Marriage and rape
For the past 50,000 years since human evolution created our species of behaviorally modern humans, marriage in all clans, tribes, cultures, religions, and nations has meant sexual access of a man with a woman to create children and families. The successful creation of the next generation is hugely important to every society. Our ancestors developed the institution of marriage to encourage and support the production and successful raising and education of the next generation. It has been conjectured by anthropologists that marriage was one of the most important reasons our ancestors were able to take over Europe and Asia by eradicating Neanderthal and Homo Erectus residents already there.
Marriage has always been a three way bargain between the man, the woman, and the clan, tribe, or culture in which they lived. The man agrees to protect and support the woman and her children. The woman agrees to accept the man's sperm and then bear and raise the children which result. The man gains sexual access and satisfaction in exchange for his labor and his sometimes risky protection. The woman gains sexual satisfaction, a father for her children, and his support and protection while she devotes her labor to the children. Generally both partners agree to do all the many life chores to raise their family. The community, clan, tribe, or culture agrees to accept and support their family and assist in their efforts to raise the next generation.
Marriage is an important bargain for everyone involved. It has been speculated that Imperial Rome eventually failed because marriage became so unpopular that there weren't enough Romans left to continue such a large empire. No family, clan, or society is more than one generation away from oblivion, and there are always other populations ready to take over. Marriage and the successful production of the next generation is hugely important.
The importance of marriage and the meaning of its bargains was clearly understood by all until feminism began it's anti-marriage, anti-family, anti-men hate campaigns in the middle of the 19th century. Feminists opposed marriage and claimed, "Marriage oppresses women." In truth, marriage was the social institution that had allowed women to progress from animals hiding from predators in trees and caves to the dominant species on the planet. Nineteenth century feminist had become so "oppressed" that they no longer spent their time doing actual work and had the opulence and luxury to spend their time fermenting hatred of the very men and institutions that had provided them with their riches.
Feminists wanted to abrogate all the promises women made in marriage. They, of course, still wanted all the marriage benefits. At the Seneca Falls Conference in 1848 they adopted the goal of allowing women to leave their husbands, take the children, and still be supported by him. If you look closely at that resolution they waive off the woman's agreement to join in a life long family. It waives off her obligation to raise his children in a family, and asserts that the woman has the right to take his children away from their father. After a century of lobbying new law they had created so-called "no-fault" divorce, or divorce at will. Women under the new feminist laws could abandon their marriage vows on a whim for no reason at all, and in fact women today file 90% of divorces, breaking up most families, usually for reasons amounting to boredom or sexual lust for a different man. Divorce laws require the former husband to support her and her children by alimony or fraudulent "child support" laws, now a major industry for government and private agencies.
But even being legally able to abandon marriage will wasn't enough for anti-marriage feminists. They didn't want to promise anything at all in a marriage. To the lesbians who control feminist organizations the thought of sex with husbands is the worst part of marriage. "Sleeping with the enemy," is how women fail at feminism, according to their dogma. In the minds of radical lesbian feminists, "All sex (with men) is rape." So a wife is being raped by her husband every time they do sex. And since marriage requires her to do sex with him, in their twisted hate filled minds its absolute rape. So to abolish sex in marriage they came up with the concept of "marital rape." According to this sick lesbian anti-marriage law, a man can be charged with "rape" by his wife if she was coerced or pressured to do sex some night when she had a headache, or was withholding sex as a form or emotional domination. Many men have been tried and convicted of "marriage rape" in the United States, and all husbands now know that they no longer have the right to sex with their wife as part of a legal faux marriage under feminism. In California the legislature just passed a bill strengthening the "rape" laws allowing female misandrists to charge their ex-husband with "rape" six years after their divorce.
But can sex between a husband and wife ever actually be rape? No, it can't be. The crime of rape requires a couple of things. First there has to be sex, and second, there has to be a lack of consent on the part of the female. In the age old understanding of marriage the female consented to accept the man's sperm and bear his children in exchange for his support and protection. When she was asked if she accepted this man as her husband she made her choice and granted her permission. To become marred she said "I do" or similar words. Her consent to sex with this man has been sworn before her family and friends and before her priest and her gods. Her consent to sex with this man has been signed on witnessed documents and recorded with the state, as state that exercises legal permission over who may marry and who may not. Sex between a husband and wife can never be rape because she has granted legal and moral permission, and agreed to accept his sperm and bear his children. She made a free choice as a responsible adult and gave her permission for sex with this man. If she changes her mind, as feminazi often do, she can get a divorce and abrogate her marriage vows. While she is still married, a husband can not rape his wife, morally, ethically, or physically.
In the US and other places where "marital rape" laws have been passed they have negated marriage. Marriage has become illegal in those places. The female no longer agrees to accept his sperm and bear his children. She still is entitled to his support and protection, even long after the whore leaves him for the next guy she fancies. It is not a marriage. It does not grant him the benefits that marriage grants to a man. And the current legal ceremony fails to give her any of the obligations that marriage has always asked of women in exchange for the benefits received. It is no wonder that they contemplate "gay marriage." When marriage is not marriage, then it hardly matters that perverts play games with the sham that is left.
The result of feminist anti-marriage hate has been a abrogation of marriage in most parts of the US. Whenever the law books have "marital rape" then they don't have marriage. There is not and can not be a rape of a wife by a husband.
Men should read laws of states and nations before they marry or take their wives to such places. The laws exclude and prohibit marriage in those places. It's not marriage, its slavery of men and that’s all that it is.
Marriage has always been a three way bargain between the man, the woman, and the clan, tribe, or culture in which they lived. The man agrees to protect and support the woman and her children. The woman agrees to accept the man's sperm and then bear and raise the children which result. The man gains sexual access and satisfaction in exchange for his labor and his sometimes risky protection. The woman gains sexual satisfaction, a father for her children, and his support and protection while she devotes her labor to the children. Generally both partners agree to do all the many life chores to raise their family. The community, clan, tribe, or culture agrees to accept and support their family and assist in their efforts to raise the next generation.
Marriage is an important bargain for everyone involved. It has been speculated that Imperial Rome eventually failed because marriage became so unpopular that there weren't enough Romans left to continue such a large empire. No family, clan, or society is more than one generation away from oblivion, and there are always other populations ready to take over. Marriage and the successful production of the next generation is hugely important.
The importance of marriage and the meaning of its bargains was clearly understood by all until feminism began it's anti-marriage, anti-family, anti-men hate campaigns in the middle of the 19th century. Feminists opposed marriage and claimed, "Marriage oppresses women." In truth, marriage was the social institution that had allowed women to progress from animals hiding from predators in trees and caves to the dominant species on the planet. Nineteenth century feminist had become so "oppressed" that they no longer spent their time doing actual work and had the opulence and luxury to spend their time fermenting hatred of the very men and institutions that had provided them with their riches.
