A Message to the Troll « Don’t Marry

A Message to the Troll

A Message to the Troll
Post by AppleJack on Jan 26, 2006, 2:27am

We run things here, not you. Get used to it. Learn to like it, maybe even love it. Things are changing in America and throughout the rest of the western world. Men aren’t taking your shit anymore and the price of vagina is gonna hit rock bottom sooner than you think. Pretty soon you’re going to be back in the kitchen wearing an apron and a girdle, with a kid hanging from each tit, just the way nature intended it.

——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by Apple Seed on Jan 26, 2006, 2:30pm

You are only the odd men out, all normal men marry and have families, the divorce rate is sometimes lower than the marriage rate in other countries, that shows men still get married, this site should be renamed “Eternal Lonely Prostitution Industry keeping Bachelor” for that is what you are peddling.
You all suck.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by CP on Jan 26, 2006, 2:44pm

It may be true that “normal” men get married, but I guess that is contingent on what is considered normal. I would surmise by your definition it has something to do with willingly walking into a whirling helicopter blade and getting cut to shreds. Take ten normal guys of this sort, and wait five years. Statistically, six of them will be “abnormal”. If it’s the norm for men to marry and make families, then it is also the norm for women to smash those families apart.

You speak of loneliness that is concomitant with remaining single. Since when does marriage ensure that one won’t be just as lonely? I can tell you first-hand that being married and feeling neglected and lonely hurts far worse than being single and just plain lonely. While I agree using the service of prostitutes leaves a big gaping hole where companionship and intimacy should be, it’s better than having sex with someone who despises you outright and is of the mindset that she is merely placating her husband, or is trying to manipulate him into something she wants; at least prostitutes and escorts will try to fake it for you, and it works out to be cheaper in the long run than investing a lifetime into a promise that was never intended to be kept.

——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by Trolls Suck on Jan 26, 2006, 2:47pm

All relationships are akin to prostitution, that’s why feminists hate marriage as an institution.

We feel that marriage is no longer a viable institution, because feminists have succeeded in poisoning the waters.

I was a good citizen and took my marriage pill and had kids. What I got in return was a self centered, demanding, cheating wife.

So you can throw stones and name-call all day long, but you can still take marriage and shove it up your ever growing ass.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by antiriad on Jan 26, 2006, 2:51pm

Jan 26, 2006, 2:30pm, Apple Seed wrote:You are only the odd men out, all normal men marry and have families, the divorce rate is sometimes lower than the marriage rate in other countries, that shows men still get married, this site should be renamed “Eternal Lonely Prostitution Industry keeping Bachelor” for that is what you are peddling.
You all suck.

22% (and growing) is hardly “odd men out.” Times they are a’changing. Get used to it, honey. Oh – and enjoy your cats.

P.S. you know what’s funny? That men who have exited the fematrix aren’t nearly as interested in a relationship as women are biologically. Sucks, doesn’t it. I for one am perfectly content, my schedule is way too full and I never feel lonely.

Let me know when you’re ready to come polish my boots, wench.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by AppleJacks ManWhore on Jan 26, 2006, 2:53pm

Face it, you chose the wrong women and got fucked over badly…
From another board:

Patriarchy is responsible for all sexism. If you’re a male you can’t wear long hair and work at McDonald’s. Who do you think made and enforce that rule? MEN. If you’re an American male, you can be drafted. Who do you think made and enforce that rule? MEN. If you are a male you’re expected to be muscular, so that you can “dominate”. Who do you think made and enforce that rule? MEN. Men did. Men have power. Men fuck men over. Nothing new there.

Men are the ones in power, I think you are barking up the wrong tree by blaming women for your misery…
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by antiriad on Jan 26, 2006, 2:58pm

Jan 26, 2006, 2:53pm, AppleJacks ManWhore wrote:Face it, you chose the wrong women and got fucked over badly…

From another board:

Patriarchy is responsible for all sexism. If you’re a male you can’t wear long hair and work at McDonald’s. Who do you think made and enforce that rule? MEN. If you’re an American male, you can be drafted. Who do you think made and enforce that rule? MEN. If you are a male you’re expected to be muscular, so that you can “dominate”. Who do you think made and enforce that rule? MEN. Men did. Men have power. Men fuck men over. Nothing new there.

Men are the ones in power, I think you are barking up the wrong tree by blaming women for your misery…

Face it – we took the red pill and woke up from the fematrix.

Now polish my boots, wench.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by hjhjk on Jan 26, 2006, 2:59pm

22% is nothing, probably made up of ugly men who got kicked out of the dating pool anyway…

Prove this figure. Links.

BTW Enjoy your porn mags and your right hand…

Women are not your slaves and don’t want to do degrading acts you like anymore, you SS guard.

——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by XXX on Jan 26, 2006, 3:01pm

Antitiad’s attitude sounds like a woman hater…
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by CP on Jan 26, 2006, 3:05pm

Those men are traitors to their kind, pure and simple. We call them manginas.

