|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 12:18 AM August 16th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
The brother-man is on the right track all right. But I'd point out that it has been industrialization/mechanization that has, IMJ, been the primary force that has made irrelevant or even undesirable the kind of attributes he mentions. Multitasking, organizing and so on are inevitably going to be highly desirable traits in a society that has designed its way out of needing all that other stuff, since serving others and getting the ball rolling to fulfill needs and wants using automated means are how stuff gets done now for the most part here in the "First World". Some good discussion in general about this is found in a few places including The End of Work by Jeremy Rifkin. Funny though that it is men's inventiveness that have made it so that their general work-style is no longer as necessary as before.
Despite all this though I protest that men should not be viewed as a means to an end as such by either women or other men. To measure the worth and value of men based on work-roles is to participate in male dehumanization. While each of us needs to work and will be measured by some at some time based on what they do and how well they do it, the point is that this is a human rights/dignity issue. Men should not be diminished in their rights as a class merely because their category of specialized contributions as a class to society at large is less important than it was in previous years. The thing to object to primarily is the misandry/dehumanization that men suffer under the yoke of legally-sanctioned feminist-inspired tyranny.
Until that changes my advice remains the same to all men: don't be the sperm donor/sucker the British newsreader is talking about -- what are you, nuts?! To have children as a man in these times and under these conditions? Crazy. Stay single and stay childless is the best advice a man can have and also take. I say to men, focus on the many other things to do with your life. History is filled with examples of single and childless men who have done wonderful things for the world and accomplished far more than they would have had they been married/had kids. The modern woman's "victory" over us men is Pyrric indeed. Sad state of affairs for all of us but alas, we live in a far-from-ideal world. Just gotta deal with it as best we can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:40 AM August 16th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Don't look now, but this is EXACTLY what is begining to happen here, in the U.S., as well.
Also it is exactly what feminists have planned.
They want a toatal domination of EVERYTHING. Society, politics, finances, the media, corperations, the economy, the home, shools, universities, procreation, etc.
They are getting exactly what they want.
My brothers. Kiss your freedoms (or what's left of them) goodbye. They want your God given freedom, too. And the way things are going, they WILL have it. They want toatal domination over men. They WANT to make slaves of us. (This is not an exageration) They want it where men have NO rights, NO freedom, NO say over ANYTHING.
It has been a subtle change, but mark my words it IS happening. It has been so subtle that most people (men and women alike) haven't even noticed. But don't look to the average woman for understanding. They want this as much as the feminists do. We are up against the feminists, like minded women and most dangerous of all complicent wussie-poopie, self hating males. Who not only WANT this to happen but wet themselves sexualy at the very thought of it.
On the plus side more men seem to be waking up to this fact and are not goin' down without a fight. I proudly include myself as one of them.
It is very important that MRAs do everything we can to stop these people, including getting involved concerning things like the V.A.W.A.
This "feminist" movment MUST be stopped, or we will all be wearing dog collars and be owned by a woman.
If you think that slavery is a thing of the past, in the Western world, think again. Because I'm telling you, it's coming.
Before anyone writes me off as a paranoid nut, don't forget; We Indians have historicaly been VERY accurate at predicting things like this. I'm no Wovoka, but I know what I know and am CERTAIN of what I know.
I have heared people on this site say that feminism has become what it claimed to oppose.
This is not entirely true.
...It is WORSE than what it claimed to oppose.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:47 PM August 16th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
That's right, TC.
And we women will succeed.
There are more spineless men than there are M.R.A.s. Majority rules! Women rule!
Yay, us!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:04 PM August 16th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
No, 'don't think so, sweetie.
There may be more "spineless men" now, but the number of men who are sick of feminist garbage is growing steadily. Pretty soon WE will be "the majority". And like you said; "Majority rules!"
So you feminists say your prayrs to what ever god or godess (or your vagina) that you pray to, because the time of your down fall is at hand.
Oh, and just from me to you; 'BITE ME!' And I say that with all due respect. *snicker*
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:00 PM August 18th, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
It is reasonable to guesstimate that the number of spineless men is roughly equal to the number of spineless women...
And that the number of hardcore MRAs is roughly equal to the number of hardcore feministoids.
So it really comes down to a contest between the "hardcores" on both sides, and how many of the spineless (of both sexes) they can swing into their camps respectively....
That puts the odds in a different light.
Plus, maybe some of those "spineless" really aren't so spineless as some of us think. Meaning, that many of them (surprisingly many) might turn out to be governed by integrity and higher principles, and they will bestow their loyalty on the movement which best embodies such principles.
