Feminised Australian Women suck

Official Statement From Alleged Blair Kidnap Plotter
I, Martin Matthews, would like to make a few things clear about the Sun newspaper article about kidnapping Leo Blair.

1. At no time did anyone ever suggest anything of the sort.

2. The following people were present, Artur – a 58-year-old father who is ‘T –Total,’ Dyian, A photography teacher who also did not drink as he later went to work, Gary, Jolly, Graham, Eddie, and two women.

3. After speaking with the Daily Mail, Sun and Daily Mirror, I feel it necessary to point the following:-

On the 18th of December 2005, I was feeling unwell and only had two glasses of Coke in the pub. I do not have the slightest idea from where these roomers of a kidnapping came from. I have noted in the tabloids that Jolly Sainsbury and Graham Manson are quoted as saying, that I may have suggested this as a joke. However, after speaking with Jolly and Graham it must be made clear that they have been miss-quoted.

4. I found yesterday exhausting, as I had made it clear to the tabloids exactly what the position was. However, I find that in today’s papers have reported that a conversation had taken place with fact or evidence to support this.

5. Late last night and early this morning I was approached by a 3rd party offering me £10,000 from the Sun Newspaper to lie and admit that the kidnapping plot was a Matt O’Conner idea and that he had asked me to look into it for the group.

6. I would like to thank Matt O’Conner for everything he has done for us and suggest that he should be included in the next honours list.

7. I did meet with Police Officers in Epsom on the 27th of December 2005. However, I find it particularly strange that if I did in fact suggest or take part in any kidnap plot on the 18th last, the police have not ever questioned me about this. In fact when I telephoned the Police Officer who spoke to me on the 27th last, about the Sun Newspaper article, and asked him directly who was involved he could not give me any information.

8. I am of the opinion that the entire saga is a complete fabrication by someone in powuò and ask most loudly that proof or evidence should be made available for public scrutiny.

9. As I am not a politician and have no experience with such matters all I can say is the only Party to benefit from this saga would be the Labour Party, by taking the heat of Ruth Kelly and off the front page of the newspapers.

Regards,
Martin Matthews

I found this gem on my men’s forum and seemed ideal that I pass it on here as MABTW.

Quote:

Some guy on Gaia totally blew his lid and created this gem, it’s worth posting here.

http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11856877 - The thread is titled, Are Women Necessary? No really, Are they?

Quote:

Recently, I had the pleasure of hearing a Kelly Clarkson song titled ‘Walk Away’ – in which see sings ‘I want a man by my side, not a boy who runs and hides. Are you gonna fight for me, die for me, live and breathe for me….â€?

The bolded section is what got me thinking… why? Why should he die for you, and live and breathe for you?

I believe the greater majority of western women have embodied this same holier-than-thou attitude expression in Kelly Clarksons lyrics.

What I can’t seem to put my finger on is this: What do women do for men, these days, that’s so great, so wonderful, a man should live and breathe for her and die for her? If a man put out an album stating he wanted his woman to die for him, live and breathe for him, most women would scoff, guffaw, laugh, and everything else under the sun, because well, men aren’t worthy of such devotion.

Maureen Dawd. just put out a book titled ‘Are Men Necessary’, proclaiming men these days are redundant and of no use. Maureen aside, there has been tons of female-written literature these days stating how useless and outdated the male creature has become to women, and to life.

And just like the ‘can’t form my own opinion’ collective sheep they are, mass amounts of women smirk, take these messages to heart, and beat their chests to the daily tunes of male bashing.

But I wonder if any of those women, you women, have stopped and actually asked the question, just what DO women do for men these days? What do men rely on women for, these days?

Who’s really the redundant ones here? What have you ever done for you man in a relationship, besides fuck him?

Even with closed eyes, you can see its men who hold up the greater/full burden of relationships, while women usually just enjoy the free ride, doing nothing, as if she is a child being taken care of by an adult. In relationship’s these days, women do nothing, while men do everything. Men pay for everything, while women pay for nothing.

And no, buying him a pair of socks every now and then does not count. Of course, a lot of girls will read this post and cry bullshit, then tomorrow go to their girlfriends proclaiming, ‘What’s mine is mine, and what’s his is mine’.

Relationships and marriage have devolve into a one way street for men, in which he gives everything, but all she gives in return is a flat piece of pussy… which can really be taken care of by his left hand, and cheap ‘emotional support’ every now and then, which really balls down to her bullshitting long enough to keep her slave in line.

Everything, and I mean everything women use to do for men are being done by men themselves. Chores once considered womanly, are being done by single men living alone. Men cook for themselves, clean for themselves, and take care of themselves, all without the aid of a woman. There’s so many single men living alone, and living happy, yet feminist journalists can not stand this. Pick up a newspaper, you will read how women who live alone are liberated and happy, then these same journalists will say men who live alone are sad and lonely – as if trying to guide the minds of men in to thinking they actually ‘need’ a woman.

Women are not necessary, Men do not need women. – This is a line that is so gut wrenching and terrifying to most women, and they do not want to really think about it. But then go chanting the mantra over and over again that Women do not need men.

Even out of relationships, men are the beasts of burden who do the ‘heavy lifting’ needed to keep the world spinning. All the dangerous or disgusting jobs you never hear about – the jobs that women steer clear of are usually 100% entirely composed of men.

Can anybody tell me what women contribute to this world, besides their ability to birth, that keeps the earth spinning?

Women really don’t do anything when you think about it, do they? Women have long cried out how they want to be worth more than their vagina… but it seems the opposite has happened. Overall, women do nothing for men on the large scale basis – women are entirely consumers in the world, while men are the producers. Women do none of the dirty, dangerous jobs needed to keep our cities healthy and sanitary. Women do none of the ‘heroing’ and chivalrous jobs needed in times of emergency. Think hurricane Katrina… all the people doing the rescuing were men. I’m sure there was like one woman here or there, but any shots in news, magazines (women’s magazines) you will see an entire cast of male rescue workers.

Women do nothing for the world.

In relationships, women do nothing for men at all but fuck, and consume what he produces.

It seems, sadly, that women have somehow become worthy of nothing more than their vagina’s.

In another man-hating attack (written in a mainstream newspaper as always) HERE: http://www.theage.com.au/news/general/ther…3829717803.html

Quote:
The feminist says:

Rather than feel useless and rejected, most men should perhaps feel lucky that women still show as much interest in them as they do and want their companionship.

What she should have said was: For all their self-absorbed ways and utter uselessness in all aspects of life, women should consider themselves lucky that men still want their companionship

Here and there, every now and then, you will hear a girl say, or post in this thread, they actually do a lot for their boyfriend. But those girls are very few and very far between. And even most of the girls who actually claim they do ‘stuff’ for their men will draw a blank stare when you actually ask them WHAT they do for their boyfriends. Ask the average guy the same question, what he does for his girlfriend, I bet you right off the bat he could point out more than just a few things.

Now besides for all the knee-jerk reactions to this post will receive, I’d love a well thought out, detailed responsce, from a girl, explaining just what women actually do FOR men in relationships these days besides sex.

But I doupt I’ll get that, since women don’t do shit for men in relationships.

Are Men Necessary, the title of that book should have been: Are Women Necessary.

Die for you? Live and breathe for you? Like… why? I think I’ll just take the pussy. That’s all you seem to be worth these days.

Double Standards: Ever Wonder Why?
by Thomas Simon

Why is it that women complain when men leave the toilet seat up, but men don’t complain when women leave it down?

Why do women complain about men that only want one thing, but men don’t complain about women that want everything?

Why do women have the choice between abortion, adoption, dropping an unwanted baby off at a hospital, raising the child with a father, or raising the child without a father, but the only choice men have is to agree?

Why do women dress in makeup, short skirts, bare midriffs, and low-cut blouses but complain about men that stare at them?

Why do we pretend that men are the ones that abuse children when it is a well-known fact that women abuse children more than men?

If single mothers have it so bad, why do women initiate about eighty percent of divorces and routinely commit perjury to win custody?

Why do we have a Violence Against Women Act but nothing for men when women cause domestic violence just as often as men?

Why is it funny when a woman kicks a man in the groin but terrible if a man did the same to a woman - won’t the man be in more pain?

Why is it terrible for a woman to be raped once but funny when male prisoners get raped over and over?

Why is a man a wimp if he lets his wife beat up on him but a criminal if he defends himself?

Why does women’s health get much more attention when men die about seven years younger than women?

Why do we complain about legislators being mostly male when they always promote women’s rights and never promote men’s rights?

Why is it sexist to have clubs for only men but empowering to have them for only women?

If women only make 72 cents for the same work where a man earns a dollar, why don’t companies hire only women and put the competition out of business?

How do police know who to arrest when there is a domestic disturbance involving lesbians?

Why do married women complain that their husbands don’t want to change a baby’s diaper but divorced women say their ex-husbands can’t take care of a child?

Why do men that don’t pay child support go to prison but nothing ever happens to women that don’t allow visitation?

If women-in-the-military is such a good thing, why don’t they have to register for the draft?

Why are we so concerned about girls under-performing boys in math and science but not concerned about boys under-performing girls in everything else?

Why do fathers have to pay the mother to take his children away from him in divorce?

Why is it legal for women to lie to men about who the father of a baby is to get child support, but a crime if she tells the same lie to the government to get Social Security or military benefits?

Why do women have to prove they spent the money on the children when they collect welfare but don’t have to do the same when they collect child support?

Why do we have to cut men’s sports that have fans to create women’s sports that don’t?

