Sunday, 10 February 2008

Great article

Single Young Males: A Defense

I do not know whether Tucker Max was right about female insecurity being “a gift that keeps on giving,” but I do know that male ignorance about the social injustice of marriage in our new millennium is a gift upon which millions of women rely.


Fortunately that ignorance is being rapidly eroded. Even if they don't know the whole truth about the horrors of the family courts, most young men are at least aware that marriage can and often will end up in divorce, and it'll be the guy who is thrown out of the house and left with little or nothing, not even his dignity.

64 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear Duncan, Spain is now officially planning a man tax, of course to strengthen equality.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1787#comments

"Mr. Rajoy (pictured), the candidate of the Spanish Partido Popular...said that 'our' goal was to achieve 'equality' between men and women; ergo, women should pay lower taxes than men until 'equality' is achieved."

Spain is proposing higher income taxes for men simply for being men. This has been a goal of the Spanish Socialist Party for a while, and now the conservative Partido Popular has put a lower tax rate for women in its party platform.

Anonymous said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Belfort_Bax
E. Belfort Bax (1913, from "fraud of feminsim"):

"It is rarely that anyone takes the trouble to refute the legend in
general, or any specific case adduced as an illustration of it.
When, however, the bluff is exposed, when the real facts of the case
are laid bare to public notice, and woman is shown, not only as not
oppressed but as privileged, up to the top of her bent, then the
apostles of feminim, male and female, being unable to make even a
plausible case out in reply, with one consent resort to the boycott,
and by ignoring what they cannot answer, seek to stop the spread of
the unpleasant truth so dangerous to their cause."

In 1908 he wrote The Legal Subjection of Men as a response to John Stuart Mill's 1869 essay "The Subjection of Women." In 1913 he published an essay, The Fraud of Feminism, detailing feminism's adverse effects. Section titles included "The Anti-Man Crusade," "The 'Chivalry' Fake," "Always The 'Injured Innocent,'" and "Some Feminist Lies and Fallacies."



This was in 1913, shortly before the first world war in which millions of men died.

Anonymous said...

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism

The books of Belfort Bax.

Anonymous said...

dear Duncan, this seems to be very important. We all know that women can kill their husbands without being punished.
What we do not know is that 100 years ago, women acted and were treated in the same way as today.

Please publish the comment.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men

12. IMPUNITY TO MURDER HUSBAND.

Exactly as in the case of bigamy, the law on murder and homicide are nominally the same for men as for 29 women. But if a wife by poisoning or violence, kills her husband, the administrators of the law show in practice what can be done by twisting a text. The matter will again be referred to under the Criminal Law, but provisionally the rules may be reduced to form somewhat as follows:-- (1) The least excuse is sufficient to reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter. (2) All the wife's statements against her husband are assumed to be true until they are proved to be false. (3) The proof of the actual deed of crime must be much more conclusive than in the case of a man. (4) If the verdict be [by] a mere chance one of murder, a sympathetic judge announces he will forward to the proper quarter the sympathetic jury's recom- mendation to mercy. This recommendation is acted on by the Home Secretary as a matter of course in the case of a woman. (5) If the verdict is, as it usually is, one of man- slaughter, a shamefully inadequate or possibly a merely nominal sentence is imposed.

(a) Poisoning.

This peculiarly treacherous crime is a legitimate mode of self-defence if practised by a wife on her husband.

(b) Violence.

A wife is still "weak woman" when armed with a poker, a metal pot, a vitriol bottle, a petroleum can, or a revolver. If these lethal substances killed her husband it must have been by accident. In any case he had taken her "for better or worse," and had to put up with the consequences. Why did he cross her temper? Besides, even if she were ill-tempered, why did he not make a better selection when marrying? The elimina- 30 tion of thoughtless males is rather useful on the whole to the progress of the race. The decisions to which this line of argument, con- scious or sub-conscious, leads judges and juries, shamefully neglectful of their public trust, may be seen from the appended cases, selected haphazard from a newspaper file.

(c) Poisoning a Husband.

Mrs. Maybrick was tried at Liverpool Assizes for poisoning her husband. She read a written statement by herself (Mr. Justice Stephens ordered that she be not permitted to communicate with her lawyers before writing it) to the effect that she administered the poison to her husband at his own request. The judge and jury accepted her statement that she administered the poison, but disbelieved her statement that it was at his own request, and, wonderful to relate, she was convicted of murder, but the Home Secretary commuted her sentence; and after undergoing a few years' imprison ment she is now at large.

(d) Setting a Husband on Fire.

Mary O'Reardon, August 1st, 1894, poured oil over her husband, and deliberately set him on fire with a lighted paper. Sentenced at the Central Criminal Court to six years' penal servitude. The offence was plainly wilful murder. The man had shortly before attempted to commit suicide--being driven to the attempt by her ill-usage.

(e) Setting a Husband on Fire.

Catherine Chilton (Durham Assizes, Nov. 24th, 1894) threw a lighted lamp at her husband. Sentenced to twelve months' hard labour for manslaughter. The judge described it as a wanton and wicked act, and said it was a mercy for the prisoner that the jury had reduced the original charge to one of manslaughter. 31

(f) Stabbing a Husband.

Annie Hibberd, August, 1894, stabbed her husband twice, remarking, "Revenge is sweet. Found guilty of manslaughter at the Central Criminal Court, and sentenced to six years' penal servitude.

(g) Driving a Waggon over a Husband.

Jane Payne, August 18th, 1894, thrust her husband off a waggon, and then deliberately backed the horses, driving the wheels over him twice. Both legs fractured. He died a few hours afterwards. Found guilty of man- slaughter.

(h) Setting a Husband and Child on Fire.

Jane Ann Trelawney Baker ([age] 32) pleaded guilty to manslaughter of her husband and child by throwing a lighted lamp at the former. She was sentenced to three days' imprisonment, which meant her immediate release, and on leaving the dock remarked, amid the sympathy of the Court, that she was a childless widow, alone in the world ! ! !--Central Criminal Court, December 14th, 1893.

(i) Killing a Husband by Throwing a Knife at Him.

At the Central Criminal Court, October 24th, 1894, a married woman surrendered to answer an indictment charging her with the manslaughter of her husband. The defence was that the prisoner did not fling the knife with the intention of killing her husband. She threw the knife in a moment of great mental irritation, and it unfortunately struck the deceased. The jury could not agree to a verdict and were discharged. The case was put back until the following week for counsel in the meantime to consider if it were necessary to proceed further with the case. Mr. Justice Wright, in allowing the prisoner out on a recognizance, told her that she need not attend unless she received notice to do so. The 32 judge, it should be added, who throughout the trial appeared favourable to the prisoner, disallowed various questions of the prosecution as to the previous relations with the husband, and cut short the medical evidence, saying that he did not like to see the time of the Court wasted with cases such as these, or words to that effect. Of course not! Mere husband killing, alter all--what is that? In the opposite case, that of killing a wife by the husband, how often have judges been careful to point out to the jury that any unlawful assault, if death happened to result from it, was, in the eyes of the law, wilful murder!




Bax on women suffrage:

THE SUFFRAGE.

It is absurd for feminist advocates to trot out their threadbare grievance of the want of the suffrage as a serious disability in the face of all the privileges we have been discussing.. It may be right, or it may he wrong, for women to have the suffrage. Respecting this we say nothing here. But, whether right or wrong, we deny that the lack of it, by an otherwise privileged class, constitutes a grievance. Electoral disqualifica- tions are often attendant on special privilege. The Royal Family of this realm, with all their branches, are debarred from the exercise of both the passive and the active franchise. And yet no one pleads that, say, the prince of Wales, is, in consequence, a cruelly oppressed personage. Similarly the clergy of the Established Church are debarred at least from the passive franchise (i.e., they may not sit in Parliament), and yet we have never heard it contended that on this account they are a solely hard-done-by section of the community. Where women have parliament, law courts, police magistrates, 63 judges as their obsequious humble servants, what more could they expect to obtain, even if they had the suffrage?