That could be a hopeful thought.
.
-Fidelbogen-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Rand T. on 01:21 PM August 16th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
There are already more men in the MRA organisations than in feminist organisations... Now all that's left is to defeat the feminist-dominated MSM, which is already starting to lose its power, what with the internet and all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:38 PM August 16th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
What is "MSM"?
Is that the Main Stream Media?
If so, then yes, they ARE begining to lose power. And I couldn't be happier to see it! :-)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:31 PM August 17th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
What was that funny little squeaky noise?
Well, I *thought* I heard something, anyway...
Anyone else hear it?
Oh, never mind!
.
-Fidelbogen-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:43 PM August 16th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
It is very important that MRAs do everything we can to stop these people, including getting involved concerning things like the V.A.W.A.
This "feminist" movment MUST be stopped, or we will all be wearing dog collars and be owned by a woman.
If you think that slavery is a thing of the past, in the Western world, think again. Because I'm telling you, it's coming.
Before anyone writes me off as a paranoid nut, don't forget; We Indians have historicaly been VERY accurate at predicting things like this. I'm no Wovoka, but I know what I know and am CERTAIN of what I know.
nice post, TC, but be careful there -- pretty soon the boys' be calling you an Extremist . . .
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i also wrote this up today, here's the link for those of you who are more interested in men's rights (and survival) than in playing petty character-assassination games
http://www.littledynamo.blogspot.com/
it's called "Hypnosis and Sauron's Eye"
p.s. -- the "thief in the night" indeed refers to the Endtimes, but not to the rise of the Matriarchal Beast
the "thief" is the figure who KILLS that Beast
stone dead!
and after he does, maybe we can, at long long last, break the arrow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:56 PM August 16th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Men have been turned into sperm donors who the government then forces to pay 20% of net income for 18 years for a man's one-night sperm "donation".
Sorry, but I would rather not "donate".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:26 AM August 17th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
As we cannot access our kids anyway, why should we even be sperm donors.
Thinking about it, since we invented the washing machine, hoover and microwave, exactly why do we need women anymore ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 08:22 AM August 17th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Thinking about it, since we invented the washing machine, hoover and microwave, exactly why do we need women anymore?
Unfortunately when men invented these labour saving devices for women they completely failed to understand the nature of their relationship with women. Women rip men off. They have always ripped men off, and through feminism they seek to rip men off far into the future. Women do nothing for men that men wouldn't be much better off doing for themselves. Women do not support men, they undermine them. This process of undermining begins at birth and continues for the whole of a man's life. Men are made artificially dependent on women, who contibute absolutely nothing of any practical value whatsoever to men's lives and in exchange expect money and property and other benefits bought at men's expense. Before the invention of labour saving devices, women could at least make a show of doing something for men. Housework took effort and time, though it was still the man who did the real backbreaking work and had all the responsibilities of supporting his wife and children. The net transfer of benefit was from him to her. When labour saving devices became commonplace it was no longer possible for women to give the appearance of returning value for what they ripped men off for. She had to do less and less, while he still had to go out and work a full day. Men were aware of this, and would use their breadwinner role to pull rank in arguments and as a means of asserting authority in the home. Women needed a new excuse for ripping men off. Feminism gave them this in the form of the idea of historical abuse. This had the advantage over housework of requiring absolutely nothing of the woman at all, since it relied on breeding guilt in men as a means of ripping them off. A woman need never have suffered in her life, but could appropriate the suffering of others, or the idea of their suffering, thereby leaving men in a state of 'historical debt' to women which could only be repaid by massive social upheaval directed at ripping men off as much as possible. This process of ripping off - that is, of unearned benefit - extended beyond money and property to cover all ideas of value. It was a looting not only of men's bank accounts but also of their spirits; of their souls. It wasn't enough for women's lives to be made better, men's lives had to be made worse.
In the same period of time that women have become free to earn their living in any way they choose, men have been subjected to ever-increasing demands on the products of their labour, through ever increasing demands for alimony and child support. The feminist idea of female independence is actually the idea of non-contribution. That is, that women should not contribute anything to men's lives. Men are still expected to contribute to women's lives, of course, and these contributions are set to massively increase through the invention of imaginary crimes of domestic violence - check out Canada's Bill 117 - in which the man incurs a debt through an act of 'abuse' which must be paid for with the forced transfer of money and property to his 'victim'. There is absolutely nothing in feminism which operates so as to transfer anything of value in the other direction. Some of you may protest that men in relationships are healthier because the women in their lives get them to go to the doctor when they're sick (are these the same women who call men hypochondriacs at the first sign of them taking an interest in their own wellbeing?). But this only illustrates what I'm saying. Why should men need women to perform this role for them? Why aren't men raised to believe that their physical wellbeing damn well matters? Two reasons. First, so that women can perform some artificial, unnecessary function for men so as to justify ripping them off. Secondly, because men who don't put up with shit where their physical wellbeing is concerned are unlikely to put up with it in any other area of their lives. That would be a disaster for women because they would them have to return real value to men in exchange for the contributions men make to their lives.
