Feminist Scum #sexist #psycho

Feminist Scum #sexist #psycho feministscum.blogspot.com

Wow, it's been a while since I last posted on my blog. I guess it's because I usually air all of my opinions on forums these days, or at least I did until I left one.

Anyways, I'm going to post a short article, or list if you will, about something I believe. You may not like them, and I'm willing to accept they may not be accurate. I am not married to these opinions, and they will most likely change over time.

- I believe men are better than women. I believe they are better because they are bigger, stronger, faster, are 4 iq points more intelligent than average, and continue to out perform women at so many different things.

- I believe that if a woman threatens your freedom by setting state thugs after you to kidnap you from your home, and throw you behind bars, then you have every moral right to make that woman fear for her own life to protect your self.

- I believe that the patriarchy is the natural order, and that men should keep women in line. If women do not like this, then they have the right to choose not to be involved with the patriarch.

- I believe you should slap a woman if they are out of control, and won't leave you alone. I do not think this power should be abused.

- I believe women should not be allowed to vote. Women never earned the right to vote like men, they simply bitched for it. Manginas seeing a way to keep power, gave them the right. It should be taken away from them until they can earn it properly

221 comments

old comment by WMDKitty

Bigger and stronger, I'll give you that. But I'd wager next months SSI check that women come out on top in the IQ tests.

Never mind that beating, raping, and essentially *controlling* a woman is illegal. My ex tried to pull this shit, and the cops are keeping a very close eye on him -- IN PRISON.

- I believe that the patriarchy is the natural order, and that men should keep women in line. If women do not like this, then they have the right to choose not to be involved with the patriarch.

Wrong. MATRIARCHY is the natural order. It's not our fault that you men decided to revolt and keep us as virtual slaves.

- I believe you should slap a woman if they are out of control, and won't leave you alone. I do not think this power should be abused.

I believe that, if a man slaps a woman, he *deserves* to be either locked up in prison for life, or shot on sight.

I believe that men shouldn't vote, because they keep voting for wars and senseless violence.

old comment by Boxtop

I found all the women's comments amusing. This is why nobody listens to women: they're arrogant, self-obsessed, and, the majority of the time, fucking batshit.

"I believe that, if a man slaps a woman, he *deserves* to be either locked up in prison for life, or shot on sight."

What if the woman's being an abusive bitch and is hitting him first for no reason? Should the man still cower and let her wail on him because he shouldn't hurt a woman?

Fuck you, feminazi. If a woman assaults me for no reason, you can bet that I'm going to fucking kick her ass.

As for the article, I agree with points 2 and 4. If a woman instigates an attack against a man, then he has every right to defend himself.

EDIT: His blog's been removed? This is retarded. I bet if a woman created a blog about how much men sucked, nobody would touch it.

old comment by

The IQ points is a sovereign stupidity which has been debunked over the time. In fact, girls and women do better in college and highschool and score better in most areas except maths, which means, by the way, nothing. And by the way, haven't you considered that that supposed outperforming is a product of culture, not nature?. As far as I'm concerned, if what you said were true, we'd have not passed through the first and second world war. The second point hasn't happened even in sci-fi movies. If you mean that a woman can't use the system to stop abusive beasts like you, sorry, but following that principle the system falls into ANARCHY. Patriarchy is as natural as democracy and this computer, it's a man-made product. And yes, more and more women and men reject patriarchy because of that. The other points demonstrate that you have no arguments beside the fact that you're insecure little idiot. To begin with, vote is, too, a man-made concept, so I would like to see how men "earned" and "fought" for it. It could be that they assigned it to themselves arbitrarily? Tell me, if women are so inferior, why is it that they GIVE BIRTH?. Why is it that India and China are having economic and social problems due to the lack of WOMEN?

old comment by Waiting for God

This article is firmly grounded back in the 50's or possibly way before, however, comments such as those posted by the likes of WMDKitty are not helpful. A male retard posts assinine comments as to why males should be able to abuse females and you do the same for females vs males.

Regardless of gender no-one has the right to wail on another person unless it's self defense, i.e. the only circumstances I would break out the pain on a person is if they were physically attacking me, I would drop them and run.

Women fought for gender equality and that's exactly what they should receive. A woman should not live in fear of a violent man but at the same time a man should not be expected to take domestic abuse from a woman without at least being expected to defend himself. WOuld any man here allow a woman to kick him repeatedly in the nuts without at least attempting to keep her at arms length and cover his love-spuds?

As for the comments about 'shot on sight', I am disappointed in you, tut, tut, showing radically dangerous fundie morality here; "If someone insults me I should be able to kill them", how does a slap justify shooting?

Kitty if you're going to complain about a man acting like an idiot, make sure you don't come across as an idiot yourself.

Edit: Kitty, I am genuinly sorry that you suffered abuse at the hands of a violent man, I am not being sarcastic, I am genuinely sorry, but read what you're posting here, how is giving the abuse back to men going to help you're situation? Does it make you feel better? We haven't done anything to you, hell, I've respected many of the comments you've made in the past, don't poision it now with anger.

old comment by

If you think that, be consequent and don't blame women for your misadventures. If we are not able to live without the guidance of a man, we can't do wrong without a man either, don't you think?.And to Boxtop, the reason why women saying men suck aren't as rejected as this guy is very simple. It's the same why black, Asian and Hispanic, or gay for that matter, can have their proud day without fear of contempt and white people don't. In the case of women, black, Asian, Hispanic or gay, as they are the ones who are taken away their most basic civil rights for the mere fact of existing, when they invoke pride they do it with the aim of strenghthing solidarity, community ties and self-respect. When a white person invokes white pride, what they're doing is advocating the supression of civil rights and the subjugation and subordination of other races. Same with the guys like him. They're not really advocating solidarity between men, which would be ok, they want, as this guy clearly shows, the re-enslavement of women.

old comment by blackgem

I think... no. I don't care where your issues come from, but I advice you sort them out, pretty damn quick.

With regards to number 4 - yes that could be interpreted as talking about defending yourself against an abusive women. Women are just as likely to engage in physically and psychologically abusive behaviour as men, and this is a serious issues that does need considerably more attention.

BUT in the context of the rest of his post, it sounds more like he's advocating physical abuse and control of a women. Especially given how completely nebulous "out of control" is.

There is no excuse for violence (barring self-defence), irrespective of the gender of the participants.

old comment by zazugrey

>I am not married to these opinions, and they will most likely change over time.

My guess is that you're not married to anyone, at least not anymore, and unless you rethink these opinions that isn't likely to change over any amount of time.

>I believe they are better because they are bigger, stronger, faster, are 4 iq points more intelligent than average, and continue to out perform women at so many different things.

Do you mean "IQ"? Do you mean "on average"? Do you mean “outperform”? I know that sounds like nitpicking, but if you're going to brag about being smarter "than average" than half of the human race, you'd better check your grammar. Besides, claims based on the "average" give you no personal right to gloat. I'm a man with an IQ substantially higher than the average, but the fact that you and I are both men (at least in the most bare-bones, biological sense of the word) doesn't allow you to use my test scores to claim any sort of intellectual superiority over women. Based on your grammar alone, I can safely say that I know plenty of women who beat your IQ by significantly more than four points--in fact, I'm married to one. If being married to an intelligent, educated, independent woman who would leave me and call the cops if I EVER slapped her makes me a “mangina,” oh well.

And what makes you assume that bigger and stronger are better, anyways? If we’re going to gauge people’s worth by their physical traits, I find pretty and graceful to be far more important considerations than big and strong, but I suppose that’s because I actually like women. Why, exactly, do you suppose you find bigness and strongness so attractive?

>I believe you should slap a woman if they are out of control, and won't leave you alone. I do not think this power should be abused.

I notice that you don’t appreciate the difference between “power” and “right.” I have the power to slap any woman in arms’ reach. I choose not to do so because (among so many other reasons) I don’t have the right to do so. Besides, if you’re talking about a woman, the correct pronoun is “she,” not “they.” Again, nitpicking, but I thought I might point out a good use for those four bonus IQ points you’re apparently squandering.

By the way, I also noticed that you refer to both men and women as “they,” and you occasionally refer to men as “you,” but you never refer to either as “we.” Are you a hermaphrodite? Not human? Inanimate object? Golem? What gives?

As a comparison, I've found that white supremacists are usually complete and utter losers with nothing but their ethnicity--an accident of birth which they have no right to take credit for--to feel proud of. You are the gender equivalent of a white-trash racist. Here's a suggestion: instead of basing your self-esteem on the mere fact that you have a penis, try basing it on being the type of man who occasionally gets to share his penis with a willing partner.

old comment by Princess Rot

So, since you are labouring under the delusion that you are superior in every way to every woman, that gives you the right to abuse those you perceive to be weaker? That's the same logic the big kid in the playground uses to excuse his bullying of the smaller kids. And MRAs wonder why they're hated.

Abuse her because she reported you because she doesn't like you abusing her? On what planet does that make sense? Clearly you don't have any faith in your own gender if you believe every man who isn't a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal and treats everyone with respect and compassion is less than human.

- I believe that the patriarchy is the natural order, and that men should keep women in line. If women do not like this, then they have the right to choose not to be involved with the patriarch.

Wrong. Patriarchy is a social construct, it hasn't always been there, but it affects every level of society as it is today. It's not something 'over there' which you can choose to opt out from (at least while it's still here). I have to disagree with WMDKitty on the matriarchy point - the same power structure with gender power reversed is just as unhealthy as the other. There should be a union of sexes, outside of the power binary.

- I believe you should slap a woman if they are out of control, and won't leave you alone. I do not think this power should be abused.

Violence is bad from anyone, however, you live in a fantasy world, FS, if you think this 'power' is not already abused, and would not be abused more if men were given legal rights to beat women. Like zazugrey said, you may have the power, but you don't have the right. Learn to differentiate.

I see the Fundie History Revision Project is well underway. And everything #657173, zazugrey and WMUATimothy said.

old comment by mas528

- I believe men are better than women. I believe they are -better because they are bigger, stronger, faster, are 4 iq -points more intelligent than average, and continue to out -perform women at so many different things.

Might makes right? Nice.

Where do you get 4 points? More like 2 points. And you do realize that is less than the standard deviation, right? And this average comes from the outliers the men and women with substantially higher and lower IQs than normal.

- I believe that if a woman threatens your freedom by -setting state thugs after you to kidnap you from your -home, and throw you behind bars, then you have every moral -right to make that woman fear for her own life to protect -your self.

No, you have a right to call the authorities about HER threat. Unless you are an abuser.

- I believe that the patriarchy is the natural order, and -that men should keep women in line. If women do not like -this, then they have the right to choose not to be -involved with the patriarch.

Tiresome. Citation needed. and NOT the bibble, the moron, or the vague'us.

- I believe you should slap a woman if they are out of -control, and won't leave you alone. I do not think this -power should be abused.

That is true for men as well as women, but only in extreme cases.

- I believe women should not be allowed to vote. Women -never earned the right to vote like men, they simply -bitched for it. Manginas seeing a way to keep power, gave -them the right. It should be taken away from them until -they can earn it properly

Now you're just pulling dingleberries out of your ass.

old comment by Gloria

"the average" applies only to average people. and most people differ somewhat from the average. I very much doupt your IQ is higher than mine. In fact, I very much doubt your IQ is higher than that of a chipmunk.

I believe that if you want to live in society you have to abide by it's rules. some of those rules are that things like rape and spousal abuse (which I suspect is the issue here) are not acceptable in civilized society. To turn your own phrase back on you: If you do not like this, then you have the right to choose not to be involved with the society. that is, to go live in the woods and try to survive on berries 'till something eats you.

- I believe that the patriarchy is the natural order, and that men should keep women in line. If women do not like this, then they have the right to choose not to be involved with the patriarch.

I believe that that societal model was abandoned thousands of yeas ago, because it really doesn't work quite as well as the whole 'large cooperative society founded on democratic government' deal which we rely on today. if you really want to go back to it though, there;s probably a gorilla troop you could join.

- I believe you should slap a woman if they are out of control, and won't leave you alone. I do not think this power should be abused.

I believe you should slap anyone who is hysterical and in danger of harming themselves or others, if that's the best available way to snap them out of it. I believe any other use of that technique is abusing it. so we are in agreement- sort of.

I believe fighting for years for the right to vote is a heck of a lot better way of earning it that giving it to yourself. however, I am not of the opinion that all men should have their suffrage removed until they have earned it, just...certain ones.

old comment by Little Miss

1. The percentage of male graduates from college drop every year. And I'm not exactly in the best shape, but I know plenty of men I can out run and out-lift, including many full grown men.
2. Fuck you. If you get thrown in jail, you deserve it and I hope you rot.
3. Or, you know, we can do what we've done for years and manipulate him until we get our way. Or castrate him in his sleep, which isn't done nearly enough in my opinion.
4. I believe she should slap you right back and if you try to further your abusive tendencies, I believe she should strip you of house, money, property and children.
5. Um...men were given the right to vote because for some reason, asshats like you think balls=brains. Women died for the right to vote.

old comment by

@Sasha.
He's not hinting that the man may be innocent. He's saying, loud and clear, that it's a God-given right to the man to hit his wife and that law and order shouldn't interfere.
@Boxtop
This blog has been eliminated because the server, as a private corporation, has all the right to apply whatever policy they think pertinent to keep the traffic and the reputation intact. If they don't do the same with a woman saying that men suck may be because, no matter what Glen Sacks says, when women are so mean to men(which is also wrong), they usually tend to enumerate general statements about men such as "they abandone you for a younger woman", "they're insecure like kids", etc...........and advocate leaving them alone and becoming lesbians or forming a kind of "sisterhood". And many men do the same in stupid websites like "men are better than women" and so on. That has NOTHING to do with what this guy does(as many others and many white supremacist webpages which have also been eliminated)which is both being apologist of a crime(VD is a crime, as far as I'm concerned), advocating violence against women and the supression of their civil rights. There is a key difference.

old comment by Brian X

IQ studies are meaningless as nobody really knows what IQ actually measures anyway. Bigger, stronger, faster, yes, but who cares? Women are still equal intellectually.