The primary difference is that men didn’t ask for any of what you quote. There weren’t any men out there petitioning and threatening lawsuits unless a draft was implemented, but there were plenty of women who did to get their entitlements. The rest of your examples amount to nothing. I can’t wear long hair while working at MacDonald’s? Who cares???

As far as choosing badly, that’s the same as saying that I was stupid for trusting a woman at her word. I took faith in what she told me, and so it’s my fault. Well, if that’s true, then I shall never make the same mistake twice. In my eyes, all women are potential liars, and I will never believe anything they have to say ever again.

And just how did we go from “normal men get married” to “men make all the laws”? Can’t you stay on topic?

——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by sirlancelot on Jan 26, 2006, 3:08pm

Hahah! Just look out that stupid troll attempts to use shaming language. “You just can’t get laid, waaagh!”

Whatever cunt. Get back to your miserable spinster life and die alone you stupid diseased cunt.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by gghjj on Jan 26, 2006, 3:14pm

Here in America, the facts are that despite all the legislation concerning discrimination, etc., we still live in a society where every three minutes a woman is raped by a man and every eighteen seconds a woman is beaten by a man. Men are not suffering this same kind of abuse on the same scale from women, or even from other men.

As long as that’s the case, there is no “secure” status for women. As long as rape exists, there is no equality. As long as gay and transgendered people are subject to violence, there is no equality. As long as non-traditional parenting is denigrated, there is no equality.

Also, I echo aluriel. What makes you think the solution to these male problems is to attack feminism? It wasn’t feminists who set up the system in which men get screwed. It was men.

And that’s the big hurdle. Just because someone is a man, that does not make him your ally. The men in power, who set up and exploit this system, are your enemy, even if you are a man. And as long as you give your loyalty to them, just because they’re men, then you are indeed a misogynazi.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by antiriad on Jan 26, 2006, 3:15pm

The Marriage No-Shows
by Carey Roberts
14 July 2004

When almost one-quarter of single men in their prime courting years — that’s two million potential husbands — declare a Marriage Strike, we’re facing an unprecedented social crisis.

This week Washington lawmakers took up the historical debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment. But the good Senators appear to be blissfully unaware of the trend that overshadows the controversies surrounding gay marriage — the fact that millions of American men are marital no-shows.

Stripped down to its bare essentials, marriage is an enduring social contract between a consenting man and woman. Before they agree to enter into this sacred union, both parties must have the expectation of benefit. But the disturbing fact is, millions of American men have come to believe that marriage is a losing proposition.

News of the Marriage Strike first began to settle into our national consciousness in 2002. That year, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe of Rutgers University interviewed sixty men to probe their attitudes about marriage. And to their surprise, they discovered that some of these men were flat-out opposed to tying the knot.

So this year, the Rutgers researchers decided to launch a full-scale national survey of single heterosexual men, ages 25-34. These men represent almost 10 million of the nation’s most eligible bachelors. The report was just released last month.

Among those men, 53% said they were not interested in getting married anytime soon — the marriage delayers. That figure alone is cause for concern.

But this is the statistic that every American who wants to strengthen and protect marriage should be worried about: 22% of the men said they had absolutely no interest in finding their Truly Beloved. The report described these guys as “hardcore marriage avoiders.”

When almost one-quarter of single men in their prime courting years — that’s two million potential husbands — declare a Marriage Strike, we’re facing an unprecedented social crisis.

Why are these men refusing to marry? Some of their reasons are spelled out in the 2002 report:

– “Some men express resentment towards a legal system that grants women the unilateral right to decide to terminate a pregnancy…There is also a mistrust of women who may ‘trap’ men into fathering a child by claiming to be sterilized, infertile or on the pill.”

– “Many men also fear the financial consequences of divorce…They fear that an ex-wife will ‘take you for all you’ve got’ and that ‘men have more to lose financially than women’ from a divorce.”

Men’s fear of financial ruin following divorce is backed by research. In a soon-to-be-released book, Sanford Braver, PhD, of Arizona State University notes that noncustodial fathers often spend considerable money when they are with their kids. But the child support guidelines don’t take this into account.

Plus, the custodial mother reaps a number of tax benefits, such as being able to list the kids as exemptions on her IRS return. Likewise, the mother does not pay any taxes on her child support income, while the father cannot list these payments as deductions. As a result, Braver suggests that the “guidelines have already become too generous” to the point that the father experiences a standard of living that is lower than his ex-wife.

Men have other reasons to resist the romantic urge. Domestic violence laws allow vindictive women to kick hubby out of the house based on the flimsiest of pretexts. And if divorce were to result, he would likely lose custody of his own flesh and blood.

Four decades ago, radical feminists, taking their cue from Marxist-Leninist theory, decreed that marriage was nothing more than gender slavery. Claiming to speak on behalf of American women, feminists set out to radically rework — or even do away with — the age-old social contract of marriage. And women, mesmerized by the ephemeral promise of liberation and empowerment, opted to go along for the ride.

