The World According To Bob

Bob Allen is a philosopher and cyber libertarian. He advocates for the basic human rights of men. Bob has learned to cut through the political nonsense, the propaganda hate, the surface discourse, and talk about the underlying metamessage that the front is hiding. Bob tells it like it is and lets the chips fall where they may. If you like what you read be sure to bookmark this blog and share it with your friends.

Name:
Location: United States

You can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more effectively. It's time for real MEN to stand up and take back our families, our society, and our self respect. It is not a crime to be born a man. It is not a crime to act manly.

Friday, November 23, 2007

How Many Families will Feminism Destroy?

Another family was found dead in Maryland today, the product of feminist no-fault divorce and a society gone mad. There have already been several family killings already this year. Many distraught men have been driven to destruction by the evil feminazi who destroy family after family. When a man is tormented and driven and his family is being destroyed he sometimes will react violently in a suicidal last display of strength. He has been given no viable option, no way to keep his children and his life. In desperation and despair he stops the evil bitch from taking his children and casting him into slavery. It is happening more and more. Suicide is the all too common reaction of many fathers who's families are destroyed. Sometimes the suicidal torment motivates him to take his revenge on the evil bitch who has destroyed his life. Sometimes he can't find her and kills other citizens who voted for the evil feminazi government. As the violence against men and our families gets worse and worse you can count on more and more cornered fathers fighting back.

Read published report here

30 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of violence against men...

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=401
Here's what one southern dad in the bible belt says about rapex... his problem with it is that it doesn't kill it's victim:

"# SouthernDad Says:
March 21st, 2007 at 8:21 pm

As a father of four daughters, I would definitely like to see more deterrents to rape. However, I don't think this device is it. If anyone's idea of a deterrent is to allow the attacker close enough to penetrate his victim, then it's too late. The idea is to stop the attack before it ever begins. My personal deterrent of choice would be a snub-nose .38, preferably a Smith and Wesson Model 36 loaded with hollow points."


Why is it that presumably Bible-thumping southerners do not believe in their Book's opinion on rape (man marries his conquest) and instead side with women.

Any man who get's rape-ex'd should cut off the womans fingers (joint by joint) then her hands, toes and feet and then burn out her eyes... and then let her live life like that. Anyone who sells rapex should be killed I believe.

What is your opinion of all of this.

November 24, 2007 12:07 PM  
Blogger Robin Steele said...

Anonymous said Any man who get's rape-ex'd should cut off the womans fingers (joint by joint) then her hands... blah blah blah... Anyone who sells rapex should be killed I believe...What is your opinion of all of this.
Mikee, you are a bore and downright depressing in your pathetic and unsuccessful attempts to get a reaction. No one cares. Go get some help.

November 24, 2007 6:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The southern dad is not necessarily a bible believer.

The bible is a dumb book written by dumb humans. Its dumb attitudes towards victims of violence are ridiculous and not for any decent person in the 21 st century.

Guns are a good idea. A criminal tries to rape or maim an innocent person, he deserves death.

November 24, 2007 7:01 PM  
Blogger Robin Steele said...

Bob wrote: When a man is tormented and driven and his family is being destroyed he sometimes will react violently in a suicidal last display of strength. He has been given no viable option, no way to keep his children and his life.
There is no display of strength in a murder/suicide, just a display of powerlessness. He had the viable option of allowing his kids to live.

Reading the latest version of this story in the Washington Post, it seems likely that these two parents were engaged in a selfish and hateful battle that cost their children their young lives. And it seems likely that the woman was given an advantage by the court system. She got PFAs, a judgement against him for $13K, had him arrested for theft, he went to jail for not showing up at child support hearings, etc.

What you miss is that she was no feminist... she was likely a spiteful wife who used the weapons available to gain an unfair advantage in inflicting pain on her adversary. But even if the weapons were fair, the problem is that these two were bent on destroying each other, and taking the kids with them. The problem is the destructive fires of hate that people like you, Bob, love to fan.

Cases like this would give any competent men's rights advocates a platform to make the laws more equitable. Too bad there are no credible men's rights advocates... just wounded, bitter, broken men who would rather rant and rave rather than fighting for positive legal reform. Perhaps you should stop criticizing feminazies and start studying the techniques they used to create that imbalance and deploy those techniques for your cause. OR you could just talk and talk and wonder why no one emails you to inquire about your speaking services.

November 24, 2007 7:22 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Ms. Stalin spewed: "And it seems likely that the woman was given an advantage by the court system. She got PFAs, a judgement against him for $13K, had him arrested for theft, he went to jail..

"What you miss is that she was no feminist...."