Ah, Niven/Pournelle libertarianism, the political choice of bitter, rejected cellar dwellers everywhere. Misogyny and greed all tied up in one just-waiting-to-be-arrested package.

- I believe that the patriarchy is the natural order, and that men should keep women in line. If women do not like this, then they have the right to choose not to be involved with the patriarch.

But heaven forbid they should organize, those uppity bitches.

- I believe you should slap a woman if they are out of control, and won't leave you alone. I do not think this power should be abused.

The only time it's appropriate to slap a woman is if she's about to kill you and you're doing it in self defense. Even then, better to run and call the police; then again, that applies to anyone regardless of which gender the assailant is. Otherwise, keep your fucking hands to yourself.

Define "properly" -- oh, wait. I don't think that's possible in your messed-up little world. History has shown that things don't change when the oppressed don't speak up.

old comment by apYrs

@WMDKitty

sorry a misunderstanding, the logic I used was that that underlay Athenian democracy, and, using this moron's take on things, should be applied - i.e. you vote only if you can fight to defend your decisions.

That is philosphicanlly abhorrent to me, not least because of the purely practical point that a community is made up of all its citizens, all of whom contribute in their own way, but also, as a gay man, I don't see that strength is the quality that defines humanity - our intelligence, empathy and ability to work in groups outweighs that.

I apologise if you thought I was espousing the Athenian model, and thus denegrating women or anyone else (apart from this 2@).(PS I'll ignore the "asshole" jibe, as a Brit the word I recognise is "arsehole" with a nice long "R". xx)

old comment by Feminist Scum

I am an atheist, not a fundie. I would have no problem wiping my ass with the bible, koran or anything else.

I believe in the natural order where men are naturally more dominant. If you wish to ignore the way men are naturally more dominant, then go ahead. There are books which say why men are more dominant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inevitability_of_Patriarchy

I do not endorse abuse of women, and said no where in my post that I did. I think people who abuse others for no reason are scum. I do not abuse others, it is not in my nature.

Just because I see women as beneath me does not mean I hate them. I have 2 dogs I see as beneath me, yet I care for them.

old comment by

Feminist Scum is reacting to decades of STATE feminist INJUSTICE HATE and slander of men. Men (ordinary men not the handful of scum that are in politics who only care about making money are being screwed at work, by family law and in every area of their lives)
I dont agree with ANY of Feminist Scums ideas but all you who sneer and rage against him, overlook WHY he says the things he does. Go read www.angryharry.com

I have heard man many women say they are superior to men and NO ONE complains. most women think nothing of saying men are scum pigs useless etc..etc..look at the TV.adverts the press the internet.Man hating is accepted it has been for a long time.
Boys are stupid throw rocks at them T shirts.

Feminist Scum is part of a growing backlash.Decades of MIASNDRY means Mysogyny will increase until misandry is challenged misogyny will grow. Be good to live in a world free from BOTH.

old comment by Lithp

@Feminist Scum: Shit, you could get a better history lesson from Home Improvement. Literally. In any case, unless you're a freak of nature capable of asexual reproduction, you are hardly self-sufficient. You had a mother who was instrumental in your fetal development, you know. Oh, and a woman is a HUMAN BEING, you ass. It's kind of different from a pet. You know what? Fuck this, DIAF!

@Anonymous: Fucking bullshit. You don't get sympathy from me because the media hurts your feelings. It's like I told the mens-rights Tards: When it happens to them, THEN they can say it isn't so bad. I will not argue that there are certain areas of society with a slight anti-male bias, but going around saying terrible things about women, advocating beating and otherwise abusing them, none of it helps anything, hence why I don't give a damn about that excuse. You think something's wrong, you get it changed. *Points to ignorant-ass comment about suffrage.* Women didn't get the right to vote by standing in front of the Congress building and yelling "all men our assholes!" and that's why the mens-rights forumites, you, and Feminist Scum (if indeed he is real) will never achieve anything.

WMDKitty: To reiterate what I said before, I can't imagine what you went through from anything other than your descriptions, but it sounds awful. Though I do not agree with every viewpoint that you have expressed here, I think we can all agree that our hatred is much better focused on Scum here than someone who's just lashing out from a reopened wound. Please think before you submit a quote: If I was subjected to these kinds of things, would I act the same way? Would I expect other people to act like this in that situation?

@Sandman: Equality. Equality. Equality. Equality. Equality. Did you absorb that word yet? And the "this guy should die" type comments are usually tongue-in-cheek, deal with it.

@Lithp: Actually, now that I think about it, this guy's probably just an asshole troll who's thriving on the attention, and he's easily one of the most successful trolls that we've ever had. We might want to think of just outright deleting this submission. And for those of you who are a bit slow on the uptake, yes, I am talking to myself in this paragraph.

Now you fuckers have gone and pissed me off! I'm going to glare at my TV angrily now!

old comment by Feminist Scum

Humans are pack animals, like dogs. In a dog pack, you have the alpha male, then the alpha female, who is beneath the alpha male, and then the rest.

The alpha male keeps the pack in line, which includes the alpha female. Women should be submissive and obedient around men.

See this thread? The women in it are disgusting pieces of work. That's what happens when you let them think they are equal. The nicest women I've ever known are the ones who know their place.

Women are NOT equal to men - never have been. Let's just say for the sake of an argument women are equal to men intelligence wise (even though they are not), well men are stronger than women in the vast majority of cases. It's kinda like when you buy a new TV. If you see 2 different tvs in a store which cost the same price, you buy the one which has more and better features. That doesn't mean you hate the other TV, you just acknowledge one is better than the other.

How the hell can women claim they are equal to men when they have to keep running off to the state and demand laws just so women can compete? It's ridiculous.

For people who claim to be atheists, and scientifically minded, you seem to ignore the strong evidence which supports the fact men are naturally more dominant than women. And again, this comes from an ATHEIST, not a fucking fundie.

And LOL at wanting to get rid of this thread. You can't handle the truth, so you want to censor.

old comment by Feminist Scum

#696995. Men built, we maintain. we invent, that's how we are sufficient. Of course, it doesn't matter, as men would die off eventually without women, but we'd last longer!! Women without men would be fucked. Women almost never build anything, vast majority of inventions are invented by men, you couldn't defend yourselves from an invasion from another country. Women would be fucked, simple as.

Patriarchy is not an invention, it is an order, the natural order, it's just that these day it takes the form of the state, which props women up. Women would be fucked without the state, which btw needs men to maintain and enforce its wishes.

Lithp, you vulgar little slut. I've come across feminist fuckers like you before. No matter how much you claim to be for "equality", when confronted with true equality, you run and hide.

I gave "equality" a chance one time in my life, and decided it was horse shit. You're damn right I'm not for it, it's not fucking natural!

#696996, perverse laws which give disgusting incentives to women to divorce men, and pocket from it are why women don't remarry. Not to mention the fact women always go running off to the state (the same state which is run and maintained by men) when they get in to trouble, when in the past it would have been a man.

I've never said women are not important, I've said women are inferior, and beneath men.

Also, for people reading who think I hate women - I am a chauvinist, not a misogynist. There's a big difference.

old comment by aoirthoir

The Laws of Women:

2. When losing a logical argument, a woman will invariably resort to emotional arguments well before any possible concession. Thus, when arguing with a man, a woman will inevitably bring up at least one of a man's putative: a) homosexuality, b) small penis size, c) lack of a woman, d) unattractiveness to women, e) inability to satisfy a woman, f) cheating with other women. The fact that many of those assertions are logically impossible when combined will not prevent a woman from doing so.

Aoirthoir's Corollary: When these fail a woman will follow up with one or more of the following: g) threats/hopes of violence, h) threats/hopes of genital violence ("Off with his penis!"), i) threats/hopes of a horrible death, j) indignant shouts of lack of his worth, generally in caps or followed by several exclamation points ("You're a waste of humanity!!!", "YOUR A WORM!!!"), k) appeals to the opinion of his mother about him ("your mother must be ashamed"), l) claims about the state of his emotions ("you're just angry!!!"), m) claims about the state of his happiness in life ("you're a miserable little man").

Aoirthoir's addendum to his Corollary: Expect grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization and other writing conventions to be completely fucked in her angered state.

4. The LL law: Women are easily offended by what they perceive as oral or written assaults on their femininity, intelligence, or other attributes, and respond entirely out of proportion, demonstrating near total ignorance, thereby reinforcing the notion that they are stupid beyond belief.

Geeza's First Corollary: When a woman has lost an argument, she shall start talking complete nonsense (see Law 2).

(See Aoirthoir's Corollary and Addendum to Law 2).

old comment by Kal-el

Look at what this useless and worthless bitch piece of shit said.-------#696995----"the lack of women in China and India is destroying their economies" ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

China and India have the fastest growing economies in the whole world.China uses 2/3 of ALL the concrete and 1/3 of ALL the steel in the world, China's economy grew in 30 years more than every western countries in 100 years.

China has a steady over 10% economically growth every years while the western countries's economies are going DOWN because of feminism witch screwed the educational system and the workplace, not to mention the whole fucking interaction between men and women.

China will fucking take over the world economically very soon, they will make their "little" Asian union with India,Japan,Korrea and all the others and then they will shit on us because we've let our women shit on us ,we gave them privileges and look where that has lead us, feminism never was about equality, women don't want equality, they want privileges, they fucking run from responsibility.

We need to adopt the same laws as in China or we will be doomed .

And the massive decline and aging population of western world??? Well it's massive, the whites are declining fast and by 2050 in US the whites will be at 47%,that means whites will be a minority in US by 2050 and those 47% will be made up of old population ha ha ha ha

In Europe the muslims and africans are taking over and whites will be a minority here too very soon, the whites population is declining fast but it's aging even faster, only the old ones will be white from now on.

Feminism destroyed the western world ,women quit their job given by nature and they will have to pay for that.

old comment by aoirthoir

Women have always had the right to vote, since the founding of the colonies. It really comes down to who owned land. And yes, women owned land in droves, often inherited from their husbands. Thus, generally speaking it was widows, of all women, that had the most vote.

But in reality it was the household that had a vote, not the person. "One vote, one person" is a relatively new concept, which is kind of silly in many respects. The Founding Fathers suspected it would lead to tyrants. Thus, most people did not have the right to vote.

The constitution did not need the 19th amendment because women always had this vote, as did everyone else. "The People" was just that.

However, I think we have seen how fickle women can be, voting for Gore, because he kissed his wife. That's just plain silly. Essentially women should not be allowed to vote, drive, be in public without a man or eat peanut butter on any eighth Tuesday. I could list many more things women should not do, but then none of them on here will be able to shut the frag up for two seconds to read what I've actually wrote.

Fear > mBan.

old comment by Kal-el

A useless bitch #697900 what revolution are you talking about??? Men will have a technological alternative to women very soon and you have NO power over any man, it takes just one man to take care of you all, ha ha ha ha ha revolution???? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha you've already played all your cards a long time ago, you have nothing to fight with!!!!!!you've destroyed the FAMILY,that was your only card to fight with, now you're completely useless to men.

And look what a true patriarchy like China is doing http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-03/05/content_6510506.htm it will be the most powerful in the world by 2025, it will fucking take over the world alongside all other asians soon to be super powers.

old comment by Observer

So first we have:

"Aoirthoir's Corollary: When these fail a woman will follow up with one or more of the following: g) threats/hopes of violence, h) threats/hopes of genital violence ("Off with his penis!"), i) threats/hopes of a horrible death, j) indignant shouts of lack of his worth, generally in caps or followed by several exclamation points ("You're a waste of humanity!!!", "YOUR A WORM!!!"), k) appeals to the opinion of his mother about him ("your mother must be ashamed"), l) claims about the state of his emotions ("you're just angry!!!"), m) claims about the state of his happiness in life ("you're a miserable little man").

Aoirthoir's addendum to his Corollary: Expect grammar, spelling, punctuation, capitalization and other writing conventions to be completely fucked in her angered state."

Followed by this:

"A useless bitch #697900 what revolution are you talking about??? Men will have a technological alternative to women very soon and you have NO power over any man, it takes just one man to take care of you all, ha ha ha ha ha revolution???? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha you've already played all your cards a long time ago, you have nothing to fight with!!!!!!you've destroyed the FAMILY,that was your only card to fight with, now you're completely useless to men. "

Just sayin'.

And with the sudden arrival of this many whackaloons all in violent agreement with each other (not to mention the sequence of introductory "right on!" wankage), we either have sockpuppetry or a link on some MRA forum.

old comment by aoirthoir

Oberserver,

There is a critical difference between The Laws of Women and Manginas and what Kalel did. Kalel insulted (ad hominem) AND presented FACTS. Funny ad hominem only strengthen his EXISTING and ALREADY PROVEN argument.

Whereas women and manginas will not prove, they will simply spout their ad hominem. Further, their ad hominem will be incredibly trite and the same as is often said. Nothing new, just more white matter memorization.

Now, many of us are from the same place. This has little to do with the rightness or the wrongness of the argument's Feminist Scum is making. Just as, many of the persons that originally posted are from the same place neither proves, nor disproves their claims.

The Laws of Women and Manginas that I posted though, are proved throughout the comments section of this blog post. There's not been any real argumentation contrary to his claims. There have been claims though, for instance, that he is Christian. This is another form of attacking the man rather than the argument. There are Christians that believe men and women are equal, and those that believe women are superior. Our society holds this as a central tenet. One can easily agree with feminism and most people are ok with that. Yet if you oppose feminism, you must be "unthinking" (and the other silly arguments, but not funny, made so far).

