Archive for the ‘ameriskanks’ Category
Re: I’m just a girl.
Post by Nick on Mar 29, 2006, 12:11am
“Wow, I was lucky, I got the one good one, I can actually say I was lucky to get married”.
Before you all start with the bashing, let me tell you a little about my wife. We met when we were seventeen and both in highschool. We fell in love and quickly became best friends. That is the secret to our relationship. She is my best friend. We married when we were nineteen, and we were both working jobs making a little over six dollars an hour. What could have moved me to marry? I loved how alive she was/ is. She knows how to have fun. She is, I swear, a borderline nympho. But there are other things that she likes to do. She loves sports and working on cars as much as she likes to sew or cook. She has never in all of the years we have been together asked me to do something that she won”t do. If I can’t get around to it because of work, she will mow the grass or change the oil on the weekends, telling me the whole time that marriage is a partnership.
“Married Men – Post Here If You Hate Your Life”
Post by happyghost
Some of you may recall a few months back, either on the now-defunct DGM2 board or here, perhaps both, a plea was made for anyone who had archived the classic, huge thread from years ago that was entitled “Married Men – Post Here If You Hate Your Life”, from a forum on the old website f***edcompany.com. Apparently the thread is now “lost”, and seems to exist nowhere on the web anymore.
You may also recall that I said, at the time, that I had spent many hours reading portions of this thread out of the Google cache of it (the thread was gone from the website itself). That Google cache is now long gone, as well. I may have mentioned that, although at the time I read it the Google cache was missing a good amount of the enormous number of pages in the thread, I had read through all the available pages and had cut and pasted the best posts into a text file as I went. This eliminated all the crappy posts, and all the pointless bickering (some feminists really got into attack mode), and preserved only the BEST posts for posterity.
Gentlemen, it is now obvious that the much ballyhooed “battle of the sexes” was over even before it had begun, and our side never fired a shot. It is incumbent on men to raise the white flag of surrender, but we mustn’t feel bad because we never had a chance — we are far too chivalrous, and our opponents fight dirty. To use a baseball analogy, their tactics are akin to moving the outfield wall in 100 feet every time they come to bat, then moving it back when our team comes up. You see, women won the battle with an amazingly simple, yet frighteningly ingenious, strategy: they merely declared their superiority to men in every facet of life, and that was enough to send our side into retreat. The facts speak for themselves:
Promoters of the INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT strategically link international matchmaking organizations with human trafficking rings in effort to gain bipartisan support.
Strategic linking of marriage brokers with human trafficking rings aids in gaining bipartisan support for law intent on eliminating international matchmaking companies and websites.
(PRWEB) July 3, 2004 — To gain bipartisan support for the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act or IMBRA, we endorse the strategies of (1) using “womens’ protection” as the main theme of the law; and (2) claiming that American-based marriage brokers are part of global human trafficking rings, however unfounded.
We also support provisions of the Act that will require brokers to conduct large quantities of consent verifications and background checks before American men can write love letters or make any contact with foreign women. These provisions will make it very difficult for American-based marriage brokers to organize those disgusting overseas introduction “parties” where women outnumber men 100 to 1. These provisions will also drive up costs to the point of putting most brokers out of business. In addition, this law effectively places “warning labels” on American men thus decreasing demand for them among foreign women over time.
Although this law is long overdue (and hopefully not too late), we welcome the Marriage Broker Regulation Act as a means to regulating the often arrogant and brazen international marriage broker industry. This industry has gone from the fringe to the mainstream. The American male population is now overly exposed to the message that it is acceptable to desire and actually marry women “unspoiled” by American materialism and most troubling, “uninfected” by American feminism. This message may impede the progress of feminism here at home and give American men the idea that it is acceptable to not respect feminist principles that took so long to instill upon them.