Belfort Bax is an excellent and enlightening read.

cybro said...

Read the article, yawn, I would comment but I'd rather go play Call of Duty 4.

Anonymous said...

We can observe that female models are unnaturally skinny.
Now even men models become skinny.
They tend to androgyne models.

It is interesting to note that many designers are gay.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/fashion/shows/07DIARY.html?ex=1360040400&en=831f11467d87c881&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

“My agency asked me to lose some muscle. I lost a little bit to help them, because I understand the designers are not looking for a male image anymore. They’re looking for some kind of androgyne.”


It is unbelievabel how ugly the young man is. The low hung jeans are good for a woman, but not a man.
he does not look like a man.




WHERE HAVE ALL THE SOLDIERS GONE?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/books/review/Wheatcroft-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Unbelievabel, this very headline caught my eye. If men are retreating from soiety wh rejects them, clearly men do not want to defend it anymore. The liberals and leftists tout pacifism very much.

Anonymous said...

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=y4r6MNPMeD8
Bernard Chapin here, I'm presenting Volume 11 of Chapin's Inferno—a wandering cauldron of conservative commentary—and it's called "REAL MEN OBEY!"

Anonymous said...

All men must fight back against the disgusting perversion and abuse of humanity called feminism by not giving women marriage, dna, money or cohabitation. It is the only way to peacefully fight these pigs.

MarkyMark said...

Duncan,

Even when a guy sees a marriage stay together, it's still shit for the man more often than not. How often have we heard tales of woe about how guys cannot sleep in, because their wives nag them to mow the fucking lawn?! Or, when I had my classic Chevy (I had a 1966 Chevy when I was stationed in San Diego), how guys would come up to me, tell me about the classic American car that they had ONCE owned? I say once owned, because when I'd ask them what happened to their cars, more often than not, they'd say that their wives made them get rid of them! I was like WTF?! I knew 20 years ago that I wasn't going to put up with shit like that; if it meant staying single, so be it. Even if a marriage doesn't end in divorce, it usually is SHIT for the man-end of story.

MarkyMark

Anonymous said...

And despite all the shaming language, f.e. from women with opinions - whose opinion is that our opinions are wrong *gosh* - sites like yours enormously help popularizing this knowledge.

bunner said...

I think it would be great to have a wife. A true friend and comarade in this short but amazingly vibrant journey we call life.

As far as a "partner of the opposite sex, exercising her pursuit of financial security, reproduction and personal comfort within a litigable social construct, wherein her interests are assured"...

Well, why don't you go take a flying fuck at a turkey baster, honey?

Nothin' personal.

KellyMac said...

Duncan, I've only had a chance to skim it so far, but this looks to be a really great article.

Oh, the irony.

ex-boyfriend said...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Kay Hymowitz is the new, female, Michael Noer (of "Don't marry a Career Woman" fame). She has provoked a massive sense of outrage by men all over the world, one that has come from far beyond the normal MRA/Masculist circles of influence.

The mere fact that she has received a hearty rebuke from so many corners of the net has shown the power and momentum gained by the men's movement these last few years.

Mahatma Gandhi once said:
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

Right now, the marriage strike is mostly still in between stages 1 and 2, and starting to get some stage 3 flak from a few scattered parts of the establishment.

Radfems have been inadvertently encouraging the marriage strike, unaware that once it hits it's full fruition, they'll be the ones in the crosshairs of their angry, straight sisters - women who simply aren't going to warm up to the idea of a lesbian gynocracy.

Even if all the straight ladies in the world somehow miraculously did conform to Andrea Dworkin's little pipe dream, it wouldn't matter, because men would no longer have the wool over their eyes. The male population wouldn't have a damn thing standing in the way of it reasserting its proper role in society. Feminism has always relied on a sizeable proportion of male sympathizers and supporters to maintain power and control. When that mangina population fades into obscurity, the fembots have lost a crucial pillar of support and their house of cards is headed back the ground in a big hurry.

Anyway, right now, the marriage strike is being simultaneously ridiculed and ignored - Ridiculed because of the mocking nature of the reaction; ignored because it is not being called out by it's name.

Remember the words of Mr. Gandhi.
When the specific term "marriage strike" rolls off of Oprah's lips on national TV, then we know we have arrived, and the battle really begins.

Anonymous said...

Do not marry women who drink alcohol.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004176000_girls11.html


Today's girls drink alcohol, get drugs, have sex.

Martin said...

The current divorce of Paul McCartney should be a warning to all men. Heather Mills, what a mad woman she is. Be warned, when money is involved (or a free lunch) all women behave this way.

You Americans out there should also check out books by man hater "Lis Wiehl"

She's often on Fox News. Boy she hates men, no surprise she has a face liked a smacked arse.

Anonymous said...

http://theproblemwithwomentoday-reality2008.blogspot.com/

Wonderful blog about modern women, please post the link everywhere.

Woman With An Opinion said...

"The current divorce of Paul McCartney should be a warning to all men. Heather Mills, what a mad woman she is. Be warned, when money is involved (or a free lunch) all women behave this way."

Yes, this should be a warning. Don't rush into a relationship with a woman around the same age as your children. Btw, this blog would be an insult to a man like Paul McCartney.

phoenix said...

I am always skeptic of claims that the marriage strike is working, but I will admit it is getting significantly closer to actually being something.

I still think most men have the wool over their eyes, as another commentor mentioned. But sites like this are absolutely great, and slowly but surely, we may get somewhere.

Duncan, how about a forum to discuss your articles, so that when they drop off the front page there can still be discussion?

Ray Manta said...

Woman With An Opinion said...

"Yes, this should be a warning. Don't rush into a relationship with a woman around the same age as your children".

"Btw, this blog would be an insult to a man like Paul McCartney".

How would you know that?

Anonymous said...

It used to annoy the hell out of me to see how easily trolls like "Butch With A Retarded Opinion" could hijack threads and manipulate 'men' into responding but now I realize that it serves a useful purpose.

It is like the proverbial canery in a coal mine. When it drops dead or fucks off because guys completely ignore it after recognizing it for what it is - a shit disturbing, attention whore, amusing herself and laughing at the suckers because manipulating them is easier than taking candy from a baby - then we will know that the majority of MRAs are not lonely boys who jump at the chance for some virtual female interaction but MEN who chose to be alone rather than have anything to do with douche bags like this piece of shit.

Any 'man' who can be so easily manipulated by a cyber whore offering nothing in return is only kidding himself if he thinks that he wouldn't do a McCartney if faced with a world class predator pulling out all the stops to 'prove' that she is the perfect "lady on the streets, freak between the sheets" who also cares about the world hunger etc.

It's too ugly / old to attention whore in clubs so it attention whores on a popular men's blog - and the manginas in the group (who think they're not of course) just can't resist feeding the troll.

Anonymous said...

Yes, this should be a warning. Don't rush into a relationship with a woman around the same age as your children.

No, the moral of the story is "don't have serious relationships with women, just fuck 'em and chuck 'em."


Btw, this blog would be an insult to a man like Paul McCartney.

Ha! I'll bet Macca's finds the demands and accusations of his ex wife more insulting than this blog.

Hmh said...

It's true though. Just what are modern women bringing to the table that is actually any good?

Anonymous said...