Why do women tennis players win the same prize money as men when they only play three sets and men play five - isn’t that equal pay for less work?

Why is it called sexual freedom when a married woman commits adultery but called cheating when a man does the same?

Why are female murderers presumed to be mentally ill but male murderers presumed to be killers?

Why are there thousands of “father’s rights� groups but no “mother’s rights� groups?

Why do we have so many fathers groups fighting for more time with their children when there are so many social problems attributed to fatherlessness?

Why do men have to support women at the same standard of living following divorce when women don’t even have to cook and clean his new apartment?

If divorced women have it worse than divorced men, why do divorced men commit suicide eight or ten times as much as divorced women?

Why do we pretend that men walk out on their wives and children when women initiate about eighty percent of divorcuó?

Why is it considered sexist to have a couple of television shows geared towards men when there are several channels catering only to women?

Why are television moms always portrayed as wonderful and loving and television dads always portrayed as inept buffoons?

Why is it politically incorrect to say anything negative about women but funny to put men down?

Why are women without a job considered to be exercising free choice but men without a job considered a bum?

Why do feminists demand that women bÏhuqually represented in high paying and powerful jobs but don’t complain when low-paying, dirty, and dangerous jobs remain mostly done by men?

Why do we have to say “Chairperson� and “Congressperson� but its ok to say “garbage man� and “bad guy�?

Why do we always hear the phrase “innocent women and children� but never hear about “innocent men� or “men and children�?

Why do news headlines use the terms “student�, “spouse�, or “parent� when a girl or woman, or mother does something wrong but use the terms “boy�, “husband�, or “father� when a boy, man, or father does something wrong?

Why do feminists demand equal results for traditionally male roles but object to equal or shared parenting after divorce?

Why does the term “angry mother� sound like someone that needs our help and support and the term “angry father� sound like someone that needs to be arrested and forced into anger management classes?
Fãhy is it that when men are more successful than women it’s because women are oppressed, but when women are more successful than men it’s because men are lazy?

Why are only women free to criticize other women without being labeled anti-women, but both men and women are free to criticize men?

Why are feminists pushing for laws that prevent new laws from being passed that protect men from women, such as with domestic violence against men, false allegations by women, or paternity fraud?

Why is it that when a woman accuses a man of rape, the man’s name is made public and he is presumed guilty, but when he is proven innocent the woman remains anonymous and the man is still ruined?

Why is it considered woman-hating or whining to point it out when women have something better than men, but we rush to pass new laws if men might have something better than women?

Why is it that we’ve had forty years and billions of dollars going into women’s rights and men’s responsibilities, but it’s taboo in most circles to even suggest that maybe it’s time to consider men’s rights and women’s responsibilities a little bit for a change?

If those who always side with women are feminists and those who always side with men are chauvinists, why don’t we have a wing of a political party and billions in funding going to chauvinists when we have that for feminists?

For those who believe men had it better than women in the past and believe now it’s time for women to have it better than men for a while, why don’t they advocate whites being forced into slavery to blacks?

Why are men considered more privileged than women with so many double standards against men?

George, Having just read this page I have wept.
A measure of some release. I find many of my sentiments written on this page. Three years ago whilst making a career tranistion and attending university I met a woman. In the space of a year I found myself homeless, all savings gone, arrested (on the false accusations of the abuser), two hospital visits (where I was treated like shit) and any studies in tatters.
Some of this I sincerely account for being gender distortion. The woman has been in AA now for a year. Almost without exception all that I went out to acheive is now in her possession, including friends, study colleuges. My pathalogicalisation I feel was further aided by certain counsellors who further minimised the extent of the damage and in being critical of what was not “enabler” behaviour or background but that of caring. I thought the tears were “real”.

Bounderies were intact when I first entered this relationship. Without exageration it is like “my life” was robbed, not shared as she niavely thinks. On entering Al-Anon I found similar predijeces, not all but some were clearly suspisious and critical. The effect of this appears to be driving me further “underground”. I do not drink nor take drugs. I drank whilst in the forces, often it has to be said with reluctance “to fit in”. I have never been considered a soft touch either, rather fair and balanced in my judgment of events.
I recognise her condition of Narcissim, which the by nature of the beast is well hidden from her counsellors and other AA partners. Why me? I am hurt bad. Confussed, paraniod and it feels like I have been bitten by “the lie” good and proper… a venom which I desperatly feel in my blood and occassionaly see in my interactions whith others. Posion.
My memory is coming back now in little snippets. But I simplt have no idea who I am any more. It is very very frightening and I have become very inefective in my interactions whith the world. I am wary of becoming self pitying but I really am not sure that I exsist anymore.
This toxin inside I do not want to live with. Can you help. Id travel, do almost anything to perhaps get adequet validation to help me on my way.

At present I am located in Stonehouse, South Lanarkshire, Scotland. E-Mail is kennyscott_uk@hotmail.com Yours very sincerely Kenny Scott

What Everyone Should Know about Feminist Issues

http://www.backlash.com/book/sexism.html

Introduction
Abuse — Who’s abusing whom?
Affairs — The Tao of Adultery?
Affirmative Action — Sexual affirmative action for nerds, wonks and geeks?
Aggression — Just why are men so much more aggressive than women?
Anger — If “Women + Rage = Power,” why does “Men + Rage = Terror”?
Backlash — Has the time come for a real backlash?
Beauty and the Beast — Are pop feminists creating a monster?
Bias — Pop feminists have become the bigots they profess to most despise.
Biology as Destiny — Is biology destiny?
Blame — The power of the pointed finger.
Boring Women — Women who make themselves boring out of bed.
Breast Implants — No such thing as sexual power?
Brutalizing Men — Are we ready to stop the cycle of brutalization?
Casual Sex — The pop feminists’ double sexual standard.
Cheap Dates — Why are only men “cheap dates”?
Child Support — What about all those “Deadbeat Dads”?
Chivalry — Time for a new chivalry?
Send in the Clones — Is there a clone in your future?
Commitment — Are women even more afraid of commitment than men?
Communication — Are women really the great communicators?
Comparable Worth — Who’s short-changing whom?
Competition — Which sex is the competitive sex?
Cycles of Bigotry — A cycle of sexism has persisted for thousands of years.
Death — Dispelling the myth of medical sexism.
Discrimination, Socialization and Socialism — At first, men scoffed.
Divorce — Sexual “alimony” for ex-husbands?
Domestic Violence — How OJ rescued the New Rage women.
Double Standards — More about the pop feminist double sexual standard.
Eco-feminism — The Good Earth
Education — bigotry and the American Association of University Women
Equality — Should women be more equal than men?
Fatherhood is potent — Fatherhood does not need artificial props.
Fear: Weapon of the Witch hunters — A new witch hunt is in progress.
Feminism — Feminism, pop feminism, Victorian feminism, and War.
FLAMETM a Feminist — Who said the New Rage women are humorless?
Grief — Women fear men’s grief.
Heroism — Are all the heroes dead?
Hierarchies — Civilization depends on them.
The Hitman — Here come the sexual gunslingers.
Homelessness — Most of the homeless are men.
Housework — Is “wages for housework” a euphemism for prostitution?
Impotence — It happens to women, too.
Initiating Relationships — When will women share responsibility?
The Invisible Man — The power of visibility.
Justice — Justice requires responsibility.
Killers — The men who kill because women love killers.
Leaders — Do women prefer male leaders?
Lesbians — Violence in paradise.
Lines and Signals — Women hate men’s lines. What about women’s signals?
Love — It begins with a decision.
Loving the Lice — Why do women love lice?
Man Shortage — What man shortage?
Marriage — In marriage, who oppresses whom?
Misogyny — Will the real misogynists please shut up?
Morality — An ethic of caring cannot thrive outside an ethic of rights.
Movements and the True Believer — Pop feminist fanatics.
Movies — Silver Screen Sexism
Nice Guys — Confessions of a (recovering) Gynaholic.
Nudity — In the beginning was the kid.
Nurturing — Everybody knows women nurture and men don’t.
Objectification — Who’s objectifying whom?
Ogling — The White Ribbon Campaign.
Oppression — Who’s oppressing whom?
Patriarchy — Did civilization begin with patriarchy?
Pornography — Why does the grocery store sell women’s pornography?
Power — Who’s got the power?
Power Tactics — How can we defend ourselves?
Problem Solvers — A Hut with a View?
Prostitution — Who really opposes prostitution, and why?
Rape — Working through the pop feminist propaganda.
Reproductive Rights — Abortion, among other things.
Respect — You have to earn it.
Rights — It’s not about your sex, but your humanity.
Rights and Responsibilities — Equality, anyone?
Romance — Just what do women do that’s romantic?
Romantic Retards — Are men romantic retards?
School — Does the female-dominated school system oppress only girls?
Sex — To laugh like men at the New Rage women.
Sexual Credo — A new chivalry requires a new sexual credo.
Sexual Desert — Is the Jihad of Love about to begin?
Sexual Harassment — You’re more vulnerable than you think.
Sexual Revolution — Few men have benefited from it.
Take Back the Light
Values and Ideologies — How gender roles evolved.
Victimhood — The new path to power.
Violence of the Rams
War Paint — No such thing as sexual power? - Part 2
White Male Paranoia
Work — Relegating men to the status of second class citizens.

The feminazy Labor Government of Tasmania has decided that a man are guilty at the whim of any lying, emotional, psychotic females.

Hi Harry,

I thought you might like to know that the word has been turned upside down and Australia’s smallest State is leading the way.