Feminists wanted to abrogate all the promises women made in marriage. They, of course, still wanted all the marriage benefits. At the Seneca Falls Conference in 1848 they adopted the goal of allowing women to leave their husbands, take the children, and still be supported by him. If you look closely at that resolution they waive off the woman's agreement to join in a life long family. It waives off her obligation to raise his children in a family, and asserts that the woman has the right to take his children away from their father. After a century of lobbying new law they had created so-called "no-fault" divorce, or divorce at will. Women under the new feminist laws could abandon their marriage vows on a whim for no reason at all, and in fact women today file 90% of divorces, breaking up most families, usually for reasons amounting to boredom or sexual lust for a different man. Divorce laws require the former husband to support her and her children by alimony or fraudulent "child support" laws, now a major industry for government and private agencies.
But even being legally able to abandon marriage will wasn't enough for anti-marriage feminists. They didn't want to promise anything at all in a marriage. To the lesbians who control feminist organizations the thought of sex with husbands is the worst part of marriage. "Sleeping with the enemy," is how women fail at feminism, according to their dogma. In the minds of radical lesbian feminists, "All sex (with men) is rape." So a wife is being raped by her husband every time they do sex. And since marriage requires her to do sex with him, in their twisted hate filled minds its absolute rape. So to abolish sex in marriage they came up with the concept of "marital rape." According to this sick lesbian anti-marriage law, a man can be charged with "rape" by his wife if she was coerced or pressured to do sex some night when she had a headache, or was withholding sex as a form or emotional domination. Many men have been tried and convicted of "marriage rape" in the United States, and all husbands now know that they no longer have the right to sex with their wife as part of a legal faux marriage under feminism. In California the legislature just passed a bill strengthening the "rape" laws allowing female misandrists to charge their ex-husband with "rape" six years after their divorce.
But can sex between a husband and wife ever actually be rape? No, it can't be. The crime of rape requires a couple of things. First there has to be sex, and second, there has to be a lack of consent on the part of the female. In the age old understanding of marriage the female consented to accept the man's sperm and bear his children in exchange for his support and protection. When she was asked if she accepted this man as her husband she made her choice and granted her permission. To become marred she said "I do" or similar words. Her consent to sex with this man has been sworn before her family and friends and before her priest and her gods. Her consent to sex with this man has been signed on witnessed documents and recorded with the state, as state that exercises legal permission over who may marry and who may not. Sex between a husband and wife can never be rape because she has granted legal and moral permission, and agreed to accept his sperm and bear his children. She made a free choice as a responsible adult and gave her permission for sex with this man. If she changes her mind, as feminazi often do, she can get a divorce and abrogate her marriage vows. While she is still married, a husband can not rape his wife, morally, ethically, or physically.
In the US and other places where "marital rape" laws have been passed they have negated marriage. Marriage has become illegal in those places. The female no longer agrees to accept his sperm and bear his children. She still is entitled to his support and protection, even long after the whore leaves him for the next guy she fancies. It is not a marriage. It does not grant him the benefits that marriage grants to a man. And the current legal ceremony fails to give her any of the obligations that marriage has always asked of women in exchange for the benefits received. It is no wonder that they contemplate "gay marriage." When marriage is not marriage, then it hardly matters that perverts play games with the sham that is left.
The result of feminist anti-marriage hate has been a abrogation of marriage in most parts of the US. Whenever the law books have "marital rape" then they don't have marriage. There is not and can not be a rape of a wife by a husband.
Men should read laws of states and nations before they marry or take their wives to such places. The laws exclude and prohibit marriage in those places. It's not marriage, its slavery of men and that’s all that it is.
posted by Bob | Monday, July 17, 2006
85 Comments:
There should be no marital rape laws whatsoever.
There should also be no domestic violence laws either.
For one thing, long-standing, existing laws pertaining to assault are sufficient.
More important, however, is that American women have to start learning how to be women again. This means being submissive, obedient, devoted - and putting out without the husband having to ask.
Unfortunately, women by nature do not have the mental capacity or emotional maturity to make the necessary changes to their behavior on their own. Their lesson in manners and good behavior has to imposed from outside and above - from MEN.
If American men expect their women to behave properly, they will have to re-assert their natural, traditional role as leaders, and begin to reduce the freedoms and choices women currently enjoy today. And a first step in restricting women's freedoms (and thus improving their behavior) is to get rid of marital rape and domestic violence laws.
"reduce the freedoms and choices women currently enjoy today"
How will men do that?
If you employ force (beatings, slavery, crucifixion, torture, etc.), you will only torture your victims until all women commit suicide.
Slavery cannot be tolerated... especially by people who have known only CIVIL RIGHTS and HUMAN RIGHTS.
Note to anonymous: (July 17, 2006 1:17 PM)
The important part of your comment is, "I left." If you are now bankrupt its because you were morally bankrupt first. You abrogated your marriage, took your husband's child, and called in the evil minions of Satan in black robes to rob your husband of his house and property. Were you "faithful" when you left? Were you honest when your minion of Satan robbed him of his home? Do you expect MEN to feel sorry that you failed to ruin him entirely and are now going bankrupt? You got one thing right. You are pretty stupid.
"women by nature do not have the mental capacity or emotional maturity to make the necessary changes to their behavior on their own."
Wrong. Who are YOU, Anonymous? Do you even work?
Women go to work as professors, doctors, judges, pilots, CEOs.
They are entirely capable of good behavior. You cannot discern their courage, decency, good behavior because you live in a sewer, blinded by your own brown filth.
"Their lesson in manners and good behavior has to imposed from outside and above - from MEN."
Yes - men like the scumbags you see on tv news:
Bank robbers, car thieves, suicide bombers, drunk drivers, rapists, murderers, child molesters, porn dealers, traitors, pedophiles, embezzlers.
Wish men didn't do bad things but most men lack the emotional maturity to control themselves.
Note to anonymous: (July 17, 2006 3:32 PM)
You said, "How will men do that? If you employ force (beatings, slavery, crucifixion, torture, etc.), you will only torture your victims until all women commit suicide."
That's a good suggestion. MEN today are now tortured and mentally abused until they commit suicide in vastly higher numbers than females. Husbands who have suffered abusive divorce commit suicide ever 17 minutes. Pushing women into "Affirmative Action" suicide is a great idea. Time for equal rights in body bags. Thanks.
Note to anonymous: (July 17, 2006 3:41 PM)
Your abject misandry is noted. You characterize females by high paid professional jobs and point out that you and the misandrist media believe that men are characterized by crime and violence. Unfortunately for you feminazi hate mongers, the opposite is closer to the truth. A few, the very cream, of females can approach the higher levels of ordinary men, but most are, on average, unable to do rational thought. Even women working those professions you brag about generally do the poorest levels of work when they survive at all.
Thanks for the demo of the misandrist hate that real MEN have to overcome.
"women by nature do not have the mental capacity or emotional maturity to make the necessary changes to their behavior on their own."
Wrong. Who are YOU, Anonymous? Do you even work?