@woman with an opinion

Hulk Hogan gets divorced now, too and his wife is as old as he is.

Woman with an opinion, your opinion is pretty worthless. Most men are married to women their age and get divorced nonetheless.

bunner said...

Of course, this is all just bitter, hateful men bagging off on modern women because we all know that feminism was the best thing to ever happen to women.

http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0109.htm

many_luxury_vacations said...

Women are still winning the arguments and dominating pop culture. It's a bit of a shame that our institutions have given the moral high ground to feminism and self-loathing multiculturalism.

So we have Western women who say all men are garbage and have little to offer. The Prince of Wales no longer wants to champion Christianity and the Archbishop of Canterbury cheers the arrival of Sharia.

At this point, all Western men can do is sit back and watch the West fall apart.

Islam is confident. The West is allowing it's idiot women to set the rules. Women are deeply dissatisfied yet still pushing stupid ideas. Men are wondering what the hell happened, but trying to enjoy life anyway.

I'm betting pesky things like feminism will disappear when the Sharia arrives. I guess it is true that women only behave sensibly when they are forced to do so.

Martin said...

Perhaps if paul McCartney had read this blog he wouldn't have gotten hitched to some barking mad hag?

Then again finding a woman that isn't a barking mad hag is rather difficult.

bunner said...

Wow. You hang out with Sir Paul McCartney?

Anonymous said...

Women do not want to be judged when drinking in public while PREGNANT.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4232465

They have no remorse drinking while pregnant!
The doctor even encourages it.

Criticizing women really has become politically incorrect.

woman with an opinion said...

Yes, this should be a warning. Don't rush into a relationship with a woman around the same age as your children. Btw, this blog would be an insult to a man like Paul McCartney.

Furthermore, Men should only marry in their own age bracket and Women should only marry in their own income bracket. Wait...!

reality2007 said...

Here's another great article- you'll really like the format...

http://theproblemwithwomentoday-reality2008.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

The current divorce of Paul McCartney should be a warning to all men. Heather Mills, what a mad woman she is. Be warned, when money is involved (or a free lunch) all women behave this way.

Yes, remember the statistics:

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

(Probably the remaining 25% is ashamed to say they are golddiggers).

Don't marry and you won't have to pay half of your assets to a woman who has destroyed your life.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, this should be a warning. Don't rush into a relationship with a woman around the same age as your children."

Yes! Of course getting involved in a relationshilp with a woman of your own age would yield much different results?

"Btw, this blog would be an insult to a man like Paul McCartney."

Far less of an insult had he read this blog prior to marrying Ms Mills!

bunner said...

BERLIN (Reuters) - A woman in Germany who became pregnant after an online sex auction has won a court battle to force the Web site that hosted the sale to reveal the names of the winners, so she can find out who's the father.

Six different men won Internet auctions to have sex with the woman in April and May last year. They were only known to her by their online names, a spokesman for a court in the southwestern city of Stuttgart said Wednesday.

"The woman wanted to discover which one of the men had made her pregnant," the spokesman said. "So she needed their contact details. Of course, if they're not willing to go along with the gene test, she'll have to take them to court."

The woman asked the site's operator to reveal the true identity of the men, but it refused, citing a confidentiality clause in its terms and conditions.

The court ruled in her favor, saying the child's right to know who its father was took precedence.

The court declined to give the woman's age and nationality.


"You won! Give me money! Well, one of you won! Come on! I whored myself globally and you have to pay for my baby!"

Just the sort of gal I want to take home to meet the family.

bunner said...

BERLIN (Reuters) - A woman in Germany who became pregnant after an online sex auction has won a court battle to force the Web site that hosted the sale to reveal the names of the winners, so she can find out who's the father.

Six different men won Internet auctions to have sex with the woman in April and May last year. They were only known to her by their online names, a spokesman for a court in the southwestern city of Stuttgart said Wednesday.

"The woman wanted to discover which one of the men had made her pregnant," the spokesman said. "So she needed their contact details. Of course, if they're not willing to go along with the gene test, she'll have to take them to court."

The woman asked the site's operator to reveal the true identity of the men, but it refused, citing a confidentiality clause in its terms and conditions.

The court ruled in her favor, saying the child's right to know who its father was took precedence.

The court declined to give the woman's age and nationality.


"You won! Give me money! Well, one of you won! Come on! I whored myself globally and you have to pay for my baby!"

Just the sort of gal I want to take home to meet the family.

Anonymous said...

To be spread around - it says alot about gender based research.

http://dontgetmarried.proboards75.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1202942087

A letter to protest tax-funded misandry Letter sent by Deborah Fellows, President of the New York Civil Rights Council, to Julie L. Gerberding, MD, MPH, Director Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to protest tax-funded and government sponsored misandry. Full letter is attached below.

Julie L. Gerberding, MD, MPH, Director
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Road, NE
Atlanta, GA 30333

Dear Ms. Gerberding,

Last year I was contacted by a woman named Jennifer Lee of Hartford University. She was doing “research” for national Domestic Violence research paper which was to be published.

The criterion of the survey was that the group I am President of, The New York Civil Rights Council had to be representing only women. The notice came with a warning not to spread this questionnaire to “men’s” groups or groups that also represented men. I was among four groups that got this survey. The other three groups were: The National Organization for Women; The Battered Mothers Custody Conference and; Stop The Violence – another “battered women’s group”.

The intro to this questionnaire was that Ms. Lee knew that courts often award custody of children over to men who are domestically terrorizing women and children.

Several of the questioned poised were:

Were you a victim of domestic violence?
Have you ever lost custody of your children to your ex?
Where you treated fairly in Family Court?
Did you seek help?
Where you able to get help?
Do you feel that you were treated badly because you are female?

I contacted Ms. Lee about the study. She immediately turned me over to her “supervising Professor”. This woman came at me with vengeance. She was what you all call “abusive”. She called me names, she attacked my credentials, and she attacked my group and me personally.

I forwarded her email to several of the Deans. The response I got was a favorable one, they all apologized for Ms. Kathy McCloskey, Ph.D., Psy.D., ABPP’s actions but that didn’t stop the research.

Several other “Professors” from reputable Universities have done the same kind of research and published their works. One of the most damaging – to a blind public – is called the “Truth Commission” - Dr. Mo Theresa Hannah. Ms Hannah asked 25 women from across the United States that were all attending the “Battered Mothers Custody Conference” in Loudonville, New York the same questions Ms. Lee was asking other victim based groups. To no surprise the “report” that came from this group was grossly inaccurate and a complete misrepresentation of reality.

One may ask, why? One theory here is that over the last generation that a few but determined women were willing to put the nation on the whole in danger to reach their full potential – control and revenge. Public outcries were working but not fast enough. They had to enter the souls of the next generation, they had to enter our schools, and they did.

“Women” studies appeared overnight and everywhere. Statistics like “One in Four females will be sexually molested by the time their 21” or “Super bowl Sunday incidences of domestic violence raise by a factor of four” started to appear. They were repeated so much they did become the truth. But when true and factual reports came out to counter balance the manipulated reports they had to come up with another way of getting their message of hatred and prejudices across. They infiltrated the Governments. They had to manipulate the questions to fulfill their data. Henceforth – Propaganda was again born.

Why some may say; “What difference does it make? If it helps one abused woman?” The difference is that there millions of abuse victims every year being turned down for that help. There is a national movement to vilify 50% of the victims based upon nothing less then the gender they were born. Where else have we seen this? In the 1960’s with Segregation and anyone that supported the “Negro”. In the 1940’s with the attempt to eliminate the Jewish population and anyone that supported the Jews.

