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.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Another Blue Gun Thug Assassination

There is almost nothing a blue gun thug hates more than to see a father enjoying life with his son. When the father took forceful action to prevent a cunt from destroying his family their hate level goes ballistic. They begin frothing at the mouth, oiling their guns, and salivating at the thought of killing the father for taking care of his son.

In Los Angeles California this week the blue gun thugs caught up with 38-year-old Manuel Benitez and his son while they were walking down the street past a Chinese restaurant in an El Monte strip mall. It was an opportunity for another gun thug assassination No trial. No lieyers. No due process. Just hand grenades and a hail of hot lead. When the hate is hot and the gun thugs have been hyped up on their steroid pills, only a man's death will calm them down. Mr. Benitez had been the featured hated man on TV hate show “Americas Most Hated” by sick fuck John Walsh. Associated gun thug hate organizations like the FBI also had featured Mr. Benitez on their “Most Hated” web site. The FBI is well known for their willingness to shoot a man's child, his wife, or even his dog to destroy another man.

As Bob has previously observed, dead cunts don't get custody. Mrs. Benitez was trying to destroy her family and take Mr. Benitez's child when she learned that lesson the hard way. She got 6 feet of good earth, not get custody of her husband's son. She did not get 20 years of “child support” slavery payments for destroying his family and taking his child. That kind of manly protection of our sons drives the feminists and other misandrist hate mongers nuts. Sick fucks like John Walsh go berserk. He is a mangina wuss who hates men who act manly. The very thought of a man who is not owned and dominated by a female makes the blue gun thugs go into a killing frenzy. Its an excuse to kill, to unload their guns as they train and train to do. Its a “reason” to kill. And killing is what they do.

When the blue gun thugs found Mr. Benitex and his son near a Los Angeles restaurant they surrounded the premises and called in all their "Special Weapons," military style assasination teams with body armor, snipers, and automatic fire assault rifles to kill a man peacefully minding his own business, taking care of his son. The blue gun thugs are all cowards underneath their bluster. They won't ever just talk to the man without “backup” of their entire gang of filthy pigs. When they had worked up their courage and waved their guns around for long enough to let the steroid pills overflow into their aggressive hate behavior, they attacked. The blue gun thug attacked with explosive grenades and a hail of hot lead. Poor Mr. Benitez never had a chance. He died, assassinated, where he sat. He got no trial or legal process. Even his son was shot and wounded. The blue gun thugs are always willing to shoot children who may be in the way of their murderous assault on a man.

Once they had assassinated Mr. Benitez, the blue gun thugs began spinning the story for their lap dogs in the media. They "had to" surround and assassinate a man minding his own business. The lack of due process and trial is blamed on Mr. Benitez, not their trained killers. Pig lovers in the media rush to recite all the hate the blue gun thug propaganda mouthpiece can spew out.

The blue gun thugs are the enemies of free men. We don't want them, we don't need them, and many more of us would be alive and free if they had been disbanded. May they all rot in hell, and may they do so sooner rather than later.

Read Yahoo Story

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

85 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, a whole squad of police and SWAT cops felt threatened by a man with his kid in a restaurant, and opened fire? Even the news story, as slanted as it may be, tells of the police firing like idiots at the man while his son was with him. That the child was only wounded was incredible.

This seems to be one of two common themes with SWAT cops especially...

1) Hunker down while some psycho is killing people (Columbine, VA Tech), then, when the psycho kills himself, bravely rush in screaming and pointing guns at the already traumatized survivors, and

2) Mowing down an unarmed man in a hail of automatic weapon fire because they felt "threatened". Without attempting to negotiate. Without proper due process.

The police truly are the enemy of free men.

emarel

December 24, 2008 10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The murder of the mother "protected" the son?

What the police did was indeed wrong. It was an excessive, and unnecessary, use of force, to say the very least. The situation was ridiculous.

But this does not excuse what Mr. Benitez did. He too committed murder.
I don't know what the Benitezes were like, or what led to their divorce and custody fight. But it disgusts me that you assume that the child is essentially the father's property. He 'belonged' to his mother as much as he did his father.

I'm guessing if it had been the wife who killed her husband to gain custody, you would be singing the praises of the SWAT team.