Women go to work as professors, doctors, judges, pilots, CEOs.
1) My personal life isn't the issue.
2) Women should not work in the above mentioned professions. It is unfeminine, unnatural, and unbecoming of women to perform male roles that require a perspective, strength, and mental capacity they do not possess. Their proper place is at home keeping house, taking care of the kids, and cooking for the family while their husbands are busting their asses earning a living.
Young American women today are slackening in their domestic skills. Younger women especially seem not to know or care how to cook or clean properly. It's time men cracked the whip and demanded that these lazy, irresponsible, stupid women sharpen their traditional feminine skills of serving the man in the house.
3) Being a professor, doctor, etc. says NOTHING about whether these women make good wives, or behave respectfully towards men or not.
They are entirely capable of good behavior. You cannot discern their courage, decency, good behavior because you live in a sewer, blinded by your own brown filth.
If you weren't so blinded by your hatred and spite towards men, you would know that you are totally unqualified to say who is or who is not capable of decent, good behavior - since you COMPLETELY lack such behavior youself.
"Their lesson in manners and good behavior has to imposed from outside and above - from MEN."
Yes - men like the scumbags you see on tv news:
Bank robbers, car thieves, suicide bombers, drunk drivers, rapists, murderers, child molesters, porn dealers, traitors, pedophiles, embezzlers.
Wish men didn't do bad things but most men lack the emotional maturity to control themselves.
You stupid, despicable piece of shit.
The hatred and malice you display towards men testifies to the inability and unwillingness of women to understand how low they have sunk in their behavior. Women are by nature too weak and unwilling to know right from wrong unless and until men teach them.
Whether you are a female, or just a psychologically, or sexually disturbed "male," your childish, feminist hatred towards men is duly noted. It is tragic that so many American women think and behave like you - they, like you, will have to prepare themselves for what lies in store for them ahead.
bob, Paradise is NOT stupid but was too trusting. The stupid thing is to love a cruel man.
News flash bob: Men are not perfect. Some break the law, harm their families in a selfish way.
Note to all you hate mongering feminazi who post the same tired old hate crap that wasn't worth a shit when your grandmothers used it. Stuff it up your arses. Bob gets a really big laugh at your hissy fits and then hits the delete button. You stupid misandrist cunts are so pathetic.
Bob, calling people names like "cunt" is a sin.
Have you given any real thought to your eternity?
Note to anonymous" (July 17, 2006 8:30 PM)
1. If the cunt doesn't like it she can pound sand.
2. Religion is not the topic of Bobstruth.
See the William Hetherington case.
Kudos. Another honest and earthy piece, Bob.
Anonymous (July 17, 2006 3:32 PM) said...
"reduce the freedoms and choices women currently enjoy today"
How will men do that?
I already gave some examples. Please read more carefully next time.
Another example would be to do what South Dakota has done: to restrict abortion to the point of virtually banning it.
- Pete
A women can brutally beat her child to death and the media will paint her as a victim or even as a hero.
So don't crap on about men being in the news all the time.
It's sexist bullshit.
You want to see domestic violence. Watch Everybody Loves Raymond. Everything his wife does to him from physical violence to emotional abuse is described on the anti-male domestic violence ads.
F*cking feminist hypocrites.
@Paradise
You are the only female I have ever heard of that has been screwed by divorce.
I know guys living in AUS$500 cars because all their money is taken for child support.
I know a guy who is on disability pension due to a work injury who still has to pay full child support because the state has ruled that child support amounts cannot be changed, except every 2 years at a set date. He has AUS$5 per week left over.
Note to anonymous:
The William Hetherington case is an example of how real marriage has been outlawed and men are no longer granted any rights in exchange for the huge risks under feminazi marriage and divorce laws. No man is safe within 500 yards of a female under current feminazi law. The evil minion of Satan who destroyed Hetherington should be taken out and shot along with every gun thug involved.
Anonymous (July 17, 2006 3:32 PM) said...
If you employ force (beatings, slavery, crucifixion, torture, etc.), you will only torture your victims until all women commit suicide.
Slavery cannot be tolerated... especially by people who have known only CIVIL RIGHTS and HUMAN RIGHTS.
First, the elimination of American women COULD take place without affecting men very much - since there will always be an enormous surplus of foreign women who could fill the vacuum left by American women.
Second, your characterization of force is both unnecessary and over the top. Women - being the weak creatures they are - are easily intimidated by male power, even when slight.
As for rights, women really do not need rights as long as they are obedient, subservient wives to their husbands, as is natural. Men will always protect them, and women are pretty much free anyway, since their freedoms naturally flow down from men's. The original Enlightenment ideas of individual rights and freedoms applied to men only. Women were simply out of the picture - just as they were when the US Constitution was originally drafted. Yet, despite being completely ignored and never specifically included as having any rights, women in America were still very free and comfortable compared to women in other non-western societies.
This is somewhat off-topic, but relevant. Women often talk of "leaving" their marriage because men are "abusive." Yet it's women's so-called "standards" that had them choose these men in the first place.
If women's standards are so high, why all the break-ups? Can they not tell the winners from losers? It's ultimately women who choose a partner (guys can't just take what they want), so they are responsible for he problems that result. Fix this and you've fixed why the whole divorce thing is such an issue.
If you want all-male power in the Western world, how will you actually get it?
Example: rescind all women's legal rights, restore slavery, whatever.
How did the Feminist movement gain legal rights? They DID SOMETHING.
They didn't just sit and whine on blogs. They went out, talked, petitioned, got elected officials moving.
Thus, various legal rights got put in place and enforced, along with the parallel Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s led by Martin Luther King.
Can Western men turn back to the 1800s, as many want on this Blog?
Possibly, but hardly likely.
What then to do? Just sit there and gripe ?
NO....
Take action. Get off your comfortable butt and escape to a Third World ISLAMIC country.
There, you will again have the benefits of a society without women's rights. A society that allows men FREEDOM to do whatever they want.
Leave America. Go to Afghanistan, put down roots.
If Islam is not for you, no problem. Pretend to convert. What you believe in your individual soul is what counts.
Contact Embassy of Afghanistan to learn how to emigrate:
http://www.embassyofafghanistan.org/
The use of power to get what you want, is still bullying.
Bullying yields only temporary "victories".
Always leave your opponent an untouched measure of self-respect. To ignore this reality of human nature, is to be very unwise.
We keep getting hysterical feminazi rants insisting that women can't be decent wives without abusive power. Nonsense. Despite the century of feminazi hate propaganda, most women are decent and would be far happier having a loving family than the abysmal life they lead today. Allowing women to lead full, rich, joyous lives with their children and husband instead of the failed feminazi dreams will only take love, not abuse or power.
What will take force is to silence the feminazi who now make it illegal for women to choose marriage over the failed feminazi dream.
People follow leaders because they want to.
They obey tyrants because they must.
Slave women were not free and comfortable.
