A good woman's blog
Bob recommends that readers of The World According to Bob take time to read Homeliving Helper, a blog written by a SAHM. Of particular interest might be the entry dated November 20, 2006, titled Some Thoughts on Educaton. The authors, Mrs. Alexandra and Lady Lydia, have some interesting perspectives on today's young women and their lack of suitability as wives and homemakers. Yes, there are still some good women in the world. Check it out.
posted by Bob | Wednesday, November 22, 2006
49 Comments:
A good woman does exactly as Bob Allen dictates. There can be no deviation from this mandate.
You meant Mrs. Alexandra the good CUNT, didn't you?
Isn't it amazing how quickly the feminazi attack decent women. Pathetic!
One of this reader's top ten weekly must-reads.
This is the old story. They will not stay with a topic. They cannot debate logically. They must sooner, than later, resort to crude insults. That is the result of their higher education. I'd rather talk to a house wife any day. At least they keep up with politics, religion, economics, and the things that effect the family. Yes, they really are pathetic, and what really makes you cry is that they are someone's daughters. Their fathers may not even be aware of what they are doing.We have a message board at www.ladiesagainstfeminism.org and had to go completely private because of these kinds of attacks. They will stay talk about an intelligent subject. It always resorts to toilet talk on their part.
Education and career skills are vital to any human being. If a girl wisely chooses college, medical school, etc., that is her PRIVATE CHOICE. It is none of bob allen's business. The important thing is what's best for the young woman, not the whims of some selfish, destructive male.
Gentlemen,
Look at the response of this stupid, childish woman:
"Education and career skills are vital to any human being. If a girl wisely chooses college, medical school, etc., that is her PRIVATE CHOICE. It is none of bob allen's business. The important thing is what's best for the young woman, not the whims of some selfish, destructive male."
Can you imagine having this worthless piece of garbage in your lives, men? What value do you think she would bring to your lives as men if you were to actually take her seriously? She is exactly why men must reduce women's freedoms and choices.
Women are basically children in adult bodies. They don't know what's in their or society's best interests. They need to be led, guided, and disciplined by men in order to behave like decent human beings.
In a nutshell, "private choice" in the context of female behavior is this:
"Private choice" = "women's rights" = "unrestrained, self-centered, female behavior"
Nothing more.
So Mr. Anonymous, what makes YOU an adult? What has YOUR behavior been like over the years? Be honest.
"She is exactly why men must reduce women's freedoms and choices."
Anonymous has been crying about rescinding women's rights for the past 50 years. So far, he has done nothing but talk. No action. Never will be any action. Life goes on in America, complete with women doctors, West Point grads, etc. All of whom continue to enjoy Civil Rights and human freedom.
As for Anonymous rejecting a hard-working, woman biochemist in favor of a 14 year old girl with elementary education, that's the perfect choice for him. He needs a woman on his level.
Is there any politician out there who has (seriously) entertained eliminating civil rights for women?
Has anyone written to the newspapers, called a talk show, or approached their senator on this?
The reality is, it probably can't happen. The Constitution, plus acceptance of civil rights, is too firmly entrenched in our nation.
The idea of taking away civil rights based on gender (ex: female), race (ex: Black), or ethnicity (ex: Hispanic, Jew) is unacceptable to most.
Note to Anonymous (November 24, 2006 4:17 PM)
When a female chooses a life as a biochemist, for example, instead of a wife and mother, she is forsaking the life of a wife and mother. She turns her back on children and family, the real meaning of life. Biochemistry is a dead end. It provides no lasting progeny, nor love in one's declining years. She is a failure in the essential parts of life, a clear example of Bob's truth, "You can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more effectively." No matter how effective she is as a biochemist, she has turned away from being a successful woman. She follows the false feminazi lie instead of the deep physical and spiritual meaning of life. She is a total failure, and will die old, sad, alone, and unloved. Anyone who cares about women would not have encouraged her to throw away her life following the false lies of the feminazi.
I know literally scores of professional women including physicists and astronomers at NASA. Not one is "sad, alone, etc" (which is how you appear).
These women's lives are rich with meaning - family (for most), children, grandchildren, brilliant career. Some have gotten patents. Many teach at Ivy League universities. Their scientific articles in refereed journals are top-notch, and their efforts contribute to the larger scale impact of scientific advancement for the betterment of humanity.
Bob, it is strange you mentioned *love*. It would seem you know little or nothing of *love* for others. You tout these things especially regarding women, but your constant bitterness belies your "concern" about women's happiness. Morever, any woman's "fulfillment" must fit into the exact rigid mold you envision - no exceptions. Life doesn't work that way.