If George Orwell were alive today and looking for a sequel to “1984�, I suspect he would have based it on the Family Court and Tasmania’s Domestic Violence legislation. Whilst Orwell has left a lasting legacy in his denunciations, Judy Jackson’s legacy – she’s taken the money and ran - will affect Tasmania for as many generations unless someone is strong enough to overthrow it. The Tasmanian Attorney General, (Retired) Judy Jackson, has a misandric Charter for Womyn which gives carte blanche for false accusations against men. As if AVOs and Restraint Orders weren’t enough, where a woman can have a man thrown out of his home – that he has paid for even before marrying the woman - because she is ‘in fear’, with no proof whatsoever, she now makes the dispossession of men a Police Priority with no discretion to seek evidence and no bail allowed. Now the Police have to make the Orders themselves simply on allegation. False allegation is enough.

False accusations against and demonising men is the Tasmanian Government’s Policy for disempowering ordinary men and dispossessing them of their property, children and livelihood. The Family Court, the Police, the Magistrates, the Judges, even our Supreme Court are all ham-strung by misandric, man-hating Feminazi legislation. The warnings of injustice and the destruction of human rights and natural justice by the Chief Justice and Senior Judges, the Law Society and the Director of Public Prosecution are all dismissed by Ms Judy Jackson, because these defenders of Justice are men! She won’t listen because she say’s they are men!!

The DPP, Tim Ellis, refers to “The Attorney-General’s tiresome and incessant sexismâ€? which has put over 100 ‘guilty until proved innocent’ people in jail and Ms ‘Feminazi’ Jackson has refused to comment on whether she thought it was fair that a person could be remanded in custody for longer than any sentence they might receive for an alleged crime! ‘Fair’ is not a word she is familiar with. Ms man-hating Jackson said of the Judges and Justices, the DPP and the Lawyers, â€?these men, and they usually are men, just don’t think violence against women in the home is as serious a crime as stealing a few cars or bashing an old lady over the head”.

Of course, violence against men in the home does not exist in her view. Considering that her law makes it jailable without bail to raise your voice (verbal “violenceâ€?) or buy the children new clothes or a Christmas present without consulting the wife or ex-wife (economic “violenceâ€?), it is hardly surprising that they don’t think it as being like stealing cars or bashing old ladies!!

Meanwhile false accusations go on and on. Here is one, ordinary man, Michael, a resident of the Apple Isle that I am acquainted with well. They’ve done just about everything to him. He has had his property taken, his children taken, and if that were not enough, suffers from continuing, incessant, false accusations which have cost him his reputation, any possibility of employment and thousands of dollars in Court costs, Lawyers fees and fines, for what? To satisfy an insatiable female psychotic, vengeful thief who uses the police and the courts and Ms Jackson’s Charter with impunity.

She has stolen his goods and sold them. She has stolen his children and subjects them to constant denigration of their father. Parental Alienation. She has stolen his reputation. She has stolen his children’s love for their father. She has stolen police time and wasted it. She continues to do this with no opposition because Feminazi Jackson decreed it ‘fair’.

This ordinary man’s ex, a liar stood in the Family Court and, on oath, accused Michael of being an International Terrorist, and a Murderer of her previous partner! (That previous partner was in fact deported by the Australian Government as an illegal alien). The Family Court Judge described her accusation as “Fanciful�, when paranoid liar would have been more accurate. He nevertheless upheld her custody of the children !!

A lying psychotic is in the best interests of his children !!

Did the Judge or the Clerk of the Court, the lawyers present, members of the public, inform the Terrorist Hotline, 1800 123 400 as instructed by the Federal Government? Oh goodness no. Did the Judge order a police investigation of a reported murder. No chance.

It was recognised by the Court and all present as being a False Allegation. So, was she charged with Perjury? Making False Utterances? Oh, goodness me, no. Hahaha. This is considered normal good nazi mother material by the Family Court. Did any newspaper report it? No chance again. Newspapers are forbidden to report on Family Law cases. Star Chamber cases. Ms Jackson’s womyn can say whatever nonsense they wish with her Government Minister’s blessing.

Only men can be in the wrong. Only men get punished for nothing. Unreported. Secretly. Like the Jews in Germany in the 30’s.

Ms Jackson encourages false accusation and approves of liars – so long as they are womyn. With Ms Jackson’s man-hating approval, this woman regularly calls the police to harass her ex-husband. She has taken out an AVO against a gentle man. Several in fact. No evidence is needed. It isn’t even asked for. Vexatious litigation is her weapon, with Ms Jackson’s, the Attorney General run-away’s, help. She plays the psychological ‘game’ of ‘let’s you and him fight’. She wins every time of course. Now Jackson has b*ggered off with a fat pension to watch the fighting from the side-lines.

They came for the Jews and I said nothing…….

Chris

Ain’t That Just Like A Woman

There was Adam, happy as a man could be,
Till Eve got him messin’ with that old apple tree
Ain’t that just like a woman?
Ain’t that just like a woman?
Ain’t that just like a woman?
They’ll do it every time

Lot took his wife down to the corner for a malted,
She wouldn’t mind her business, boy, did she get salted
Ain’t that just like a woman?
Ain’t that just like a woman?
Ain’t that just like a woman?
They’ll do it every time

Samson thought Delilah was on the square,
Till one night she clipped him all his hair
Ain’t that just like a woman?
Ain’t that just like a woman?
Ain’t that just like a woman?
They’ll do it every time

From our history books we all learned,
Nero fiddled while Rome was burned
Ain’t that just like a woman?
Ain’t that just like a woman?
Ain’t that just like a woman?
They’ll do it every time

Marie Antoinette met some hungry cats at the gate,
They was crying for bread, she said, “Let them eat cake”
Ain’t that just like a woman?
Ain’t that just like a woman?
Ain’t that just like a woman?
They’ll do it every time

You can buy a woman clothes,
And give her money on the side,
No matter what you do,
She ain’t never satisfied
Ain’t that just like a woman?
Ain’t that just like a woman?
Ain’t that just like a woman?
They’ll do it every time

http://www.louisjordan.com/songlist.asp?l=1

30 years later, let’s see where we stand:

First of all, obviously heels and bras came back pretty fast. In fact, push-up bras are even used to show off cleavage and breast size. Of course, women are wearing push-up bras for themselves and not for us chauvinist pigs.

And then there is plastic surgery:

“The number of women electing to have their breasts enlarged through implant surgery is increasing rapidly. A record 220,000 American women chose to undergo breast augmentation in 2001, and the industry projects an almost 10 percent increase this year.”

“That is twice the number of women who were getting cosmetic breast implants a decade ago, before the Food and Drug Administration strictly limited use of the most popular type of implant — the kind filled with silicone gel — after reports that it might cause debilitating illnesses.”

This trend shows a 472% increase in boob jo… pardon me: breast augmentations in the last decade and it’s still growing. Some TV shows seem to be exclusively hiring women with fake breasts:

“Many young people growing up never see what normal natural breasts look like. Women are caused to think that the pert big breasts are ideal and so many women (about 334,000 in the year 2004 according to American Society of Plastic Surgeons) opt for breast implants to ‘correct’ their breasts. Most teenage girls worry and fret over their breast development, some even to the point of suicide.”

I couldn’t find an authoritative figure for the amount of women in the USA with boob jobs, but according to my calculations I estimate 2.5-3 million.

And this is just breast surgery. In 2003 alone, 7 million US women chose plastic surgery.

And these are only the women who go through with it. Surveys consistently show that most women aren’t happy with their breasts and many of them wish for a boob job but don’t do it for various reasons.

So women switched from ‘torturous’ girdles to dangerous surgical procedures, from unnatural rigid panels under their clothing to cement breasts that sometimes don’t even bounce, and from flattening their stomachs and butts with lycra to cutting open their bodies and sticking dangerous substances under their flesh so that their cleavage will be appreciated. Now that’s what I call progress.

And then there are the radical feminists who want to abolish marriage (AKA patriarchical repression and slavery), and give women their ’sexual freedom’ to sleep around with whomever they want and still collect child-raising taxes from men.

And, of course, there is the controversial fight for abortion rights. Ah, the freedom to have sex without consequences and have the choice to not be tied down by unwanted pregnancies.

So adding this all up together, what with women fighting for bouncy butts, huge boobs, consequence-free sex, and no marriage commitments while wearing mini-skirts, heels and push-up bras, would I be wrong to conclude that bottom-line Feminism (pardon the pun) is about converting women into sex objects?

http://genders.blogspot.com/

editor…
I came across a female when I was in Europe last year, she gave me a hug and it felt like being stabbed in the chest. I would hate to think what it would be like if it was a longer session !

Here We Go…
… Again! Woman ‘has sex with boy, 12′

She’s 41 - He’s 12. Is that sick yet?

From the article, let’s go down the litany here:

Adrianne Hockett: Accused of having sex with a 16-year-old special-needs student in a Houston apartment she rented for the get-togethers. The boy has testified the pair would “have sex, drink beer and smoke weed.”

Amber Jennings, 31: Initially charged with having sex with a 16-year-old, the counts against the Sturbridge, Mass., woman were reduced to a single charge of disseminating harmful materials to a minor. She reportedly admitted e-mailing naked photos of herself to a former student.

Amber Marshall, 23: Northwest Indiana woman allegedly had sexual contact, including intercourse, with several students, and turned herself into authorities, telling police she knew what she did was illegal.