Ms. Gerberding, I also have a dream. I too want to see man and women walking hand in hand. I too want to see the day where a person is respected based upon the content of their character and not the color of their skin or the gender they were born (or now a days – the gender they may become) I too would like to know my grandson is as safe as my granddaughter but today I worry about him. I worry that because of the chromosomes his mother and father gave to him he is being hunted down like some kind of crazed animal.

I go to my State’s capitol and I am continually bombarded by bill boards that show a representation of my grandson and the headline reads: “Teach your son to respect women” I drive a little further and see another. This one reads: “Violence against Women is never OK”. I turn on my radio and the messages are the same and on every channel. But where are the signs and commercials that say: “Respect each other” or “Violence against humanity is never OK”? If you read deeper into this campaign they justify it on a 1999 New York State report that states 85% of all domestic violence victims are women. If you look closer they received that data from interviewing federally/state funded domestic violence shelters that only helped women. If you read the 2005 report the data is severely different. Domestic violence fell by 37% and 48% of all domestic violence victims are male. If you dig deeper into this Federally and Stated funded program, it states that when a male witnesses domestic violence against a female that they are encouraged to use necessary force to put an end to the violence. Violence begets Violence – but only if it’s males against males.

When I was a child I witnessed boy after boy being molested by trusted people in authority. I can clearly remember when one teenage boy told his mother and father that he was molested by his clergyman he was slapped across the face and punished. I remember when these “boys” became men and they began to gather as groups and tried to get help, they were ignored and punished by our government and the public. It was not until they found a few female victims did the stories start to be published. But only the stories of the little girls.

Last year, in Albany New York, a Judge hearing a molestation case actually called the perpetrator the “victim” stating that “she” was seduced by the 13 and 14 year old boys she had repeated sexual contact with.

I have witnessed man after man be hit, forced to turn over their paychecks, work second and third jobs so their wives can have Botox injections and carry designer bags to lunch, be humiliated, told what to wear and what to think. But we don’t think twice about this as abuse.

I have seen parents buy their little girls shirts that say: “Girls Rule; Boys suck” or “Boys are Stupid; Throw rocks at them”. I stopped watching prime time television because that is all you see. A few weeks ago I was channel surfing and caught a glimpse of Kelsey Grammar so I paused. The woman from “Everyone Loves Raymond” was co-starring. She backed, what appeared to be a ten or twelve year old boy into the corner and then physically and verbally attacked him. The canned laughter exploded. I was so appalled I cried.

I would like to ask “Please” stop the line of questioning you are putting forth but the time for “pleases” have long passed. This MUST stop. The line of questioning you are using is being used specifically to manipulate reality. And reality is that we are seeing a society bless the violence against men is now blessing the violence and castration of little boys. When we teach males that being hit, humiliated or financially controlled is not abuse and then ask them if they are victims of abuse, what do you expect to get? If we tell females that if they volunteered to get drunk and have sex yet years later she regrets it, she was the victim of abuse and asks her if she is the victim of abuse, what do you expect to get?

Our Government must stay neutral to all citizens or it is no longer and effective Democratic government. My grandfather fought in World War II, by brothers in Vietnam, my classmates in Desert Storm and now my own children in Iraq. What for? Freedom and the right to be free of preconceived prejudices. This county must raise higher then those we have fought and set the example for them. If it’s OK in our nation to base hatred upon color or gender or religious beliefs, then why isn’t it OK for them? This propaganda against males of all color and age and religious beliefs must stop. Please do you part, I’m doing mine.

Deborah Fellows
President of the New York Civil Rights Council
Wendy McElroy - Wednesday 13 February 2008 - 11:45:03 -


HAIL TO DEBORAH FELLOWS!

Curiepoint said...

Whereas obscurely foisting the blame on him for her conduct is not. I agree that he was stupid to get involved with a former thief, con artist, and porno star, in that he went in with the notion that he had found another Linda; She was one of a kind, and he had a good thing with her for a long time. In his shoes, I would have carried that and lived off it for the rest of my life.

And, I'm betting that he is a lot closer to our opinions than you are willing to consider.

sth_txs said...

Off topic a bit, but maybe some sarcastic remarks might be in order:

The case for settling for Mr. Good Enough
by Lori Gottlieb
Marry Him!
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry

MisAnDrope said...

Dear "Woman with an Opinion";

You seem to recognize the wrong done to McCartney, yet want to put the blame for his Ex being a gold-digger upon him - you want to make men responsible for the way the law mistreats them.
Very well, men will take responsability. If there is one thing men know about, and are good at, it is responsibility. We will responsibly take our sex, our sperm, our labor, our love, our time and our trouble, our agressive ways, our strength and our technical savvy away from women like you, and 'cunt'ries like those in the feminized west.

When the last entrepeneur has sliped away to a carribean island to avoid your misandrist and anti-capitalist taxes and schemes and you can no longer balance your budget on successful men,
When the last real soldier has defected from 'cunt'ries that give his wives the right to enslave and imprison him,
When the barbarians are inside the gates, and chaos reigns, and you have driven away or rendered effeminate the last few real men, will you wring your hands, and wonder what you have done? Or will you merely whimper without any understanding as agressive 'barbarians' from cultures without your enlightened feminist leftism take away all that you have, murdering you at will??

The world is a tough place, where weakness means death, and if you lack men, real men, your fate is sealed.

Choose legal equality for men, or choose the alternative. Us men will take responsability for responding to your choice.

M

mandy said...

I am a woman who enjoys reading and agrees with this and other MRA blogs.

Western civilization is probably irreversibly falling apart due to the Politically Correct(logically incorrect) disease of which feminism is no small part. Traditionally, culture was transmitted lovingly by the parents to the children for each generation to learn the wisdom and customs of those who went before. Divorce and rampant single parents destroyed this culture transmission vehicle.

So in addition to the marriage strike producing a lack of babies, Most of those now born will not understand the values, ideas and civilization those who went before worked so hard to build.

I frankly think most Western women are too far gone to be brought back down to earth and right the ship. Lord knows I've tried to reason with them and the blogosphere is full of sage and sane advice for how society ought to be run and how people ought to act. They take the society around them for granted as a birth right as though it grew on trees just to please them and takes no disciplined effort to maintain. They show no ability or desire for introspective accounting of their behavior. Really, they are truly boring individuals.

Nature is red in tooth and claw so this will come back to bite them (and unfortunately Western Civ) in the rear end. I believe there is no avoiding the social/biological consequences of this madness now.

So, you are all fighting the good fight but it may be too late :(

Anonymous said...

Stuff White People Like: Divorce

http://tinyurl.com/2r8jw3

Anonymous said...

Men, always do that which is in your best interest. Save $, retire early, have 20yr old foreign girlfriends till perpetuity, buy yourself that Harley, work on those hobbies etc etc

It truly is the best thing being an Enlightened Man from the West. The world is your oyster!

Prosperity and happiness to you all Brothers

Anonymous said...

I saw a 15yo. She looked like 25. These are the women who could easily find a husband. Why are they waiting?

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=8JHYwM0M9zo&feature=related

At 16 most women should be married or in the process of being married.
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=wN82_NZnoSQ

Anonymous said...

old-fashioned in a modern way.
Take care when women say they are old fashioned.

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=86444
A year later, still single, she began a new search - for a sperm donor.
"I do still hope someday to be married," she said with a laugh. "I'm actually a pretty old fashioned girl, although you wouldn't think so with the route I've gone!"

Anonymous said...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article3370136.ece
And sometimes the conflict favours women.