Now, feminists are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams. And women are left to wonder why their Prince Charming is nowhere to be found.

——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by antiriad on Jan 26, 2006, 3:17pm

Jan 26, 2006, 2:59pm, hjhjk wrote:22% is nothing, probably made up of ugly men who got kicked out of the dating pool anyway…
Prove this figure. Links.
BTW Enjoy your porn mags and your right hand…
Women are not your slaves and don’t want to do degrading acts you like anymore, you SS guard.

Funny you stay that. I have a stupid hot blond girlfriend who gives me head whenever I want. That’s because I’m a man and I treat her like a woman – and she appreciates me for it.

You however are an ugly fat wench, a non-entity who is dripping from her stank pussy just from seeing all the ultra-masculism on this forum.

Polish my boots, wench. With your tongue.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by Billy on Jan 26, 2006, 3:18pm

Men in our culture who complain about oppression is kind of ridiculous. Men have the power. And yes some men struggle with some forms of oppression, but a black man is above a white woman in the hierarchy. And when men are oppressed it is almost exclusively by other men, so to attack women because of it is unjustified and just plain stupid. Of course some men have experienced oppression. But *ALL* women have experienced it and almost always at the hands of men.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by Johnny on Jan 26, 2006, 3:22pm

Jan 26, 2006, 3:17pm, antiriad wrote:

Jan 26, 2006, 2:59pm, hjhjk wrote:22% is nothing, probably made up of ugly men who got kicked out of the dating pool anyway…
Prove this figure. Links.
BTW Enjoy your porn mags and your right hand…
Women are not your slaves and don’t want to do degrading acts you like anymore, you SS guard.

Funny you stay that. I have a stupid hot blond girlfriend who gives me head whenever I want. That’s because I’m a man and I treat her like a woman – and she appreciates me for it.

You however are an ugly fat wench, a non-entity who is dripping from her stank pussy just from seeing all the ultra-masculism on this forum.

Polish my boots, wench.

You know trolls are not the problem, but people like you who can’t debate properly, all you have posted is abuse and haven’t backed up what you have said, I guess you just made it up.
As for your hot, blonde girl, she’s the prostitute you book all the time. Loser.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by antiriad on Jan 26, 2006, 3:22pm

Jan 26, 2006, 3:18pm, Billy wrote:Men in our culture who complain about oppression is kind of ridiculous. Men have the power. And yes some men struggle with some forms of oppression, but a black man is above a whote woman in the hierarchy. And when men are oppressed it is almost exclusively by other men, so to attack women because of it is unjustified and just plain stupid. Of course some men have experienced oppression. But *ALL* women have experienced it and almost always at the hands of men.

You are quite delusional. Men have always been more oppressed than women. That’s because women have privileges, while men have responsibilities. This was the case in the past and is even more so now.

Were Women Oppressed in the West?

The notion that women were oppressed throughout much of recent western history is, in my view, nothing more than the usual feminist-inspired hokum that is designed to stir up hatred towards men.

This is not to suggest that people have not been oppressed in the west. They surely have been – in one way or another. But the idea that women have been oppressed more than men is just not supported by the evidence.

And the ubiquitous propaganda suggesting that ‘men oppress women’ is ludicrous.

Men tend to oppress men, not women.

Indeed, many of the most fundamental and characteristic behaviours of males derive from a strong disposition – which is implanted in the brains of males both biologically and socially – that militates against them being hostile towards women and children.

For example, male primates do not, by and large, eat their offspring!

Why not?

Surely they would make very tasty and highly nutritious meals. And they would be relatively easy to capture.

However, there is clearly something inbuilt within male brains that prevents them from wanting to harm their own females and children. This inhibitory mechanism does not always work, but, by and large, it does.

Even in lions!

Lions

And, to a large extent, it seems that males also have some inbuilt mechanism that inhibits them from harming other males of the same species. This doesn’t always work either, but, by and large, it does.

However – and here is the important bit – this mechanism appears to be much more effective when it comes to inhibiting male hostility toward females and children than it is when it comes to inhibiting hostility toward other males.

And, indeed, it seems actually to go much further than this, particularly with humans.

Not only do men seem predisposed not to harm their women and children, they seem mostly to be predisposed to protect them from any harm that might come their way.

The upshot is that men are far more likely to be a danger to other men than they are to women and children.

And just about all the evidence that I have ever seen would confirm this.

Further, it also seems that women, being generally weaker than men, and so vulnerable to them, especially when they have children, must have developed very effective manipulative techniques to ensure their own survival.

(This manipulation is not necessarily devious in any way – though, clearly, it can be – nor is it necessarily engaged in with conscious intent – though, clearly, it can be. For example, in the same way that a crying baby ‘manipulates’ its mother to dash into action, so a crying woman can do the same to a man.)

And so if it is the case that men are wired up to respond with less hostility toward women than toward other men (and just about ALL the evidence suggests that this is true) then, whatever levels of hostility emanate from men toward other human beings, they will surely end up being directed mostly toward other men!

