Sunday, 27 January 2008

Misandry in the media? Oh my goodness, what a surprise.

The trouble with British men

Blah blah blah. A load of words from some cunt playing 'lets pretend to be a journalist, squeal!'

Good news for British men: there have never been so many attractive, single women from abroad looking for love. The bad news?


The bad news is that they're just as fucking fat, obnoxious, parasitic, stuck-up and money-hungry as the homegrown slags. It seems so anyway:

And while Maryam left Iran for a society where women had more freedom, egalitarianism, she feels, can go too far. 'I remember my first date with a British man in a restaurant: the bill came and I waited for him to take his wallet out but he did nothing. In the end I realised he wanted us to split it. I think that's terrible. If a man can't even pay for dinner how is he going to support you and a child?'


I think that perfectly sums up women in a nutshell; wherever they're from, wherever they're going, whoever they are, they just want a fucking meal ticket.

"Somebody support meeeeee!"

The best way to piss post-feminist women off is to give them exactly what they wanted; equality. Make them pay for their own cunting food.

'I used to live in America and there men opened doors and said, "Ladies first," and helped me on with my jacket, because I think American women need a lot of attention. English women are much more independent, and perhaps as a result British men don't treat them so courteously.'


No, English women aren't more "independent", they're just fucking hypocrites who want equality only when it suits them, although from what I've heard, that doesn't really distinguish them from American women. Or French ones. Or Swedish, or Australian, or New Zealanders, etc...

Maryam stresses that, for all her misgivings, she would still rather marry a British man than an Iranian. 'They have what we call "clean eyes". They don't stare at other women when their wife isn't there - unlike the Spanish.' She smiles. 'Look, I think your men are really good and nice. If they weren't so lazy, they'd be fantastic.'


Yeah, yeah, we're so fucking lazy aren't we? Jeez.

You know why women bitch about men (British or otherwise) being lazy or immature? It's because a man who wants to laze about and live for himself is unable and unwilling to support a woman, and that means one more woman being obliged to get off her fat arse and actually work for a living instead of lazing about on the broken back of a man-slave.

What a load of crap this article is; I'm regretting even paying it any attention. Some dumb bitch finds a few dumb bitches and asks them to insult men and moan about their singlehood, and, hey-presto, an article in a newspaper. So long as it insults men and raises the pathetic, rapidly-crumbling egos of women, that's all that matters.

Now, my good friends and fellow bachelors, please excuse me whilst I go off to spend my Sunday afternoon being so horrifically lazy that I run the risk of turning into a sofa.

131 comments:

Martin said...

Good article Duncan. Can I suggest you take a read of this article in the Daily Mail as well. Just about sums the bitches up. Bet she still wants his fucking pension, house and salary when she divorces him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=510248&in_page_id=1879

Anonymous said...

egalitarianism, she feels, can go too far

This is the most important sentence: women want the benefits but not the duties that comes with equal rights.
If a woman is unwilling to pay her own dinner, do you think she will be willing to fight in a war? No.

Again, it is just about her feelings not about logic or justice.

Women want to be supported, this in itself is not a bad thing, but accompanied by unrealistic "career"-expectations, divorce laws etc. it becomes unbearable for men.

See, the iranian woman is an engineer but still not willing to work for herself, she still demands support. Then they wonder why women never end up as CEOs.

She is the lazy one and i conclude that a man should not marry a woman who studied because she will stop working like other women.

Anonymous said...

http://www.amazon.com/Surrendered-Wife-Practical-Finding-Intimacy/dp/0743204441/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201452127&sr=8-1

The Surrendered Wife : A Practical Guide to Finding Intimacy, Passion, and Peace with Your Man by Laura Doyle

"Respect the man you married by listening to him without criticizing him, insulting him, laughing at him or making fun of him..."

paddybrown said...

Maybe they'll just have to learn to appreciate us for who we are, and not what they want from us or what they want us to be, just like they've been telling us to do with them since time immemorial.

Graeme said...

English women are much more independent, and perhaps as a result British men don't treat them so courteously.'

Has it even occurred to this fuckwit journalist that British men (and most in the West/Anglosphere) bent (and still bend) over backwards to give these entitlement Queens this feeling of independence.

In my experience of humanity, there's always an inverse relationship between the amount that someone professes to be strong/independent/feisty etc and the amount that they truly are, when all their psychological (media-driven, social and governmental) supports and affirmations are stripped away.

The amount of hypocrisy/double standards in this piece of journalism is bordering on comical. Except I'm not laughing.

Notice how there is no facility to reply to the original Daily Telegraph article. I think a letter to the editor is in order. (Now I feel grown-up!). Harumph.

Anonymous said...

Checkmate!

I guess British women have nothing else to do but complain and whine about the blokes in the UK.

Too bad, cheers for the single man! Freedom to the max!

Don't spend too much time drinking, Duncan. Gotta play the video games too!

ednistic said...

This video will give you an insight into the females twisted logic............http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

Anonymous said...

There was a funny quote in the article. Yes, I read it so sue me.

Jennifer Rohn agrees. 'On average British men are more articulate and amusing than Americans. They seem more willing to take the funny and absurd angle on things, and to go at life with a healthy sense of fun.' Annie Labura concurs. 'They're clever and sensitive and I can really talk to them.'

Hmm, I think they're talking about you Duncan. Especially the "articulate and amusing" and "clever and (laughing) sensitive" things to say. Bah hah hahahahaha!

You definitely got better writing talent than a lot of people like the manginas in US, Canada, Australia, S. Africa, etc.

Anonymous said...

http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/

Anonymous said...

In Russia women have between 2 and 10 abortions each. Here teenagers abort up and over 7 months.

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVVXbAOSko&feature=related


Be careful with russian women, they might have aborted.

Never marry a woman who aborted - NEVER!

Anonymous said...

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVVXbAOSko&feature=related

Russian women have the same mental problems as our women: they do not marry when pregnant and whore around like sluts. In the movie 15 and 17 yo women abort, so when they are 23 they may try to marry YOU.

NEVER EVER MARRY WOMEN WHO ABORTED AT ANY AGE!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

"When i delivered the child and looked at it, they told me it was a girl. I was kind of sorry for it. It was already a baby."
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVVXbAOSko&feature=related


These women are killers without feelings - remember the woman who said that has a friendly smile and no man would expect her to be cruel.

Do not marry women who had abortions - and certainly not women who had late term abortions like in Russia.

In Russia 80% of women had abortions (says the abortionist) and in USA it is said to be 33%.


"our hostels are overflowing with babies that have been abandoned"

Ever seen a woman being punished called a deadbeat for abandoning her child? No, it hits only men.


"yes. it is legalized murder"
At least the abortionist admits it.


Women are good for giving birth to children, anything else is very difficult for them, they lack will and strength.
today they make the stupid mistake to kill their children - what will they do when they are older?

It is natural for a woman to fuck and have children at 14. Nature made it that way and marriage served the purpose of protecting these women - as we can see protecting them against themselves.

Faustus said...

All these cunts need a fucking leash around their necks, and a bullwhip at the ready in a man's hand.

*wtsh*..*wtsh*

"That's it, little cunt bitch..good doggie.."

ntm1972 said...

I used to work 60-80 hours per week, tried like hell to impress women, and ended up poor and miserable.

Now I work no more than 40 hours per week, don't give a fig what women think, and am resultantly on rapidly improving financial footing, having never been happier, particularly as I have learned to 'let go' of the past. Rather, I look forward with confidence to the future - a future in which I live alone, build friendships with good men, and smile while watching rapidly aging women go home to curl up on the sofa with their cats and their bonbons, clueless to the bitter end.

As a man going his own way, I am under no imperative, biological or otherwise, to procreate. Given the choice between spending the remainder of my days happily occupying the moral high ground as a single and free fellow, or rutting with some wench in order to produce children that may well, in her hands, turn into hellish leeches upon society, I unhesitatingly and joyfully choose Option #1.

To sum up, and to employ a biblical turn of phrase, I am loath to cast my pearls, shall we say, into swine, knowing that the fruit of my labors will quite likely be of the verminous sort.

Jimmy John said...

"Look, I think your men are really good and nice. If they weren't so lazy, they'd be fantastic."

If western men are so horrible then feel free to move back into your cave in Iran; you fucking rag head bitch! We didn't ask for you to move here, and we're certainly not forcing you to stay!

I would love to see what her hardworking male compatriots in her native country of Iran would do if she gave them the same smug speech.

Anonymous said...

Duncan, you have yet to respond to the request to restore the blog in its entirety. Will you make time to do this in the near future or is this an unreasonable request?

Hmh said...

I started reading the "article" and the laughter just started spontaneously. Who do these over the hill, insanely picky entitlement queens think they're kidding? They ain't all that and frankly if I got an in-my-face proposition from Whatsit (on the right in the photo) I'd run a fucking mile too. What guy needs a woman like that for fuck's sake?

But fair enough. Free speech means that they can publish that, and I can publish this. I'd just like to point out that NO EFFORT WHATEVER was made to research the piece. The characters are fictional. Yes that's right guys, I MADE IT UP.

Here goes:

NEW ZEALAND MEN LIVING A NIGHTMARE

New Zealand. The very name evokes images of stunning countryside, pristine farms, sun-burnt and grizzled hard-working country folk tending field and flock. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. For good old Enzed - Godzone itself - is overrun with what are widely believed to be the world's third most crap women, after the US (#1) and the UK (#2).

"I couldn't believe it," Jack said. "Here I was, 42, worked the farm all my life. I'd listened when Mum said a farmer's wife could pick a sheep up with one hand. But sumo-wrestling a bullock? And winning? And then being too tired to do anything else for a week - again? Mate, what have I gotten into here?"

Jack is not alone. Many men in Aotearoa find themselves bewildered by just how fast their women have changed after marriage.

"She used to look a bit of alright, if the light was right and I'd sunk enough piss," Matt groused softly, while furtively sneaking a forbidden drink at the pub. "These days I just don't know what the fuck I was thinking. If she isn't asking me, Sweetieplums, do I look fat in this? - Christ - it's the farting. Sweet Jesus I thought that the boys on the team were bad enough but this is something else. She doesn't give a shit though, she just laughs and makes the sheets billow again. I don't keep matches in the house anymore."

"I'd cut up my credit card," Tane said, with his face set and grim. "I'd thought that'd fix it. She just jacked up a consolidation loan and sweet-talked the bank guy into issuing another card. It was in my name." He's moved his former girlfriend's extensive and expensive collection of designer crap out but she still calls him at 3am. If he doesn't answer, she comes over and bangs on the walls while threatening to boil his cat. "I don't know what to do, man. She just won't get the message. It's over like last year's Waitangi Day pissup. And what's with the cat? I don't have a cat."

Yet all of these men have been pressured by friends and family to stay in stifling relationships, even after clearly showing that there's a problem. "The folks brought it up," Dave said, while using a fish-slice in the approved manner to take the cap off his homebrew. "I dunno, man. I frowned, I looked away, I even hunched my shoulders. They just kept going on about there being a girl for me somewhere out there. I mean, I'd like it, but, where is she?"

Official statistics, collected by the time-honoured method of going for a walk downtown, seem to back all of these men up. At least two-thirds of the eligible female population is fat, flat and fucked up. Given a stark choice between being a monk, batting for the other side, or riding the slapper wave, more and more Kiwi guys are... avoiding the issue entirely and are chasing young women from the Asia Pacific area. Men like Lance, who's currently seeing a young woman from Korea. They're going through the aisles at the supermarket and both seem happy. A quick visual poll indicates approximately 30% of couples in the supermarket that day match that general description.

"I could't go back," Lance said. "Not after being treated so nicely."

Anonymous said...

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=FspHU8hOxhY&eurl=http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/

He will be bachelor.

Anonymous said...

Do not have sex with prostitutes.

Reason: the prostitute might have been pregnant and might have aborted, so by having sex with her, you are actively financing the killing of children.

Especially in Countries (Russia) in which late term abortions are allowed.

Anonymous said...

At the moment I am invested in stocks which might give me a huge gain this year with no taxes to be paid.

These are extremely high risk stocks.



Now, what would be the case, if I were married with children?

My wife would ask me to invest in stocks with less risk, but she would demand money for useless things and she would cost money for the children and herself.


What happens financially to most married men automatically?
They become wage slaves because they cannot control their wives financially. They have no right to control them.

Some men are financially unwise themselves, but those who are wise have a high risk of marrying a bad woman.

Think about it: with capital gains one can earn much more than by being a wage slave.

There is a prerequisite though: you need capital.

If your expenses are high, you can never accumulate capital and then you can never have capital gains.

A wife is a financial black hole with no bottom.

The wife is usually not interested in living frugally, ie without a car, without new clothes, without a new kitchen etc - like I do.
She is not the one who works, she is happy in using her husband as a wage slave.

Many men get into debt for their wives: they buy a new kitchen, a new SUV/car and so on.

Debt is the opposite of capital gains.
If these men did not spend they could accumulate and have capital gains later on.


The financial risk of marrying is higher than investing in high risk stocks: there is no gain just risk of loss and high expenses.

Anonymous said...

http://dontgetmarried.proboards75.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1201497906

My ex's Grandmother's Advice to her. Keep his stomach full and his testacles Empty. A well Fed Cat seldom strays. Thelma loved her Cowboy husband Raymond. When he died she no longer wanted to live. She would say frequently in front of her children and Grandchildren. I want to die and be with my Raymond. He would pick the first flowers that broke through the Snow and bring her a boquet.

A love affair that lasted over 55 years. The way he used to look into her eyes. He was said to be one of the Finest Men to ever live in the V Valley in Northern Arizona. They had a Ranch. Can love last a lifetime?

Yes it can, IF Women are realistic and reasonable. It surely can. I have seen it with my two eyes. Couples who married young, had children, built a life together and met each other's needs. One sided relationships don't last. And Men don't want to build a life with a Whore.

Look at the shit over the weekend form Terry G. Bollea aka. Hulk Hogan's soon to be Ex Wife. He made the money. She wants his bank accounts Frozen. Vindictive Bitch is trying to punish him. A Gold Digging Skank. Hogan should find himself a twenty something Brazilian Babe like Ben Kingsley did and laugh at his Blond Bimbo, idiot ex Wife.

Anonymous said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900827.html?hpid=topnews
About 10 years ago, a group of graduate students lodged a complaint with Linda C. Babcock, a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University: All their male counterparts in the university's PhD program were teaching courses on their own, whereas the women were working only as teaching assistants.
"The dean said each of the guys had come to him and said, 'I want to teach a course,' and none of the women had done that," she said. "The female students had expected someone to send around an e-mail saying, 'Who wants to teach?' "



It has always been that way: why did women never worked, studied or fought in wars? Most were not interested in doing so.

Anonymous said...

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/01/25/fireman-cleared-after-false-rape-claim-91466-20392668/
A FIREMAN was cleared of rape yesterday after claims a lesbian had “made up” the sex attack because he refused to be her sperm donor.

http://dontgetmarried.proboards75.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1201540685

Paternity doesn't count when it comes to a Hunterdon County man's bid to lower child support payments for a child that's not his.


PATERNITY DOES ONLY COUNT WHEN A MAN HAS TO PAY - not when he has not to pay!


http://news.theage.com.au/breadwinner-myth-holding-back-women/20080125-1o14.html

Breadwinner myth 'holding back' women

Anonymous said...