Thus the reason Feminist Scum is claimed to be Christian. I've been called Democrat, by Republicans and Republican by Democrats. I've been called Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, and Satanic, besides an entire litany of other unbased claims.

I am though Pagan, and an Independent. I believe in the original ideal of voting from our Founding Fathers. Voting is a privilege, not a right and it, like all others, must be earned. I certainly am opposed to persons voting for things that they have not studied. This INCLUDES our representatives.

I believe that fear > mBan. Yet I believe that an individual woman might be better than an individual man. It's all about context. Grace Hopper was certainly better than me in areas that matter most to me.

I believe in the right of an abortion, to a certain term. But the right of me to not pay for it for you.

The list of things that I believe could go on. Some of what Feminist Scum has said I might agree with and other things I disagree with.

But the one thing I hold most important, the right most dear, the key to our freedoms, is that if someone does not know what they are talking about, they should shut the frag up. So, ad hominems are ok and even entertaining. But, they must also be backed up with real facts. Kalel did that superbly.

old comment by Lithp

Hey, Scum: Fuck off. I'm a man and an atheist. Neither of which means I have to agree mindlessly with what you say. The only Fundie here is you. Shouting "I'm an atheist, I'm an atheist!" isn't going to protect you. We don't all hang around the camp fire and tell stories about our atheism, you know.

As a matter of fact, if you're not out-right lying, you're just as ignorant as the religious Fundies. Evolution isn't the end-all answer to how everything in life should works. You also seem to ignore one glaringly obvious fact: One. One freaking government type in existance. Has what can be described of as an alpha male-->alpha female-->everyone else hierarchy. If a place is a democracy, a dictatorship, a theocracy, et cetera et cetera, it just disproved your so-called point.

And what the Hell, did all of "mens-rights" show up to troll us, or something?

Edit: "I'm a chauvinist, not a misogynist." Because "chauvinistic pig" totally means you're cute and cuddly like Piglet.

old comment by Kal-el

Observer #697968 you're extremely stupid, China had to apply the "one-child" policy because those Chinese being a true patriarchy would have multiplied so much that they would not be able to fit in their country.

Now China has a population of 1.3 billion while ALL western countries have 1 billion but in those western countries the whites population is less than 1 billion and it's decreasing fast but the problem is that it's aging even faster, very soon only the old will be whites.

When I said we should take China's very fine example, I meant we should not give women privileges like they have now with so many laws against men.

There's a vicious attack on men in western countries from feminist governments and we have to fight back and win.

Men will win for sure, we just need to do it faster.

old comment by aoirthoir

Actually there is such a thing as a mangina. A mangina is a male who has become convinced of Feminisms arguments that women are superior. He is a mangina because he is pussy whipped into believing this ridiculous notion, while at the same time calling it "equality".

Sexism in theory would be a two way street, but it is not. Biologically it is a one way street. Men are superior to women in every way. This is why feminists cannot accomplish their goals without the support of traitorous men. Which makes me proud of even those bastards. They wanted to get shit done, and they did it. Feminists have been their toy all along.

One way or another men rule the world. Using feminism as the guise, with claimed "equality", they wicked men will rule it to the harm of all, both genders. Righteous men may just step up and prevent these men from their goals. If this happens, even women will be free.

These men currently in control claim that Feminism has given women freedom. Working a 10 hour shift at Walmart is by no means freedom. Nor is having to drag 5 children from 45 daddies around a fair with her. I say 45 daddies because she's not sure which man is the daddy of any of the children. She's more than willing though, to collect child support from a man even if she KNOWS he's not the daddy. Does the state compensate the man for his stolen income in these cases? Certainly not. Even wicked men do shit the right (albeit evil) way.

old comment by aoirthoir

Doctor Jack,

Yes he is a real charmer. It is a well known fact that women CRAVE chauvinists. They claim otherwise, yet, the desire of the female to be well dominated, is widely known. It is for this reason that we arrive at perplexing musings since women have a tendency to adore the "bad boy". A black eye to a woman is as good as gold, as she collects one useless, abusive boyfriend after another. I'd accept her masochistic streaks if she could refuse to have children with these corrupt, worthless men. But, we're dealing with women so we cannot except logic, reason, or responsibility to enter into her decision making process.

She will run to these violent oppressors, let them abuse her, and then almost gleefully hand her children over to them as well. Now, I speak symbolically when I use the term "hand over". Of course she does not pick up the child and say "hey you dickwad, since you are beating me, beat my child also." Rather, it is her actions, of taking up with these vile pieces of worthless excrement, moving in with them, allowing these men around her children and then doing nothing to leave when she realizes that he's beating and abusing them as well as her.

The thing that women need to learn is to accept their submissive nature, while repudiating true abuser. This means acting with honor. It would also include not abusing men as well. But, since women are as violent as men, that's a bit much to hope for from modern women.

old comment by Lithp

Scum: You're not "defending yourself," you're whining like a little bitch. "Oh, boo-hoo, the evil women! Oh waah, big bad Lithp told me to fuck off! Sniffle, they quoted me, mommy!" Grow some nuts and get over it!

Furthermore, if you don't understand why I keep calling you a Fundie, maybe you should read the damn FAQ. The definition of Fundie that we use DOES NOT have to be religious. That's why we sometimes quote atheists. Like you supposedly are. I say "supposedly," because you act like we owe you some kind of loyalty for agreeing with us that God is fictitious, which is exactly the kind of "atheism is a religion" mentality that the Fundies have.

You've spouted so much pompous bullshit about "taking what you want," but you just can't stand that I think you're a whiney little bitch, can ya? You're just another Internet Tough Guy.

Aoirthoir: "Sexism in theory would be a two way street, but it is not. Biologically it is a one way street. Men are superior to women in every way."

You fail at claiming that you are not a misogynist.

"But, since women are as violent as men, that's a bit much to hope for from modern women."

Oh my Satan, are you double-standard!

Furthermore, you both fail with that mangina bullshit. I can't help but notice that nowhere on here did I claim that women are superior to men. I guess in your peanut-sized brains, if men aren't above women in every fucking scenario, then it must be the opposite. And clearly there's a difference between chauvinism and misogynany, but I'm just calling female superiority "equality." You know what? Since you obviously perceive women as a threat to you, I declare that you're manginas by your own definition.

old comment by aoirthoir

Lithp. None of your quotes are things that Feminist Scum has said, or inferred. His responses are neither whines, nor bitchy, but calm, composed and logical. I do note though, that while claiming yourself not a misogynist, you use female gendered pejoratives. Your own words say more about your own beliefs, than about ours.

Perhaps you misunderstand the term "atheist". Its use does not signify a philosophy. Stating that he is an atheist is rather a statement of lack of believe in a fairy tale. Atheists range in lifestyle, morals, politics, family and the entire host of human activity and beliefs. In no sense of the word was he calling for any kind of loyalty from other people that also simply lack this belief, any more than he was calling for loyalty from those who likewise lack the belief that Mars has already been colonized.

Actually what you mean is that I fail at *proving* I am not a misogynist. Since I have already, previously, claimed very pointedly that I am not. It is not my intention to prove my lack of misogyny, nor to change your opinion of me. You confuse belief in superiority of one person compared to another, with hate. The two are not synonymous.

Stating that women are as violent as men, is not a double standard. This is now the third wording you've misused. Though one might say the fourth, if we include Satan among them. Satan, is a mythical entity from a handful of the world's religions.

Considering that women are in every way inferior to men, believing for even one instant that they are equal is to succumb to failed feminist propaganda. The only sort of man that could do so is a man that has inherently accepted that female claims are superior to nature's evidence. Thus, this is to accept, even without claiming to do so, that females are superior to males.

The threat to us is never females. It is always males that are willing to bend the ear to the female mindset. Even if such males only pay lip service to her desires, the potential that such lip service could be indoctrinated into other men exists on at least a small level. It is after all factual that women were able to wrap none of the tenets of their agenda in legislation, try as they had. Rather, it took men to do that. Manly men I might add. Of course, I disagree with their having done so, still I give them credit for having accomplished that which no female in history was able to do. Legislate female entitlement.

Entitlement is not equality by any means, or measure. To believe that it is, is to have closed your eyes to the real world around you. Ignoring reality takes incredible effort that is attainable only by the female. Thus, since you are indeed ignoring reality, favoring non-biological belief, you have crossed the realm from manhood, to the state of the mangina. Men, believe in reality and hold facts, logic and reasoning dear to themselves. When responding to things they disagree with, we do not rant in utter disbelief, raging at the audacity of another who dares disagree with our positions. Rather we provide clear explanations.

Thus it is that your beliefs, your acceptance of fantasy, coupled with your womanly actions of erratic spewing, lead to the only conclusion possible. You are a mangina.

I would wager that you also suffer from another ailment. It is the precursor to ED. Specifically SW or SG. Shitty Wife or Shitty Girlfriend. If you were to cure yourself of either of these afflictions, typically by finding a naked, mewing and of course consenting female, crawling at your feet, you would find that your maginism would quickly fade.

old comment by Lithp

Aoirthoir: Why is it that you people can say "the majority of women are dishonorable sluts," but the second I call someone a bitch or crack a joke, I'M the misogynist?

An observation: Whenever people try to reveal the hypocrisy of others, they generally reveal that they are much more hypocritical.

I am aware that atheists have a wide range of beliefs, morals, et al. That is why I don't have to defend his position just because he is one, which is what he was implying. I am hardly misunderstanding the word "atheist," being one myself. Rather, it is Scum who is misinterpreting it, and you who is misinterpreting what I was saying.

Believing yourself superior to someone else is not bigotry and hatred since...when? The KKK didn't hate black people. They just thought they were inferior. The Nazis didn't hate the Jews. They just thought they were inferior. See where I'm going with this?

Another thing you misogynist types seem to be known for. Taking everything literally. Obviously, "Oh my Satan" was a pun on "Oh my God." And I did not misuse it. You claim that men are better than women "in every way," but women are just as violent as men. I suppose this is more of a contradiction than a double-standard, but regardless, it's a statement made of fail.

Now we get to perhaps the single largest grain of bullshit. If I say "equal," I really mean "women are superior," but if you say "women are inferior," you don't hate them, despite the fact that you have nothing good to say about them. You, sir, fail. You have provided no "logical argument," only twisted words to fit your ends. IF you indeed have this "natural evidence" of which you speak, presenting it would make you look like less of an idiot.

Heh. Now the truth starts to come out. Obviously, you had a "shitty girlfriend," and that's why you're a misogynist.

Also, if I might add, you started off by saying that I was a misogynist (with some pretty shitty reasoning, I might add), and then you finish up by saying I'm a "mangina" (I refuse to treat such idiocy as a real word). There's nothing else to say here but "Epic, full-circle fail."

Scum: That is without a doubt the shittiest logic I've ever heard. No one admits to being bigoted. You're a misogynist.
"Your own words say more about your own beliefs than mine." Really now, "not all" implies that most women are these horrible things that "deserve to be abused." You could not possibly know this. You've descended into the realm of irrational hatred, and therefore are a bigot. You are a misogynist. Get over it, already.

Furthermore, you've both stereotyped me so that you could continue believing what you believe. Epic fail.

Kal: You're proud of hitting a dog with a rock? What the Hell is wrong to you.

Also: Marie Curie, Amelia Erheart, and Cleopatra. Quick! Hide the evidence!

On an unrelated note: How many times can I use the word "fail" in one FSTDT comment?

old comment by aoirthoir

Lithp, I didn't say you are a misogynist. I merely pointed out the inconsistency of your claims and your choice of words. Misogyny is hate towards women. For me to claim that you are a misogynist, I would have to claim to know how you FEEL. I don't make such claims. Your pejoratives are merely *interesting* in light of your other claims, not indicative of any claim I am making about your feelings towards women. To claim such a thing about you would be womanly.

No, you are the one that implied that FC was calling for support based on his claim of atheism. You, and only you.

No, believing yourself better than another is not bigotry or hatred. I believe that I am better than many of my staff. That is why I am their manager. I believe my boss is better than me, that is why he is my manager. I believe Grace Murray Hopper was better than me.

Hatred does not require a belief that one is better. To understand how one can believe oneself better than another, and not hate the other, one must simply understand the meanings of the two words. Better is based on any number of factors. Except in the case of evil (Gandhi is better than Hitler), hate would generally not enter into the equation.

Because I understand the meaning of the word better, I can admit when someone is better than me, whether it is another man, a woman, an Anglo, a fellow Irishman or any other person in any other circumstance. Indeed better is circumstance based.

What better should not involve is entitlement by law. A government should not mandate that companies can only hire people of certain gender (men for instance). Nor that the testimony of an eye witness to a crime who is a member of a certain profession association holds more weight than the testimony another person who does not belong to that association. These are of course just two examples. Government should step out of the way in such cases. However, if a woman does not want to hire me because I have had some of my teeth pulled and I wear dentures, that is her prerogative as a business owner. I do not object.

Of course I see where you are going with it, but your conclusion is erroneous. The hatred in those cases predated the claims of better. Further the claims of better were unilateral. My claims of better are circumstance based. For instance, I argue better than you. I am also most likely far more beautiful in form than you, whether you are woman or man. So far, I've found this to be true in most instances. Except Grace Murray Hopper of course. I do not hate you because I am better than you in arguing or beauty, or indeed because I am better than you overall. Don't hate me because I am beautiful sugartits.

Statements like "oh my satan" are even more silly than "oh my god". You are allowing others (Christians) to control your thinking processes. Like a satanist your actions are reactionary, preconditioned to do the opposite of the group you dislike.

