|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the end this article spouts the conservative rant. Put women back in the 'kitchen'so to speak. Cut government spending and social programs. Etc.... Its more pro-family than men's issues. Even though I lean that way for the most part. I still felt insulted in many of the parts of the article.
The definition of manhood is : A wife beater, a kid psycho who shoots up his classmates, a man who avoids marriage, a man who has sex with out paying for it ( I almost rolled when I saw that), a manipulater, player, liar,.... You get the idea. Men are vengeful and enjoy seeing women grow old and lonely. Jesus.
My definition of manhood is quite different. Will these women ever act like adults and take responsibility for their actions? Because it seemed like this article still blamed men for most of the worlds problems. Which seemingly is the government has overspent on social programs.
But since its those social programs that have demonised men in the first place I won't be sad to see most of them go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geez, everybody is a victim in this writer's mind. I guess we're all just victimizing ourselves like nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yea we are. Actually women are.....you express yourself like a man.....men are generally amazed by how often and how readily women use the "victim excuse". I guess maybe it's progres that one woman is fed up with hearing about "victimization". Tell your Ya Ya sister's that were all just tired of hearing about poor victimized people..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are headed for judgment day. Ain't no denyin' that.
I disagree with a lot of what the author says. Homophobia for instance (revealed somewhat in the article) is a common hallmark of these over-the-top conservatives. The author does make some good points though.
"The men... know... that if they marry, there is a good chance that a divorce will come and blow everything away. A feminist judge or one sympathetic to the children will jail a father if he does not pay monies that the father may not have. Judges are "helping" women by going after men with savagery. Women who deny the father visitation rights are to be found all over the country, but they don't get jailed. Men have their revenge by watching women age. Our country gets lovelier every day."
That hammers the nail right smack dabby on the head. And considering how big and obvious that nail is, it's a wonder anyone ever misses it.
Whatever we do at this point, I'm afraid feminism may have already mortally wounded American society. Our society just hasn't collapsed yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I take exception to this from what I quoted above,
"Men have their revenge by watching women age."
Men aren't extracting any revenge. Men are refusing to allow themselves to be enslaved. And the Gonzo Kid is right (from another thread). The phlegmnists are in complete denial of the social phenomenon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know about not exacting revenge. It's a hard thing to look inside, a hard thing to admit to, and even harder to admit the implications.
I've seen this one woman on and off, never exclusively for about 8 years. When we met she was 32, and feeling the clock tick. She talked about it. I listened but didn't tell her I'd had a vasectomy. I guess she tried for about 4 years to get me to knock her up. She assumed because I had kids that I wasn't shooting blanks.
She only found out when I was moving some records to storage and found my vasectomy receipt from the Doctor. She hit the roof. Understandably, I guess, but.
Thing is, she never became a mother. She's in the change now, and honestly, I feel nothing in the way of sympathy for her. I don't feel guilty in the least for failing to mention anything to her; in a good part because it came out that she was deliberately "forgetting" (ahem) to take her pill, or put in her IUD.
Revenge? Well, I know damn good and well if she had gotten her hooks into me by getting knocked up, she'd have taken me to the cleaners. So, in no small part I feel a sense of satisfaction that while she was trying to sucker (And was being suckered by) me, I've prevented some other poor schmuck from being on the hook, and prevented some kid being brought up by a woman who is frankly unfit to be a mother.
I dunno Thomas. You tell me. There's an intellectual part of me that goes, "Man, Gonz. Cold Blooded." and then there's that other part of me that smirks, snorts, and says, "Serves the dumb slut right. Look what she was trying to do to me."
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dunno Thomas. You tell me. (About whether there's an element of revenge, when men refuse to enter committed relationships)
It was probably naive of me to think that there's no element of revenge. Being married for quite a few years (I got married before marriage became clearly a terrible idea for men), I can't know personally. However, given how horribly men and little boys have been treated for three and a half to four decades (the better part of two generations), it would be uncharacteristic of human nature if some men didn't want to extract some revenge.