I think that perfectly sums up women in a nutshell; wherever they're from, wherever they're going, whoever they are, they just want a fucking meal ticket.

"Somebody support meeeeee!"


This is a common mistake in the MRA movement. We are always talking about American women, British women, Western women, feminist women, entitlement princesses. And telling that Asian women, Latin American women are different. They are the dream we all are supposed to dream of.

Bullshit.

Pussy is pussy wherever she lives. I have experience about this. I have to copy what I have post on Outcast Superstar website some weeks ago.

Hey I have been living nine years in developing countries and I can tell you the idea that Russian, Latin American or Asian women are better than American women is B.S.

Women are women wherever they live. Selfish, egocentric and golddiggers. Nagging and whinning. The only difference is that women from these countries have laws (and social pressure) that prevent them from doing what AW can do. That is, if they divorce their men, they don't get anything so they decide not to get divorced.

But when a foreign woman lands on American soil and knows American pussified laws, she quickly becomes another harpy.

All women are similar. There are not "good girls" and "bad girls". A girl is only good until being good goes against her interests.

Anonymous said...

"Do not have sex with prostitutes.
Reason: the prostitute might have been pregnant and might have aborted, so by having sex with her, you are actively financing the killing of children."


Or if you live in the United States the government takes money from your paycheck, and gives it to women who want to have abortions. So the prostitution bit is kind of a moot point.

I have a better idea. DO have sex with prostitutes. At least then you know what you're buying, and how much you're paying for it.

If you're worried about them getting pregnant and having an abortion then use a condom. Which you should be using anyway if you don't want to get aids and die.

Your argument could have just as easily been: "Don't hire women. They could be pregnant and decide to use the money for an abortion."

Anonymous said...

Women are women wherever they live. Selfish, egocentric and golddiggers. Nagging and whinning. The only difference is that women from these countries have laws (and social pressure) that prevent them from doing what AW can do. That is, if they divorce their men, they don't get anything so they decide not to get divorced.

All women are similar. There are not "good girls" and "bad girls". A girl is only good until being good goes against her interests.


So true. A woman can get used to being good, though, when she is very old, they do not change anymore.

He said...

I think that perfectly sums up women in a nutshell; wherever they're from, wherever they're going, whoever they are, they just want a fucking meal ticket.

Alas I expect that is true. I blame god for making me heterosexual.

I bet gay men split the bill without complaints and go on to have a nice night.

Anonymous said...

MOST WOMEN (99.9%)

Women = childish
Women = evil
Women = murderers by the tens of millions
Women = immature
Women = deceivers
Women = pathological lyers
Women = sluts, whores, prostitutes
Women = the destruction of the human race
Women = unequality
Women = unfairness
Women = taking everything, giving nothing
Women = paternity fraud
Women = maternity fraud
Women = bitch
Women = manhaters
Women = manipulation by sex
Women = thieves
Women = cold as ice
Women = no feelings towards humanity
Women = destructive
Women = 12 yr. old mentality
Women = abusive towards ALL
Women = unfair, disgusting, worthless pieces of shit not worth a penny in the gutter, guttless slime who have made a deal with the devil to get what they want when they want by killing, maming, abusing, decieving, lying and any other method to satisfy their satanic desires.

Anonymous said...

Women are nothing but leaches who inflict their insecurity and "psycho-tramas" on love-blind men. Every middle-aged guy I know gets no sex at home. Women no longer want it after a few years of marriage, unless she is feeling neglected or decides it time to be sexy. The poor bloke is either stuck with blue balls or gets relief another way. BUT, if the bitch finds out, stand back and be prepared to get "fucked" for life.
Never again. I'm done with bitches.

Anonymous said...

go duncan go duncan go duncan un huh, oh yeah, go Dunc I, rock freakin on dude!

Graeme said...

Duncan, you have to censor these comments otherwise you run the risk of hosting a site to paranoid nutters. Please try and keep some standards. (almost typed "there's a good chap", but that would be patronising! Don't give up mate)

Woman With A Question said...

Do any of the men here find that they have gay tendencies?--A Woman With A Question,

phoenix said...

Men can not be saved. Even here this ridiculous myth of Asian women is propogated, meanwhile all the reports of Asian women killing their husbands or mutilating their genitals is completely ignored.

If anything, Asian women are even worse. They are like white women but with even more issues. Why not open your eyes and look around next time? They usually have designer bags and other expensive items. Their attitudes are terrible, except unlike AW I suppose some Asian women have the sense to hide their contempt for a man until after marriage, after which time she will use all his money because she feels "she has to keep up" with her friends that do the same.

If you could isolate any race of women from the television and from her insiduous "friends" you'd be okay, but you can't, so they're all the same.

Anonymous said...

Just another day in the life of a mangina!
--------------
Oh, Oh.. New baby will force Vette sale....

My wife is currently 6 months... pregnant... and she now "suggested" that I oops... "we" get rid of the Corvette to get a SUV...
While I will miss the Vette.. I barely drive it.. (no time)..
Any suggestions of how best to sell it.. (07 blk/titanium coupe mn6 z-51.. 6000 miles,mint)???? Malibu/L.A. area...???
Thanks,!!!!!

http://tinyurl.com/2xl8dv

Anonymous said...

Anon 17;48

I couldn't have put it better. Women are that and a whole lot more. Truly God must have a sick sense of humor to say that women were designed to be a "help meet" as the Bible says, only to be the worst possible influence in a man's life. A woman is hopelessly EVIL, and there are no differences no matter where she hails from.

Christopher from Oregon

Anonymous said...

Hi! Don't forget there are lots of us ladies left who actually LIKE men and enjoy a man's company and get happy to see his name pop up on the phone.

I have seen my brother really screwed over by a rotten, rotten girl. I know that there are a lot of them out there. But sometimes men overlook kind-hearted girls (and no, I'm not using kind-hearted as a euphemism for fugly) for the thrill of chasing a selfish high maintenance women, just as women will chase the "bad boy," and then act so surprised that he cheats...

Anyway, just take heart. There is a whole generation of girls that have seen their fathers, brothers and boyfriends unfairly treated by selfish women and biased courts, and we don't think it is fair.

Hold out for a girl who loves you for smart, fun, strong masculine YOU and not as a means to an end.

Anonymous said...

The point I will make in this post is one I have made many times in numerous post on other peoples Blogs. All I have to say is that there is nothing in marriage for men what so ever. Of course that’s just my opinion. But it comes from 30 years of marriage and I have never been divorced. I came to this conclusion not after long deliberation but within the first week of marriage. I knew it had been a terrible mistake. Thirty years have not changed my mind. Rather the converse. The point is once it happens then suddenly you are in the cell and the door is locked. Slam! That’s what happens and you realize it is too late. I also realize that it is hopeless trying to get young men to see this. Our chemistry is so compelling and self destructive that is can not be reasoned with.

Duncan Idaho said...

Do any of the men here find that they have gay tendencies?--A Woman With A Question,

Congratulations!

You are the 1,000,000th woman to accuse us men who do not worship the ground women slither upon to accuse us of being homosexual.

You win a one-minute dash around this blog.

Pile as many rants as you can into your trolley in sixty-seconds and take them home with you, with the blessing of the management.

And have a complimentary 'fuck off' on the way out.

Anonymous said...

Do any of the men here find that they have gay tendencies?--A Woman With A Question,

Oh, my God! A wimmin has told me gay!!!! I am devastated!! My life has no meaning anymore and I am thinking about killing myself! I'd rather die than being labelled as gay by such a "strong" wimmin!

So "woman with a question" you have won. I accept all your arguments and your superior female logic, which is as follows:

1.The men here are against being a woman's slave.
2.Ergo (thus), they must have gay tendencies.
3.Ergo, I am right and they are wrong.

Wow! Even Aristotle would be amazed at this logics. And even Einstein couldn't disprove that. You are a master debater, woman with a question. Your arguments are so solid.

In fact, before reading your wise words, I thought I was a complete straight guy and I thought that anybody who uses "gay" as a covert insult is homophobic. Not anymore. You have enlighten me with your superior intelligence. Please, marry me. I want you to nag me for the rest of my life and to make me discover my inner masculinity.

Sincerely,

A gay who has just discovered his gayness

Anonymous said...

http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080130/NEWS01/80130016/1079

Wow.. I guess he's gay, huh, honey?

Anonymous said...

Boys;

The issue of Oriental women being an alternative to Ameriskanks comes up frequently amongst men.

Don't buy into it. I used to, until I watched numerous Beasts of the Orient turn into the most obnoxious, angry, and VIOLENT creatures you ever saw after they married American men. Not every time, and there are a couple of exceptions (so far), but for the most part I can tell you truthfully that some of the most violent women are from The Philipines, Japan and south of the border in Mexico. These foreign broads think nothing of stabbing their husbands if they are jealous, or castrating him in his sleep.

Avoid women at any cost, and don't believe the women who come here and claim to love men. It is simply not the truth. Every woman hates every man all of the time, the only difference is the degree of the hatred and how open she is about it.

Never forget:

Women hate men.

It's simply a woman's nature to hate and destroy.

Always.

Christopher in Oregon

Anonymous said...

http://www.insidevandy.com/drupal/node/6062
COLUMN: Men are not to blame for single women
Submitted by Andrew Solomon on 01-11-08, 1:51 am | More from this Writer | Submit to Digg or Facebook

I know it may come as a shock to some of you, but I like to consider myself a fairly tolerant person. I love animals. I'm polite (when sober). I fully support women's suffrage. But one thing I cannot stand is people who complain constantly.

I swear, I can't walk to class and back without someone griping to me about how tough and miserable their life is.

"I have so much work. My girlfriend was sleeping with her T.A. Daddy beat me." Seriously, I sometimes put disconnected headphones on just so people won't have an opportunity to bitch to me.

But there's one complaint I get more than anything: Girls always want to know why they can't find a boyfriend at Vandy.

Now before I continue, a disclaimer: I'm not sexist. I love women. A few of them are even crazy enough to hook up with me. I just think this issue needs to be addressed once and for all so people stop talking to me about it.

I know. It's hard being single in college. After you get through the hundreds of friends you've made, a family who loved you enough to send you to college and the thousands of opportunities you have each day to meet someone new, it can be pretty lonely. Seriously girls, I know. If you want, you can come over to my place later, and we can talk about it.

Unfortunately, at the end of the day it's true. Statistically very few people are in committed relationships with another student here at Vandy. Most people are single, and a significant portion of people in relationships date someone outside the school. What's the problem?

Well, from what I can gather from the bits of conversation I actually paid attention to, the girls blame us. Apparently men at Vanderbilt are immature, irresponsible and not interested in commitment. Those are big words, and a guy like me finds it tough to avoid behavior he can barely spell. But most of the guys here at Vandy seem normal to me and should have no trouble finding someone to date if they wanted. So if the guys aren't the problem, we're going to need to find another sex to blame this on ...

Gentle readers, if you want to date someone, you have to be dateable. Using a scientific process I like to refer to as "drinking until the phone calls go away," I have come up with a list of things girls can do to become more dateable to guys on this campus. It's not that good guys aren't out there; we just don't want to date you. Yet.

First off, stop playing games. I know "guys do it too," but we pale in comparison to what you try to pull off. Don't ignore his phone calls purposely. Don't act aloof when he's around your friends. Playing games is one of the quickest ways short of sleeping with the best friend to get thrown into the "manipulative bitch" category. Being honest and genuine is one of the most underrated and attractive qualities for a girl to have. Grow up and be okay with genuinely being interested in someone.

Second, drop the act. I can only speak for myself when writing, but one of the things I can't stand is when girls act dumber than they really are. You were smart enough to get in here, so I know you've got it in you. A large majority of the girls I get to know end up being much smarter than I originally thought when first meeting them. It's awesome to discover, but I wish more of you would show it to me when we meet. Intelligence is sexy; don't cover it up.

Last, be OK being single. Despite the fact your biological clock is coercing you to marry the first handsome millionaire you meet before you turn 24, know confidence is as attractive in a female as it is in a male. The fact you're fine on your own tells us you've got it together, and you won't go Britney Spears on us when we break up with you. We like our cars just the way they are, thanks.



http://dontgetmarried.proboards75.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1201759802

Almost any man who has sincere wishes of commitment and respect for a partner will get shot down like a mosquito by a cow's tail....

When women want "no relationship", these guys are the dumbest and the most boring creatures alive, but they still should approach these women in swarms and fullfill every little whim of the ladies, as friends.. While the other kind of men, not interested in long term stuff get to enjoy the women because the women want it this way.

When women want relationship, every man on earth should approach them as if they were untainted virgins, and have a magic personality, magic vagina and a magic aura. Beecause women want it that way.

No matter if her magic has been sprayed around like an agricultural plane spray DDT over diseased fields.... Now it's virgin magic...

Mik3_D said...

I just want to run a little counter to the argument that "there are no good women anywhere."

Well, you're right. About 99.999999% right.

Someone once told me for the first time in my life that "Women have been causing problems ever since they gave them the right to vote." With a completely straight face.

The biggest shock to me about that statement was that it came from a woman standing 2 feet in front of my face.

Thats not to say she was perfect. But she was good enough to know that women weren't perfect and that her husband knew better than she did. And she loved him enough not to call the cops on him for laying down the law.

I don't know where they grow girls like that these days. That one was from Alabama but she was definitely a minority there. They are probably a rare breed anywhere you go today.

Anonymous said...

I'm not gay, but looking at the women around me, sometimes I wish I was.

phoenix said...

In the US our female celebrities have managed to squander their fortunes, and chances are our stupid populace will donate to them.

We have Brittney Spears in a psychiatric ward now, and Lindsay Lohan begging people for loans. These women have spent millions on shopping and partying, but the average American woman will probably force her stupid husband making $40k USD (about 20k pounds) give these women several hundred dollars. Just watch.

Anonymous said...

Sigh.How boring these "gay" comments are becoming.Agreed,Duncan.The typical British female,from teenage years up to 50-odd,expect men to gawp,drool and venerate themselves before the smelly foul mousehole.No other reaction is expected,really.They cannot comprehend that some men don't want anything to do with them,and I mean ANYTHING-INCLUDING SEX AND RELATIONSHIPS.Been there,seen it,done it,became bored with it and eventually regretted it.So now, it's all about ME,ME,ME.So there.Now begone,overrated and dastardly female,go and watch some crappy soap opera or some ridiculous celebrity "reality" programme on telly,or catch up on all that important celeb gossip in Hello or O.K. magazine and leave us men in peace.To enjoy our lives,our freedom,our spare time and our cash without the interference of some westernised fem-slut,tramp- stamped harpy spoiling our tranquility.

Woman With A Question said...

Congratulations!--Duncan

Thanks a lot!

