|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Rand T. on 12:11 PM July 3rd, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
There is a way that a man can choose not to have kids.
There are many ways they can do that. One of them is passing legislation that cancels their parenthood (including its responsibilities) should they choose to do so during their child's phase as a preborn, with no rights of its own.
Keep your dick in your pants!!!!
We will, when women accept "keep your knees crossed" as their only choice in avoiding parenthood after conception.
After conception, the child is part of the woman's body
No, it isn't. It's a separate being with its own mind, its own heart, etc...
and that is why only the woman can choose what to do.
No, that is not why. That the fetus is inside the woman's body gives her, at most, the right not to have abortion enforced on her. The only reason women can "choose" is because we currently have a pro-abortion majority in the Supereme Court -- an unstable situation which could change at any moment, and... even in the opposition of
foaming feminists! Even so, women do not really have the "right to control their bodies" as far as abortion is concerned, as the Supereme Court itself made clear that abortion can be prohibited in certain circumstances (for instance, once the fetus is viable). In addition: as feminists themselves support the legal prohibition of women to have complete control over their bodies (for instance, selling sexual services), they are not in a position to lecture us about "woman's right to her body". Finally, abortion is performed by doctors, not by the pregnant. Since it is doctors' bodies which play at least an equal part in the abortion procedure (more than equal, in fact, as they are the active component), performing abortion requires doctors' consent as well, and doctors' consent, alas, belongs to legislators elected in a democratic process, not to those who happen to want or be directly affected by the procedure (which is why bodybuilders do not control the legality of steroid injections).
You guys are a bunch of pathetic morons."
Sticks and stones, darling. Come back whenever you feel like being ripped to shreds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:30 AM July 5th, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
"After conception, the child is part of the woman's body."
Men have historically not had a right to their own bodies when they were drafted and sent to war as happened to many Vietnam vets, Korean vets, WWII vets, etc. Men are still required to register for selective service when they turn 18, but women are not. To this day there are many harsh penalties for men who fail to register.
Perhaps the delusional human who wrote that submission could answer why, in a country that pretends to have equal rights for all, one gender of humans (female) is showered with so much special privilege, while the other (males) is shouldered with onerous responsibilities that females do not even have to consider.
If women can choose to have 30,000,000 abortions in 30 years (as has been the case), it is tyranny to allow them to evade selective service registration, combat duty, and the draft (if/when the draft is reinstituted). The abortion rate shows clearly women are not critically needed for the maintenance of our population so they should stop being treated as if they are indispensible. Men should stop being treated as the only disposable gender. Level that playing field. It is no wonder so many pampered, privileged women in America today are nothing more than big mouthed tyrants looking for oppressed (choiceless) males to rant on.
It is outrageous that women have so little responsibility, (face so little dangerous risk) for our nations security, while men have so little choice in their lives and the lives of their offspring.
As soon as we finish liberating Iraq, perhaps our government can start liberating feminazi america, starting in women's studies classes and women's commissions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:16 PM July 4th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, this person isn't worth the energy to try and talk too. My expirience with those kinds of people is that it's pointless to show light to the blind.
She(?) believes what she believes and no amount of common sense or logic will change her(?) mind. I have dealt with many bigoted people in my time as an Indian activist. And the one thing I've learned is that when people think this way it is usually because they WANT to think this way. There's no reasoning with them, piriod.
Did reasoning with the U.S. Calvary help my people? NO.
Did reasoning with the Nazis help the Jewish people? No.
And reasoning with feminists is the same. It will do NO GOOD.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:49 AM July 5th, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Right.
The N.O.W. and other such feminist organizations are nothing more than hate groups. They are NO DIFFERENT than the K.K.K., aryan nation and even some Black and American Indian groups. They are all about hate and oppression of the people they despise. and they will settle for nothing less than the toatal subjegation or even anihalation of their targeted 'group'.
The sooner this country (and other so-called free nations) come to grips with this the sooner we can begin the true work of dismanteling of these hate groups. But none fly lower under the radar than the feminists.
We do, indeed, have alot of work to do.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Raymond Cuttill on 01:01 PM July 3rd, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
My dick is out. Deal with it! It might want to negotiate.
There is a way that a man can choose not to have kids. Keep your dick in your pants!!!!
You don’t want us to keep it in our pants (unless you’re a lesbian). If men stop fancying women then you can’t manipulate them anymore. Women are quite happy to impose parenthood on men whenever it suits them. Your decisions are not our responsibility, and since you are quite happy with the idea of single mothers as a family, then take responsibility for it and don’t ask us or the government for either involved fathers or money for something you chose to do. When you women tore up the marriage contract, you tore up the whole contract. You can’t just keep the bits you like. Male contraceptives scare you because you won’t be able to impose parenthood on men when it suits you and then demand they pay you for it.