Anonymous (July 18, 2006 4:47 PM) said...
Take action. Get off your comfortable butt and escape to a Third World ISLAMIC country.
There, you will again have the benefits of a society without women's rights. A society that allows men FREEDOM to do whatever they want.
Leave America. Go to Afghanistan, put down roots.
This type of idiotic "solution" (leaving America) conveniently allows American women to continue to behave like spoiled children, leaving un-addressed the issue of their out-of-control behavior.
It is neither necessary nor desirable that America be some kind of primitive Islamic country. Nevertheless, men can and must take steps to regulate women's freedoms and choices if families are to continue being the building blocks of western societies. Placing controls on women's behavior is a duty and responsiblity for all societies, whether western or non-western.
- Pete
Anonymous (July 18, 2006 5:17 PM) said...
The use of power to get what you want, is still bullying.
Are you bullshitting me?! This is the kind of idiotic, pussified crap that allowed women to take advantage of men, and create the mess we're in now.
Listen very carefully to what I'm about to teach you here: Power by itself is neither good nor bad.
And when men exercise power for the purpose of protecting their families from harm, passing down values and knowledge to their children, and disciplining wayward behavior from their children and wives, they are helping ensuring the survival not only of their families but also of their society. Ultimately, the strength and survival of western societies depend on men exercising power.
- Pete
Note to anonymous: (July 18, 2006 5:50 PM)
Wives are not slave women. They are part of a family and social team. Your characterization of wives as slaves is an example of extreme lesbian feminazi hate.
Its also true that in cultures that have allowed slavery, actual slave women are usually treated significantly better than men slaves.
Note to anonymous: (July 18, 2006 5:40 PM)
Your attempt to characterize loving husbands as "tyrants" serves to demonstrate how deep the levels of feminazi hate have become. Shame on you. Pound sand bitch.
Give examples of slave women treated "better" than male slaves. They were nearly always raped and beaten.
Pete, Bob,
What actual steps have you taken to build the society here that you want?
"Fatti maschii, parole femine "
Deeds masculine, words feminine
* * *
You fellows just SIT in comfort, griping, gushing out your silly, emotion-driven blogs.
How did Feminists gain political power, change laws, etc?
Through action. Not by writing blogs (complete with angry, puerile obscenities).
With all the free time you guys enjoy, you haven't done much.
Shame.
Who visited his Senator or Congressman? Looked him in the eye and said that you know for sure that ALL women are too weak to rule themselves.
Then given actual examples of all such women on the planet (like your Mother)?
And that all men (especially like Pete and Bob), have total ability to rule everybody else for their own good?
Or written a letter to the Editor of your local paper?
Organized a million-man march on Washington?
Just writing blogs won't give you the American equivalent of the Taliban revolution.
You will go to your graves angry, bitter men.
Meanwhile, a happy, vibrant, pretty young doctor (with her 6-figure income), will sign your Death Certificate.
R.I.P.
darkbhudda :
This is a roaring laugh!!
You actually sit around watching a dumb show like "Everybody Loves Raymond" ??!!
And take it seriously enough to be oversensitive and offended by it?
Sheesshhhh.... the way you men lounge around watching television.
btw, tv's have remotes with OFF buttons on them.
"Unfortunately, women by nature do not have the mental capacity or emotional maturity to make the necessary changes to their behavior on their own."
Right. A woman rocket scientist at NASA needs a nose-picking psycho like Anonymous (or Ted Bundy, Hitler) to demonstrate goodness.
"Their lesson in manners and good behavior has to imposed from outside and above - from MEN."
Anonymous: give your REAL name. Since you set yourself up as a Morals Monitor, identify yourself fully.
How do we know you are not a half-naked slob masturbating in front of your computer? Probably are.
One thing's for sure: you are unemployed.
Feminists are in full panic. With the rise of Slut Feminism older Women are alone with their Cats. The belief that there is someone for everyone is no longer true. And Older American Women are resorting to going to Third World Countries to have sex with younger Men for pay. The script to "How Stella Got Her Groove Back" is not very pretty. '
The Author Terry McMillian married a younger Gay Man. Who she found in bed with another Man. He was 20 years her Junior. Feminists have been forced to remake reality to fit their delusion.
Men gave up power and extended the Vote to Women. They saw it as just. They loved their Wives, Daughters and Sisters and wanted them to have equal rights. Women have proven that everything is about them. They have no intention of treating Men equally.
Today a Federal Judge ruled that the law suit in US District Court in Michigan was frivilous and that Men had no Reproductive rights or Legal Standing. Factor that for a moment. The US Judiciary has ruled that Fathers have no legal standing in US Courts. Why would any sane Man willing Marry and put his head in the noose given the current legal, political, and cultural climate here.
Next step of the New World Order crowd is to take away the rights of Biological Parents as they did in Canada and create Legal Parents. Women will lose their rights as well. Yet our Herd Mentality Women are too stupid to see this coming.
Khankrumthebulgar
Pete, you will be FORCED to leave America, if you truly want to rescind Civil Rights.
That is always risky business. You don't just take away peoples' Civil Rights.
After women's rights go, who's next to lose THEIRS?
Furthermore, for women to be content without legal rights (enjoyed for nearly a CENTURY), they'd have to be born and raised in a dictatorship/ less advanced society.
They would have to expect nothing in terms of rights - just restrictions and suffering.
Normally, a lack of civil rights accompanies a more primitive society. Afghanistan -good example. Or early America, with its slave auctions, whipping post, Witchcraft Trials, etc.
Or ancient Israel, where young illiterate girls were GIVEN in marriage by patriarchal fathers. And trained for domestic/manual labor.
Boys too, were hungry, dirty, uneducated, and toiled like animals. They had slavery, crucifixion, whippings, stonings, brandings, subjugation. Ignorance, superstition, filth, pregnant gap-tooth women carrying jugs of water on their head, camel dung in the dusty streets....
Such is the normal scenario where human rights are NOT important. And females are trained to be obedient CHATTEL - not human beings in their own right, enjoying legal rights and a high standard of living.
You don't just take free, educated people and dump them back in the 17th c. It will NOT happen here .. unless the Islamo-Fascists bomb us back to the Stone Age.
If you can't wait for that happy day, emigrate to Afghanistan and take a child-bride.
Better to die than live without freedom and Civil Rights.
Note to anonymous; (July 19, 2006 5:36 PM)
Yes, we understand the "affirmative action" hiring and promotions of females at NASA. We know how many destroyed shuttles and crews their incompetence is responsible for. We need to stop hiring Technical Directors for their cunt, and replace all the AA females with MEN hired on the basis of technical competence.
And we also notice that Ted Bundy was capable of dispatching a couple of dozen incompetent females before they rounded up some misandrist MEN to protect them. Cunts are totally worthless.
Bob
Note to anonymous; (July 19, 2006 6:23 PM)
Exactly! Real men would rather die for freedom than to kowtow to the feminazi empire that now dominates our culture. Storm the Bastille. Lady G has a ton of work to do.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!