Period. End of story!

The hostility of males is mostly directed toward other males.

Full stop!

And this greater hostility toward men rather than toward women will have tended to occur throughout the whole of human history.

And this suggests to me that, overall, men were far more likely than women to have suffered the greater amount of oppression and violence throughout the past.

True, it is mostly powerful men who will have been responsible for most of the oppression and violence, but when it comes to talking about who ended up being mistreated the most, it seems to me that this must have been men rather than women.

The feminist trick, however, is to focus the public’s attention only on aggressive males and their female victims, and to prevent male victims from entering into the picture. And this is why, for example, there is such resistance to providing services for male victims of domestic violence.

They don’t exist! They are kept completely out of the picture.

Further, I find it very difficult to envisage how any successful society could have been created, long term, which treated its women in a manner that they would have found unacceptable, unless, in general, the men were treated worse, or threatened with this.

I can certainly see how isolated social groups could have formed wherein the men colluded with each other to oppress their womenfolk, but how would these have survived when in competition with those where this did not happen?

Here is a somewhat silly and oversimplified example.

Imagine two competing social groups, the Oppressors and the Equalitarians. Each group consists of 100 people, 50 men and 50 women.

In the Equalitarian group, everyone feels that they are being treated well and they are happy. In the Oppressor group, the 50 men treat their 50 women in a manner which displeases them.

Surely it is the case that when these groups mingle, fight, or interact in any way (even if only through the exchange of ideas) the 50 men in the Oppressor group will be opposed by 150 others!

The odds are therefore continuously very heavily stacked against any male oppressors of women.

And the only way that the men of any Oppressor group could avoid being deposed is by isolating their group from any Equalitarian group.

The feminists of the late 60s arrived on the scene at a time when western capitalist societies had reached a stage of relative calm. There was mostly peace among their nations, and the social structures of their societies had become sufficiently robust to allow people to express their individuality and to deviate from the expected norms without threatening them.

And science, technology, medicine and, of course, the contraceptive pill were liberating both men and women in numerous exciting ways.

It was a world full of hope, opportunity, and good will.

Both men and women found that they were able gradually to extricate themselves from many of the traditional shackles that bound them, and the relationships between men and women, both inside and outside the family, were becoming less rigid, less formalised, more open, and more dependent on individual choice rather than on anything else.

The traditional sources of authority (e.g. the state and the churches) were also being challenged successfully, and people gradually began discarding those aspects of authority that had simply become unnecessary or less relevant to their lives.

And the fact that this was possible without causing any catastrophic societal collapse is surely a testament to the institutions and the collective efforts of those who had gone before.

It therefore seems to me that our western forefathers deserve to be applauded for what turned out to be a truly magnificent achievement. Stable societies and individual choice!

Feminists and the politically correct, however, do not seem to see things this way. According to them, the societies and cultures of others were, and are, superior to those in the west – even though these other societies and cultures have failed miserably in comparison to those of the west by almost any criterion that one chooses with which to evaluate them.

And the feminists and the politically correct also portray the history of the west as one where the male oppression of women seems to be one of its defining features.

But I have never seen any real evidence for this. If anything, it seems to me that the men were the ones being oppressed rather than the women – e.g. see Did Women Really Want To Go Out To Work?

And my distinct impression is that the extra freedoms and independence that western men and women began to enjoy in the 70s were occurring despite feminism not because of it.

For example, in my piece, The Sexual Liberation of Women I point out that …

The pill was an absolute godsend to the actively sexual male.

And to say that women quickly saw the pill as some sort of ‘liberating’ medical technology is to distort the truth completely. If anything, they saw the pill as giving their male partners license to fool around with other females without having to risk any consequences – particularly the one of being found out!

Ask any man who was sexually active at the time which gender was more keen to use the pill, and you will soon discover that it was men, rather than women, who were MUCH more enthusiastic for the pill to be used.

In most cases, women had to be pressurised by their men into going on the pill at all. It was not something that women were eager to do. Indeed, for many of the earlier years, finding a young woman who was actually on the pill was tantamount to winning the lottery.

In other words, it was men who ‘liberated’ women sexually, not feminists.

Indeed, one of the reasons that ordinary women remained reluctant to use the pill was because it was, in fact, being so heavily advocated by feminists.

The last thing that most women in the early 70s wanted to do was to associate themselves in any way with groups of hostile unfeminine unattractive women who squawked and shrieked and poured nothing but venom upon their menfolk.

And the same sort of effect was true regarding women who wanted to enter the workplace in areas that were male dominated. The barriers were coming down well before the arrival of the feminists and, if anything, the activities of the feminists seemed likely to put them back up again!

My view is that the feminists of the 70s retarded the ‘progress of women’ rather than anything else, and they have certainly been a major cause of many serious problems that western societies – and women – now face.

And, further, as I say in my piece, Men have bred dogs and cattle. Why not women?, the persistent and pervasive gender-divisive machinations of the feminist lobby and the women’s groups might well end up setting western women back more than a thousand years if western men decide that they have had enough of being demonised and discriminated against.