After conception, the child is part of the woman's body and that is why only the woman can choose what to do.
The child is the product of two parents. Something you conveniently forget, except when you want money. Perhaps when artificial wombs are available maybe men will insist the foetus is transferred to the artificial womb if you want to abort it. Most men want the choice of when they have children and are willing to fully participate in the a decision they make, both in financial and parenting terms. They are not so willing to participate in a decision you impose on them.
You guys are a bunch of pathetic morons.
This is an argument? Or just the rantings of a man-hater?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:10 PM July 3rd, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
This comment needs to be seen for what it really is. A hate filled attack on men. An attack like this on women is much more likely to recieve national media coverage and be used as evidence of a sorry state of a world that needs more government funding for feminist programs.
The audacity of the sexist attacker is the real evidence of the sorry state of the world. The sexist in question apparently believes she is a level headed advocate of responsibility. Hence the title "practical feminist" and the advice to "keep your dicks in your pants" but this is merely further evidence of the blind hatred and hypocrisy of feminism and its power turn women into blind haters and hypocrites.
Notice that the sexist hater does not advocate any responsibility to be taken by the woman, such as keeping her legs crossed as she does towards men as with the vulgar dicks in your pants comment. The sexist hater who obviously thinks she is some type of level headed advocate for the so called "Oppressed women" of the world did not mention anything about the baby being the woman's responisibility. The hater only mentioned that the woman has the right to choose.
I would like to know who exactly it is that is making up the rules this blind hater is informing us about. Who says "After conception, the child is part of the woman's body and that is why only the woman can choose what to do."? That is of course a lie, exposing the sexist attacker for the liar that all femininists, by embracing feminism are. It is also noteworthy that the hate filled poster acknowledges something contrary to feminism by stating that the life of a "child" begins at conception.
The hate filled sexist did not advocate any responsibility to provide for a child that only the woman supposedly has a right to have. She apparenlty, as all the lying haters called feminists, believes that if a woman gets pregnant (even though every form of birth control that now exists is either for women only or for both men and women i.e. condom)the woman only has the right to choose whether to have the baby but the man only has the ultimate obligation to financially support the baby. I say ultimate obligation because if a woman refuses to financially support her own child she can do so with no negative feedback from society and depend on the welfare system while politicians campaign to hurt supposed "deadbeat dads" who "refuse" to support their children and "force" mothers to remain on welfare thereby "causing tax payers to support their children for them".
The fact that this sentiment has so overwhelmingly permeated western thought is merely further evidence of the ambient sexism against men in our culture today. This blind sexist hate filled self envisioned heroin of level headed responsibility towards women is simply part of the problem in this real world run by sexists full of blind hatred toward men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:16 PM July 3rd, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
These male-haters are so dull. They're petrified of men having sex because...they just want to have sex. That must be outlawed, criminalized, and heavily fined! Ergo "child support" as a penalty just for having sex.
Sorry, baby, but times have changed. More and more men are not intimidated by your dumb orders about what they should do with their dicks, or their lives.
Reproductive rights -- they shouldn't be just for women any longer!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:53 PM July 3rd, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Conversely, why don't you bimbettes keep your legs together, then?
And if it's entirely of your body, then YOU can pay for it for the next eighteen years.
Equality. Dig it, baby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:48 PM July 3rd, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Note that there is a very subtle corollary to the epithet "Keep it in your pants". The implication being made here is that women are "forced" to have children by men. That a man imposes the child on the women. This poster is furthermore suggesting that either all instances where a man does not keep it in his pants are therefore RAPE... OR she is in fact suggesting that women are unable or incapable of making that decision for themselves!
No-one believes in the inferiority of women more than the feminists.
As an aside, note also that the idea of the fetus being part of the woman's body implies a "possession" of the fetus. I don't know about you but I was pretty sure humans were not supposed to own other humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 09:20 PM July 5th, 2005 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Anon noted --- "No-one believes in the inferiority of women more than the feminists."
While this is hardly the first time this observation has been posted here, it is always worthy of revisiting.
Feminism, examined closely, defines women as infants.
Infantile beings with deficient intellects (hence, the need for special college admission policies/quotas ... same as for African-Americans... and yes, feminism is racist as well as sexist!).
