|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:43 PM April 12th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
The class was debating the merits of a required period of national service for men, lasting at least two years. The women saw the benefits of such a program, not so much for the nation as for themselves.
Well, well isn't that wonderful. Why not make the men break stones for a year, so that they'll develop more muscles and be more useful, if not for the nation, then at least for women.
Or how about permanently attaching yokes to their necks, so that they can more conveniently be hitched up to women's wagons? A few weeks of whipping might also help to break their spirit and make them more docile and manageable for women.
What total cowshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't stand this sort of drivel. Oh poor women. Notice how women cope with stresses is the major focus of the article. And of course women cannot be held accountable for choosing to be party girls and screwing lots of guys, it is all the fault of someone else.
I guess they think women are too stupid to think for themselves.
Pretty ironic that while the feminists go on and on about how badly women are treated it is they themselves who treat women with the most contempt.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty ironic that while the feminists go on and on about how badly women are treated it is they themselves who treat women with the most contempt.
Like I say above, I think you're right about the feminists, Jen. However, I suspect that the Mister Man, who wrote this article, is, in some ways at least, a conservative. This is suggested by his statement, "today, many young women are suffering from the aftermath of the sexual revolution and the extreme demands of the radical feminist agenda." (Always the helpless victim.)
While it's clear to many of us that conservatives are little if any more supportive of men than liberals, it sometimes becomes clear that conservatives are also as fundamentally contemptuous of women as liberals are.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:16 PM April 13th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I had to laugh at the part where it says; "men no longer know how to be men or gentelmen".
Of course there is no mention of how women, generaly, these days don't know how to be women. And I can't remember the last time I met a "LADY".
They also fail to mention that alot of young men's "barbarous" behavior twards women and girls is freaquently a result of the ATTITUDE that these females have towards males, as a whole. Most males are soarly aware of the contempt that today's females have towards them. This "barbarism" is a DIRECT reaction, concious or un-concious to that attitude.
There is no mention that men have to deal with male-bashing 24-7. That men have to deal with women who constantly find fault in them and are never satisfied with who or what a man is or who men are as a whole. Women CONSTANTLY verbalize how much they "hate men".
Obviously the author of this article beleives that all this exsists in a vacuum. Sorry, it does NOT! Today's woman is "reaping what she and the feminists have sowen.
You can't plant crab grass seeds, then complain when daisies don't grow, ladies.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:10 PM April 13th, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
'I had to laugh at the part where it says; "men no longer know how to be men or gentelmen".'
I wish I could do the same --- I had to stop reading after a few paragraphs of this guy's unadulterated hatred, because I was starting to feel nauseous. I genuinely cannot understand how someone - particularly a man - can live under the belief that men are supposed to be just these great little gizmos that make women's lives that much easier. And then he complains when they stop wanting to risk their lives for the convenience of women --- it's as if they've got minds of their own...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminist and traditionalist are just two sides of the same coin.
For feminist males are just slaves, for "DEGENERATED" traditionalist men must accept their traditional obligations without their respective priviledges associated with them.
I call them "DEGENERATED" or "FAKE" traditionalist becouse they only demand men to play their traditional role not women.
(They expect men to provide for women but not women to serve men, they force men to support children while they don,t give men custody of their offspring no even reproduction rights, they want only men to fight wars, but not men only right to vote, etc, etc, etc).
AN INMUTABLE LAW :
"For a group of people to have rights without obligations there must be different group that has obligations without rights, those are called SLAVES."
For women to have money without having to work for it, men must be forced to work without pay, (child support, alimony, taxes), for each woman being allowed to have the right to rise a child on their own without a corresponding alternative for men, ( a lesbian or an heterosexual getting pregnant using a sperm bank for example), a man must face a childless destiny, for women to have children , (custody),without the obligation to support them, men must be forced to support children they do not have the right to rise .......
Men are third class citizens in the west.
A couples of related thoughts:
The Feminist Claim : ‘Women are totally fed up with men, that’s why 75% of divorces are initiated by women’.
Response : Lets now revisit the feminist accusation that men have a ‘fear of commitment’.
75% of divorces are indeed initiated by women; but this does not reflect a problem with men - it reflects a problem with women. Women are simply not prepared to stay committed. Women are not prepared to invest the necessary hard work to make a marriage work. Modern women expect a relationship to just happen magically. When it becomes difficult they just give up. The whole ‘fear of commitment’ accusation against men is a massive projection on to us of their own fear of commitment. How dare they lecture us on ‘commitment’ !
Men pay the lions share of taxes (1/3 of women mother full-time and make no tax contribution; 1/3 of women work only part-time and therefore make insignificant tax contributions; only 1/3 work full-time. Therefore only 1/3 of women contribute anything of significance to the tax pot.)
Contrast this with men. 90% of men who work, work full time. The vast majority of men contribute significantly to the tax pot.
The taxpayer is male. All these so-called ’Independent’ women have done, is to substitute a visible male provider, with an invisible male provider.