You are the 1,000,000th woman to accuse us men who do not worship the ground women slither upon to accuse us of being homosexual.--Duncan

No, I accuse men who hate women of being homosexuals.

ednistic said...

yeah!!! MGTOW is starting to really bite the old feminazis stateside are (i think it's called)getting their panties in a bunch..... this article has raised a few hackles among the men folk over there

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-hymowitz_27edi.ART0.State.Edition1.378ca5b.html

Anonymous said...

women love to accuse men of being gay. they dont realize that if you're not 100% gay then you are a 100% not gay. women dont get that 97% of men out there are not gay, we dont care about gays, and never will be gay. yet more than half the women in the US are "gay". They either have had or want a lesbian experience. (for those idiot women out there, gay, homosexual and lesbian all mean the same thing) The majority of women in the US are gay or want to be and they love to accuse men of being gay becuase women are stupid and can't have rational intelligent conversation with men because quite frankly men are smarter and more emotionally mature than women. I would love the hear the justification from just one women of the one billion abortions (the slaughter of humanity) in the last one hundred years, the abuse of the court system, the stealing of mens assets, the whining and childish behavior, the obscene materialism of women in the western world, the utter failure of whatever the good intentions feminism once had. Please tell me ladies. You just dont get it. Men have given you everything you have but you do nothing but kill, steal, cheat, lie, deceive, manipulate with your bodies, etc. etc. I never have heard one thank you of the goodness many and most men have brought or have tried to bring to the world.

Woman With A Question said...

women love to accuse men of being gay. they dont realize that if you're not 100% gay then you are a 100% not gay. women dont get that 97% of men out there are not gay, we dont care about gays, and never will be gay. yet more than half the women in the US are "gay". They either have had or want a lesbian experience.--

Not sure where you got that crazy idea from. You may want to look deeper into "various demographics" before making that assumption about all American women. I like and respect all people including gays and lesbians. But it is not something I would ever nor want to engage in (and yes, I know you were speaking in general, but I'm answering specifically). Nor does it appear to be something most American women want. In fact, more women like gay men than lesbians. I'm quite content being "exclusive" with the male species. It just appears that many of the men on this board feel the same way, LOL.

Anonymous said...

No, I accuse men who hate women of being homosexuals.

Women are no reason to worry for homosexuals as they will not marry them anyway.


The typical British female,from teenage years up to 50-odd,expect men to gawp,drool and venerate themselves before the smelly foul mousehole.


So true. Women's greatest asset is there beauty and they instinctively know it as soon as they enter puberty.
That is the reason why women show their skin, put on make-up, revealing clothes and develop a whole system of teasing men.

The dumb ones wait until they are too old to find a good man.
Today most are dumb.

Hmh said...

Woman with a question...

I could rant on for quite a bit but I'll keep it simple: most of the women around me have done everything possible to make themselves unattractive to me. I can't trust 'em on a single damn thing.

Try this for an experiment in holding someone to basic minimum standards:

Good physical health
Good mental health
Good to other people
Trustworthy
Not likely to mess your life up.

As a game I've been applying this to the women around me. Most fail, usually within the first five minutes of meeting them. I mean it's not that tough a standard is it?

See ya!

Anonymous said...

A QUESTION TO A WOMAN WITH A QUESTION

Why are you trying to achieve by labelling us as a "gay" or as a "men who hate women"?


I have several hypothesis:

1. To nag us into marriage? Sorry, but your way of exposing your views only reinforce the negative view that we have of women. Women (and you are a perfect example) cannot bear with dissent and recur to emotional cheap tricks ("shaming tactics") like yours ("gay", "women-hating") when they find men who disagree with their views.

2. To make us agree with you?. Well, bad luck. Using these emotional cheap tricks doesn't work with us anymore. I admit that they were very useful for women to manipulate men for a longtime and they still are. But men who are here are aware of that.

Please, see the following Web page, which is classic in the MRA movement: "The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics" (http://cms.mgtow.net/?q=node/23).



"Shaming tactics." This phrase conjures up the histrionic behavior of female detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic. Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man's insecurities and shut down debate. They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions. Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically "ad homimem" attacks. Some of them:

Charge of Invirility (Code Lavender)

Discussion: The target's sexual orientation or masculinity is called into question. Examples:

"Are you gay?"

Charge of Misogyny (Code Black)

Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general.
Examples:

"You misogynist creep!"
"Why do you hate women?"



I have only copied some fragments and summarized them to shorten them but I strongly recommend you to read the whole page before making a fool of yourself using again these worn-out cheap tricks which we all know. What is the next shaming tactic you want to use against us? You're bitter (code red), you're afraid of a strong woman (code yellow), stop whining (code blue). Wait a minute! You have already use "code blue" and told us to stop complaining. Now that I realize you introduce a new "shaming tactics" in each new post of yours. Are you using the web page as a guide to introduce troll messages? I don't know. I am only asking you.

3. To venter your anger about that some men are finally awaken to the charade which is marriage?. Something like "They don't want to do what I want them to do. To the hell with them. They are gay, woman-haters and cry babies. This shows a great immaturity on your behalf.

So please, tell us, what the hell are your trying to achieve by labelling us as a "gay" or as a "men who hate women"?

Anonymous said...

Guess that makes you a lesbian, huh? Miss quesstion lady? Or does your dismissive, bullshit only apply to men?

It's not offensive, anymore, laides.

It's not threatening, it's not annoying.. it's boring.

It's like being stuck in a room with nothing but an old TeeVee and Roseanne re-runs.

It's like Cheeetos for dinner every day.

We've seen the movie, hon.

You don't like men?

I don't like beets.

I don't eat them.

I don't go out and pay for beet juice.

If you're empowered, go do whatever it is that's gonna make you the centre of the fucking universe without pissing and moaning that some man is keeping you from your glittering prize, because that's not running your own life, that's making oh, poor me sounds until somebody gets the cookie jar down for you.

You want to buy a turkey baster full of spoonazz so you can pump out an infant to complete your outfit?

Great.

Stop waiting for your fucking Nobel prize. : )

Anonymous said...

Woman With A Question said...

Congratulations!--Duncan

Thanks a lot!

You are the 1,000,000th woman to accuse us men who do not worship the ground women slither upon to accuse us of being homosexual.--Duncan

No, I accuse men who hate women of being homosexuals.


Gee, "woman with a question", if you had bothered to have read and understood any of Duncan's, and the other posts by us men, you would understand that us men do NOT hate women at all, and nor does that makes us gay.

We are simply stating that we are fed up with the appalling behavior so many western feminist brain-washed women engage in.

Labeling men gay, is just typical pathetic feminist shaming language women like you, resort to when you cannot formulate an intelligent argument, or when you don't get your own way.

So, no, us men (me included) do not hate women at all, if anything I have 100% respect for decent, honest women. It's just that 40 years of feminism has brought out the worst in female behavior, and that's what us men hate, not just because you are a female. And you accuse us men of hating women?? What about the 24/7 bashing of men in the media and by feminists?? It's very hypocritical to accuse men of hate, when you women are just as bad, if not worse when it comes to hating men.

So "woman with a question", before you make stupid assumptions about men, ask yourself why men today have so much anger towards women, instead of making stupid comments that all us men must be gay, just because we don't worship narcissistic entitlement princesses like you.

Anonymous said...

I'm quite content being "exclusive" with the male species.

What makes you think we give a damn about your preferences?

It just appears that many of the men on this board feel the same way, LOL.

Well, you are boring. Is this the best you can do? To repeat with each new message of yours that we must be gay because we don't agree with you?

This is the third time - the third message, the third day- you say are saying or insinuating we are gay. Is your IQ so low that you have no other arguments? Are you the equivalent of a spoiled 6-year-old little girl who only says "You are gay! You are gay! Nyanyanyanya!"? How sad and pathetic.

Do you think we are changing our mind because you tell we are gay? This is a cheap trick ("shaming tactics") which only proves how pathetic you are and how lacking your arguments are. We don't give a damn what you think about us and, of course, we won't change our mind or actions only because someone tell us we are gay. But it is tedious to read you.

Oh, I know what you will answer to these new round of comments of ours. That we must be gay!!! How original of yours! The same argument who millions of women have used to manipulate men. But this doesn't work here. We have read this Web page: http://www.dumpyourwifenow.com/2007/03/01/the-anti-male-shaming-tactics-catalog/

In fact, I wish I was gay to avoid dealing with people like you. Homophobe, repetitive and stupid woman.

Woman With A Question said...

My comments regarding the gay tendencies were spot on. If you look at some of the other threads in this blog, you will see responses from men entertaining homosexuality. It's funny that no man called them into question. So therefore, there must be some "gayness" flying around here. I keep a blog myself. But I would not tolerate a lesbian promoting her preference on my blog. I especially would not allow male bashing from any woman without challenging her. That is likely due to the fact that I'm not jaded.

Hmh said...

Woman with a question...

"I could rant on for quite a bit but I'll keep it simple: most of the women around me have done everything possible to make themselves unattractive to me. I can't trust 'em on a single damn thing."

It's ok to rant IMO. I can take it. But in response to your issue, I won't deny that there are some toxic women out there. But you also said most which means there are a few who may meet your standard.

If this blog is a parody, it is a darn good one.

If it is sincere, it's pretty sad. Seriously.

Anonymous said...

don't give women your dna, money, kids, co-habitation and you cut the head off a venomous snake

zed said...

"I accuse men who hate women of being homosexuals."

Well, like the overused accusations of "misogyny", the hoax of "homophobia" is false as well. Maybe back in the 1950s an accusation of homosexuality would be something a man would worry about, but these are the days of "Queer eye for the straight guy." Liberalism has destroyed any stigma which used to be attached to homosexuality, and Polical Correctness demands that we "celebrate" it. So, another branch of liberal ideology has cut your ground out from under you.

The reality is that the men here have an attitude toward women that you should find much more threatening than "hate" - complete indifference. I don't "hate" stinging insects or poisonous reptiles, but I see no reason to hang around with them, either.

Xaver said...

Woman with a questions said... No, I accuse men who hate women of being homosexuals.

Misogynists at Eternal Bachelor hate women for various reasons but the most improbable one is homosexuality. Take Christopher, a well-known misogynist for example. Of all reasons and explanations for his misogyny never once was “an attraction towards men” suggested. In fact, such behavior repulses him, which is perfectly normal. Developing deep-seated hatred for women does not alter sexual preference whatsoever. How does homosexuality intrinsically relate to misogyny?

Woman with questions, if you expect answers then prepare to answer questions yourself. We want you to experience true equality. . .

Your accusation is typical, baseless and often hypocritical.

It is hypocritical when women who otherwise endorse homosexuality, use terms “homosexual” and “gay” to derogatorily mislabel straight men because these men disapprove or steer clear of women. I.e., “gay” shifts from being acceptable to an insult commonly aimed at informed or self-controlled men.

Know that some men ascend above their base animal impulses, if not for virtue’s sake, for self-preservation. When a lad has no use for women, he is more inclined to observe them objectively. How much more will a life-long bachelor keenly observe and report what he sees compared to some compromised pansy?

You addressing misogynists (a minority here) seems more like an obvious tactic around outright labeling us all homos. A passive-aggressive ploy is no more effective than any other shaming language or baseless insult though.

If some bachelors become misogynists, it is their prerogative, although a better mindset is to mistrust and avoid women but reserve hate exclusively for evil ones. Intense prolonged hatred for women (or anything else) is probably unhealthy but has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.

Anonymous said...

Woman with a question has written a fourth message (this is the fourth day, because she writes a message a day).

And which new argument does she bring to the table to answer all the comments we have made about her?

That we are gay!!!! What a surprise!!! What a new argument!

Congratulations, woman with a question (or should I say "woman with a fixed idea and no brain"?) to make a fool of yourself. Again.

It doesn't matter what we say. Woman with a question has a standard answer. I have studied a Master of Artificial Intelligence and I can assure you that even a robot has more ability to give meaningful answers and to adapt its answers to the questions that are asked to it.

This boring bitch. She thinks that, by labelling us as gay, she can shame us because we reject marriage. We are above this shaming tactics. Men here are not gay. But, if we were, so what? Do not gay people's arguments have merit? What has to do gayness with the arguments written here? Do you think this cheap trick will make us change our mind about marriage? This homophobe, boring bitch.

I imagine a typical day in the life of "woman with a question" when interacting with men:

- Hello, how are you?
- You are gay.
- Do you study or do you work?
- You have gay tendencies.
- What time is it?
- Your gay tendencies cannot be concealed.
- Please, I'm lost. Can you tell me where is Main Street?
- You are so queer!

Anonymous said...

I won't deny that there are some toxic women out there. But you also said most which means there are a few who may meet your standard.

Yeah, like you. A woman who insult men when they do no agree with her.

A woman whose only argument is only "you are gay".

Right.

Sorry, you don't meet our standards.

If this blog is a parody, it is a darn good one.

You are a parody of a woman. Wait a minute. I know what you are going to answer me: that I am gay. LOL!!!!

If it is sincere, it's pretty sad. Seriously.

You are sad. Your arguments (or shall I say "your only argument") have the IQ of a borderline person and the maturity of a six year old child.

Please, my friends, don't answer her argument about gayness. Don't try to explain her that we are not gay. I see some of you trying to engage in a rational discussion with this woman, but she is not interested in a logical debate like this. No matter what you say, she will keep repeating over and over again the same thing. In my country we say: "The most deaf person is the one who doesn't want to hear". Don't feed her troll tendencies. Let her alone. She is not worth it.

zed said...

"Please, my friends, don't answer her argument about gayness. Don't try to explain her that we are not gay."

The comments are not intended for her, but for the lurkers - both for those men not quite as far along in figuring out how to combat women's manipulative tricks, and for any women out there who are fed up with and embarassed about the excesses of other women.

Remember that women have had over 40 years to create their "narrative" - that all men are violent, that we are all evil oppressors, that all women are pure and innocent "victims" who would "never lie." It is through online discussions like this that men create and refine their own counter-narrative and come up with answers to women's manipulative tricks that other men can use when confronted with similar tactics in their personal lives.

Fidelbogen has provided one of the most useful and powerful conceptual evolutions for men - moving from anti-feminism to counter-feminism. Being "anti-" anything has a connotation of passive resistance. This has been one of men's biggenst mistakes - they have had a great deal of difficulty going on the offensive against women because most men did still like, respect, and want the approval of women up until recently.

Moving to a concept of counter action is the change from passive to active, and action has always been men's strong suit. Women have made as much progress in their war against men as they have because men have had no counter concepts to throw back at them when they spout their drivel or try to play their mind games, so the drivel tends to take root in a vacuum.

By reading discussions here by men who have learned from experience how to counter these mind games, those new to the gender war will now be armed to counter "well, you must be gay" with "well, you must be clueless."

Miguel said...

You don't have to answer her and if you do then you don't have to put a lot of effort into it. After all she's only a woman. She's just using a brain-dead, knee-jerk shaming tactic.

To answer: From what I've seen almost all homosexual men get along very well with women despite not being sexually attracted to them. So, thats not it cupcake. We hate you because you are a self-centered piece of shit with no redeeming human qualities that a heterosexual desires from a female other than to use your woman parts for his own gratification (that is, if you're attractive) and to put you back on the curb you were found on.

See? Its simple.

Woman With An Opinion said...

Boy (oops, does that offend),

Am I generating this much angst? If so, it's hilarious. For the one who is counting, this is probably my sixth post. Blogging and responding to blogs is a hobby of mine so I'll be here until I get bored or if I notice my comments aren't being posted. After all, this isn't the first time I've noticed people on edge when I challenge them.

But, if one wants a rational discussion with me you must first show that you are in fact rational. Otherwise, I see this as a joke. I've participated in many discussions and debates (although not about sexism) and don't mind the challenge. But again, my opponent must be worthy of a debate with me.

Anonymous said...