LOL. She walks like a sow, talks like a sow, and acts like a sow. She was a rotten FEMINIST sow.

Keep ranting about how "broken" men are, sow. Women who do that are ending up dead in parks. Like other FEMINISTS she thought she and the agents of Satan in black robes of hell could go on abusing a man without penalty. LOLOL!

November 24, 2007 8:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robin Steele: read some other blog if this place is a bore. I'd suggest some but I stopped blog surfing a few months ago as it got repetitive. Everyone, be it feminists, masculinists, leftists, rightists, all seem to have the same six opinions.

One problem you will have is that if this blog is a bore you're going to have to go to youtube to find something interesting and that is pretty iffy. You may have reached the end of the internet.

November 24, 2007 10:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

21st century is not much diffrent from the 12th. We have better weapons but humans haven't changed. The bible is as apt as ever.

November 24, 2007 10:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He had the viable option of allowing his kids to live."

Yes, he should have only attacked the wife who was his adversary. He should not have killed his offspring and should not have killed himself. I do not understand those actions. I do understand attacking one's enemy.

November 24, 2007 10:08 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous (November 24, 2007 10:08 PM)
A man driven to suicide is no longer thinking rationally. Driving a man to suicide is a worse crime than killing him outright because he suffers emotionally much more and for much longer before he dies.

A man in this situation would be justified to kill the evil feminist bitch who drove him to suicide. She's followed the original feminist plan of destroying her marriage, taking his children, and forcing him to pay her for doing so. That evil must be stopped by whatever means necessary, and should be punished by death. It is also excusable to eliminate any daughters who have learned the evils of feminism from their mother.

The father in this story was not thinking rationally. If he was rational he would have also gone after her lieyer, the agent of Satan in black robes of hell, and the slave catchers who had sent him to prison for refusing to be a slave.

There are two morals to this story:

Dead cunts don't get custody.
And
REAL MEN will not be slaves.

November 25, 2007 7:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

check this out on cnn

"woman beats son wants alimony"
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/
video/us/2007/11/25/
acosta.child.alimony.cnn

November 25, 2007 9:31 AM  
Anonymous buttercup said...

Hi Bob,

In your opinion, is there ever a time when a woman has the right to leave her husband? Under which circumstances would that be?

November 25, 2007 9:38 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous (November 25, 2007 9:31 AM)

It is good that CNN is graphically depicting some of the horrors of the evil "family" court system. Females often get "custody" and "child support" even while serving time in prisons.

November 25, 2007 10:07 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to buttercup: If a wife explains to her husband that she has become a lying whore and is no longer a benefit to the family then she should be allowed to pack up her shoe collection and get out. She should not be able to take her husband's children nor the family's assets under any circumstances since they are needed for raising the children.

November 25, 2007 10:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lying whores should be killed, not be allowed to escape.

A women or girl should never be allowed to leave her husband by her own will.

--MikeeUSA--

November 25, 2007 12:42 PM  
Anonymous buttercup said...

Is that the only circumstance? Is there never a time when a man's actions warrant his wife leaving him? Ever?

November 25, 2007 12:51 PM  
Anonymous buttercup said...

Hi Mike. So are you saying that a husband has the right to beat, molest, or treat his wife anyway he likes, and she shouldn't be allowed to leave?

Or are you claiming that men never do those things and that all claims of such incidences are fabricated by women?

Bob, where did you go? I'd like to hear your opinion as well.

November 25, 2007 3:25 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to buttercup: Mikee did not say "a husband has the right to beat, molest, or treat his wife anyway he likes."

If you want to discuss morals and values you should refrain from posting straw man arguments based on twisted misstatements of someone else's opinion.

If you disagree with Mikee’s opinion that is fine, and you should say so, but please do not project your own prejudices and blame them on Mikee.

November 25, 2007 3:46 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Buttercup asked, "Is that the only circumstance? Is there never a time when a man's actions warrant his wife leaving him? Ever?
"


Bob just answered that question. Please take some remedial reading comprehension classes if you are having trouble keeping up, or ask a man to read and explain the meaning to you.

November 25, 2007 3:49 PM  
Anonymous buttercup said...

You didn't answer the question, Bob. You said that if the woman is a lying whore, than she should be allowed to leave. What if she isn't a lying whore? What if she's a nice woman and her husband abuses her? Is that question clearer?

Mike said that a wife should "never" be allowed to leave her husband. Never is a strong word to use, and I wanted to make sure that he really meant it. If he meant "never" that means that he believes that a husband can do and say whatever he wants to his wife, and she should NEVER be allowed to leave of her own will.