Just ask any man to remember what it was like being a teenager. Let’s imagine a 17-year-old guy. Let’s say he’s reasonably attractive. And let’s say he has a crush on an attractive girl in his class. Most men I know can remember being in this position. And what happened? The girl didn’t even notice him. That’s because she had a huge range of guys to choose from, all vying for her attention. Not only the coolest 17-year-olds but some of the coolest 18, 19, and 20-year-olds, too. And guys in their early twenties, with cars and motorbikes, and money to buy tickets for concerts and festivals.

This situation persists for years. Until they’re in their mid-twenties, at the very least, women have a far larger pool of mates to choose from than men. Who dates the attractive 23-year-old woman as she settles into her first job? The 35-year-old who runs the company, that’s who. Not the 23-year-old guy who met her at the interview and blushes every time she passes him in the corridor. Of course not – she probably doesn’t even know the poor guy’s name. He’s just the office boy.

Women are more cautious than men when it comes to sex, and for very good reason. In evolutionary terms, they have something to lose, and men have nothing to lose. In ancestral times, fertile women guarded their chastity. They were picky. They could afford to be, because they had something men wanted.

Here is a population of ordinary guys – the guys who were nothing special, the dorks who were passed over in favour of the cool, attractive guys when they were younger. And now, possibly for the first time in history, they find themselves in an unreal bubble. Women are no longer being cautious and picky – they are competing for their attentions. This is a genuine turning point in the history of gender relations. For the first time ever, geeks and bozos have pulling power. Can you blame them, after thousands of years of competing for female attention, for letting it go to their heads?

Anonymous said...

They want to sterilise teenage girls in UK:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=514542&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expan

I wrote this comment:

A college education for women is pretty useless. Most women are not interested in working, even with a college education. When they are 30 they are desperate to find a husband, but men are not interested in women that old. the reason why many college educated women do not find husbands is not intelligence but lack of interest of men. Young women under 20 are the most fecond, the most fertile and excellent for breeding children. They have no problem finding a husband. We must enforce that they marry as virgins, that they do not catch STDs, do not drink and smoke which is dangerous for their children.
It is madness to demand that girls act like men. Men work, get educated, women are interested in having babies, let them be women.
Look at how women were managed in victorian times. Most got married before they turned 20, they got children, they married as virgins, did not drink or smoke.

Making babies is what girls do best, everything else is social engineering.

MisAnDrope said...

My response to "Woman With An Opinion" didn't make the cut - probably because I stooped to some language that was not up to snuff. But I based a post on it, which you can see here in all it's uncensored glory.

-Sorry about the language.
M

Anonymous said...

A Radio Station was offering a Free Divorce this week the contest was on Valentine's Day. Which has become a Second Christmas for Women only in the US. For Men it has become an obligatory Holiday and opportunity to reduce our net worth by pissing money away on Flowers, Chocolates, Cards, Jewelery (Conflict or Blood Diamonds), and expensive trinkets.

Feminists in their blind hatred of Men have advocated V-Day, Violence Against Women Day. A day to raise funds to fight Domestic Violence. So this week two major FemHags Jane Fonda and Eve Ensler did the talk show rounds. The classless FemNag Whore Fonda used the Word Cunt repeatedly on National TV. What a piece of human excrement she is. An aging Boomer Attention Whore.

Anonymous said...

if women want a good husband, maybe they should stop dancing to such a song?
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=EDd0cyMRzn8&feature=related

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/master-p/shake-what-ya-got.html

Shake What Ya Got Lyrics
Artist: Master P (Buy Master P CDs)
Album: Ghetto Bill



C'mon in VIP baby
[Chorus]
Shake what you got in them jeans (them jeans)
Girl grab the wall, then shake it like a dog
Shake what you got in them jeans (them jeans)
Girl grab the wall, then shake it like a dog
Shake what you got in them jeans (oh yeah)
Girl grab the wall, then shake it like a dog
Shake what you got in them jeans (oh yeah)
From the front to the back, girl you know what I mean

[Verse 1]
I'm country, she country, we country
Come closer, it's a free country
Damn you cute, girl you fine
Keep it right there, I wanna make you mine
Don't play no games, I gotta keep it real
Got the +Magic Stick+ and a gold grill
Shake what you got in them jeans (them jeans)
Cause thugs need love, girl you know what I mean
Hold up Allie Mae you gonna work it like that
Rock the bump and let it wooble from the back

[Chorus]
Shake what you got in them jeans (them jeans)
Girl grab the wall, then shake it like a dog
Shake what you got in them jeans (them jeans)
Girl grab the wall, then shake it like a dog
Shake what you got in them jeans (oh yeah)
Girl grab the wall, then shake it like a dog
Shake what you got in them jeans (oh yeah)
From the front to the back, girl you know what I mean

[Verse 2]
We play football, no pads, she got the cushion
I ain't Bill Cosby, but I love jello pudding
Check out that Puerto Rican body, she's a hottie
I ain't Slick Rick but +La Di Da Di+
And who's the fly white girl, she ain't that tall
So them P. Miller jeans look like two basketballs
And that Latino and Asian mommy
Make a grown man want to do the rowdy (WOO!)
And beautiful, black chick with the passions on
Make every thug in the club wanna sing this song

[Chorus]
Shake what you got in them jeans (them jeans)
Girl grab the wall, then shake it like a dog
Shake what you got in them jeans (them jeans)
Girl grab the wall, then shake it like a dog

[Break]
Hey don't stop, don't stop
We can take it the floor, girl show me what you got
Hey don't stop, don't stop
You can grab the wall, girl show me what you got
Hey don't stop, don't stop
You can grab the pole, girl show me what you got
Hey don't stop, don't stop
We can take it from the club, to the parking lot
Now stop (WHAT!), then roll (HA!)
Head, shoulders, knees, toes

[Chorus]
Shake what you got in them jeans (them jeans)
Girl grab the wall, then shake it like a dog
Shake what you got in them jeans (them jeans)
From the front to the back, girl you know what I mean

[Verse 3]
I'ma No Limit soldier and I love ya boo
And her and her girl said ([Female voice:] We love you too)
Halle Berry head, lease the red (WOO!)
Got eight Aston 5, but that's how I prove it
Eyes lightly on me, a young Janet Jackson
Tina Turner thighs, the ghetto's main attraction
She wear boots with her jeans like Free
And homies in the hood wanna 'cuff her like the police
She so sexy, damn so nasty
A thug girl, but still so classy
Sometime she get vicious
In them P. Miller pads her jeans look bootylicious

[Chorus]
Shake what you got in them jeans (them jeans)
Girl grab the wall, then shake it like a dog
Shake what you got in them jeans (them jeans)
Girl grab the wall, then shake it like a dog
Shake what you got in them jeans
Girl grab the wall, then shake it like a dog
Shake what you got in them jeans
From the front to the back, girl you know what I mean

Wow, wow, wow, wow, wow, wow, wow, wow, wow, wow, wow, wow, wow, wow

Woman With An Opinion said...

Ray Manta said...

Woman With An Opinion said...

"Yes, this should be a warning. Don't rush into a relationship with a woman around the same age as your children".

"Btw, this blog would be an insult to a man like Paul McCartney".

How would you know that?

Before stepping into the lions den with Heather Mills, Paul was married to a woman named Linda Eastman. It appeared that they loved each other very much and remained "until death did they part." I don't believe that a man who at one time had an enduring marriage would look favorably on the views held by most here.

Anonymous said...

Yes, this should be a warning. Don't rush into a relationship with a woman around the same age as your children.

But, friends, I am amazed that nobody has seen the irony in this sentence.