Men as taxpayers, are substitute husbands. The feminists cry for ‘society’ to support divorced and single mums could better be translated as ‘the male taxpayer must support them. ‘When a woman is provided for by one visible man - she has some responsibility to him (in theory at least). When a woman is provided for by a huge number of invisible men, she has no responsibility to any of them, not even for the kind of citizens her child become. What state-dependant women need, is not more hand-outs from the male taxpayer, but a demand that they become accountable.
Sumarizing men are considered :
SLAVE LABOR, CANNON FODDER , PRISION FODDER, AND SPERM PROVIDERS, both feminist and traditionalist want men to accept that as their destiny but they know that this is only viable as long as the vast mayority of men buy this voluntarily and coercion is used only on a minority thats why they use all kind of propaganda and shame to hook western men to their rotten destinies.
But fortunately their greed knows no limits, the status of men has deteriorated so much that even the most brainwashed male is awakening, lees and less men are willing to accept to support a female parasite or their bastard offspring, and payingb taxes for a goverment that treats men like scum.
In a society were black people will pay most of the taxes and whites get almost all the benefits from the State, blacks will not be very willing to support that racist goverment that treats them like underclass, well, IN THE WEST MEN ARE THE BLACKS AND WOMEN THE WHITES, (men the jews and women the nazis, whatever do you prefer).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:21 PM April 14th, 2004 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Just want to say I agree 100% with everything in this post.
Hotspur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with most everything also. "Traditionalist" men frankly are just too p***y-whipped to stand up and demand that women accept their traditional responsibilities. They even insist men are mainly to blame for abortion!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think traditionalist are that in the bottom, just they don´t dare to demand that women be forced to play their traditional role, but by not doing that while demanding loudly the coercion of men into their role, they become worst than the feminsts.
I find traditional countries,(islamic ones for expample,) coherent, i am equalitarian though, and western traditionalist, mostly christians,
pathetic and nauseating.
All my family is catholic, i have been educated in Jesuites schools, and i have reached a point where i believe chistianity has become a feminist religion,(at least in Europe), i mean always preaching traditional values, traditional obligations, traditional role for men, but regarding the role of women, they want to look, you know, "modern", so even if they really think they also should play their traditional role, they do not dare to tell.
So two groups aparrently very different traditionalist and feminsit have the same effect, that is the degradation of the western men status.
Take care!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glad to Know.
Take care!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You hit the nail on the head TC.
Either women are openly hostile to men, or they are nice to us but consider us inadequate to meet their lofty demands for the perfect life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:02 PM April 12th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
"What total cowshit". Perfect description of the articles. Imagine telling women they should revert to 1950's ladylike behaviour with all it's constraints and obligations! "Bullshit"!, they would roar. Women want "real men", the article tells us. Big deal. Men want real women, but I don't think women are going to oblige us.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not just cowshit, it's pompous boring cowshit.
Yeah and maybe women should be required to enter two years of listening exercises, emotional and fiscal discipline training, and weight management to benefit us real men after we get out of our compulsory military service.
If only we could be real men,... like who? Like the author!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found while reading both articles that I started thinking "Yada Yada Yada", "Blah Blah Blah".
BTW I believe that I would be catagorized as a wimpy barbarian. Always nice to put people in containers that don't fit them.
Not just cowshit, it's pompous boring cowshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do have to add that at the same time as letting women off the hook, he fails to notice that men have the same problems. How does a man go about finding a decent woman? Men go out, pay for everything, and maybe get a one night stand or a phone number. Every date is playing with fire unless you are with other people 100%, as she could change her story on a whim. Also, even if you do get a girl to be serious and marry, there is over a 50% chance of losing it all. Men may have different symptoms, but they too have been pretty much hosed by the feminists.
All the way around I get pissed at this crap people call journalism.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:53 PM April 13th, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Men are fairly easy to please and low maintanence. We women are the ones who are being difficult.
Jinx.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....... there is over a 50% chance of losing it all. "
And of the remaining 50% how many will be moderately happy and how many just supporting a parasite? lets be honest, even if the laws were changed tomorrow, even if the islamic laws will rule next monday, western women are not good prospect wives, western females have been rised to hate men, to use men , to profit from men without doing anything in return.
Even if the law will require them to do it, they will do it with dislike, marriage is an exchange between men and women, is symbiotic relationship, not a parasitical one, is a relationship that exist in traditional societies.
In the west does not exist the legal framework, does not exist the appropiate values, and ofcourse it does not exist the appropiate women, (exception from the rule apart obviously).
One can not find penguins in the Shara dessert, they are not rare, they are not hard to see, but one must go to the appropiate place, the South Pole, there one can find millions of penguins, they are penguins, they have been rised to be penguins and like to be penguins. We can change every thing , we can bring ice to the dessert yet the hyaenas will keep beeing hyaenas.
However TCHAN! TCHAN! Penguins migrate, yep! Surprisingly feminist societies, (where children are used to turn men into a more deep and humilliating type of slavery, steal their wages further more, looting their properties, their savings and even inprision them), do not have enough children, and are dying out, bummer!!!.
