|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:17 PM November 15th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Feminists sound more and more like Nazis, every time I hear one of them speak.
Dowd speaks like women have a choice in "keeping us around". What? dose she think that if women decide to exterminate men that we are just going to cheerfully walk into the gas chambers or ovens?
If she and other feminists believe this they are obviously the stupidest people on the planet.
I mean it, HOW STUPID can one group of "people" GET?
If ever there comes a time where men are to be "exterminated" watch how many goose steppers I kill in defending the life of my fellow men and myself. The instinct for self preservation should be at least SOME clue to Dowd and her compatriots that NO GROUP OF PEOPLE EVER GOES DOWN WITHOT A FIGHT! Men will be no acception. I will be no acception.
I'm sorry to keep bringing this up, but when I hear women like Dowd talk like this, I feel the same way as an Indian when people spoke (speak) about "exterminating the Indians".
I get mad, but more over I get the 'war blood' going through my heart.
If it's gonna be one of us dying, Ms. Dowd It's gonna be you, not me. I will NEVER simply sit still while you pull the gas chamber lever. NEVER. But apparently this is exactly what she and other feminists seem to believe.
Sorry, Ms. Dowd, but reality will get in your way.
And finally. With science and technology being the way they are, these days, we men can just as easily ask the same question in reverse.;"Are women necessary?"
Maybe at that time we men will be asking "Should we keep women around?"
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by quetzal on 02:19 PM November 15th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Dowd: "you know we need you [men] in the way we need ice cream, you'll be more ornamental."
But isn't this what feminists have complained about in the past, that men considered women as 'ornaments'.
Basically the media and reporters are so fucked up, I don't watch TV anymore. The newspapers are almost as bad, but at least I can be more critical and discerning, at the slower pace of reading vs. having junk info rapid-fired into my ears. (One warnig I would give, though, is NOT to read USA Today. The contexts within which they use certain statistics is HIGHLY misleading.
Not just about gender issues but ANY subject).
--quetzal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:52 PM November 15th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:20 PM November 15th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
It is "women" like Dowd that make me ashamed of being female.
Jinx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:49 PM November 15th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
The worst part is that women like you are often painted with the same brush by men (OK, me) who are just so sick of the ant-male bombardment from every angle that we don't trust anything female.
After being raised by a gender feminist along with a spoiled "raunch" culture sister in the house, I was rapidly becoming a hard-core misogynist until I met a few women who actually believe that men have rights too, and who value masculinity/men just as highly as they value themselves. They've managed to break out of "group think" and back into the first person, where they realize that misandry is no different than the kinds of ideology that drive racial, religious or other types of hate.
Anyhow, I was just writing a note of thanks/encouragment to the women who support us. Please keep it up - the world needs more women who value themselves and men equally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:26 PM November 17th, 2005 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:26 PM November 15th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Is Maureen Dowd really necessary?
Ann Coulter hit the nail on the head when she commented (in Slander) that more people recognize Richard Petty than her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 03:32 PM November 15th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
...from those publishec in response to her book:
For years I've listened to complaints about modern relationships from women who seem not to actually like men but who want a man anyway. I can't help thinking that men sense this. I've also noticed that there are a lot of women who find themselves unhappily single after years of routinely rejecting sincere guys who weren't rich, handsome or successful enough. Yet these same women are often indignant about similar male shallowness.
KATHRINE BECK
Seattle
bg
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:47 PM November 15th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep.
And Dowd can't figure out why she's single. *snicker*
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:41 PM November 15th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Boy Genteel beat me to this post ... also my favorite letter, as it so clearly exposes that feminists are long on hypocrisy, and short on appreciating their self-created irony.
Of course, both of the above are a consequence of a total lack of logical, ethical, and moral senses.
Feminism IS a personality disorder, as the once-but-not-quite-so-lovely Maureen Dowd reminds...
I've noticed that more and more of Ms. Dowd's photos employ the "blur" filter in PhotoShop in order to keep her illusion of "girlness" intact.
(roy)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by sagemenscircle
(sagemenscircle@yahoo.com)
on 08:10 PM November 18th, 2005 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Amen, Katherine. It seems that the most shrill, extremely hostile remarks against men are from man-haters who have their own sick, twisted agenda. I believe both genders prefer to meet on some kind of common ground, with respect and cordiality towards each other. Most of us find that our relationships suffer if we have a generalized disrespect and hate for the opposite gender. It doesn't help our emotional development, either.