Women have to accuse men of being homosexuals (even though there is no evidence). It's a defense reaction to protect their fragile egos. It's about fear. The alternative is too terrifying. The single most important thing in a woman's life is maintaining her desirability. The multi-hundred billion dollar cosmetic, fashion, surgery, exercise, and media industries attest to that. If men no longer desire her, its game over. That's too terrifying a prospect to bear. Hence grasping at men being immature or gay or anything other than women are UNDESIRABLE anymore. Her worst fucking nightmare!

Anonymous said...

Well, woman with a question has a new message and...

...surprise, surprise...

...she is not basing all her so-called "argumentation" on us supposedly being gay!!!!

Wow! This is a shock! Are you feeling OK, woman with a question? Do you feel sick lately? Have you had a major brain stroke that has damaged the part of your "superior" female brain devoted to repeating like an automaton: "You are gay, You are gay"? LOL.

But, if one wants a rational discussion with me you must first show that you are in fact rational.

Too much to comment here.

Firstly, I have answered you with logical arguments before (as most of the other people here). The only person who has not used rational arguments has been you. You have prefered to use some worn-out and pathetic shaming language which everybody here knows. So you are the only one who must prove your ability to discuss rationally.

Second, about "you must first show that you are in fact rational". Well, we don't have to. We don't have to do anything women want us to do. This is the difference between us and the manginas you are used to deal with. You are used to make them prove their worth. We don't have to. I don't want to impress you. I don't want you to think I am worthwhile. In fact, I don't give a damn about what you think of me. (And if you want to think I am gay or irrational, this is your problem)

But again, my opponent must be worthy of a debate with me.

Oh! I think I am worthy of a debate with you, Ms. Full of Herself who Thinks She is a Superior Being. To be worthy of a debate with you, it is enough to repeat like a fool "I am not gay, I am not gay, I am not gay...".

Anonymous said...

We're not going to bother to "prove" anything to you, sweetcheeks - you sought us out, not the other way around. Unless and until you can get a law passed to force us to marry you, there's no reason we have to bother ourselves with you at all. Hang around whoring for attention all you like, it doesn't matter to us.

Anonymous said...

After all, this isn't the first time I've noticed people on edge when I challenge them.

I dunno, y'all. I feel pretty threatened, here.

Yep, my masculinity and intellect is definitely all hanging by a thread, up in here.

That, or that burger didn't agree with me.

It's difficult to tell.

Maybe if we're nice to her, she'll make us cookies.

I got a bitchin' cookie recipe.

Seriously.

Peanut butter from Heaven.

Lemme know if you want it, hon.

Wait... that's demeaning, ain't it?

Baking.

Meh... s'okay.

I can bake.

Miguel said...

"But, if one wants a rational discussion with me you must first show that you are in fact rational."

In a world that does everything but wipe her ass for her I guess its not too surprising that she sees us as the irrational ones.

Men, the government, the media, have been catering to this woman her entire life. Only now is she seeing the views of men that GENUINELY DISLIKE her. This is the first time she has met men that did not pucker up and kiss her holy arse any time she felt like they should.

Women have been waging a war on men for the past 40 years. Now rather than supporting you, men are now fighting against you. Like Zed said, counter-feminism is what we need now.

Hmh said...

Woman with a question:

Actually it's true, there are a few women who'd meet my standards. They're definitely in the minority, BUT nothing changes the truths that I'm trusting my life and sanity to a woman if I marry her. There are no remaining compulsions in law or in our culture to enforce female honour... so she can cheat on me with impunity, divorce me with impunity, take my children with impunity, infect me with STDs with impunity, jail me on lies... with impunity.

It's that simple.

No matter how bad what she does to me is, there is not one damn thing that I can legally do to punish her for bad behaviour, therefore there's nothing whatever to stop it.

A man would have to be a total innocent, deluded, horny to the point of indecency, or simply an idiot to buy into this shit deal called marriage these days.

I have to admit though, having most of the women around me looking terrible makes it a lot easier to not bother with them.

Anonymous said...

Dear women:

The bottom line is simple:

No matter what a woman does, or promises or states as her actual intentions, all she needs to do is say; "I changed my mind."

That is the antithesis of what sentient, educated human beings agree to be honourable behaviour.

The fact that men are sick and tired of putting their lives into the hands of people, as life mates, who cannot be held to their word is YOUR problem.

Not ours.

You don't want to go through this world alone?

Neither do we.

Take a mop to your act and we'll discuss it.

Anonymous said...

This "Woman with a question" is really childish and boring with her comments.To insinuate that every man here is gay is puerile.Can't you,if you're reading this,get it through your thick skull that more and more guys are becoming pig-sick with modern westernised women and their crazy media driven attitudes and beliefs.Look, if I were gay I certainly wouldn't be frightened to admit it - especially to you or the likes of you.I know some gay men in my social circle,and let me tell you that they're worth a thousand entitlement princesses.They're decent friendly people who could show some of these skanks a thing or two about manners and decorous behaviour.
And another thing - why are you wasting your time visiting these blogs?After all, I sure wouldn't waste my time reading feminist shit...

Anonymous said...

"After all, this isn't the first time I've noticed people on edge when I challenge them."

What a sad little life you have if the only way you can make yourself feel significant at all is to surf the net looking for people to annoy. Did you run out of babies to microwave? Lose track of where you left your Bratz dolls?

Hey, if it adds a bit of spark to your otherwise dismal existance to pretend that you are "challenging" anyone or anything, and putting them "on edge", go right ahead. (And women laugh at men for playing fantasy games - rolls eyes)

Does your mommy know you do this?

Woman With An Opinion said...

Interesting conversation. I've decided to taken on what appears to be the angriest lion thus far.

From Miguel:

"In a world that does everything but wipe her ass for her I guess its not too surprising that she sees us as the irrational ones."

You (and others) are irrational because you don't see the extreme behavior that goes on here. Allow me to translate. If you were a woman, one would assume that it was "that time of the month" everyday for you.

Men, the government, the media, have been catering to this woman her entire life. Only now is she seeing the views of men that GENUINELY DISLIKE her.--Miguell

Allow me first to say that I don't give a fig what you or the other men here think of me. What you should realize is I find it funny that all of you are getting so angry. If you want someone to take you seriously, make your case in a rational manner...even if you are challenging the behavior of myself or any other woman. I've listened to men complain about women but at the same time, express no hate. Anger yes, hate no. You know what, I listen and learn from him.

This is the first time she has met men that did not pucker up and kiss her holy arse any time she felt like they should.--Miguel

This is what you don't understand about me and many other women. A man who does anything I say and anytime I want (even when I'm wrong) has no backbone. Believe it or not, that type of man is undesirable to me (and probably to most women). If you believe most women want a spineless man, you don't know women at all.

Women have been waging a war on men for the past 40 years. Now rather than supporting you, men are now fighting against you. Like Zed said, counter-feminism is what we need now.--Miguel

Sigh... What am I to do with you. FYI Miguel I am NOT a fan of the feminist movement but I won't go into that since it won't make a difference with you (since you all genuinely dislike me, LOL). Counter-feminism is what we need, but the way in which you all are going about it is counter-productive. Women (and men alike) will do nothing but call you all out for being just as rabid as those you despise.

So my advice to you all, DON'T GET MARRIED. You will do nothing but continue to be miserable, make a woman miserable with your constant diatribe against her...and worst of all, you'll likely have miserable children. Then again, you just might be a match made in heaven with that rabid anti-male feminist two blogs down the road...Just what the two of you need, LOL.

So who is next to challenge me?

Anonymous said...

*shakes his head*

Perfect.

Men with no interest in the ragged remains of post-feminist women, the unrelenting vanity they wear like an ugly dress and the pail of piss they use for a personality, these days - reads these posts - logs on, declares that we have "challenged" her, and.. of course, since she has addressed the posts, here, with such slam dunk witticisms like "LOL", of course.. has "won".

You... really do think this is all about YOU, huh?

Please stick around. Please keep posting stuff like "LOL! OMG!" and "NO WAI! U R all ghey!".

It saves us a lot of time.

You're not a very good troll but you fit the suit like a treat. : )

Anonymous said...

"So my advice to you all, DON'T GET MARRIED."

Great idea! I've been practicing that principle for almost 40 years and had a much easier and more enjoyable life than my friends who did.

But, since the title of this blog is "Eternal Bachelor", and few men here had any intention at all of getting married long before you dropped in, why are you wasting bandwidth by being here?

Hmh said...

Right, woman with a question. I'm stepping up to the plate. Here's your challenge:

What have you to say concerning the current state of the law and its enforcement concerning relationships, reproductive rights, divorce and property settlement in divorce, and accusation of sexual misconduct or rape?

Xaver said...

Girlie with questions & erroneous opinions, for broader understanding of their views on homosexuality, refer to archives to an entry entitled King Queer from 2007. (Click the link dummy.) Ah that was back when Lisa was still around. As I recollect most bachelors appreciated and respected her. . .

With King Queer in perspective, reiterate your chief contention and its significance please. Did you have further questions or something worthwhile to debate?

Most blokes probably dismissed you as an imbecilic troll although Duncan in his benevolence left enough leeway (rope) for you to explain (hang) yourself, so continue.

Xaver said...

Girlie with nothing said… “You (and others) are irrational because you don't see the extreme behavior that goes on here.”

Your classification for extremism probably derives from political correctness. With dissenting viewpoints so frequently being mislabeled “extreme”, the term is relative to latest political fads.

What “extreme behavior” are you specifically referring to anyway? Support your assertions with examples and explanations. Then tie irrationality to ignoring behavior of others. Give us something to work with.

Girlie with nothing said… “If this blog is a parody, it is a darn good one.”

Anybody can say that and you gave no reference point. Good e.g., "you are a parody of a woman." - It’s well placed, funny and rings true. Bad e.g., "your blog is a darn good parody." – Flat liner - It’s typical, dull and incomplete. Wager feminists copied an MRA then you copied feminists and this is the result. That’s usually how it works and why it happens.

Girlie with nothing said… “You know what, I listen and learn from him.”

What did you learn from him? What distinguishes you from other clueless teenyboppers surfing the web?

Girlie with nothing said… “since you all genuinely dislike me, LOL Followed by “counter-feminism is what we need, but the way in which you all are going about it is counter-productive”

How is their way worse than your passive-aggressive hostilities? Are you a likeable woman? Practice what you preach, phony. You took what you perceived as the angriest lion and sought to provoke him further. That speaks volumes about your dislikeable character.

Girlie with nothing said… “So who is next to challenge me?”

What is there to challenge?

Your objective is clearly starting flame wars, despite claims to the contrary. For instance, you originally announced, “But again, my opponent must be worthy of a debate with me.” (Now say it again so you can swing full circle.) Followed by “I've decided to taken on what appears to be the angriest lion.” The angriest lion according to your logic is the most irrational lion, yet what did you choose? You decided to pull a 180 and challenge presumably the “least worthy” (smug elitist bitch) after dottily proclaiming vice versa.

Are you experiencing difficulty thinking straight already? Is everything swirling around in circles upstairs?

You boasted about debating skills yet cannot even reach first base without tripping all over yourself, repeatedly. This is not a debate or even an interesting interchange really. We have not yet even begun to debate and if you weren’t so vain, I’d pity you.

We will make an example of you in short order.

Anonymous said...

Allow me first to say that I don't give a fig what you or the other men here think of me.

I agree. I don't give a damn about what you think of me either. I won't touch you with a 3 feet stick so you can think I am gay, irrational or that I would make a bad husband or parent (all your claims about us).

If I answer you is because I want the other men here to read my comments. You are an easy target to show how a woman is, and how to answer her. So please guys, take note.

I wonder why you are so hysterical about us if you don't care so much in the first place. Any unresolved issues?

make your case in a rational manner...

I have done it and I have not received any answer of you. You only seem to nitpick what answers interest you (the angriest ones).

For example, how about my argument that the older the men get, the more reluctant are to marry? (This argument against your claim that we could change our point of view about bachelorhood). I backed up with a study. You didn't answer because you couldn't. So you pick and choose what goes well with your troll tendencies.

What about the arguments given here about how courts ass-rape husband in divorce proceedings? Can you disprove that?

Moreover, you don't seem so rational when you insult people who doesn't share your ideas. Or when you make funny arguments, implying that women value more looks than money, for example. Your credibility is so low.

A man who does anything I say and anytime I want (even when I'm wrong) has no backbone. Believe it or not, that type of man is undesirable to me (and probably to most women).

You underestimate the complexity (or, rather, the insanity) of women. Women want a men with backbone and, at the same time, that makes everything they want. Of course, this is impossible but they are not logical creatures (as you have proved once and again) but emotional ones. There is no way to win, because women want contradictory things and change their mind in a moment (like you). They are impossible to please. You will have to have the ability to read minds

So my advice to you all, DON'T GET MARRIED.

Well, this is the only thing we agree with you.

In fact, we are in a forum called "Eternal Bachelor". Do you have a clue about what our attitude about marriage is? Or you female superior brain cannot get that?

In fact, your first posts were about trying to convince us about marry. I repeat your words.

"what are you all doing to make marriage more desirable to both men and women?"

"If you were jaded by a number of women, then STOP CHOOSING THE WRONG ONES"


Maybe you thought that, although the blog was called "Eternal Bachelor", your brilliant (pun intended) logic will make us to change our attitude. LOL LOL

Now your change your position (a female trick to avoid admiting having been defeated in an argument) and your position is "Don't get married". So you have been unable to convince us about your arguments.

You are constantly changing the target to avoid being hit.

So who is next to challenge me?

You delude yourself thinking you are being challenged. The aim of most men here is not to challenge you (your points of view are childish, emotional and change every time). We are answering you because other men are reading us.

If you want to be challenged, what about saying something challenging in the first place? You only have used pathetic arguments and sad shaming language. You only have insulted, say absurdities, contradict yourself and changing your position in every post. You have avoided to answer the arguments you

But, if you want to change from now on, you can begin to disprove this:

- 50% of marriages end up in divorce. 70% of divorce proceedings is initiated by women

- The vast majority of divorces, women get assets from their husband and the custody of children. Men get the obligation of paying child support and, sometimes, alimony.

- 75% of women would marry for money (see http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article3166507.ece)

- 59% of wives would leave their husbands if they could afford it. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=508804&in_page_id=1770

Or this facts, that are found at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,240998,00.html

- Half of married women were not sure they would marry their husband again — with more than a third saying they would definitely not pick the same spouse.

- More than three-quarters of women also said they fantasize about a man other than their husband.


A man who marries without knowing these figures is ignorant. A man who marries knowing these figures is utterly insane. Here we are not ignorant nor insane.

Challenge that, instead of labelling us gay and woman-haters and being so amazed at your self-importance as a troll.

Anonymous said...

So my advice to you all, DON'T GET MARRIED. You will do nothing but continue to be miserable, make a woman miserable with your constant diatribe against her...and worst of all, you'll likely have miserable children.

So you mean that, in your opinion, we will be exactly like any ordinary woman (but with a penis)

What are you smoking?

Anonymous said...

"So my advice to you all, DON'T GET MARRIED. You will do nothing but continue to be miserable, make a woman miserable with your constant diatribe against her...and worst of all, you'll likely have miserable children."

I'm a little lost here -- the woman says don't get married and then goes on to talk about how we should live with a woman and make her life miserable -- and much better, have children... If someone is doing better than me (i.e., not rolling on the floor and laughing); perhaps you could help enlighten me with the rationality of the argument... oh well! It must be...how can women ever not make sense...

Anonymous said...