Amira Sa’Si, 30: Clayton County, Ga., woman remarked she didn’t think her relationship was inappropriate based on her Internet research, learning the Peach State’s age of consent is 16.

Amy Gail Lilley, 36: Inverness, Fla., woman charged with an alleged relationship with a 15-year-old girl.

Angela Stellwag, 24: Delran, N.J., woman accused of having sex in her apartment with a 14-year-old boy she met in school.

Beth Raymond, 31: Private-school employee from Pownal, Maine, charged with risk of injury to a minor and second-degree sexual assault of a juvenile male.

Bethany Sherrill, 24: Daughter-in-law of school-board president is charged with molesting a middle school student when he was 14.

Carol Flannigan

Carol Flannigan, 50: Boca Raton, Fla., music teacher reportedly slept with 11-year-old former student, and also had a simultaneous sexual relationship with the boy’s father.

Celeste Emerick, 32: Police in Huber Heights, Ohio, say she hosted a party where students were shown porn.

Christina Gallagher, 26: Jersey City, N.J., woman ordered to pay more than $1,000 in fines, sentenced to a lifetime registration as a convicted sex offender and ordered to attend therapy for having sex with a 17-year-old student.

Deanna Bobo

Deanna Bobo, 37: Arkansas teacher allegedly had sex twice with a 14-year-old boy in his own bed while his parents were not home.

Donna Carr Galloway, 33: Married mother of two found naked in a car with a 17-year-old student.

Elisa Kawasaki, 25: Officials say ex-biology teacher had sexual relations with a 16-year-old student on up to 20 different occasions.

Elizabeth Miklosovic, 36: Grand Rapids, Mich., woman pleaded no contest to sexually assaulting a 14-year-old female student she “married” in a pagan ritual.

Elizabeth Stow, 26: Woman from Fresno, Calif., area convicted of having sex with three of her students was sentenced to nine years, but the judge suspended that sentence and gave her one year, possibly on house arrest, as well as faces five years probation.

Ellen Garfield, 43: Former student says teacher took him into an empty classroom where she worked, partially disrobed, and coaxed him into having sex with her in 1998. Garfield was acquitted of all charges in September of this year.

Emily Morris, 28: Alabama woman faced a possible 20-year sentence, but received one year in jail for having consensual sex with a 15-year-old student.

Erica Rutters, 29: York, Pa., woman allegedly wrote erotic messages to a 17-year-old student and had sexual intercourse with him four times in her apartment.

Georgianne Harrell, 24: Sylvester, Ga., woman charged with performing oral sex on a 9-year-old boy, allowing students to gaze down her blouse and slashing her wrists with glass in front of her students. She pleaded not guilty.

Gwen Ann Cardozo, 33: Colorado woman charged with having sex with a 17-year-old male student.

Heather Ingram, 30: Mathematics, science and business teacher in British Columbia had sex with a 17-year-old student.

Janelle Marie Bird, 24: Accused of having a two-year affair with a 15-year-old student from East Hill Christian School, in Pensacola, Fla.

Jaymee Wallace

Jaymee Wallace, 28: Basketball coach in Tampa, Fla., charged with having an 18-month lesbian relationship with a student.

Joan Marie Sladky, 28: Redwood City, Calif., woman sentenced to six months in county jail for having sex with a 16-year-old student after pleading no contest to four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse, oral copulation and penetration with a foreign object.

Katherine Tew, 30: Married English teacher from Greenville, N.C., arrested for having sex with a 17-year-old student.

Kathy White, 39: Charged with having sex with a 17-year-old student in Lumberton, Texas. Victim alleges: “She just started grabbing me and hormones were on and it just happened.”

Kelly Lynn Dalecki, 28: Woman from St. Augustine, Fla., pleaded no contest to charges she had sex with a 13-year-old boy.

Kristen Margrif, 27: Michigan woman accused of having sex with a 16-year-old male student in her car or at his summer workplace.

Kristi Oakes

Kristi Dance Oakes, 32: Former Tennessee high-school teacher allegedly had sex with a 16-year-old boy who was in her biology class the previous year.

Lakina Stutts, 40: School-bus driver admitted to cops she had sex with a 14-year-old student in her home and in a car outside the boy’s home.

Laura-Anne Brownlee, 26: Former music mistress at a top private school in Belfast, N. Ireland, was sentenced on six charges of indecently assaulting a 15-year-old boy.

Laura Lynn Findlay, 30: Middle-school band teacher in Buena Vista Township, Mich., charged with having sex with at least 5 students, one as young as 14.

Margaret De Barraicua

Margaret De Barraicua, 30: Sacramento, Calif., area woman arrested after police found her having sex with a 16-year-old male student in her car while the woman’s toddler was strapped into a seat in the back.

Maria Saco, 28: Passaic, N.J., woman sentenced to a year in jail for an intimate relationship with a teen student who was 14 when they first met.

Mary Kay Letourneau, 34: Des Moines, Wash., woman did prison time after having an affair with a sixth-grade student, and had two children by him. The couple recently married.

Melissa Michelle Deel, 32: Bristol, Tenn., woman pleaded guilty to crossing the state line into Virginia to have oral sex with a 13-year-old male student.

Michelle Kush, 29: Ohio woman allegedly had sex with a 15-year-old boy several times during summer break.

Nicola Prentice, 22: British woman from Sheffield, England, given a 12-month suspended jail sentence after she seduced a 16-year-old student and began a 19-month affair.

Nicole Barnhart

Nicole Andrea Barnhart, 35: Colorado woman reportedly told police she loves the 16-year-old boy with whom she was having sex. She pled guilty to felony sexual assault on a child, resulting in a two-year prison sentence and a minimum of 10 years in a sex-offender probation program.

Nicole Pomerleau, 31: High-school English teacher in Charlotte, N.C., accused of having a sexual relationship with her 16-year-old student.

Pamela Smart, 22: Media-services director at Winnacunnet High School in Hampton, N.Y., had convinced her 15-year-old lover to murder her husband. The Nicole Kidman film “To Die For” is based on her story.

Pamela Turner, 27: Former model and beauty-pageant contestant accused of having a three-month sexual relationship with a 13-year-old boy.

Rachelle Vantucci, 32: Ex-substitute teacher in western New York admitted having sex with a 16-year-old boy.

Rebecca Boicelli, 33: Redwood City, Calif., woman gave birth to a baby last year and DNA test results gave prosecutors enough evidence to prove the father is Boicelli’s former student, who was 16 at the time of conception.

Rhianna Ellis, 24: New York City teacher who allegedly had a 10-month affair with an 18-year-old, and allgedly gave birth to his baby.

Robin Gialanella, 26: Elementary teacher in Toms River, N.J., engaged in kissing, and inappropriate conduct and conversations with two sixth-grade boys, ages 11 and 12. She was sentenced to 364 days in jail.

Robin Winkis, 29: York, Pa., woman allegedly had sex with a 17-year-old boy after giving him alcohol.

Samantha Solomon, 29: Fired after school bosses learned she was having sex with a teenage boy. She denies the charges.

Sandra “Beth” Geisel, 42: Albany, N.Y., woman was fired from her job at an private all-boys school after police in found her in a parked car with a 17-year-old. She pleaded guilty to a single count of rape and was sentenced to six months in jail.

Shelley Allen, 35: East Texas teacher’s aide accused of sexual assault and faces a possible 20 years behind bars.

Shelley White, 24: Geography teacher in Britain had been engaged to be married before she kissed a 15-year-old student on at least three occasions. She avoided jail, but received 12 months community service.

Stephanie Burleson: Volleyball coach and teacher at Floresville High School in Texas six years ago, pleaded guilty to all charges for molesting a 16-year-old female student. She was sentenced to 10 years probation, and required to register as a sex offender.

Susan Eble, 35: Former teacher’s aide is accused of having a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old boy.

Tara Lynn Crisp, 29: Police allege she had sex with a student at least three times beginning when he was 14.

Toni Lynn Woods, 37: The Braxton County, W.Va., woman confessed to having sexual intercourse with three juveniles a total of four times and oral sex with one of those juveniles and another juvenile a total of four times. She resigned.

PERMALINK | posted by The Gonzman @ 2:57 AM 0 comments

Zenpriest on Men Screaming THE BIG TRUTH

While a lot of the guys on this board are planning on getting out of Dodge and abandoning the US, there are some of us who for various reasons have chosen to make our stand here and slug it out with the feminidiots to the bitter end.

The baffling lack of unity and cohesiveness among men which has kept us from mustering a coherent response to feminidiocy has been sad and frustrating, but at this point must simply be considered a condition of the environment in which we have to fight this war. What I see emerging is a relatively spontaneous, not at all organized, generalized change in the behavior and choices of men - the marriage boycott being one example, the boycott of institutions of higher Indoctrination being another.

It is too bad that the whole Hitler/Nazi analogy has been so overused, because next to Machiavelli, Hitler probably understood the mechanisms of power better than anyone else in history.

The fundamental strategy was “telling the BIG LIE” - something outrageously untrue, but repeated enough times that people either begin to believe it, or at least become afraid to let anyone know that they don’t.

Feminists have told millions of “BIG LIES” about men - about Domestic Violence, Rape, “Glass Ceilings”, “the Patriarchy”, etc, etc, etc, yadda, yadda, yadda, ad nauseum.

“Political Correctness” has made it a near crime to even challenge the BIG LIESâ„¢.

Men have lost as much ground as they have in this war because they were intimidated into silence by the millions of fembots and their near-male syncophants screaming the BIG LIE in unison.