The only way things will ever change is to recognise that this process of women ripping men off is what underlies Western society. It always did, only feminism made it more visible. The real project of the men's movement is to stop this process of ripping men off - financially, materially, emotionally, spiritually; on every front. Like the heroes of Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' we must stop working for the benefit of those who seek to loot our lives. As long as men allow women to rip them off, they will. All higher values are male, both in their nature and their origin. Women have never needed to be anything more than skillful crooks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:27 AM August 17th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Truly well-written and spot-on post by Uberganger!
It's beyond dispute that relationships with women -- all women -- portend a diminishment and enfeebling of the male.
In other words, despite popular fictions about romance and the fairer sex's giving nature, the exact opposite is true if you look at the nature of the exchange between the sexes.
If a woman "gives" a man anything, be assured she has already calculated that she will "take" even more in return for her "gift."
The reason why men end up feeling so drained -- emotionally, financially, spiritually -- by their relationships with women is because it's all pretty much a one-way street where cost:benefits are concerned.
The female's orientation to the male in our modern culture is like that of the vampire to its prey.
Vampires only take, only consume, only exploit.
All men should take an inventory of their lifetime relationships with females, starting with Dear Mom, sisters, teachers, friends, lovers, co-workers, employees, bosses, etc.
Ask yourself -- on balance, did each relationship with a female benefit or harm me? Did it enhance my soul, or diminish my spirit?
Do women make me become more myself, or less?
At what price have I come to know women?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:40 AM August 19th, 2005 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Despite the trenchancy and eloquence of your analysis, I cannot agree that the majority of women deserve the sweeping condemnation you have given. They are neither that rotten, nor that clever.
Besides, I've known far too many women who are admirable folk in every way.
It is FEMINISTS in particular who deserve the slamming and damning. Women in general are no better and no worse than men in general; that is to say, they are merely flawed creatures, and on the whole.... they are mediocre.
However, being mediocre and flawed, they are apt to be led astray by scheming demagogues. This is what we have witnessed in the case of feminism for the last 40 years. Feminists have led BOTH men and women astray by exploiting BOTH their venalities AND their misguided idealisms.
Let's cool our jets on that misogyny stuff, okay? If that's the way you truly feel, then at the very least try to keep it under your hat. Pejorative generalizations about women as a group will BACKFIRE on us, mark my words. Think whatever private thoughts you wish -- and far be it from me to lecture anybody on their private thoughts! (And I will NOT support the feminist maxim that "the personal is the political"!) But understand that in political ventures of this nature, the eyes of the world are upon us. So....know when to keep your private thoughts private. In other words, keep it personal.... so it won't compromise the political.
In your admirably penetrating analysis, Uberganger, you should have phrased yourself so that the scourge falls strictly on the backs of the feminists, who are the only genuinely rotten apples in the female barrel.
Most women, like most men, are simply sheep...and sheep can be led. Hopefully toward greener pastures.
As for becoming a "sperm donor", I would urge all males -- and young ones in particular -- to maintain iron control in this area of life. Grit your teeth and don't do anything foolish in a mere moment that you'll regret for years. Remember the wise words of Lord Chesterfield regarding sex: "The pleasure is momentary, the position is ridiculous, the expense is damnable!"
So, either practice celibacy...or get yourself 'fixed'!
.
-Fidelbogen-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by canaryguy
(nospam.canaryguy@nospam.stealthfool.com)
on 08:29 AM August 17th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
As we cannot access our kids anyway, why should we even be sperm donors.
I feel the risks are too great both financially and socially. Forget about the very real risk of being thrown out and your wallet tapped. What about the risk of having your child raised by an irresponsible woman?
Thinking about it, since we invented the washing machine, hoover and microwave, exactly why do we need women anymore ?