In the past, western men needed their women to support them if they were going to succeed in creating safe, stable and successful societies. And the way in which they operated ensured that groups that displeased their women could not really survive for very long.

Indeed, there was no hope that any groups of men who oppressed women could survive.

The Equalitarian groups always won!

The odds were always very heavily stacked in their favour.

Always!

In the not too distant future, however, this might well not be the case.

More and more are the peoples on the planet becoming one society, and, eventually, there will be no competition from any others.

And with no competition from other societies, an Oppressor group could easily survive.

As such, western women should surely try to ensure that this global society will not be one that develops during a time wherein the men see their women as fundamentally destructive to them.

However, by supporting feminists and the politically correct – who do little but undermine their own societies and, especially, their own men – western women are provoking men into seeing them as their enemy.

And the choice for western men as the planet effectively shrinks into one society is going to be as follows.

They can either choose to live in a global society wherein constant disharmony and social problems are caused by having continually to pander to the selfishness of many women, or they can choose a global society wherein the women are effectively disempowered and order is eventually maintained by pandering mostly to the desires of men.

And with the latter kind of society becoming more attractive to western men by the day – thanks, in part, to the hatred that keeps being heaped upon them by those who, allegedly, represent women – together with the realisation that if there is only one society in the near future then there will be none to compete with it, or to oppose it, I’d say that the future is looking decidedly shaky from a woman’s point of view.

In other words, an Oppressor group (one that oppresses women) might well end up being the only one that there is.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by antiriad on Jan 26, 2006, 3:23pm

Jan 26, 2006, 3:22pm, Johnny wrote:You know trolls are not the problem, but people like you who can’t debate properly, all you have posted is abuse and haven’t backed up what you have said, I guess you just made it up.
As for your hot, blonde girl, she’s the prostitute you book all the time. Loser.

Are you dripping wet, whore? I bet you are.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by CP on Jan 26, 2006, 3:43pm

Jan 26, 2006, 3:14pm, gghjj wrote:Here in America, the facts are that despite all the legislation concerning discrimination, etc., we still live in a society where every three minutes a woman is raped by a man and every eighteen seconds a woman is beaten by a man. Men are not suffering this same kind of abuse on the same scale from women, or even from other men.

As long as that’s the case, there is no “secure” status for women. As long as rape exists, there is no equality. As long as gay and transgendered people are subject to violence, there is no equality. As long as non-traditional parenting is denigrated, there is no equality.

Also, I echo aluriel. What makes you think the solution to these male problems to attack feminism? It wasn’t feminists who set up the system in which men get screwed. It was men.

And that’s the big hurdle. Just because someone is a man, that does not make him your ally. The men in power, who set up and exploit this system, are your enemy, even if you are a man. And as long as you give your loyalty to them, just because they’re men, then you are indeed a misogynazi.

Bullshit. Men still comprise the largest segment of violent crime victims far more than women as a group. Some of them I would wager are because they stupidly tried to defend a woman from attack. By extension, entire generations of men died defending their countries and their families from foreign menace, whereas we have yet to reach the same numbers in terms of women doing the same. Raise an expectation that women be held accountable for their “rights”, and they fall back upon how weak and ill-equipped they are to pay the bill. If men enjoy privilege, it’s because they earned it with their lives. As far as your statistics, I’ll bet they were taken off of the NOW website.

And where is it written that anybody, male or female, is entitled to anything in life? Nobody is safe, and nobody is entitled to perfect safety.

I am quite well aware that men are not necessarily allies to me or my sons. I have already acknowledged that. It’s a pity that so-called “decent” women don’t have the same courage to denounce their mouthpiece spokesmen like Allred, Dworkin, French, and Steinem. With all the laws on the books that treat women as special cases in everything that they do, with all of the entitlements that they have, and with all the wrist-slapping and acquittals that are sure to come when they defy and break the law, I place no credibility that they are being unfairly treated.

——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by sirlancelot on Jan 26, 2006, 4:31pm

Jan 26, 2006, 3:14pm, gghjj wrote:Here in America, the facts are that despite all the legislation concerning discrimination, etc., we still live in a society where every three minutes a woman is raped by a man and every eighteen seconds a woman is beatan by a man.

So? My sympathy is draining by the minute. Oh boo hoo, women are beaten, blah blah. I don’t give a fuck so long as it’s women like you and your skanky feminists sistahs. You need a good fucking thrashing to teach you some manners.

Quote:As long as gay and transgendered people are subject to violence, there is no equality.

I note you never give a shit about heterosexual men being subjected to violence. All you give a fuck about is women and queers. And what are you on about, “transgendered people.” What the fuck are they? People are either male or female, and that is determined when they are born. Don’t give me any of this sex-change bullshit. A man who has his dick snipped off and has tit implants is still a man, and a very fucking screwed up one too, not a fucking “transgendered” person.