The fundamental weakness of the BIG LIE strategy is that it only works when it IS a lie. If men had ever hated women as much as the feminidiots claim men have, the femdroids would have never gotten to first base. It is has been men’s desire to maintain some social honor that led to them being silenced by accusations that any criticism of feminism equated to “hating women.”

There is a principle of ceremonial magic that one only has to speak a spell 3 times to make it binding and make it become true. Women have spoken the “you hate women” spell many more times than that, and it is beginning to come true.

The feminidiots have thrown away their most powerful weapon by overuse - when they try to silence a man by saying “well, you must hate women” and he responds “you are right, I do” - they have no “plan B.”

So, now freed from the fear of being called “woman haters” which silenced them for so long, men must now begin to speak the BIG TRUTH!

The illusion that women are “the kinder, more caring, fairer sex” has allowed them to get away with murder, literally. But, it is now being swept away by images of Lynndie England, cigarette hanging out of her skankish mouth, grinning at her power to humiliate men. It is being swept away by by news stories of gangs of girls stomping other girls into comas or even to death. It is being swept away by story after story of mothers killing and horribly abusing their children.

It is now time for millions of men’s voices to start being heard, screaming the BIG TRUTH at the top of their lungs.

Screw the assholes who want to copyright it and put their names on it so they can sell their books and fill their seminars and make a buck off the pain and confusion of other men.

I got a real chuckle out of Verlch’s recent mining of my site. He is using my writing exactly as I wanted men to use it - to spread the BIG TRUTH without regard to what clever asshole first wrote it down, to say it and spread it and speak it any and every time the opportunity arises.

My words are yours to use to OUR benefit, guys. I am an above-average word monger, but I put my words out in the public domain for men to pick up and use as their own swords in the battle against the BIG LIE.

If what I write resonates with any man, he has blanket permission to use anything I have ever written as his own words that he would have come up with if he had had the time.

I believe that most men know the truth - in their guts. They feel it in their guts, and it is only when people fuck with their heads that they lose that knowing.

We need millions of men screaming the BIG TRUTH from the rooftops.

Misogynists are not born, they are made.

By Zenpriest.

I am still baffled at all the women who seem to expect men to live on a steady diet of hatred and man bashing, and somehow magically metabolize this toxic diet into “love” for women and a desire to see good things come to them. When I work real hard, I can make the anger cold and take no joy when bad things happen to women, simply regard it with indifference. When I hear a woman whine about being victimized, I simply tune her out and go elsewhere.

When a woman smiles at me, I think of an old ethic bashing joke - “What does a ______ say instead of ‘fuck you’?” answer “Trust Me.”

I will not allow most women in my house unless I have known her a long time and she is old enough to have escaped being infected with the plague of man hating or is escorted by someone I trust, nor will I enter theirs except on the same conditions. If I pass a woman stranded on the road, I will not stop to help her because it is as likely as not that she will be afraid of me. That’s fine. She’s a fish without a bicycle - I have no place in her world, nor her in mine.

Man bashing and man hating harms women, because it makes men hate them back - eventually. A puppy returns love for love, but if you beat it will eventually turn mean and will one day turn on you when you raise your fist or your stick (or the club of words) to hit it. Men are no different. When women talk about treating men like dogs, I wish they would. It would be an improvement. Most women treat their dogs far better than they treat their men.

Somewhere along the line, I went through a metamorphosis. I changed from a man who loved women and thought they were just about the greatest thing in the world, to a man who can’t stand them, or anything about them.

I’m sick and tired of the lies that women tell about men, I’m sick and tired of their victim games, I’m sick and tired of hatred and bashing I have to put up with when I am around them. I am sick and tired of the arrogant contempt in which they seem to hold me and all other men. I am sick to death of the way that some of them feel the need to seek me out to piss me off. A couple of years back, at the funeral of my uncle, as fine a man as I have ever known, some woman felt the need to start a conversation with me as I sat with my private grief. She wanted me to agree with her that men don’t ask for directions.

How could anyone be so stupid and socially incompetent? When men came up to me to talk, it was always with something like “Your uncle was a fine man”, not “aren’t men headstrong and stupid?”

Invariably, when I tell a woman about all this, she tries to argue with me and say something like “get over it”, or “why don’t you take the gender out of it?” In return I ask, “why the hell don’t you women get over it, and take the gender out of it?”

I would like nothing better than to be left in peace, and allow women to enjoy the absence of my company which they find so annoying and unpleasant. Every day, a few more men got through the transformation and become like me. We don’t get our guns and shoot a few women; we don’t beat them up; because what women have been saying about us all these years is just flat wrong. But, there’s no point in trying to tell women that because they have become so certain of their superiority that the best way to deal with them is to leave them to it, and the company of their other fishy friends

Hate Bounces

How man hating and man bashing harms women:
the making of a misogynist

By Zenpriest

Misogynists are not born they are made.

Once, a long time ago when the world was young, I loved women with all my heart and soul. I grew up among strong competent women who understood that all living things need to be taken care of and will flourish if that happens. The men I grew up with knew that as well. Everyone knew that people must live and work together and find ways to cooperate and just deal with the inevitable differences that arise and keep them in perspective. They knew that people are not perfect, but that most of them try to be as good as they can manage. They took the measure of a person in wholeness, and if there was more good than bad to a person, they accepted that person’s faults as being part of the package which was still valuable, if a bit flawed. After all, nobody really is perfect. We all knew that.

Then, something happened. And that something was called feminism. I remember the early days of the movement when it was called “Women’s Liberation” which was a high sounding and noble cause in a country which is founded on a document which cites liberty as one of 3 inalienable rights that every person has. No one with a sense of fairness and an understanding of civics could be against women being liberated and treated fairly. And, there was also the promise that some of the ways men were being treated unfairly would change along with it.

And, as the old joke goes: if you believe that one, then I have some lakefront property in the Mojave Desert I’d like to talk to you about.

I learned very quickly that feminism wasn’t about liberating PEOPLE from their previously too restrictive roles which were assigned to them based on the plumbing they displayed at birth, but rather was founded on a number of absolute falsehoods which had nothing to do with freedom, equality, or fairness. The fundamental premise that men had MORE power, not just a different kind of power and in a different area of society as a whole, but MORE power in a complete and absolute sense was something that I vehemently disagreed with. I could come up with thousands of examples of circumstances in which women had more power than men did. And in every example they gave of where men did have any power, I could easily point out the uneven distribution of power among men, and how a few men at the top of the wealth/influence pyramid had a lot of power, but that the vast majority of men had very little.

The strangest thing was that most of the situations in which I was being told I had or was exercising “power” seemed absolutely ridiculous to me. When I was a college freshman, one day I was walking across campus toward the student union. I reached the door about a half step ahead of a female student so, as I had been brought up to do, I hastened my last couple of steps and held the door open for her. Instead of the smile and nod that I had been used to in response to such simple acts of social courtesy, she flew into a rage and started screaming at me about how what a male chauvinist PIG I was, that she was perfectly capable of opening that door for herself and didn’t need any g– damned MAN to do it for her, and kicked me in the knee.

“Shock” is a totally inadequate word to describe my response.

I was at a loss to understand any of her reaction. She couldn’t have been any more totally, completely, and absolutely wrong about my motivations and purposes. I instantly assigned her to the categories of “mentally defective”, “hate filled”, and female. Over the next several years, a lot of women joined her company.

A couple of years later, a woman that I was dating described her feminist “consciousness raising” group as consisting of “perfectly satisfying man hating sessions.” Again, I was bewildered. I asked why she found hating me(n) so “perfectly satisfying”. I don’t remember the answer she gave, but she soon proved to me just how true that statement was of her. Like the knee-kicker in response to having a door opened, it seemed that anything and everything I did was proof that I deserved her hatred and rancor. At least 10 years later, she called me out of the blue to apologize. She said she realized that she had just gotten swept up in a group consciousness of hatred and had finally realized what had happened and that I had not deserved the bile she had spewed on me.

It was, I suppose, better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but it was too little and too late. Because, by then I had encountered so many other women who acted in pretty much the same way that it had simply become part of my view of what women were. Somewhere, deep down inside, either hidden or proudly displayed, women hated men. Women came in a variety of sizes and shapes, most had breasts and female genitals, but they all seemed to come with a hatred and fundamental contempt for men. One woman I dated while Jimmy Carter was still president, spoke of “my hatred of men” in the same mattter-of-fact tone that she might say “my nose”. It was just an integral part of her.

Needless to say, this presented me with a significant paradox and source of internal conflict. Being a healthy heterosexual male, I had the natural and universal desire that men have to have a love relationship with a woman. But, how is it possible to love someone that returns hate for that love?

So, over time I began to develop a wary distrustful posture toward women. I still dated them, but I had become so conditioned to expect hatred from them that I simply accepted it as part of the price I had to pay in order to be involved with one. My desire for a relationship was still strong, but was opposed by a distrust and unwillingness to let someone who hated me get the upper hand over me. Thus, in my mind the concept of “commitment” became one and the same as “trapped in a relationship with someone who hates me.” I was indeed one of those men who “wouldn’t make a commitment.”

The worst part of this, for me, is that it blinded me to the warning signals of some truly sick personalities. The hostility which I had become accustomed to enduring from women became only a matter of degree - greater or lesser. And, with a baseline of being kicked in the knee for the courtesy of opening a door, and learning how “satisfying” man hating is to some women, I had no yardstick to sort out the seriously sick and deranged women from any of the rest. As a result, I ended up in some relationships that were truly horrible and very damaging to me. And, of course, each of these left scars which over time built up so much emotional scar tissue that I began to lose all the positive feelings I once had for women.