Listen: A human life is a human life regardless of its gender.

December 24, 2008 7:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Angry man commits mass murder in CA:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081225/ap_on_re_us/santa_shooting

Bob will defend the killer.

December 25, 2008 4:15 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:

Blaming the victim -- when he is a man -- is a common feminazi Gestapo tactic.

There are a few things that stand out from that story

1. The blue gun thugs did not protect anyone at the party despite their ongoing false promises of protection. He who gives up freedom for security will get neither, and deserve what he gets. The blue gun thugs take away the people’s right to self protection but do not provide protection to replace it.

2. Major media are falling all over themselves condemning the Mr. Pardo without investigating to find out the rest of the story. Bashing men is always a big story. Neither do the biased media also report cases of violent females. They are all about bashing men.

3. The media does report that Mr. Pardo’s wife expected that she could hurt him severely by destroying his family, and then continue a good life without consequences. She and her friends were partying as if life were good and nothing was wrong. But sometimes real life doesn’t work as well as feminist fiction, as she and her friends learned the hard way.

4. Mr. Pardo is among the dead victims of the ex-wife’s destruction of his family and its emotional aftermath. The blue gun thugs didn’t protect him either. They were probably on the side of his ex in destroying his family.

December 25, 2008 5:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, another angry man did kill a woman, his ex-wife. And he killed her parents as well.

It is too bad that more American women will be victims of such angry, retaliatory violence by men. But this is the fate they will have to endure for the years to come.

Of course, I don't encourage men to break the law. Neither do I encourage men to commit illegal violence. But I also know that American women have brought such an awful fate upon themselves.

American women are right now diseased, thanks largely to feminism and gender equality. American women will continue to behave like spoiled children unless controls are placed on them. Everything associated with protecting women must be dismantled. Domestic violence laws must be de-criminalized.

No question: American women need punishment. And I believe they will get it in the coming years, as the US continues its slide into economic collapse -- a certainty that will become unavoidably obvious even to American women.

~ Mr. Anon

December 25, 2008 11:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95AHJ780&show_article=1

The bitch wasn't even married to him for two years, but she got his dog, $10,000 in cash, and alimony payments??? And this, from a man who's been unemployed for the last 6 months??? The root problem here isn't a crazed man with a gun, it's a crazed legal system, with a LOT of guns.

He should have gone for the judge first.

There were apparently completely innocent people killed, and I genuinely feel for them. The parents... They may be responsible for much more than just giving birth to the bitch. (or not, I don't know) But I just can't get all worked up about the gold digging whore. I'd prefer that she hadn't been killed, but I won't be losing any sleep over it. Hitting a tiger with a baseball bat isn't a capital offense either, but that won't stop me from laughing when it tears your head off.

December 26, 2008 11:41 AM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:

The parents did not send her back home to be with her husband. Her disgrace to her family was condoned and supported. They apparently supported her divorce, and were partying as if life was good. They were part and parcel of her crimes against her husband.

Some of the neighbors or other bystanders who happened to be at the party were unfortunate "ancillary damage." The neighbors, her community, did not support her marriage and demand that she go back to live with her husband. She was not shunned by the community for her sins against families and children. When you support and party with feminist trash you should expect to end up with the trash.

Yes, the Agent of Satan in black robes of Hell should have been a primary target, along with the lieyers who arranged to destroy his life. Men need to learn better gun control.

{See Legal Notice on the left column of The World According to Bob}

December 26, 2008 12:28 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to readers:
SCOTUS has warned all Americans that we can never rely on anything a blue gun thug says because lying to the public is their everyday job.

The blue gun thugs say that someone wearing a Santa Clause suit killed Mrs. Pardo, her parents, and several other people. The men hating media is competing with each other to blame the nearest available man. However there is little if any evidence that Mr. Pardo was the person in the Santa Clause suit responsible for the killings and fire.

The blue gun thugs tell us that Bruce Pardo shot himself in the head. If you believe that I have a really good bridge I can sell to you for cheap. Everything the blue gun thugs ever say must be assumed by you and me to be a lie. That's who they are. That's what they do. Its their job. SCOTUS warned us.