Quote:As long as non-traditional parenting is denigrated, there is no equality.

Get it into your head, there can never be equality between healthy traditional parenting and non-traditional parenting (i.e. single mother whores raising their illegitimate brats, or fucking lesbians and queers bringing up kids.) That’s why two heterosexual parents is “traditional”, because it works.

Seriously troll, you’re just a dumb cunt who is upset because us men have wised up to you and your bullshit and we will never give in and accept a society run by stupid hair-brained men-hating fucking freaks like you. You’ll have to accept that you are going to die alone and unloved whilst us bachelors life the high life.

Now take your mindless babbling and your ineffective shaming language and fuck off..
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by dickthedog on Jan 26, 2006, 6:04pm

Jan 26, 2006, 3:14pm, gghjj wrote:Here in America, the facts are that despite all the legislation concerning discrimination, etc., we still live in a society where every three minutes a woman is raped by a man and every eighteen seconds a woman is beatan by a man. Men are not suffering this same kind of abuse on the same scale from women, or even from other men.

As long as that’s the case, there is no “secure” status for women. As long as rape exists, there is no equality. As long as gay and transgendered people are subject to violence, there is no equality. As long as non-traditional parenting is denigrated, there is no equality.

Also, I echo aluriel. What makes you think the solution to these male problems to attack feminism? It wasn’t feminists who set up the system in which men get screwed. It was men.

And that’s the big hurdle. Just because someone is a man, that does not make him your ally. The men in power, who set up and exploit this system, are your enemy, even if you are a man. And as long as you give your loyalty to them, just because they’re men, then you are indeed a misogynazi.

your stats are but propaganda from man-hating academics. I find it laughable the way feminists bemoan violence, screaming at us from a position neck deep in an ocean of their own offspring’s dismembered bodies.
——————————————————————————–
Re: A Message to the Troll
Post by Truthslayer on Jan 26, 2006, 6:49pm

Here’s a question:

To all our ‘male’ posters (Johnny, Billy) where are your stats?

Why not show the amount of WOMEN recently attacking young males…or is THAT not something to worry about?

From Britain to the US, MALES are getting attacked and yet you STILL spout the ‘rape’ statistics? Why not post a link to these ‘figures’?

Researching the “Rape Culture” of America
Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers

The Official “One in Four” Figure

“One in four” has since become the official figure on women’s rape victimization cited in women’s studies departments, rape crisis centers, women’s magazines, and on protest buttons and posters. Susan Faludi defended it in a Newsweek story on sexual correctness.[13] Naomi Wolf refers to it in The Beauty Myth, calculating that acquaintance rape is “more common than lefthandedness, alcoholism, and heart attacks.”[14] “One in four” is chanted in “Take Back the Night” processions, and it is the number given in the date rape brochures handed out at freshman orientation at colleges and universities around the country.[15] Politicians, from Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, a Democrat, to Republican Congressman Jim Ramstad of Minnesota, cite it regularly, and it is the primary reason for the Title IV, “Safe Campuses for Women” provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1993, which provides twenty million dollars to combat rape on college campuses.[16]

When Neil Gilbert, a professor at Berkeley’s School of Social Welfare, first read the “one in four” figure in the school newspaper, he was convinced it could not be accurate. The results did not tally with the findings of almost all previous research on rape. When he read the study he was able to see where the high figures came from and why Koss’s approach was unsound.

He noticed, for example, that Koss and her colleagues counted as victims of rape any respondent who answered “yes” to the question “Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?” That opened the door wide to regarding as a rape victim anyone who regretted her liaison of the previous night. If your date mixes a pitcher of margaritas and encourages you to drink with him and you accept a drink, have you been “administered” an intoxicant, and has your judgment been impaired? Certainly, if you pass out and are molested, one would call it rape. But if you drink and, while intoxicated, engage in sex that you later come to regret, have you been raped? Koss does not address these questions specifically, she merely counts your date as a rapist and you as a rape statistic if you drank with your date and regret having had sex with him. As Gilbert points out, the question, as Koss posed it, is far too ambiguous:

What does having sex “because” a man gives you drugs or alcohol signify? A positive response does not indicate whether duress, intoxication, force, or the threat of force were present; whether the woman’s judgment or control were substantially impaired; or whether the man purposefully got the woman drunk in order to prevent her resistance to sexual advances…. While the item could have been clearly worded to denote “intentional incapacitation of the victim,” as the question stands it would require a mind reader to detect whether any affirmative response corresponds to this legal definition of rape.[17]
Koss, however, insisted that her criteria conformed with the legal definitions of rape used in some states, and she cited in particular the statute on rape of her own state, Ohio: “No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another person . . . when . . . for the purpose of preventing resistance the offender substantially impairs the other person’s judgment or control by administering any drug or intoxicant to the other person” (Ohio revised code 1980, 2907.01A, 2907.02).[18]