So, perhaps the inclination (to avoid marriage) is at least two-fold. For one thing, men are waking up and protecting themselves by refusing to get into committed relationships. For another thing, men are in some cases and to some extent extracting revenge.
So it goes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This guy may think "revenge" is watching women age, but I prefer to just go for younger women and accentuate the positive; if I wanna see women age I'll watch "Golden Girls."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't have told her either; if she wants kids, she should either find someone who feels likewise, or else pay $50 at the sperm-bank like everyone else. Otherwise, consider it a free ride-- after all, you're just doing to her, what she's trying to do to you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday April 07, @02:33AM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
The Gonzo Kid (NibcpeteO@SyahPoo.AcomM) on Friday April 04, @03:35PM EST (#5)
(User #661 Info)
I don't know about not exacting revenge. It's a hard thing to look inside, a hard thing to admit to, and even harder to admit the
implications.
I've seen this one woman on and off, never exclusively for about 8 years. When we met she was 32, and feeling the clock tick. She
talked about it. I listened but didn't tell her I'd had a vasectomy. I guess she tried for about 4 years to get me to knock her up. She
assumed because I had kids that I wasn't shooting blanks.
She only found out when I was moving some records to storage and found my vasectomy receipt from the Doctor. She hit the roof.
Understandably, I guess, but.
Thing is, she never became a mother. She's in the change now, and honestly, I feel nothing in the way of sympathy for her. I don't feel
guilty in the least for failing to mention anything to her; in a good part because it came out that she was deliberately "forgetting"
(ahem) to take her pill, or put in her IUD.
Revenge? Well, I know damn good and well if she had gotten her hooks into me by getting knocked up, she'd have taken me to the
cleaners. So, in no small part I feel a sense of satisfaction that while she was trying to sucker (And was being suckered by) me, I've
prevented some other poor schmuck from being on the hook, and prevented some kid being brought up by a woman who is frankly
unfit to be a mother.
I dunno Thomas. You tell me. There's an intellectual part of me that goes, "Man, Gonz. Cold Blooded." and then there's that other
part of me that smirks, snorts, and says, "Serves the dumb slut right. Look what she was trying to do to me."
You did right for sure, unless you agreed or gave her to understand that you intended to impregnate her I don't see that she has anything to complain about. Did she ever tell you that she intended to become pregnant via your, uh, services? If she did so then you should probably have said something at that point, to keep a perfectly clean sheet.
cheers,
sd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Men have their revenge by watching women age."
Speaking for myself, I don't derive any pleasure from the thought of women being unable to realize dreams they may have of family. For my own part, I don't look forward to the thought of a lonely old age, and I would like to have children.
Even less pleasant than the thought of growing old alone, however, is the thought of seeing love dissolve in the morass of divorce (I've already been through one divorce, my parents', and I don't think I could go through that again). As far as children, I think that losing them as part of a marital breakup would probably kill me. Given the divorce rates today, my dreams of family will have to remain just that, dreams.
Feminism has created a situation where embarking on what was once the most fundamental task of human existence, mating and reproducing, has been imbued with risks equivalent to a swim in shark infested waters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men have their revenge by watching women age.
Hey, the men aren't around to watch the women age! He snuffs it while she goes on for another five or seven years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That hammers the nail right smack dabby on the head. And considering how big and obvious that nail is, it's a wonder anyone ever misses it.
It's like the elephant in the room that the liberal press knows to ignore if you want to ever work again: similar examples were FDR's wheelchair, Stalin's mass-murdering, JFK's grave illness, and Saddam's butchery.
What I don't understand is how people don't seem to realize (or care) how much this selective reporting skews public views, since the only thing that really separates from the Nazis-- or cavemen for that matter-- is what we derive from our culture via the media. We really ARE a culturally illiterate society!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look guys, the Republicans do the same damn things the Democrats do: they pander for votes. The bottom line is that there is ONE way to change all this, and that is to be vocal. The plain truth is that Dubya got into office on the backs of the men (more to the point, the white men). We need to let them know we're out here. The other thing you have to realize is that conservative women, while they respect men far better than feminazis, STILL want to be taken care of. That's not something that's likely to change. (And some of us conservative men have not-too-much problem with that.)