That's kind of what I was thinking. In terms of raw survival, women aren't needed! Should I get deathly ill and want someone to take care of me, I can hire someone for $25 - $35 an hour to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:22 AM August 17th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
how do we contact and support m burke. any e.mail address?rather than left alone for his honesty show large scale support but contact details needed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UK here..I have doubts about Burke as he works for BBC television..the most anti-male pro-female broadcasters on this planet. The BBC have been churning out complete crap for 50 years. Smells to me like too little too late
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:14 PM August 17th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
What we really need to do is send out a gender specific virus that attacks only women in power....humm......
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:26 PM August 17th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
All women are anti-male.
...untill they WANT something. Then they are a man's best freind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 07:58 PM August 17th, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
That's right, I hate all the men! I hate my husband, and my sons, and my fathers, and my brothers....Kill them all!
Oh wait, no I don't. Damn that overgeneralization thing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 08:05 AM August 18th, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
You may not hate them, but do you respect them? Do you even understand what that means? One of the reasons why only men have higher values is that women cannot be held to the consequences of such values. For women, higher values are just a pose; a fashion statement, like wearing Lycra shorts but never going anywhere near a bicycle. If you look at what the feminist movement is doing within the legal system, it is essentially trying to engineer things so that nothing a woman does can ever have negative consequences for her. Women are already treated much more leniantly than men by the criminal justice system, but even that isn't enough to satisfy them. Here in the UK, Cherie Blair recently said of the female prison poulation that "our prisons are full of women", and that this was ever so unfair and a waste, and that the women had to be helped. There are actually about 4,600 women in prison in the UK, compared to about 70,000 men. Unfair indeed. Certainly a waste, but not of women.
In order to free women of all negative consequences of their actions, blame has to be transferred elsewhere. The natural target for this blame is men (unless you can name some other group of people who aren't female). So, we have 'battered woman syndrome', by which women who have murdered men become the victims, and the men they have murdered become the abusers. We have the 'primary aggressor rule' (only in the USA so far), by which women who are violent towards men are turned into victims while the men they are violent towards are recast as abusers. We have 'post partum depression' by which women who batter or murder children become helpless victims of their biology, while those they abuse become secondary victims of that biology (with all that the word 'secondary' implies in terms of where our sympathies should go). In cases where women do murder their children, such as the American woman who systematically drowned all her kids in the bath, it is not uncommon to deny her culpability on the grounds of 'mental illness', then to blame the nearest man - usually the husband - for that illness.
Perhaps you don't hate the men in your life, but what about everyone else's father, son, brothers, etc? And what about all those women who've never met your male relatives, and who believe every spiteful word of trash the media comes out with about men? Do you imagine that if one of your sons finds himself on the receiving end of the 'primary aggressor rule', or some such thing, that the legal system will say "My God, this is one of Jenk's sons. He's OK because she doesn't hate him." Nah. They literally won't know your son from Adam, and they won't care to make the distinction. If you think you can create a little blindspot in the increasing hatred and contempt for men, you're sadly mistaken. They'll rip your sons to pieces just as readily as they'll rip apart some man you've never met. You may like the men in your life, but that doesn't mean anyone else does. Respect isn't some internal emotional state you have; it extends far beyond you, to what you will and won't tolerate in the world. Any man could tell you that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 11:04 AM August 18th, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa there, trigger.
I agree with most of what you said above. Anyone who knows me (Thundercloud, LSbeene,Dr.E) know I have the utmost respect for men. I put my money where my mouth is and attend events, write letters, and talk to people about the issues.
I am very aware that my sons have a tough road ahead of them. That is why I am a men's activist. Trust me, I am able to spit out the stats as well as any man when it comes to shortchanging men and boys. You are right that I as a woman cannot exprience it first hand, but that does not mean I am unaffected by it.
I disagree that women innately lack values. While society tries it's best to make women dependant on the mother state, there are those of us who refuse to tow the feminist line. You can offer me all the perks in the world, I ain't biting.
I never claimed that my respecting the men in my life will make them safe. That wasn't your accusation. Your accusation was that all women do not respect men. I beg to differ, some do.
I will agree that many women are like what you say. A few women are pushing these changes and many women are supporting these changes either directly or by inaction. But there are women out there actively fighting for men. Take a look around. Christina Hoff Sommers, Trudy Schuett, Dr. Reena Sommer, there are some phenominal women standing up for men.
If we don't like feminists painting all men as rapists or as inept, we should avoid painting all women with one brush too.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:42 AM August 18th, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
"But there are women out there actively fighting for men. Take a look around. Christina Hoff Sommers, Trudy Schuett, Dr. Reena Sommer, there are some phenominal women standing up for men.