Nevertheless it is not a contradiction to state that men are better than women and then to claim that women are as violent as men. Nor would stating men are better than women, and like men, women breathe. Now, to state, "Men are better than women because we are not violent. Women are as violent as men." or "Men are better than women because men are violent. Women are as violent as men." each of those tends towards a contradiction. To fully analyze whether they were indeed, one might have to question further what the individual meant when she made such statements.

Since women are biologically inferior to men, lacking the strength and stamina of men, then stating that men and women are equal requires ignoring a plain, real world, biological fact. One must arrive at this place by buying into the feminist claim that men and women are equal. This requires believing feminism more than believing nature. Therefore the real heart of the argument is, that women's views of reality, are superior to observable fact. Since men rely on observable fact, we readily conclude that men are biologically superior to women. Thus, to arrive at the view that women are equal to men, one must believe that women's views are superior to men's. It is a simple statement then to say that you believe that women are superior to men. So no, neither you, nor feminists believe in the equality of the genders.

No 'secret truth' has come out as if somehow any of this were hidden. If a person believes in the superiority of women, as you do, my having established this amply, then one listens to their desires. The desires of women are capricious. They will attempt to swing men of the sort that believe your views from one whim to another. Certainly anyone that believes things contrary to observable fact cannot be trusted to make decisions that are in the best interest of herself, or her mate. Most especially if the fantasy she is believing is "I am equal, therefore better than a man."

Such a woman can only ever inflict upon a man the most disgusting of diseases. We could list many of them here, but they all have at their root a central disease, SW or SG. Shitty Wife or Shitty Girlfriend. Recognizing this ailment in no way indicates I hate women. Simply that I am aware of its existence and how to inoculate myself against it.

You're last claim about me is completely false. I did not say you were a misogynist. I will quote my exact words:

"I do note though, that while claiming yourself not a misogynist, you use female gendered pejoratives. Your own words say more about your own beliefs, than about ours."

You object to my saying the very simple, non-misogynistic statement "men are better than women." On the basis of this statement you will flail around desperately trying to claim that I, thus, hate women. Which clearly I do not. Still, in your insistence on claiming hate for others, you're quite willing to use pejoratives of a nature that are based on the very group you are claiming to defend. Pointing this out is not a claim that you hate women. Nor, would I ever make such a claim.

Actually you're not exactly correct. In fact there are many people who will claim outright to be bigoted. We do not make this claim because we are not bigoted. Our statements have used fact, and logic to explain our positions. Yours have continued to misuse words and misrepresent us to imply we believe something, we clearly do not. It is not my fault if you are unable to present a coherent argument.

Quote:
"Also: Marie Curie, Amelia Erheart, and Cleopatra. Quick! Hide the evidence!"

Now I might have to admit I was wrong. Perhaps you are not a mangina. I might guess at this stage that you are a woman. One wonders why, in any discussion of the capabilities of women, these are the three women that are always brought up as examples.

Marie Curie, it took two men for her to get her job done.

Amelia got lost never to be seen again.

Cleo was placed in her position by a man. She almost lost her position later on, but was retained by another man. Finally she died in a terribly planned war because of her greed. She nearly plunged her nation into poverty.

Whether you are mangina or woman it matters little. It takes a man to accomplish anything. In this case you wished to show that there were women who were capable. You failed so I shall do it for you.

Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper.
Accomplished Mathematician.
Created the first computer manual.
Created the first software compiler (A-0).
Created several thereafter.
Created Flowmatic, the precursor to COBOL.
Largely responsible for the uptake of COBOL.
Advocate for women in the military.
Opposed to women in combat.
Accomplished educator.
Sought after speaker.
Forced into retirement by the military at required age but brought back because they needed her.

I could go on, but you can google. I could also list dozens of other accomplished women that were foremost in their fields. I can do this because I am a man. Women and manginas always have to use the same three that you did and thus fail every time. Exceptional women exist without question in many levels of our society. Nearly to a woman they believe the very same things I am stating. People are different, not equal. There are people that are better than other people. As a group, men are better than women. We will find though exceptional cases. Simply not here amongst your cohorts.

You can say fail a thousand times. So far though each of your claims has proven false. You are not using Facts, Reason & Logic to prove your claims. Merely very womanly shouts and foot stomping, fist shaking "They're equal! They're equal! They're equal!." But doing so without FRL merely emphasizes the fact that, they are not equal.

F
EDITED:
F's original comment was:
"O rly? Show me a reputable biology book that states this."
F's new comment is:
"(citation needed)

Show me a reputable biology book that states this."

My comment remains unchanged.
END OF EDIT.

No I won't.

Mangina is a political term, not a biological one. I'm sorry if you thought otherwise, but, once again your having done so demonstrates the superiority of the male to the female. Males, those that are not manginas, understand the meanings of words. Mangina is used to highlight the feminized quality of males that have bought into the feminist fantasy contrary to biological evidence. It's like calling someone that claims to be Pro-Life, anti-choice. Or calling someone that claims to be Pro-Choice, anti-life. You won't find such politicized terms in biology books. But then, since Universities are filled to swelling with fantasy driven females, we just might. Women can be convinced of any fantasy with the proper conditioning.

old comment by aoirthoir

FC. Indeed. What's really interesting about the Curie argument is that most of them haven't a clue what her contribution was other than it having "something" to do with radiation. Expect Wikipedia to spring alive as soon as they read this post in a sad desperate attempt to recover from their lack of knowledge about her.

Still, it's poignant that they ALWAYS choose her. She's one of 5 in their minds that have actually accomplished anything. Compare their scant few options to the vast numbers of men that have effected society at all levels, in all fields, and at all times. The list of such men is as copious as the hysterical ramblings of the radical feminist, as she foams at the mouth, seething in her ridiculous anger at her own gender's betrayal for want of its accomplishments.

old comment by aoirthoir

delerium L2

Frank, you surprise me. I had expected more from you. You realize there are more than two parties I hope.

Of course your comment demonstrates that you read not a twit of what I wrote. I explicitly wrote that there are women that are superior to me. I even listed one of them. I have no issue working as a subordinate of a skilled, intelligent woman. In fact, I have done so in the past and do so now. Additionally I stated plainly that "better" is circumstance based.

While there are women that are more capable than I, there are men that are vastly inferior. Particularly in their reading comprehension skills. At least on this thread, you are one of them.

This is a prime example though of why I state that men are overall superior to women. Thus far not a single person has actually answered the claims I've made. Rather, they've attempted subterfuge. First, claiming I didn't say things I had said. Then, as in the case of Frank, thrusting their own emotions upon me, as if the thing they claim I feel, is indeed, the thing I feel. Only a womanly person would do that. Which of course includes women. Congratulations ladies on being the more "empathetic" gender. Womanly persons can read another's emotions as well as they can predict the future by reading horse shit.

It's not really that complicated folks. None of us are equal. By law we should not be *favored*. Our skills, intelligence, strength, importance to others (family, friends, strangers) and any other factor which would make us "equal" vary so considerably that equality is simply not a reality. Though I believe people are better than each other, all owing to the individual circumstance, I believe that we should all be treated fairly.

Not something which can be said by those that have not read what I've posted and yet insist despite all evidence to the contrary, that we are ALL equal. Of course the fact that they disagree with my contentions and then attempt, however poorly, to belittle them, demonstrates that they feel that they are better than me. So even there own statements belie their pitiful claims of equality.

We differ mainly in that I am stating plainly that I believe we are not all equal, that generally men as a group are better than women as a group, and that I am backing up my assertions with FRL. Whereas to a womanly man and a womanly woman, none of those holding an opposing view have actually done so themselves.

old comment by aoirthoir

Delirium

I also stated that the list of superior women could go on. It is not the likes of me that continually reduce the number of competent women down to the same incompetent three. That kind of silly thinking requies those who claim that men and women are equal.

In any interaction with people, one must examine closely what it is that they do, rather than simply what they say. Women claim to be upset with abusive boyfriends. Yet we will find that these women continue to choose these ignoble and disgusting men again and again. Certainly the woman that is not doing so, does not desire such a man. But too many women put themselves into the pattern of again and again and again and again and again ad nasuem, ad black eyesuem choosing men that are unfit.

Once we could attribute to her not knowing the nature of the man. Twice we could chalk up as a learning experience. Three times we could suggest was the result of her not understanding the signs. But by the fourth, fifth, six, seventh or later abusive boyfriends we just have to accept the reality that she's not doing anything but making stupid decisions.

These stupid choices are not the fault of righteous men who do not beat women. Indeed with such men we have one of three cases. First, they might be gay and then simple not interested in women, so she has no chance with him. Next, we have men like me. We've done a cost/benefit analysis and concluded that women do not offer enough benefits in exchange for the ridiculously high price they exact. So likewise she has no chance with men like us either. Finally there is the man that would date, cohabit and even marry her. In all three of these cases, none of us would beat a woman at all. In two cases she has not the slight chance to get with the man. So then we would expect her to gladly accept the final and only righteous choice. Yet, women in droves continue to choose abusive, fist wielding boyfriends.

Of course, since women are not equal to men, no one wants these women to accept responsibility for their actions. Were they to be alone, without children, one could tolerate with passing amusement the depraved depths of their masochism. After all the fetish community is filled with such nut cases. But women are never content to wallow in their misery alone. So we find that almost to a woman these ridiculous women then give birth to child after child by these scoundrels. This ensures them company in a shared desperate anguish with the children she has irresponsibly forced with her into these abusive situations. Still, after all, she is incapable of responsibility so we should not blame her.

If not blaming her the next logical step would be to blame the wicked men. Perhaps remove their ability to enter into relationships with women and children, thereby limiting their deleterious effects on society at large. To do so though would strip these incompetent women of their freedom of choice. The freedom to choose to completely fuck up their own lives, and the lives of their children. So, we must in all instances refrain from blaming these men.

Finally we come to the honorable men of society. Men who hold men and women to the same standards of honor and righteousness. Men that will disengage when a person is anything less than noble. Men that will no tolerate from anyone, regardless which gender they are, illicit conduct. These men realize that we are not all equal, but that we should not show favoritism one to another in matters of vice or law. So when a woman is of such nature, he simply removes himself from her presence. He has, after all, no obligation to enter into romantic liaisons with anyone. So doing, he is admitting that he is better than she. She has demonstrated a pointed inability to foster wisdom.

And thus, it is these men that must be blamed. Because, we must blame someone and we have already concluded that we should blame not the woman nor her companions, no matter how vile their behavior. In fact, we *must* blame these men, because it enables us to ignore their facts, reason and logic. That would be the worst happenstance to befall our closed little fantasy worlds, because it would require action on our part to change our own conduct.

So you are correct, when you state that I say women want shitty men. This ever true statement certainly does not apply to those, to whom it does not apply. Thus, only those who lack any kind of FRL would find themselves in emotional turmoil over its declaration. Which of course means womanly persons. Screeching, ranting harpies. Beasts always foul with the acrid scent of their own stupidity.

old comment by aoirthoir

Now, considering the Laws of Women. The Laws of Women are based on observations of the conduct of women. Invariably, instead of making use of Facts, Reason and Logic in an argument, a woman shall simply vehemently disagree. Often, due of course to her lack of FRL, she will become almost immediately frustrated. This sends her into near hysterical frothing, in which, instead of attempting even a modicum of FRL, she will spew any, many, most or even all of the declaratives of the Laws of Women.

Indeed, such has happened to a person from the opposing view on this thread. Only one person made any attempt whatsoever to prove that women are equal to men. This was done by presenting cases of women that this person felt had made notable contributions, and thus were on par with men. Pathetically, these women are the three women that are always brought up in such a discussion. The same women are brought up because no one can really think of women that have contributed anything to huMANity. Naturally google is your friend here, because you are unable, from your own mind to lay out such names. I could however, because I know what contributions women have made to penistory.

Yet, you take the fact that I expose this crass conduct as evidence of the wrongness of my position. Doing so simply extols the very claims you are denying in the Laws of Women. For the Laws of Women state that you will not ever try to prove based on Fact, Reason and Logic. Predicting your response, and then you fulfilling my prediction in no way invalidates the very prediction that I just made. Indeed, your fulfillment proves me even more right.

Now though let's take just one statement that you made. To wit: "However, pretty much everything else you have written is male-supremacist bullshit." By calling my position bullshit, you emphatically state that my position is not valid. It is clear that you view your position as valid and mine as invalid. Thus your supposition is that you are better than me by virtue of this correct position you claim that you hold.

Now, though you are claiming that you are better than me, I am not in the slightest upset. Whereas it is clear that my belief has touched a chord with you. So much so that you can only use invectives and not FRL in the *least* amount at all.

Next your statement "If you can't take it, don't dish it out." Now, it is clear to all that not only can I dish it out, but that I can take it quite well. In fact, of all of the persons posting, I am the only one that has pointed to an example of a real woman that had superiority over men. I could point out even more, though you could not. Thus, I'd say I'm taking what I dish out to myself (the claim that a woman is superior to me) quite well.

old comment by aoirthoir

Delerium you are not addressing what I *actually* said about women and abusive men. I did not address women who stay with the *same* abusive man. The second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and later abusive boyfriends in an increasing list with no end in sight as she jumps from one abusive relationship to another was my contention. Indeed, if she leaves one abusive man and goes to another, clearly she is not "staying out of fear" because she has not stayed at all. This is the case in the vast majority of women who choose men to abuse them and their children.

Delerium, you hold that my arguments are false. Therefore you are holding that yours are better. In particular you think I am a misogynist because I believe men are better than women. Thus, you are taking the moral high ground. If you believe you are more moral than I, your believe you are better, no matter how you sidestep the claim.

I will examine your links. Note however you state plainly that these women are superior. Therefore you are saying exactly the same thing that I am saying, that some people are superior to others. Our sole difference is that I believe that men *as a group* are better than women *as a group*.