If you want to change the conservative agenda, you can, even if just slightly. You have to be vocal; write to them with reasoned responses. The more responses they get, the more they will listen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are problems with conservative women I see:
They have a rep for defining what is "manly" for example, do a search on this site for Peggy Noonan and Phylis Schafly and see how they define the nearest man. Hint: It involves dieing for what she believes is "manly" to be honest, this is no better than those rabid man haters.
I tell you what Frank, Ask them how far they'd go to re-empower the nearest man to do his thing, chances are, not very.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, adam, in my mind, right now, you got two (2) choices: Republicans or Democrats. There is no third party with any sort of clout, and might not be for some time. So if you want to have an impact, pick one and stick to it. I've picked (with eyes wide open) the Republicans. I hope it's not the wrong choice, but I guess we'll see.
And for the record, let me say this: there is NO WAY that men are going to get the kind of equality that folks here think we deserve without political action. That means that men's rights needs to be at the very top of your motivations when you head to the polls. For the liberals here: if, for any reason, you vote for the same party that the feminists are allied with, then you are part of the problem, not the solution. For those others who, for whatever reason, hate the conservatives, the likes of Peggy Noonan and Phyllis Schlafly are controlling the conservative agenda becasue YOU ARE LETTING THEM. The only reason they rule is because no men with a marketable agenda are speaking up. All the public hears from the men's movement is anger and vitriol, and frankly, they're not going to listen to it as long as it's delivered that way.
You have NO chance with the liberals, you have SOME with the conservatives. Put up or shut up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ugh, I had a feeling it would come to this.
Alright, let's prove optimists die hard. First off, Peggy Noonan:
"Here's what I'm trying to say: Once about 10 years ago there was a story--you might have read it in your local tabloid, or a supermarket tabloid like the National Enquirer--about an American man and woman who were on their honeymoon in Australia or New Zealand. They were swimming in the ocean, the water chest-high. From nowhere came a shark. The shark went straight for the woman, opened its jaws. Do you know what the man did? He punched the shark in the head. He punched it and punched it again. He did not do brilliant commentary on the shark, he did not share his sensitive feelings about the shark, he did not make wry observations about the shark, he punched the shark in the head. So the shark let go of his wife and went straight for him. And it killed him. The wife survived to tell the story of what her husband had done. He had tried to deck the shark. I told my friends: That's what a wonderful man is, a man who will try to deck the shark."
Oh look, she defines manly as dying for the nearest woman. The comments look interesting as well.
And now, Phyllis Schlafly:
"Of course, when you wipe out masculine men, you also eliminate gentlemen, the kind of men who would defend and protect a lady -- like the gentlemen who stepped aside so that, of the people who survived the sinking of the Titanic, 94 percent of those in first-class and 81 percent of those in second-class were women."
Can you spot the running trend yet? Frank, I hope you don't think I'm slamming you, But I just think you're walking into a position where you'll be forced to choose between six of one, and half a dozen of the other. Just watch your back ok?.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just like in the deserts of Iraq, no fight comes without risk. And it will be useless if I'm the only one involved. This needs every one of us. During the recent elections, I contacted the Forrester camp. I also asked representatives of local men's groups to come along. You know what? They declined. When I asked why, I got a bunch of handwaving about how their organizations were 501(c)3 and all that, but they wouldn't even go as individuals. The guys at the Forrester office were even willing to listen, although I can't say for sure what their response would have been. With all due respect to the well-meaning and passionate folks here, I see little in the way of collective action taking place.