Its about a 99% bet that the blue gun thugs caught up with Mr. Pardo, bound him in chains and snap ties, and then assassinated him. No investigation, no due process, no lieyers and juries, just a gun thug bullet to the head. He's "guilty" by gun thug and they leave no witness to tell his side of the whole story.

December 26, 2008 12:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blaming the victim -- when she is a woman -- is a common misogynous Gestapo tactic.

December 26, 2008 12:53 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:
The whole media and you misandrist cunts are rushing to blame the nearest available man, the victim of her crimes. It is the femiNazi Gestapo who uses that tactic all the time. Blaming men for your hate doesn't make it go away.

December 26, 2008 12:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (December 26, 2008 12:53 PM) said...

Blaming the victim -- when she is a woman -- is a common misogynous Gestapo tactic.

Yes, women must be blamed when they mis-behave or cause malice. They must be blamed clearly and directly.

When men with forceful, righteous anger point the finger and blame women, the female reaction will be 100% predictable: submission, remorse, and eventual compliance. For the strength of a man, combined with his indignant anger, transforms a woman into a mere ant -- ridiculously weak, pitiful, and easily destroyed by just a fraction of a man's strength.

The presumptive arrogance of American women today is like a castle built on sand or playing cards. It is an unnatural rebellion against nature; a grave, mortal sin that can only be met by as equally a grave, devastating punishment.

American women have condemned themselves to a profoundly unhappy fate -- one filled with deep sorrow, scalding shame, and scorn that will last beyond this generation of ruined women.

~ Mr. Anon

December 26, 2008 3:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I don't know what the Benitezes were like, or what led to their divorce and custody fight. But it disgusts me that you assume that the child is essentially the father's property. He 'belonged' to his mother as much as he did his father." - Anon 7:36

In today's Family Court World, the child doesn't belong to the father, and the father has no real rights to his child. Society would be much more stable and divorce would occur much less often if automatic father custody were the rule like it was 150 years ago. Men typically will not walk out on their families, and when a man acts out of line, there are plenty of cultural, social and legal correctives to hold him accountable. Not so with a wife, who is given every incentive to leave a marriage simply by being given custody, along with all that comes with it.

Automatic father custody!!! Events like the Covina killings would never happen.

emarel

December 26, 2008 3:57 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:
Breaking up families, allowing the wife to leave and take the man's children, and still forcing the man to support her, has been the long range goal of organized feminism since the Seneca Falls Conference in 1848.

In a civilized world a wife leaving her marriage would be allowed to take only the shirt on her back and her shoe collection.

December 26, 2008 4:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He was robbed of a very significant amount of money, and ordered by the courts to continue making payments to the woman who robbed him, long after they knew he was unemployed. With no income, it was an utter certainty that he'd soon be unable to continue paying this extortion. When that day came, what would have happened? The process to imprison him would have begun. Having no money, that process would have been quick. He would have been forced to choose between prison, and summary execution, as those are THE ONLY two options available when police apprehend a "suspect."

So I ask you, Ms Anonymous (12:53pm), would the police have been justified in killing him, if he'd chosen not to quietly go to prison? Remember, HE is the one being continuously robbed. But when it's the perverted system blaming the victim, I don't hear you screaming "misandry."

And yes, that choice is faced by millions of men. The fact that the overwhelming majority DON'T try to shoot their way out, demonstrates how much more self control men have, compared to women. It's the women, after all, who send heavily armed thugs out to steal their husbands' money, at gunpoint.

December 26, 2008 4:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Anon, exactly what do you want women to do to "comply" with your demands? For example, give up voting, college education, property rights, etc?

What type of force would you use to round up every woman, and presumably send her to a concentration camp for torture, beatings, rape? Don't you realize that would probably kill many of them?

Have you confided in anyone (friend, coworkers, boss) of your rage towards women and desire to inflict pain?

December 26, 2008 4:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nobody rushes to blame men simply because they're men. Rather, they are actually guilty of violence or destruction.

December 26, 2008 4:32 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous: (4:30 PM)
Don't be absurd.

Note to anonymous: (4:32 PM)
Your post clearly demonstrates the opposite of your malicious feminist nonsense.

December 26, 2008 4:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (December 26, 2008 4:30 PM) said...