I'm sorry you feel the need to assume what my opinions are on the subject. You haven't asked my opinion, and I haven't given it because you probably don't care anyway. I'm asking questions that are easily defended if you guys wish to tell the truth about your beliefs and not hide behind semantics.

You can jump to conclusions about what my beliefs are all you want. I am interested in your position though, which is why I'm asking questions.

November 25, 2007 4:46 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to buttercup: Why don't you take that "abuse" crapola to a feminazi blog where that kind of misandrist hate speech is acceptable.

November 25, 2007 4:57 PM  
Anonymous buttercup said...

Because it's kind of hard to find out your opinion on another blog! I know it's hard to believe Bob, but I'm actually interested in what you have to say.

What do you mean by "abuse crapola"? I asked you a question about your opinion on abuse. How is that hate speech? Do you believe that abuse towards women doesn't happen?

November 25, 2007 5:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Buttercup:
MikeeUSA's weblog is at http://mikeeusa.blogspot.com
You can read it and see what his opinion on everything is.

You need to log in because women's rights activists had the weblog flagged and thus now it is censored in that way.

November 25, 2007 6:35 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to buttercup: Your assumption that husbands beat wives is a very misandrist stereotype. Save it for some feminazi hate board.

November 25, 2007 6:36 PM  
Anonymous buttercup said...

Some husbands do beat wives. That's not hate speech. That's the truth. Some wives beat husbands as well. That's not hate speech either. We've established that "lying whores" are allowed to leave if they take nothing with them. I'm wondering if you think that women who are not lying whores have different rights or not. For example, if a (notice I said "a" and not "all") husband beats his wife, in your opinion, should she be able to leave? If she does leave because her husband beats her, should she have more right to claim possessions and children?

Of course, if he is beating her BECAUSE she is a lying whore, that's a whole other can of worms. Let's assume he's beating her because he's just mean.


I'll check Mike's blog. Thanks Anonymous.

November 25, 2007 7:28 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to buttercup:
Some wives beat their husbands too. Its hate speech to uses stereotype husbands as wife beaters. I'm tired of trying to explain politely to a misandrist who keeps posting that kind of anti-men hate.

November 26, 2007 6:56 AM  
Blogger Robin Steele said...

I apologize for doubting the growth and power of your movement. I just read about the big California rally. I stand corrected.

MRM Displays Power, Professionalism at Rally!

November 26, 2007 4:06 PM  
Anonymous buttercup said...

http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=286140>1=7703

I guess this guys wife has the right to blow his head off. She should take out the little adopeted kid too. Just for good measure.

This is your logic applied, Bob.

November 29, 2007 3:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mikee if a man has to keep his wife a chained prisoner, then don't call that "marriage". It is called "kidnapping", or "hostage-taking"... felonies.

Also in most religions (even the most conservative), a marriage cannot take place unless both people consent. If any girl or woman is coerced into saying "yes", no priest, minister or civil authority will marry them.

If the man insists on taking that young bride, he can only do it through kidnapping.

Then convince himself it was a "marriage".

November 30, 2007 5:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mikee if a man has to keep his wife a chained prisoner, then don't call that "marriage". It is called "kidnapping", or "hostage-taking"... felonies.

Also in most religions (even the most conservative), a marriage cannot take place unless both people consent. If any girl or woman is coerced into saying "yes", no priest, minister or civil authority will marry them.

If the man insists on taking that young bride, he can only do it through kidnapping.

Then convince himself it was a "marriage".

November 30, 2007 5:57 PM  
Anonymous Stephen said...

I remember a story that was on Oprah several years ago. It concerned east coast military men murdering their pregnant wives. As horrible as this behavior is I now realize there was a lot of feminist propaganda involved. Just like the "dead-beat dad" myth. The women were considered victims and the men were made out to be oppressors. No one bothered to look at the male perspective. After I filtered out the feminist hate aspects of the media I've come to the conclusion that many men who murder their wives are fighting back against women who employed unfair advantages brought about by feminism. For instance, I'm sure that some men murder their wives because the wife held VAWA, no-fault divorce, false rape accusations and other threats against the husband. Or that the husband was good to his wife but the wife saw divorce as a lucrative opportunity because of the unjust laws brought about by feminism. My point is that feminism is causing many women to push their luck because they've been "empowered" without being held accountable for how they use their new found power. Indeed, some feminists encourage women to destroy men. I just want people to get a different perspective than what the feminized media spews. Here's an interesting article I'd like you to check out:

www.freerepublic.com/focu
s/f-news/916577/posts?pag
e=8

December 21, 2007 8:27 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home