When all is said and done, it all boils down to - we will still be free, and women will still be alone.

Anonymous said...

"So my advice to you all, DON'T GET MARRIED."

Wow! Now there is a staggering insight right up there with the theory of Relativity and the disovery of germs!!!

"Eternal" n., means "forever"
"Bachelor" n., means "unmarried man"

"Eternal Bachelors" are men who intend to remain unmarried forever.

What do you do for an encore? Go onto golf blogs and say "So my advice to you all, PLAY LOTS OF GOLF."

Roger that, shortbus.

Woman With An Opinion said...

Hmh said...

Right, woman with a question. I'm stepping up to the plate. Here's your challenge:

What have you to say concerning the current state of the law and its enforcement concerning relationships, reproductive rights, divorce and property settlement in divorce, and accusation of sexual misconduct or rape?"

First I'd like to say that you all quite misunderstood my position. When I asked "what are you all doing to make marriage more desirable" was in response to the one sided angst here. If you don't want to get married, that is fine (you shouldn't). The point is you should respect a woman's right to exercise her right not to marry but have children if she so desires. Others have the right to the same lifestyle choices as you do. Your angst shows that you really do care what women are thinking and doing in spite of claiming not to. It says a lot when one takes the stance you all are taking then complain when women make the same choice.

but back to the "challenge"

Hmn-- Laws concerning relationships

What laws do you speak of specifically? Can you cite any laws where women have automatic and legal preferences over men? I will say that women usually get custody of children...no law that I know of states it must happen. But the reason is that most men don't pursue standard custody. Why?

Reproductive-- I support abortion for medical reasons only (without considering the opinions of others). But I also feel that a woman who leaves a father out of that decision should remember that when she wants to sue for child support. So I generally take a pro-life stance

Accusations of rape: If the accusations are true, then the rapist should get the fullest punishment possible (especially if a child is the victim). It should also be a crime to falsely accuse someone of rape.

Woman With An Opinion said...

To the anonymous poster who brought in stats (note I said stats, not facts). This is a perfect example of why you should not take these types of stats as gospel. For example:

- Half of married women were not sure they would marry their husband again — with more than a third saying they would definitely not pick the same spouse.

- More than three-quarters of women also said they fantasize about a man other than their husband.

Do you understand that in life, people go through dry periods? Everyone questions the decisions they made in life whether it's career, marriage, living arrangements, etc. That's all a part of the process we call life. Even the best marriages had periods where they wondered if they chose the right spouse. So these stats are in no way shocking. I would ask you, how many stats show that those men didn't want the divorce their wives initiated? Again, all of these stats should be taken with a grain of salt.

As for the fantasy part, why does that shock you? Don't you know that women have sexual desires just as men do? Are you also aware that women cheat on their husbands probably as much as men cheat on their wives? I'd say that both men and women need to "check themselves" on this issue. Still, all that you brought in doesn't make your case against marriage. It only makes the case for weathering the storms in marriage. It is clear that women AND men do not in many cases.

Next?

Anonymous said...

The point is you should respect a woman's right to exercise her right not to marry but have children if she so desires. Others have the right to the same lifestyle choices as you do.

Personally, I have no objection to a woman doing that as long as she bears all, or at least most, of the economic and social costs of doing so. It's a well known fact that about 70% of the prison population are the product of single mothers. If a woman wants the "ultimate lifestyle accesssory", everyone else in the culture is not bound to provide it for her, except to the extent that the government can confiscate earnings in order to fund her benefits and government handouts.

Anonymous said...

The point is you should respect a woman's right to exercise her right not to marry but have children if she so desires.

There is no such right and that is exactly my point. You can check the declaration of Human Rights, the declaration of Children's Rights. There is no such thing as "the right of a woman to have children".

Women, in their emotional thinking, confuse desires with rights. That is,
Women want to have children.
Women think everything they want is their right.
So women think that having children is their right.

The only right that exists it is the right of a child to have parents (I think it is in the Declaration of Children's Rights). And this is impossible if his mother is a single mom. A child needs a father and a mother: this is human nature. I know that feminism tries to deny that and tell only mothers are needed. But this is not true. A lie repeated one thousand times is not true.

So you are raising a child who won't have a father (so he will raise with big emotional problems and he will be more likely to end up in prison, poor, and have all kinds of problems in life, like studies show). Why? Only because you are so selfish that it is all about YOU.

See all the black gettos, with gangs of young men doing drugs and terrifying the population. These young men are raised by single moms, since single motherhood is rampant in the black community. A recipe for disaster.

Can't you think logically? Are you a womb with two legs instead of a rational and moral being that thinks about doing good instead of thinking with her reproductive organs?

You have no right to have a children. You can have him/her but you have the duty (yes, there are duties, not only rights Ms. Entitlement Princesses) of raising him properly. And a child without both parents is not raised properly. So if you want to have kids, you have to get a man. The same way, a man who wants to have kids is not entitled to adopt them without a woman. Feminism wants to change human nature and our society is crumbling out of that.

On the other hand, before discussing the stats you have answered, please let me tell you that you haven't answered many stats. So I want you to answer:

- 50% of marriages end up in divorce. 70% of divorce proceedings is initiated by women

- The vast majority of divorces, women get assets from their husband and the custody of children. Men get the obligation of paying child support and, sometimes, alimony.

- 75% of women would marry for money (see http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article3166507.ece)

- 59% of wives would leave their husbands if they could afford it. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=508804&in_page_id=1770


Now let discuss the stats you have answered.

- Half of married women were not sure they would marry their husband again — with more than a third saying they would definitely not pick the same spouse.

Even the best marriages had periods where they wondered if they chose the right spouse. So these stats are in no way shocking.


Well, it is half of all married women surveyed. If we assume what you say that this is only a stage in marriage (which could be possible), this seems that on average women are the half of their married time not sure about if they would marry again the same slave, oops!, I meant guy (if you think a bit, you will see that this is the only possibility. If 50% of married women answer a thing, this means that 50% of the time of the marriage women think this thing: this is basic statistics).

And they are 59% of the time sure that they would divorce if they could afford it.

So you marry and:

- You have 50% of chance of ending up divorced (being stripped of all your assets and children).

- If you remain married, 50% of the time your women loves you so much that she is not sure of marrying you again. Even more, 59% of the time, your woman wants to divorce you (but she doesn't have the money)

This is not very enticing for marriage. But anyway, anybody who wants to marry is free to do it. Everybody is entitled to do their life if he/she does not harm other and if he/she accepts the responsibility and the consequences.

I will say that women usually get custody of children...no law that I know of states it must happen. But the reason is that most men don't pursue standard custody.

This is outrageous and utterly nonsense. The reason that women get custody of the children is that judges award this custody to the mother more than 90% of cases when both parents ask for custody. Please check the stats and don't lie like this.

Anonymous said...

Wow. This is good and I agree wholeheartedly:

When all is said and done, it all boils down to - we will still be free, and women will still be alone.

Anonymous said...

Next?

How about next you put down your little list you're ticking off and stop acting like you're putting the whole western hemisphere into nice,little, manageble boxes that only you can appropriately label?

It makes you look silly, ma'am, with all due respect.

Anonymous said...

The point is you should respect a woman's right and yadda, yadda, yadda.

Again the female word, "should" (or the similar "must" or "have to").

You "should" avoid telling us what we "should". We are not your kids, nor your husband nor your boyfriend. We are aware that marriage is to be always hearing that we should do this, we must do that until we are fed up. But we are not married. We are "eternal bachelors".

Women are always telling us what we should do, with a tremendous self-assurance. They think they are very wise and know what is best for men (better than men themselves, although they don't know a shit about being a man).

Then, when they can't get what they want, all these "wise" and "independent" women whine like a four-year-old "Where all the men gone? They are immature for not wanting me. I will not have my full-fledged dolls. Bwwwwahhh. They should marry. They should marry. I want them to marry so they should marry. Mommy-state, please fix that for me". So they throw a tantrum by writing an article full of desperation. As the article says "[the unwillingness of men about dating women like the author] leaves a generation of single, thirtysomething women who are their natural (sic) mates bewildered. I am one of those women."

We "don't have to" do anything we don't want. Get used to it. Mr. "Should" Princess.

Hmh said...

My take on the debate...

You'll notice in my challenge that I specifically mentioned "laws and their enforcement".

There are indeed a couple of laws in New Zealand where women receive preferential treatment because of their gender. The first is Assault On A Female, which carries twice the penalty of Common Assault. Only a man can be charged with this offence.

The second law is the one concerning scientific proof of parentage. The mother may submit the child for a DNA test to confirm that it hasn't been swapped at the hospital. The father has no legal right to any such test. He can only have it done if the mother consents... what's the chance of that happening if she knows or suspects that the child is illegitimate?

Abortion: there is no law requiring the father's consent, or even knowledge of the pregnancy.

Domestic Violence: the law specifically states, repeatedly, that it's men attacking women. The consequence of this is that something called an Emergency Ex-Parte Protection order may be called by a woman against a man, without his knowledge or him being given any chance to contest it. It can be done with a phone call and the legal papers delivered in less than two hours. Once the papers have arrived, the police will turn the man away from the woman on threat of arrest for trespass... even if it's his wife, it's his house and his kids are there. No trial, no proof, no witnesses, no jury. I know a guy who this has happened to. Thankfully he was young, he didn't have kids, and wasn't married... but she sure kept all his stuff.

Another point about domestic violence: it's no longer defined as to what is an act of violence against a spouse. A man I know was divorced recently and (during an argument), pushed his wife. Once. No mention of whether she provoked him or put him into a corner. He's now getting done for DV. Counselling (an hour of being yelled at by a geek) and supervision. Of course it's stuffed any chance of primary custody of his son.

Then there's legal paternal duties: the law regards relationships where she and he live together for two years as effectively a marriage, complete with legal requirements for the disposal of property and custody of children. What many men in New Zealand don't yet know - and thankfully many women haven't acted on yet - is that the law makes no distinction between children born during the common-law marriage, and children that the woman brought into it, children born or conceived before she met her common-law husband. Translation: if he lives with her for long enough, he can be had for child support for children that even the courts recognise as not being his issue, until that child's 18th birthday. No refunds.

As to the law's enforcement... this is where sexist bias starts becoming clear. Just in the last few days we had a case where a 22-year-old woman gave birth to a child after becoming pregnant after her first sexual encounter. She gave birth in a toilet, killed the baby, and threw it out of a third floor window. She was initially sentenced to 130 hours community work and a year's supervision, on the charge of infanticide. She then lost her work visa and returned to Samoa, before completing any of it... and the High Court simply cancelled the sentence. This is an unusual example, but infanticide (especially for young, single mothers) has a long history of being treated lightly.

Contrast this with what happens when a father attacks his children, at any age, in any western country. Double standards anyone?

Then there's the false rape claim business. New Zealand doesn't appear to have it quite as bad as the US and UK does, but the basics are the same: a rape claim can be filed without physical evidence of any kind or witnesses. There's only one charge for making a false allegation or report to police (it's named exactly that), and it carries a maximum penalty of three months or a fine not exceeding $2000. Contrast this with the max for rape: 20 years in a prison where he's quite likely to get raped repeatedly.

All it takes is an angry ex who decides to go the distance and use the law as a weapon, and there are basically no limits on how much damage she can inflict on his life.

Your question about men not pursuing custody would appear to be valid, on the surface. There's usually a bit more to it than that though. The world's filled with divorced men who spent their life savings in the courts trying to win custody, only to fail. Again, this one's down to enforcement, i.e. the judge's decision. To cite another recent shocker, there was a custody dispute between Parent A and Parent B. They'd met at a nightclub, had a one night stand, and there was a child as a result. Parent A was running a successful business, employed forty people, had two parking tickets. Parent B was unemployed, unqualified, had multiple convictions for assault, theft, shoplifting, drug possession, and so on. Who did the judge give primary custody to? Why - Parent B, of course, because B was the mother and as everyone knows Mothers Are Best. The bias in courts is so strong that men are simply weighing the odds and their mounting legal bills and are giving up. Even these guys own lawyers are telling them it's a waste of time pursuing it.

So... what we have here are some very serious reasons that men should avoid women, marriage and fatherhood, simply for their personal safety.

Hands up every human being who'd like their kids taken from them when they've done nothing wrong? No? Didn't think so.

Anonymous said...

Woman with a nitpicking argument.

What about before saying "Next", don't you try to answer the arguments you haven't answers.

What about foreign women (yes, they are golddiggers but western women are too, as you have admitted). And they are nicer than WW. You haven't answered about this.

But about the statistics you don't want to answer.
- 75% of women would marry for money (see http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article3166507.ece)

- 59% of wives would leave their husbands if they could afford it. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=508804&in_page_id=1770

What about your claim that "Even when a woman marries a less attractive older man for money...you can believe she has a younger more attractive man on the side."?

Answer that, if you can. It is easy to pick the arguments you can discuss.

Anonymous said...

Woman with a nitpicking argument.

What about before saying "Next", don't you try to answer the arguments you haven't answers.

What about foreign women (yes, they are golddiggers but western women are too, as you have admitted). And they are nicer than WW. You haven't answered about this.

But about the statistics you don't want to answer.
- 75% of women would marry for money (see http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article3166507.ece)

- 59% of wives would leave their husbands if they could afford it. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=508804&in_page_id=1770

What about your claim that "Even when a woman marries a less attractive older man for money...you can believe she has a younger more attractive man on the side."?

Answer that, if you can. It is easy to pick the arguments you can discuss.

Anarchiste said...

Woman with a question said:
"No, I accuse men who hate women of being homosexuals"

The lady just wants to be reassured that only gay males could possibly be in the disposition we are. She certainly knows that only 3% of the entire male population is gay. If only 3% of men are against marriage, then she still can hope to find a sucker to suck blood from.

Xaver said...

Girlie with nothing said..."The point is you should respect a woman's right to exercise her right not to marry but have children if she so desires."

No, we should do the opposite. Single mothers are in fact responsible for numerous societal ills. Let’s start with a couple stats from the CDC: I. “90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.” II. “85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.” Homeless, runaway children with behavioral disorders strain society. Bachelorhood per se bothers nobody except maybe spinsters looking for suckers.

This is an excellent example of her ignorance. E.g., “RESPECT her right NOT TO MARRY but HAVE CHILDREN if she DESIRES.” She claims to oppose feminism yet has such ignorant feministic views. . .

Girlie with nothing said... “Again, all of these stats should be taken with a grain of salt.”

No amount of salt will cover the bitter taste of defeat from the boatload of stats regarding single motherhood. (See right through that fallacious “grain of salt” nonsense too and if the other fellow doesn’t set her straight, I will. Likewise, the former copout “opponent must be worthy” was ‘rationalization’ for dodging difficult arguments in the future. All those humorous contradictions do nothing to boost credibility either.)

Girlie with nothing said..."Others have the right to the same lifestyle choices as you do.". . .“It says a lot when one takes the stance you all are taking then complain when women make the same choice.”

We criticize single women when they moan and complain about their regrettable spinsterhood CHOICE, particularly when they blame and belittle single men in articles.

Single motherhood though is not equivalent to bachelorhood. Unlike with single mothers, our choice is not harmful to children, society or a burden on taxpayers.

Actually, we are taxpayers and single mums are often leeches on welfare. Many women have children solely for milking the system but welfare should exist as “temporary help” not a means to fund women’s selfish lifestyle choice on taxpayers’ back.