OK. It is easy, "woman with an opinion" (well, the name itself is wishful thinking) believes in true love, as she had said. But she has 34 years and SINGLE, as her blog says. Even more, as an eternal bachelor says

I notice that you don't have any pictures of yourself [on your blog]. I'm sure that means that you are smokin' hot and have to avoid marriage proposals at every turn. It's probably why you end up going on dates with men that say "I’m married and I’m looking for a part-time girlfriend."

Hehe. So the "woman" is desperate because men of their age are looking for younger women for relationships while she is treated like the damaged good she is. Too bad for a woman who believes in TRUE LERV. I see the biological clock ticking (this is why she defends a non-existent right to have kids without father: she is so selfish that doesn't mind to psychologically cripple a future child in order to get selfish satisfaction)

This is why she is always saying that women want young men and despise older men (against all evidence). She is bitter and fed-up with all these mature and successful men chasing younger women. She knows she cannot compete with the younger girls. So she tries to say men that they do not have to have relationships with young women. Of course, this is useless because men like young women. It is our biology. It is human nature and no nagging from a woman can prevent that.

This is why she says:

Yes, this should be a warning. Don't rush into a relationship with a woman around the same age as your children.

"Don't have relationships with young women. Have relationships with old hags like ME." At the end of the day, it boils down to that.

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

(Probably the remaining 25% is ashamed to say they are golddiggers).

So if you have to have sex with a golddigger, it is better that she is a young attractive golddigger and not an ugly goldigger full of wrinkles and sagging tits. Just be care of avoiding marriage and cohabitation (to protect your assets and your freedom). F&C (Fuck'n chuck) is the way to go

Anonymous said...

Thank you mandy. I agree with you. It is devastating to see Western civilization slowly kill himself. I also think it is too late.

But try to argue and nobody hears you. Nobody wants to restore the old values that made Western civilization the most succesful in history.

Try to speak in favour of marriage. Although I am 30-something, I am learning English in my country (in fact, writing here is a way of practising). So, last week, in English class, there was a debate, between me and a young girl about divorce. I claimed that married people should stay together (except in extreme cases), the divorce laws were unfair to the man and the fact that divorce is rampant in our society is a bad thing. The young girl was outraged by my opinion. She said that, if a divorce takes place, it is because somebody is not happy and this is a good think. She didn't want to marry.

The class had four men and twenty women (more or less). A married men defended marriage, I was against divorce, the remaining men were neutral. All women were enthusiastically against marriage and told they didn't want to marry.

I live in an European country and the future is clear. Muslim families are thriving and they reproduce quicker than us. In Muslim household, the values that made Western civilization succeed (family, etc) are thriving. In 50 years, european population will be a minority in our European country.

Feminism is the kiss of the death. When women start thinking that having children is a bad idea, women from other cultures fill the void. Nature abhors vacuum.

So the civilization who produced Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Kant, Beethoven, Mozart, Einstein, Shakespeare, most of science, philosophy, literature is doomed. We will return to a new dark age of theocatric rule (the sharia). Too bad for women.

Too bad for a men like me that loves Western civilization so much.

Anonymous said...

http://misformalevolent.blogspot.com/2005/11/s-is-for-suicide-revisited.html
Total Suicides: 30,000 per year
Men's Suicides: 22,500 per year
Women's Suicides: 7,500 per year
Divorced/Separated Men's Suicides: 14,850 per year.

Hmm. I wonder how many men committed suicide outside of a divorce/separation.
...Well, I know how to subtract, lets see...

Non Divorced/Separated Men's Suicides: 7,650 per year.
Wait... that's approximately equal to the number of suicides for women.

So it seems reasonable to guess, that if it were not for the way men are treated in divorce, those 14,850 men PER YEAR would still be alive.


Excellent read, I did not know that.

Anonymous said...

@woman with an opinion

Before stepping into the lions den with Heather Mills, Paul was married to a woman named Linda Eastman. It appeared that they loved each other very much and remained "until death did they part." I don't believe that a man who at one time had an enduring marriage would look favorably on the views held by most here.


Are you able to think logically, to use reason? It seems not, if you were, you would understand what this blog is about and what men complain about. It is not lifelong faithful marriage, but divorce for greed and money.
Damn, to understand that, it demands a lot intelligence, hm?!?



@anon 03:21

"Don't have relationships with young women. Have relationships with old hags like ME." At the end of the day, it boils down to that.


You are right. The best marriage material are 14-18 year olds.
the are very healthy, fecond and simply wonderful. They have many years during which they can have many healthy babies.

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=EDd0cyMRzn8&feature=related
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=XLOIw8_bgZg&feature=related


woman with an opinion has great chances to give birth to misformed babies or be completely infertile.

Anonymous said...

woman with an opinion, I am so happy not to be your husband.

I prefer these cuties, even so they behave like sluts.
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=EDd0cyMRzn8&feature=related
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=XLOIw8_bgZg&feature=related

I assume you behaved like a slut in your youth, too? How many strains of chlamydia are you the proud owner of?
:-)))))))

Anonymous said...

I don't believe that a man [Paul McCartney] who at one time had an enduring marriage would look favorably on the views held by most here.

Well, you are so wise. You know what true love is, what true singleness is, what are the right ages to get married (those who suit you well) and now.....

YOU CAN READ MINDS AND KNOW WHAT ARE THE THOUGHTS OF PAUL MCCARTNEY

Wow. You are a goddess.

By the way, Paul McCartney don't agree with us because he is more radical than us. Please read (quoted from http://genosworld.blogspot.com/2007/12/paul-mccartney-hoped-heather-mills.html):

Heather Mills has a recording of her estranged husband wishing death on her, according to a new report.
The former model allegedly has a recording of the former Beatle telling daughter Stella he hopes Heather will committ suicide under the pressure of their divorce so he won't have to pay her a settlement.
Sir Paul says on the tape, "If we turn up the pressure on Heather, with a bit of luck she will top herself and then we won't have to pay her a penny."


Wow, even the most radical eternal bachelors don't wish that a divorced woman would kill herself in order to avoid paying her. We only want to change laws and to avoid marriage but we don't want ex-wives commiting suicide. So Paul McCartney is more radical than us.

But, hey, I forgot that you know what are the thoughts of Paul McCartney better than himself.

Woman With An Opinion said...

YOU CAN READ MINDS AND KNOW WHAT ARE THE THOUGHTS OF PAUL MCCARTNEY

Wow. You are a goddess.

Heather Mills has a recording of her estranged husband wishing death on her, according to a new report.
The former model allegedly has a recording of the former Beatle telling daughter Stella he hopes Heather will committ suicide under the pressure of their divorce so he won't have to pay her a settlement.
Sir Paul says on the tape, "If we turn up the pressure on Heather, with a bit of luck she will top herself and then we won't have to pay her a penny."

Wow, even the most radical eternal bachelors don't wish that a divorced woman would kill herself in order to avoid paying her. We only want to change laws and to avoid marriage but we don't want ex-wives commiting suicide. So Paul McCartney is more radical than us.

But, hey, I forgot that you know what are the thoughts of Paul McCartney better than himself.--anonymous

17 February 2008 13:33

Yup, and my comment still stands. There is a difference between me and what appears to be 99% of the men on this blog. As disgusting as his comment was, I'd still give McCartney the benefit of the doubt. Heather Mills likely took such advantage of him that he resorted to such a vile comment. That happens to men AND women sometimes. Just look at the comments made by married women that you guys were up in arms about (women wishing they had not married their husbands--not nearly as bad) His wish for her to commit suicide does NOT change my opinion that this whole mess was likely the fault of Mills. The fact that she would try and get so much money out of him raises a red flag in my eyes. When your back is up against the wall, you don't know what you would say about another human being. Still, I don't see McCartney as anything like what I read here.