Anonymous (July 19, 2006 5:56 PM) said...
Men gave up power and extended the Vote to Women. They saw it as just. They loved their Wives, Daughters and Sisters and wanted them to have equal rights.
In retrospect, this was a huge error based on faulty thinking. Women are not men. There is no "female chivalry." They don't have the same instinct to protect men, and if men think they can elicit feelings of sympathy or guilt from women by demonstrating acts of selfless male chivalry, they are wasting their time. Women are basically children in adult bodies. They are by nature self-centered creatures lacking perspective and objectivity. They don't care about men; they care about themselves and about maximizing their choices and personal power.
Showing kindness, devotion, or love to women does not entail giving up male power and handing it over to women. That is foolish, and men should not expect gratitude. Women will only make more demands from men.
When you give women power based on the idea of "equality," you are projecting your identities as men onto women, and expecting male values, qualities, and capabilities to be mirrored back. You will fail. That was the mistake in granting women the right to vote - and that is why women's suffrage must be revoked.
- Pete
Well, finally came across someone who is a equitable response to activists infiltration in our politics, schools and courts. I guess your followers know to target choke points for employment and influence, if not, they should be told.
I don't agree with anything you've said. Women are equal, having the same potential in responsiblity and ability.
I love you man,... keep up the good work.
"Women have proven that everything is about them. They have no intention of treating Men equally."
Good news: that is UNTRUE. Men never had it so good.
"women by nature do not have the mental capacity or emotional maturity to make the necessary changes to their behavior on their own."
Precisely what O.J. Simpson has been warning us for years.
"Their lesson in manners and good behavior has to imposed from outside and above - from MEN."
O.J. tried his best with Nicole, but it was certainly an uphill battle.
"There should also be no domestic violence laws either."
That is precisely what O.J. Simpson has been urging for years.
"If American men expect their women to behave properly, they will have to re-assert their natural, traditional role as leaders"
O.J. Simpson tried desperately to make his Blonde Bitch wife behave nicely. He set reasonable rules, she flaunted them.
Can you blame O.J. for beating Nicole in frustration?
" begin to reduce the freedoms and choices women currently enjoy today."
Unfortunately, that is currently impossible.
To be denied constitutional rights like voting, education, jobs, property ownership, freedom of movement, etc., a U.S. citizen must be DULY CONVICTED OF A CRIME after a fair trial.
Then and only then, can that criminal's rights be rescinded.
CLANK slams the prison door. The shackled prisoner now has only a few basic rights, compared to what you enjoy on the outside.
Was a woman NASA scientist to blame for the fire on Apollo One, destroyed during a training exercise on Jan. 27, 1967?
Command Pilot Virgil I. Grissom, Senior Pilot Ed White, and Pilot Roger B. Chaffee, perished.
Note to anonymous: (July 20, 2006 4:26 PM)
Nicole Simpson abrogated her marriage vows, destroyed her marriage and went whoring with other men. If OJ chose severe punishment for such a horrible crime against her own children and her husband that was reasonable and understandable. A jury of twelve men and women found him not guilty of a crime.
For additional reading on the OJ case see Bobstruth: OJ Innocent
Anonymous (July 20, 2006 4:26 PM) said...
"women by nature do not have the mental capacity or emotional maturity to make the necessary changes to their behavior on their own."
Precisely what O.J. Simpson has been warning us for years.
What stands out in responses like this is the self-centeredness, the childishness, selfishness, and stupidity of the female mind.
The fact is, women are not - and never have been - victims. Women who engage in childish, desperate efforts at self-victimization do not deserve sympathy or respect. They deserve only contempt and rebuke.
" begin to reduce the freedoms and choices women currently enjoy today."
Unfortunately, that is currently impossible.
Fortunately, you are wrong. It IS possible.
When men decide to refuse to tolerate women's bad behavior, their refusal translates into action that significantly restricts and disciplines women's behavior.
As would be expected, your ignorance and lack of imagination blinds you to the many ways on different levels, whether individual or societal, in which men are able to carry out reducing the choices and freedoms available to women.
And the first step towards this end is for men to realize that something is deeply wrong with American women today.
When we as a society realize that men must take steps to punish American women for their bad behavior with vigor and determination, our society will begin to correct itself.
- Pete
They are not even feminazis,
they are latent lesbians, I call them as I see them.
women need not respond.
The right to kill your adulterous wife:
We all agree O.J. Simpson acted within his rights to slash to death his adulterous whore-wife, Nicole.
However, an innocent bystander, Ron Goldman, was also slashed to death. Was this right or wrong? (since Goldman didn't know the Blonde was being killed for adultery. In Goldman's snap judgment, it looked like murder and he tried to save her).
It was a shame about Ron Goldman. However, from what I remember of the trial he was Nicole's latest fuck, not a bystander. When a man is fucking another man's wife he needs to be prepared to defend himself. A man is in the right to take down the adulterer along with the whore.
A jury of 12 men and women found that no crime had been committed by OJ.
Anonymous (July 20, 2006 11:56 AM) said...
I don't agree with anything you've said. Women are equal, having the same potential in responsiblity and ability.
This assertion is nothing more than wish fulfillment - irrational faith in the sham religions of feminism and secular liberalism.
Far from being "equal," women are in fact tremendously inferior to men, in physical strength and mental capabilities. Women know this - and it angers them. So they bring about social changes that oppress men more and more.
It is men who are - and always will be - the producers, the creators, inventors, etc. of the system. Men built civilization. They invented everything around you and built a civilization on sweat and blood to make it happen.
Women, on the other hand, could have an IQ of zero... and society would STILL thrive.
And so women will always live in the shadow of man because women are not as intelligent, creative, industrious, passionate, and driven as men.
Men need women for breeding; women need men for LIVING. There is a dramatic difference and only the mind of a feminist, absolutely warped beyond all reality, can somehow equate one with the other.
Society should correctly expect more responsibility from men (since they are superior to women in the ways that matter to society) and, recognizing men's superiority in acting reasonably, should confer more liberty and rights upon men as well.
- Pete
"What stands out in responses like this is the self-centeredness, the childishness, selfishness, and stupidity of the female mind.
The fact is, women are not - and never have been - victims."
* * *
Nicole Simpson may have behaved stupidly, but it was even more stupid for her husband to take the law into his own bloody hands (bloody glove). O.J. also behaved stupidly by having his own adulterous affairs.
Nicole Simpson was a murder victim. How can Pete deny that fact?
As for Ron Goldman, the bystander killed for intervening: Goldman was not a lover of Mrs. Simpson. He was simply returning misplaced eyeglasses. Got killed for doing a good deed for an acquaintance.
"recognizing men's superiority in acting reasonably"
Like Hitler?
Pete, are you familiar with the writings of Charles Gleason? He has a website devoted to similar concerns of yours. His solutions are nothing short of amazing.