That is the personal side. And, I won’t bore you with the details of all the stories. But, there eventually got to be so many that I developed the attitude that the question was not “whether” a woman would burn me if let her get close enough to do so, but “when” and “how soon” it would happen.

On the political side, things were just as bad if not worse. About the same time I started becoming the target of violent physical attacks by individual women for what I perceived as courtesy, I also became the target of vicious verbal attacks by women collectively - just for being a man.

I remember the first time I saw the slogan “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle”, I knew knew my face had just been spit in. Men were not just useless to women, we were irrelevant. We had no purpose in a woman’s life, and did not belong in her world at all. It was a message of hate, dismissal, and refutation. But, I also saw it as a warning of what was to come. It was like seeing clouds on the horizon, and knowing that it is time to get under cover because a storm is brewing. And, since it was obviously smearing shit in my face, it was going to be a shit storm.

Soon it became apparent that women could say any damn thing they wanted about men - no matter how wrong, no matter how hateful, no matter how unfair - and that was fine, but every time I stood up to that and said “no, that is wrong, there is another point of view” I’d get some little fem-bot harpy in my face shrieking the same old tired slogans, like a mindless Chatty Cathy doll, about how I was threatened by losing my power, wanted to keep women “in their place”, was probably violent, and was a misogynist. The dull predictability and regularity of it all was only kept from being terminally boring by the shrillness and sheer vehemence of the attacks.

There is a belief among those who believe in magic that one must speak a spell 3 times in order for it to become binding and true. It took being called a misogynist a lot more than 3 times to become true, more like 300+, but in time it did become true.

I began to see women as vicious creatures whose only agenda when it came to me, or any man, was to see how much they could get from the man - then when he had nothing left to give because they had taken it all, toss him out with yesterday’s garbage. In short - as nothing but users. Feminist author Wendy Dennis came out with a book in the early 1990s called “Hot and Bothered: sex and love in the 90s.” Among many other astute observations in the book was that nothing was more classically typical of the state of male/female relations than the woman who complained bitterly about every aspect of men, then couldn’t figure out why she couldn’t get one of these awful creatures to fall madly in love with her. I had observed the same thing so many times that I had simply concluded that such women were simply not very bright. In stark contrast to the mythology of how socially adept women are, I was baffled that such women were so stupid that they didn’t realize that no living thing will respond to such projections of distaste, contempt, and hatred with anything except return animosity.

I took to avoiding women, particularly groups of them, because I could never sit quietly and put up with the bashing and would always challenge it, which ended me up in a lot of fights and added greatly the count of times that I got called “misogynist.” I noticed that women seemed to do it habitually, without thinking, and would confront my female friends over and over until they learned not to do it in my presence.

And, after 3 decades of listening to it, and hating it, and trying to keep the animosity which had been building in me over it - when the husband of a woman friend of mine (who had been very dishonest about her motivations for our friendship and had been trying to harass me into turning our friendship sexual) threatened to kill me and she said “I don’t know why you are making such a big deal about it”, I caved in and began to really hate women.

Most of the time this hatred lies dormant. I figure that the best thing I can do for myself and for women is to keep the contact I must have with them to a minimum, and to keep as much distance between them and myself as possible. It is rather like hanging a sign on a fence that says “Beware of VERY bad dog.” Stay outside the fence, and everything is fine. But, come through the gate at your own risk. Leave me the hell alone and I will leave you alone.

by Zenpriest

A woman’s aggression
Ever hear the old saying “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”? A guy might get disgruntled and a bit pissed off when a woman he wants to sleep with turns him down, but turn down a woman who wants to have sex with you (for whatever convoluted reasons) and she will absolutely hate your guts.

During my freshman year in college, my Residence Hall Assistant (upperclassman with light admin duties for the floor and the general purpose of helping kids adjust to college life) was a guy who was 6′8″. For part of that year he “dated” or hung out with a woman who was 4′10″. One day I heard terrible crashing sounds coming from the hallway and poked my head out to see her kicking the $#$% out of his door. “He’s not there” I said. “YES HE IS” she shouted back at me. She kicked the door a few more times and I said “If he was in there, he would surely come out to see who was trying to kick down his door and why.”

I invited her into my room to sit down and calm down. She was babbling on about how she knew he was in there and was just afraid to come out and face her. Now there is a fascinating concept which shows the lie in all the feminist drivel about Domestic Violence. At 6′8″, the guy weighed about 250 lbs even though he was skinny as hell. This “little woman” weighed maybe 90 lbs, if that. Yet, she was totally convinced that he was afraid of her. Why? For the same reason that a badger or wolverine can drive a bear many times its size off a kill - pure, raw, unbridled aggression unrestrained by any decency or civil/interpersonal values.

Now, the really interesting part is just why she was so pissed off. “Do you want to hear the lame-assed excuse he gave me for not sleeping with me?” she asked. “No.” I responded. “First of all, I am not the least bit interested in his sex life. Second, he has a right to his privacy.”

Men apologize to women because if they don’t women will continue to attack them viciously, relentlessly, in any way they can until the guy does apologize. The guy could have batted her away like an annoying pup if he had chosen, but he was restrained by a value system which limited his aggression and the level of his attacks, while she suffered from no such limitations of civility and decency. Women throughout this culture are given social permission to go as psychotic as they feel like and they know it will be excused by the cultural perception of women’s uncontrollable emotionality. Look at all the people who jumped to the defense of Andrea Yates for killing her kids or Clara Harris for killing her husband while his own daughter watched.

Over the years, the most vicious attacks I have endured from women have come as a result of refusing to sleep with them. Flying into a screaming hysterical rage is one of the favorite tactics of women to take men off guard and manipulate their reflexes to throw them into the fight or flight arousal complex. Because men are so socially conditioned that they should “never hit a woman” under any circumstances, the option of fighting is unavailable to them so they flee the emotional battleground by admitting guilt and apologizing. It is the equivalent of waving the white flag of surrender.

Most of the women I have observed over the years are emotional terrorists. It is so acceptable in this culture that women can proudly wear “Bitch!” t-shirts etc, and also love the saying “if mom isn’t happy, then NOBODY is happy.” Men apologize because women wear them down with these tactics and most men are worn out enough from trying to make a living that they will give away just about anything for a little peace and quiet when they get home. I just saw a post (I think it was here on NG’s site) to the effect of “A guy gets up at 7:00 so he can make it to the work battlefield by 8:00, why the hell would he rush home so he can get to that battlefield by 5:30?”

This is just one of many areas in which women quite successfully play both ends against the middle. They have the cultural fiction behind them that women want relationships more than they want sex, and more than men want relationships. But, they count on the fact that the man actually wants emotional intimacy and closeness more than they do so they can use that as a weapon against men and hold the relationship hostage to their whims - “you’d better do what I want, or I will ‘break’ the positive feelings between us!”

Men are always going to lose this game of emotional brinkmanship unless and until they learn how to play it and become willing to play it. When a woman says “I want you to leave” or sets your stuff by the door, say “OK” and be outta there. It won’t be 24 hours before she is calling you begging for you to come back and playing all sorts of sweetness and seductive games to try to lure you back within her range.

I think there are two different aspects being talked about here. I understand both of them, but I’m not sure if I can translate the two views into terms understandable to both sides.

Masculinity, like every other force and characteristic in the world, has two sides - a dark side to that force and a light side. What I “hear” spitfire and serendipity talking about is is defending the honor of masculinity, particularly the positive side of it.

We’ve all heard about the heroics of the firefighters and police on 9/11. That’s the heroic side of masculinity. The guy who listens to his wife nag and berate and wear him down day after day and doesn’t black both her eyes is also being “heroic”, simply because he doen’t knock the $#$% out of her. And, when the day used to come that he fought back and did knock the $#$% out of her and let her know where the limits were - that was being masculine too.

Marc LePine and the boys at Columbine HS were acting in a masculine manner - they were fighting back against a culture out to destroy them in any way they knew how. They were POWs in the gender war, brainwashed and tortured. They didn’t cave in - they attacked back.

There is an aspect of masculinity that I can best summarize as: “Hit me in the face, I will break your nose. Hit me in the chest, I will break your ribs. Leave me alone, and we can live in peace.”

Women really do need to start standing up for masculinity - not because men need them to defend it, but because the relentless attacks on it are only going to destroy the heroic side of it and push all its energy and power into the dark side.

You may remember Alicia’s statement on SYG about how she got groped one night by a drunk in a bar and bunch of guys came to her rescue. She tossed a bit of lip service at the guys “Hey, keep on rescuing us, we really do appreciate it, even if we say we don’t.” My response to her was “too little, too late.”

You’re right, christianj, that force of masculinity can never be stamped out because it is born again in every new generation of boys. But in order for it to be the positive force you describe, it must be channeled, shaped, guided, by older men. We know how to bring a boy’s masculinity out as a positive force, not try to beat it down and suppress it until it explodes in a destructive outburst. I have no doubt that Gary Ridgeway was raised by either a single mom or an overbearing mother in the presence of a weak father. Two dozen corpses of pretty young females later - the rage he still feels at the attacks on the core of his being is a danger to all women.