The “One in Eight” Study

The other frequently cited nongovernment rape study, the National Women’s Study, was conducted by Dean Kilpatrick. From an interview sample of 4,008 women, the study projected that there were 683,000 rapes in 1990. As to prevalence, it concluded that “in America, one out of every eight adult women, or at least 12.1 million American women, has been the victim of forcible rape sometime in her lifetime.”[26]

Unlike the Koss report, which tallied rape attempts as well as rapes, the Kilpatrick study focused exclusively on rape. Interviews were conducted by phone, by female interviewers. A woman who agreed to become part of the study heard the following from the interviewer: “Women do not always report such experiences to police or discuss them with family or friends. The person making the advances isn’t always a stranger, but can be a friend, boyfriend, or even a family member. Such experiences can occur anytime in a woman’s life-even as a child.”[27] Pointing out that she wants to hear about any such experiences “regardless of how long ago it happened or who made the advances,” the interviewer proceeds to ask four questions:

Has a man or boy ever made you have sex by using force or threatening to harm you or someone close to you? Just so there is no mistake, by sex we mean putting a penis in your vagina.
Has anyone ever made you have oral sex by force or threat of harm? Just so there is no mistake, by oral sex we mean that a man or boy put his penis in your mouth or somebody penetrated your vagina or anus with his mouth or tongue.
Has anyone ever made you have anal sex by force or threat of harm?
Has anyone ever put fingers or objects in your vagina or anus against your will by using force or threat?

Any woman who answered yes to any one of the four questions was classified as a victim of rape.

This seems to be a fairly straightforward and well-designed survey that provides a window into the private horror that many women, especially very young women, experience. One of the more disturbing findings of the survey was that 61 percent of the victims said they were seventeen or younger when the rape occurred.

There is, however, one flaw that affects the significance of Kilpatrick’s findings. An affirmative answer to any one of the first three questions does reasonably put one in the category of rape victim. The fourth is problematic, for it includes cases in which a boy penetrated a girl with his finger, against her will, in a heavy petting situation. Certainly the boy behaved badly. But is he a rapist? Probably neither he nor his date would say so. Yet, the survey classifies him as a rapist and her as a rape victim.

I called Dr. Kilpatrick and asked him about the fourth question. “Well,” he said, “if a woman is forcibly penetrated by an object such as a broomstick, we would call that rape.”

“So would I,” I said. “But isn’t there a big difference between being violated by a broomstick and being violated by a finger?” Dr. Kilpatrick acknowledged this: “We should have split out fingers versus objects,” he said. Still, he assured me that the question did not significantly affect the outcome. But I wondered. The study had found an epidemic of rape among teenagers-just the age group most likely to get into situations like the one I have described.

Scarifying Statistics

Much of the unattractive self-preoccupation and victimology that we find on today’s campuses have been irresponsibly engendered by the inflated and scarifying “one in four” statistic on campus rape. In some cases the campaign of alarmism arouses exasperation of another kind. In an article in the New York Times Magazine, Katie Roiphe questioned Koss’s figures: “If 25 percent of my women friends were really being raped, wouldn’t I know it?”[52] She also questioned the feminist perspective on male/female relations: “These feminists are endorsing their own utopian vision of sexual relations: sex without struggle, sex without power, sex without persuasion, sex without pursuit. If verbal coercion constitutes rape, then the word rape itself expands to include any kind of sex a woman experiences as negative.”[53]

The publication of Ms. Roiphe’s piece incensed the campus feminists. “The New York Times should be shot,” railed Laurie Fink, a professor at Kenyon College.[54] “Don’t invite [Katie Roiphe] to your school if you can prevent it,” counseled Pauline Bart of the University of Illinois.[55] Gail Dines, a women’s studies professor and date rape activist from Wheelock College, called Roiphe a traitor who has sold out to the “white male patriarchy.”[56]

Other critics, such as Camille Paglia and Berkeley professor of social welfare Neil Gilbert, have been targeted for demonstrations, boycotts, and denunciations. Gilbert began to publish his critical analyses of the Ms./ Koss study in 1990.[57] Many feminist activists did not look kindly on Gilbert’s challenge to their “one in four” figure. A date rape clearinghouse in San Francisco devotes itself to “refuting” Gilbert; it sends out masses of literature attacking him. It advertises at feminist conferences with green and orange fliers bearing the headline STOP IT, BITCH! The words are not Gilbert’s, but the tactic is an effective way of drawing attention to his work. At one demonstration against Gilbert on the Berkeley campus, students chanted, “Cut it out or cut it off,” and carried signs that read, KILL NEIL GILBERT![58] Sheila Kuehl, the director of the California Women’s Law Center, confided to readers of the Los Angeles Daily Journal, “I found myself wishing that Gilbert, himself, might be raped and . . . be told, to his face, it had never happened.”[59]

The findings being cited in support of an “epidemic” of campus rape are the products of advocacy research. Those promoting the research are bitterly opposed to seeing it exposed as inaccurate. On the other hand, rape is indeed the most underreported of crimes. We need the truth for policy to be fair and effective. If the feminist advocates would stop muddying the waters we could probably get at it.

