 6, 2012 at 23:10

Fuck golfers. Fuck them. Get onto google maps, and just see in any major city how much goddamn land is given over to the scars on the landscape.

As for Josephus, surely you are not referring to that well-known forgery inserted into his histories by Bishop Eusebius? It’s been debunked a million times, Mr Anonymous Age 69, but you happily ignore it.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 15
fondueguy April 7, 2012 at 01:40

” But because they’re both men, it’s “male power” and “male privilege”, no matter how much they do for women and how much they do against their fellow men.”

That’s simple to argue. They’re in a male heirarchy and got those high positions by stepping on other men. The men at the top are defined embody male competition, not brotherhood.

You don’t sacrifice millions of your brothers in war, you sacrifice other men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
fondueguy April 7, 2012 at 01:44

Why ignore men? Aren’t men the reason republicans got much more power two years ago?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Kyo April 7, 2012 at 05:27

Romney should have responded by saying Augusta National is a private entity that’s entitled to admit whomever it wants.

He needs to flip this around: “If a private entity is no longer allowed to be single-sex, what will happen to the many women’s clubs in this country? They’ll all be gone!”

That’s the kind of thing that will get even the feminists to leave Augusta alone. Everybody knows that the law is only really applied in one direction, but on the surface the genders are equal, so hammer home the idea of women-only spaces all disappearing.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
Jim April 7, 2012 at 07:02

Kyo

Exactly!

There has to be thousands of women only health clubs.

Not to mention the white house council for women and girls….even though 60% of all college entrants are female.

If you listen to tv news all you hear all day and night is….

women
women
women
women
women
women

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
keyster April 7, 2012 at 08:33

@MKP
“Oh, I wouldn’t be so sure about that. What’s your feeling on PA? Which side has that one in the bag?”

You have to literally break it down by county. The Philadelphia area and surrounding suburban areas are very blue. PA has been leaning left the last 20 years, except for those that “cling to their guns and Bibles” in the hinterlands.

“Not that it even really matter who wins PA or even who wins this election … just, you know, making conversation.”

Agreed. It’s not as if Romney and a Republican controlled Congress will be a panacea that will spontaneously fall on their swords and enact a plethora of austerity measures, which is what’s needed. But at least it’ll restore confidence (predictability) in the business community again, that there won’t be “unforseen” regulations and laws. Big Business is waiting for the outcome of this election, before they do any expanding.

If Romney becomes president will he abolish the “President’s Council on Women and Girls”? That’s the question.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
universe April 7, 2012 at 10:04

Great post.
Good ideas and expression. Keep writing Mr. Price.

It never ceases to amaze me how people, known by their alleged intellect and lofty positioning, continue overlooking the plain obvious that seems to be part of regular contemporary public discourse.
The obvious as expressed well by the lead post on this thread.
The obvious in the form of massive public funding of many dubious yet never factually proven female related issues while simultaneously excluding the recognition of and funding for valid men’s concerns and all done while an under the influence of a poorly realized ideal of parity which become the alleged social order of the day.
Meanwhile, those funded by public support to pursue exclusive public benefits to themselves hatefully strive to influence the affairs of privately funded matters and individuals, and fail to see the difference.

This female worship just cannot be explained away only with terms as solipsist stupidity, narcissism, whiteknightery, mangina-ism, or equality. In an overview the order of magnitude with what occurs today in the public realm lies in such realms of macro politics and finance (want of control and cheap labour). Such as it has always been.

How it continues or not lies within the individual power each of us has toward and over the perpetuation or demise of this unnatural social conditioning. We need more gusts of wind to blow down this house of cards led and followed by direct demonstrations of query and challenge.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer April 7, 2012 at 10:08

The Criminal Tracker App Is Here

Elmer knows a thing or two about “computers” :

Fascinating “app”, that Criminal Tracker, in how it empowers women.

It will get more interesting as it shows white feminists, in that self-emergent, funny, almost child-like way computer programs have of doing, the true face of criminality minus the “diversity filter” that seems to cloud their perception on just about every demographic phenomenality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
woggy April 7, 2012 at 15:59

Lately, feminists have been tossing the word “chattel” around with irritating regularity- speaking in derisive accusation, with regard to the awkward (political) misstep of the Republicans and wimmens birth control entitlements.
What makes me shake my head, concerning their use of the word “chattel” is this:
Back in the days of alpha men having literal harems, their chattel could be counted upon to provide sexual favors on demand. Whatever “demeaning” (say feminists) favors demanded were borne by the individual women.

Alpha men having literal harems doesn’t seem too common these days, but women have returned to acting like chattel, where they are expected to perform political favors for alpha men who remain (at least in the public eye) faithful to their own fat wives.

A feminist woman may feel “empowered” to only sleep with her husband, should she so choose, but she’s reliably screwing him royally on behalf of political alphas who KNOW they can depend on her simultaneous selfishness and stupidity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
The Caliph April 7, 2012 at 17:43

I’m surprised we haven’t seen more push to allow women into Freemasonry.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
SMC April 8, 2012 at 03:42

“WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING AROUND HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

—–
democracy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
SMC April 8, 2012 at 03:44

Re augusta

America is already gone.