Henry
henry_westin@hotmail.com
Note to anonymous (July 23, 2006 4:02 PM)
Hitler was the first great victory for female suffrage. The rise of the 3rd Reich and the resulting mass destruction of Europe is an example of the total lack of thinking of turning a government over to a majority of female voters. Yes, "like Hitler" females have no clue how to run their own guvernment.
The counterpart of sadism is masochism, the sexual pleasure or sexual gratification of having pain or suffering inflicted upon the self for eg: women, often consisting of sexual fantasies/rape fantasies or urges for being raped, beaten, humiliated, bound, tortured, or otherwise made to suffer, either as an enhancement to or a substitute for sexual pleasure. The name is derived from the 19th century author Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, known for his novel Venus in Furs that dealt with female masochistic themes.
Sadism and masochism, often going together (one person obtaining sadistic pleasure by inflicting pain or suffering on another person who thereby obtains masochistic pleasure), are collectively known as S&M or sadomasochism.
Sadism and masochism are now used to describe personality traits, rather than in a sexual sense. Although it is quite different from the original meaning of sexual gratification, sadism and masochism are traits women show all the time, for eg sadism: stealing money property from men without care, masochism: in the way women dress nowadays with whorish aggression. There is a strong aspect to the woman’s sexual need, taking the form of a need for domination or submission to a man—the man’s requirement to own/possess a woman, or for the woman to be controlled by a man, as opposed to a simple desire for pain (which is technically known as algolagnia).
It is obvious that this need for dominance or submission to men by women is in fact the driving force behind a woman’s ridiculous/difficult behavior/so-called personality, with the giving and receiving of pain acting only as an active stimulation to reinforce those feelings. This certain point of view is obvious female sadomasochistic behavior. A masochist does not take pleasure in a general form of pain, such as breaking a bone, or cutting themselves, just in *pain received under the response of enforcing authority, and above all only that of a sexual pain/rape, such as a woman being taught a lesson ion manners [they’re not called Man-ners for nothing], as in being raped/forced to fuck on cue without her having any control over what happens/submission, or as in being told the truth which she can not comprehend easily, and often blanks out or falls into emotional blackmail or selfish self-pity. Likewise, a sadist usually only takes pleasure in pain that is inflicted for reasons of being punished or controlled, and most often for the indirect pleasure of the masochist. Many sadomasochistic activities involve only mild pain or discomfort/embarrassment/bruised ego to the masochist. Often they are focused primarily on role playing. So you could see that a Man and a woman’s roles in life are similar but never violent or aggressive. The primary importance is each playing their own role in harmony, the whole is one is the complement of the other, if you understand that certain point of view.
Women(useless). (especially the….)Nice ones, the most frigid of the race, it doesn't matter in the end (to women). Inside they are all the same: meat and gristle and hatred, just simmering(boiling). Chad, In the company of men
Anonymous (July 20, 2006 4:26 PM) said...
"If American men expect their women to behave properly, they will have to re-assert their natural, traditional role as leaders"
O.J. Simpson tried desperately to make his Blonde Bitch wife behave nicely. He set reasonable rules, she flaunted them.
Can you blame O.J. for beating Nicole in frustration?
Actually, if this is in fact true, then no, I DON'T blame him for beating her in frustration.
Thanks to the women's movement, women feel there is nothing wrong in flouting reasonable rules of acceptable behavior - such as behaving nicely and respectfully towards men.
Once again, American women flaunt their disgusting condition without shame, and without honor.
The fact is, women are by nature too infantile and incapable to figure out by themselves what is or is not appropriate behavior. That task is up to men.
The only reason not to hit a woman today is the law. But women (and especially western women) most certainly do deserve to be hit when they misbehave.
- Pete
"...women are not as intelligent, creative, industrious, passionate, and driven as men."
You mean Black men?
Pete believes " women (and especially western women) most certainly do deserve to be hit when they misbehave."
Actually, setting yourself up to "teach somebody a lesson", rarely works.
It comes across as arrogance. Who can hit or punch harder? Not really worthy of human beings imo, to settle problems.
It is easier to hit somebody smaller than you, less able to fight back. You would not hit a guy your size, especially a coworker, boss, D.I.
Ordinarily I believe it immoral and cowardly to strike a woman, since you are unequally matched in physical strength.
Exception: your woman is truly a mean evil b**** who has tortured you, hit, kicked, punched you. But here again, why are you with such?
Instead of getting yourself arrested for hitting her, call police and have her arrested. Why sit in jail? The unwashed pimps in the can will just beat you up more.
Anonymous (July 24, 2006 5:11 PM) said...
Actually, setting yourself up to "teach somebody a lesson", rarely works.
This statement is merely based on what you personally wish. Currently, it is against the law to hit a woman, which is the only reason why a man shouldn't do it today.
To really know for sure the truth (or lack thereof) of your assertion without incurring legal penalties would require removing all domestic violence laws including VAWA.
It comes across as arrogance. Who can hit or punch harder? Not really worthy of human beings imo, to settle problems.
What is this crap about "who can hit or punch harder"?
The point is to discipline and restrain women's disrespectful, abusive behavior towards men - a behavior which comes across very clearly as arrogance by women who think they can get away with such behavior towards men. Again, this statement of yours is merely your own judgment based on personal desires - not an argument supported by rational analysis.
It is easier to hit somebody smaller than you, less able to fight back.
Which is why restraining women by intimidating them with superior male physical strength is very efficient and effective for men.
You would not hit a guy your size, especially a coworker, boss, D.I.
Most women are not, on average, the same size as men. They are smaller, lighter, and weaker. And also, I am not advocating that men hit a coworker or boss.
Ordinarily I believe it immoral and cowardly to strike a woman, since you are unequally matched in physical strength.
You are certainly entitled to believe this. I happen to believe the complete opposite: namely, that, in certain situations, it is NOT immoral or cowardly to strike a woman.
Inequality of physical strength, by itself, does not really make hitting a woman moral or immoral.
Exception: your woman is truly a mean evil b**** who has tortured you, hit, kicked, punched you. But here again, why are you with such?
Men in America are basically trapped in an oppressive situation called "marriage," in which they did not know originally that their wives were mean, evil bitches to begin with.
Many men would leave except that the penalties for leaving are severe. Divorce incurs disproportionate financial, professional, and personal consequences to men while rewarding their bitch wives with generous alimony and child support payments.
Instead of getting yourself arrested for hitting her, call police and have her arrested. Why sit in jail? The unwashed pimps in the can will just beat you up more.
It is stupid for a man to have to call the police just to restrain a weak, pathetic woman. A man can easily do the job himself without any outside assistance.
And I think most men understand this. Calling the cops (at least for men) really isn't and shouldn't be necessary. Generally, a man's life is not seriously threatened when a woman gets violent on him - at least nowhere near the same degree as it would be if the tables were turned.