High rape numbers serve the gender feminists by promoting the belief that American culture is sexist and misogynist. But the common assumption that rape is a manifestation of misogyny is open to question. Assume for the sake of argument that Koss and Kilpatrick are right and that the lower numbers of the FBI, the Justice Department, the Harris poll, of Kilpatrick’s earlier study, and the many other studies mentioned earlier are wrong. Would it then follow that we are a “patriarchal rape culture”? Not necessarily. American society is exceptionally violent, and the violence is not specifically patriarchal or misogynist. According to International Crime Rates, a report from the United States Department of Justice “Crimes of violence (homicide, rape, and robbery) are four to nine times more frequent in the United States than they are in Europe. The U.S. crime rate for rape was . . . roughly seven times higher than the average for Europe.”[60] The incidence of rape is many times lower in such countries as Greece, Portugal, or Japan-countries far more overtly patriarchal than ours.

It might be said that places like Greece, Portugal, and Japan do not keep good records on rape. But the fact is that Greece, Portugal, and Japan are significantly less violent than we are. I have walked through the equivalent of Central Park in Kyoto at night. I felt safe, and I was safe, not because Japan is a feminist society (it is the opposite), but because crime is relatively rare. The international studies on violence suggest that patriarchy is not the primary cause of rape but that rape, along with other crimes against the person, is caused by whatever it is that makes our society among the most violent of the so-called advanced nations.

But the suggestion that criminal violence, not patriarchal misogyny, is the primary reason for our relatively high rate of rape is unwelcome to gender feminists like Susan Faludi, who insist, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that “the highest rate of rapes appears in cultures that have the highest degree of gender inequality, where sexes are segregated at work, that have patriarchal religions, that celebrate all-male sporting and hunting rituals, i.e., a society such as us.”[61]

In the spring of 1992, Peter Jennings hosted an ABC special on the subject of rape. Catharine MacKinnon, Susan Faludi, Naomi Wolf, and Mary Koss were among the panelists, along with John Leo of U.S. News & World Report. When MacKinnon trotted out the claim that 25 percent of women are victims of rape, Mr. Leo replied, “I don’t believe those statistics. . . . That’s totally false.”[62] MacKinnon countered, “That means you don’t believe women. It’s not cooked, it’s interviews with women by people who believed them when they said it. That’s the methodology.”[63] The accusation that Leo did not believe “women” silenced him, as it was meant to. But as we have seen, believing what women actually say is precisely not the methodology by which some feminist advocates get their incendiary statistics.

MacKinnon’s next volley was certainly on target. She pointed out that the statistics she had cited “are starting to become nationally accepted by the government.” That claim could not be gainsaid, and MacKinnon may be pardoned for crowing about it. The government, like the media, is accepting the gender feminist claims and is introducing legislation whose “whole purpose . . . is to raise the consciousness of the American public.”[64] The words are Joseph Biden’s, and the bill to which he referred-the Violence Against Women Act-introduces the principle that violence against women is much like racial violence, calling for civil as well as criminal remedies.

Like a lynching or a cross burning, an act of violence by a man against a woman would be prosecuted as a crime of gender bias, under title three of the bill: “State and Federal criminal laws do not adequately protect against the bias element of gender-motivated crimes, which separates these crimes from acts of random violence, nor do those laws adequately provide victims of gender-motivated crimes the opportunity to vindicate their interests.”[65] Whereas ordinary violence is “random,” “violence against women” may be discriminatory in the literal sense in which we speak of a bigot as discriminating against someone because of race or religion.

Here’s a link to one study on child abuse and single motherhood–

Here’s the abstract (the full paper is too long to put up)

QUOTE
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the prevalence of, and association between, childhood abuse and psychiatric disorders in single and married mothers. METHOD: Single and married mothers who participated in the Ontario Health Survey, a province-wide study derived from a probability sample of the general population of Ontario aged 15 years and older (N=1,471), were included. Sociodemographic and mental health characteristics were collected by means of interviewer-administered questionnaires. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect information on childhood physical and sexual abuse. RESULTS: Compared with married mothers, single mothers reported substantially lower incomes as well as higher rates of childhood abuse and all psychiatric morbidities examined (current and lifetime affective or anxiety disorders and substance use disorders). Childhood abuse had a consistent and significant association with adult mental health, even when other risk variables were controlled. No interaction among childhood abuse and marital status and outcome was found. CONCLUSIONS: Single mothers reported more childhood abuse and experienced higher levels of poverty and psychiatric disorders than married mothers. Childhood abuse was associated with more psychiatric problems in both single and married mothers. Research, clinical, and policy implications of these findings are discussed.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach

SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 174 scholarly investigations: 138 empirical studies and 36 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 163,800.

“Anderson (2002) found that 10% of all couples reported some type of mutual violence in the last year. Looking at the patterns of violence in more detail, it was noted that, in 7% of the couples, both were violent. For 2% of the couples, only the woman was violent, and for 1%, only the man was violent.”