Feminism - denotes women who want to be men and who act in an unfeminine manner, so feminism is the opposite of its definition.
Feminism as some people like to call it is just an advanced stage of a Lesbian.
When women deny themselves to be women the are useless to any right thinking individual, and useless to any prospective Man.
From C.
Note to Anonymous (November 24, 2006 5:36 PM)
The usual feminist lies don't fly here, toots. You mistake anecdotes with data, a common feminist lie. Feminist lies have turned 40% of American children into bastards, and ended the majority of marriage in divorce. Untold millions of children, including girls, suffer life long emotional harm from these abusive negligent feminist trained mothers.
A woman who marries when biology makes her ready to bear children then becomes a grandmother in her 30s. She will have fifty years to get a college education and become whatever career she wants. If she postpones her children to follow the false feminazi gods of education and career, eschewing marriage, she will be at the end of her biological baby making years before she is "ready" to marry and will have been trained to be a failure at relationships. These are the women who whelp bastards, destroy marriages, and spend fortunes on the "fertility clinic" industry trying desperately to recapture the biological ability she so easily turned away from when she was at the age of motherhood.
No, toots, your femorrhoid hatred hurts women as it hurts men and children.
Nice link, just "However, education doesn't save. Christ saves." cracked me up though.
I hope being a conservative doesn't mean having to be religious.
Note to Anonymous (November 25, 2006 1:39 AM)
The feminazi war on men hurts all men regardless of their religion or lack of religion. Bob has long advocated joining with all brothers of every religion and of no religion to fight back against the feminist destruction. There is nothing particularly Christian about honor, freedom, or good families. These basic values are far older than Christianity or Judaism. They were incorporated into modern religions, not created by them. There are many good people of all religions and of no religion who practice and support individual liberty.
Bob tends toward a Libertarian position rather than a Conservative position. Conservatives frequently support government control of moral and ethical values, which opposes individual liberty. Conservatives sometimes use religion to justify their support for government oppression of liberty. Bob disagrees with oppression regardless of the self-righteous justification. Nevertheless, there are many good men who generally support liberty and religious freedom under the title of "Conservative."
The men's movement to restore the traditional place of men and thereby rescue our society and save our families needs good men and women of all races, all religions and of no religion.
This exellent response made me think about how a common enemy; feminism, and it's derivetives have made men united. Interesting to see that, left alone, men can actually accept the differences in ideas and thoughs between themselves and embrace them.
I had always though liberterians were anarchists, and conservetives were blind christ worshippers. But now I know that men know better; they are not as extremist as the female kind.
Individually, certain defective beings can cause harm, in both genders. Too bad we only see one side of the story there. But generally, men can see what is going on, on all sides of the battle. I think it's time to take a united stand agaist super liberals and their feminazi leaders.
Mr. Anonymous (November 23, 2006 11:04 PM) declares:
"Women are basically children in adult bodies."
Yes -- especially women who graduate from West Point or the Air Force Academy. Or women who work as top-notch surgeons/ medical professors.
Such a surgeon will one day save the life of Mr. Anonymous in the E.R., as he gasps for breath. And later, as he convalesces, he will gaze up into the face of that surgeon, and the nurse who patiently wipes him.
He will remind them that all females are child-like, and that he is the REAL adult by virtue of his gender.
Glad bob sees oppression as wrong. Thus he would not want to rescind civil rights for women or anybody else.
Note to Anonymous (November 25, 2006 4:16 PM)
You said, "Yes -- especially women who graduate from West Point or the Air Force Academy."
Glad you pointed out all the childish whining and crying we've heard from the few whiny females who have been appointed to West Point or Colorado Springs. Even Sen. Hitllary got involved because female cadets are incapable of acting like adults. Females should not be pretending to be men.
Anonymous (November 25, 2006 4:52 PM) said,. "civil rights for women."
That is the typical misandrist feminazi perspective. Your definition of "rights," means "rights for women." Bob has always opposed the misandrist feminazi agenda that you advocate.
It is obvious that "C" is a Christian.
Every man or woman of any race, religion, creed, nowadays has their civil rights guaranteed in USA. Not one civil right enjoyed by women, infringes upon a corresponding right of men. To think otherwise is to be ridiculous, to whine over non-existent problems.
Has anyone considered the topic of women and witchcraft? Especially the old-time prosecution and elimination of witches?