I don't really give a shit about Noonan and Schlafly. Regardless of their political positions, they ought not to represent serious opposition. What we need to do is focus on an issue, take a collective positions and count our numbers, and start contacting legislators. For example, suppose the VAWA III was to be authorized next year (which, I think is due in 2005, not too far off). We would need to get behind some specific position, COUNT OUR NUMBERS, no matter how small we think they might be, and start hounding the authors. But we didn't do that on the last one and we're not likely to do it this time either. But we bellowed like hell when it passed, didn't we?
The central organization for the women's movement was NOW. It worked. It was nationwide and is was recognizable. The closest thing we have is NCFM. But not everybody likes their agenda. So what? Even if their agenda doesn't overlay yours exactly, you need to line up, especially when they tackle an issue where you agree with them.
We can come here and bellow and argue and ridicule the feminazis all we want but we're not gonna get anything done unless we can demonstrate some critical mass. We don't need the press; we have the Internet. What we need is to be able to amass a list of supporters that we can carry with us into the offices of Congressmen and legislators, but true to our male form, no one wants to link up. no one is willing to compromise on their agenda for the greater good. Jimmy Carter had an abyssmal Presidency. You know why? 'Cause he wouldn't compromise on anything. And in the end, he was able to accomplish nothing. And that's the road we're headed down right now, just because we don't like what a few conservative women are saying.
Why the hell are you listening to the conservative women, anyway? You know damn well they're brought up to be "taken care of." And why are you afraid of them? Listen to the conservative men. In fact, don't just listen, talk back. And tell them what you think about Peggy Noonan and Phyllis Schlafly. Speaking up here is nice because people agree with you more, but in the end, it's useless. It's preaching to the choir. Write to George Will and Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage and Sean Hannity, and write to your local newspaper. Many of these guys take a position that is heavily based on chivalry. They do it because of the conservative women in their audience. I say let them know that you're a regular listener (if, indeed, you are) but you find their position to be faulty. They won't change right away, but if enough men write in and bark at them, they'll come around at least to the point of having guys like Farrell and Angelucci and and Sacks and Allemano on once in awhile.
Adam, I not coming down on you either, but periodically I get weary of hearing the overwhelming dis-unity here. We're not going anywhere until we can get some people to come out and take a position. Together.
And if I thought I could get a serious advance on ONE issue, say VAWA or paternity fraud or education, I'd take six of one and half-a-dozen of the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday April 07, @02:45AM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
[post I generally agree with...]
Why the hell are you listening to the conservative women, anyway? You know damn well they're brought up to be "taken care of."
And why are you afraid of them? Listen to the conservative men. In fact, don't just listen, talk back. And tell them what you think
about Peggy Noonan and Phyllis Schlafly. Speaking up here is nice because people agree with you more, but in the end, it's useless.
It's preaching to the choir. Write to George Will and Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage and Sean Hannity, and write to your local
newspaper. Many of these guys take a position that is heavily based on chivalry. They do it because of the conservative women in
their audience.
This inspires me to propose a pair of new definitions for the devil's dictionary:
conservative man -- man who degrades his sex so as to ingratiate himself with conservative women;
liberal man -- man who degrades his sex so as to ingratiate himself with liberal women.
Cynical, I know.
sd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's important to dissect Noonan and Schlafly (for example) and determine where their support begins and ends. First, I suspect they DO NOT support a "men's movement" in any way shape or form. But, as exemplified by Noonan's writing immediately after 9/11/2001, it's clear that she does not regard men, machismo, masculinity, or testosterone as toxic. It's clear that she has some respect for the unique things that men bring to human existence. I suspect that if you explore Schlafly's writings you will find much the same thing.
Adam suggests that we ought to dismiss these women out of hand, and I suggest, above, that we ignore them. But it might be to our advantage not to do either. True, they support a model of masculine and feminine behavior that Adam and others here disagree with (myself not so much). But we can identify initiatives that they could be expected to be supportive of, regardless fo their motivation. For example, they might well be very supportive of initiatives directed at getting boys to read better. (Let's not lose sight of how really valuable that would be.) They MIGHT even be supportive of a paternity fraud initiative. And I think they would stand with us in a campaign to end (or at least reduce) misandry in the media. You might also find these women more supportive than you think if you take the approach to VAWA that says it needs more accountability to assure that discrimination against men is reduced. I suspect that you WILL get their support on a joint physical custody law. Such is the conservative female.