My guess is that a lot of men generally would prefer not to have the cops involved. Cops are just another pain in the ass most men would prefer not to deal with, and with very good reason.
Women have superior skills of manipulation, deception and interpersonal communication. These skills developed as a self-protective countermeasure against superior male strength. When men are no longer allowed to use their superior physical strength, women have both an individual and a collective advantage.
Women are succeeding and will continue to succeed to get away with disrespectful, out-of-control behavior because men fail to use the one power in which we possess an advantage: physical force.
- Pete
Pete, interesting. What situation were in you involved in, where you used physical hitting against a woman?
What was she doing to hurt you?
What was the result?
Pete, you didn't show an e-mail. but if you contact me, I would like to share a god-awful tale of what my ex-wife and her mother did. The language, nasty stuff was beyond belief. Cops of course took up for women.
henry_westin@hotmail.com
I will only respond on this site. If you have a story to share, then please do so here.
- Pete
Anonymous (July 26, 2006 4:04 PM) said...
Pete, interesting. What situation were in you involved in, where you used physical hitting against a woman?
What was she doing to hurt you?
What was the result?
Asking irrelevant personal questions (which I doubt were asked sincerely anyway) will not get men closer to any useful solutions.
If marital laws are to change, attitudes have to change first. That means men in America have to start getting over their mental paralysis about hitting women, because, ultimately, it is a man's willingness to use his superior physical strength that makes the difference in whether a woman behaves properly or not.
- Pete
Suppose a man at work annoys you (or a noisy neighbor). He is much smaller physically. Will hitting the guy make him "behave better"?
Pete - how are you helping men you know overcome their mental paralysis, so they will unhesitatingly hit women?
(Along similar lines, slave Masters never hesitated to flog, kick, strike slaves in the 1800s. It was a mentality they learned in earliest childhood, because their culture promoted it).
Feminists! Start out talking about marriage and rape and end up on the topic of slavery. It's the only way they can fight their imaginary hardships, to elbow their way onto the trusty victim bandwagon.
Anonymous (July 30, 2006 3:52 PM) said...
Suppose a man at work annoys you (or a noisy neighbor). He is much smaller physically.
Will hitting the guy make him "behave better"?
Anonymous (July 30, 2006 7:43 PM) said...
Pete - how are you helping men you know overcome their mental paralysis, so they will unhesitatingly hit women?
(Along similar lines, slave Masters never hesitated to flog, kick, strike slaves in the 1800s.
It was a mentality they learned in earliest childhood, because their culture promoted it).
Feminists like to obfuscate this issue by focussing attention solely on the use of male physical force - but not on the bad female behavior that provoked it.
(For the record, I don't advocate that men break the law and start hitting women.)
Actually, it's quite understandable that western women would try to manipulate men's guilty feelings on this issue - because they are well aware that if men were able to use physical force, feminist behavior (i.e., vindictive, malicious behavior towards men) would be virtually eliminated.
- Pete
Pete you must make sure your judgment of your enemy's behavior is accurate. Many men think they know reality, when they don't. Many would fly off the handle and attack a woman, without fully comprehending all the factors. That's why a suspicious 'hitting mentality' is not good.
If women want* to be loving stay-at-home housewives, how come men need to control their choices so much?
Wouldn't they naturally do what they want?
Anonymous (August 06, 2006 1:43 AM) said...
If women want* to be loving stay-at-home housewives, how come men need to control their choices so much?
Wouldn't they naturally do what they want?
Women ARE doing what they naturally want: they are, of their own free will and with the use of current laws, breaking their marriage vows with impunity, destroying marriages, men, and children in the process.
They are displaying flagrant disrespectful, abusive behavior with virtual impunity - again, of their own free will and with the use of current laws. Women are indeed doing what they naturally want.
This is what happens when traditional controls on female behavior are loosened.
In any case, your premise is fundamentally flawed: women DON'T know they want. Knowing what you want implies self-direction, initiative, and an inner strength that women as a group do NOT have. They are not leaders. On the contrary, they are passive followers.
The reason men need to control women's choices is obvious: women are not naturally designed to handle freedom and responsibility as men are. Women are weaker and less capable than men in this very important respect.
- Pete
Pete - as you write your words here --, are you actively controlling a woman?
Pete, spend more time controlling yourself than itching to control others.
Not all women break their vows. Most women do not fail regarding self-control, motivation, goals, etc. If Pete believes they do, that is his prejudice not reality. It is a shame when someone's extreme dislike for women (from personal suffering), distorts his grip on reality. May as well wear the wrong prescription bifocals.
Anonymous said..."Not all women break their vows. Most women do not fail regarding self-control, motivation, goals, etc."
LOL! Most contemporary American females hardly understand the concept of vows. Females file about 90% of divorces in the US, mostly because of boredom, lust, or irrational hysteria. Females now bear almost half the children in the US without bothering to prepare a stable family nor to concern themselves with the future of the child. Of females who do marry, half will abandon their marriage vows within 5 years. They are encouraged and taught to do so by a century and a half of organized feminazism.
It is true that "not all women" there are a small number of exceptions, but it is the great majority of females who fail utterly at vows, marriage, and families.
Anonymous said..."Pete - as you write your words here --, are you actively controlling a woman?"
The personal lives of individuals participating in this discussion is off topic and irrelevant. Please discontinue your ad-hominem comments.
Anonymous (August 15, 2006 3:54 PM) said...
Not all women break their vows. Most women do not fail regarding self-control, motivation, goals, etc.
If Pete believes they do, that is his prejudice not reality.
It's a prejudice based facts. It's a prejudice based on the feminist laws, in an increasingly feminized culture, that permit female destructive behavior to go unpunished. It's a prejudice based on the collective individual experiences of men today who are unfortunate to have to put up with American women as wives or ex-wives - and who are now speaking out in increasing numbers.
You have provided absolutely NOTHING to show that this prejudice is disconnected from reality. That is the stupidity of modern western women like you.
It is a shame when someone's extreme dislike for women (from personal suffering), distorts his grip on reality. May as well wear the wrong prescription bifocals.
What are you talking about? What shame? If I dislike American women, and I give solid reasons, then the only opinions that matter are the ones coming from MEN. You're out of the picture completely. It's up to men to decide for themselves whether or not that dislike matches what they feel based on their experiences - regardless of what shrill harpies like you say or think on the matter. I have no idea where "shame" enters.
The fact is, I lose nothing by my extreme dislike of American women, knowing that there are far better women elsewhere that make you both redundant and expendable.
You seem to be making an effort at leveraging something, but as far as I can tell, you have nothing to leverage.
And this crap about "distorting my grip on reality" makes absolutely no sense at all. The reality is that modern American and western women are generally worthless and offer almost no value to men. The reasons for this have been explained over and over again. If you still don't know why you are considered worthless, that is your fault. You're just too lazy, self-centered, and bitterly resentful to make the effort to see the very real reasons for that belief.