The marriage broker websites promulgate the “message” that American men are highly desirable outside the U.S. and can have access to women not intent on upholding over 30 years of hard won womens’ rights. These sites also offensively elaborate on the reasons for rejecting American women as part of a campaign to promote the desirablity of foreign women. We find this to be most appalling.
Certainly, the existence of this industry is indicative of the sad state of romantic relationships between men and women in North America; however, it by no means should be allowed to continue unregulated.
No Country for Burly Men
How feminist groups skewed the Obama stimulus plan towards women’s jobs.
by Christina Hoff Sommers
06/29/2009, Volume 014, Issue 39
A “man-cession.” That’s what some economists are starting to call it. Of the 5.7 million jobs Americans lost between December 2007 and May 2009, nearly 80 percent had been held by men. Mark Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan, characterizes the recession as a “downturn” for women but a “catastrophe” for men.
Men are bearing the brunt of the current economic crisis because they predominate in manufacturing and construction, the hardest-hit sectors, which have lost more than 3 million jobs since December 2007. Women, by contrast, are a majority in recession-resistant fields such as education and health care, which gained 588,000 jobs during the same period. Rescuing hundreds of thousands of unemployed crane operators, welders, production line managers, and machine setters was never going to be easy. But the concerted opposition of several powerful women’s groups has made it all but impossible. Consider what just happened with the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Last November, President-elect Obama addressed the devastation in the construction and manufacturing industries by proposing an ambitious New Deal-like program to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure. He called for a two-year “shovel ready” stimulus program to modernize roads, bridges, schools, electrical grids, public transportation, and dams and made reinvigorating the hardest-hit sectors of the economy the goal of the legislation that would become the recovery act.
Women’s groups were appalled. Grids? Dams? Opinion pieces immediately appeared in major newspapers with titles like “Where are the New Jobs for Women?” and “The Macho Stimulus Plan.” A group of “notable feminist economists” circulated a petition that quickly garnered more than 600 signatures, calling on the president-elect to add projects in health, child care, education, and social services and to “institute apprenticeships” to train women for “at least one third” of the infrastructure jobs. At the same time, more than 1,000 feminist historians signed an open letter urging Obama not to favor a “heavily male-dominated field” like construction: “We need to rebuild not only concrete and steel bridges but also human bridges.” As soon as these groups became aware of each other, they formed an anti-stimulus plan action group called WEAVE– Women’s Equality Adds Value to the Economy.
The National Organization for Women (NOW), the Feminist Majority, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, and the National Women’s Law Center soon joined the battle against the supposedly sexist bailout of men’s jobs. At the suggestion of a staffer to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, NOW president Kim Gandy canvassed for a female equivalent of the “testosterone-laden ‘shovel-ready’ ” terminology. (“Apron-ready” was broached but rejected.) Christina Romer, the highly regarded economist President Obama chose to chair his Council of Economic Advisers, would later say of her entrance on the political stage, “The very first email I got . . . was from a women’s group saying ‘We don’t want this stimulus package to just create jobs for burly men.’ ”
No matter that those burly men were the ones who had lost most of the jobs. The president-elect’s original plan was designed to stop the hemorrhaging in construction and manufacturing while investing in physical infrastructure that is indispensable for long-term economic growth. It was not a grab bag of gender-correct programs, nor was it a macho plan–the whole idea of economic stimulus is to use government spending to put idle factors of production back to work.
The president-elect responded to the protests by sending Jason Furman, his soon-to-be deputy director at the National Economic Council, along with his senior aides to a meeting organized by Kim Gandy and Feminist Majority president Eleanor Smeal. Gandy described the scene:
I can’t resist saying that this meeting didn’t look like the other transition meetings I attended. In addition to the presence of more women, the room actually looked different–because Feminist Majority President Ellie Smeal had asked that the chairs be set in a circle, with no table in the center.
The senior economists listened attentively as Gandy and Smeal and other advocates argued for a stimulus package that would add jobs for nurses, social workers, teachers, and librarians in our crumbling “human infrastructure” (they had found their testosterone-free slogan). Did Furman mention that jobs in the “human infrastructure”–health, education, and government–had increased by more than half a million since December 2007?