It would have been “nice” if women had had the sense to call off their attacks on us before men started to turn against them, and to really step up to the defense of men and masculinity - but they didn’t, and you are seeing the price that their daughters and granddaughters are going to pay for that &%^&*&^% in the attitudes of young men here. Some guys here still like women a little bit, and are willing to try to love them. As NK put it, he loves the hell out of women, but he doesn’t like them.

A whole ‘nother group here no longer either loves or likes women, and are not even willing to f**k them. What they are doing is taking their masculinity away from those who would destroy it and them, and away from those who stood idly by and let the femin$%#@!# try.

I have watched men flounder lost for a very long time. It wasn’t just women that turned against us, but the culture as whole. I’ve dealt with a lot of boys over the years whose femi-skank mothers drove their fathers out of their lives and filled them with drivel about what manhood was all about.

I come from the “old-school” of masculinity and was spared the ordeal of “finding my own power” because I never lost it. Personally, I don’t believe anyone can take power away from someone or give it to them. Power is something you claim and exercise. The number one mind game women have run on men is to mind-f**k them out of using and exercising their power by making them ashamed.

I have never once in my life, never, felt ashamed of being a man and have never apologized to anyone for it. I try to give that sense of pride in the male spirit to every man I know who seems to have lost it, or never have found it in the first place. I am not going to live forever, and feminism has destroyed a lot of men, so my teaching methods can be a bit brusque at times.

The Final Quagmire of Older Women—2

January 2, 2006
by Bernard Chapin

What follows is a section from an essay which will be included in a book on women scheduled for completion in May of 2006. Selected chapters of the new book will be published as MND exclusives. In book form, this essay will have a different title, but “The Final Quagmire� will primarily be composed of new material.

Contraception Via Self-Deception.

For every living thing on this earth, aging and death are eventualities. All of us will return to the soil where we will be described, not as Mister or Misses, but as hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. There is no way in which to combat this truth. Once life’s preconditions are acknowledged it becomes far easier to enjoy every day as our existence is the ultimate takeaway sale. While these observations are blatantly obvious, it is unfortunate that so many adults instead act as if aging is something that can be put off entirely.

Nowhere is this habit better illustrated than in the outlook of many older women who believe that their value remains unchanged regardless of the oxidation of their bones, joints, and limbs. This cannot be as, for both women and men, our places are not fixed in relation to our peers. It is highly unlikely that winning a 10 million dollar lottery will not improve a man’s standing on the market. The same can be said of a woman who loses fifty pounds or suddenly takes up an intense exercise regimen. However, in light of time’s wear, it is wise to alter one’s standards depending on “where you’re at.� With older women, there seems to be a tendency to take the complete opposite course that they should. Indeed, they often become pickier in their thirties. This is completely counter-productive, and ensures a higher level of bitterness for the future.

The mating game, like all games, must reach an endpoint, and while there is no formal declaration of winners and losers, certainly those whose relationships have added texture and pleasure to their lives can be thought of as coming out ahead. Those who delude themselves with magical thinking that the glory days will never end are the ones who come out behind. That older women so often fall into this category is due to the fact that…well, it isn’t due to any facts at all. It is the result of emotion based thinking which is many dimensions away from analyzing actual events. They still see the same young vibrant girl whenever they look in the mirror even though they may be closer to retirement age than the prom. For those who see their appearance more objectively, they may rationalize that the changes which occurred do not matter because they are counter-balanced by the wealth of experience acquired, new social connections, increased personal wealth, and a host of other factors which do not impact men finding them attractive.

That men are a woman’s target audience should be a given but I am not certain that this is the case. Many times the woman herself seems to be the crowd for whom she performs. Numerous actions are undertaken with the full knowledge that men will not be appreciative. When a girl suddenly chops off her hair the reason often cited is that, “it’s easier.� Well, easier it is, but so is sleeping in every morning and not taking the time to write checks to one’s creditors. Only a woman immersed in fantasy could believe that men prefer short hair over long. The hacking of Demi Moore in G.I. Jane moved her from a 9.5 to an 8.0 on a 10 point scale which meant that she still remained attractive to the majority of us, but how many women can afford a 1.5 percentage point drop in their desirability? I will turn to Billy Bragg for guidance here (although surely he overstates the point): “And then one day it happened. She cut her hair and I stopped loving her.�1

That the views of men are discarded is one thing, but that they not even considered relevant is most peculiar. It could be reflective of an innate human desire to avoid the truth. Or as psychologist Dr. John Feeney put it in another context, “Unfortunately, the need to preserve self esteem tends to be stronger than the willingness to confront oneself honestly.�2 It’s hard to understand how one’s cause could be advanced by side-stepping veracity for 80 years, but many women do just that when they regard male feedback as being superfluous to their lives.

The influence of the ever-pervasive self-help industry cannot be underestimated. They hawk their wares on talk shows and in publications of all kinds. An endemic theme is, “It’s not you, it’s them.� Such a message undoubtedly makes its subjects feel better while guaranteeing that they will never improve or grow. I eagerly await the day when bookstores create subsections entitled, “Why Men are So Messed Up� and “He’s Just Not Worth It.� Why be subtle? Say the conspiracy loud and proud.

Within the greater cultural scheme none of this is really surprising. When one sincerely believes that men are inferior to women then it becomes common practice to distrust whatever a man says about anything. For those women who regard men as distant Cro-Magnon cousins whose minds are not capable of grasping much beyond sex, drinking beer, and napping on random couches then it is fully expected that our views will mean absolutely nothing.

Perhaps they feel that their eternal desirability cannot be questioned. As one commentator observed:

“Even if her looks are a bit more ordinary, nevertheless she still believes that her body is worth a high price, and she will hold out for a surgeon or a stockbroker for as long as her biological clock permits, having failed to notice that the men with the level of salary she desires will pass her by in favor of a woman with superb looks or youth.� 3

She preserves herself for a championship match in which she will never play. When she realizes the full extent of her folly, it will then of course be too late.

Another explanation I have often heard is that if a man really loves a woman then their flaws won’t matter. Such a notion is ludicrous as their flaws may prevent a man from ever falling in love with them in the first place. This is glaringly true should the imperfections be found in what I would term, “The Essential Areas.� Age, of course, is one of them.4 The likelihood of finding a man who is above age or beauty is akin to encountering a prospective dog owner who longs for puppies averse to eating meat. Imagine the fellow walking into the local pet store and announcing,

I’m here to buy a Labrador! Now, my only requirement is that the animal be a vegetarian. The last thing I want is a dog hanging around the barbeque salivating over the steak I’m cooking. It’s like they all want to corrode their arteries or something. I don’t think I’m being picky. It’s not like they have to be vegan. I’ll take whatever vegetarian puppies you have and be quick about it. I really think it’s a new millennium issue. These dogs are watching too many Chuck Wagon commercials. They’re socially constructing carnivorous taste. It’s capitalism and George Bush who are chiefly to blame.

The shop owner would then examine the customer wide-eyed, and, if he were particularly savvy, try to stall long enough for the man’s medication to kick in. Our puppy analogy is more apt than it may seem because, just as the animal’s ears become erect upon hearing the word “treat,� men of all colors, shapes, and creeds redirect their attention upon hearing the words “college girl� (which works even better as a command).

Not in keeping with their supposed supremacy, it appears that many of these older women only manage to outsmart themselves by believing that have consistent value regardless of the earth’s rotations. The final metaphor on the subject concerns a property owner who decides to put his land up for sale for the price of $2,000,000 even though the assessor’s office lists it at $100,000. When the foolishness of the figure he advertises is questioned, the seller responds by saying indignantly: “Well, it’s mine so I know what it’s worth. I know how special my property is.� He’s the only one who ever will because he’s going to die with that “special� property. Just like the owner, the prospects of older women will improve when they develop a healthy respect for the truth.

Bernard Chapin

Quote from here “jacksonfreepress.com”.
“We are each extremely complex products of five billion years of evolution, more distinctive than snowflakes. This ties into point #2: Don’t you dare imply that women make inferior athletes, or inferior police officers, or that men make inferior counselors, or inferior parents.”

Response from Spectre……

Don’t I dare? I’m not going to imply, I’m going to spell it out for you, WOMEN MAKE INFERIOR ATHLETES, POLICE OFFICERS, FIREMEN, DRIVERS, PILOTS, SOLDIERS, ENGINEERS AND PROGRAMMERS. Am I forgetting anything? Probably a lot. Put your money where your mouth is, you mantwat, bring wimmin into the NFL and you’ll be dragging out broken carcasses by the second down. In tennis there is no contact, it’s one on one separated by a net and TUNAS STILL CAN’T HOLD A CANDLE TO US. In track, where you’d think a women’s lighter frame would take less energy to move, but THEY STILL NEED 20 FUCKING MINUTE HEAD STARTS AND HAVE THE NERVE TO THINK THEY ACTUALLY WON. In Indycar racing where physical exertion is relatively low, THEY CAN’T WIN DESPITE A SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT ADVANTAGE. You’d think they’d be at least able to hang with us in bowling and golf, but THEY CAN’T EVEN TEE OFF WHERE WE DO. Need more evidence you mantwat?

We don’t make inferior counselors or parents unlike what the feminists have been saying. THEY have reduced us to sperm donors and that’s why there’s a marriage strike. This isn’t a tradeoff you idiot, just because women do many things poorly doesn’t mean they do much of anything better. You want us to admit women are physically equal because we don’t want to be called bad fathers? We ARE good parents, but WOMEN ARE STILL PHYSICALLY INFERIOR. The truth hurts doesn’t it, mangina?