Tom Utterback
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:14 PM November 15th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know her biological background, but I'm willing to guess she had a father and I don't know if she has a brother, but I'm willing to bet she has some male cousins in her family. It amazes me how these women who go on and on about men being "unnecessary" can get away with it without any questioning from their family. Does she not realize she wouldn't be here if it weren't for her father, and the kind of world she is creating that her male family members have to live in. It has stopped riling me up, because at this point, I just feel very sorry for them, truly sorry, because they've become the very thing they think they are fighting against.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:51 PM November 15th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
ever heard of lesbian "parents" selecting the sex of their children? i don't think they'll be choosing boys too often! indeed, most lesbian parents complain bitterly if they end up with a yucky, rambunctious boy. wake up people! (the Jews poo poo-ed the Nazis - i.e., "they'll never succeed in doing what the say" - until it was too late.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Clancy
(chermanstovall@msn.com)
on 06:00 PM November 15th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
My idle thoughts lead me to think that almost the entire female population would gradually have to evolve into carpet munchers and walking billboards for Snap-On tools. I know from personal observation that MANY women for years now have done the "tried it in college" thing. Some of them may have developed a taste for it. Unless evolution throws us a huge spitball and women become less and less attracted to men, I don't see us (men) being wiped out via attrition over the next few millenea. I DO see men flipping the bird to women that are in to "test giving". Consequently, that should mean fewer babies of both sexes while men and women from countries that don't seem to have the same problem as Maureen will move in to our vacant houses and apartments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:46 PM November 15th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Feminism appears to be underappreciated as a means of birth control!
The future belongs to non-feminist families that will come largely from Hispanic (Roman Catholic) and Middle Eastern (Muslim) non-believers in misandry.
In 100 years, feminism will be credited as the major factor in the decline of Western civilization.
Ironically, the book will be published in Farsi and Spanish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 08:54 PM November 15th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
The future belongs to non-feminist families that will come largely from Hispanic (Roman Catholic) and Middle Eastern (Muslim) non-believers in misandry.
I wonder just how the local mullahs who will probably be meting out justice and social mores to a rather large part of the world's population in the future, will view the pinhead femitwit's misandric antics? There just aren't that many, "Gee, I will have to ask my wife, or golly, my wife would really get me if I did that," type of male in the Muslim world. It is highly improbable that the likes of Gloria Steinim, Barbara Boxer, Hillary (the Hildabeast) Clinton, Germaine Greer et. al., will be raised to the pinnacle of sainthood in the coming Muslim world that is in our near future.
I guess you just can't really appreciate what you have until you lose it. So get those burkas drycleanded and ready to wear you dorks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Clancy
(chermanstovall@msn.com)
on 09:15 PM November 15th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Back when the Taliban ruled Afganistan and the status of women was lower than whale shit, I heard a lot of bellyaching. "Something needs to be done to help those poor women." When the US, England, Australia et al went and kicked the crap out of them, I heard bellyaching of a different sort. "Oh dear, now we are in a war. Our young men are going to die". Would somebody please hit me over the head with a 2 x 4? PLEASE? What do you mean - Are men necessary????? Who the hell do you think is going to pull your fat out of the fire you dumbshit?? The Amazons??? Are they waiting in the wings, hiding maybe? Who the hell is going to pull you out of that burning building? Who the hell is going to run down that dark alley chasing a armed maniac with the very high odds that your wife won't be seeing you alive again (like what just happened in Dallas)? Here's a tip Maureen - move to the Isle of Sappho. I hear that it's a women's only club there. No intimidated men that are afraid of the "scent" of female power. Give me a break!!!! That scent is your deodorant wearing off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:45 AM November 16th, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
I once suggested that Dowd and every other like minded feminist women should go find an island, some where, and start their feminist utopia, and leave the rest of us in peace.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Agraitear on 09:53 AM November 16th, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
The problem TC is that parasites like this don't want space to create a utopia, they want essentially a slave race to wait on them. I would bet cash money that being "ornamental" includes all the dirty, dangerous jobs that are essential to modern life.
Just substitute any ethnic descriptor in her work instead of "men" and see if it sounds racist. (Hint, it does.)
Bigotry is bigotry, she just targets the last group it's still PC to bash, men.