One could pardon him for not being argumentative. His boss at the economic council, Lawrence Summers, had become a national symbol of the consequences of offending feminist sensibilities and had been opposed by feminists in his appointment to the top White House post. Gandy and Smeal found their circle partners to be engaged and curious and were delighted that they stayed longer than scheduled: “We left feeling that all our preparation would bear fruit in the form of more inclusion of women’s needs, and we were right.”
They were right indeed. Our incoming president did what many sensible men do when confronted by a chorus of female complaint: He changed his plan. He added health, education, and other human infrastructure components to the proposal. And he tasked Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, Joseph Biden’s chief economist, with preparing an extraordinary report that calculated not only the number of jobs the plan would likely create, but the gender composition of the various employment sectors and the division of largess between women and men.
Romer and Bernstein delivered “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan” on January 10. They estimated that “the total number of created jobs likely to go to women is roughly 42 percent.” Lest anyone miss the point, they added that since women had held only 20 percent of the jobs lost in the recession, the stimulus package now “skews job creation somewhat towards women.”
In triumph, Gandy, Smeal, and their sister activists turned their attention to Congress. They perfected a special “handshake pitch” for members of Congress to be used when reminding them of the importance of rebuilding our human infrastructure, intoning, “That infrastructure is fragile too.” With Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on board, the revised recovery act sailed through Congress, and President Obama signed it into law on February 17.
In her March “Below the Belt” column on the NOW website, Kim Gandy could not contain her elation over “this happily-ever-after ‘stimulus story.’ ” When she and her allies saw the final recovery package, they were amazed to find “over and over” versions of “very specific proposals that we had made.” More than that, the programs NOW had proposed had vast sums of money next to them–”numbers that started with a ‘B’ (as in billion),” Gandy said gleefully. “It’s impossible to convey just how many hours we put into this issue during December and early January and how fruitful it really turned out to be.”
Right again. It is now four months since the bill was signed into law. A recent Associated Press story reports: “Stimulus Funds Go to Social Programs Over ‘Shovel-ready’ Projects.” A team of six AP reporters who have been tracking the funds find that the $300 billion sent to the states is being used mainly for health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other social services. According to Chris Whately, director of the Council of State Governments, “We all talked about ‘shovel-ready’ since September and assumed it was a whole lot of paving and building when, in fact, that’s not the case.” At the same time, the Labor Department’s latest (June 5) employment report shows unemployment rates of 8 percent for women and 10.5 percent for men. “Unprecedented” is what Harvard economist Greg Mankiw called the new 2.5 percentage-point gender gap. “It’s the highest male-female jobless rate gap in the history of BLS [Labor Department] data back to 1948,” said Mark Perry.
There is great room for debate over the effectiveness of government stimulus programs, and over how much impact a focused “shovel-ready” spending program would have achieved by now. What is not debatable is that changes in the American economy and workforce are favoring service sectors where women are abundant and that the current severe contraction is centered on sectors where men, especially working-class men, predominate. That an emergency economic recovery program should be designed with gender in mind is itself remarkable. That, in current circumstances, it should be designed to “skew” employment further towards women is disturbing and ominous.
Here is a clue to what has happened. The op-ed attacking the “macho stimulus plan” invoked Abigail Adams’s famous admonition to her husband to “remember the ladies” at the Constitutional Convention, and concluded, “Obama would be wise to do the same and balance the package.” It is, of course, preposterous to think of Abigail Adams, or any of the illustrious feminists of yore, proposing to “balance a package,” much less opposing an effort to put unemployed men back to work. The historical allusion is revealing.
Within living memory, the American feminist movement was a valiant, broad-based vehicle for social equality. It achieved historic victories and enjoys continuing, richly deserved prestige for its valor and success. But it has now harnessed that prestige to the ethos and methods of a conventional interest group.