Antiriad:

The problem with her assertion is, she doesn’t carry her thought to its obvious conclusion: that what she wants is absence of responsibility. Indeed, the “patriarchy” worked because it put people to work (and thus introduced responsibility/stress in their lives). What she advocates, when taken to its logical conclusion, is that we all climb back onto trees and start eating bananas. Civilization can only exist when there exists the concept of responsibility. That is why women cannot form civilization on their own (and why civilization can only exist as long as female influence takes at most a very minor role in the formation of values); because even though there are a few rational women, they are in a tiny minority and are shouted down by the horde of irrational ones who only have a very vague understanding of the concept of causality. They understand the word “responsibility” merely in abstract terms, but it’s not a natural part of their perspective the way it is for most men. Think of it as trying to conceptualize a 5-dimensional object; even if you can apprehend it in abstract terms, it certainly doesn’t come naturally to do so because it is not a fundamental building block of your surroundings (as you perceive them) and therefore is conceptually disconnected from the rule set by which you define reality. In other words, you have a hard time dealing with it because nothing in your perspective is even remotely related to it. Such is the case for women and responsibility (and I’ll explain why).

I strongly suspect that testosterone is what gives linearity and scope to men’s perspective - i.e. the basic building block of causal thinking. I base this theory on my reading of “Sex and Character” by Otto Weininger, as well as a personal account of someone who had a sex change operation to become a man and started taking testosterone shots (the guy was interviewed on an internet broadcast that was archived as an mp3 somewhere; I really wish I remembered where it was). This is where the confusion exists: given the same level of intelligence, women aren’t inherently less capable of learning and applying abstract rules such as a programming language or mathematical theories than men (though they are perhaps less inclined to do so, for reasons made clear in this article). That is because these tasks typically require nothing more than memorization and internalization of fixed rules. If you want to be a chemical engineer, know that G = H - T*S (among other things) and you’re on your way. That is why women can in fact fill 99.999% of all jobs: because 99.999% of all jobs (at least according to their job descriptions) do not require the kind of skill which women naturally lack: the ability to attach cause and effect to events in your personal life and thus use some level of reason in an otherwise completely subjective paradigm.
The tasks that you fulfill on the job are artificial constructs and hence fall outside the scope of ordinary decision-making while dealing with life. This is why you sometimes hear about women that are great engineers or computer scientistst and yet their lives are in shambles. Being able to internalize abstract rules (which are subsequently applied in an objective fashion at work - i.e. not subjectively, or “on a whim”) does not mean that one is capable of a similar level of causal objectivity in maintaining one’s own life, because “work” is an unnatural act that is objectively learned and implemented and has a known, limited set of rules (which themselves are completely objective), while living life is natural and subjective as it is based on facts learned in a typically emotional context.

The guy in the interview said that once he injected himself with testosterone, he noticed an identity arise within himself, i.e. a platform on which he could establish a basis set of assumptions and rules about life that he could use while interpreting everyday life. In other words, he said what Otto Weininger states in his book, what we all suspect here, and what men in general tend to say about women: women (and when I say “women,” I mean the other 99.999% of course) have the mentality of children because their thought process has no fixed foundation and as such there is no intrinsic “right/wrong” component as there is for men. Without a foundation, their paradigm drifts around and doesn’t “learn” by maintaining a position and realizing the consequences of doing so. Male children grow out of this childhood ignorance because they form a foundation (starting with nothing, so boys and girls ARE much more similar than men and women - and that is precisely why the media and feminists only ever want to publish studies conducted on children, under the guise that men and women are presumably already “indoctrinated” and therefore studies done with adults are invalid: they refuse to accept that biology can and does change people even as they’re growing up) over the years as they turn into adults.

Previously, women could also benefit from this predominantly male trait (again, some women are naturally reasonable - and I would be very interested in learning what their testosterone and estrogen counts are), because society intrinsically valued male objectivity and hence women were raised (”brainwashed”) to value (i.e. accept as authoritative) men’s opinions. Today this is no longer so; as I’ve stated before, the west is now moving toward the female paradigm of inconsequentiality precisely because objectivism is viewed as “patriarchal” and “oppressive.” Simultaneously, women wonder out loud in endless news articles why things are going so wrong these days. What is wrong is that the female paradigm is based on irresponsibility (as it has to be, since its interpretation of reality is based on an ever-shifting rule set at best and typically resorts more substantially to whimsical impulses). Previous generations of women saw their natural tendencies as an obstacle to be overcome. Today, society raises them to see wishy-washy behavior as perfectly valid. These women can not accept that the male perspective is more objective and that objectivity when dealing with life is typically superior to subjectivity. Anyone remember when Anne Coulter said that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote? Now you see why I pointed out that a few women are intelligent enough to admit this themselves. It takes a lot to admit that the prevailing mode of thought of your own sex is inferior to the point that it should never be accepted as authoritative.

THIS is why Amanda wants to do away with “the patriarchy:” in a world without rules and responsibilities (i.e. living like an animal) HER paradigm/mode of thinking is normal, while the one that currently still exists (i.e. the “patriarchal” one that is based on rules) is in a very real sense oppressive to her because in her view she is forced to accept responsibility (along with its consequences), even while she does not apprehend it conceptually the way a man does (which therefore makes it far less comfortable as a fact of life and hence invalid). Men accept it because men naturally accept the concept of “responsibility” for the reason stated above. I.e. the difference is very much biological and nothing that indoctrination can overcome (much like indoctrination cannot force people to be more intelligent than they are otherwise). That is to say, it is possible to maintain the cohesive of society by teaching women to follow the rules. Once you stop teaching them (which implies that you cede authority to them to determine their own lives), they start breaking the rules in a far more egregious manner than men because responsibility is of course intimately tied to morality and reasonableness.

What is the outcome of all this? Two things. First: yes, the feminists were right and we do indeed live in a patriarchy (for now). It is patriarchal because society is founded on the concept of responsibility, which itself is naturally (and by that I mean biologically!!) accepted by men but not by women. Hence, men are indeed “advantaged” in that their worldview (as influenced by their biology) is fundamentally more in line with that of the system we live in (the “patriarchy”). But that is the only possible mode of existence for society in the first place! Without responsibility (i.e. the implicit acceptance of cause and effect in forming your perspective and thus determining your subsequent conduct), there are no implicit or explicit agreements, no foundational logic, no nothing. There’s hanging out of a tree and sucking on a banana and then you get eaten by a lion.
Secondly, western civilization will remain in free fall until patriarchy (which essentially boils down to implicitly accepting causal objectivism as superior to whimsical subjectivism - i.e. in general, “the man is always right”) is reinstated. Government - as pervasive as it is - can never become so ubiquitous as to make every single decision in every woman’s life. But without that, too many women make decisions like children: based on emotions and impulsiveness.

The only way to turn this decline around is to accept as a generality that by biology man’s perspective, for the purpose of maintaining a functioning society, is superior to woman’s. Since society is based on a patriarchal perspective and can indeed only exist within that perspective, life was a whole lot easier when the superiority of men’s objectivity was implicitly accepted. Now that we must explicitly (i.e. knowingly) go back to that rule (which essentially amounts to every woman admitting to herself what Anne Coulter said in that article), it appears that we are facing an insurmountable task. It is insurmountable because women’s perspectives fundamentally prohibit their acceptance of something which “feels” burdensome (”oppressive”) to them. In fact, when you think about it, the only logical outcome of this is that society will have to de-evolve to a point where men can once again, on an individual basis, demand from women living with them to implicitly accept their authority. Logically, this can only occur when there are no longer any subversive outside influences left (however you want to characterize them).

Women do not matter. Really - their presence makes not one ounce of difference. They can stand there, sit there, lie there, gesticulate - or not. They can open and close their mouths and make funny sounds or remain silent. It really doesn’t matter. Their sole contribution to the world is popping out kids - an exercise which men have not (yet) mastered.

In fact, the less attention men pay to women, the more they advance. True, they’ll get into a few fights here and there, kill each other off - along with maybe a few hundred thousand others. But all in all, they still manage to advance technologically and evolve humanity. In all this, woman plays no part whatsoever. She might as well not be there, she serves at best as a distraction for men to get into fights over.

Now here comes feminism. It gives women this ludicrous idea that they matter - that their presence somehow makes one iota of a difference when in reality it of course does not. Moreover, it gives men the same ridiculous idea - that they should take woman seriously beyond using them as part of their overall objective (whether that is to have sex or to have a family or whatever).

And THAT’s the source of the problem right there. All of a sudden, men worry about all this senseless shit that women say and do. They actually bother to take women seriously when in reality it not only makes no sense, but it is completely counterproductive. Do you see male animals asking females to fuck them? No, they simply go at it. Sometimes the bitch says no - oh well. On to the next one.

The whole problem is that today, men take women seriously - as if they matter. THAT is why men are unfomfortable - because they are told to think of women as having any significance. Of course the more important something is to you (especially if you’re indoctrinated with the notion), the more seriously you’re going to take it. And when you’re dealing with something as fundamentally irrational and blindly emotional as women, you can see that there’s going to be a problem right there.

Why is Chris so successful with women - and why is he so successful in general, accomplishing shit left and right? Because on a fundamental level he is clear on all this. Now look at his productivity, look at the average entitled ameriwhore’s productivity, and then look at the productivity of the average pussy whipped mangina - and think about who gets shit done and who doesn’t.

The crime against humanity was to brainwash men into thinking that women are to be taken seriously. Even women hate that (though they won’t acknowledge it in the words I just put it).

Antiriad