A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:00 AM November 16th, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Both of u guys r right! It's comical. Even funnier is the life women would lead without men. If we segregated women right now and lent them absolutely no male assistance, it wouldn't be a week before they'd resort back to cave-dwelling. Women are too weak and pathetic to make the "world go 'round" like men do. Everything women see everyday of their lives is thanks to men. Life as women know it and love it is thanks to men. Women living without male assistance, even in 2005, are...well..cave-monkeys like in the beginning of mankind. Your island of females would make Gilligan's Island seem futuristic and sophisticated. Men win and dominate in reality no matter how u look at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:08 PM November 16th, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Well if they want slaves to wait on them, all they have to do is go to Hollywood, Washington D.C. and a few other places around the U.S. and gather up all the wussie-poopie men that are into being dominated by women. Those guys would be more than willing to go, and I think we would be more than happy to get rid of, both the feminists and the wussie-poopies.
If nothing else we could wait until the fems and the wussie-poopies got their island paradise complete then we can just bomb them off the face of the earth! *evil grin*
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:19 PM November 16th, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget Maury Povich...!
Jinx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:53 AM November 16th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
In Canada, Ontario to be specific, the goverment has historically allowed Jewish and Christian groups to mediate family disputes when requested by the participants (i.e. divorces). As soon as Muslims asked for equal treatment, our spineless, lying mangina of a leader immediate pushed through a law banning *all* religious mediation of family disputes.
Why? It might lead to men receiving preferred treatment. Preferred treatment of women is apparently just fine, but even suggest it for a man and watch the fur fly.
Of course, this is the same hypocrite who had promised that 1/2 his cabinet ministers would be women (he couldn't deliver - not enough women were elected that could fill the posts).
If it doesn't benefit women, they ban it. If it benefits men, they ban it.
I can't imagine that my Muslim neighbours are terribly impressed that Ontario apparently regards their faith as something which should be left out of law, whereas Christianity and Judaism are AOK (as long as they serve women's interests, of course).
My advice? Never live in a "first past the post" parliamentary democracy. Such governments spend 99.5% of their time pandering to women (who've been conditioned expect it as something they feel they deserve and vote politicians/governments out if they don't). Why do the governments men elect and pay for do this to their own breadwinners, the very people paying the bulk of the taxes? Because they know full well that women only give a damn about themselves, and will vote for women only, for women first. All the time. Need proof? Well, if it weren't true of the overwhelming majority of women, this wouldn't happen. We've spoiled these women, and now they expect to have their asses kissed at every possible opportunity, and to be pandered to at all times. Western women are truly the "only child" of our societies.
Anyhow. I hear Japan is nice...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 10:22 PM November 15th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
I mean, I really think she is positively clinical. Think about it for a second-- she advises women to wear black stockings and heels and hang out in bars (remember the NYTimes piccie of her at the bar waiting I guess for the for the ships to dock in port?) in one breath, then insist rather gleefully the next that men aren't necessary and are destined to be ornamental and evntually doomed altogether [An aside: If this happened, humanity would also be doomed. There are a handful of single-sex, ie, female-only, species in the world, but they are very fragile and easily die off when their environment changes. Since their kind lack ready genetic variation, they also lack robustness, and are generally always struggling to hang on as a species. Any person of any sex heralding as somehow a good thing the dying off of males of any species is essentially heralding the end or near-end of the species itself as a good thing].
But apart from the lack of common everyday not-in-touch-with-reality kind of nuts (ie, "Gee, I am sure civilization as we know could go on indefinitely without men - I mean, who needs to maintain infrastructure, invent new stuff, or for that matter, have kids, anyway?") But even so, it's the bizarre flip-flopping of arguments and seeming changes in her writing style that makes me wonder if she is not seriously nuts. It's like a different person writes her stuff on some days and then on others. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest Dissociative Identity Disorder, but the way she changes tunes as well as styles so fast, and often, is really remarkable. I am really suspecting it arises from a clinical psychiatric problem she may have.
But nonetheless, whatever the reason, she is "our Maureen" for sure! :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the Drudge Report:
NYT DOWD BOOK: ONLY 10,140 SERVED IN FIRST WEEK AFTER MEGA-PRESS BLITZ FOR 'ARE MEN NECESSARY?'...
[DOWD'S NYT COUNTERPART THOMAS FRIEDMAN 'WORLD' SELLS 21,566 FOR WEEK; 785,752 SINCE RELEASE]
JIMMY CARTER HOLDS FIRST PLACE WITH 34,427 SOLD [65,757 SINCE RELEASE]... DORIS GOODWIN IN PLACE WITH 27,883 [79,188]... AL FRANKEN 19,837 FOR WEEK [81,837 TOTAL] BILLY CRYSTAL 17,831 SOLD
--
Evil Pundit of Doom!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
My Sweetiepie, Maureen Dowd (don't tell my other Sweetiepie, Hillary Clinton), is getting more