Much worse, children raised by single mothers are disproportionally more likely to become criminals, murders, rapists, convicts, dysfunctional etc., compared to children raised by biological parents. Furthermore, girls raised by single mothers are much likelier to become single mothers themselves, which perpetuates the problem. III. “Sara McLanahan found that white and black girls growing up in single-parent homes are 111 percent more likely to bear children as teenagers, 164 percent more likely to have a child out of marriage, and – if they do marry – their marriages are 92 percent more likely to dissolve compared to their counterparts with married parents.”

IV. “The Progressive Policy Institute, the research arm of the Democratic Leadership Council reports that, ‘the relationship between crime and one-parent families’ is ‘so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low-income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature.’"

That’s enough for now.

I thank girlie with nothing, who actually gave us something by furnishing EB with prime examples of how ignorant and disingenuous many women are on various subjects. . . I’d prefer however to focus on one thing at a time rather than “subject hop” which she does to incite chaos, ignore facts and avoid facing lost arguments.

Woman With An Opinion said...

Anonymous said...

Woman with a nitpicking argument.


What about foreign women (yes, they are golddiggers but western women are too, as you have admitted). And they are nicer than WW. You haven't answered about this.

But about the statistics you don't want to answer.


What about your claim that "Even when a woman marries a less attractive older man for money...you can believe she has a younger more attractive man on the side."?

Answer that, if you can. It is easy to pick the arguments you can discuss."--Frustrated Male

First I'd like to say that you must read my response again because you are applying opinions to me that were not expressed. I never stated that western women were gold diggers. I said that when a woman marries an older man for money, she probably has a younger more attractive man on the side. That statement is different from the erroneous belief that ALL Western Women marry for money and cheat on their husbands. See the difference?

As for foreign women...allow me to offer you and all other bachelors a piece of advice (take it or leave it):

I have a co-worker who recently married a much younger foreign woman. In the past, he worked overtime to support her and her family. You know something? He has not heard from her in quite some time (she is still in her country). She used him and now he is devastated. All she wanted was a green card. Good thing she hasn't gotten it yet. Whatever the case, I feel very sorry for him.

Of course there are some very sincere foreign women out there. If you find one, that's wonderful. But, don't think that because she is not western she will somehow be a better woman for you.

If a man desires marriage, the best thing for him to do is find a woman who is near or in the same economic class that he's in. In other words, make sure she doesn't need your money. If you insist on someone with a lot less than you have, do what you can to protect your assets.

Hmn,

You brought in information about legalities in New Zealand...isn't that a country that banned a British national because she was overweight? So I'm not surprised that ridiculous gender biased laws are on the books (if in fact they are as clear as you claim).

I live in the United States. Please bring in examples of laws that favor women over men.

Woman With An Opinion said...

"The only right that exists it is the right of a child to have parents (I think it is in the Declaration of Children's Rights). And this is impossible if his mother is a single mom. A child needs a father and a mother: this is human nature. I know that feminism tries to deny that and tell only mothers are needed. But this is not true. A lie repeated one thousand times is not true." anonymous man

Believe it or not, I agree that the best environment for a child is with his/her mother AND father. In a perfect world, that would be the case. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. But back to the point. A woman has a right to have a child whether she is married or single. No international and I should add "unsovereign" entity has the right to interfere with that.

I also agree that children in single parent homes are at greater risk for social and economic negatives. At the same time, the parts of the world that breed terrorism (Middle East) are completely patriarchal societies. Is there a connection?

bunner said...

"Others have the right to the same lifestyle choices as you do."

Agreed.

No argument.

Whip out your checkbook and go apesnot, sis.

YOUR checkbook.

Anonymous said...

Yes, foreign women can be golddiggers but western women can be golddiggers too, as you have admitted several times.

But foreign women are more nice than western women so I don't think anybody would want to marry an entitlement western bitch.

Although the best is to remain bachelor. If it flies, floats or fucks it is better to rent.


A woman has a right to have a child whether she is married or single.

Why? Do you think that something is true because you are repeating it? You have not given any reason to back up your statement. It is only "because I say so"?

After telling what is "true love", what is "true singleness", what are "true ages to be married", you also know what are "true rights". Have you any connection with God because you are female? Or can you justify your claims like the mere mortals?

There is no such right and you know it. The right is of a child to have a father or a mother.

"I Want it! I want it! So it is my right!!!!", like a spoiled six-year-old

Anonymous said...

I never stated that western women were gold diggers.

But I do:

75% of women would marry for money (see http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article3166507.ece)

The remaining 25% probably was ashamed to admit their true feelings.

I said that when a woman marries an older man for money, she probably has a younger more attractive man on the side.

And you admit that a young woman can love an older man for reasons different than money? Please answer yes o no.

I thought your argument was: rush to marriage, because women love young men and older men are only loved by his money.

By the way, you are the best argument to be single forever. Imagine having to stand something like you for a whole lifetime.

Anonymous said...

I have a co-worker who recently married a much younger foreign woman. In the past, he worked overtime to support her and her family.

The same as with a Western Woman.
Please go on.

You know something? He has not heard from her in quite some time (she is still in her country). She used him and now he is devastated. All she wanted was a green card.

So what? He is broken hearted and this is tough. But Western women also break hearts (70% of divorces initiated by women, a rate far higher than foreign women).

All she wanted was a green card. Agreed. A Western woman would have been far more expensive. A Western women would have wanted the house, the car and being paid for decades (alimony, child support), while claiming being a victim.

So it seems to me that foreign women are more affordable (besides slimer, prettier, younger and not so bitchy). Although it is better to be single and to devote to the noble sport of sport-fucking (sooner, an olympic sport).

Is it your best argument against foreign women? A single case (no stats) which, furthermore, ended up best than with Western women. Because it seems a rather pathetic argument to me.

Woman With An Opinion said...

A woman has a right to have a child whether she is married or single.

Why? Do you think that something is true because you are repeating it? You have not given any reason to back up your statement. It is only "because I say so"?

Think for a moment about the lack of logic in your argument. Example: is there a written statute stating a man has the right to be single? Now ask yourself, does a man have the right to be single? I'd say yes. Now I will say again that a woman has the right to have children. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Woman With An Opinion said...

Is it your best argument against foreign women? A single case (no stats) which, furthermore, ended up best than with Western women. Because it seems a rather pathetic argument to me.--Absolutely pathetic

Let me put it this way. If you want to marry a foreign woman, go right ahead. All I can say is, I feel sorry for any foreign wife you get.

Xaver said...

Consider the following then get back to us about respecting single mothers:

--Sixty three percent of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. -- U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census.

--Ninety percent of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. (Repeated.)

--Eighty five percent of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. (Repeated) -- Center for Disease Control.

--Eighty percent of rapists motivated by displaced anger come from fatherless homes. -- Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 403-26.

--Seventy one percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. -- National Principals Assoc. Report on the State of High Schools.

--Eighty five percent of all youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. -- Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992.

-- “These statistics translate to mean that children from fatherless homes are: five times more likely to commit suicide -- 32 times more likely to run away -- 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders -- 14 times more likely to commit rape -- nine times more likely to drop out of high school -
- 20 times more likely to end up in prison. Most statistics are from a 1999 report of the Department of Health and Human Services. “

-- “In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families." Source: David A. Brent, (et. al.) "Post-traumatic Stress Disorders in Peers of Adolescent Suicide Victims: Predisposing Factors and Phenomenology." Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 34 (1995): 209-215.”

-- “Research published in the journal Child Abuse and Neglect found that a girl is seven times more likely to be molested by a stepfather than a biological father. The study goes on to report that when biological fathers did molest their young daughters, a mother was not residing in the home who could protect the child. What is more, the nature of sexual abuse by stepfathers was more severe than by biological fathers . . . --Michael Gordon, “The Family Environment of Sexual Abuse: A Comparison of Natal and Stepfather Abuse,” Child Abuse and Neglect, 13 (1985): 121-130.)

-- “According to The liberal Center for Law and Social Policy, a child advocacy organization, ‘Most researchers now agree that…studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married biological parents’… Mary Parke, ‘Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?’” -- Center for Law and Social Policy Brief, May 2003, p. 1. (Duh.)
-----------------------------------

There is more evidence but that should suffice. Based on those stats, other crimes and problems associated with children raised by single mothers are deductive.

Anybody with any common sense knows that both married biological parents are vital for raising children. Intentionally robbing children of their biological fathers to fulfill the self-indulgent impulses of women is child-abuse and immoral. If single mothers do happen to find a man desperate enough to marry, alas stepfathers are about seven times more likely to molest (more severely too) than biological fathers are.

Hence, logic dictates single motherhood should be discouraged and disrespected for the betterment of society. Taking steps to restore the tried-and-true traditional family unit is the sane and logical direction for restoring civilized society.

She complained before about so many men incarcerated yet ironically her level of thinking is largely responsible.

Single women should not have a right to pop out child after child to the detriment of others. Forcing responsible others to pay for a woman’s promiscuousness is unconstitutional tyranny.

Observe that girl with an opinion acknowledges the negative effects of single motherhood yet irrationally maintains, “It’s a right you should respect.” Spouting, “it’s not a perfect world” amounts to obscure gobbledygook (nothing) and is not valid justification for anything, Ms. rationality.

There is no rational reason to respect single mothers, so logical fallacy is her only retreat. There is also no comparison between bachelorhood and single motherhood, which was her original position.

In conclusion, asserting single motherhood is a right we should respect, whilst simultaneously acknowledging its horrific ills, is an absurdity teetering on retardation.

Hmh said...

Hiya, Woman with an Opinion. Can you start spelling my handle right please??

Yep, quite true. NZ did indeed ban a British female national for being too fat. Rather an odd decision as was thought locally at the time, given a quick look at who else makes it in. However. Since you ask about USA-specific laws favoring women, really, I can't give you any aside from VAWA, exemption from the draft, and imputed income. Nor do I have to. I don't live in the States and so its laws and culture are of as much interest to me as New Zealand's laws must be to you.

The real bias toward women is in the way that the laws are interpereted and used. This is largely true across the western world, not just the States. Most men today know full well that any accusation of paedophilia, rape, child abuse or violence (particularly against women or children) will carry serious consequences, even if the charge is unfounded. Nearly all men also know that any hearing in a family or divorce court will naturally tend to swing toward benefiting the woman, particularly if she can paint the man as some kind of a villian.

Finally - and I want you to listen to this - I don't think that there is even one man left in the western world who hasn't had a family member or a friend put through the wringer. I personally know:

- a man whose wife lied about him during divorce, to take most of his money, his home, and turned him into a 14% dad

- an uncle whose wife divorced him and distanced him totally from his children, to the point where he doesn't know if his own kids are alive or dead

- a man whose first live-in girlfriend called the cops, gave them a song and dance about DV, and had him turned away from his flat and all his possessions by uniformed officers who told him that he was lucky to not be arrested

- a man whose ex-wife has blatantly broken a court order about access to his son, and has taken the child to the far end of the country without any interference whatever from the law. In the meantime, he's in debt up to his eyeballs paying lawyers bills, trying to sort it all out.

This isn't stuff read in some dry book in a library, headlines in a newspaper or something found on the Net. These are people who I personally know. I get to see the consequences first hand.

If you doubt my premise, that most men these days can recite a similar list, I suggest that you start asking around in the real world.

Xaver said...

Woman with an opinion said...“This is a perfect example of why you should not take these types of stats as gospel. For example:

- Half of married women were not sure they would marry their husband again — with more than a third saying they would definitely not pick the same spouse.

- More than three-quarters of women also said they fantasize about a man other than their husband.


Notice how she addressed the polls only. Her example served as a red herring to draw attention from his main points. Next, based on her fabricated interpretation of those two polls, she concludes, “All these stats should be taken with a grain of salt.” A combo of logical fallacies “hasty generalization” and possibly “unwarranted extrapolation” come to mind.

She overly extended her analysis of those two polls in order to evade and disregard key statistics. When feministic women behave like snakes, as they often do; there is a degree of satisfaction and justice in exposing them.

The poll she ignored, displaying women willing to marry for money, indicates and underlines that these women and god knows how many more are gold diggers.

I understand the colossal difference between “questioning decisions” and acting out those immoral urges. However, in reality, women have the luxury of fulfilling their wicked impulses with virtual impunity compared to men.

Instead of taking these polls and stats with only a grain of salt, I will take them with relevant statistical fact and judicial reality explained by Hmh (nice job). Add a little first-hand and anecdotal evidence to the mix and the prospect of getting married looks suicidal. Do not forget the fact that divorced fathers are only about ten times more likely to commit suicide than divorced mothers are.

The following may be of interest to anyone who hasn’t already read it:

Can Abolishing Sole Custody Curb Divorce? By Dianna Thompson and Glenn Sacks.

"I walk a tightrope every day, just so I can stay a part of my young daughter's life," says Jerry, a 38 year-old engineer from San Diego, California. "If I have an argument with my wife, she spreads the divorce papers out on the living room table and begins to fill them out. There's no compromising with her--I either accept her decisions or she threatens to divorce me. If she does, she'll get custody of my little girl and I doubt she'll even let me see her, much less play an active role in raising her."

Research shows that Jerry's problem is a common one . According to a study of 46,000 divorces conducted by economists Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen, most divorces are initiated by women, and their primary motive in terminating a struggling marriage is to gain sole custody of their children.

Both Jerry and his wife know the grim fate that often awaits a divorcing dad. Courts rarely grant sole custody or even joint physical custody to fathers, and standard visitation is just a few days a month. Visitation interference is a major problem for divorced dads. According to research conducted by Joan Berlin Kelly, author of Surviving the Break-up, 50 percent of mothers "see no value in the father's continued contact with his children after a divorce." This was echoed by the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry report "Frequency of Visitation by Divorced Fathers," which noted that "40 percent of mothers reported that they had interfered with the noncustodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish their ex-spouse.".

Jerry knows that mothers also frequently move their children hundreds or thousands of miles away from their fathers, and that many divorced dads find themselves trapped in a vicious cycle--when their exes interfere with their visitation or move away, a divorced dad's only recourse is to go back to court. Yet many struggle under the weight of crushing child support obligations and are unable to afford legal representation.

A solution to the problem lies in the two shared parenting bills now being considered by the New York legislatures. Assembly Bill A3673, sponsored by David Sidikman (D-Nassau County), and Senate Bill S2818, sponsored by Owen Johnson (R-Suffolk County) create equality between divorcing couples by replacing the option of sole physical custody, which occurs in the vast majority of custody cases, with the presumption of joint custody. Divorcing parents would be expected to create and follow a shared parenting plan, and sole custody would be awarded to a parent only if he or she can prove that joint custody would be detrimental to the child. Under these bills children would gain from the ongoing emotional, physical, and financial support of both parents that shared parenting allows. And once couples understand that they will be unable to drive the other parent out of their children's lives, cooperation between divorced parents rises markedly. In fact, as the Brinig/Allen research from American Law and Economics Review indicates, the presumption of joint physical custody may even serve to keep some marriages together. "The problem is that my wife knows that the family court system puts her in complete control," Jerry says. "She feels she has nothing to lose in a divorce, so she has no incentive to work our problems out. But I'll lose the most important thing in the world to me--my little girl.". The reality is that, in most divorces, everybody loses--particularly children. Given the tremendous social cost of divorce and fatherlessness--the huge increases in juvenile crime, youth suicide, school dropouts and a wide assortment of social ills--keeping marriages together should be a national priority. Changing the way custody is determined is the first step. This column appeared in similar form in the New York Sun (10/2/02). Glenn Sacks writes about gender issues from the male perspective. ___________________________________

My uncle is unfortunately in the same predicament as men above.