The sooner the insulated privileged see that the better.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Attila April 8, 2012 at 09:26

Let this cuntry collapse — it seems to be going that way anyway so Ride The Tiger!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
ahamkara April 9, 2012 at 04:51

I haven’t seen anything that would make me vote for either of these guys, or anyone who’s running at any level for that matter. Both the major parties seem unable to control spending or get a handle on the economy, and nobody would dare mention men’s rights. Maybe I’ll write some people in. Any suggestions?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Anonymous April 9, 2012 at 09:10

Romney really needs to state openly what Obama is trying to do and try to solidify the white male vote for himself. Democrats have never won with less than 40% of the white male vote. Romney will probably need 75% of white males to beat the incumbent who is buying the white female vote.

The problem for MRAs is that it isn’t possible to run a truly pro-male campaign openly and get a majority of the total vote. Still, I strongly doubt that Romney would completely throw us under the bus. He, like most Republicans, wants to be the President of the entire country instead of part of the country. The best way for men’s rights to be advanced through politics is to elect strong fiscal conservatives. Support for a genuine free market is incompatible with feminism, as feminism depends on government privilege. Eventually, fiscal conservatives will be drawn, by the logic of their positions, to oppose feminist privilege.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
fire April 9, 2012 at 10:41

Reality April 6, 2012 at 12:29

When Obama was first elected someone pointed out that Obama is not the first ‘black’ president- that was Clinton (as in he was so popular with blacks, and all of his ideas) No, Obama is the first WOMAN president. (First bisexual president as well).

As women are so incredibly focused on just female centric goals/interests/causes/financial support exclusively for women and have that part of their brain missing that is able to see the bigger picture, the over all good for the country, or any long term concerns, unfortunately I have to say they very well may get him re-elected. Except for the obvious hardcore older right wing females, I haven’t heard any women saying negative things about Obama- and I have to deal with female clients all day (I’m in a B2B business).

Women are just not intelligent enough to think their way out of a wet paper bag and have zero ability to think for themselves. That is why they are the ultimate conformists
………………………………..

hey buddy,,,, your going a bit too far….. when fighting sexism, lets not become sexist too.

most women can manage to find there way outa a wet paper pag……. yes men are smarter then women….. but there is no need to go THAT far.

and to say that women cant think for them slves in any way shape or from is going too far also.

there have been times that i have been suprised and greatful for non sexist women comming to defense of men and shaming sexist women for there femminist views.

if you said “most women have zero abbbility to think for them selves”…. even that would be an overstament……but to say all of them are like that is going too far.

what about chisty o misty on youtube?….. clearly she can think for her self.

i have a tednecy to say extream things my self….. some times as a test…..sometimes to just get people used to hereing negitive things about women for what may be the first time in there lives.

but i still think we need to be a bit more logical when we say negitive things about girls.

“women have zero abbility to think for themn selves” <—– is this really true?….. i dont think it is…. i think its going to far.

sometimes i say over the top things my self….. out of exictement or anooyence, or a test to check for reactions, or to alter others tolerence for negitive things about women to pave the way to changing our country to give men eqaul rights.

but still…. lets not go overboard…… im sure most women can find there way outa wet paper bag….. knowing girls they would cry and thrash around untill the bag ripped and problem solved. =)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5
joeb April 9, 2012 at 14:03

1850 Slave Laws . -VS 1993 Male slavery act
Take the Slaves horse so he can’t escape-1993 Take the Drivers license .
Debtors Prison – 1993 Exceptions for IRS and CSA .
Property seizure for Slave owners as compensation for the act of trying to escape Slavery . 1993 property seizure.
All these laws where put in place from chickens to road taxes to squeeze the Slave back into Slavery , But , If you Thoroughly look at the Old laws you will see they all come down to Building a monopoly on Labor .
HHS is just Building a Monopoly on Slave Labor witch will come throw Poverty brought on Buy Corrupt Family Courts /Breaking the family This is always been the Goal of the Government.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Masculist Man April 10, 2012 at 19:22

And this is what Feminists call “male power”. Obama’s nearly a Feminist. Romney’s not as bad, but clearly not on men’s side either.

That is why I support Ron Paul. In fact it would be in all of our interests to support Ron Paul.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Masculist Man April 10, 2012 at 19:44

While I do believe there will be a male revolt,

I’ve been hearing that for close to 20 years now and perhaps there are small individual blips but nothing like a sea of men storming the gates. The only other cases that I’ve heard longer were stories of armaggedon. I’ve been hearing “end of the world” stories for the last 32 years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Masculist Man April 10, 2012 at 19:50

Why do you think Ron Paul doesn’t do well with Women…it is because he doesn’t pander to them.

If Romney and Santorum are going to sell us out then we support either Gingrich or Paul.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Masculist Man April 10, 2012 at 20:05

He needs to flip this around

Romney is a flip flop artist so it should be easy for him.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Iguana April 11, 2012 at 22:38

Well, at least we know what the true motive is of women wanting to get into that golf club full of rich guys. They are hoping to snag one, marry him, have a few kids, then divorce him and become rich themselves.

Of course, there are the club membership fees to content with. But they haven’t figured that part out yet.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Matt April 25, 2012 at 02:32

I don’t believe Jesus was the son of God, but he WAS NOT and IS NOT a mangina!

Mangina’s do not turn the other cheek, they bite back with passive aggression, shaming language, and shunning.

Turning the other cheek, being stoic, a master of your temper, and taking it because you are tough enough is about as manly as you can get.

Jesus was not one to just roll over and get assfucked though, if he felt righteous, he’d take action, such as when he threw the traders out of temple. You know when a dude as chill as he gets mad, it’s not out of insecurity, it’s justified.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: