100% control?
100% control?
Post by scholarlee on Feb 13, 2006, 4:08pm
antiriad – you replied to the Men, Depression and Suicide thread thus:
Re: Men, Depression and Suicide
« Reply #2 on Today at 3:37pm »This is why women’s lives must be controlled and dominated by men 100%: because men look out after women, but the reverse isn’t true. This isn’t misogyny, it’s reality.
so as not to hijack the thread (or be disrespectful to the original poster), I thought I’d move my questions here.
do you mean that men as a class should invoke laws proscribing women’s public life (i.e. women should/should not vote, should/should not hold public office, should/should not hold property in their own names, etc.), or do you mean that individual men should control every aspect of the lives of individual women (what to cook, what to wear, how to spend one’s time during the day, etc.)
have you ever tried to control and dominate someone 100%? it’s exhausting and frustrating for all involved.
consider if that you were 100% responsible for every blessed thing someone else did, you’d have no time to be even 10% responsible for your own self.
my ex and I had an arrangement where he was dominant and in control 100% of the time. it was a noble experiment but ultimately a failure. he did not do a good job looking out for me.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by WhoPays on Feb 13, 2006, 4:26pm
What do most American wives seek to control in the marriages? Do most American women think they can dominate their husbands 90 to 100% of the time?
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 13, 2006, 4:31pm
I mean:
1. all politicians must be men
2. women must not be allowed to vote
3. all men are automatically authoritative within their family
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Aldarris on Feb 13, 2006, 4:50pm
Am I the only one that thinks that the criteria to determine whether or not a person is suitable for a position of authority should be a bit more….. sophisticated than the location and form of certain organs?
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Males should Rule on Feb 13, 2006, 5:21pm
Feb 13, 2006, 4:50pm, Aldarris wrote:Am I the only one that thinks that the criteria to determine whether or not a person is suitable for a position of authority should be a bit more….. sophisticated than the location and form of certain organs?
Yeah. Around here, pretty much you’re the only one. So you should probably take your ’show on the road’ over to the feminazi board down the street …
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Citadel on Feb 13, 2006, 5:26pm
Quote:I mean:
1. all politicians must be men
2. women must not be allowed to vote
3. all men are automatically authoritative within their family
Ummm and how is this not slavery?
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 13, 2006, 5:32pm
Feb 13, 2006, 5:26pm, Citadel wrote:
Quote:I mean:1. all politicians must be men
2. women must not be allowed to vote
3. all men are automatically authoritative within their familyUmmm and how is this not slavery?
Men are biologically wired to look after women’s interests. Women OTOH are not wired to look after men’s interests. So the question is irrelevant. I am not pointing out what would ideally be the case, I am pointing out what system works and which one doesn’t. This system will fail soon and until men regain authoritative control, it will stay broken. It’s as simple as this, your question is like a 6 year old boy asking “but mom, why can’t I bear a child??” It’s a fact of biology and cannot be circumvented. Women are unfit for authoritative positions as stipulated by their biological limits. Want evidence? Look around you.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Guest on Feb 13, 2006, 6:05pm
Interesting post, Antiriad. Some clarifying questions:
1. About widows – would control of women who are widowed be transferred to the nearest male relative? I.E. if a woman’s husband dies, is her household transferred to the husband’s brother, or her own brother?
2. For women who never marry, and who have no parents (orphaned), since men look out for the best interests of women, does that mean that society will support the woman?
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by guest on Feb 13, 2006, 6:14pm
Feb 13, 2006, 6:05pm, Guest wrote:Interesting post, Antiriad. Some clarifying questions:
1. About widows – would control of women who are widowed be transferred to the nearest male relative? I.E. if a woman’s husband dies, is her household transferred to the husband’s brother, or her own brother?
2. For women who never marry, and who have no parents (orphaned), since men look out for the best interests of women, does that mean that society will support the woman?
Gee, lemme guess, this poster is a chick
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 13, 2006, 6:29pm
Feb 13, 2006, 6:05pm, Guest wrote:Interesting post, Antiriad. Some clarifying questions:
1. About widows – would control of women who are widowed be transferred to the nearest male relative? I.E. if a woman’s husband dies, is her household transferred to the husband’s brother, or her own brother?
2. For women who never marry, and who have no parents (orphaned), since men look out for the best interests of women, does that mean that society will support the woman?
I don’t know the details, I just know the outline of the system that works and that is going to come about after this system inevitably fails.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Citadel on Feb 13, 2006, 6:37pm
Quote:I don’t know the details, I just know the outline of the system that works and that is going to come about after this system inevitably fails.
Dude do you actually believe this stuff you say? There’s no “great collapse” coming anytime soon. What we have is a lot of misery for young men because of feminists. At any rate, to say that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, given education, etc. is borderline madness. I don’t see how you expect us men to take you seriously.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 13, 2006, 7:31pm
Feb 13, 2006, 6:37pm, Citadel wrote:
Quote:I don’t know the details, I just know the outline of the system that works and that is going to come about after this system inevitably fails.Dude do you actually believe this stuff you say? There’s no “great collapse” coming anytime soon. What we have is a lot of misery for young men because of feminists. At any rate, to say that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, given education, etc. is borderline madness. I don’t see how you expect us men to take you seriously.
How old are you? My guess is late teens. You are very naive.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Guest on Feb 13, 2006, 8:10pm
Feb 13, 2006, 6:29pm, antiriad wrote:
Feb 13, 2006, 6:05pm, Guest wrote:Interesting post, Antiriad. Some clarifying questions:1. About widows – would control of women who are widowed be transferred to the nearest male relative? I.E. if a woman’s husband dies, is her household transferred to the husband’s brother, or her own brother?
2. For women who never marry, and who have no parents (orphaned), since men look out for the best interests of women, does that mean that society will support the woman?
I don’t know the details, I just know the outline of the system that works and that is going to come about after this system inevitably fails.
You are completely, utterly, and certifiably batshit insane. Ever read any books by this fella named Charles Dickens? There are your “details” right there.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Guest on Feb 13, 2006, 8:12pm
Feb 13, 2006, 6:14pm, guest wrote:
Feb 13, 2006, 6:05pm, Guest wrote:Interesting post, Antiriad. Some clarifying questions:1. About widows – would control of women who are widowed be transferred to the nearest male relative? I.E. if a woman’s husband dies, is her household transferred to the husband’s brother, or her own brother?
2. For women who never marry, and who have no parents (orphaned), since men look out for the best interests of women, does that mean that society will support the woman?
Gee, lemme guess, this poster is a chick
Gee, lemme guess, you’ve had about two semesters of junior college.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by InMichigan on Feb 13, 2006, 8:19pm
“Dude do you actually believe this stuff you say? There’s no “great collapse” coming anytime soon. What we have is a lot of misery for young men because of feminists. At any rate, to say that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, given education, etc. is borderline madness. I don’t see how you expect us men to take you seriously.”
I believe it. Here is why:
By 2010 90% of all the worlds Scientists and Engineers will possibly be from Asia. You better hope we can persuade them to move to America or the future patents and discoveries will come from Asia and they will recieve the wealth not us. Feminization of schools probably help destroy the boys that used to go for science and math. The Feminists didn’t raise the standards for girls, they lowered the standards of boys so girls felt equal well guess what China won’t lower standards, students there swim or sink so the best and brightest will rise with no political correctness to worry about. We are weak and becoming weaker while others are hungry to take over the top spot.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by JimP on Feb 13, 2006, 8:20pm
Feb 13, 2006, 6:37pm, Citadel wrote:There’s no “great collapse” coming anytime soon.
You know, the funny thing is, you sound like a Communist party boss in the Soviet Union right around 1978-79, and that was a MUCH more stable system than America today; Russia is like Saudi Arabia, they don’t even have to do anything other than sell Aluminum, Oil, Natural Gas, Diamonds, Gold, etc…
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Citadel on Feb 13, 2006, 8:26pm
Quote:
You know, the funny thing is, you sound like a Communist party boss in the Soviet Union right around 1978-79, and that was a MUCH more stable system than America today; Russia is like Saudi Arabia, they don’t even have to do anything other than sell Aluminium, Oil, Natural Gas, Diamonds, Gold, etc…
I don’t buy it guys. Even if the feminists and women in general can’t do arithmetic/science it doesn’t mean that they can’t do anything at all. Women can (and do) definitely be taught/trained to do the sciences. Granted, innovation is something that’s beyond many of them. Plus our men are still producing the top technology in most fields.
Yeah a collapse may happen in 40 or 50 years but until then, I think the major concern needs to be how miserably guys are going to be treated. That’s my priority at least.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by niceguy78 on Feb 13, 2006, 8:43pm
I hate to say it, but Antiriad is correct.
I heard him first mention this over a year ago, and I disagreed with him. But over time I continued to think about it, and he is correct.
Why?
Because when women first got equal rights in the 60’s and 70’s, they took it with pride. They entered the work force in record numbers. They competed with men in a man’s world. They did not hurt the USA by any means.
But through the 1980’s, as Antiriad said, women looked out for their own interests only. Thus they are the voting majority, YET STILL ABLE TO GAIN MINORITY STATUS. Thus they have the full support of politicians to pass anti-male laws.
We have now fully experimented in giving women full rights. This is not a hypothesis, and it is now proven.
IT DOES NOT WORK. We basically we have 2 choices.
1) Continue with what we are doing, until we are over run by Muslim extremists.
2) Put women where they belong, and men where they belong.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Citadel on Feb 13, 2006, 8:55pm
You are of course welcome to your own opinion. But:
let’s lay all our cards on the table.
I don’t give a damn about anyone’s conspiracy theories and rhetoric about impending doom for the country. And I’m sure not going to change my mind about women having the right to vote or allowing them to go to schools. The fact is, thinking of this sort will lead to madness. It’s inevitable.
I do give a damn about the fact that I can’t turn on the TV to get a good comedy or action flick. I do give a damn that women are being unfairly promoted and have no manners.
It’s as simple as that for me.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Guest of Honor on Feb 13, 2006, 9:13pm
Feb 13, 2006, 8:55pm, Citadel wrote:And I’m sure not going to change my mind about women having the right to vote or allowing them to go to schools. The fact is, thinking of this sort will lead to madness. It’s inevitable.
Why will this inevitably lead to madness?
And why would thinking the opposite (i.e., thinking that women should be allowed to vote) NOT lead to such madness?
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by khankrumthebulgar on Feb 13, 2006, 9:19pm
How dramatically has our culture changed? In 1960 78% of US homes had children living under the roof. Today it is 28% of US Homes. Who is having kids? The most stable, educated, and best genes? No the children of Illegal Aliens, the least educated, lowest skilled of other Nations. And the children of thugs, bad boys, and outright criminals. Now if we were running the Circus Maximus or Gladiators that would be a benefit. But it is creating a massive criminal subculture.
Our Engineering Schools, Sciences, and Mathematics are full of Students from India & Asia, and few US Jews. As Fred Reed has pointed out. I guess I am an exception as I have a Math prodigy in the Family. But the reality is the West is dying. The birth rates are below replacement levels and within 50 years our social safety net will collapse. It is not sustainable. It is my Grandsons who I worry about.
Sharia imposed on humanity by an Islamic Global Caliphate is a real possibility or a Nuclear Exchange. The Soviet Empire loved their children more than they hated us. The same cannot be said for Iran’s Mullahs, Hamas, Hezbollah, or Al-Queda. For a vision of our future take a look at Chechnya.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Aldarris on Feb 13, 2006, 9:28pm
Feb 13, 2006, 9:13pm, Guest of Honor wrote:
Why will this inevitably lead to madness?
Because is order to assess a person’s skills, abilities and such one should look at person’s skills, abilities and such, not on the construction of body organs. And even when it comes to personality gender is but one of many things that constitute one. I know a plenty of men that should not be trusted with a credit card.
Quote:And why would thinking the opposite (i.e., thinking that women should be allowed to vote) NOT lead to such madness?
Don’t know who thinks opposite and what exactly is opposite in this case, nor it matters, because there is a very simple and reasonable approach. Only citizens should be allowed to vote; citizenship should be granted after a comprehensive exam, regardless of where the person was born.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by niceguy78 on Feb 13, 2006, 9:31pm
As I stated once, Antiriad is correct. It is either his way or the Muslim extremists, you can decide.
I am all for women having the right to an education, and the right to work any job outside of the home. I am not for them having the right to vote. In this instance, women would NOT BE TAXED, no taxation without representation.
Why do I feel this?
It is already proven. Within 20 years of giving women equal rights, men have become 2nd class citizens. It only took 20 fucking years. Less than a generation to ensure men were 2nd class citizens. I wish I could wave my magic wand and say “okay women you have to play by the same rules, no special treatment”, but it WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
If we pushed for equal rights again, within 20 years we would back in the same damn situation.
No women will not lose the right to vote, it is too radical of a thought, but it is probably the only thing that will save our country. Unless women as a group actually start caring about men and OUR future (and this has never happened in the history of the world).
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Aldarris on Feb 13, 2006, 9:35pm
Feb 13, 2006, 9:19pm, khankrumthebulgar wrote:
But the reality is the West is dying. The birth rates are below replacement levels and within 50 years our social safety net will collapse. It is not sustainable. It is my Grandsons who I worry about.
According to doom sayers the West was dying before it was born. This particular prediction does not sound much different from the rest.
Quote:Sharia imposed on humanity by an Islamic Global Caliphate is a real possibility or a Nuclear Exchange. The Soviet Empire loved their children more than they hated us. The same cannot be said for Iran’s Mullahs, Hamas, Hezbollah, or Al-Queda. For a vision of our future take a look at Chechnya.
Chechnya is but a money laundromat for Russian govt and Russian mafia. That’s all there is to it.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 13, 2006, 9:36pm
Feb 13, 2006, 8:10pm, Guest wrote:
Feb 13, 2006, 6:29pm, antiriad wrote:I don’t know the details, I just know the outline of the system that works and that is going to come about after this system inevitably fails.
You are completely, utterly, and certifiably batshit insane. Ever read any books by this fella named Charles Dickens? There are your “details” right there.
You have no posting history here, as such I am sure you understand that your credibility is exactly zero here.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Aldarris on Feb 13, 2006, 9:41pm
Feb 13, 2006, 9:36pm, antiriad wrote:
You have no posting history here, as such I am sure you understand that your credibility is exactly zero here.
Credibility. Yes. What a wonderful concept. If the credibility meter says that yours is high, you can say anything you want, argumentate it with “Look around, evidence is everywhere” and expect everyone bow in awe. Brilliant.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by blanco on Feb 13, 2006, 9:45pm
Feb 13, 2006, 8:55pm, Citadel wrote:
I do give a damn about the fact that I can’t turn on the TV to get a good comedy or action flick.It’s as simple as that for me.
Pretty much sums up this teenagers priorities.
Leave the deep thinking to antiriad – he knows his shit.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 13, 2006, 9:49pm
Feb 13, 2006, 9:28pm, Aldarris wrote:
Feb 13, 2006, 9:13pm, Guest of Honor wrote:
Why will this inevitably lead to madness?Because is order to asses person’s skills, abilities and such one should look at person’s skills, abilities and such, not on the construction of body organs.
And even when it comes to personality gender is but one of many things that constitute one. I know a plenty of men that should not be trusted with a credit card.Quote:And why would thinking the opposite (i.e., thinking that women should be allowed to vote) NOT lead to such madness?
Don’t know who thinks opposite and what exactly is opposite in this case, nor it matters, because there is a very simple and reasonable approach. Only citizens should be allowed to vote; citizenship should be granted after a comprehensive exam, regardless of where the person was born.
More feminist speak that implies men and women are the same on average and that the world previously was no better off when men ruled.
This is why the system will have to crash (for those who don’t believe it): because too many people refuse to see the objective truth. They will take us to hell sooner than admit that they’re wrong.
I hope this served well as a demonstration.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 13, 2006, 9:54pm
Feb 13, 2006, 9:41pm, Aldarris wrote:
Feb 13, 2006, 9:36pm, antiriad wrote:You have no posting history here, as such I am sure you understand that your credibility is exactly zero here.
Credibility. Yes. What a wonderful concept.
If the credibility meter says that yours is high, you can say anything you want, argumentate it with “Look around, evidence is everywhere” and expect everyone bow in awe.
Brilliant.
As you can see, posting history does influence how other posters view your comments vs. those of others.
Of course this is precisely what feminists such as yourself hate so much: historical evidence. You would prefer it if there was no causal logic and feminists could indefinitely screw everything up as much and as long as they liked and nobody would ever start seeing obvious trends.
The party is about to end, my friend.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Aldarris on Feb 13, 2006, 9:57pm
Feb 13, 2006, 9:49pm, antiriad wrote:
More feminist speak that implies men and women are the same on average and that the world previously was no better off when men ruled.
This is why the system will have to crash (for those who don’t believe it): because too many people refuse to see the objective truth. They will take us to hell sooner than admit that they’re wrong.
I hope this served well as a demonstration.
I have a friend, called Reality… think I will introduce you to him.
The amount of repetitions of the phrase “the world will crush” and it’s derivatives won’t make any difference. And considering that you, or everyone else for that matter have failed so far to define what exactly the “crash” about, it is difficult to take you seriously.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 13, 2006, 9:58pm
Feb 13, 2006, 9:41pm, Aldarris wrote:
Feb 13, 2006, 9:36pm, antiriad wrote:You have no posting history here, as such I am sure you understand that your credibility is exactly zero here.
Credibility. Yes. What a wonderful concept.
If the credibility meter says that yours is high, you can say anything you want, argumentate it with “Look around, evidence is everywhere” and expect everyone bow in awe.
Brilliant.
Don’t be such a naive fool, please. I’ve posted plenty of evidence throughout the months when you weren’t here. Now I simply summarize the outcome. Just because you weren’t around doesn’t mean that the evidence doesn’t exist. Go read the archives of this forum, then report back.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by niceguy78 on Feb 13, 2006, 10:02pm
Feb 13, 2006, 9:57pm, Aldarris wrote:
Feb 13, 2006, 9:49pm, antiriad wrote:
More feminist speak that implies men and women are the same on average and that the world previously was no better off when men ruled.
This is why the system will have to crash (for those who don’t believe it): because too many people refuse to see the objective truth. They will take us to hell sooner than admit that they’re wrong.
I hope this served well as a demonstration.
I have a friend, called Reality… think I will introduce you to him.
The amount of repetitions of the phrase “the world will crush” and it’s derivatives won’t make any difference. And considering that you, or everyone else for that matter have failed so far to define what exactly the “crash” about, it is difficult to take you seriously.
You are correct, the world may not crash, but the West will crash. We are headed there right now. Nothing to stop us at all.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Aldarris on Feb 13, 2006, 10:03pm
Feb 13, 2006, 9:54pm, antiriad wrote:
As you can see, posting history does influence how other posters view your comments vs. those of others.
So you keep on insisting that argumentum Ad Verecundiam is not a fallacy. Well, you have demonstrated poor logic since the beginning of the thread; this post is merely outlines the point.
Quote:Of course this is precisely what feminists such as yourself hate so much: historical evidence. You would prefer it if there was no causal logic and feminists could indefinitely screw everything up as much and as long as they liked and nobody would ever start seeing obvious trends.
The party is about to end, my friend.
Whoever is not with us, is against us… The only authority you can have is the authority with those which are just as bitter and seek power rather than cooperation. Sentient beings won’t take you seriously.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Aldarris on Feb 13, 2006, 10:04pm
Feb 13, 2006, 10:02pm, niceguy78 wrote:
You are correct, the world may not crash, but the West will crash. We are headed there right now. Nothing to stop us at all.
Don’t you see….
All such predictions are less than worthless, because everything, absolutely everything will end eventually. The Sun is currently heading right there, to the red giant and nova stage.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Aldarris on Feb 13, 2006, 10:08pm
Feb 13, 2006, 9:58pm, antiriad wrote:
Don’t be such a naive fool, please. I’ve posted plenty of evidence throughout the months when you weren’t here. Now I simply summarize the outcome. Just because you weren’t around doesn’t mean that the evidence doesn’t exist. Go read the archives of this forum, then report back.
I am sorry to disappoint you, but over the years of writing in the net not only I have learned to determine level of argumentation from only a few posts, but also developed immunity to all the attempts to press with authority.
This is getting tiresome. Come up with something better than “I am better than you, therefore I am right, you are wrong” if you want to sound more convincing. Until then (if ever).
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by JimP on Feb 13, 2006, 10:28pm
First of all, the question is not whether the American economy will collapse, the question is when, since no Empire during the entire history of humanity has lasted more than a few hundred years. Think of the Internet bubble, it was obvious back in 1996 that it would collapse (Allan Greenspan, irrational exuberance) but it wasn’t until 2000 that the collapse actually took place. However, I really wouldn’t worry too much until there is serious talk about restricting EMIGRATION and prohibition of moving money out of the country.
And by the way the Soviet Union collapsed because it was being run by complete morons, if it had followed China’s example it would still be intact and prospering. But if God forbid American government makes a mis-calculation and fucks up, watch out — this is no Russia that can live off it’s natural resources, it’s going to get real ugly here real fast.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by niceguy78 on Feb 13, 2006, 10:33pm
Feb 13, 2006, 10:04pm, Aldarris wrote:
Feb 13, 2006, 10:02pm, niceguy78 wrote:You are correct, the world may not crash, but the West will crash. We are headed there right now. Nothing to stop us at all.
Don’t you see….
All such predictions are less than worthless, because everything, absolutely everything will end eventually. The Sun is currently heading right there, to the red giant and nova stage.
No, not everything must end. Women could be smart as a group, be thankful for what men have given them in the USA, stand up for equal rights and help save the west.
See what is sad, is the west could very well end in the next 50 years.
It doesn’t effect me personally, but it does the women.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by niceguy78 on Feb 13, 2006, 10:34pm
Feb 13, 2006, 10:28pm, JimP wrote:First of all, the question is not whether the American economy will collapse, the question is when, since no Empire during the entire history of humanity has lasted more than a few hundred years. Think of the Internet bubble, it was obvious back in 1996 that it would collapse (Allan Greenspan, irrational exuberance) but it wasn’t until 2000 that the collapse actually took place. However, I really wouldn’t worry too much until there is serious talk about restricting EMIGRATION and prohibition of moving money out of the country.
And by the way the Soviet Union collapsed because it was being run by complete morons, if it had followed China’s example it would still be intact and prospering. But if God forbid American government makes a mis-calculation and fucks up, watch out — this is no Russia that can live off it’s natural resources, it’s going to get real ugly here real fast.
It is going to happen, not sure when.
I just hope I can make my money and get out before it happens.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by JimP on Feb 13, 2006, 10:36pm
Feb 13, 2006, 10:33pm, niceguy78 wrote:No, not everything must end. Women could be smart as a group, be thankful for what men have given them in the USA, stand up for equal rights and help save the west.
Listen, you and I should talk, I have this real nice bridge in downtown Manhattan I could sell you…
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by niceguy78 on Feb 13, 2006, 10:41pm
Feb 13, 2006, 10:36pm, JimP wrote:
Feb 13, 2006, 10:33pm, niceguy78 wrote:No, not everything must end. Women could be smart as a group, be thankful for what men have given them in the USA, stand up for equal rights and help save the west.Listen, you and I should talk, I have this real nice bridge in downtown Manhattan I could sell you…
You don’t think the USA will collapse (already well on its way, and now we have a military enemy we cannot beat)?
Or you don’t think women will wise up and do what is correct (I don’t either, but giving them fair warning)?
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by JiimP on Feb 13, 2006, 10:52pm
Feb 13, 2006, 10:41pm, niceguy78 wrote:
Feb 13, 2006, 10:36pm, JimP wrote:Listen, you and I should talk, I have this real nice bridge in downtown Manhattan I could sell you…
You don’t think the USA will colapse (already well on its way, and now we have a military enemy we cannot beat)?
Or you don’t think women will wise up and do what is correct (I don’t either, but giving them fair warning)?
Well, I don’t think a country will necessarily completely collapse; it’s possible that sooner or later what we will have is England, but not the British Empire. However, I think the transition will be very ugly.
As far as women wising up — not a chance in hell.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 13, 2006, 10:53pm
Feb 13, 2006, 10:08pm, Aldarris wrote:
Feb 13, 2006, 9:58pm, antiriad wrote:
Don’t be such a naive fool, please. I’ve posted plenty of evidence throughout the months when you weren’t here. Now I simply summarize the outcome. Just because you weren’t around doesn’t mean that the evidence doesn’t exist. Go read the archives of this forum, then report back.I am sorry to disappoint you, but over the years of writing in the net not only I have learned to determine level of argumentation from only a few posts, but also developed immunity to all the attempts to press with authority.
This is getting tiresome. Come up with something better than “I am better than you, therefore I am right, you are wrong” if you want to sound more convincing. Until then (if ever).
Took you a couple of posts, didn’t it. In fact it merely took me one post to determine that I should dismiss you and avoid wasting any effort on refuting your “arguments.”
Or – as the phrase goes – “you aren’t even wrong.”
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by The Man on Feb 14, 2006, 12:04am
Feb 13, 2006, 9:31pm, niceguy78 wrote:
I am all for women having the right to an education, and the right to work any job outside of the home. I am not for them having the right to vote.
IOW, you would ALLOW women to have an education, and to work outside the home if they wanted to. That is to say, you would ALLOW for women to have these certain freedoms.
I’m only trying to understand and clarify your meaning when you say that women “have the right.”
Quote:Why do I feel this?
It is already proven. Within 20 years of giving women equal rights, men have become 2nd class citizens. It only took 20 fucking years. Less than a generation to ensure men were 2nd class citizens. I wish I could wave my magic wand and say “okay women you have to play by the same rules, no special treatment”, but it WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
If we pushed for equal rights again, within 20 years we would back in the same damn situation.
I don’t think there’s any obligation on men’s part to grant women “equal rights” for two reasons:
1) Because the concept of “equality” never really applied to women in the first place (Enlightenment thinkers always viewed ONLY MAN as the embodiment of the individual. They took for granted women’s natural inferiority, ignoring them, deeming it bothersome and unnecessary to consider them in their world view of individualism).
2) More important, because men are just naturally the stronger and more dominant of the two sexes. Therefore, they set the terms for how citizens – both men & women – are governed. That alone wipes out any argument that women have any place or power in determining how “free” they should be.
Men are perfectly capable of doling out, at their discretion, whatever liberties to women they (i.e, men) deem necessary, desirable, or useful – without the need to grant any such “equal rights.”
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by prince batshit on Feb 14, 2006, 1:33am
Aldarris I’ll tell you what will cause this “crash” among other things. Think of the United States 50 years ago – every man was married, (excluding homosexuals, drug addicts, the homeless, and the certifiably insane). Basically, every regular working man was married. Fast forward to the early 1970’s when the pro-feminist legislations took over the family courts. If you even try to fathom the amount of DEVASTATION suffered by millions of divorced men since that time, your fucking head would explode.
In a comprehensive survey conducted 4 years ago, 22% of men in the USA said they would NEVER marry. This percentage will climb. It’s taken 30 fucking years for men to wake up, and alot of men have had to suffer unspeakably and commit suicide for us to know what we know today, but now the word is out, and it will spread until it becomes common knowledge and the majority of men will be shunning marriage.
I don’t have any statistics for you, but i’m sure that if you looked up the relevant material, statistics would support this hypothesis; the rate of marriage has been in gradual and steady decline since the about 1980. If this trend continues, marriage will become a thing of the past, and only the few rather than the majority – as it once was, will get married. No marriage – no children – no men supporting women – social upheaval – Any way you look at it, happy families are the building blocks of a stable society, and the nuclear family in the west has been undermined beyond repair.
I live in Australia and I can tell you research has shown that based on current trends, in 30 years time there will be more single parent families than two parent married families. Having most of our children raised by single mothers will create massive social problems – namely boys not fulfilling their educational and career potential. Only time has the answer, but I predict we have to endure some pretty fucked up times before the system is rectified.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 14, 2006, 2:02am
Aldarris is one of those totally insane hardcore feminists who thinks that women can take over all the work (that is, a) that they are capable of doing it and b) willing to do so). This is why I don’t engage with delusional fools like her, there’s no point in bringing up sensible arguments because they’ll only just change the subject or beat around the bush or come up with vague/absurd/irrational arguments that are feasible enough that they’re difficult to disprove. Reality will ultimately disprove them – which is why I celebrate the misery of all spinsters today because 10 years ago I was predicting all this and nobody listened to me and now every miserable lonely wench lends that much more credence to my original view. They’ll talk all the absurd shit they want, at the end of the day they’re still women who are incapable of causal logic. Why even waste precious effort on trying to prove their own lunacy to them? It’s more fun to deride them today and then deride them some more in 10 years when it becomes clear that they were wrong.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Van on Feb 14, 2006, 3:41am
This guy has some interesting thoughts on the decline of society.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/index.htm
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Niall CBB on Feb 14, 2006, 7:25am
There are many many things wrong with the US and it will collapse. My timetable is 20 years.
There are many and varied reasons for this and I could spend pages and pages going through them. Collapse of family, collapse of economy, politicization of the system of law. Etc etc etc.
However it all boils down to one point. The point where it all went wrong. Giving women the vote. As soon as we did that we were fucked. Women are a statistical majority and they vote as a block and they will vote for anything repeat anything that makes them feel safer and to hell with the consequences.
Thus we get social programs which we increasingly can not afford. Thus we have the destruction of the family through the divorce crime syndicate. Thus we have men seeing what happened to their fathers and uncles rejecting marriage completely. Thus our birth rate has gone in to free fall. Thus we have the tailoring of the school system to female needs and the rejection of the hard sciences as bad as woman aren’t good at them. Thus we have the ‘ritalinisation’ of young boys merely for being young boys. Thus we have a school system that tells all young men they are evil because they are males. Thus you have young males saying they will not fight for a country that hates them. Etc etc etc.
Any problem in USA you point to I can trace it back to giving women the vote and the subsequent insane law passed by ass kissing politicians to court the female vote and get themselves re-elected.
So what will happen? Simple. We will not change the voting system because we (men) do not have the votes to do so and we are unwilling and being increasingly pussified and so increasingly unable to do so by force. As the system falls apart so the feminazis will crank it up. American men will not be allowed to marry foreign women. It will not be couched as such, it will be ‘the eradication of the international sex slave trade’ but that will be the result. Men won’t marry women so we will have common law marriage defined as fuck her once and she’s your responsibility for life. Men won’t even fuck women any more so women will be artificially inseminated and single men, already classed as social criminals, will be taxed to the hilt to provide the money.
Thus we speed up and up until the MONEY RUNS OUT. We will borrow anything we can borrow from anybody at whatever rate ($8 trillion and rising at $2 billion a day). We will sell whatever is not nailed down and then what is nailed down whether we own it or not. We will speed up and up and then WHAM! The money runs out. The HR Director on $200,000 a year for persecuting any males still employed loses her job. We can’t pay the prison guards to keep the evil males who’ve defaulted on their Mommy Support in jail. We can’t pay the police to ‘protect’ women by persecuting men. THE WELFARE CHECKS STOP. New Orleans? you ain’t seen nothing yet. Imagine what will happen when the welfare checks stop.
Then women will REALLY need the protection of men and it will not come.
Can’t happen, won’t happen we will see the danger and change course? Think again. Any politician that even tries to change direction is immediately thrown out of office. Can’t get a law passed to ban international marriage agencies? Tack in on to VAWA. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY!
I’ll watch it on Fox News Asia on my laptop on a beach in Thailand. My money will be in Singapore in hard currency (yuan probably) and gold.
There once was a time when I was a patriot. There once was a time I would have died for my country. But you know what? After 44 years of being oppressed merely because I am a male if the muslims want it they can have it.
Enjoy your burkas ladies. Your new male master will probability eat the cat.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Guest on Feb 14, 2006, 8:50am
Feb 14, 2006, 1:33am, prince batshit wrote:Aldarris I’ll tell you what will cause this “crash” among other things. Think of the United States 50 years ago – every man was married, (excluding homosexuals, drug addicts, the homeless, and the certifiably insane). Basically, every regular working man was married. Fastforward to the early 1970’s when the pro-feminist legislations took over the family courts. If you even try to fathom the amount of DEVASTATION suffered by millions of divorced men since that time, your fucking head would explode.
In a comprehensive survey conducted 4 years ago, 22% of men in the USA said they would NEVER marry. This percentage will climb. It’s taken 30 fucking years for men to wake up, and alot of men have had to suffer unspeakably and commit suicide for us to know what we know today, but now the word is out, and it will spread until it becomes common knowledge and the majority of men will be shunning marriage.
I don’t have any statistics for you, but i’m sure that if you looked up the relevant material, statistics would support this hypothesis; the rate of marriage has been in gradual and steady decline since the about 1980. If this trend continues, marriage will become a thing of the past, and only the few rather than the majority – as it once was, will get married. No marriage – no children – no men supporting women – social upheaval – Any way you look at it, happy families are the building blocks of a stable society, and the nuclear family in the west has been undermined beyond repair.
I live in Australia and I can tell you research has shown that based on current trends, in 30 years time there will be more single parent families than two parent married families. Having most of our children raised by single mothers will create massive social problems – namely boys not fulfilling their educational and career potential. Only time has the answer, but I predict we have to endure some pretty fucked up times before the system is rectified.
A “comprehensive” study, you say? Have you even read it? Not that you give a damn, but go to Rutgers.com and do a search.
Here’s how your precious “logic” figures into it. Do you even have the slightest *clue* about how statistical surveys are performed? The sample population in this survey was 900. 900!
Now, take into account that up to 10% of the population is GAY. That leaves 12%.
Now, realize that 6% of the population, in a recent survey, said that they don’t believe the U.S. landed on the moon. It’s well known in statistics that there are some people who will agree with anything a survey asks.
Mark Twain said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” You do the math.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Guest on Feb 14, 2006, 8:54am
Feb 13, 2006, 9:36pm, antiriad wrote:
Feb 13, 2006, 8:10pm, Guest wrote:You are completely, utterly, and certifiably batshit insane. Ever read any books by this fella named Charles Dickens? There are your “details” right there.
You have no posting history here, as such I am sure you understand that your credibility is exactly zero here.
And yet again, you have not a DAMN thing to say, except call attention to my Guest status. Not a response to what I said?
Have you ever studied HISTORY, my dear man? Nope. I guarantee you have maybe POSSIBLY an associate’s degree.
People keep calling you a “deep thinker.” Sorry, but reading some essay on the Internet and spouting the same tired, foolish ideas does not make one a deep thinker.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Guest on Feb 14, 2006, 8:59am
Feb 13, 2006, 8:19pm, InMichigan wrote:”Dude do you actually believe this stuff you say? There’s no “great collapse” coming anytime soon. What we have is a lot of misery for young men because of feminists. At any rate, to say that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, given education, etc. is borderline madness. I don’t see how you expect us men to take you seriously.”
I believe it. Here is why:
By 2010 90% of all the worlds Scientists and Engineers will possibly be from Asia. You better hope we can persuade them to move to America or the future patents and discoveries will come from Asia and they will recieve the wealth not us. Feminization of schools probably help destroy the boys that used to go for science and math. The Feminists didn’t raise the standards for girls, they lowered the standards of boys so girls felt equal well guess what China won’t lower standards, students there swim or sink so the best and brightest will rise with no political correctness to worry about. We are weak and becoming weaker while others are hungry to take over the top spot.
And yes, people like Ellison at Oracle, Microsoft, and COUNTLESS other countries sending our jobs to India – it’s ALL because of feminists, right?
I don’t blame you for picking an easy target – it’s really easy to pin the problems of the world on feminism, no matter how blatantly pea-brained your idea. No, don’t blame the real culprits, stupid, short-sighted anti-American companies sending our jobs overseas.
But no, really…keep posting that women shouldn’t be able to vote. I love it. Really bumps up your credibility to “complete and utter lunatic” status with the vast majority of the people you’re trying to convince. Thank you!
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Citadel on Feb 14, 2006, 10:21am
Indeed, a lot of this is men’s fault. The top-level management WANTED to target women into spending like crazy. They got what they wanted.
Pharmaceutical companies are aware of what Ritalin does. Do they care that feminists use it to drug up small boys? No. 90% of commercials are aimed at pleasing women. Do the big boys on top care as long as this strategy is filling their pockets? No.
Greed is the priority for these fellows. They probably know what it’s doing to the country. Do they care? Heck no.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by JimP on Feb 14, 2006, 10:34am
Feb 14, 2006, 10:21am, Citadel wrote:Indeed, a lot of this is men’s fault. The top-level management WANTED to target women into spending like crazy. They got what they wanted.
Pharmaceutical companies are aware of what ritalin does. Do they care that feminists use it to drug up small boys? No. 90% of commercials are aimed at pleasing women. Do the big boys on top care as long as this strategy is filling their pockets? No.
Greed is the priority for these fellows. They probably know what it’s doing to the country. Do they care? Heck no.
At the end of the day, the reason why jobs get outsourced is that a worker in India can do the same (and maybe even a slightly better) job for $5 / hour that a U.S. worker will do for $50 / hour. If this wasn’t the case, companies would not outsource. The only solution here is that U.S. workers must charge $100 / hour for work that no-one else can do. But this requires good education, and the educational system in the U.S. completely sucks PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF FEMINISM.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Citadel on Feb 14, 2006, 10:37am
Quote:But this requires good education, and the educational system in the U.S. completely sucks PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF FEMINISM.
Uhhhh what does any of your post have to do with what I said??
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 14, 2006, 10:47am
Feb 14, 2006, 8:50am, Guest wrote:Now, take into account that up to 10% of the population is GAY. That leaves 12%.
You just lost all credibility. 10% of the population is not gay, it’s less than 2%. 10% – let me ask you, did you just graduate from a wymyn’s stydys prygrym?
Jackass.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 14, 2006, 10:50am
Feb 14, 2006, 8:54am, Guest wrote:And yet again, you have not a DAMN thing to say, except call attention to my Guest status. Not a response to what I said?
Have you ever studied HISTORY, my dear man? Nope. I guarantee you have maybe POSSIBLY an associate’s degree.
People keep calling you a “deep thinker.” Sorry, but reading some essay on the Internet and spouting the same tired, foolish ideas does not make one a deep thinker.
An associate’s – hahaha. That’s funny. You realize that without AA programs your degree qualifies you to doing pretty much one thing only: asking “would you like fries with that?”
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by old fart on Feb 14, 2006, 11:01am
“You destroy the family; you destroy the country.”
Erin Prissey (or is it Prizzey?)
And what again, was the goal of Feminism?
To destroy marriage (slavery as they called it) and the nuclear family.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Guest on Feb 14, 2006, 11:12am
Feb 14, 2006, 10:47am, antiriad wrote:
Feb 14, 2006, 8:50am, Guest wrote:Now, take into account that up to 10% of the population is GAY. That leaves 12%.You just lost all credibility. 10% of the population is not gay, it’s less than 2%. 10% – let me ask you, did you just graduate from a wymyn’s stydys prygrym?
Jackass.
Again, statistics – 2%, 10%, whatever the statistic, it’s unprovable. If you think that the vast majority of guys who screw other guys in bathrooms on the sly don’t identify to the world as straight, you’re completely and utterly naive.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by JimP on Feb 14, 2006, 11:12am
Feb 14, 2006, 10:37am, Citadel wrote:
Quote:But this requires good education, and the educational system in the U.S. completely sucks PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF FEMINISM.Uhhhh what does any of your post have to do with what I said??
You said that it’s the men’s fault because they’re greedy, I’m saying greed has nothing to do with it, it’s the men’s fault only in the sense that they allowed women to vote.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Guest on Feb 14, 2006, 11:16am
Feb 14, 2006, 10:50am, antiriad wrote:
Feb 14, 2006, 8:54am, Guest wrote:And yet again, you have not a DAMN thing to say, except call attention to my Guest status. Not a response to what I said?Have you ever studied HISTORY, my dear man? Nope. I guarantee you have maybe POSSIBLY an associate’s degree.
People keep calling you a “deep thinker.” Sorry, but reading some essay on the Internet and spouting the same tired, foolish ideas does not make one a deep thinker.
An associate’s – hahaha. That’s funny. You realize that without AA programs your degree qualifies you to doing pretty much one thing only: asking “would you like fries with that?”
Oh really? Computer science? The only computer science majors asking that question are the ones whose jobs have been sent overseas by male-run companies like MS and Oracle.
Sorry if the truth hurts.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Citadel on Feb 14, 2006, 11:58am
Quote:You said that it’s the men’s fault because they’re greedy, I’m saying greed has nothing to do with it, it’s the men’s fault only in the sense that they allowed women to vote.
Hi, the only explanation for this statement is that you’ve been through a very traumatic experience with a woman in your life. People resort to extreme beliefs after an incident affects their psyche.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 14, 2006, 12:20pm
Feb 14, 2006, 11:12am, Guest wrote:Again, statistics – 2%, 10%, whatever the statistic, it’s unprovable. If you think that the vast majority of guys who screw other guys in bathrooms on the sly don’t identify to the world as straight, you’re completely and utterly naive.
And you still haven’t identified yourself with a regular name. Who is it this time – Jamie? Susan22? NYC Chick? Oh, that’s right – you are all alike.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by JimP on Feb 14, 2006, 12:22pm
Feb 14, 2006, 11:58am, Citadel wrote:
Quote:You said that it’s the men’s fault because they’re greedy, I’m saying greed has nothing to do with it, it’s the men’s fault only in the sense that they allowed women to vote.Hi, the only explanation for this statement is that you’ve been through a very traumatic experience with a woman in your life. People resort to extreme beliefs after an incident affects their psyche.
No, I’m happily married, haven’t had any traumatic experiences with women.
I’m simply saying that it’s silly to blame U.S. corporations and call the management greedy when all they’re doing is simply acting in their shareholder’s best interests. The problem is NOT the fact that firms choose foreign over U.S. labor, the problem is that U.S. workers CAN NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE VALUE FOR MONEY IT COSTS TO HIRE THEM, and this is a direct result of a failed educational system.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 14, 2006, 12:23pm
Feb 14, 2006, 11:16am, Guest wrote:
Feb 14, 2006, 10:50am, antiriad wrote:An associate’s – hahaha. That’s funny. You realize that without AA programs your degree qualifies you to doing pretty much one thing only: asking “would you like fries with that?”
Oh really? Computer science? The only computer science majors asking that question are the ones whose jobs have been sent overseas by male-run companies like MS and Oracle.
Sorry if the truth hurts.
You have a computer science degree? I doubt it. Your breadth of intellect relegates you to no more than wymmyn’s stydys – where facts and fiction are confused and a degree is obtained by such triviality as reciting the line “I love my vagina.”
Wait, I get it. You got your CS degree through affirmative action and a feminized school system which gave you A’s because you have effeminate tendencies.
Gotcha.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Citadel on Feb 14, 2006, 12:31pm
Quote:
No, I’m happily married, haven’t had any traumatic experiences with women.
Hmmmm, I don’t buy it. Sorry
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Guest on Feb 14, 2006, 12:34pm
Feb 14, 2006, 12:20pm, antiriad wrote:
Feb 14, 2006, 11:12am, Guest wrote:Again, statistics – 2%, 10%, whatever the statistic, it’s unprovable. If you think that the vast majority of guys who screw other guys in bathrooms on the sly don’t identify to the world as straight, you’re completely and utterly naive.And you still haven’t identified yourself with a regular name. Who is it this time – Jamie? Susan22? NYC Chick? Oh, that’s right – you are all alike.
Little boy, you know just as well as I do that a registration with a fake email address on a board like this means nothing. Only a verifiable real name does. What’s your real name? You go first.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 14, 2006, 12:37pm
Feb 14, 2006, 12:34pm, Guest wrote:
Feb 14, 2006, 12:20pm, antiriad wrote:And you still haven’t identified yourself with a regular name. Who is it this time – Jamie? Susan22? NYC Chick? Oh, that’s right – you are all alike.
Little boy, you know just as well as I do that a registration with a fake email address on a board like this means nothing. Only a verifiable real name does. What’s your real name? You go first.
There you go again changing the subject. But I’m afraid the onus is on you. Many people have come through here calling themselves “guest.” Your credibility is still exactly zero here.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Guest on Feb 14, 2006, 12:37pm
Feb 14, 2006, 12:23pm, antiriad wrote:
Feb 14, 2006, 11:16am, Guest wrote:Oh really? Computer science? The only computer science majors asking that question are the ones whose jobs have been sent overseas by male-run companies like MS and Oracle.
Sorry if the truth hurts.
You have a computer science degree? I doubt it. Your breadth of intellect relegates you to no more than wymmyn’s stydys – where facts and fiction are confused and a degree is obtained by such triviality as reciting the line “I love my vagina.”
Wait, I get it. You got your CS degree througrh affirmative action and a feminized school system which gave you A’s because you have effeminate tendencies.
Gotcha.
Sorry, kiddo – intelligent people somehow manage to engage in informed discussion without interjecting words like “cunt” “Ameriskank” and (my favorite) “mangina.”
Stop playing on the internet, hon, and go do your homework. The adults are trying to have a discussion here.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Guest on Feb 14, 2006, 12:39pm
Feb 14, 2006, 12:37pm, antiriad wrote:
Feb 14, 2006, 12:34pm, Guest wrote:Little boy, you know just as well as I do that a registration with a fake email address on a board like this means nothing. Only a verifiable real name does. What’s your real name? You go first.
There you go again changing the subject. But I’m afraid the onus is on you. Many people have come through here calling themselves “guest.” Your credibility is still exactly zero here.
You’re right, hon – and that’s why you keep replying to me.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by JimP on Feb 14, 2006, 12:40pm
Feb 14, 2006, 12:31pm, Citadel wrote:
Quote:
No, I’m happily married, haven’t had any traumatic experiences with women.Hmmmm, I don’t buy it. Sorry
First of all, I really could care less what you think.
Secondly, it’s a typical female tactic to attempt to divert attention from the argument when she knows that she can’t win by logic, by trying to insult/denigrate the person making the argument.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 14, 2006, 12:40pm
Feb 14, 2006, 12:39pm, Guest wrote:
Feb 14, 2006, 12:37pm, antiriad wrote:There you go again changing the subject. But I’m afraid the onus is on you. Many people have come through here calling themselves “guest.” Your credibility is still exactly zero here.
You’re right, hon – and that’s why you keep replying to me.
You amuse me. Nothing more. Later on I’ll get bored and do something else.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Citadel on Feb 14, 2006, 12:44pm
Quote:First of all, I really could care less what you think.
I don’t buy this either
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Truthslayer on Feb 14, 2006, 12:45pm
Guest, quit with the shame, nagging and guilt trip.
Antiriad isn’t just on this site, he’s on Mancoat also and has proven himself LOTS of times. He isn’t talking to YOU, per say, you’re the one personalizing the topic. He’s talking to those who have doubts or are unsure. Just about all of his claims he can back up with statistics and data from OTHER sources, thus validating his statements.
The fact that the only weapon you use is snide insults and distraction techniques shows your statements are nothing more than personal opinions and a wounded ego due to the fact that the truth hurts, society LIED to you and a man who doesn’t kowtow to the world is something you fear.
Anti will apologize IF he is proven wrong. Go ahead, prove him wrong, not with personal opinion, but with facts.
Till then, accept your ownage.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Guest on Feb 14, 2006, 12:54pm
Feb 14, 2006, 12:45pm, Truthslayer wrote:Guest, quit with the shame, nagging and guilt trip.
Antiriad isn’t just on this site, he’s on Mancoat also and has proven himself LOTS of times. He isn’t talking to YOU, per say, you’re the one personalizing the topic. He’s talking to those who have doubts or are unsure. Just about all of his claims he can back up with statistics and data from OTHER sources, thus validating his statements.
The fact that the only weapon you use is snide insults and distraction techniques shows your statements are nothing more than personal opinions and a wounded ego due to the fact that the truth hurts, society LIED to you and a man who doesn’t kowtow to the world is something you fear.
Anti will apologize IF he is proven wrong. Go ahead, prove him wrong, not with personal opinion, but with facts.
Till then, accept your ownage.
If he was *ever* able to hold an intelligent discussion without running to his corner and saying either “Hey, you’re using shaming language!” or “you’re a femnag!” or the ever-so-eloquent “cunt!” then I would be able to respect him. But he can’t.
He said it himself – he doesn’t “know the details” on how a society that controls women 100% would work. That, to me, speaks volumes. When asked to back up his statements, he can’t.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 14, 2006, 12:55pm
It’s no use, this dingbat of a woman doesn’t get it – she is the butt of all jokes here, nothing that she says is of any essential value and so I don’t even attempt to refute her. I reserve my intellect for people orders of magnitude more competent than she; plus, as the phrase goes, don’t try to teach a pig to sing…
As for the 100% control issue – it’s a loaded question to begin with, obviously I’m not going to take a disingenuous question seriously. Must you have everything spelled out in the clear for you, you dumb bitch?
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Guest on Feb 14, 2006, 1:00pm
Feb 14, 2006, 12:55pm, antiriad wrote:It’s no use, this dingbat of a woman doesn’t get it – she is the butt of all jokes here, nothing that she says is of any essential value and so I don’t even attempt to refute her. I reserve my intellect for people orders of magnitude more competent than she; plus, as the phrase goes, don’t try to teach a pig to sing…
Don’t worry, honeybunches, I don’t take seriously anything that someone who doesn’t even think women should have the right to vote thinks. Whether I’m the “butt of all jokes” here or not is irrelevant – people like *you* are the butt of all jokes of intelligent men and women here.
I, too, only spar with you because you amuse me, not because I care to win any arguments with someone as thick as you are.
I’ll concede! There you go! You win! Yay! (cheering)
But remember, winning an argument on the Internet is like…well, just go type “arguing on the internet” in Google.
You’re a winner!
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by old fart on Feb 14, 2006, 1:00pm
Feb 14, 2006, 12:31pm, Citadel wrote:
Quote:
No, I’m happily married, haven’t had any traumatic experiences with women.Hmmmm, I don’t buy it. Sorry
Citadel, you dumb cunt, everybody knows JimP is married to a foreign wife. Happily married. He educates us quite often on the topic.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by old fart on Feb 14, 2006, 1:01pm
antiriad, excellent job exposing the femskank.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by patr3 on Feb 14, 2006, 1:03pm
Feb 14, 2006, 7:25am, Niall CBB wrote:There are many many things wrong with the US and it will collapse. My timetable is 20 years.
There are many and varied reasons for this and I could spend pages and pages going through them. Collapse of family, collapse of economy, politicisation of the system of law. Etc etc etc.
However it all boils down to one point. The point where it all went wrong. Giving women the vote. As soon as we did that we were fucked. Women are a statistical majority and they vote as a block and they will vote for anything repeat anything that makes them feel safer and to hell with the consequences.
Thus we get social programs which we increasingly can not afford. Thus we have the destruction of the family through the divorce crime syndicate. Thus we have men seeing what happened to their fathers and uncles rejecting marriage completely. Thus our birth rate has gone in to free fall. Thus we have the tailoring of the school system to female needs and the rejection of the hard sciences as bad as woman aren’t good at them. Thus we have the ‘ritalinisation’ of young boys merely for being young boys. Thus we have a school system that tells all young men they are evil because they are males. Thus you have young males saying they will not fight for a country that hates them. Etc etc etc.
Any problem in USA you point to I can trace it back to giving women the vote and the subsequent insane law passed by ass kissing politicians to court the female vote and get themselves re-elected.
So what will happen? Simple. We will not change the voting system because we (men) do not have the votes to do so and we are unwilling and being increasingly pussified and so increasingly unable to do so by force. As the system falls apart so the feminazis will crank it up. American men will not be allowed to marry foreign women. It will not be couched as such, it will be ‘the eradication of the international sex slave trade’ but that will be the result. Men won’t marry women so we will have common law marriage defined as fuck her once and she’s your responsibility for life. Men won’t even fuck women any more so women will be artificially inseminated and single men, already classed as social criminals, will be taxed to the hilt to provide the money.
Thus we speed up and up until the MONEY RUNS OUT. We will borrow anything we can borrow from anybody at whatever rate ($8 trillion and rising at $2 billion a day). We will sell whatever is not nailed down and then what is nailed down whether we own it or not. We will speed up and up and then WHAM! The money runs out. The HR Director on $200,000 a year for persecuting any males still employed loses her job. We can’t pay the prison guards to keep the evil males who’ve defaulted on their Mommy Support in jail. We can’t pay the police to ‘protect’ women by persecuting men. THE WELFARE CHECKS STOP. New Orleans? you ain’t seen nothing yet. Imagine what will happen when the welfare checks stop.
Then women will REALLY need the protection of men and it will not come.
Can’t happen, won’t happen we will see the danger and change course? Think again. Any politician that even tries to change direction is immediately thrown out of office. Can’t get a law passed to ban international marriage agencies? Tack in on to VAWA. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY!
I’ll watch it on Fox News Asia on my laptop on a beach in Thailand. My money will be in Singapore in hard currency (yuan probably) and gold.
There once was a time when I was a patriot. There once was a time I would have died for my country. But you know what? After 44 years of being oppressed merely because I am a male if the muslims want it they can have it.
Enjoy your burkas ladies. Your new male master will probability eat the cat.
Would it be possible for you to repost this at MC? You are on there right?
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Citadel on Feb 14, 2006, 1:11pm
Man, you all are freaking nuts LoL.
If it’s not too much of a bother, can I ask what you all do for a living? I’m simply curious.
Since I’m posing the question, it’s only fair that I divulge first:
I’m 25 and going to medical school in August, working in a tutoring lab for elementary school math the next few months:
Next please?
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 14, 2006, 1:14pm
Feb 14, 2006, 1:00pm, Guest wrote:Don’t worry, honeybunches, I don’t take seriously anything that someone who doesn’t even think women should have the right to vote thinks. Whether I’m the “butt of all jokes” here or not is irrelevant – people like *you* are the butt of all jokes of intelligent men and women here.
I, too, only spar with you because you amuse me, not because I care to win any arguments with someone as thick as you are.
I’ll concede! There you go! You win! Yay! (cheering)
But remember, winning an argument on the Internet is like…well, just go type “arguing on the internet” in Google.
You’re a winner!
You call this sparing? Your intellect must be lower than I thought. You actually expend effort in formulating responses? I’m sorry to hear that, dumbass
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Truthslayer on Feb 14, 2006, 1:19pm
If he was *ever* able to hold an intelligent discussion without running to his corner and saying either “Hey, you’re using shaming language!” or “you’re a femnag!” or the ever-so-eloquent “cunt!” then I would be able to respect him. But he can’t.
*Selective amnesia, I guess. He HAS stated you can look thru the archives and see his posts, including a response to scholarlee that basically summed up his point. As for exposing your tactics, he just showed your fighting style. Shame and insult come in many flavors, some more subtle than others.
He said it himself – he doesn’t “know the details” on how a society that controls women 100% would work. That, to me, speaks volumes. When asked to back up his statements, he can’t.
*How do YOU know that women are controlled 100%? If not 100%, then a large majority.
Read this to see what men DON’T have anymore. Men shared their power and got betrayed. Women still feel they DESERVE it due to being a female. They don’t WANT equality, just superiority.
Here’s a sample:
Women: I think it’s really funny that you can no longer congregate with your own sex, but I can with mine. Men’s clubs are illegal, subject to lawsuit, or boycotted, but women’s clubs are protected by law and encouraged. Did you know that women’s-only health clubs are legal by federal law and men’s-only are not? See you at the Women’s Community Building. And thanks for the taxes.
Men: Say….
Women: Now that we’ve brought about no-fault divorce, I see that more than 75% of divorces are initiated by the woman. Do you think that’s because she gets the house, car, one third to one half his income, plus child support more or less automatically?
Men:
Women: The fact that women get the child in nearly 90% of contested custody cases isn’t really good enough, it should be higher. Don’t complain–I’ll accuse you of abuse; you’ll lose your job, your home, your family.
Men:
Women: And don’t talk back to me loudly. That’s legally defined as abuse in many states now, didn’t you know that? All I have to do is to call the police. With mandatory arrest laws, you’re going to jail. Who do you think the courts would believe, if it came to that? You’ll lose your job, your home, your family.
Men:
Women: Sure there are thousands of false rape accusations where nothing happens to the woman who lied and destroyed the man’s life, but so what? I hear that Catherine Comins says, “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.”
Men:
Women: You’re more than 20 times as likely to get the death penalty for the same crime as I am, isn’t that interesting?
Men:
Women: I’m 66% more likely to get probation for the same crime. And you’ll get 47% more jail time, on average, if we are sent to jail.
Men:
Women: Did you know that in a lot of states, you’ll get a much longer prison term if you attack me and we’re married than if you’re a stranger?
Men:
Women: Hm, it’s really amazing how the male prison population has soared–do you think males no longer fit into society?
Men:
Women: But after all, didn’t Germaine Greer say, “Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.”?
Men:
Women: The fact that the draft laws are only for men, and only men have to register, doesn’t matter. There is no draft now.
Men:
Women: Bobbitt! Yeeeeehah! Hahahahahaha!!! Women rule!
Men:
Women: Men die earlier from all eight major causes of death. Yet there’s never been a federal study as to why. Isn’t that funny? But there’s an office of Women’s Health. None for men yet, maybe one day.
Men:
Women: I’m going to that free breast cancer screening provided by the state. I didn’t see anything about prostate cancer, though. I hear that breast cancer gets 14 times as much federal funding as prostate cancer does. Prostate cancer must be pretty unimportant, huh?
Men:
Women: Why is it that it’s illegal to charge women, who have more accidents, higher premiums, but legal to charge men, who die sooner, higher premiums for life insurance?
Men:
Women: And what about social security? Don’t you think it’s funny that men pay so much more into it, but only get six years of retirement benefits on average, compared to a woman’s fourteen? Doesn’t that amount to a massive tax and money transfer from men to women? I guess men are OK with that.
Men:
Women: And how about that soon-to-become-a-law in the UK where men will have to split their assets with women if they split up even if they weren’t married? That’s a kicker, huh? Fewer men were getting married–guess they were scared of the divorce laws–but soon it won’t matter. Fairness means that we women get what we want, after all! What do men in the UK say about that?
Men:
Women: Or how about that new law in Canada that says women can keep suing men for support, even after the suit has been dismissed over and over? Other lawsuits can be dismissed when brought multiple times if there is no new evidence, but not when a women sues for spousal support. Yep, what’s most important, after all, is that women can get any support they want from men. What do Canadian men say about that?
Men:
Women: And speaking of marriage, pretty neat how we see more and more media celebrating women who cheat isn’t it? Loyalty without fidelity it’s being called now–when women do it. And women can leave a marriage anytime–3/4 of divorces are initated by women, must be a pretty good deal for them; they get the kids, the guy has to support them and her, and she gets the house. It’s all about women’s choices. Too bad you don’t have the same choices–after all, the marriage vow is still treated as a vow for life for the man–he has to split his assets with her, and pay alimony for life unless she decides to marry again. Any problems with that setup?
Men:
*Scoff at Anti, but first come up with better.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 14, 2006, 1:41pm
Feb 14, 2006, 1:01pm, old fart wrote:antiriad, excellent job exposing the femskank.
That was my objective all along
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by old fart on Feb 14, 2006, 2:03pm
Feb 14, 2006, 1:11pm, Citadel wrote:Man, you all are freaking nuts LoL.
If it’s not too much of a bother, can I ask what you all do for a living? I’m simply curious.
Since I’m posing the question, it’s only fair that I divulge first:
I’m 25 and going to medical school in August, working in a tutoring lab for elementary school math the next few months:
Next please?
VC (Venture Capitalist)
Trying to start a boys/mens academy focused solely on the hard sciences. Math, Science, Engineering, Technology, etc. No females. No watered down pussified mangina BS.
And yes, there will be recess, masculine rough and tumble, get rid of your aggression, khankrumthebulgar approved type of recess.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Niall CBB on Feb 14, 2006, 2:08pm
Pat,
No problem but going to be tomorrow. Running…
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 14, 2006, 3:44pm
Feb 14, 2006, 3:39pm, acepoindexter wrote:The only problem is anyone who is on this site, has by their simple fact of being here admitting that there is something wrong with whats outside their window…they have voted with their feet, per say…That means if they are here …their minds are ready to be changed…..
The person in question is female and a feminist (read between the lines). As such, she deserves contempt and ridicule.
Quote:Your not interested in changing minds or wining converts….just want to get some blood on your blade….At the expense of the mens movement as a whole…you think your posts if cut & pasted to other moderate sites will win over converts??
Her mind cannot be changed, she’s a feminist and 100% brainwashed beyond hope. I may as well have fun with her.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Truthslayer on Feb 14, 2006, 3:58pm
ace, you and this ‘guest’ are so alike, it’s amazing.
You know…Antriad…your better then this….the question is do you actually care about this movement……
*Do you actually care about being a PUA? That is your version or MGTOW, this is ours.
You guys from the NG site get bored over there cause your site is so controlled you cant even fart….so you come here to do some troll hunting…get a little blood on your blade….
*Oh, so explain the 70 or more members who joined from dontmarry? You’re welcome to join them and ask them…oh, that’s right. You asked to be banned.
The only problem is anyone who is on this site, has by their simple fact of being here admitting that there is something wrong with whats outside their window…they have voted with their feet, per say…That means if they are here …thier minds are ready to be changed…..
*Go read some of Riskbreaker’s posts about Arthur. If you aren’t convinced by the media, experiences mentioned here, feminazi websites or the government’s and women’s disdain for men, you’re not worth the energy. Actions, not words, determine commitment.
Your not interested in changing minds or wining converts….just want to get some blood on your blade….
*Spoken like a true chickenhawk,
At the expense of the mens movement as a whole…you think your posts if cut & pasted to other moderate sites will win over converts??
*Who CARES what they think? If someone quotes antiriad, whether good or bad, a seed STILL gets planted.
I don’t think you really care about winning this…….just about vengeance…yes Antriad vengeance is yours…
*He can have vengeance…I just want the truth.
Women today, as a high majority are not wife material. Today’s men CAN do better in other countries.
MGTOW
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by greg on Feb 14, 2006, 5:26pm
Feb 14, 2006, 12:31pm, Citadel wrote:
Quote:
No, I’m happily married, haven’t had any traumatic experiences with women.Hmmmm, I don’t buy it. Sorry
Yep, we’ve got another one here.
“Citadel” = 100% certifiable, mangina TROLL.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by wayman on Feb 14, 2006, 8:20pm
Feb 14, 2006, 1:19pm, Truthslayer wrote:If he was *ever* able to hold an intelligent discussion without running to his corner and saying either “Hey, you’re using shaming language!” or “you’re a femnag!” or the ever-so-eloquent “cunt!” then I would be able to respect him. But he can’t.
*Selective amnesia, I guess. He HAS stated you can look thru the archives and see his posts, including a response to scholarlee that basically summed up his point. As for exposing your tactics, he just showed your fighting style. Shame and insult come in many flavors, some more subtle than others.
He said it himself – he doesn’t “know the details” on how a society that controls women 100% would work. That, to me, speaks volumes. When asked to back up his statements, he can’t.
*How do YOU know that women are controlled 100%? If not 100%, then a large majority.http://tinyurl.com/dztxb
Read this to see what men DON’T have anymore. Men shared their power and got betrayed. Women still feel they DESERVE it due to being a female. They don’t WANT equality, just superiority.
Here’s a sample:
Women: I think it’s really funny that you can no longer congregate with your own sex, but I can with mine. Men’s clubs are illegal, subject to lawsuit, or boycotted, but women’s clubs are protected by law and encouraged. Did you know that women’s-only health clubs are legal by federal law and men’s-only are not? See you at the Women’s Community Building. And thanks for the taxes.
Men: Say….Women: Now that we’ve brought about no-fault divorce, I see that more than 75% of divorces are initiated by the woman. Do you think that’s because she gets the house, car, one third to one half his income, plus child support more or less automatically?
Men:Women: The fact that women get the child in nearly 90% of contested custody cases isn’t really good enough, it should be higher. Don’t complain–I’ll accuse you of abuse; you’ll lose your job, your home, your family.
Men:Women: And don’t talk back to me loudly. That’s legally defined as abuse in many states now, didn’t you know that? All I have to do is to call the police. With mandatory arrest laws, you’re going to jail. Who do you think the courts would believe, if it came to that? You’ll lose your job, your home, your family.
Men:Women: Sure there are thousands of false rape accusations where nothing happens to the woman who lied and destroyed the man’s life, but so what? I hear that Catherine Comins says, “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.”
Men:Women: You’re more than 20 times as likely to get the death penalty for the same crime as I am, isn’t that interesting?
Men:Women: I’m 66% more likely to get probation for the same crime. And you’ll get 47% more jail time, on average, if we are sent to jail.
Men:Women: Did you know that in a lot of states, you’ll get a much longer prison term if you attack me and we’re married than if you’re a stranger?
Men:Women: Hm, it’s really amazing how the male prison population has soared–do you think males no longer fit into society?
Men:Women: But after all, didn’t Germaine Greer say, “Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.”?
Men:Women: The fact that the draft laws are only for men, and only men have to register, doesn’t matter. There is no draft now.
Men:Women: Bobbitt! Yeeeeehah! Hahahahahaha!!! Women rule!
Men:Women: Men die earlier from all eight major causes of death. Yet there’s never been a federal study as to why. Isn’t that funny? But there’s an office of Women’s Health. None for men yet, maybe one day.
Men:Women: I’m going to that free breast cancer screening provided by the state. I didn’t see anything about prostate cancer, though. I hear that breast cancer gets 14 times as much federal funding as prostate cancer does. Prostate cancer must be pretty unimportant, huh?
Men:Women: Why is it that it’s illegal to charge women, who have more accidents, higher premiums, but legal to charge men, who die sooner, higher premiums for life insurance?
Men:Women: And what about social security? Don’t you think it’s funny that men pay so much more into it, but only get six years of retirement benefits on average, compared to a woman’s fourteen? Doesn’t that amount to a massive tax and money transfer from men to women? I
guess men are OK with that.
Men:Women: And how about that soon-to-become-a-law in the UK where men will have to split their assets with women if they split up even if they weren’t married? That’s a kicker, huh? Fewer men were getting married–guess they were scared of the divorce laws–but soon it won’t matter. Fairness means that we women get what we want, after all! What do men in the UK say about that?
Men:Women: Or how about that new law in Canada that says women can keep suing men for support, even after the suit has been dismissed over and over? Other lawsuits can be dismissed when brought multiple times if there is no new evidence, but not when a women sues for
spousal support. Yep, what’s most important, after all, is that women can get any support they want from men. What do Canadian men say about that?
Men:Women: And speaking of marriage, pretty neat how we see more and more media celebrating women who cheat isn’t it? Loyalty without fidelity it’s being called now–when women do it. And women can leave a marriage anytime–3/4 of divorces are initated by women, must be a pretty good deal for them; they get the kids, the guy has to support them and her, and she gets the house. It’s all about women’s choices. Too bad you don’t have the same choices–after all, the marriage vow is still treated as a vow for life for the man–he has to split his assets with her, and pay alimony for life unless she decides to marry again. Any problems with that setup?
Men:*Scoff at Anti, but first come up with better.
WHAT!! No whitty little come backs from our femtrolls?
Hard to refute FACTS ehh?
Read it and understand Y men have become PISSED at the Bull Shit that Feminism is preaching / doing to the Men in our society.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by niceguy78 on Feb 14, 2006, 8:47pm
Good news. The word is spreading far and fast enough, that it has worried the feminists enough to send their spawn to this website, to waste their free time making asses of themselves.
Good work gentlemen!
Back on point. The more women continue to fuck up (and it is a snow balling) the more men who will say “yep, they need to lose the right to vote”.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Citadel on Feb 14, 2006, 8:55pm
The above long post detailing the ‘conversation’ between a woman and the man’s blank responses is what I’m talking about!
THAT’s the kind of reasoning which will help the men’s movement. It’s hard to deny those facts. I think we should work on fixing those problems instead of creating new problems by giving ideas like taking away voting rights, etc. These extreme inhuman ideas are NOT the solution. We need to attack the problem itself.
1. Equal selection for males to academic scholarships, equal programs for young boys.
2. Sports programs – in my opinion male sports should always have more priority.
3. AW’s are very unfit usually to raise kids on their own. Custody rights need to be curtailed for them.
4. You get the gist….
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by guest on Feb 14, 2006, 9:08pm
Feb 14, 2006, 8:55pm, Citadel wrote:
I think we should work on fixing those problems instead of creating new problems by giving ideas like taking away voting rights, etc. These extreme inhuman ideas are NOT the solution. We need to attack the problem itself.
Taking voting rights away from women IS attacking the problem itself.
I fail to see how that is “inhuman.” Disallowing a woman to do something is not “inhuman.” Men must assert control and dominance over women’s behavior for the good of both men & women.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by wayman on Feb 14, 2006, 9:18pm
Feb 14, 2006, 8:52pm, acepoindexter wrote:[
I dont see your point????
I agree with that list 100%..so does everyone else..its that if you dont agree 100% with Antriad…then your labeled a mangina…
Its his vision of the future or nothing….
People arrive here in all diffrent shapes & sizes..from all diffrent view points in life..I say all are welcome if thier willing to work toward solutions….
The problem I have with this site is that it is patroled by thugs that preach a dark religion….They want to share thier nightmare visions of the future with us….& if we dont share thier dreams…were labeled mangina…
Ace Poindexter
Women will always pick the ace of spades over the king of hearts..
Odd!
Im quoted with a question of ” I dont see your point “
lets try to clarify
1) I quoted TruthSlayer because i Agreed with what he stated. (Its True Fact)
2) My point was to simply Agree and Wonder Y there were no comments trying to rebuttle these facts.
and
3) Was pointing to these facts as a reason Y Most Men on this websight are Pissed Off at Feminism and what it has done.
DUHHHH!
Some how (im assuming from your Ass); you pulled out that im agreeing with everything that Antriad stated????????? and a few more?????
When Clearly i was agreeing with the Facts that were presented in my quote of TruthSlayer who last i checked is NOT named Antriad.
Last I checked i was not a “Thug” seein as how i generally place so called “Thugs” behind bars.
Also last i checked there is no “Dark Religion” on this websight – Sure there are pissed off people who preach alittle more hate than others- But that doesent constitute a “Dark Religion”.
Manginas are not people who dont share dreams everyone else has they are simply “pussy whipped” men who will go along with what ever women want and not stand up to their idiocy, but instead believe that women are still discriminated against and suppressed by men even when the facts supporting the opposite are right in front of their face.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by niceguy78 on Feb 14, 2006, 9:23pm
Feb 14, 2006, 8:55pm, Citadel wrote:The above long post detailing the ‘conversation’ between a woman and the man’s blank responses is what I’m talking about!
THAT’s the kind of reasoning which will help the men’s movement. It’s hard to deny those facts. I think we should work on fixing those problems instead of creating new problems by giving ideas like taking away voting rights, etc. These extreme inhuman ideas are NOT the solution. We need to attack the problem itself.
1. Equal selection for males to academic scholarships, equal programs for young boys.
2. Sports programs – in my opinion male sports should always have more priority.
3. AW’s are very unfit usually to raise kids on their own. Custody rights need to be curtailed for them.
4. You get the gist….
Hey man, I have been around this whole issue for 5 years now.
For 4 years I agreed with you whole heartedly. But 1 year ago, Antiriad posted that the only way to fix the problem was to take away women’s rights to vote.
I was against it, I knew it was far too radical, and there are intelligent women who are appreciative of this right to vote.
But I spent nearly a year thinking it over, and Antiriad is correct.
Why? Because we have all seen what giving women the right to vote has done…
- Prohibition – which tore our country up badly, for no reason.
- The end of the family system.
- Anti-male laws/courts/society/system
Never ONCE have women as a group given a damn about men’s rights. Why do you think they will magically start now? Do you really expect women to start caring about men’s rights, or true equality?
I used to hope so, but after chatting with enough women, I realize the fact that “they just don’t give a shit about men”. They just DO NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT MEN. It is NOT IN THEIR BIOLOGY.
I wish it could work with women having the right to vote, but it has already proven a failure.
I used to think just like you. Go out, talk to some random women. When they complain about how men treat them, tell them it is “because men no longer want to get married in the anti-male USA”. Go for it, I already did it for one year, I can tell you the results.
WOMEN DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT MEN. They will argue, fight, then say “well, I am not like that”
Go a head, try to wake the women up.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by niceguy78 on Feb 14, 2006, 9:24pm
Oh BTW, in October 2005 the VAWA was PASSED AGAIN.
WHEN ARE THESE WOMEN GOING TO MAGICALLY START CARING ABOUT MEN?????????
HOW MUCH LONGER??????
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by guest on Feb 14, 2006, 9:49pm
I know only one thing for sure.
American women have played with fire too recklessly for too long.
And now, they are in big trouble.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Doug E Fresh on Feb 14, 2006, 10:24pm
Via Vox (http://voxday.blogspot.com/)
From a woman:
Quote:perhaps you can tell me: what rights have i lost? there are precious few modern writers i can find who oppose women’s suffrage, save those who propound the same overwrought fear mongering the ’scholars’ are offering here – ‘because then the communists win! and then the terrorists win! plus they want to kill your babies!’
Very well, let’s list your supposedly unalienable rights. There is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There are the Constitutionally enumerated Bill of Rights, including the rights to free speech, to a free press, to bear arms, to be secure in your person, houses, papers, and effects, the right to a speedy and public trial, the right of trial by jury, the right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, the right to not have private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
How have those rights fared since women received the “right” to vote.
1. The right to life is under siege, for unborn children, disabled children and the elderly.
2. The right to liberty is all but destroyed already.
3. You still have the right to pursue happiness.
4. The right to free speech has been eliminated by sexual harassment laws, hate crime laws, the FEC and campaign reform laws.
5. The right to a free press has been limited by campaign reform laws and the establishment of the FCC.
6. The right to bear arms has been significantly reduced by gun control laws.
7. The right to be secure in your person, houses, papers and effects has been eliminated by the drug laws, the airport laws, the IRS, etc.
8. The right to a public and speedy trial has been eliminated by the Patriot Act. Once declared an “enemy combatant” by a government official you can be held indefinitely.
9. The right to trial by jury has been eliminated by the family “courts”, the tax “courts” and the immigration “courts”, none of which even belong to the judicial branch but are simply executive-branch bureaucrats dressed up as judges.
10. The right to due process of law has been eliminated. See 9.
11. The right to not have your property taken except for justly compensated public use has been eliminated under Kelo.
The women of America would do well to consider whether their much-cherished gains of the right to vote, work, murder and freely fornicate are worth destroying marriage, children, civilized Western society and little girls. They can at least console themselves with the thought that, in the long run, it doesn’t matter what they do, because the women’s-rights ideology is an evolutionary dead end, and it is increasingly apparent that societies embracing it will not survive.
http://www.voxday.net/archive/2005/080805.html
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by toadman on Feb 14, 2006, 10:25pm
Reality check. Under the current legal system safety nets AWs are NEVER going to care about men other than being a meal ticket and sperm donor. Never. Ever.
There is no impetus or reason for them to behave otherwise, thus no reason for us to compromise.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 14, 2006, 11:00pm
Feb 14, 2006, 10:25pm, toadman wrote:Reality check. Under the current legal system safety nets AWs are NEVER going to care about men other than being a meal ticket and sperm donor. Never. Ever.
There is no impetus or reason for them to behave otherwise, thus no reason for us to compromise.
It’s not just the law. It’s biology. Natural hierarchy is as follows:
man > woman > child
This is tens of thousands of years of biology. This isn’t going to be changed in 30 years.
Women don’t care about men’s rights because their biology dictates it – not because of laws. Men must keep women in line in order to be productive citizens. I studied, for a year, the following phrase and I have observed profound truth in it. I have come to realizations that I only wish I could put into a few simple words for my fellow men to digest. But you must embark upon this path yourself; you must study this phrase, read it over and over, peruse it carefully and with diligence; and then you must go and find the truth in it through real, observable empirical evidence that is all around you and begs for explanation. After some time you will realize the truth about women that is embodied within this simple phrase that was observed by someone over 2000 years ago:
“Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal, and it is useless to let go the reins and then expect her not to kick over the traces. You must keep her on a tight rein . . . Women want total freedom or rather – to call things by their names – total licence. If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters . . .” — Cato the Elder 234-149 B.C. quoted in Livy’s ‘History of Rome’.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by RBK on Feb 14, 2006, 11:48pm
The problem, essentially, lies not only with women. Granted, very much of it does. But the question is not whether or not women should be allowed to vote, it is whether or not anyone should be allowed to vote. What about the druggies? The financially irresponsible? The plain stupid? The (*sigh* I hate being politically correct) African Americans who feel they have to prove themselves by drive-bys? America is certainly going down the tubes, and a big part of the problem is the women’s rights bullsh*t. I think every single one of those bloody suffragettes should have been executed on the spot. However, while revoking women’s voting rights might at least ease the problem, it will not happen. There are too many “feminazis” already around, and they’d probably talk NATO and a gadzillion other organizations into throwing a hissy fit and who knows what the result of that will be? Not to mention that I’m sure there are at least a handful of women who are intelligent, sane and responsible enough to be able to vote. So, here is a modest and doable proposal, that would hopefully not piss the politicians off too much and still eliminate the problem:
1. One must have a degree of education of one sort or another, passed with a score of 85% or more overall and no less than 80% in each subject. (Just because you passed highschool/GED/college doesn’t mean you really deserved it)
2. A clean slate with the police, with the exception of a limited number of traffic tickets
3. A credit score of 700 or better
4. May not be on any mood-altering drug, and must be able to pass every bi-annual piss-test
5. No history of mental illness (check-ins to drug rehabs, nuthouses, AA meetings, etc)
*the only people that should get automatic voting rights are directly employed by the government (civil servants, soldiers, etc) for the simple reason that they are directly affected by the result in a very large way that civilians just aren’t. I know, I’m a military type and my family has been for generations.
And here a few random laws that should be put into effect that would greatly help out the country:
1. Abortion should be greatly curtailed. Not every stupid 16 year old b*tch should be able to throw away a life, nor every power hungry dyke that is too involved with her career, but too stupid to use a condom/birth control
2. Women should be required to take a class in school to learn the basic skills of cooking, cleaning and sewing. Considering all that greasy, sugary food-on-the-go, package mix crap, if young women learned how to cook properly, Americans wouldn’t be so damn obese. By technicality, I’m American, but I grew up in Europe. I moved here 6 months ago, and I am SHOCKED at how perfectly vile the food here is right down to the squishy, sweet bread and the watery “light” beer. I’m just going to say: Make it from scratch or you’re gonna get fat. If we get lucky, it just might teach them some home values too.
3. Anti-depressants and Ritalin (or other such drugs) should be banned except for the use in extreme cases, and even then only for temporary use to keep someone from committing suicide. Drug rehabilitation centers are NOT helped by pumping their patients full of DIFFERENT drugs and Ritalin is an excuse for lazy teachers. Plus these drugs are a huge strain on health insurance and hospital care and are completely unnecessary. People didn’t need them 500 years ago, and they don’t need them now either.
Just thought I’d chip in my 2 cents. Friend of mine sent me a link and then was shocked to find out that I agree with almost everything written here.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by niceguy78 on Feb 15, 2006, 12:12am
Feb 14, 2006, 11:00pm, antiriad wrote:
Feb 14, 2006, 10:25pm, toadman wrote:Reality check. Under the current legal system safety nets AWs are NEVER going to care about men other than being a meal ticket and sperm donor. Never. Ever.There is no impetus or reason for them to behave otherwise, thus no reason for us to compromise.
It’s not just the law. It’s biology. Natural hierarchy is as follows:
man > woman > child
This is tens of thousands of years of biology. This isn’t going to be changed in 30 years.
Women don’t care about men’s rights because their biology dictates it – not because of laws. Men must keep women in line in order to be productive citizens. I studied, for a year, the following phrase and I have observed profound truth in it. I have come to realizations that I only wish I could put into a few simple words for my fellow men to digest. But you must embark upon this path yourself; you must study this phrase, read it over and over, peruse it carefully and with diligence; and then you must go and find the truth in it through real, observable empirical evidence that is all around you and begs for explanation. After some time you will realize the truth about women that is embodied within this simple phrase that was observed by someone over 2000 years ago:
“Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal, and it is useless to let go the reins and then expect her not to kick over the traces. You must keep her on a tight rein . . . Women want total freedom or rather – to call things by their names – total licence. If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters . . .” — Cato the Elder 234-149 B.C. quoted in Livy’s ‘History of Rome’.
Antiriad is so on the money here, thank you!
When he first posted women should lose their right to vote, I was as against it as everyone here.
But after a year of thinking it over, and trying to convince women on various message boards/forums/in real life, that they need to stand up for men’s rights, or our country would self destruct, I got no where.
If you guys have the magic wand to make women care about men, or about the future of our society, please use it. But if not, this is your only choice (women losing the right to vote).
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by greg on Feb 15, 2006, 3:53am
Feb 14, 2006, 11:48pm, RBK wrote:The problem, essentially, lies not only with women. Granted, very much of it does. But the question is not whether or not women should be allowed to vote, it is whether or not anyone should be allowed to vote. What about the druggies? The financially irresponsible? The plain stupid? The (*sigh* I hate being politically correct) African Americans who feel they have to prove themselves by drive-bys? America is certainly going down the tubes, and a big part of the problem is the women’s rights bullsh*t. I think every single one of those bloody suffragettes should have been executed on the spot.
I agree. Even large numbers (or maybe even the majority) of men should not vote. I am in favor of heavily restricting voting rights to only a minority of capable and competent men.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Guest on Feb 15, 2006, 3:58am
I feel so sorry for you.
It’s so sad, because some women out there have hurt you, or you have listened to men who have hurt you, and you hate women. More specifically American Women, yes, but still, you hate women. It’s really sad.
I hate that you have been so inured to feeling that you can’t see women for who they are: people. You actually believe that women don’t care about men. It’s really very sad. You’re insulated in your own little Internet pod.
A lot of the men on this board are abusers – they blame women for all the problems with society simply because they want equal treatment. It’s like how men who are wife-beaters make them believe that they are responsible for their own abuse – “if you didn’t want equal rights, the world wouldn’t be in the state it is in now.”
Quite frankly, what you say is bullshit.
It’s a human rights thing – and I know that a lot of you don’t believe African-Americans have the same right, that they “express themselves with drive-by shootings” and inanity such as that.
But you’re just damaged – and luckily, the great majority of men realize you for who you are: damaged, and therefore unreliable as sources for whom real men should obtain their guidance. While a month ago I was willing to see your side, now I have returned to being a feminist. And you, my dear men, have exhibited all the classic symptoms of being abusers.
Be well in your hell.
Real, thinking men recognize you for who you are.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Guest on Feb 15, 2006, 4:01am
Feb 15, 2006, 3:58am, Guest wrote:or you have listened to men who have hurt you
That should read “men who have been hurt.”
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Niall CBB on Feb 15, 2006, 4:30am
Hey Guest you called us abusers wife beaters racists and not real men BUT you missed out small penises and can’t get a date with ‘real’ women.
You must not depart from the script you downloaded from the collective or the Borg queen will get angry OK.
Jeesh will these robots never come up with something new?
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Truthslayer on Feb 15, 2006, 6:48am
I feel so sorry for you.
*We’d prefer you feel sorry for the women, the kids, and the country. We pretty much are ok going our own way.
It’s so sad, because some women out there have hurt you, or you have listened to men who have hurt you, and you hate women.
*Typical response. You think we actually let women retain an emotional hold over us. You think we are kids or teenages easily swayed. I don’t hear guys here complaining they are lonely or sad about missing out on marriage or dating.
More specifically American Women, yes, but still, you hate women. It’s really sad.
*Mind giving examples?
I hate that you have been so inured to feeling that you can’t see women for who they are: people.
*Women as a majority let the minority of their sisters turn men from respected to second class citizens. Women DON’T care about men…if you look at their ACTIONS, not their words. Go read the thread about NOW’s reaction to the budget, ask yourself when you first heard the term ‘marriage strike‘. Go see if birth rates and marriages are falling all over the WORLD. Then ask yourself, as a man, what’s in it for me?
You actually believe that women don’t care about men. It’s really very sad. You’re insulated in your own little Internet pod.
*Amazing thing…before the internet, women got away with things. Sites like this and MILLIONS more unheard of give men enlightenment. Women DO care about men? Then where are their voices? Their voice is mere a squeak,
A lot of the men on this board are abusers – they blame women for all the problems with society simply because they want equal treatment.
Why not read this link and see what happened to men once women were given ‘equality’.
It’s like how men who are wife-beaters make them believe that they are responsible for their own abuse – “if you didn’t want equal rights, the world wouldn’t be in the state it is in now.”
*Strawman and distraction tactic.
Quite frankly, what you say is bullshit.
*I agree. YOUR words are just that.
It’s a human rights thing – and I know that a lot of you don’t believe African-Americans have the same right, that they “express themselves with drive-by shootings” and inanity such as that.
*Hmm, you seem to be focusing on ONE poster’s comment. You perhaps ignored the African American male posters who regularly post here. We also have Hitler here also. We’re a united front against marriage today.
But you’re just damaged – and luckily, the great majority of men realize you for who you are: damaged, and therefore unreliable as sources for whom real men should obtain their guidance.
*Actually, we’ll just let YOU convince them. You really don’t know all of our backgrounds. Most of us a few years ago thought just like you. We gained insight through experience and suffering. They will also.
While a month ago I was willing to see your side, now I have returned to being a feminist.
*You are not the audience we are trying to reach, so no loss here. Enjoy having fewer men to slave and work for you, fewer selection of quality men to breed with, having to work longer hours for little pay and ending your life alone and bitter.
And you, my dear men, have exhibited all the classic symptoms of being abusers.
*You, my dear female, have exhibited all the classic symptoms of being not worth marrying, dating or banging. Enjoy your life. We men certainly will. Without you.
Be well in your hell.
*Thanks. It’s warm here and we get things done. BTW, since you are such an ‘angel’, why have you left your place in heaven. You being here now makes you a demon, who will be cast out.
Real, thinking men recognize you for who you are.
*Fellow enlightened men who escaped from the Fematrix and live their lives free of women like you.
Thanks for the compliments. Your rage, anger, attacks and gripes show the site IS working.
We are the prey. We’re laughing at you.
We haven’t convinced you, no loss here.
You haven’t convinced us today’s woman is worth our time and yet we STILL are doing better than them. Accept your gradual defeat. BTW, go get us some beer and sandwiches.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by RBK on Feb 15, 2006, 7:59am
I feel I must slightly adjust my comment about drive-by shootings. The problem is that I’ve seen quite a few young men ruined my some sort of “blacker-than-thou” complex. It’s not meant as a racist comment. I used it as an example of socially damaged individuals who aren’t fit to vote either. Young white men are equally affected by this attempt at proving their self worth though the exhibition of false courage and skewed concepts of male honor. I also feel this is usually fueled by single-momness who encourage their boys to be the “thugs” that they so desperately seem to want and the lack of a proper male role model in their lives.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by Guest is a fool on Feb 15, 2006, 8:16am
Feb 14, 2006, 8:50am, Guest wrote:
A “comprehensive” study, you say? Have you even read it? Not that you give a damn, but go to Rutgers.com and do a search.Here’s how your precious “logic” figures into it. Do you even have the slightest *clue* about how statistical surveys are performed? The sample population in this survey was 900. 900!
Now, take into account that up to 10% of the population is GAY. That leaves 12%.
Did YOU read it?? The study states “…findings from a new national survey of young heterosexual men, ages 25-34…”
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by a on Feb 15, 2006, 8:57am
I agree that women on the whole are not concerned about men’s rights. Most times they remind me as children or more like a phase between childhood and adulthood. Just look at the difference between they way men and women think. The majority of men think in the long term and will look out for everyone. However females tend to think on short term bases and for things that are self gratifying. Women do not know what they want, they change their minds frequently. For instance, their ever changing views on how men should act – it was metro sexual, then I think ubersexual? and the retro sexual? and whatever other sexual they can think of. You see it everywhere. Women are like sheep, on the whole they do not have a clue about what they want. I also don’t think females should have the right to vote because they have done nothing to earn it. When you look back in history and ask yourself – What have women done to earn the right to vote? – what do you come up with? Men have fought and died for it, have women? When women are willing to sacrifice their lives so that others may live better life, than maybe. But women are too selfish, they do not care about society as a whole. Listen to women in today’s society it’s “I, ME, MINE”. Since women were given the right to vote, is society in a better state? or is it worse?
With the feminization of the western culture we are heading back towards a matriarchy society, which will be a disaster. Living in a patriarchal society is better for all people involved (men, women and children). There is order and stability. Homes cannot be headed by the females because they will not do what is best for everyone. Females are not leaders, men are.
In a patriarchal society, men are men and women are women. There are definite roles and with each having its own expectations. Society is a complete mess today. Women have no morality. They are held to no standards anymore. Women are becoming more masculine, men more feminine. We are also told by society that there is no such thing as an illegitimate child anymore and single mothers are praised. They feel no shame or guilt because of their behaviors and being responsible for ones actions is a thing of they past. It’s always someone else’s fault. Things like honor, loyalty, honesty, respect are fading away. Marriage means nothing to society today. The vows that were once taken so seriously has no significance in today‘s world. We are raising generations that stand for nothing. There’s no morals or values being taught anymore. Nothing is earned in this society, it’s just automatically given. Just look at they way children today behave, it is absolutely disgusting.
From the Garbage Generation:
Quote:The female-headed family is “natural” and “biological” and “primordial,” and that is why it is found in the barnyard and the rain forest and in the ghetto and on Indian reservations and in surviving Stone Age societies. The two-parent family is what makes civilization possible–and vice versa–just as the breakdown of the two-parent family is what makes the ghetto possible–and inevitable. Judges don’t understand this and that is why two- parent families are falling apart and why crime and drugs and gangs and illegitimacy are out of control–why there is a Garbage Generation. If mother-headed homes generate most of our crime, delinquency, illegitimacy, educational failure, drug addiction, infantilism, gang violence, sexual confusion and demoralization–as they demonstrably do–why should not our society adopt policies which make fathers heads of families?
Quote:The only way for men to restore the patriarchy is to insist that there shall be no free ride outside of marriage and the acceptance of sexual regulation–no alimony, no child support payments, no affirmative action and comparable worth programs, no quotas, no goals-and-timetables. To be independent means not to be dependent.
Quote:But whether women would accept the patriarchal system or not, men must insist upon it–insist that the implementation of the marriage contract shall be on the basis of the wording of the contract itself. They must get back to fundamentals, must insist that they enter into the marriage contract primarily to procreate legitimate and inalienable children. They must reject the socially destructive idea, now accepted as a matter of course by women, lawmakers and judges, that the purpose of marriage is to provide women with ex-husbands.
Quote:The true heart of the sexual revolution was a change in women’s behavior, not men’s
Quote:In the patriarchal system a man can only be held responsible to a “good” woman, one who accepts the Sexual Constitution. The bad women are an essential part of the system, but they must be de-classed and regarded as unfit for marriage, since husbands can have no assurance of their chastity and loyalty, no assurance of having legitimate children by them. The feminist campaign to do away with the double standard is an attempt to remove this class distinction and make all women “good.” Instead, it is making all women “bad,” creating the Garbage Generation in the process.
Quote:The entire fabric of patriarchal civilization rests upon female chastity. It would be ridiculous to refer to a man’s chastity as his virtue because his unchastity does not destroy his family and his wife’s reproductive role. But a woman’s chastity is her virtue because her unchastity destroys her family and her husband’s reproductive role–and civilized society along with them, because civilized society is built on the patriarchal, nuclear, two-parent family.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 15, 2006, 9:15am
People like Guest demonstrate why the system will have to crash: because too many people are at this point utterly brainwashed into believing that on average women make rational long-term decisions that are beneficial for all, not just themselves.
Take no-fault divorce and abortion. Both of these are tearing society apart, all western societies are shrinking and will, in due time, cause the ponzi scheme inherent within socialist governments (i.e. al western governments) to fail. People naively say that a shrinking populace is a good thing. It is not, it has tremendous negative repercussions on a system where a growing populace is what is able to provide for the ever-growing system of entitlements and safety-nets that women demand. Indeed this is the best proof of how myopic Guest’s vision really is – she is utterly unable to see how her own view is contributing to the destruction of western society. Yet she has the gall to call it a “human rights issue.” What “human right” do women have to destroy everybody’s way of life? Even in this she fails to make the obvious connection: letting women participate in the system has greatly damaged it and continues to damage it. How long will this go on? According to people like Guest, all the way until nothing remains. These people are too unrealistic and self-absorbed to ever admit that their new matriarchal utopia is going to lead us to misery before long.
And that is why the system is going to fail – because there are too many like her around at this point. The system will therefore fail and have to be rebuilt once again – by men, who will by then hopefully come to the understanding that nothing good ever comes from giving women the ability to destroy society on such a massive scale as they have been permitted in the last few decades.
“Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal, and it is useless to let go the reins and then expect her not to kick over the traces. You must keep her on a tight rein . . . Women want total freedom or rather – to call things by their names – total licence. If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters . . .” — Cato the Elder 234-149 B.C. quoted in Livy’s ‘History of Rome’.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by JimP on Feb 15, 2006, 9:32am
Feb 15, 2006, 9:15am, antiriad wrote:
And that is why the system is going to fail – because there are too many like her around at this point. The system will therefore fail and have to be rebuilt once again – by men, who will by then hopefully come to the understanding that nothing good ever comes from giving women the ability to destroy society on such a massive scale as they have been permitted in the last few decades.
The system will fail, that much is certain, but what’s not clear is who’s going to “rebuild” the society, it could very well be the Chinese or the Muslims.
——————————————————————————–
Re: 100% control?
Post by antiriad on Feb 15, 2006, 9:39am
Feb 15, 2006, 9:32am, JimP wrote:
Feb 15, 2006, 9:15am, antiriad wrote:
And that is why the system is going to fail – because there are too many like her around at this point. The system will therefore fail and have to be rebuilt once again – by men, who will by then hopefully come to the understanding that nothing good ever comes from giving women the ability to destroy society on such a massive scale as they have been permitted in the last few decades.
The system will fail, that much is certain, but what’s not clear is who’s going to “rebuild” the society, it could very well be the Chinese or the Muslims.
True enough. But it’ll still be men who rebuilt it – as always.
——————————————————————————–