As for this:

"This is why she is always saying that women want young men and despise older men (against all evidence). She is bitter and fed-up with all these mature and successful men chasing younger women. She knows she cannot compete with the younger girls."--Some Angry Guy

I am going to say this again slooowly so that you will get it. I never said that women despise older men. I said that younger attractive men are preferable. A 25-year-old woman would rather a 28 or 30 year-old successful man than a 40-year-old. That does not mean she finds men in their 40's disgusting nor that she would not marry one. To go even further women today are more willing to marry/date a man younger than she is.

Lastly, you can all rest assured that I do NOT believe in forcing someone to marry, to want to marry, or avoid it. That is a personal decision. I'd rather not get married myself. If I did, I'd choose someone a bit younger (1-3 years younger).

With all that said, I can only go by personal experience. All someone has to do is look good and dress well and guys will fall all over you. Having good genes (everyone looks much younger than they are in my family line) helps a lot. To make a long story short, men I meet aren't bothered by age DEPENDING on variables (as long as the age gap isn't too wide--honestly, I don't blame them).

Anonymous said...

Here is a story about a woman who cheated on her man. A good long read and from one of the internets nutjobs. http://thehudsonvalleyfreeman.blogspot.com/

Here is an actual news story about it from an actual newspaper. Guy killed his wife then himself. http://www.dailyfreeman.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19315014&BRD=1769&PAG=461&dept_id=74969&rfi=6

Notice how the vixen changed after watching sex in the city and desprate house wives. Then started cheating on her man and unloading all sorts of nicities on him.

phoenix said...

If your wife watches television you are doomed. Women absolutely are unable to differentiate between reality and fantasy. A woman instinctually knows exactly how to best construct events to always put her in the best light and put others in a bad one. Even though these are just flat out lies, she doesn't even realize she is lying. Just like she doesn't realize she is adopting the behavior she sees on television for herself. She doesn't analyze what is going on in her life and then reason to something based on that, instead she simply fits her life into the reality she's seen on television.

There is a reason why woman's word was less believed than a man's, and women were constantly ignored in the past. It's because they simply never develop past a child-like state. A man when he lies does so out of pure malice, because a reasonably intelligent and normal man fully understands his actions and their impacts at all times. A woman and child most times can't be considered the same, they really simply have no idea what they are doing, they don't actually ever manifest that intent to cause harm or to decieve, it just happens and they truly believe the nonsense they are saying.

Anonymous said...

Heather Mills has a recording of her estranged husband wishing death on her.
-----
Yup, and my comment still stands.
There is a difference between me and what appears to be 99% of the men on this blog.


Yes, that's why we don't have to pay a woman and Paul McCartney has to pay her a fair share of his property. This is the difference. That a man is rich doesn't mean he is smart.

Remember the statistics:

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

(Probably the remaining 25% is ashamed to say they are golddiggers).

So please, don't be like Paul McCartney. Don't give your money to a woman by marrying her. McCartney can afford it because he has a fortune, but you don't.

As disgusting as his comment was, I'd still give McCartney the benefit of the doubt.

Typical female reasoning. Translation: Even against all evidence, I won't change my mind because this would imply admitting I was wrong.

Heather Mills .... Just look .... His wish for her to commit suicide .... raises a red flag ... When your back is up against the wall...

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Irrelevant. A pathetic excuse to dismiss the evidence of Paul McCarney wanting her ex dead.

You want to make McCartney think what you claim him to think but your sad rationalizations and flaky
arguments don't work here.

Still, I don't see McCartney as anything like what I read here.

Yes, that's why we are not paying a whore. That's why we don't want to pressure anybody for her to commit suicide. We are very different to Mr. McCartney.

Anyway, how did McCartney end up being a model of good behaviour? Of course, he is an amazing musician but this doesn't make it a good person in his personal life nor a model to imitate. He did a lot of drugs, he has a lot of money who don't share with poorer people, he married a woman who took advantage of their fortune, he wished his ex-wife to die, he is haughty and arrogant.

McCartney is not Jesus or Buddha to be a model of conduct (both single). Do you imagine Jesus being a married man? I imagine his wife nagging him "You only go with the boys", "You don't pay me any attention", "When will you grow up and leave this philandering life?", "When will you settle, stop wandering and have children?", "Don't talk about the Kingdom of Heaven, I want a better house", "I don't trust this Mary Magdalene, she is a whore and only want to trap you", "All my friends have a fashionable camel", "When will you stop being such a man-boy, such a Peter Pan?". Gospels would be very different. Regardless if you are a believer or an atheist, the proof that Jesus was a wise man was that he stayed single.

I am going to say this again slooowly so that you will get it. I never said that women despise older men...That does not mean she finds men in their 40's disgusting nor that she would not marry one.

I am going to say this slooolwly so that you will get it. You're a liar.
I only quote your own words (in other posts):

I was recently "approached" by a much older man and was absolutely repulsed. I didn't tell him that of course, but was repulsed by the thought of him touching me. That is how most women my age feel. I thought, why does this guy think that he could possibly attract me as old as he is?

You change your argument as it suits you. It is not the first time. You are willing to say one thing and the opposite, sometimes in the same message. You have lost all credibility here. You're a liar, period.

If I did, I'd choose someone a bit younger (1-3 years younger). Hahaha. What makes you think that you could? Good luck with that.

With all that said, I can only go by personal experience. All someone has to do is look good and dress well and guys will fall all over you.

Yes, this is why they are all this articles of desperate 30-something women telling "Why can I get a boyfriend?". They don't dress well. Finally, somebody has discovered the truth behind the so-called "man-shortage". It is a problem of fashion. No matter what age you have, if you dress well, you will
have lots of men falling over you. Even Barbara Bush can be considered hot with the right clothes. Alleluia!

Having good genes (everyone looks much younger than they are in my family line) helps a lot.

Yes, yes, this is why you are married. This is why you urge the eternal bachelor to marry. This is why you don't put your pictures in your MySpace page. You are SMOKING HOT. We know. We know you are a liar. Now, we have even written proof of that.

To make a long story short, men I meet aren't bothered by age DEPENDING on variables. Yes,
this is why in your MySpace page you talk about men you date that are married and want a partial-time girlfriend. If you want something more than a quick fuck on the side, this is nonsense and I won't bother to answer this crap.

Woman With An Opinion said...

I am going to say this slooolwly so that you will get it. You're a liar. I only quote your own words (in other posts):

I was recently "approached" by a much older man and was absolutely repulsed. I didn't tell him that of course, but was repulsed by the thought of him touching me. That is how most women my age feel. I thought, why does this guy think that he could possibly attract me as old as he is?--An Angry Male

This is truly unbelievable. You are so angry that you still don't get it. Women do not despise older men. Most of us simply don't want to sleep with them (as I alluded to before). Do you get it now? The phrase MOST WOMEN means that there are a few willing individuals. So my statement does not contain a contradiction. Sheesh!

woman with an opinion said...

"Anyway, how did McCartney end up being a model of good behaviour?"

This is amazing?

Of course, he is an amazing musician but this doesn't make it a good person in his personal life nor a model to imitate. He did a lot of drugs, he has a lot of money who don't share with poorer people, he married a woman who took advantage of their fortune, he wished his ex-wife to die, he is haughty and arrogant."

Utterly Amazing. You appear to be the type that judges people without considering the wrong that you do yourself. Do you believe that you are better than others? He said something stupid. Nobody's perfect. Give the man a break. I'm not perfect, are you?

"Do you imagine Jesus being a married man?"

No, I can't imagine a deity being married, having sex, or going to the movies for that matter. Your point is?

"this is why in your MySpace page you talk about men you date that are married and want a partial-time girlfriend."