Excellent. Hypatia is one of the women that was on my list. Among pagans it is believed that her death signaled the end of the ancient pagan era. Though a pagan myself, I only agree partially. End of an era or not, her contributions were significant. Ultimately demonstrations like this are the kinds of things that will mark an eventual end perhaps to The Laws of Women, if you and womanly persons present them more frequently and in calm manners.

old comment by Lithp

A bit of a preface~Misogyny means hatred of women, not hatred of every single woman. So the argument does not change significantly because you can admit that some women are better, or good, or contribute, or whatever the term may be. Admittedly, this has made me rethink my opinion of you slightly, but overall, the way you portray women in general is very misogynistic, and you don't repeat that mistreatment upon men when it would work. So no, nothing's really changed. Right then. Moving along...

The first thing that you need to know is the difference between "claim" and "imply." Claim is a direct statement. Imply is more subtle. You implied that I was hypocritical, and possibly misogynistic for my choice of INSULT. This is also going to be important elsewhere, so remember these words. Anyway, I DO claim that you and Scum are misogynistic. You give credence to my assessment by never having anything to say about women if it isn't derogatory. For example: "To claim such a thing about you would be womanly." I've seen this before. Gossipping, ad hominems, and the like are seen as "womanly qualities." Everyone enjoys talking bad about that one person they can't stand behind their back. A least favorite teacher, some douchebag at work, et cetera. And it's hard not to attack a person's position on an emotional level. Especially if you're an asshole, like myself. There is a difference between seeing facts like these and completely ignoring them for no apparent purpose other than to insult someone based on their GENDER. Again, that you have good opinions on some women, or even a lot, is irrelevent to whether or not you are a misogynist, because you still believe--without much evidence, mind you--that most women are inferior, and more than that, you show the sex with deplorable qualities.

Here's where what I said earlier becomes important. Scum would repeatedly say "this is coming from an atheist, not a Fundie!" whenever we said something about him. In fact, in one instance, I think he even said "...like you." Not sure, not willing to check. The implication was made. I'm not sitting around waiting for him to say it outright, it's ridiculous when it's practically spelled out, anyway.

Do you believe that you're superior to your employees in every way? Because that's what you're arguing here. If you don't, the analogy doesn't fit. If you do, well, then you're a jackass.

You can't recognize the difference between "claim" and "imply," but you're lecturing me on the supposed difference of words? Even if the words are different, it's a VERY fine line, which you've certainly been skirting, if not outright crossing. You have the freedom of speech to claim that you're better. This does not make it true. And it certainly isn't awarded by alleged knowledge of vocabulary.

This paragraph left me dazed and confused. Men are better in every way, but there should not be legal discrimination, but you can fire someone because they have bad teeth...this is the 2nd time this week where I've read something that made me wonder if I was on acid.

Wow, you are arrogant. "I argue better than you"? Bull-fucking-shit. You've made up words, mistaken the definition of others, practiced hypocrisy, contradicted yourself, and basically shown yourself to be a shallow-ass bastard. "I'm probably better looking than you." What the fuck? Does that even have anything to do with...anything? Plus, I have not been supplied the citations I asked for earlier, which constitutes as an autofail as far as arguments go.

This paragraph was just stupid. Because I use a couple running jokes, I'm being mind controlled?

I was mostly saying that it was double standard because when it's a positive aspect, you say that men have more of it, but when it's a negative aspect, women are suddenly "as bad." In other words, the only way women can't be inferior is if they're "just as bad." I don't know about you, but I certainly consider labelling a person as inferior based solely on whether or not they have a penis as narrow-minded and immature, if not hatred.

I declare this to be bullshit. Men and women have the same muscles. Through training, a woman can equal or even surpass a man's strength. Ishbala knows my muscles have atrophied. Genetics is a very poor argument to rely on, because the body can be modified through life experience. For example, you can be born with the highest possible IQ, but you're STILL going to be dumb as a post if you never bother to actually LEARN anything. What you are doing is called social darwinism, and it has never been applicable. You are also horrendously twisting words around. Using a similar process, I could "prove" that science is just another religion, but that wouldn't make it any more correct.

Here's another example of your hypocrisy. Someone has to say it outright in order for me to make the claim about them, but YOU can take a word that I say and CLAIM it means just the opposite. You, sir, are full of shit. As I have demonstrated, I do not deny "natural facts" whatsoever. You simply look at the world in black and white. "I am equal, therefore better than a man." Yes, I believe that sums up how ludicrous your most recent argument has been.

Lots of people get into bad relationships. Men and women. It happens. I didn't say it didn't. And as to my conclusion being wrong, well, it wasn't any more accurate when you did it, either.

"I do note though, that while claiming yourself not a misogynist, you use female gendered pejoratives. Your own words say more about your own beliefs, than about ours."

Yes, I do note a particular part of your quote. "...say more about your own beliefs..." You very clearly made the implication. Furthermore, nothing you say about the definition of words is really applicable anymore. You sort of lost all credibility when you tried to re-define "equality" to mean "superiority." "You object to my saying the very simple, non-misogynistic statement "men are better than women."" Because that is a misogynistic statement. You're entitled to your own dumbass opinion on whether or not you THINK it is, but it is. Besides, it wasn't the only statement I made my conclusion on. You've made it VERY clear that you dislike women. Oh, this stupid semantics bullshit again...alright, your stupidity is starting to piss me off. Even if that WERE true, it would mean I hated women only if they were DOGS, you retard. Woah--lost the happy for a moment--but the happy's back! (And nobody is going to understand that reference....)

It was a rule of thumb statement, not an absolute. Most bigots do not admit to being bigoted, and even if they do, they likely have a very different view of what "bigoted" MEANS. It would be more of a badge of honor to them. Sort of a "You call me a bigot for hating this person? Well, then, I'm a bigot and I'm proud!" Do they REALLY mean the literal, dictionary definition of the term "bigot?" Up for debate. But I digress.

"Our statements have used fact, and logic to explain our positions. Yours have continued to misuse words and misrepresent us to imply we believe something, we clearly do not. It is not my fault if you are unable to present a coherent argument."

Hello, pot. I'm kettle. You're black.

You're wrong on both accounts, jackass. First of all, I'm--oh, why bother? Misogynists can't function without stereotyping their opposition. I learned that while I was trolling mens-rights.net. If I wasn't in a dress, I was obviously getting it up the ass was the sentiment they expressed. Quite frankly, the amount of time spent speculating about my sexuality, fetishes, and gender by you people is very disturbing.

Why those three? Because I can't spell the name of the N-chick who also ruled Egypt!

"Marie Curie, it took two men for her to get her job done."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Actually, I'm not entirely knowledgeable about Marie Curie, but the point was made that men didn't "invent all science," regardless of how I fumbled in the delivery of said point.

"Amelia got lost never to be seen again."

Shit happens. The point is that she could fly a plane, and was a very skilled pilot. Now, if you're going to sit there and tell me she couldn't fly very well because she went missing, I'm gonna have to bring up the whole fleet of planes (piloted by men) that went missing around the Bermuda region.

"Cleo was placed in her position by a man. She almost lost her position later on, but was retained by another man. Finally she died in a terribly planned war because of her greed. She nearly plunged her nation into poverty."

I'm fairly sure that Cleopatra wasn't the most competent emperor in Egypt. She wasn't my first pick, but I can actually spell her name, so she was a fallback.

I didn't fail, you simply ignored the point and attacked some trivial, side-detail. Kind of like how Fundies point out that the peppered moth doesn't spend much time on trees, but the point is to demonstrate the theory of comoflauge. Another thing misogynists seem to do a lot. I'm sorry, I know I really shouldn't call you out on stereotypes and then turn around and do it myself, but DAMNIT, it's almost like I'm back at that site and Chris Key is still bitching that I haven't answered his arguments, you 2 are so alike.

You assume I couldn't come up with anyone else. They're famous. Is it really surprising that they're the first to come to mind?

And in one single paragraph, you highlight and prove the entire point of my argument. An argument that I don't even know why I'm making, because you bitch that I'm "misrepresenting you," but you can't go a damn paragraph without stereotyping me, and you can't go an entire comment without stereotyping females as whiney and immature. I will say the same thing now that I said earlier: Presenting evidence will make you look like less of an idiot.

To what you said to F: Mangina is a made up word. Period. It's also a No True Scotsman fallacy. It only exists so that you can say another man isn't a "real man" because he doesn't agree with your fucked up view of the world. You give such lofty speeches, but we "mangina" can function just fine without having to find all these faults in the other gender.

~The Voithe of Reathon Hath a Lithp~

old comment by aoirthoir

Alright I am heading out the door. So I will read in full, what LithP later. But I will quote one thing:

"To what you said to F: Mangina is a made up word."

No fuckin' kidding Sampson. So is EVERY OTHER word. Words don't exist in "reality" like say a rock. They are a part of the human social system, derived from the mind. When a word does not exist that accurately describes something, we MAKE UP a word that does. That's fuckin manly as all fuck. Women try to do the same but the words they make up are typically stupid, and French sounding. That's how you can tell that they're stupid. I mean who the fuck would make up French sounding words? Only women and only the French. But, when French men made up the French language, and when they make up French sounding words now, that is MANLY as fuck. It takes a man to take something womanly like that, and turn it into a manly affair.

Sometimes the creation of words is organic. Sometimes an acronym ends up becoming a word. Sometimes the word derived from another word, sometimes it is just a mispronunciation that creates a new word, sometimes it's a word in another language. Often these last two take on a whole new meaning. The word fuck is a good example. It's creation is lost to history. There are several notable CLAIMS though as to its origin. Including several of the ones I just mentioned.

So let's not act like you're suddenly smart and you "caught me" and are gonna "best me" because you pointed out a fact we ALL know already. In fact, if you read what I wrote a couple of pages back you would have noticed I said that already. But, you're a woman, and if not, very womanly, so we shant expect you to actually work for your arguments.

Still that last statement I will hold back as non-conclusive FOR NOW, until I've read your lengthly response just above this statement of mine. If your response is educated, informed, and logical, then that last sentence I will retract. Even if I do, this last claim of yours, "magina is a made up word" as a point of argument is just stupid and thus, by extension, womanly. As a result you are what we call a fidledwep nischtol tachir. We being, myself and all my personalities.

See right there I just made up three words on the spot. And I insulted you at the same time. That's the never ending brilliance of a man. Women can only attempt to insult and then only with the same useless claims which really aren't insults at all. "Yer gay, yer gayer than gay gay and so totally gay gay that yer gay." Uh right shit tits. Come back to me when you have something more. (Not talkin to you LithP, just who ever would say stupid shit like yer gay.)

Slan go foill. Chifidh me tu.

old comment by Lithp

Unnecessary follow-up:

"...In its most overt expression, a misogynist will openly hate all women simply because they are female. Other forms of misogyny may be less overt. Some misogynists may simply be prejudiced against all women, or may hate women who do not fall into one or more acceptable categories...."

"Frequently, the term misogynist is used in a looser sense as a term of derision to describe anyone who holds an unpopular or distasteful view about women as a group...."

"Misogyny is a negative attitude towards women as a group, and so need not fully determine a misogynist's attitude towards each individual woman. The fact that someone holds misogynist views may not prevent him or her from having positive relationships with some women. Conversely, simply having negative relationships with some women does not necessarily mean someone holds misogynistic views. The term, like most negative descriptions of attitudes, is used as an epithet and applied to a wide variety of behaviors and attitudes...."

So yeah, this should help explain why I still consider you misogynistic. The key point is "prejudice towards women as a group."

One: It's lengthy because I respond to each one of your paragraphs, you stupid fuck. You want my responses slimmed down? Practice what you preach!

Two: Ah, this particular brand of bullshit again. "(I perceive that) you do things that I don't like, therefore you're effeminate, and therefore you're either (a) a woman or (b) a mangina." Yeah, how dare I insult your intellect because of your use of fallacies and unresearched stereotypes?

Three: It's not a recognized, official English word. See, this is exactly what I'm saying. You haven't made a "logical argument," you've been attacking incredibly trivial side-details and misrepresenting your opposition. Which is a majority of the human race, quite frankly.

"Chauvinism (pronounced /'?o?v?n?z?m/) is extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of a group to which one belongs, especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival group. A frequent[1] contemporary use of the term in English is male chauvinism, which refers to the belief that men are superior to women."

I believe that solidifies my epic win. You were saying about me misusing words...?

Four: Why the FUCK are you capitalizing the "P" in my FSTDT ID?

old comment by aoirthoir

LithP,

I am about to start our meeting so I will have to read the rest of your comments later. Still, there is a difference between making up NEW words and then misusing EXISTING words. Now, if you claim to REDEFINE an existing word, or create a NUANCE of it, that is acceptable if you so state. For instance, if you claim that a misogynist is someone who eats french fries, ok that's fine. Use it all you want. However, if you are using the term to mean someone that hates women, then that does not apply to me.

Now, you claim that for it to be true, one doesn't have to hate ALL women. Well then in that case most people would be misogynists. The CORRECT statement is that misogyny is the hatred of women AS A GROUP. I do not hate women as a group. I just recognize that women as a group are stupid as fuck. Just as I recognize the chair I am sitting on is stupid as fuck, and I do not hate it. It's not the chair's fault that it is stupid, nor is it a particular woman's fault that she is stupid. So, no in the manner that you are claiming to use misogyny, you are wrong.

Now, claiming that something is better than another, in NO ONE means that you hate the thing less better. Chocolate is better than dirt. IF you are going to eat it. If you are going to plant something, then dirt is better than chocolate. I neither hate dirt, nor chocolate. Anyone that thinks stating one thing is better than another means hate of the thing not better, really needs to examine their thinking process. Why do I say this? Because their thinking process is like that of a woman, shit fucked.

old comment by aoirthoir

Alright I read LithP's "unnessary follow-up". If it was unnessary, then don't do it. I'll respond to your other post in a moment.