Mr. Anon, exactly what do you want women to do to "comply" with your demands? For example, give up voting, college education, property rights, etc?

Women will ultimately comply only when men become vigiliant and determined to enforce the rules. Women, of course, must comply with losing the right to vote; they cannot have a say in how societies are run. Period.

I also want women to comply with female (non-coed) education whose purpose is to foster and ennoble the feminine arts and values -- within the framework of a patriarchal society. Female education does not preclude college -- after there have been always women's colleges whose purpose was to make females suitable wives and mothers. And females should have cultivated minds so that they can hold intelligent, informed discussions with men. But society should aggressively discourage healthy, feminine women from having a professional career; that is and always should be a man's domain. A woman's place is at home with the kids.

For now, property rights is not an important issue yet. There are too many other important issues to clear up before we even get to female property rights. When we get the society we want -- a patriarchal society -- then we'll have a better idea of how to handle female property rights.


What type of force would you use to round up every woman, and presumably send her to a concentration camp for torture, beatings, rape? Don't you realize that would probably kill many of them?

Women are generally a bunch of weak scaredy-cats, easily intimidated by displays of male power and anger. It doesn't really take much to get a women to comply and submit to correct behavior when confronted by a righteous man. The application of force would be minimal because, like I said, women are weak scaredy-cats, easily led to do what men direct them to do.

I would favor however rounding up by force all the feminist professors, lawyers, media journalists, etc. who propagate their hate-filled lies and have them sent to concentration camps, at a minimum, with no chance of release. Also, whatever would happen within the walls of the concentration camps would be none of my concern.

And as for your fear of women getting raped, murdered, brutalized, etc.: that is already taking place right now, if you take a look at the Department of Justice crime statistics. Unfortunately, it will get even worse for you American women, which I must admit I'm not shedding much tears over. You have made your bed, and you will have to lie in it, in much the same way that the Arkansas newswoman Anne Pressly, and so many like her, did.


Have you confided in anyone (friend, coworkers, boss) of your rage towards women and desire to inflict pain?

Of all the women I have corresponded with, only American women seem to talk the way you do, stupidly and childishly goading men to commit acts of violence. That is exactly what happened to those 9 people killed by Mr. Pardo the other day. Yes, your stupid, malicious female talk does arouse anger in me, as it should other men. That does not mean, however, that we are impatient, or unrestrained. We are in fact quite patient and remarkable disciplined. The anger I feel is one that all men must express with great force and clarity in order to defeat and shame American women like you who have destroyed yourselves because you desired and envied power.

It is a great tragedy what you American women have done to yourselves, and of course that can only mean that many more of you in the coming years will meet a fate filled with great sorrow, shame, and a pain so agonizing and unprecedented you cannot even begin to imagine.

~ Mr. Anon

December 26, 2008 7:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

After re-reading the story of Mr. Pardo, it appears he was a man with no criminal history. A friendly man who worked, even went to church and loved his dog. The ex wife in this case was callous (though her side was not given). On top of all this, Pardo lost his job but was still forced into paying the ex.

Pardo snapped. This was the most tragic way to handle suffering. It made things a million times worse for everybody. There was probably help out there; he might have lived to see a happier day for himself including legal justice.

December 26, 2008 7:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok then, what was Mr Pardo guilty of, BEFORE the shootings?

The courts had ruled that he owed monthly payments of $1,785 to his wife for 15 months, at absolute minimum. Presumably those payments were scheduled to continue. This, after a marriage of less than two years. And all involved agree that he'd never even been suspected of any type of violence, or criminal activity. Yet his property was taken from him, under threat of death. Clearly, HE was the victim, and SHE was the perpetrator, until the moment of the shootings.

Only a month after this extortion was ordered, he lost his job. Why, at that point, was SHE not ordered to pay HIM? Because she's a woman, and he's a man. That's it. Nothing more to the explanation. The American court system considers a man to be legally inferior to a woman. If you really want to argue with that obvious conclusion, then you'll need to tell us all why an unemployed man is expected to pay the living expenses of a woman who freely chose to leave him.

December 26, 2008 7:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Anon needs to start his own anti-feminist blog!

This guy is good!