Ofcourse western european women do not want to lose their "HARD" gained benefits so they alllow the goverment to bring healthy young tax payers from north Africa, there they have an awesome surplus of children, (i wonder why, could it be becouse men are allowed to rise their children, could it be becouse there is not child slave tax, read child support, could it be becouse ........ mmmmmm , no sure not!! lol), so they come, work and pay taxes but......................................
SURPRISE, SURPRISE they bring their values with them, So the Islam is on the rise, while churches are getting empty, new mosquites are built every day, while is hard to find men in churches, the mosquites are packed of them.
Muslims do not respect the priviledges of women, like the priviledge of abortion, (just the women choice, thus priviledge not right), not to mention child kidnapping, (stealing children from their fathers), or wage plundering, (alimony, child support), property looting, (marital assets) and so on, so on.
One day western women will ask men for help, this day ......... they will find me in the Mosquite next corner.
PS: I am not muslim but really find comfort knowing that one way or the other feminits days are numbered, i really don give a S..T, if this is reached changing the laws and giving men and women same rights and same obligations or just being overwhelmed by nonwestern cultures were men are not considered scum.
Extrangelly i do not find disturbing at all the fact that islam consider that children belong to their fathers, they say, they are the fruit of their seed and women just the soil where it was planted, then follows children belong to their fathers, not to women, not to the collectivist state, but the father.(no fathers in the west just sperm-providers-child-suport-slaves)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it most unfortunate that Terrence O. Moore despises his own gender so much that he believes men are put on this earth solely to please women. How nice it is that so many women believe men should be required to serve in the military for at least two years, not only to serve their country, but then later to serve women, specifically, later.
I have a number of news flashes for Mr. Moore:
--Not every male out there is a lascivious ogre fixated on sex. Many of us do not pursue sex with females, not only out of respect for THEM but also because we respect OURSELVES. His idea that men are horny animals and it is the responsibility of women to say "no" to them does nothing but demean both genders.
--Women who wish to be "wooed" ought to try "wooing" men every once in a while. Believe it or not, men and boys also wish to feel like they are special, like they are appreciated, like they are loved. Women should hold the door for men just as men hold the door for women. Forget chivalry, which is sexist to both men and women. Let's just have some common courtesy. The fact that this idea is considered controversial speaks volumes on how entrenched we are in ridiculous gender roles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Women should hold the door for men just as men hold the door for women. Forget chivalry, which is sexist to both men and women. Let's just have some common courtesy. The fact that this idea is considered controversial speaks volumes on how entrenched we are in ridiculous gender roles."
The notion that gender roles are sexist is far from controversial in fact thats the very posture that defines feminism, political correctness and increasingly a society thats held hostage by its inability to publicly question this notion.Its the pressure to deny reality placed on us by feminism and society that has caused the insanity of our current political climate not the gender roles themselves.
I am also surprised by this mantra of "chivalry is the problem" that seems to building within the mens movement because each time i see it used its either chivalry is sexist which is precisely how feminists describe it or its described as the action of judges or politicians when they assume a hypocritical posture in the enacting of legislation or in the application of laws.Sending a man to prison without evidence on the mere say so of a women is not chivalry,writing legislation that allows the courts to behave in this way is not chivalry either.Setting up a court structure that allows women in divorce proceedings to take all a man has and deny him access to his children is also not a chivalrous act.These are feminists acts fuelled by the logic of fascism, which in and of itself is merely a means of control and a guarantee that the control achieved will be abused.
To live in a world defined by feminist irrationality and hysteria and then to describe "Chivalry" as the problem is to misunderstand the nature of both.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To summarize, the author of the articles asked lots of men... "Why are you failing to meet your obligations to sacrifice your life to make a woman's happier?"
Some men said "Whatever, go away." Other men said "Go away before I kick your ass." Based on this, the author concluded that all men are either wimps or barbarians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:22 PM April 13th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Me too!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This babbling ought to be enshrined somewhere as the perfect example of sexist chivalrous claptrap.
*barf*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:24 PM April 13th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed.
And Moore should be used to show the perfect example of a WUSSIE-POOPIE, as well.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed, though I had the incorrigible urge to plan out Heather's untimely death, what a neurotic irritating character.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is refreshing to know that this kind of crap can no longer be published and uncritically accepted.
Every comment in this thread shows that men's "BS meters" are now finely calibrated to detect feminist horseshit in all its nefarious forms!
The great success of feminism, and its real source of cultural power, has always been its arrogant assumption of the right to use language in very devious ways to "define" reality.
Language is power.
The men's movement is making great strides by redeeming language and critical thought and taking back from the feminazis the linguistic terrain they captured and held hostage for forty-plus years.
The days/daze of feminist Orwellian DoubleSpeak and RightThought are done and hold no further sway.
Indeed, the Emperess has no clothes. Not a pretty sight!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