Infantile athletes who need Title IX to coax young women into expressing interest in sports by bribing them with scholarships for "sports" like synchronous swimming and badminton.
Infantile sexual beings who need the Big Sister watchdogs to "Take Back the Night" so they can be protected from expressing their desires for intimacy in any form... except faux-lesbianism.
Feminism has succeeded in making all women deform themselves into the most fearful beings on the planet.
How, may I dare to question, is FEAR a liberating experience?
When women begin to see the true source of their pathological fear (and it ain't the evil patriarchy), perhaps there will be some small opportunity for radical change.
Until women become tired of false hysterics, I "fear" no change will occur.
"It's a terrible thing ... to be living in fear."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:02 AM July 7th, 2005 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes many women DO beleive that the fetus (A.K.A. the baby inside her) BELONGS to them. That they OWN it.
They want to own men, too, so it should really come as no suprise that many of them feel this way.
Y' know, you'd think that people would have learned something after slavery.
...'guess not.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:50 PM July 3rd, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Note that there is a very subtle corollary to the epithet "Keep it in your pants". The implication being made here is that women are "forced" to have children by men. That a man imposes the child on the women. This poster is furthermore suggesting that either all instances where a man does not keep it in his pants are therefore RAPE... OR she is in fact suggesting that women are unable or incapable of making that decision for themselves!
No-one believes in the inferiority of women more than the feminists.
As an aside, note also that the idea of the fetus being part of the woman's body implies a "possession" of the fetus. I don't know about you but I was pretty sure humans were not supposed to own other humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by LeMorteMark on 05:55 AM July 4th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know why I'm responding whoever wrote that stuff is probably either a child or a mildly retarded adult. You can tell by the infantile expression "Pathetic morons" which is usually an expression used by cartoon villains. Either way, the original poster will never come back to see how we responded.
In case I'm wrong, I'll just say this: Stop playing with the computer, little girl. You don't know anything about what its like to be a man living under the femenist taliban.
It may be a man's world but its a woman's country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:21 PM July 4th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
The male birth control implant, RISUG.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thomas on 12:54 PM July 4th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
The fetus is NOT part of the woman's body. Science makes this clear. Every part of the woman's body has the same basic genetic coding. The fetus is no more a part of the woman's body than are the bacteria living in her intestines. They are living in the woman's body, but they are not a part of the woman's body. The genetic coding of the fetus is no more identical to that of the woman than it is identical to that of the father.
I've also heard, from members of the pro-choice/pro-abortion camp who believe that the fetus is a separate person, that the woman has the right to destroy it because it is living inside of her. I could understand this, if a person had invaded the woman's body. If someone had the power to invade my body and did so, I would believe that I had the right to rid myself of that person, whatever measures were necessary. But pregnancy, in the case of consensual sex, is not a matter of someone deciding to invade a woman's body. It is a case of a woman willfully engaging in an activity that she knows may lead to another person living inside of her. If I were to decide to engage in an activity that I knew might somehow lead to someone living inside of me, and that activity in fact led to someone living inside of me, I would not then have the right to declare, "Well, someone is living inside of me. I, therefore, have the right to destroy that person."
Personal responsibility for women is anathema to feminism.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:32 PM July 4th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, my login details are on my office computer and I'm now at home so now I'm 'Anonymous User'.
You guys are all making excellent points but you're making the mistake of being LOGICAL and RATIONAL.
How far is that going to get you?
I suppose you live in a 'democracy'. Meaning to say you have been brought up to be a sensible, responsible male (no market value unless you marry, co-habit or have sex - all of which renders you vulnerable). You may be intelligent men who read newspapers, surf the net and discuss politics with your friends. You study the issues because you think it's important. You have constructive ideas on how society should be organised. Good for you.
While you may do all of these things, your single vote can be cancelled out by a pampered and priveleged, purple-haired, middle-aged harridan whose only interest is self-gratification.
You want to export this system to the rest of the world and think they will welcome you with flowers?
Think again brothers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:09 PM July 4th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi my name is Verlch,
Thomas well said. I hope you don't mind if I quote you in other places.
To this Woman--defender of everything, that pertains to her selfish world views amount to nothing more than a cat scratching at the wind.
The reason you must be hostile is that you feminsts are losing. Losing ground to reality. I know the Truth stinks, but it has been said that the truth sets you free. So why don't you and your foaming at the mouth sisters get a strong dose of not only reality, but truth.