Based on the quotes you have given there about the term misogynist, it can be used so overbroadly that it has little meaning. However, it still comes down to hate. I do not hate women. I only think they, like you, are often dumb as fuck. Specifically men are better than women. Since I have compared this to many things that I am better, but that I do not hate, and you have not understood that, I doubt my saying it anymore would.

See, here is the difference betweem us. I do not have a need to tell other people what they FEEL. Since only that person can truly know what their emotions are. For instance, perhaps you think that I hate women when I say men are better than women, because if you think you are better than something you HATE that something. But, since I do not know how you FEEL, I shant even presume such. Rather I think you are just misinformed on the word hate.

You stated:
The key point is "prejudice towards women as a group."

I also prejudge rocks as a group. I do not, however, hate rocks. I prejudge men as well. It always amuses me when folks think that they are not prejudiced. For instance, you are prejuding women as a group, to be as good as men, as a group. Of course science and nature say you are full of frog shit.

You stated:
"One: It's lengthy because I respond to each one of your paragraphs, you stupid fuck. You want my responses slimmed down? Practice what you preach!"

And to think I was going to COMPLIMENT some of what you wrote. Then you have to come back with this. See, this is again where you are trying to think what I FEEL. I was in no way insulting the fact that you had a long post. However, I have not been back to this site for a couple of days. I had noticed no posts so I didn't see the point in returning. Then, today, just as I was about to head out for a meeting I thought I would pop in, and see nothing again.

Instead I saw your lengthy and actually finally fairly well written post. So, I could not do it justice by just skimming it. Thus, I said, quite manlogically, that I would read it in detail later, and respond when I had time to do both, more thoroughly.

But, like a dumb fuck woman, you decide to tell me what I *want*. Just like your idiocy with telling me that I hate women, I won't tolerate your attempted control over my emotions here. Women attempt this ploy all of the time, especially in arguments with manginas. It works on them. It shant work on me.

You state:
Three: It's not a recognized, official English word. See, this is exactly what I'm saying. You haven't made a "logical argument," you've been attacking incredibly trivial side-details and misrepresenting your opposition. Which is a majority of the human race, quite frankly.

Now this is just stupid. Because it IS a recognized "official" English word. You are dumb enough to think that unless it's in a dictionary it's NOT official. Guess what numbnuts, words get into the dictionary GRADUALLY over TIME and through USE. NEW words are invented, they become part of the VENACULAR and then many years later they will find their way into "official" dictionary recognition. Some words make it faster than others. Their LACK of placement in a dictionary has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it's a word that people would understand.

You can say mangina to anyone and they will know what the fuck you are talking about. Why, I just had this interview on the street right now as I write this:

Me: "Hey mother fucker, do you know what a mangina is?"

Her: "Yes a mangina wears manties. They are disgusting fucks that will give me their money, time and attention in the hopes of gettin some of this sweet shit. But we both know bitch ain't gettin nuttin."

See? Right there I interviewed a fictional broad and even though she was fictional, she TOTALLY UNDERSTOOD the word mangina. And the funny thing is, even YOU understood what it meant.

You stated:
A frequent[1] contemporary use of the term in English is male chauvinism, which refers to the belief that men are superior to women."

You focused on the first part of the definition. but the CONTEMPORARY use you left off. Notice, male chauvinism refers to the belief that men are superior to women. Not the belief that men hate women. So you failed again, because that is exactly what we've been saying all along.

Since I've had to spend time answering this unnessary reply, completely destroying all of your claims, I will answer your other, somewhat more reasonable claims, another day. Right now I am going to go get some food.

old comment by aoirthoir

Moondog,

Where oh where do I begin you silly silly girl.

Quote:
'm 5'2", so I'm shorter than most women, no thanks to my genes.
--
If it's not because of your genes, why are you 5'2"? Were you kept in a box and unable to grow? Did your older brother push down on your head as you sat in front of the TV every day to keep you from growing? Maybe the earth's gravity is especially intense where you are?

Of course there might be other reasons, real reasons, outside of your genes that you're short as fuck, and thus unable to compete with a man in anything. Were you
underfed growing up? Did you have an accident or catch an illness? Lastly did you have a disease? (If so was it genetic?)

Unless you're short for one of the reasons mentioned in that second paragraph, chances are pretty strong that it's thanks to your genes.

Quote:
You wanna take away my right to work or vote based on that?
--
Thinking that women should not vote, is different than legislating their privilege to vote. I believe that most people should not vote, not just women. I believe that voting should be restricted to those that have actually read the legislation, studied it, understand the implcations and can speak intelligently about it. To many people of all four genders, vote emotionally.

Now as far as working, working is likewise a privilege, not a right. If you are able to do the job, then do it and be glad for it. If you are unable to do a job because you are too short, or too weak, or too dumb, then that's just the way it is and you should not be allowed to do that job.

Quote:
Oh, well it's just as silly as other things people like you have used to dicriminate with...
--
Firing someone for not doing their job is not discrimination, in the sense that you use the word. If you had looked up my references you would have noticed I pointed out that there are broads who have a fuck all work ethic. Most women do not. If you are one that ACTUALLY works, good for you. But since you've not read most of my posts, I doubt you would make a very good employee.

Quote:
Girls are less likely to be stillborn or die in infancy.
--
Thanks, I will be sure to quote you the next time some feminist fuck claims that girls actually die more in these cases. -Source "MooNdog".

Quote:
And women live longer than men. This is true in every country on earth.
--
That's because men are doing the work that women won't do. All of the dangerous jobs are done by men. An interesting statistic though, is that single men live longer than married men, married women, and single women. I postulate that is because a single man has the luxury of not hearing a woman speak to him at odd hours of the night.

quote:
Medically speaking, men are the weaker sex.
---
Not really. Living longer is not the only indication of health. Women, that live these longer lives, often are debilitated. The illnesses they suffer while they hang on desperately for an ounce of hope are simply saddening. Additionally, women, when they become ill, take much longer than men to heal. We're up and back to work much sooner, and feeling much better than women.

Quote:
You might want to re-think who rules your house. Is it: both of you; the one who will probably live longer, or; the one who wins the 100-meter dash?
---
This isn't the 1950s toots. I believe in women living independent lives. Away from men. So the one living the longest in her house, should be herself, since she is the only one living there. The same is true for me.

Being better is not about "ruling" over another person. I do my own laundry, clean my own home, cook my own meals. I do everything in my life that needs to get done for me. I have done these since I was a child, the only difference now, is that I also work to earn a living. I am uninterested in a woman taking on these chores. They are mine, and belong to me.

Likewise she can do her own work, in and out, of the home.

Your last question is just silly. A sequoia tree lives much longer than a human. But I'd not want it voting either.

old comment by Eliac

So the rights that men themselves voted for us to keep are wrong, in your opinion?

*Snorts* If I walked in here and claimed the excact oppasite of you, "things i believe" (note the lack of proper punctuation) I would be proclaimed some awful nickname or another. Someone sexist who has no idea what they're talking about.

I believe men are equal, because most of them treat me with respect. Then I meet you, and realise:
Not all men are excactly the brightest tool in the shed.

Similarily, not all women are smart either. Just because there are some sluts on myspace doesn't mean I don't have respect for myself and my personal space.

Jesus fucking Christ, get over yourselves.

old comment by Lithp

Firstly: Moondog is obviously a man. If you had any reading comprehension, you'd know that, as well as the fact that "no thanks to" doesn't mean "not caused by." Seriously. Stop bitching about my semantics if you can't even understand the basics of the English language.

Fuck off, I'll post whatever I want. I'M not the troll.

Bullshit "it has no meaning." I'm not prejudiced towards women as a group. Therefore, I am not a misogynist. You have the said prejudices, therefore, you are a misogynist. See how that works? In any case, it damn sure has more of a meaning than "mangina," which is just a label that you attach to any guy you don't like.

I'm just trying to get you to admit to the obvious facts. You're using argument ad absurdity. IE: "I'm not a criminal, I just do things that are against the law." I don't see what the big deal is. There's already a number of men and women who think you're a contemptible piece of shit. If you stop being a hypocrite and start admitting to your misogyny, we'll just say that you're an honest, but contemptible piece of shit.

You are not prejudice towards men, because anyone you don't like, you do not consider a man. Verbatim: "You are not a man, you are a mangina." Besides, nowhere in any of your comments have you said anything negative about the male sex. Your case fails. Otherwise, you'd simply be a misanthropist, which is all well and good. In fact, watch this: In general, I have contempt for the human race. Therefore, I am a misanthropist. See how easy that was? Speaking of contempt, I believe you'll notice that word is very prominent in the misogyny definition, and you always display the female sex as having contemptible qualities. It's a no-brainer, really.

As to the rocks thing, you just compared women to inanimate pieces of dirt. I refuse to turn that into an arguing point, it's simply too easy.

I feel like complimenting you every once in a while too, but then you piss me off by saying something stupid. I really don't give a shit what you think. In fact, you're slowly becoming more and more unresponsive, so I've considered stopping toying with you entirely.

All my posts are written in the same style. That style just so happens to use a lot of insults. Well, a few of them might have been civil, but that only means that I tried having a logical argument with you, and then just gave up. You exhibit the classic Fundie symptom of having no idea what the fuck you're talking about, and then insisting that your opponent is the one who can't present a logical argument. Go back to whatever ass of the internet spewed you out, troll.

Like a woman, you go on a lengthy, and bitchy rant about how I'm trying to "control your emotions" whenever I misinterpret one sentence of yours. See? I can do it too, it doesn't take that much thought to be a bigoted prick.

You're the stupid one. You said very clearly that it's not in the English language, and that words become accepted over time, through use. Since it hasn't gotten into the dictionary yet, you just said how I was right. Congratu-fucking-lations. And I'm not so sure it will ever become a word, because you peoples' definition for it is so nonexistant. I say this because it's "a man who portrays feminine qualities" (we already have effeminate, dumbass), yet as you clearly demonstrate, "feminine qualities" to you is anything that you don't like. It doesn't necessarily even have to be a feminine quality, I've insulted your ilk before, and they've used that as grounds to call me a mangina.

"See? Right there I interviewed a fictional broad and even though she was fictional...."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Hold on, I'm not finished HOLDING MY SIDES...PFFT...HAHAHAHAHA! ...Oh, that was serious? I'd laugh even harder, but that last "HA!" blew out my vocal cords. Seriously, talking to yourself is suddenly a good argument? Why don't you just tell me that God says you're not a misogynist, it would make about as much difference.

Again, reading comprehension. Actually, I might have failed at reading comprehension...either way, fuck you.

The only thing you've destroyed is my vocal cords...wow, that worked oddly well....

Once I saw "if you claim that a misogynist is someone who hates french fries, ok that's fine," that was the cue to ignore you.

"The CORRECT statement is that misogyny is the hatred of women AS A GROUP."

Congratulations on plagerizing me, jackass.

"I do not hate women as a group. I just recognize that women as a group are stupid as fuck."

Argument ad absurdity. Also, [citation needed]...for AT LEAST the third time.

It's kind of different when your claim is "females are inferior to males in every way." It's also different when you synonymize female qualities with qualities that you dislike. You can say you're not a misogynist all you want, that isn't going to make it true.

Now quit capitalizing the "P" in my name. That's something only an ignorant tree would do.

old comment by Falyne

Of course, that act of 1918 also gave women the right to vote (albeit only women over thirty, while men got it at twenty-one). Frankly, if your definition of "earning" the right to vote is by wartime suffering, then I think the entirety of England's population did so several times over in that war, not to mention the next.

Also note that the right to vote was granted by an act of Parliament in response to popular pressure. Which sounds rather similar to woman's suffrage. If I were a misanthropic monster, I could respond by claiming that the veterans demanding the right to vote was just a load of whining, and they never earned the right to vote as they hadn't, say, gained property ownership. But I'm not a misanthropic monster, and I believe that voting is a right, not privilege, that should belong to every member of the citizenry of a democratic state, not granted at the whims of subjective concepts of "earning" it.

Along those lines... how, pray tell, did men of color earn the right to vote? (I'll admit I'm getting US-centric on this one) For the most part, they "simply bitched for it". Carpetbagging abolitionists seeing a way to keep power gave it to them. Should voting be taken away from them until they can earn it properly?

(For the record, I also feel that the draft, should it occur, should also be obligatory for all citizenry. The many women that are capable of performing in combat would then indeed be expected to serve.)

old comment by aoirthoir

(NB: I'm an American of Irish descent myself. I can't even PRONOUNCE any word in Gaelic properly, so I won't claim to be Irish, but there you have it)

Gaeilge actually. And it is phonetic, so little effort to learn.

I am totally fine with Irish people not being allowed to vote. Or, as you say, being allowed to vote if they are not complete drunkards, and yes, that means many and even most of them cannot drink. I'm Irish American and Irish, as my name indicates. It's Gaeilge.

Quote:
ANY person who is a victim of abuse, either as a child or an adult, is generally more likely to be revictimized later.

Actually you mean Most persons are more likely to be re-victimized.

Nevertheless my statement stands as exactly true. Most women who face DV are not continually victimized by the same man, but other men. Thus, it is not fear of leaving which keeps them in the abusive relationship. Further, it shows the diminished mental capacity of these women.

It is interesting though that most I have seen are not quivering cowering women. When their man is caught cheating, suddenly they cut loose with a tirade and a violence equaled only by yesterday's black eye. They will let themselves and their children be abused to near death situations, but a penis plant in another vagina and now they're willing to stand up for themselves. I've seen this in nearly every case of DV I've noticed and it sickens me.

Defend your children simply by ceasing association with asshole men. And, top it off by watching these same "desperate women" abuse good men.