An intriguing article shows that there was a book published in 1486, written by two educated Priests.
The book, or treatise, is "Malleus Maleficarum":
http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/
The priests say basically the same things Bob says about women. Read carefully through the chapters.
It is interesting that what Bob says today about women and the threats they pose, was believed by most men in the 1400s. Yet that was an era when women were illiterate peasant wives and mothers. They enjoyed no civil rights, nor did most men.
Note to Anonymous (November 26, 2006 5:08 PM)
Regarding Malleus Malieficaum and witch hunting. The "witch hunt" mind set is the same today with the insanity being directed to men and the accusation is "sexual predator" instead of "witch." The perverted sexual modivation for torture and destruction of "sinners" has not changed at all. The only thing that is different today is the greatly increased number of victims (men tortured and destroyed), and the much wider and deeper penetration of the "witch hunters" into the general population.
Incidentally, bob has a copy of Malleus Malieficaum. Bob is widely read. Despite what the hysterical femorrhoids claim, the medieval witch hunts were not excessively aimed at women. The witch hunts included significant proportion of men, and in some areas the majority of "witches" were men. History has, as expected, been revised by the feminazi propaganda machine to portray the medieval witch hunts as a war on women, another feminazi propaganda lie.
Note to Anonymous (November 26, 2006 4:25 PM)
Your lies don't fly here, toots. So-called "women's rights" almost all function to take natural rights away from men, destroy our families, hurt our children, bind men into slavery, and/or destroy the lives of men. You can take your femorrhoid lies and stick them up your ass where they belong.
Gentlemen:
Anonymous (November 25, 2006 4:52 PM) said,
"Glad bob sees oppression as wrong.
Thus he would not want to rescind civil rights for women or anybody else."
As a matter of fact, reducing women's choices and freedoms by definition is oppressing women. But then, in the same way, children under 18 are oppressed as well.
Restricting one's freedoms in itself is neither good nor evil. In the case of children, we take for granted that restricting their freedom is, in fact, good.
The real questions for men are: given what we know of women's irrationality, their lack of logical skills, and their narrow self-centered nature (i.e., men are out of the picture as far as they are concerned), would there be benefits to men and society if men placed controls on women's freedoms? And what would those benefits be?
And would those benefits then behoove men to place controls on women's behavior and freedoms?
If men can answer these questions, and then decide accordingly that restricting women's freedoms and choices is good (as we once did), then it is good.
When women graduate from law school with honors, obtain a Ph.D. in engineering, or earn both Ph.D. and M.D. degrees and become top notch surgeons -- how are they demonstrating "irrationality"? Or "lack of logical skills"? Or childish behavior?
Likewise, when men drive drunk, or commit felonies like arson, rape, torture, murder, child abuse, armed robbery -- how are they demonstrating a mature, logical, rational mind?
Was Mohammed Atta rational when he flew Flight 11 into the World Trade Center? Or the millions of Arab men with his overall mindset?
Answer the question about Mohammad Atta's rationality.
Note to Anonymous (November 27, 2006 3:42 PM):
There is a growing shortage of surgeons because women in medical school are taking up places formerly held by men, and few women can go on to become good surgeons. But you are confusing anecdotes with data again. By and large women do not excel in such activities, and when allowed become violent mothers who abuse, hurt, or even murder their own children.
Note to Anonymous (November 27, 2006 6:30 PM):
Mohammad Atta very rationally followed a complex long term plan to attack the US. We may disagree with his motivation and goals, but his self control and leadership can not be disputed.
anonymous:-
"Is there any politician out there who has (seriously) entertained eliminating civil rights for women?"
Politicians, and the feminists who presently hold the reins that restrain and steer them, are unwittingly doing precisely this right now.
Extremism always creates and usually realises its own antithesis.
Crucially, history has repeatedly demonstrated that when that extremism becomes extremely powerful, is the substance of an illusory fantasy that disregards future human need, and is primarily motivated by hatred - it always, without fail, realises that antithesis.
Peter Charnley (UK).
Follow the squiggly lines. A post about a homemaking women's blog results in a diatribe about Mohammed Atta.
It is rational to hijack an airplane. It is rational to crash it into a building in a fiery explosion, murdering thousands of innocent people. It is rational to do this because your bible commands death and destruction to infidels who refuse to live holy lives.
Note to Anonymous (November 28, 2006 3:56 PM)
A man's death in war is always a human tragedy in as much as war is a human tragedy. When he fights on the "other" side we may celebrate his death and mourn for those he killed. However, a man who dies in war does not become either rational or irrational depending on which side of the war he fought and died on.