Recall that the Obama administration has taken extraordinary steps to insulate itself from the machinations of organized lobbyists, establishing strict limits and procedures for contacts and communications of every sort. Yet its first major policy initiative was transformed by an orchestrated barrage of emails, op-eds, online petitions, open letters, faxes, phone calls, scripted handshakes, and meetings. And the administration went to great lengths to satisfy its petitioners that their proposals had been adopted directly into law. The administration (and Congress) must have been thinking that groups such as NOW and the Feminist Majority were crusading for social justice, when in fact they were lobbying for their share of the action, to the detriment of urgent necessities.
A Washington feminist establishment that celebrates the “happily-ever-after” story of its victory over burly men cannot represent the views and interests of many women. Those men are fathers, sons, brothers, husbands, and friends; if they are in serious trouble, so are the women who care about them and in many cases depend on them. But NOW and its sister organizations see the world differently. They see the workplace as a battlefront in a zero-sum struggle between men and women, where it is their job to side with women. Unless the Obama administration and Congress find the temerity to distance themselves from the new feminist lobby, the “man-cession” will deepen and further mischief will ensue.
Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author of The War Against Boys and editor of The Science on Women and Science, forthcoming from AEI press.
Recently married and regretting it
Post by j880 on Jul 29, 2008, 6:35am
I’m married for less than 1 year and it’s been and continues to be a horrible experience. We dated for a year and a half before marrying. I’m in my late 30s, have a good career, close family and friends. I came to a point in my life where I wanted to have children and believed that this woman possessed qualities to make a good wife and mother.
I was completely wrong.
We live in my home and she openly expresses her dislike. She wants me to sell and buy another home. She thinks nothing about insulting me, my family, my friends.
She gets into nasty tirades. She’s judgmental and criticizes everybody else.
She was fired from her last 2 jobs. She contributes nothing to any household expenses and complains about not having enough money.
I immediately put the brakes on wanting a child with this woman. She tells me that I lied to her and that I lied to the church. She is a mess. She’s quick to get on the phone and complain to her family about me. She makes things up and tells her family I’m cold and uncaring. After all, there is something wrong with anyone who does not want a baby.
I do not think that this marriage is going to last more than a few months. At this point I feel badly for my parents, friends who attended the nice wedding and will think “what happened” so quickly after they were married.
I should have heeded warnings from friends who said DON’T do it.
Why do girls go for jerks
Post by dave on Feb 17, 2009, 4:24am
This article by a mangina reflects how stupid they really are. They just can’t seem to figure the simple logic on why girls love jerks.
Read how this mangina struggles with this easily understood (by MGTOW and MRA’s) issue.
He sounds like a disgruntled girl – maybe the next Hugo Schwyer (however you spell that mangina’s name).
Post by dash on Jan 14, 2008, 3:57pm
Get it together, guys!
January 11, 2008, 2:06 pm
‘Young Single Male’ Is Urged to Grow Up
People shouldn’t dignify the videogame-playing and hard partying of some 20-something males as a phase of self-discovery, says Kay S. Hymowitz in the conservative City Journal. She suggests the so-called Young Single Male grow up before he wrecks society (article not yet available online).
Men are increasingly delaying marriage to their late 20s and beyond. As seen in movies such as the “40-Year-Old Virgin” or “Knocked Up,” they fill their prolonged bachelorhood by watching gross-out videos on the Internet, playing videogames and flitting from one halfserious girlfriend to another.
If you’ve been paying attention lately, some companies are marketing to women very effectively, while others are not.
The smart ones are beefing up their customer service training, offering incredible return policies and providing intuitive e-mail a friend tools. The slower-on-the-uptake companies may do as little as use photos of women on their site and call it a day.
The following mistakes, with tips for avoiding them, are meant to serve as a quick checklist to follow as you approach a new campaign or web site re-design. So print it and tack these to your bulletin board!