Divorce seems the main topic now, although our position is already impeccable. In view of all the good data brought forth, our “justification” for bachelorhood is exceedingly rational, isn’t it? Only ignoramuses are unaware that women generally gain custody of children in divorces for biased reasons.

Most of what woman with opinions says amounts to chatter, nothing more. The “points” she makes are easy to debunk because they are usually fabrications. That is, she makes things up as she fumbles from topic to topic. This of course is self-evident, except probably not to her.

Another benefit of debunking her twaddle is that it supplies new young, ignorant bachelors with facts and data that we normally take for granted.

Keep up the good work eternal bachelors.

Anonymous said...

Women want the benefits but not the duties.

I say that is pretty smart thinking.

Men must de the same. They really must.

So, everyone has plenty of rights and no obligation. Swings!

Woman With An Opinion said...

hmh,

"If you doubt my premise, that most men these days can recite a similar list, I suggest that you start asking around in the real world."

I don't doubt your premises nor do I need to ask men about this. I have an older brother with similar issues. I must admit that he brought all of this on himself by choosing psychobitches whom he thought he could string around with no consequences. All of his years of getting over on women finally caught up with him. Still, it's different when it's a member of your family. He wronged so many women now he is being taken to the cleaners. I don't feel sorry for the women he scorned but I do feel for my bother. My point is that sometimes (note, I didn't say ALL the time) men scorn women and then he reaps what he...

It is also unfair to paint all women with that brush.

Anonymous said...

A woman has a right to have a child whether she is married or single.

Think for a moment about the lack of logic in your argument.


There is no lack of logic in my argument. I am going to prove this below. But your argument is the one which has no logic. And I am going to prove that below.

I want to prove this not because I want you to agree with me. You have shown over and over again you are immune to logic and rational arguments. Your thinking is emotional thinking (like most women) so any logic I write here is not working with you (you recur to flaky arguments, "ad hominem" arguments , emotional cheap tricks and shaming language).

I will prove this because they are people who are reading this. It's for you, folks.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

I see it and it is wrong. I will explain next.

Example: is there a written statute stating a man has the right to be single?

No. Of course, there is not. But I do not think this kind of rights are written. In fact rights are based on natural ethics, that is,

You are entitled to do whatever you want unless you harm other people.

The second part of this principle is the Golden Rule. I quote from Wikipedia:

The ethic of reciprocity or "The Golden Rule" is a fundamental moral principle which simply means "TREAT OTHERS AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED" It is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of HUMAN RIGHTS. Principal philosophers and religious figures have stated it in different ways. (see more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity)

Rights are based on the golden rule. You have the right to be single because, by being single, you do not harm others. But by, being a single mom, you do harm other people. You harm your future children who will grow without a father.

I have no space here to explain the GREAT HARM a child receives from being fatherless. If you want to see how you can harm your kid by being a single mom, please see here for a summary of scientific studies about fatherless kids.

So back to the Golden Rule, you are not entitled to be single mom because you are harming your child. You are not treating your child the way you would like to be treated. Nobody wants to grow up without a father. Nobody wants to be treated that way. So the Golden Rule applies and you have no right to be single mom. But you have the right of being single, because you are not harming any child.

Of course, for women like you, this is not a valid argument because they don't follow the Golden Rule. It's all about about "ME!ME!ME! I want you so it is my right! I do not give a damn about ethics and the rest of the world because my womb is screaming and I am so immature that I can't think about curbing my reproductive instincts because of ethics"

Anonymous said...

Let me put it this way. If you want to marry a foreign woman, go right ahead. All I can say is, I feel sorry for any foreign wife you get.

Hahaha! What makes you think I give a damn about your opinion of me? What makes you think you can hurt me with such an emotional cheap trick?

This in the catalog of shaming language (see here) and is very predictable.

And, dear, I have repeated about ten times but, knowing that you are very dumb, I will do it again: "I don't want to get married. Not with a Western woman not with a foreign woman". Marriage is slavery for men. But, with foreign women, the master is nicer, not so demanding, not so fatty and bitchy. Anyway, she is a master and he is a slave. So this is why I am an eternal bachelor.

Anyway, I have wasted a lot of space for your shaming language. Back to the point. Thank you for proving my point that you have no arguments about foreign women so you have to recur to personal attacks.

Anonymous said...

“At the same time, the parts of the world that breed terrorism (Middle East) are completely patriarchal societies. Is there a connection”?

A very ignorant statement indeed! So in other words the insinuation would be that all societies that are or were patriarchal, which up until about 40 years ago before real men foolishly allowed women or feminist men in to power they were! Well, then that would indicate that all non-Middle Eastern societies should have been havens of terrorism as well! Why is that not the case?

“Believe it or not, I agree that the best environment for a child is with his/her mother AND father. In a perfect world, that would be the case. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. But back to the point. A woman has a right to have a child whether she is married or single. No international and I should add "unsovereign" entity has the right to interfere with that”.

We don’t believe it sweetheart! The “perfect world” argument is just a justification for your hard core, left wing feminist, single parent, lesbian man hating views, which, for some strange reason you try to convince us that you do not have?

As far as foreign non-western women go, I suppose life with any women, foreign or otherwise will never be easy, however, despite the possibility that she is only in it for the citizenship, your chances of a lasting marriage are still far better with a non-western women than with any western women!

Do not give up entirely on having a family if you so desire, however, marry a non-western girl, and if at all possible stay in her country of origin, if you bring her back to your home land she will almost certainly be corrupted by polluted western standards. This happened to a good friend of mine; he had met and married a girl from Columbia, they then moved to Alicante Spain due to his job, a very fast paced party city. Within a few years his bride had turned in to your typical “modern” western women, tattoos, pierced body parts, coming home drunk in late hours of the night, and then she left him. This bloke was as solid as they come, good job, nice guy, always treated her well. They are still married on paper, although she now resides in the U.S. illegally! Despite this, I still feel that the foreign bride route is a better way to go for men who desire a family. Yes, it’s a gamble! But far less of one than with your typical western women!

For those of you who do not want a family, well, just ignore the previous paragraph and go ahead and shag anything (Using protection of course) that comes your way!

Anonymous said...

I have an older brother with similar issues. I must admit that he brought all of this on himself by choosing psychobitches

It is also unfair to paint all women with that brush.


The problem is the vast majority of women can be painted with the same brush. They want to marry and have babies. OK. They are women who don't want babies. What percentage of women is? 1%?2%?

When somebody tells something negative about women, women always complain "I am not this way. Not all women are this way". At the same time, women whine and whine "All men are the same".

Women want babies and are biologically predetermined to get the best provider. This is why 75% of women would marry for money (see http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article3166507.ece). 25% must be ashamed to accept that they are golddiggers.

Psycobitches are the best women in the world, because you see them from a mile away. You know that they are psycobitches so you can avoid them and avoid being damaged.

Nice girls are the worst women. The golden rule of women is. "A woman is a nice woman until being a nice woman goes against her interests". I have seen so many nice girls (from 20 to 35 y.o.) degenerate into monsters when they are not given what they want (for example, marriage and kids). The problem with nice girls is that you don't see this coming and, when it happens, it can harm you greatly.

Most divorced women began by being sweet nice girlfriends.

Please see "The Predatory Female" and the chamaleon effect. A woman would fake anything to land the man she wants. This is an unconscious behaviour and the woman doesn't do it consciously. This is why so many men complain that women change after marriage.

Xaver said...

Woman with an opinion said...“Let me put it this way. If you want to marry a foreign woman, go right ahead. All I can say is, I feel sorry for any foreign wife you get.”

Yep, she abandoned another argument and resorted to pettiness. The subject wasn’t our hypothetical treatment of foreign wives. The argument was foreign wives vs. western wives and she clearly surrendered.

Woman with an opinion, know that our hostility towards the likes of you does not reciprocate with decent women. Many bachelors would make competent fathers and caring husbands to carefully chosen foreign ladies. Keep it in mind before feeling sorry for imaginary future wives and children. Feel sorry instead for real children and fathers victimized by self-absorbed single mothers.

Woman with an opinion said...“Now I will say again that a woman has the right to have children.”

Women have the right to bear children responsibly, not recklessly. You blindly suggest single women have inalienable rights to children out of wedlock, to force others to maintain single mother's welfare and then endure the disastrous ramifications.

There are no such rights, girlie. The word “right” is becoming a political catchphrase for duping easily brainwashed people. These shameless single mothers needlessly wreak so much havoc because westerners are too damn stupid and politically correct to impose some basic standards. Rather than shame single mothers who abuse their rights (children) this twisted society elevates single moms to “victims.” Worse, that’s merely the phrase used to excuse their wicked behavior. Under normal circumstances, they are “independent” divas.

Think of single motherhood as child-abuse from the get-go. Statistics and a wide range of experts certainly attest this obviousness. Women caught abusing their children have their parenting rights revoked don’t they. Likewise, it is high time single mothers face higher accountability and harsher consequences.

The first step towards discouraging single motherhood is reinstating effective stigmas for single mothers by choice. If society ever regains its sanity, when becoming a single mother is something to be ashamed of; we need to gradually cutback benefits subsequently. If single women cannot support their own children, then relocate those children. The single mother fiasco is easy to curtail, starting with shaming single skanks into thinking twice about popping kids like there’s no tomorrow.

This inferior philosophy of respecting, thereby sustaining abhorrent “lifestyles” is thrusting society deep into the gutter. We need to become more judgmental when dealing with single mothers.

Finally, claiming single motherhood is equitable to bachelorhood is thoughtless, fallacious and insulting. Declaring single motherhood is a right we should respect is shortsighted, reprehensible and moronic, to say the least.

Woman with an opinion said... “It is also unfair to paint all women with that brush.” (???)

Nobody painted “all women” with any brush and you missed the point entirely. Keep in mind the old truism “power corrupts” although we should know power corrupts mostly unprincipled people. (I.e. think western women.) You should know by now about western women wielding excessive power through corrupt courts. Hence, this corruption renders marriage foolish and unfeasible for us rational men who’d otherwise be married. Put another way, marriage is simply not worth the ridiculously high risk.

Woman with an opinion insistently ignores facts like; women initiate over two-thirds of divorces. Now pay close attention to the latest: [[UNO!]] “According to a study of 46,000 divorces conducted by economists Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen, women initiate most divorces and their primary motive in terminating a struggling marriage is to gain sole custody of their children.” [[DOS!]] “Fifty percent of mothers see no value in the father's continued contact with his children after a divorce." [[TRES!]] "Forty percent of mothers reported that they had interfered with the noncustodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish their ex-spouse."

Stick that in your saltshaker, girlie.

Anonymous 01:24 said…“This in the catalog of shaming language (see here) and is very predictable.”

Thanks for the link, forgot about all those codes. By the way, how far is she in fembot bingo? Is anybody keeping track?

Woman With A Question said...

Well there are many scientific studies that address fatherlessness What's ironic is that I've never participated in any of those studies as a fatherless daughter myself.I would have proudly presented the positive outcome of my life and those of many others. I've developed friendships with women going the sperm donor route who were themselves fatherless. While I firmly believe that anonymous sperm donations should be banned, I support and empathize with those who go that route, with known donors or ID release donors that is. Since I'd rather not marry, I'd limit myself to a known or ID release donor for the child's sake. But back to the issue:

Someone stated that the choice to be an eternal bachelor does not hurt anyone else. I beg to differ because it does. I respect your choices as individuals, but this, like Single motherhood (deliberate) only contributes to a societal decline. Children are growing up in homes without fathers and only have single men with no responsibilities playing the field as role models. Now that's sad.

bunner said...

"I must admit that he brought all of this on himself by choosing psychobitches whom he thought he could string around with no consequences."

You've said one thing since you started putting your two cents in, here:

"Whatever, we have vaginas so it can't be our fault."

Blow it out your ass.

Hmh said...

Woman with a question... good grief girl, how many times do we have to repeat it before you start to get it?

1) Men have been denied parental rights concerning their children.

2) Men have been asked to put up with women who, on the whole, are obnoxious pigs.

3) Men have been denied legal redress against false accusation, based purely on their gender and the lingering taint of sexual abuse paranoia.

4) Men are used throughout the system as suckers providing easy labour and cash.

5) Men are systematically insulted and demeaned every time they protest this.

6) Men are jailed if they even hint at using physical force, so there's no ultimate option available to a man. You can ask her nicely. She says no. And that's it! Discussion over. Note that I'm not condoning this, but in our current system, women have a license to use unlimited psychological torture, and do. I've been under it and I know several other men who've basically been ground down to a pulp.

so... the only realistic option we are left with, as men, is to live outside the system and away from women. I'm not saying this as a philosophy, or as something that we 'should' do - this is happening now, in the real world, on a wide scale. I, and many of the people around me, would like to marry and have children but because of the culture and legal system that we live inside, we cannot do this. This goes for both men and women, albeit for different reasons.

To address a concern of yours - that us carefree, happy bachelors are casually screwing around and spawning bastard children everywhere who then grow up to be fatherless children... ahem. I beg to differ. A very small number of guys are doing this, while the majority of the male population wears the blame for these bastard's behaviour. Yes, the guys casually having kids left right and centre are basically criminals, and no, this is not what most men are like or want to do.

Finally - it seems that you (like most modern women) just love to pick arguments and then win them. If you can't win it, you change tack and pick another argument that you can. If you can't win that one, then you keep on going until finally you win. Maybe you feel that you have to do this, that acknowledging a valid point in the argument from your opponent makes you weak. Whatever. You can be right all the time, or you can be happy. Your choice.

bunner said...

"While I firmly believe that anonymous sperm donations should be banned, I support and empathize with those who go that route, with known donors or ID release donors that is. Since I'd rather not marry, I'd limit myself to a known or ID release donor the child's sake."

-snip-

"Someone stated that the choice to be an eternal bachelor does not hurt anyone else. I beg to differ because it does.

Do you... actually read... any of the things you type?

At all?

Or in your perfect world, are you -like most women believe - automatically absolved of not practicing what you preach cause "I'm a girl and it's different."?

I don't know why it's so important for you to try and and tell men that THEY are needed as fathers and ATM machines and should marry or cut a check for the rest of their life for jerking off into a 50cc cup to provide poor, dear girls with babies who don't WANT some pesky man involved... while you "choose not to marry", but you're doing one seriously piss poor job of that.

Xaver said...

woman with a question said...I respect your choices as individuals, but this, like Single motherhood (deliberate) only contributes to a societal decline.”

You exhibited nothing but hostility and condescension for our choice to remain single. Anyway, how can one respect something one considers harmful to society? You respect (think highly) of behavior deemed destructive, which affects everyone. This philosophy is extremely stupid, especially when applied to single motherhood. You ultimately respect that which contributes to a societal decline.

woman with a question said...“What's ironic is that I've never participated in any of those studies as a fatherless daughter myself.”… “I would have proudly presented the positive outcome of my life and those of many others.”

It is inconsequential not ironic. (Irony is some random slag portraying Eternal Bachelor as an insignificant "parody" then blogging here more frequently than the average bachelor does.)