Go to a liberal woman and ask for any of these things and plan on getting a long list of reasons why women are still downtrodden and repressed by men, and plan on getting laughed out of the room.
Do not expect conservative women to support drafting women, especially if it means sending them into combat. (I concur with this for more than one reason, though I WOULD support drafting women for some mandatory, non-combat government service.) Also, do not expect conservative women to support C4M. And you probably won't get a lot of sympathy from them on the issue of equal sentencing in criminal cases.
So I think there is some measure of support to be gained from the Noonans and Schlaflys of the world, but only on specific initiatives. And I think there's apolitical exchange to be made that, while we might find distasteful, will be to our benefit and our credit in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam suggests that we ought to dismiss these women out of hand, and I suggest, above, that we ignore them. But it might be to our advantage not to do either.
True to an extent.
True, they support a model of masculine and feminine behavior that Adam and others here disagree with (myself not so much).
Can I ask why you don't disagree? You got my interest with that comment. I oppose the one way sacrifice they propose, for the simple reason that they don't hesistate telling the nearest man what to do, but offer nothing of equivalent value in return.
But we can identify initiatives that they could be expected to be supportive of, regardless fo their motivation.
Yeah, but it'll be limited. But like I said before, everybody's gotta start somewhere. What the hell, I'll run with it and see where it leads.
I guess they will help us if we're opposing the feminist agenda to a degree, but the instant we comprimise them (and it won't take much to do that) things could easily get brutal.
This chat has got me wondering, do conservatives, especially conservative women, oppose feminists because they give the nearest man ideas? I suspect that and the fact they don't want the nearest man charging for doing the things only he can do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"True, they support a model of masculine and feminine behavior that Adam and others here disagree with (myself not so much)."
Can I ask why you don't disagree?
To a large extent, I do believe that the traditional definition of male and female roles are valuable and that they will endure both the feminist and the masculinist movements. I don't agree with the Farrellists (not a libel, just a label) who (appear to) believe theat a woman should be as ready and willing to jump into harms way to protect her husband as her husband to protect her. I don't like what the industrial revolution has done to fatherhood, but I do believe that if it's recognized, then its detrimental effects can be offset. I believe that men and women ought to be treated equally by the law, but I don't think in all cases that this means that they should be treated identically. For example, drafting women for combat is just a dumb idea on the practical level. The British, Israeli, and American militaries have all demonstrated that women in combat are less capable as a matter of physiology. Now this means that men are far more likely to be sent into harms way in times of national conflict, and as a compensation there ought to be a recognition of this fact in other realms, for example, the award of advanced rank in the military, or the recognition of military service, especially in combat, as a qualifier for employment, post-comflict. In other words, I'm willing to make the sacrifice, but I believe I have a right to be recognized for it in tangible ways and a right to be respected for it when that can't or doesn't happen (for whatever reason).
So I'm a lot less offended by the likes of Noonan and Schlafly than perhaps you are, but I'm not naive enough to believe that they regard men as equals.
All this being said, I'm still as outraged as most here about the trashing of men in legal and social terms, and I want to see it change. I don;t think we're going to get very far in trying to roll up the whole agenda at once, but if we focus on a few key aspects, we get a victory, and out of that we get further allegiances and more public exposure. Let's face it: the media loves winners. A big win will gain us a lot more than what we set out for. Just so you know what I regard as a big win, let me give you two examples:
1) When VAWA comes up for reauthorization, we successfully have its name changed to something like the "Domestics Violence Reduction Act of 200x,"
2) We successfully use Title IX in federal court to get reading programs that are focused on boys, nationwide.