Women’s relationships today follow a very predictable pattern:
- They push men for commitment
- They get what they want
- They lose interest in sex
- They become attracted to someone else
- They start cheating
- They become angry and resentful
- They begin telling their partners that they need time apart
- They blame their partners for their behavior…and eventually, after making themselves and everyone around them miserable for an indefinite, but usually, long period of time, they end their relationships or marriages.
The Psycho Moment: Engagement
Date: 2004-04-06, 4:35PM CDT
Some years have passed, so I can talk about this now.
Many many moons ago, I started dating this very cool girl. We hit it off right away, had lots in common, she was smart, aggressive, cool and funny. And hot. Really hot.
So we dated for a while, which became a year, then nearly two. I figured she was it. We worked together on decisions, but I followed my passions and she followed hers – both career professionals, both creative, and both ready to kick this town for a Caribbean cottage if the thought ever struck us. Adventure. Romance. Lots of Sex. All was right with my world.
Vasectomy: $400. Speechless look on her face: priceless.
Date: 2007-02-06, 2:24PM PST
I’ll try to sum up a funny story that happened a few years ago:
I got a vasectomy.
I met a girl soon afterwards. She was nice and attractive but with a selfish streak that raised a big red flag. She was 32 at the time and I could practically HEAR her biological clock ticking. Regardless, she was a good lay, easy on the eyes, and reasonably good company.
The Caliphate is Coming
Post by khankrumthebulgar on Jan 31, 2006, 7:44am
By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 31, 2006
To Mousa Abu Marzuk, Deputy Chief of Hamas’ Political Bureau in Damascus, HAMAS’ triumph is an important springboard towards the establishment of the Caliphate – a global Islamic state, where life would be dictated by the Shari’a.
In a statement Abu Marzuk made on January 26, following HAMAS’ sweeping victory of the Palestinian legislative elections, he said that HAMAS, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), is reaping the fruits of its efforts over the last six decades. It was established in Palestine in 1936 – not in 1987, as most mistakenly think. Since then, the movement, according to Abu Marzuk, has carried out its political, social agenda, including Dawa (Prosetylization) and Jihad.
The international community’s calls to prevent HAMAS’ participation in the election, led HAMAS to run under the name of the “Change and Reform List.” Yet, this blatant fraud was accepted by all. No one raised his voice to point out the obvious fact that HAMAS simply changed its name for the election. Now, that HAMAS won 74 seats of the 132 seat Palestinian parliament, the world is “shocked.” Yet, it is the West’s willful blindness that facilitated HAMAS participation and victory.
Unless the international community takes action to nullify the results of the Palestinian election, HAMAS will spread the MB’s malignant agenda, which is identical to their own, far beyond the Middle East.
“Spy on me all you want, what do I care?”
Post by Blanco on Dec 22, 2005, 12:29am
Straight from an AW’s mouth!
“Spy on me all you want, as long as I’m safe what do I care?”
To make it even better … she said this while watching Sex and the City.
This is the typical ruinous herd AW mentality that will gladly vote to lessen freedom for the illusion of more security.
Post by toadman on Feb 10, 2006, 10:58pm
What are you getting yourself, if anything?
Tar Heel Terror
Post by khankrumthebulgar on Mar 7, 2006, 12:14pm
Tar Heel Terror
By Joe Kaufman
On Friday, Iranian-born Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, a 22 year-old UNC graduate, tore through a lunchtime crowd at one of the university’s popular gathering spots with a Jeep Grand Cherokee, hitting nine people of which six were hospitalized with injuries.
Taheri-azar was arrested and charged with nine counts, each of attempted first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon. According to Derech Poarch, the chief of the university police department, the attacker told investigators that he wanted to “avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world.” Upon entering his apartment, a paperback copy of the Quran was found in Taheri-azar’s room, along with a book calling for the United States to “confront state sponsors of terrorism.” He was shown, on news video footage, handcuffed and being led into a car sporting a giant grin.