At any rate, online hearsay is unconvincing and very minute next to abundant scientific studies. Your anecdote is especially unconvincing because it anomalously conflicts with established facts from so many impartial sources. Review those statistics again for better understanding of how evidence is collected. Evidence gathering does not involve your participation in glorifying single mothers. Even so, you have no credibility anyway.

Online credibility is measurable in part by rationality and consistency but you are a bastion of inconsistency and irrationality. When a person cannot even maintain minimal online credibility, their fantastic claims about real life are highly questionable.

woman with a question said...> “Someone stated that the choice to be an eternal bachelor does not hurt anyone else. I beg to differ because it does. I respect your choices as individuals, but this, like Single motherhood (deliberate) only contributes to a societal decline. Children are growing up in homes without fathers and only have single men with no responsibilities playing the field as role models. Now that's sad.”

I stated this self-evident fact. We are not playing the field; we left the game. The lack of positive role models for fatherless children is the fault of promiscuous mothers and their charming thuggish boyfriends. Note that good fathers are generally irreplaceable as the most positive, influential role models for children. Most of us, even those sex-crazed bachelors are probably wise enough to avoid single mothers and their unruly kids. We play little to “no role” in their lives. There are also bachelors who live relatively solitary lives, so as far as children are concerned these men do not even exist.

Do not confuse THUGS with us responsible, law-abiding eternal bachelors who typically ignore skanky single mothers. We do not impregnate women out of wedlock either. Genuinely decent, family-oriented men totally shun women who dress and behave like sluts. It is truly sad how women choose to party and sleep around rather than eliminate the corrupt divorce racket. Do not forget that bachelors have serious reasons for remaining single. These many factual reasons are available from the recent discussion on divorce.

Now ponder the vast distinction between having few responsibilities and being irresponsible because the difference is like day and night. In that regard, bachelors who fulfill their few responsibilities would be excellent role models to fatherless children. So many single mothers dodge their basic responsibilities, that a bachelor’s carefree life looks saintly by comparison. In other words, single mothers have more responsibilities than a typical bachelor does, yet in reality, they fulfill fewer. Placing blame on bachelors for having few responsibilities, to the extent of claiming we detrimentally impact complete strangers’ bastard children, goes well beyond grasping at straws or straining at gnats -- beyond even delusional and verges on stark raving madness.

Pay close attention this time, bachelorhood per se does not harm children whatsoever, unlike single motherhood which fundamentally does.

This comparison is comical and further demonstrates your inability to rationally compare and contextualize. I challenge you to explicitly explain how eternal bachelors contribute “like single mothers” to societal decline. Your only explanation is preposterous and was effortlessly debunked.

Xaver said...

Here’s a currently working link to The Anti-Male Shaming Tactics Catalog. The URL changed so the previous two links are broken.

Anonymous said...

Well there are many scientific studies that address fatherlessness What's ironic is that I've never participated in any of those studies as a fatherless daughter myself.

But this is hillarious. Of course, you haven't participated in these studies. It is a statistics, not a census, for God's sake! Statistics don't ask every one of the population. They use a representative sample
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_sample).

Please someone teach this woman the things she had to learn in school. Obviously her educational level is very low and I am getting tired about discussing thing as if was arguing with a twelve-year-old.

I would have proudly presented the positive outcome of my life and those of many others.

Even if this was true (and your comments here and your great ignorance shows otherwise), you and your friends would not be representative of the majority. This is why studies have to be carried out to know what is normal.

Of course, you can find a man who bites a dog, but the usual thing is that a dog bites a man.

Some people (very few) throw themselves through the window from a sixth floor and survive. So what? This means that jumping from a sixth floor is a good idea?

The fact that your friends are similar to you has no statistical significance. This is why they are your friends. Because they are like you.

You don't have a clue about basic statistics. And you want to discuss the result of statistics about fatherless statistics. Please, study a little before making a fool of yourself telling such absurdities.

Someone stated that the choice to be an eternal bachelor does not hurt anyone else. I beg to differ because it does. I respect your choices as individuals, but this, like Single motherhood (deliberate) only contributes to a societal decline. Children are growing up in homes without fathers and only have single men with no responsibilities playing the field as role models. Now that's sad.

Well, this is pathetic, even by your standards. It is such a nonsense that I don't know how to start.

1. The fact that children are growing up in homes without fathers (fatherless children) is not responsibility of eternal bachelors. Eternal bachelors have not children. They are not responsible of fatherless children because they are not responsible of any child. They don't reproduce. Everybody is responsible of their actions, not of the actions of others.

Who is responsible of fatherless children? Obviously, the parents who bring them to the world without providing a stable home. That is:

a) The father who impregante and decided to walk out. The bad boy who most women prefer to have children because he is so exciting.
b) The single mom who decided she had the right to have children. So she had a child even if she knew that the men would not be a good father. "I can do it alone, this is my right", like you.

In case of sperm donations, only the single mom is responsible. But is laughable to pretend that bachelors are responsible for children that are not theirs. Give me a break!

The cause of societal decline is single moms wanting to have kids without fathers. This is the cause of fatherless children. Bachelors don't harm anybody but single moms do.

If only women could think with their brain and not with their womb, fatherless children would cease to exist and every child who would born would grow up in an environment of love and stability. But women are selfish wombs who only think about them.

(Of course, the rate of births would decrease but, anyway, the world is overpopulated and we are running out of natural resources. A decrease in population will be great for mankind and planet Earth.)

2. You contradict yourself because you claimed that fatherless children, like you, can be an example of achievement and you contest the statistics that say otherwise. Now you say that children growing up without fathers is sad. Give me a break! Please can you have a bit of coherence? You can't claim something and 20 lines below claim the opposite. You have no credibility because you change of argument when it suits you. You are "woman with several opinions which contradict each other". I knew you were dumb, but I didn't know how much.

woman with an opinion said...

You contradict yourself because you claimed that fatherless children, like you, can be an example of achievement and you contest the statistics that say otherwise. Now you say that children growing up without fathers is sad.--Some guy

There are NO stats on the status of children raised by single women who choose motherhood specifically(aka, SMC's). If you look, they point to children from mothers at or well below the poverty level or divorced.

As for contradictions, there is only what you want to see based on your own angst. The best environment for a child is to be raised by his/her mother and father. However, one can be a well adjusted citizen if raised by a single mom who makes an informed choice to be a single mother. If you still see a contradiction, the problem is yours.

Anonymous said...

There are NO stats on the status of children raised by single women who choose motherhood specifically(aka, SMC's). If you look, they point to children from mothers at or well below the poverty level or divorced.

No. You are lying. Studies speak about "single-parent households", "single-parent families", "the absence of the father", "fatherless children" and so on and so forth. Nothing of that excludes SMCs. Nothing of that pressuposes divorce or poverty. They only speak about single-parent homes (in 99% of cases, homes with a single mother).

You want to dismiss the data you don't like. If you want to have a little bastard with behavioural problems, go ahead. I know that people like you are only able to think with their reproductive organs. When your womb is screaming you can't be bothered by statistics or by logical arguments. You will adjust the reality to what your womb says.

But please, don't insult our intelligence by lying and changing the arguments when it suits you.

The best environment for a child is to be raised by his/her mother and father. However, one can be a well adjusted citizen if raised by a single mom who makes an informed choice to be a single mother. If you still see a contradiction, the problem is yours.

So, if one can be a well adjusted citizen if raised by a single mom, why do you say that

Children are growing up in homes without fathers and only have single men with no responsibilities playing the field as role models. Now that's sad.

"Sad" is a very strong word. You haven't said that fatherless households are not preferable: you have said that they are sad.

Why this is sad? I thought that a SMC household without father is great and can produce well-adjusted citizens. Please explain how a SMC househould can be sad and, at the same time, produce well-adjusted citizen.

By the way, thank you for admitting the following:

- Although a statistics about a fatherless children has not asked you, it is valid, because it is a statistic not a census.

- Your life is not statistical significant.

- Bachelors are not responsible about the children that are not theirs. So they are not responsible about bastards of other people.

- Bachelors don't harm society. Single moms do, by producing fatherless children and contributing to the decline of society.

Since you don't answer the arguments you can't win and you haven't answered the previous arguments, this means you admit them.

Xaver said...

woman with an opinion said...“If you look, they point to children from mothers at or well below the poverty level or divorced.”

False, you obviously overlooked statistics proving children raised by never-married single mothers are highly dysfunctional, even after adjusting for different income levels.

For instance:

-- “Children reared by a divorced OR never-married mother are less cooperative and score lower on tests of intelligence than children reared in intact families. Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed
"significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income.”

-- "A 1988 Department of Health and Human Services study found that at EVERY INCOME LEVEL except the very highest (over $50,000 (IN 1988.) ) children living with never-married mothers were more likely than their counterparts in two-parent families to have been expelled or suspended from school, to display emotional problems, and to engage in antisocial behavior."

-- "The Progressive Policy Institute, the research arm of the Democratic Leadership Council reports that, ‘the relationship between crime and one-parent families’ is ‘so strong that controlling for family configuration ERASES the relationship between race and crime and between LOW-INCOME and CRIME. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. "

-- "Children from LOW-INCOME, two-parent families OUTPERFORM students from HIGH-INCOME, single-parent homes… Etc…"

Learn to read properly because this is the second time citing that PPI stat.

woman with an opinion said...“However, one can be a well adjusted citizen if raised by a single mom who makes an ‘informed choice to be a single mother’.”

Nonsense, your statement is oxymoronic; if one were making an informed decision, they would not deliberately deprive their child of a father. What's more, these rich single mothers are an unrepresentative minority. Fact is most women are not wealthy enough to afford the extra aid needed to patch up their troubled, fatherless kids. Rich SMC’s are marginal and aren’t worth mentioning, except to note how bastard generations following these shortsighted career hags will likely descend into poverty. In case you forgot, girls raised by single moms are likely to become single moms themselves. Single motherhood is not self-sustaining economically so a gradual download spiral into the ghetto is inevitable for upcoming generations with affluent lineages.

woman with an opinion said...“There are NO stats on the status of children raised by single women who choose motherhood specifically(aka, SMC's).”

Actually, all single mothers in context specifically chose to knock themselves up by having premarital sex or donor inseminations.

No additional statistics are needed to know that feminists’ single mother pipe dream is a full-blown failure. Goes to show that good fathers are essential, irreplaceable role models after all.

Now let’s recap her initial assertion: “The point is you should respect a woman's right to exercise her right not to marry but have children if she so desires.”

Until now, we have discussed single mothers in general, not this negligible fraction with enough money to contain their Frankensteinian experiments. She classified single motherhood as a “right” women should exercise if they desire.
Keep that in mind while evaluating her recent rubbish:

woman with an opinion said...“I respect your choices as individuals, but this, like Single motherhood (deliberate) only contributes to a societal decline. Children are growing up in homes without fathers and only have single men with no responsibilities playing the field as role models. Now that's sad.”

She clearly respects single mothers in general, not just the "prepared” small percentage that would presumably have better role models playing the field. Once again, she respects the choice to have children out of wedlock yet contradictorily acknowledges the damaging consequences thereof.

Woman with an opinion, your whoppers and contradictions are your problem. It is not some unspecified “angst” but rather facts, analysis and logic leading us to these levelheaded conclusions. If you cannot identify clear-cut contradictions then you are incapable of reasoning.

Then again, we’d expect as much from the daughter of a single mother.

Woman With An Opinion said...

So, if one can be a well adjusted citizen if raised by a single mom, why do you say that

Why do I say that? Because children should have relationships with both parents where possible. Don't you think? Here is another analogy...it would be better to have two million dollars than one million...get it now? While the latter is great, the former is just a bit better.

Xaver said...

After rereading the subject, “Misandry in the media,” I remembered something I was going to add before being sidetracked by an irrational troll.

Around 1-2 months ago while checking my Yahoo email; I noticed a headline on Yahoo's main page entitled, “Chivalry may make you seem like a creep.” Yep, you read correctly. “What She Really Wants. Is giving up your seat a show of respect or an act of outdated chauvinism? A panel of ‘actual women’ tell all!

It isn’t news how mainstream sites use any trifling topic to insult and belittle men; however, their animosity doesn’t seem as well hidden anymore.

Evidently, when a lad is chivalrous but doesn’t follow the nitpicky rules of an almighty panel of women, he’s a chauvinistic creep!

Are you a creep?

Read on to find out:

ESQ: The scenario: We are walking into a building in front of you. Do we hold the door open?

Katherine: That depends. If you are a step or two ahead of me, I'd expect you to hold the door. If it's more than that, don't bother. If you're far ahead of me, it's like you're waiting and I feel like I have to hurry up.

I must be a creep for breaking Katherine’s rule by holding the door open longer than protocol, due to misjudging someone’s speed/distance.

Frankly, this person didn’t seem to mind at all -- he just said “thanks” and went his way. Doubt he wanted to write a piece for Yahoo, about the ordeal of felling obligated to walk faster.

It gets better:

A woman is lugging a large suitcase through the airport. Do we offer to help?

Katherine: I think a good rule of thumb is, if it looks like we're struggling, offer to help -- we'll really appreciate it.

Alyssa: As much as I want to be pro-feminist and able-bodied, if I'm carrying something heavy, help a girl out.

I.e. there are no feminists when the lifeboats are lowered. However, life needn’t become that dreadful before feminism peters out. Case in point, when a feminist is too slothful to exercise, you know, so she can carry her own luggage, help a girl out!

We are at a bar when we see you being aggressively hit on by David Spade. What now?

Laura: We are more than capable of dispensing with an undesirable man.

Katherine: I would appreciate it if you came over and struck up a conversation with me and gave me an excuse to end the conversation with the other guy, but I'd probably assume you're hitting on me, too.

Notice the humorously placed discrepancy between Katherine and Laura. Katherine asks men to strike up conversations since she isn’t more than capable of dispensing undesirables without an excuse. . .

I always chuckle when women inquire, “Why is chivalry dying?

Anonymous said...

It seems that women are constantly protesting that men shouldn't judge all women by the actions of SOME of them, i.e., "men shouldn't tar all women with the same brush. I'm different, I want to have a relationship with a good man but I can't find one. Yadda, yadda, yadda..."
It's astonishing (and amusing) how THEY want to be recognized as individuals, but then have no qualm about judging ALL men when they don't have their expectations met.
I can't remember the exact quote or where I read it on the Net, but it basically boils down to this: Good Women MAY exist nowadays, but trying to find one is like trying to find a Tootsie Roll in a septic tank.

The Blasphemer said...

Western Women turn into crap.
Western Men slowly turn to Foreign Babes.
Western Woman Journalist Who Can't Get a Date says: Oh yeah! Well, they don't like you! Neenerneener!

Anonymous said...

Chivalry is not dying, it is dead...and should be! It's a long-outdated concept that should have been relegated to the scrap heap of history when the feminasties first demanded 'equality'.
Don't misunderstand, I don't have any problem with normal public courtesy -- I practice it every day for my fellow humans of every type (e.g., I open doors for men and women who can use the assistance, I'll give up my seat on the bus for senior citizens and pregnant women, etc.). In fact, I think the world would be a much better place if there was more common courtesy shown.
But NO chivalry! Feminasties have to learn that when they got the equality they DEMANDED, chivalry went right out the window! They want equality, I say GIVE IT TO THEM! Make them find out what equality REALLY is!

Anonymous said...

welcome back duncan.
Hawkeye