December 26, 2008 10:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is a great tragedy what you American women have done to yourselves"

Naw... don't think so. Most of use are happy and productive people.... Unlike you, who seem churning with rage ready to explode.

" many more of you in the coming years will meet a fate filled with great sorrow, shame, and a pain so agonizing and unprecedented you cannot even begin to imagine"

Wow zappers. You sure? Phew...

btw, be careful what you wish for Mr. Anon. Your Taliban style patriarchy will not furnish the Utopia you dream of. Indeed, it will be a two-edged sword with the sharp edge pointed at you sooner or later.

berthe_kouroublakis@yahoo.com

December 27, 2008 6:00 PM  
Blogger Shmuel said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

December 28, 2008 12:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you think American women are awful, you should come to Israel. Trust me, American women are angels compared to the typical Israel Feminazi.
Until Feminism is not destroyed in USA, it will never vanish elsewhere. The European Feminism is nothing like the American. The second and the radical wave started in America and only American men can kill it.

December 28, 2008 12:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Help for Mr. Anon,

2009 is nearly here, it's President Obama for the next 4-8 years. No way will Feminism disappear in USA.

Be realistic. If you REALLY want to live in a Patriarchy, emigrate to a strict Islamic nation. With your brilliance, you can learn Arabic. Pretend to convert to Islam; pray to god anyway you choose.... You are likely a Christian from your posts.

That's the only realistic way open. Otherwise, you'll just sit there fuming in front of a lonely computer blog until you die.... while Feminism flourishes.

December 28, 2008 3:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Anon,

You demand that women have basically one "career" option: homemaking. No professions allowed.

Is this opinion from your religion?

Even many Conservatives would disagree with that opinion.

December 28, 2008 3:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Even many Conservatives would disagree with that opinion."

And they wish to conserve women's rights.

Conservitism isn't the cure. Radicalism and revolution may be. We don't want to conserve what we have now.

This is not a free country for Men.

December 28, 2008 7:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (December 28, 2008 3:53 PM) said...

Mr. Anon,

You demand that women have basically one "career" option: homemaking. No professions allowed.

Is this opinion from your religion?

Even many Conservatives would disagree with that opinion.


Yes, I do demand that women have basically one "career" option: homemaking. Society can and must establish thru public policy ways that restrict, discourage, or outright prohibit healthy, attractive, feminine women from having professional careers. Thru education, lack of opportunities, or law, this can be possible but only in a patriarchal society run by an elite of resolute men -- a kind of elite that recalls what the original Founders had in mind, though of course with some differences.

Professional careers should be reserved only for those women who are un-feminine, un-attractive, or un-healthy either physically or psychologically -- females such as butch dykes, fat women, welfare sluts, and other rejects whom normal, red-blooded men would otherwise have nothing to do with.

Religion has nothing to do with my opinion. And I know Conservatives would disagree with that opinion, which is why I have no use for what passes for conservatism today.

Conservatives are merely trying to conserve a decayed, rotting system that must be torn down, and do not actually differ much with liberals, as far as feminism and women's rights are concerned.

-- Mr. Anon

December 28, 2008 7:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Even many Conservatives would disagree with that opinion.”

Likely true,

But this is mainly due to the fact that “modern conservatism” has become so “watered down” not only to the point of being tolerant of feminism, but has in fact, become feminist to the core!

Although it still may be a few years off, I strongly suspect the same sort of tolerance from modern conservatives toward the homosexual agenda? At this point it will be interesting to see how modern conservatism differentiates itself from liberalism?

December 28, 2008 8:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (December 28, 2008 3:52 PM) said...

2009 is nearly here, it's President Obama for the next 4-8 years. No way will Feminism disappear in USA.

Not in the next 4-8 years, but feminism's collapse and destruction is a foregone conclusion anyway. Only a fool would bet against nature and common sense -- which is what you're doing.


You are likely a Christian from your posts.

Religion has nothing to do with what I've posted

~ Mr. Anon

December 28, 2008 8:08 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Anonymous (3:53 PM) whined:
"You demand that women have basically one "career" option: homemaking. No professions allowed."

Throughout history females have always divided themselves between the alternate careers of wife or courtesan/whore. That hasn't changed.