It is for this reason I will absolutely not have any relationship with a woman that claims she's been abused. If it is true, I can expect a load of bullshit from her self loathing belief system, and if it is a lie, well then why would I want to associate with that kind of woman?

Women are the single greatest cause of rampant homosexuality in our society.

old comment by Lithp

Agreed. People are constantly saying how we're taking Scum's quotes out of context, but it's all poorly-disguised misogyny and anarchy.

"I believe that men are better than women...things."
Horrible generalizations with absolutely no proof. Only exist as propaganda for you to justify your asinine statements.

"I believe...self."
You're OBVIOUSLY talking about getting someone arrested, and are only making it sound horrible. Besides, making them "fear for their lives" is vigalantism and terrorism. For a criminal complaint against you. Even if it IS unfounded. Seriously? If you have the time and resources to do that, it isn't necessary, because a quick call to 911 takes a LOT less.

"Patriarchy is the natural order...if women don't like this, they have the right to choose not to be involved with the patriarchy."
How, pray tell? You going to deport them to some third-world country? Sounds a lot like fascism, if you ask me. I thought you guys were against that.

"I believe you should slap a woman if she's out of control...should not be abused."
Using it -UNLESS- you're in immediate and -REAL- danger -IS- abusing it. That's called ASSAULT. Seriously, if you shove someone in high school, it's assault. I believe that adults should handle their problems without hitting someone. Whining that "I'm not allowed to hit them!" is some petty pre-school bullshit, and no civilized society should stand for it. I was never bothered with the slapping as a television cliche, but to think you can calm someone down by slapping them in the face when YOU feel that they're hysterical? Not only does that make no fucking sense, where the Hell do you get the right to make that distinction? And you only say it can be done on women. Not men. Clear-cut misogyny. Don't say I'm taking it out of context, either. When I was on mens-rights, if I didn't SPECIFICALLY mention both sexes, I was branded a misandrist. Not that you guys are really against showing hypocrisy.... But I digress: Why don't you just get those thugs you were talking about earlier?

"I believe women should not be allowed to vote...until they can earn it properly."
As everyone said, and you're too stubborn to admit, men had the right to vote written INTO the constitution. They didn't HAVE to earn it at all. Women and African Americans DID. Know what that is? Taxation without representation. And DON'T pull the war bullshit, either. There were women in combat as early as the American Revolution. Not usually as soldiers, but it doesn't matter if you're GI Joe or Molly Pitcher, so long as you're on the battlefield, you're at equal risk.

Also, Feminist Scum, I've seen mens-rights. I see I'm making myself notorious there. You can bitch about FSTDT and me all you want, but all it shows is that you can dish out the comments, but you can't take them. Like I said, I've seen your posts there. You certainly do justify violence, whether you admit it or not. "He's a mangina and a troll, so I'm going to ban him for swearing." Yeah right, just say what you really mean, Chris. You're CENSORING what you don't like. You're worse than the imaginary feminists you're fighting. That goes for all of you, too. Aoirthoir, DCM, Gears, you, Captain Planet, et al.

Notice how we haven't yet bannned you from the comments? It isn't because we can't. These "stupid, arse hole liberals" are giving you all the chance to slander your stupidity all over our site, DESPITE your verbal abuse of our members, something we don't get in return, so put up or shut up!

I WANT CITATIONS! MAYBE YOU CAN SEE IT NOW?

old comment by Punches Pilot

@ Feminist Scum: All human rights and most civil rights do *not* apply only to people who meet certain “qualifications.” Those rights are for everyone, and not just for those with strong arms and keen minds.

I’m not even going to get into the...uh...meat of your stronger/faster/smarter argument, except to say that some men guys with disabilities, for example are weaker than the average woman. At what point on your Bell Curve would you start denying the franchise to those men? (I’m going to take a shot in the dark here by guessing the qualifications you’d stipulate for the franchise are all tailored to you and what you’ve already achieved. I mean, you wouldn't want to reason your worthy self out of the right to vote, now would you?)

I’ll leave you with a quote by the feminist and ex-slave, Sojourner Truth:

“That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?

"Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [member of audience whispers, "intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?

old comment by Falyne

Wow, I thought this thread was dead, so I didn't check it for a while. And, yay, the sane people showed up! ^_^

Aoirthoir, you have such a fundamental misunderstanding of human psychology that it's hard to know where to begin. DV victim's reactions don't show any more diminished mental capacity of women than, say, the fucked-up-ness achieved during the Stanford Prison Experiment (which had lasting long term effects for many if not most involved) showed the diminished mental capacity of male college students.

Also, I'd say that the reason why cheating is generally the threshold for an emphatic response is that it's the one thing that can't be internally justified. If the woman herself is hit, well, maybe he's right that I deserved it. If the woman's kids are hit, well, they were acting out and shouldn't have antagonized him. I'm not saying these responses are justified, but they're the coping mechanisms that humans develop, as our minds are more comfortable believing we can alter the outcome of the situation if we just tried harder. Cheating, however, is an unequivocal wrong. When it happens, you should see a lot of anger over the other stuff ALSO come out, now that the victim is convinced of their anger's validity.

And, yes, I agree that you should never date any woman who has ever been abused. Whatever issues she would have, it's all too likely you'd make them worse.

old comment by Lithp

Person: I agree. Personally, I don't care what they believe, I just want them to be honest about it. Stop hiding behind word redefinition and thinly-veiled hypocrisy and so on, you know?

Pilot: That was very deep and thought-provoking. Needless to say, I expect this to be followed up with a raid by /b/.

Falyne: I check this place every now and again because the mens-rights tards wouldn't let me use them as punching bags. It looks like the trolls may have left, though. I know for a fact that FS went to mens-rights, and immediately started bitching about FSTDT and talking about what an "arse hole" I was. Oh, and there was something about us ignoring science if it didn't support our agenda, too.

old comment by AtheistGirl

1. Bigger, stronger I give you. But what do you mean "on average?" women tend to score higher on tests and exams in colleges in every subject but math. Doesn't mean anything, and neither does your stupid IQ thing.
2. Um, no. That's called "murder", and it's never, ever allowed.
3. I like that part about choosing not to be involved with the patriarch. If a woman WANTS a husband who rules over her, go ahead.
4. Define "out of control". You aren't supposed to control women, they're supposed to control themselves. If she slaps you first, however, it's fine.
5. How did men earn the right to vote? By writing it down? Seriously, we worked way harder for our right to vote than you ever did. Women went to jail for this.

old comment by Vertigo

@Mick
'- all people are equal. Scum like you don't count as people.'

Yes they do. Even the racist, homophobic, sexist fundies count as human beings. They are people, they have family and friends, hopes and dreams, fears and insecurities, just like every other person on the planet. They're morally and ethically misguided, and most certainly sick in the head, but discounting them as hopless and worthless isn't going to do anything but incite aggression, and we have plenty of that as is.
What needs to happen is to prove to them (despite how difficult it can be) that these irrational thoughts exist only in their head, and they're not defending what's right or true, but holding themselves back with superstition and bigotry. And being really,really irritating and disgusting in the process.

More than disgust, I feel pity for people like this. I can't imagine it's very fun waste your life away in a constant state of fear and hatred.

old comment by Flying Zebra

This thread is full of simply amazing statements. Amazing. I love these little gems:

"I am not a men's rights activist either. Men's rights activists are statists who go begging for rights, I do not ask for rights, I take them, either legally, or illegally."

So by "illegally", you're not restricting yourself from thievery, rape, murder, burglary, assault, etc. Right? Illegal is illegal. So you'll beat to heck and back a woman that stands in your way, right? What if this woman happens to be six feet and 250lbs of solid muscle? Is it her right to beat you into submission? Oh, wait, no it's not because of:

"Actually there is such a thing as a mangina. A mangina is a male who has become convinced of Feminisms arguments that women are superior. He is a mangina because he is pussy whipped into believing this ridiculous notion, while at the same time calling it 'equality'."

So you can slap a woman around all you want, but if she slaps back then you're going to end up as a "mangina". Right. Pricelesss. Nevermind that this is a completely made-up term, accepted only by misogynists. But that's alright, because it was made up by a MAN, right? Because, as 'we all know'...

"Women try to do the same but the words they make up are typically stupid, and French sounding. That's how you can tell that they're stupid. I mean who the fuck would make up French sounding words? Only women and only the French. But, when French men made up the French language, and when they make up French sounding words now, that is MANLY as fuck. It takes a man to take something womanly like that, and turn it into a manly affair."

When you've studied a few languages, THEN you can come back here and talk about lingusitics.

English shares approximately 40% of its words with French ( http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/e/languages/similarities/english/index.html ). 35% each with Italian, French and Portuguese. 30% each with Norwegian, Dutch, Swedish, Danish & German. 20% with Romanian and 10% with Russian. I know there are others, they're just not counted.

"But that adds up to more than 100%, how can that BE?" you ask. In case you didn't know, which it seems like you don't, language families are similar. If you start with similar roots, you're going to end up with similar-sounding words.

Now let's take a look at your word, obviously a compound of man + vagina. Man apparently comes from German and is seen in the sense of 'male' around 1000CE. If you go back further than that, it means simply "person, human being". But it's German, which is not French, so that's good. Now let's look at the word "vagina". This comes from Latin and meant there simply "sheath, scabbard". Since French has its roots in Latin (it is a Romance language), this is problematic. But, perhaps the French use a different word? After all, languages evolve away from their roots, right? Unfortunately (for you) the French word is "vagin".

Congratulations, you've just made up a French-sounding word! Are you a woman or French, since you profess that 'only' women and French do that.

When you can make up a word that has Germanic, Slavic, Sino-Tibetan, Japanese... anything but Latin roots and is acceptable to English-speaking people, then maybe we can talk.

"Additionally, women, when they become ill, take much longer than men to heal. We're up and back to work much sooner, and feeling much better than women."

I love this one. Do you know what happens when you chop a starfish in half? You don't end up with a dead starfish. You get TWO starfishes. Quarters, you get four starfishes. You can make at least as many starfishes as a single starfish has arms. Starfishes are generally recognized as having an inferior nervous system, albeit with wonderful regenerative properties.

Perhaps (some) men, like starfish, are simply too "stupid" to feel pain. I know I have heard tales of SOME men who try to refuse medical treatment and say they are "fine" even though they are bleeding and/or obviously wounded in some way. And quite possibly about to die (in certain cases). Does this make them genetically superior to women? Would you consider yourself inferior to a starfish?

Also, I have heard that passing a kidney stone is horribly painful for both MEN and WOMEN. Yet many women will say it doesn't even begin to compare with childbirth at all. Maybe after you've passed a few stones, you'll understand.

And, perhaps, just perhaps, the reason that women "take longer to heal" than men is because their bodies are programmed to prepare for having a "parasite" (baby) growing in their bodies for 9 months at a time. Let's fill your body up with 8 pounds (approximate 'average' birth weight, record is 20+ pounds) of parasites for nine months and see how you do.

old comment by akki

Wow!! a lot of psycho fembot bitches and manginas trying to justify all the wrongs in the society.
Listen to this bitch roar...
" Wrong. MATRIARCHY is the natural order. It's not our fault that you men decided to revolt and keep us as virtual slaves."

Wow!! great going bitch.... matriarch is only natural in the animal kingdom. Apparently u r right with this one, since women never evolved from their animal state so to them MATRIARCHY is natural. Its a completely different story that MATRIARCHY have never been able to push civilization past the stone age. Good or bad whatever u see around u, u cunt, its all because of men. Men defines society and women are always the one who destroys it.

With women I expect nothing better. What really saddens me is when men in their lust for getting laid try to defend a social failure like feminism. Wake up by fellow men, in this MATRIARCHAL hellhole only the one with a stinking pussy is protected. U can lay all ur rights on their feet and shout for womens' rights all day to get laid but still u will remain a "scum" in their eyes. Why?? Simple, u r a man, thats why.

old comment by akki

No matter how much we try to wake up men for their own good. No matter how many valid points we hold in front of these manginas. They will never realize their mistake.

I have one question to ask all those men defending womens' rights. Do u think all these laws like VAWA, Anti-Dowry Act, Sexual Harassment, etc. aren't gender biased?? Is it to much to ask for, that there should be a proper investigation regarding these cases without getting into historical events about oppression and all those BS and if the man has done something wrong he should be punished but in case the woman is lying then she should be punished too??

How can a logically sane man, no matter how strong his beliefs about oppression is deny this fact? Men need to stop and think about what they are doing. Thats the only way society will improve.

old comment by ????

Wow, your little sockpuppet invasion has been going on for a while, hasn't it?

Let's refute your points:

1. OMG, TEH MALE DO MOST WORK, RULE PACKZORZ!!
I've got a conjecture on how this idea developed. First, we were living in hunter-gatherer societies. Women were necessary to create the next generation. So they needed to be protected.

Now, 'women need to be protected' is a nice sentiment, but it's not terribly empowering is it? So gradually the meme evolved to 'women need to be protected because they are weak'. OK, it's wrong, but there's worse.

Next, we get 'women are inferior beings who's only value is in reproduction'. No. It's wrong.

2. MEN R BIGGEH STRONGEH FASTEH SMARTEH
Testosterone *does* give a natural advantage in strength and speed. This just means women have to train for longer, and might produce a few less athletes.

As for intelligence, 4 IQ points is within the margin of error, and it's so small it doesn't say anything anyway. It could even be a case of fluid (adaptability, youth, learning, grey matter, measured by most IQ tests) vs crystallised intelligence (wisdom, knowledge, maturity, white matter) given that women have more white matter on average. If 99.9% of women we retards, that's not grounds to descriminate against all women, especially that 0.01% who aren't retards. If you agree with me, then what's your point? If you don't, well, you're wrong.

Size is simply irrelevent. It's not especially important.