Neither my MySpace page nor my blog states this. It talks about an older guy (50's to early 60's a the most) I met who admitted to being married (which is usually the case with older guys...another reason why I avoid them). I consider married men to be off limits period. My next admission will piss you off even more. He decided to tell me he was married AFTER I told him that I was involved with someone I intended to break up with. And yes, he is wrong since he is married...What I did was perfectly ok since there was no marriage and I am totally free of him. Oh well, off to hunt.

Anonymous said...

You're a liar. Thank you for admitting that by using cheap tricks to deffend a position that cannot be deffended. Your comments to disprove that are pathetic and don't make sense.

Please see:

Older post: I was recently "approached" by a much older man and was absolutely repulsed. I didn't tell him that of course, but was repulsed by the thought of him touching me. That is how most women my age feel.

Newer post: That does not mean she finds men in their 40's disgusting .

Even newer post: [The both posts above] are not a contradiction. "So my statement does not contain a contradiction. Sheesh!" (Yes, and pigs fly)

So first she says that women are repulsed by older men and then she says they are not disgusted by them, which is a contradiction. Then, she says this is not a contradiction.

Guys, have you seen a more demented woman? She is unable to think properly and use logic. She thinks we can fool us by using cheap tricks against all logic. She has been caught in a lie and she is unable to admit it so she recurs to nonsense.

You're a liar. You have lose your credibility: woman with contradictory opinions. Not only because you contradict yourself and you're a liar but also because you are unable to admit when you are wrong. You can use any shaming language and use cheap tricks, but everybody here has seen that.

Anonymous said...

You appear to be the type that judges people without considering the wrong that you do yourself.

Irrelevant, even if this was true. It's not me who is being discussed as a model of behaviour. It is a cheap trick to try to distract attention from Paul McCartney (the topic of discussion) pointing to me.

Do you believe that you are better than others?

Utterly pathetic. I haven't said anything about that and, even if I had said it, this would not have anything to do with the topic being discussed (the adequacy of Paul McCartney as a model of behaviour).

These cheap personal attacks only show what desperate you are to deffend your position when you have been defeated in arguments. You have no logic argument to use so you resort to smoke screens.

He said something stupid. Nobody's perfect. Give the man a break.

Well, I am not harassing him. I am not speaking to him. He doesn't even know my existence. It is completely stupid to ask me to give the man a break. The man doesn't need a break from me. It's you the one who are running out of arguments and you don't know what to say to deffend a point of view which is indefensable so you want me to give you a break.

You are the one who said Paul McCartney is different from us. And you were right, he is. We don't wish the death of our exes and he does it. We are not such bastards.

Only because he has been married for a longtime, this does not turn him into a model of behaviour. I remember this couple of married people who were serial killers and buried the corpses under their garden. I don't remember the names. Can anybody help me?

I'm not perfect, are you?

I'm not perfect but I don't wish the death of my exes, either (I don't know about you). Anyway, I am not being discussed as a model of behaviour. Please stop using smoke screens and talk about the topic of discussion instead of focusing on me in order to hide your lack of arguments.

Do you imagine Jesus being a married man? No, I can't imagine a deity being married, having sex, or going to the movies for that matter. Your point is?

Utterly ridiculous. For the atheist, Jesus was a person so your argument doesn't apply. For the believer, Jesus was a deity and a man at the same time. As a man, He ate, He drank (as the Gospels attest), He sweat, He defecated, He breathed, He performed all body functions. He was not a ghost without body. There is no reason why he was not able to have sex (although being Him a religious leader, He would have had sex inside a Jewish marriage). Please read the Gospels (even if you are an atheist this is one of the texts of our culture that any person has to read, like Shakespeare) before showing your ignorance and lack of culture.

In times of Jesus, the vast majority of Jewish children were circumcised so Jesus was circumcised. In times of Jesus, the
vast majority of Jewish people got married but Jesus stayed single. This is wise.

My point is that Jesus would not have been able to do what he did if he was married. If you want to do anything significant in life besides supporting a nagging wife and some spoiled brats, you'd better not get married.


Neither my MySpace page nor my blog states this. It talks about an older guy (50's to early 60's a the most) I met who admitted to being married (which is usually the case with older guys...another reason why I avoid them). I consider married men to be off limits period. My next admission will piss you off even more. He decided to tell me he was married AFTER I told
him that I was involved with someone I intended to break up with. And yes, he is wrong since he is married...What I did was perfectly ok since there was no marriage and I am totally free of him.


Hahaha. Do you think this piss me off? On the contrary, this amuses me. You have a pathetic love life, but this is funny.

Please tell us more stories like that. They are so funny and they show your fantastic love life.

All someone has to do is look good and dress well and guys will fall all over you.

These are the guys who are falling all over you. Older than 50s, married and looking for a partial girlfriend. Wow! Congratulations! Your love life is exciting. No wonder you tell us how we have to manage our sex lives (like your previous comments telling that we have to marry young women and that we have to stop picking the wrong ones). Your love life is so amazing that you are entitled to give advice. I don't understand how you have time to write so much if you have lots of men falling over you (yes 50-something and married). Here we are eternal bachelors so we have plenty of time to write. But what are you doing here instead of being in so many dates you have with the men who are constantly falling over you?

Woman With An Opinion said...

In times of Jesus, the
vast majority of Jewish people got married but Jesus stayed single. This is wise.

My point is that Jesus would not have been able to do what he did if he was married. If you want to do anything significant in life besides supporting a nagging wife and some spoiled brats, you'd better not get married."

We will have to agree to disagree on the religious points. But what is offensive is that you are attempting to connect singleness for religious purposes with eternal bachelorhood as presented here in this blog. That's an insult. Men who are single for purposes of religion are men I hold in high esteem. Making the comparisons you are making is unfair.

"These are the guys who are falling all over you. Older than 50s, married and looking for a partial girlfriend. Wow! Congratulations! Your love life is exciting. No wonder you tell us how we have to manage our sex lives (like your previous comments telling that we have to marry young women and that we have to stop picking the wrong ones). Your love life is so amazing that you are entitled to give advice. I don't understand how you have time to write so much if you have lots of men falling over you (yes 50-something and married)."

It appears that you and a few others take one incident and run with it. That's ok. You need something to argue with me about.

"Hahaha. Do you think this piss me off? On the contrary, this amuses me."

Yup, it was funny as heck. Me, my friends, and even a few family members had a great laugh over it. And yes, I could tell plenty more. But that's for another blog.

"You have a pathetic love life, but this is funny."

oh yes, it's really pathetic. No hits and runs out of me...I'm left only with integrity and a completely boring new 30-year-old friend...woe is me.

"These cheap personal attacks only show what desperate you are to deffend your position"

Not sure where that came from, but you are taking this way too personally.

"It is completely stupid to ask me to give the man a break"

Perhaps it was stupid of me to ask you to stop trashing a man who doesn't know of your existence (your words remember?). But let me remind you that you did spell the word defend with two "f's". So I'd ask my question again: Are you the type to point out everyone else's faults without dealing with your own?

"Here we are eternal bachelors so we have plenty of time to write."

So you're admitting that eternal bachelors have no life but to spend time posting on blogs ranting against women and marriage? Are you trying to convince lurkers and readers that you don't need relationships or marriage with women or are you trying to convince yourselves of that. hhhmmm

"But what are you doing here instead of being in so many dates you have with the men who are constantly falling over you?"

Why am I not going out on so many dates with every guy who fell all over me? Ever heard of pick, choose, and refuse? It's simple, weed them out until you narrow it down to one...then date that person. But even then, it's not everyday of the week. People have many aspects to their social lives...not just dating. Understand? (smile)