If we don't like feminists painting all men as rapists or as inept, we should avoid painting all women with one brush too. "
I totally agree. Woman can stand up for men and for basic values of fairness, dignity, and respect for all human beings. And some women are heroically doing this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:23 PM August 18th, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
I also agree.
Painting women with the proverbial "broad brush" is just as sexist as painting men with it.
No one of any "group" is "all the same".
We get in to very dangerous territory when we see any "group" as monolithic. Be they men, women, Blacks, Whites, Indians, Asians, Jewish, etc.
If you want to say "SOME women are anti-male" or even; "ALOT of women are anti-male" then Yes, I may agree. But there are also SOME men who are anti-female. We've had them post here, before. Remember the one guy who posted something like; "Women should stay at home and be subservient to men like it says in the Bible."? Or words to that effect.
Sorry I just can't go along with that, even though I am basicaly a Christian, myself. (Yes, Indians can be Christians) *grin*
For me, it is true equality or nothing. For BOTH men AND women. That is really what the men's movement is about, right?
So we should leave the generalizing, hating, bigotry and dishonesty to the feminists. That is the way many are. That is the way they have become. (Which I hope isn't a generalization in it's self) And the minute that the men's movement becomes as anti-female as the feminists are anti-male, I will LEAVE it, post haste!
Speaking of the Bible, I believe there is a passage that says that one should be "blameless". In other words if you are going to preach to others you must "practice what you preach" and be as you preach. Other wise you become a hypocrit.
Now who does that sound like? Right, alot of FEMINISTS!
So let us be 'blameless'. Because many of the feminists certainly aren't. That, in my oppinion is one of the ways we have been winning this struggle, and I believe it is the way to win it all together. Truth ALWAYS trumps lies, in the end.
I can understand some men getting frutrated, angry, and dis-heartened. I get that way myself much of the time. But lashing out at all women for the acts of some is just wrong.
And Jenk. Thanks for all that you have done. When I get disheartened and all seem dark, I try to think about the women like you who are fighting along side the rest of us.
Don't let men like 'Mr. Anonymous Broadbrush' get to you.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
"He who walks in humbleness can never be
humiliated."
(Saginaw Grant of the
Sac and Fox tribe.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by khankrumthebulgar on 11:29 AM August 19th, 2005 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
My Brothers I have not taken the time to read all the postings. But I can tell you that the Marriage Strike has hit home. Alarm Bells are ringing on Capitol Hill as the gravity of the situation hits Home. There are now more single than Married homes in the US. That means the death of Social Security is assured. We are breeding a permanent criminal underclass in the US. Anchor babies account now for 23% of our births. Oh what a joy.
The future of America is Detroit. With a 45% illiteracy rate. Lets see if we can hit 75%!! And there are 12,000 abandoned homes. Liberalism/Feminism/Socialism means the death of Western Culture. Why stop now. Let this turd of a culture sink to the toilet Feminism and its policies has made. We are approaching 50 million aborted babies. Factor that for a moment. Nearly one fifth of our total population. We are waging a war against Low income Men and destroying the glue that holds our culture together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:02 PM August 19th, 2005 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
It never dawned on me that what is happening between the genders might effect social security. I should have thought of that! (That's a "Duh" on me.)
I DID however consider what the effect might be on the over all economy, though. (So "Yay me!", in THAT case)
Either way what do you all think the odds are that our media would report these things this way?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 07:59 AM August 23rd, 2005 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree that women innately lack values.
It's rather more subtle than this. The problem is that women cannot be held to the consequences of those values; a situation which is to do with ideas that exist outside of any individual woman. So, values in women are just an affectation, regardless of what any individual woman may want to believe. Only men are held to the consequences of values. You can see this played out endlessly within the legal system and in the creation of legally 'valid' excuses for women's abusive behaviour - battered woman syndrome, the primary aggressor rule, post-partum depresssion, PMS, her internal emotional state, etc. For men it goes the other way, especially in laws relating to relationships with women. So, the fact that a man is a father is used as an infinitely deep well of justification for ripping him off to pay for feminist social policies on the grounds that he shouldn't have had kids if he didn't want to pay for them. Also, it seems to be increasingly the case that only men are held to the marriage contract; the woman can opt out of her legal responsibilities by claiming that he was violent or that she 'felt afraid'. I'm sure I don't need to laboriously go through the list.
So, just to recap: it isn't that you're biologically incapable of having higher values, it's that you cannot be held to them. Such values are, therefor, just affectations; a pose.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Evil White Male Oppressor writes "BREAKING NEWS: Long-time British newsreader has had enough and