3. WIMMIN WANT EVIL ABUSIVE MEN
No. I'm just guessing here, but I imagine they either think that: they can change an abusive man with their love, that it's worth it anyway for the relationship, or they're simply too scared to try to get away. If you don't understand this, try listening to a few pop songs.

So, here's the big question. What's your point? Back to the 99.9% of women are retards example. Instead of excluding the 0.01% of women who are not retards from voting, you can say you need to pass an IQ test to vote.
So why deny women the right to vote?

In short, you're just a troll with sockpuppets who needs to see himself as superior in order to keep his self esteem up. Offended? I hope so.

BTW, I'm disappointed in how badly the FSTDTites were in the past at defending sanity. You can do better than that! You don't fight fire with fire. Implying that men are inferior is like trying to stop a forest fire by detonating thermonuclear explosions.

BTW, again, yes, VAWA and similar laws are gender-biased. That's not a good thing, but if it helps with the domestic violence problem, I'm all for it.

BTW, women are never going to take over, sorry to destroy your fantasies.

BTW, it'd be fun to watch you rabid woman-hating misogynists argue with a rabid man-hating feminist. Here's one: http://feminazi.wordpress.com
I hope the hate concentration doesn't collapse to make a black hole, or we'll all be doomed.

BTW, call me a 'mangina' all you like, it won't change anything.

old comment by Nicholae Carpathia

We had a turtle. He stared at his reflection and pined for company until we bought him a she-turtle. She grew and grew. He got sick, and was therefore stunted. She bit his toes off whenever he courted her, then over the years stepped it up to biting his neck and attempted murder. We had to file a restraining order and place them in separate tanks. She's a psychopath. He still adores her.

These are rock-stupid reptiles we're talking about, and the dynamic is reproduced. Ridiculous, but true. She is bigger and stronger, and therefore has more opportunity to be a jackass. There is no turtle society to either rein her in or let him get his own back through legislation or even verbal digs (which would just get him more murdered, if they could talk.) Luckily, he had us.

The data I have in no way support your allegation that most women are stupid. If people are to be debarred from such things as voting it should be for demonstrated personal lacks, not membership in a class. Outside of the declaration that women as a group should not vote, you seem to hold a similar opinion that voting should depend on individual qualification. Sort of. However, our current practice and the beliefs from which those who disagree with you have been speaking holds that as there is no clearly just way of determining who is qualified, and that democracy should mean that those who are under the power of a regime have the right to a say in it.

old comment by Nicholae Carpathia

[con't]

IQ tests, while interesting general quantifiers, are absurd to apply to the real world. Monetary status is an unjust and oligarchical standard. Sex and race are equally indefensible qualifiers.

Of course, we do debar children because we judge that as a class they are inadequate to the responsibilities and understanding. They are legally less than whole people, even in cases where a particular child is clearly superior to the adults around him or her. The mitigating circumstance to this disenfranchisement is that children are incompletely developed people; they are expected to graduate to full human rights in due course, when they are more likely ready for them.

Sometimes they aren't. On both sides of the gender line. This is unfortunate, and leads to self-immolations and murders and Peter Pan complexes and the like, but there is no proven way to safely institutionalize against that.

Your entire case rests essentially around the time-honored argument that women are as children eternally [with exceptions, since otherwise women who prove themselves would destroy your argument]. The observable world as I have inhabited it says you are wrong. They aren't. They are noticeably distinct from men in many cases, but by no means noticeably inferior as a trend.

Given the only contexts you seem to depict them in are sexual/romantic and rather trashy, you may have had an unfortunate sample group. But even if you're Walter Kovacs, the institution of your elucidated belief system would be unjust.

And now I turn the keyboard over to my sister/roomie, whom I informed of this thread when I discovered it.

old comment by Amadaun

Adam, you took half the good lines. Ah, well. There’s lots to say.

Now, Scum, and aoithoir, not that you're around anymore, I will address you as a unit since you seem to be defending generally the same position, and it is the position I am interested in: If your list of beliefs were generally accepted, only a dramatic revision of human nature would prevent the concomitant institutional standards from being abused. Therefore, as history shows, they are a bad idea leading to a lesser version of the mutually damaging master-slave dynamic observed in the antebellum American South. The master is driven by frustration and fear and often a buried sense of his own injustice, all driving him into desperation to keep the lesser body of people submissive, and eroding his moral values, while the oppressed labor under disadvantage, sabotaged self image, and frequently a burning sense of resentment. All of these are bad. For everyone.

Incidentally, on the topic of American history, Rhode Island was the only US state that neglected to explicitly bar propertied women in its initial voter qualification laws. Those that existed, voted. Men who saw this as a threat, panicked, and the laws were promptly revised. This in response to a long-ago allegation that the initial institution gave voting rights to households of sufficient wealth, widows included. This was false.

old comment by Amadaun

Also, in England legal rights were first achieved by medieval barons, and trickled down through philosophical and legal evolutions through the levels of society to every respectable man. In America less seigneurial rich men with volunteer armies broke with monarchy and spread the vote around a bit, and you know what? Sufficiently well-off loyalists who hadn’t broken for Canada got it just the same as revolutionaries, and so did people who’d sat the war out.

Even the ancestors of present-day man didn’t necessarily earn’ the vote, by force of arms or otherwise. Eventually groups of women who could understand popular philosophy as well as the next man began to agitate for the trickle-down to extend to them, and many of them died for it. But this earning, as Adam mentioned, is not the principle according to which the modern democratic state is structured. The citizen receives that status and the vote because they are recognized as a human being, that rational social animal, who is a part of the system country,’ subject and constituent to it. This has its downsides, like all the idiots being easily manipulated and politics being a slightly stupider circus than it was when the public it was played for was more limited, but it is the basis upon which votes are currently apportioned, and reconsidering it would be a monumental act.

old comment by Amadaun

The qualification vaguely alluded to of being intelligent and engaged enough to deserve a voice in governance is defensible, it’s just not very practical. What’s a citizen to do, submit an original scholarly thesis on political realities to an elections board for recognition as a high-enough level human? Working correctly and honestly, that might be just, but can you imagine how labor-intensive that would be? Why would anyone qualified to judge whether someone was good enough to be a first-class citizen sit around reviewing humanity applications day in and day out? And it would be staggeringly easy to stack in favor of a particular party, candidate, or philosophy. So, fail.

Qualification by arms is ridiculous. America is not an iron-age city-state, nor is any other country in the world, and none can afford to function like one. Because, more essentially: Martial prowess determining status brings the violent and brutal to the fore. When your country is ruled by soldiers, you find yourself at war a lot. And war, while sometimes necessary, is hardly a desirable state of affairs. And if citizenship must be earned, it can hardly be inherited.

old comment by Amadaun

Now, I will discuss emotions, like the whiny little fembitch I am. When supported by a chorus of voices, you are frightening. You are an entity with potential power and the considerable force of long established precedent, taking the trouble to inform the world that men as a class should have the protected right to ensure that women as a class are properly submissive. If you were an eggplant, you would still represent a threat, and thus inspire defense responses.

Let me transition, as you frequently do, to the particular. Hypothetically. I am at university. A man--let us call him Max--is offended that I talk too much in literature class. He approaches me after class and informs me that women shouldn't put themselves forward and annoy everybody. I reply that I pay my tuition and have the right to participate, and anyway I wasn't talking so much that he lost the opportunity. And furthermore--at this point, I being out of control, he slaps me.

This is certainly not a shooting offense, though it is certainly a slapping one, if I dare. Assuming the current reality, if we are in public enough circumstances that I know Max will face prohibitive consequences for maiming me, I am free to slap back in kind, insult him, or walk away without half-expecting death from behind. If not in full view of supportive witnesses, I yell to increase chances that he won't dare, and run. I may report him, so that if he is ever reported for a more serious offense there will be indications that he has a pattern, and the allegations believed.

(This, like most systems, has its potential for abuse, but this requires premeditation, and is thus much less common than abuse of a system supporting enforced submission, and condoning violence thereto, which can and does become casually endemic.)

old comment by Amadaun

In a reality where men have the right to slap women who have gotten out of hand, I can rely on no such insurance, and should I fail to escape, the chances of his continuing to injure me are therefore much, much higher. Because he has now had the proof that he can do so with impunity.

This is how people are. Power is attractive. People do disgusting things given the opportunity. If your beliefs were the social norm, although they are more moderate than some, it would present an opportunity, which would, in turn, be abused. Socialization stating that this is unacceptable behavior lessens the tendency, since very little if any of the conscience is innate, but it has at no point in history eliminated it. The tendency is much stronger in men, for reasons probably both neurophysical and social, leading to all those abusive boyfriends whose girlfriends offend you so.

The majority of women do not have these boyfriend habits, for many reasons including the obvious one that there is not a sufficient supply of depraved men. Women who are abused do tend to gravitate toward abusive relationships and end in a cycle, often with only one or two repeated partners, since old relationships are even easier to fall back into than old relationship habits. This is, however, a symptom of the kind of power dynamic you advocate, and not a reason to pursue it.

If you did not mean any man should slap any uppity woman, but only his girlfriend or wife, and single women are safe, this is odd but also impracticable and also irrelevant. If Max could rightfully slap his girlfriend any time he saw fit, and it was so on a foundation of female inferiority, this would extend to me in any situation where he felt provoked. Since not his personal property, I would be slightly less legitimate a target, but not much unless there was someone to make a counter-claim to me, and do the work that in a better social context is done by the sense of public decency.

old comment by Amadaun

There is no option to dissociate from the patriarch, because even if it were practically viable to leave one’s family group whenever conditions deteriorated there are men everywhere, and males and females interact constantly in innumerable contexts, and when patriarchy is the dominant social dialogue every man exacts his due of submission from every woman, if he can, unless he has independently decided that the concept is fundamentally unjust and divorced himself from it. Even then he would regularly receive it, since persons conditioned to submit hardly wait for their master to demand it before they defer.

A disadvantage your dream world has is that it’s not hypothetical. It’s been done. Again and again. It is being done. It is still reality over much of the world, even in much of America, despite legal provisions to the contrary, which can only be invoked in a social context with some sympathy. Marx could say that after the revolution the proletariat would not oppress each other, because it had not been doneat least, not his way, not yet. But your way has. And it is bad.

I do not want Max to be able to hit me, and tell me that if I don’t shut up in class he’ll give me worse next week, and know that I can’t stop him, but will have to submit. I don’t want to lose my human rights because of someone else’s judgment that male morons are qualified to vote and decide what they will do but I, sharing a chromosome pair with female morons, am not. I do not want you to have power over me.

This has been a (lengthy) reasoned argument, albeit one founded largely in the social sciences, bracketed by an expression of emotional perspective, as composed by a woman. Thank you.

old comment by FS

2 years later and my opinions have changed somewhat.

Hard to say who is superior, and if you can even assess it.

When I see very successful men marrying women and getting raped in divorce court it really makes me wonder. Who is superior in this case? The schmuck who earns billions with hard work, or the woman who seduces the man in to marrying her to take his wealth with minimal effort? In that scenario the woman ends on top. Then again, if men and women competed against each other, men would come out on top, but since they don't, it's irrelevant.

Still think if a woman is abusing the legal system to terrorize a man he has the moral right to use whatever tactics available to him to stop it. Yes, even threats. I have no problem with the reverse being done, and never had. No one has the moral right the terrorize another.

As for women voting, it doesn't matter when men agree with laws like rape shield laws, child support and vaginamony. They are at least being manipulated in to going along with it anyway. So who ends up superior, the enforcer or the manipulator?

I'm very cynical when it comes to both men and women these days. I may post more thoughts later.

Still think the patriarchy is the natural order, and we still live in one today. Today though, the patriarchy serves women, and not men. When I see a man beaten down by the government because some woman just points a finger at a man it makes me sick. Of course if she has legitimate reasons, that's a different matter.

old comment by Liberal Christian

I wasn't "crying like a baby" but feel free to keep exaggerating things. Also, we're talking about your beliefs, not my religion. However, I do believe that in this day and age men and women should have equal rights.

It's good to see that you've changed your beliefs from two years ago. "BTW, these days I'm more frustrated by guys than chicks. If I was a chick I wouldn't do anything differently when guys are so easily fooled in to handing over their money and giving up their rights. Guys are getting what they deserve."
However, I don't see how guys who are being taken advantage of are deserving of what they get. Could you explain why you think this?

old comment by GigaGuess

Lessee...
1.) As an average, possibly, although still dubious. I know several women who could hand your ass to you on every single metric provided.

2.) Enjoy prison. I'm sure you won't mind them giving you a few smacks to keep you in your lace. Or is physical violence only good when you come out on top?

3.) Indeed they go. Enjoy living a very sad, lonely life.

4.) Define "Out of Control." Seems to me, it sounds a lot like "Bitch won't do as I say they should."

5.) And how do you propose they "earn" this right? As I recall, the right to vote is granted to every person. Are you waying women are not persons? Judging by the rest of your comments, I'm uncertain I want to know the answer.

old comment by Swede

They are very far from accurate, stupid.
- Most men are stronger than most women, sure, but strength is not everything. IQ points rely on what questions the test asks; if it asks male-related questions, males will get higher IQ rates.
- This point goes against the next point. If men have the moral right to defend themselves against women, then women ought to have the moral right to defend themselves against men, especially since you yourself said that women are weaker than men.
- If society is a patriarchy, you can't choose not to be involved in society; you are involved, whether you like to or not.
- Slapping someone who's weaker and smaller than you are IS to abuse your power, asshole!
- In what way did men earn the right to vote, and from whom?

You are indeed scum, but you haven't got any feminism whatsoever.

DIAF? No, but he is probably off his knockers.

Feminist Scum #sexist #psycho feministscum.blogspot.com

221 comments

Confused?