Bob agrees with the other anonymous comment regarding YOUR irrational feminist illogic which leaps from a "Good Woman's Blog" to "arson, rape, torture, murder, child abuse, armed robbery" and "Mohammed Atta." Now THAT is irrational.
Remember gentlemen,
abortion rights;
domestic violence laws;
sexual harassment laws;
marital rape laws;
alimony/no fault divorce/child support laws...
...these are ALL women's rights.
ALL these laws were created specifically to aid and benefit women.
And how would these laws have any effect whatsoever? - by granting women the power to harm and destroy men.
Without this power to harm and destroy men, these laws could not be effective otherwise.
Moreover, none of these laws mentioned above takes men's welfare and liberties into consideration. NONE.
In fact, the very success of these laws - of women's rights - can only be measured in terms of how much these laws are able to take away from men: their hard-earned money, their livelihood, their homes, their children - and by extention, their reputation, their dignity, their good name, their freedoms, their natural masculine role as authority figures.
Also keep in mind that NOT ONE of these laws takes into account the moral or ethical behavior of women towards men.
With these laws - with women's rights - women's freedoms and choices are expanded regardless of men, and regardless of whether women behave rightly or wrongly.
Any of you men had personal experience lately dealing with women's rights?
But hey, if the idea of women being able to get Ph.D engineering degrees impresses you men, then maybe you should support women's rights.
Remember that all of these rights would be useless without the dick headed haircuted blue gun thugs that enforce them. The dickheads are just as guilty as the fem-nazis!!! They are backstabbing traitors who deserve to be .........you know what. Fuck them all!!!
Did anyone object to Black women working outside the home as slaves or domestics?
Note to Anonymous: (December 07, 2006 4:16 PM)
Working as a domestic slave is not working outside the home. DUH!
If a slave wife worked for a White Master, she could only serve her husband part-time. Often slave marriages weren't even recognized as such anyhow.
Black women worked outside their homes cleaning White peoples' homes, or they had to work in hospitals doing menial work, maybe work as cooks, dishwashers, etc.
When women start bringing up slavery and blacks, you can be sure they are desperate. And afraid.
They are afraid of losing their "women's rights" - which is the only thing they care about.
Because, guess what men? - they certainly don't care about you. Not when they insult and defile your masculine dignity with unspeakable foulness here on this blog and elsewhere.
And neither do they care about the blacks whom they use as pawns to try to checkmate (i.e, guilt-trip [i.e., manipulate]) men in order to keep their "women's rights."
== Mr. Anonymous ==
Note to Anonymous (December 08, 2006 4:06 AM)
You are correct. Females have a deep fascination with slavery just as they have a deep fascination with rape. Bob has no problem with that. There is something deep in the primordial part of a female brain that longs for strong men to own and control her. She fears and desires a man's strong hand taking charge of her body and her life. A book with a long discussion of the deep psychological needs of human females is Captive of Gor by John Norman, or any of the other "Gor" series of novels. Captive of Gor is the story of a NYC rich bitch who is finds true love in the arms of a warrior who is strong enough to tame her. Females both fear and desire strong men. Bob has no problem with that.
Unfortunately, most of the current generation of men on earth are pansies, wusses, and idiots. We strong men must reclaim ourselves before we can recapture our females.
Feminists lamenting that a wife would've only been able to serve her husband part-time? That's a first.
No cruelty on earth can make a woman love you.
Note to Anonymous: Mr. John Norman writes about women like you frequently in his novels.
They're all scrambling to read Mr. John Norman now.
Bob should watch the cartoon series on "House of Young Pleasures" - where an old man kidnaps the prettiest Prep school girls, tames them, and shuts them up forever in his basement. They are always available. Hot young flesh.
Why do you even bother posting some of the comments, and logically responding here Bob?
People realize their own sexual fantasies, feel bad about them, and blame you for it.
Especially the women, who, in fact, are the real child sexual "predetors".
You should spend your time on the main page more.
Note to Anonymous (December 13, 2006 2:02 PM)
You are probably right about the inability of females to put together a coherent argument. They are only good at name calling personal attacks. The worst name calling gets summarily deleted. Occasionally an irational female comment gets posted as an example of how stupid is a typical female. Its good for a laugh.
You are probably also right about spending more time on the main page. The comments do give me ideas for the main page sometimes. Thanks for the suggestion.
Post a Comment
<< Home