At the court hearing on Monday, that same smile was ingrained on his face. Like Zacarias Moussaoui, whose trial coincided with Taheri-azar’s hearing, Taheri-azar stated that he wanted to represent himself. And like Moussaoui, who proudly proclaimed, “I’m Al-Qaeda,” Taheri-azar used the courtroom forum to voice his Islamist ideology. Clad in orange jumpsuit and leg shackles, he stated, “I am thankful you are going to hear this trial to learn more about the will of Allah, the creator.” And in response to a reporter’s question, he confirmed that, “Yes,” it was his intention to murder those he hit with the SUV he had just rented. In the 911 call he had made after the attack, he told the operator that he did this “to punish the government of the United States.”
Homosexual Activists’ War Against Christianity
Post by khankrumthebulgar on Mar 3, 2006, 6:18am
Church Seen as Main Obstacle Hindering Wholesale Acceptance of Homosexual Agenda
By Ed Vitagliano
February 21, 2006
(AgapePress) – “All churches who condemn us will be closed.” That was what Michael Swift, a “gay revolutionary,” declared in a February 1987 issue of the Gay Community News.
“Michael Swift” was a pseudonym, and the first line of the now-infamous homosexual rant — which was even reprinted in the Congressional Record — claimed that the entire piece was a “cruel fantasy” that explained “how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.”
The “dream” was filled with a nightmare scenario that seemed like something out of a fascist coup d’etat: “All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked …. [W]e shall make films about the love between heroic men …. The family unit — spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence — will be abolished …. All churches who condemn us will be closed.”
As the article found its way into Christian publications, believers were horrified, and homosexual activists tried to make light of its contents, claiming that it was intended merely as a satire.
NFL Player’s Wife Knifes Him Night Before Game
Post by ThaPhenom on Jan 15, 2006, 3:40am
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indianapolis Colts cornerback Nick Harper’s wife was jailed Saturday night on charges of cutting him with a knife, a sheriff said.
Hamilton County Sheriff Doug Carter said Daniell Harper, 31, was being held without bond on charges of battery with a deadly weapon and criminal recklessness.
Nick Harper was treated for a knee injury at St. Vincent Hospital in Indianapolis. His injuries were not life-threatening, Carter said.
Harper, a starter, was listed as questionable for Sunday’s AFC divisional playoff game against Pittsburgh.
Earlier Saturday, Colts spokesman Craig Kelley said Harper had required stitches in his knee following an “accident.” He said he had no other details.
Kelley told The Associated Press later that he had gotten his information from Colts officials.
“There was not an accident,” Carter said. He said Harper and his wife had been involved in a fight.
Harper, 31, was arrested in June on a domestic battery charge after police said he hit his wife.
He first signed with the Colts as a free agent in 2001.
What an ungrateful bitch. Though I’m sure he “drove” her to this with years of “abuse”. At least that’s what the spinsters will say.
Notice how they included that line at the end saying he was arrested in June for domestic battery…but see they didn’t say he was convicted of anything.
New male contraceptive clears hurdle
Post by nigol on Mar 31, 2006, 1:55pm
Tyler Dunlap, a 27-year-old newlywed in San Francisco, is just one of the many American men eagerly awaiting the results of a large clinical trial in India.
The trial is studying a new male contraceptive, RISUG (Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance): a reversible, nonhormonal contraceptive that provides 10 or more years of protection after a 10-15 minute procedure. Researchers received approval this week to begin enrolling additional study volunteers, after a delay of nearly four years.
“RISUG would be exciting because it would mean that, finally, I could take control of my own future, instead of leaving it to someone else,” says Dunlap. “Being in a committed long-term relationship means that I don’t want to rely on condoms for birth control. I’m not ready for a vasectomy, though. This new procedure could be the answer that gives men the decisive control we lack with current contraceptives.”