This country wasn't built by controlling women who wated to contribute nothing but strife. It was built by strong men with a vison and women who backed them in every sense of the word. They stuck together like glue and built the backbone of this nation. The same backbone you feminists intend to use for your own sinister plots. Well trust me your folly has been exposed...abortion, destruction of God ordained marriage, and attempting to strip the human male of his God given authority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jabes1966 on 05:48 PM July 4th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
In a one-night-stand or casual dating atmosphere, if the woman allows herself to be impregnated, I don't believe the man should have to pay any child-support. Why? Because women have total control over the pregnancy. It is morally, honorably, and ethically wrong to make some-one else pay the consequences of a decision you make unilaterally. Women have numerous contraceptives, the morning after pill, the abortion pill, abortion, and last legalized abondonment. In light of all of these choices, if the woman decides to have a baby anyway, I don't think the man should have to pay CS.
You say "what if she doesn't believe in abortion"? I say how can you make SOMEONE ELSE pay for YOUR beliefs? If I don't believe in using motorized vehicles can I then FORCE my wife to bicycle me around everywhere (and have a huge government machinery that can jail her if she doesnt)?
Christians were fed to the lions by the romans defending their beliefs. NOW THAT'S DEFENDING YOUR BELIEFS! But according to feminists christian women should have been allowed to have their husbands fed to lions to defend the womans beliefs.
If you watch a lot of political pundits, or organizations they are filled with hypocrisy. And feminist organizations are at the top of the heap.
But, when you build laws regarding something as crucial as custody, DV, rape, and all man/women relations on hypocrisy and hatred, you're going to get what you have now. An upside down society where all the generations of children are dysfunctional, hedonistic, materialistic, narcisistic people with no real skills at dealing with others as equals.
Then government has to be grown even more to "fix" the problem it created. Buearuecrats, judges and attorneys just LOOOOOVE those feminists laws! It's their way of buying futures! Time and time again feminists contradict an idea, to promote whatever law disadvantages men, or destroys their civil rights.
Rape is a VERY SERIOUS CRIME, but let's not prosecute false allegers. In paternity fraud they say the father is more than just a sperm donor, but when a woman allows herself to be impregnated then who's sperm it is becomes REALLY IMPORTANT!
Feminists say judges have a good reason for awarding 80% of embattled custodies to the mother (they don't have a good reason), but then they pre-empt the decisions of judges with the bradley ammendment which says judges cannot forgive child-support. If the judge was going to wave some of the CS don't you think he had a good reason?
MY BODY MY CHOICE is the mantra used for abortion, including partial birth abortion (which is really barbaric, they basically scramble the baby's brain), but NOT if two consenting adults want to trade cash 4 sex! NOW you have NO CHOICE over your body!
In the beginning feminists said all they wanted was equal rights before the law. But in the last twenty years they haven't promoted anything like equality. Again and again and again they have totally contradicted themselves to crush men's civil rights. They preach and preach to women defining men in de-humanizing terms (kinda like Nazi's did with Jews?) so that any cruelty can be justified. Well the times are a-changing. I hope all of these so-called authority figures who had a hand in the destruction of men's & childrens rights are prosecuted and put away for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:20 AM July 5th, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
"You guys are a bunch of pathetic morons."
HOW CAN WE COACH LITTLE GIRLS INTO WOMEN WHO AREN’T MALE VILIFYING ABUSERS?
"'How can we coach little girls into women who aren‘t male vilifying, gender feminist abusers?' 'Now that,' I said to myself, 'is a real $64,000.00 question.'
Yes, there certainly is a need for that... ...and there aren’t any taxpayer subsidized programs run by males to encourage women to mentor little girls into women who don’t vilify, abuse, batter, exploit, or defraud males."
"After conception, the child is part of the woman's body and that is why only the woman can choose what to do."
Owning another life, isn't that slavery. No wonder women commit the majority of child abuse with attitudes like that not being soundly condemned. 30 years of gender feminism has certainly enhanced women's privileges to the point that other human life doesn't even have rights.
"It’s just so much easier for those "females" to state their opinions as fact without having truth interfere with perceptions, and it’s just so much easier to get together with a group of other "females" and present the consensus of the group as a scholarly researched study, than it is to do the real research and fact finding. "
"There is a way that a man can choose not to have kids. Keep your dick in your pants!!!!"
Isn't it just amazing how women's clothes fall off, and their legs fly open without any conscious effort on their part?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:58 AM July 5th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Opps, here's the link to that article.
http://tinyurl.com/cy7z6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by frank h on 08:13 AM July 5th, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Practical Feminist = Feminist Bigot
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by garys737
(lovebigtits@yahoo.com)
on 08:51 AM July 5th, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
A has been stated by the intelligent amoung us.