And one more thing: your seemingly off-hand mention of the phrase "personal suffering" was in fact a conscious act of vindictiveness and malice. Every man reading that knows it. And you know that too. You are a direct beneficiary of the feminist laws in place today that prevent you from getting the smack across the face you richly deserve for your despicable effrontery.
So yes, it's my prejudice. It's a prejudice backed up by reality. When it comes to American women, a man today should always act with extreme prejudice. At the very least, he has nothing to lose by doing so.
- Pete
What are you talking about? What "shame"? If I dislike American women, and I give solid reasons for it, and if that feeling of dislike is a commonly shared feeling among ever increasing numbers of men both in America and abroad, then as far as I'm concerned, the burden is on American women to prove otherwise.
You seem to be making an effort at leveraging something. The problem, however, is that you have nothing to leverage.
Because the fact is, a man loses nothing by disliking American women. The fact is, American women are inconsequential when there are far better women elsewhere around the world in plentiful numbers. If American women were ignored, shunned, and discarded - hell, if
they died - the world would be no poorer. And men everywhere would be no worse off.
So this crap about "distorting my grip on reality" makes no sense whatsoever. The reality is that modern American and western women today are basically worthless; they offer nothing of value to men for the trouble of their company. The reasons for this have been explained over and over again. If you still don't know why you are considered worthless, that is your fault. You're just too lazy, self-centered, and bitterly resentful to make the effort to see the very real reasons for that belief.
And one more thing: don't ever think you can get away with "off-hand" phrases like "personal suffering." It was deliberate vindictiveness and malice on your part - the kind of behavior I've talked about before already - and every husband reading that knows that. And you know that too. It is only the feminist laws in place today that prevent you from getting the smack across the face you richly deserve for your despicable behavior.
So sure, it's my prejudice. It's a prejudice backed up by reality. When it comes to American women, a man today should always act with extreme prejudice. At the very least, he has nothing to lose by doing so.
- Pete
Anonymous (August 15, 2006 3:54 PM) said...
Not all women break their vows. Most women do not fail regarding self-control, motivation, goals, etc. If Pete believes they do, that is his prejudice not reality. It is a shame when someone's extreme dislike for women (from personal suffering), distorts his grip on reality. May as well wear the wrong prescription bifocals.
I have no idea where "shame" enters the picture. The reason that growing numbers of men dislike American women is very simple: because American women are unlikeable creatures.
And that feeling of dislike is not only based on solid reasons. It is also a feeling commonly shared among a growing number of men both in America and abroad.
You have provided nothing to show that this prejudice is disconnected from reality. That is the stupidity of modern western women like you.
You seem to be making an effort at leveraging something. The problem, however, is that you have nothing to leverage.
Because not only does a man have good reasons for disliking American women, but he also loses nothing in doing so.
The fact is, American women have no real value to men ANYWHERE other than just sex. You can thank the women's movement for that.
Moreover, there are far better women elsewhere around the world in plentiful numbers. If American women were shunned and discarded, the world would be no poorer. And men everywhere would be no worse off.
So this crap about "distorting my grip on reality" makes no sense whatsoever. The reality is that modern American (and western) women offer nothing of value to men for the trouble of their company. The reasons for this have been explained over and over again. If you still don't know why you are considered worthless, that is your fault. You're just too lazy, self-centered, and bitterly resentful to make the effort to see the very real reasons for that belief.
And one more thing: don't ever think you can get away with "off-hand" phrases like "personal suffering." It was deliberate vindictiveness and malice on your part - the kind of behavior already talked about before - and every husband reading that knows that. And you know that too. It is only the feminist laws in place today that prevent you from getting the smack across the face you so richly deserve for your despicable behavior.
So sure, it's my prejudice. It's a prejudice backed up by reality. When it comes to American women, a man today should always act with extreme prejudice. At the very least, he has nothing to lose by doing so.
- Pete
These useless women always mimic men by taking mens words and totally distorting the meaning to their own pointless/meaningless ends.
Hey ameri-CON women, Real men know you have a disease and its called disassociative disorder, which is the lack of understanding what is going on by distorting and lying and yelling to get what you want, even though you do not know what you want.
It's as Bob has stated before:
'you women can NOT do right by doing wrong more effectively/(frequently)'.
You makebelieve what you want to makebelieve, your whole understanding of men and life is compared to Alice tumbling and caroming down the rabbit hole in an aimless, endless dream. You women are easily led to self destructive tendencies(masochistic) lies, deceit, emotional blackmail because they are much easier for you to use, because that's what you grew up using against men and are more seductive to you, more personally beneficial, and instantly gratifying.
All the older guys I know, guys that are 55 and older are unhappy with their wives. They know It just turns to crap no matter what you do. They'd rather be on their own.
At best it's a tedious bore. At worst a living hell with financial ruin thrown in for poor measure.
The problem is that when you're a stupified young man say 12yrs. old, you just fall into this
trap/"pussy mind set" where your whole self image is based on how women regard you, and so you waste your energy and spend your money trying to make yourself appeasing/acceptable/"presentable" to them or assuming you need a so called "girlfriend". Then later in life the initial shine turns to pig shit and you realize that you've wasted yourself/your time/your energy on a pointless endeavour.
If you tell a dog to "sit" you're being 'abusive' by restricting the dog's freedom. And you're being 'controlling' by making the dog do something that you want it to do.
Forget the fact that the dog is going to get a treat if it does what you tell it. Females would rather complain about oppression and restriction, not realizing that real freedom always has limits. And those limits are imposed for the safety and enjoyment of those living under the restrictions.
For instance, a child is told not to run into the street. To the child this seems like an unfair restriction by an abusive and controlling parent.
But from a wiser point of view, it is a safeguard against danger and if the child listens, it receives a reward--the parent's affection.
And that is why, ultimately, it is MEN who must set limits on women's behavior.
Pete,
Aren't you strong enough to stand up to the police?
You're not strong enough to stand up to the fact that women are inherently inferior to men.
And that fact means that women will always need men to watch out over them, ready to enforce discipline - because without men, women are not capable of behaving decently and properly on their own.
- Pete
Hi Pete, it is obvious that you are vastly superior to all.
It is clear that men like you are 100% able to rule women. You merely need the green light to employ the fist, the penis, the whip.
What you DON'T need, are police stopping you. But even if they did show up at your door, you could easily employ fists, guns or other weapons and win the battle.
An old Colonel we knew, bragged about boxing off a swarm of Germans when in the trenches of World War I. You too, can be a HERO.
Peter, be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
" women are inherently inferior to men"
Does that include Black men?
"Leave America. Go to Afghanistan, put down roots."
Not a bad longterm plan...but in the meantime at least STOP voting for sell-out manginas like Joe Biden!
A total loser who was abused by his own sister, and never allowed to defend himself. So this literally p-whipped boygina then develops a huge Stockholm Syndrome and injected $300 million into the feminist warchest for VAWA in Obama's latest stimulus bill.
Post a Comment
<< Home