I mentioned in an earlier post that there were orgs that I contacted to try to get some mileage out of a NJ senatorial candidate. The men I contacted are all involved with fathers rights groups, and they've already compromised their position to include all non-custodial parents, meaning women. So in a way, they sold themselves down the river to get some mileage on their agenda. I suspect that they are focused in their agenda, and they don't want to offer any support to any other group if that means that they perceive risk. I was pretty annoyed, because I thought I had included their needs when I put together my notes for the meeting. But everybody's got blinders on; they won't offer any support, even moral support, even putting ther names on a membership list, unless it's their needs you're talking about exclusively.
I dunno. I'm rambling here. Time to get back to work, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now this is getting good :-D
To a large extent, I do believe that the traditional definition of male and female roles are valuable and that they will endure both the feminist and the masculinist movements.
Ah, but you've left out one crucial thing, Namely the impact of technology. Things such as the pill and abortion have changed things hugely, Imagine what'll happen when the men's pill and artifical wombs come along. The point is, I don't think it's possible (or practical) to have a 1950's mindset when we have year 2000 tech, Know what I mean?
I don't agree with the Farrellists (not a libel, just a label) who (appear to) believe theat a woman should be as ready and willing to jump into harms way to protect her husband as her husband to protect her.
Why the hell not? I've yet to see a woman come running to help in the punch-ups I've been in. I see no reason to do something for them that they'd not do for us. Y'know, Qui Pro Pro? Something for something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's where we must agree to disagree.
The pill has not really changed the build and brain biology of of men or women, though as Lionel Tiger points out in "The Decline of Males" the pill does seem to have some curious pheromonal effects that appear to effect the desirability of the women taking them. With regard to the pill, there has always been a means to avoid pregnancy, and abortion has alwys been an option. In fact RU486 is derived from a plant, the leaf of which women used to chew the day after sex to assure that a conceived embryo would fail to cling to the uterus. So I don't agree that things have changed "hugely." As far as a 1950's mindset, I can assure that my mindset is not stuck there. But I would point out to you that the constructs of what we regard as traditional male and female roles go back many thousands of years. Since they're so experienced, I see no reason to abandon them. I'm willing to (and have) adjusted to them, in many ways by adapting to industrialized society, but I believe that largely, they are still valuable, and in many ways, undeniable. After all, they're built upon a hundred thousand years or more of evolution. We couldn't undo them in a century and a half if we wanted to.
As far as expecting your girlfriend to stick up for you if you get into a fight, well, life isn't fair, Adam. Whether or not you have a 'right' to expect it, I don't know. Just don't ever expect it. I think you'll be sorely disappointed. The 'fight or flight' decision is one that men make far better than women as a matter of brain biology. So your girlfriend, should she choose to defend YOUR honor, is more likely to make a dumb decision and get her ass kicked than you are, even if she's a trained fighter. So even if etiquitte is adapted to make women defenders of men, it will be a more dangerous circumstance for them than for you and I.
I think each of ought to just declare victory about now and politely walk away from this discussion, because I think we're both pretty set on our positions, and neither of us is likely to change the others mind.
Peace?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I guess we can leave it there. But next time you'll fall before me!
*Shakes fist*
:-)
Hah, Good chat through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday April 05, @03:05PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I liked the article.
The interesting points in this article to me were: the media glorifying gay lifestyles and bashing traditional masculine/father roles; the fact that women have brought on their own problems in regard to their own fertility, yet they still blame men for it; and how the American male is totally disenfranchised in the institution of marriage ('false'abuse claims, divorce, forced alimony...uh.. I mean child support...) Every man knows (and some still manage to laugh about it) that a woman can destroy his life when a divorce occurs.
Marriage is dangerous for males, due to the manipulation of the institution mostly by LIBERAL left wing zealots a.k.a - feminists, and some chivalrous right-wingers who don't know what the consequences of their actions are.
As far as I'm concerned, the only way to fight the insanity is to vote republican, otherwise you will be supporting more government...which often means more anti-male money getting thrown around to moronic misandric feminist institutions.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