A womans place is in the home.
Gary Sachs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by khankrumthebulgar on 10:51 AM July 5th, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
What can you expect from Feminists? Logic,reason, respectful dialogue, yea right when pigs fly. This is why a dialogue with FemNags is a complete waste of time. More misandry and invective hate filled nonsense. More bigotry and hatred towards Men. No doubt another Lesbian who hates Men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:01 PM July 5th, 2005 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't the United States Pledge of allegiance say; "WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL."?
I'm not seeing that....!
Where are men's civil liberties? where is justice for men? Women have ALL those things. But men do not. So where is the "liberty and justice for ALL"? Women have not only "
liberty and "justice"", but special rights privliges and protections.
That doesn't seem like "liberty and justice for ALL" to me.
It seems like "Liberty and justice" for SOME. But not for all.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by frank h on 12:35 PM July 5th, 2005 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
The Pledge of Allegiance has no force in law, though we should all recognize its principles and meaning. On the other hand, what DOES have force in law, or should anyway, is the U.S. Constitution, specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment, which says: "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
With Sandra Day O'Connor retiring, I'm hoping Bush nominates, and the Senate approves, a strict originalist to the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:44 AM July 6th, 2005 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
"You guys are a bunch of pathetic morons."
Oh, is the poor little spoiled, pampered femi having a bad day, or is it a bad life? Let's all be good chivalrous men and fork over more attention giving programs costing billions for little princessess everywhere, just so they'll like us. How dare we even intone that it's not all about the little princess and her rights and choices. How dare we assert ourselves as if we had rights.
I can understand why her indignity knows no bounds. We're not worthy, we're not worthy - NOT!
News flash to little princess, "Your insults aren't too heavy to endure, back your pampered privileged butt is a back breaking burden no man or society wants responsibility for. Learn to have some responsibility and accountabilty yourself before you blame others (men) for all the issues struggling humanity should confront together as men and women."
Oh, and the next time, might we have a little cheese with your whine? So much bitter tasting belicosity gives me gas. Now pull my finger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by khankrumthebulgar on 10:52 AM July 6th, 2005 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
FemNags like the Practical Feminist is just another example of Gender Hatred attempting to paint a picture of itself as Reason and Social Justice. It is hatred PerSe. The Facts speak for themselves. Lesbians and Socialists are in charge of Feminism in the West. They must villify Men because they intend to deconstruct the Family, and they want sexual access to children and Minor Females. They must recruit since Feminism is a biological dead end.
Their self loathing compells them to maintain perpetual victimhood and to invent reasons to hate Men. They need to be seen for what they are profoundly dysfunctional and mentally ill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:12 PM July 6th, 2005 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, the lesbian drive to sexually access children is a major driving force behind feminism. This point is heard often enough on mensactivism.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:14 PM July 6th, 2005 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I meant to say "this point ISN'T heard often enough on MANN.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:01 PM July 6th, 2005 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
"Anybody here feel like a sucker? Or maybe puppets on a string?"
Nope. Frankly I think it an excellent idea if MANN admin. would permit a few more "inflammatory" posts to get more people sending replies. I find it depressing when sometimes a week goes by and we only see half a dozen posts.
Hotspur
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:57 AM July 7th, 2005 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
"Anybody here feel like a sucker? Or maybe puppets on a string?"
DH:
I certainly don't have absolute proof one way or the other, on the other hand, I can take the truck out with the FEMINIST LIES MAKE BAD LAWS sign, and really see the feminist hate reaction for men in all its exquisite angst.
Given that over 700 women's studies programs are actively indoctrinating as we speak, we don't have to fabricate misandrist statements to experience misandrist hate speech and/or abuse. Liberal Sciences text books (Polly Sci., Sociology, Women's Studies) have numerous feminist half truths and lies just jumping off the pages. Having worked on a college campus for over a decade I can tell you that Mensactivism is a major target in the minds of those man-haters.
It was only a couple of months ago that we were protesting at the local court house and a "femi" came up, who didn't like our signs, and grabbed my friend by the shirt. She backed off when I started photographing her rage, but I got a couple of good photos of her bellicosity. I could be lying too, but the photos show the batterer in all her raging splendor. ...or is that ragging splendor?
Gee, now that I think about it, that's another unreported example of female initiated physical abuse of men with no counter response from the males. Given that this was a public place, it's even possible that children saw this female's act of violence.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Practical Feminist writes "There is a way that a man can choose not to have kids.
Keep your dick in your pants!!!!