What has changed is the feminist opposition to wives and families which encourages the majority of modern females to choose immoral whoring over managing a family as a good wife. That change has been very destructive for the society as a whole and hurts uncounted millions of men, women, and especially children.

December 28, 2008 8:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (December 27, 2008 6:00 PM) said...

Naw... don't think so. Most of use are happy and productive people.... Unlike you, who seem churning with rage ready to explode.

Only two possibilities here:

1) this American woman is an unattractive, hate-filled, butch dyke

2) this American "woman" is a male faggot pervert


" many more of you in the coming years will meet a fate filled with great sorrow, shame, and a pain so agonizing and unprecedented you cannot even begin to imagine"

Wow zappers. You sure? Phew...


I could not be more sure. The warning signs are too numerous to pretend they don't exist. They are all around us.


btw, be careful what you wish for Mr. Anon. Your Taliban style patriarchy will not furnish the Utopia you dream of. Indeed, it will be a two-edged sword with the sharp edge pointed at you sooner or later.

I don't see what the Taliban has to do with an anti-feminist patriarchy. You are obviously a sick, selfish, unattractive female (assuming you are female) who delights in misfortune and degradation. You are an apt representative of the American woman today -- a childish, self-centered creature in an adult body that currently lacks male controls on her behavior.

~ Mr. Anon

December 28, 2008 8:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it ironic that Mr. Anon is apparently unaware that just as a man will reject a woman he finds unattractive, a woman will reject a man she finds unattractive.

Also, few American women were ever strictly homemakers in the sense Mr. Anon and Bob use it. In poor families, the men, women, and children often had to work outside of the home to earn enough money for food and other necessities. Homesteading in the pioneer years also required the combined physical labor of the whole family.

And, of course, there is also the question of what would happen to men and women who are infertile in Mr. Anon's ideal civilization. His ideas ignore the fact that there are a number of men who cannot father children, and a number of women who cannot become pregnant.

December 29, 2008 12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Anon has never revealed his true identity, whereas Feminists, Progressives, etc. are constantly in the news. They don't hide their identity... nor do they hide behind a computer.

December 29, 2008 3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Throughout history females have always divided themselves between the alternate careers of wife or courtesan/whore"

Not if they were born slaves.

December 29, 2008 3:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Suppose a brilliant and attractive woman wants a career as a surgeon (like Jerry Falwell's daughter)? She is smarter than Mr. Anon and Bob regarding I.Q. score, scientific/academic abilities, etc. Perhaps you fellows are jealous?

Who gets to decide she can't pursue that career, but must instead marry because of her feminine beauty? A panel of special Judges, of which Mr. Anon is Chief Justice?

Talk about ridiculous and tyrannical.

December 29, 2008 3:42 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Anonymous (3:35 PM) said...
"They don't hide their identity... nor do they hide behind a computer."

If she had a clue she would be dangerous. (Maybe she's blond.)

December 29, 2008 3:49 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Anonymous (3:38 PM) said...
"Not if they were born slaves."

Don't be absurd.

December 29, 2008 3:50 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

The same anonymous blond sow (3:42 PM) whined,
"Suppose a brilliant and attractive woman wants a career as a surgeon? She is smarter than Mr. Anon and Bob regarding I.Q. score, scientific/academic abilities, etc."

The smartest females are never as smart as the smartest men, and in large numbers choose not to compete in highly technical fields like surgery. The current sexist majority of females in medical schools is creating a long term shortage of skilled (and invariably men) surgeons.

A really brilliant female would excel at being a really good wife and mother, unless she chooses to be a whore like Jerry Springer's daughter.

The blond sow whined, "Who gets to decide she can't pursue that career,"

Your logic isn't any better than your reading ability. Obviously we aren't talking about you. As Bob previously mentioned, females have always chosen for themselves to be wives or whores. The feminazi "career" females end up as whores with a series of empty "relationships" that go nowhere. In their 30s they flock to fertility clinics because they squandered their biological baby making years following the feminist path to whoredom.

December 29, 2008 4:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (December 29, 2008 12:52 PM) said...

I find it ironic that Mr. Anon is apparently unaware that just as a man will reject a woman he finds unattractive, a woman will reject a man she finds unattractive.

Translation: "I am one of those American women who is likely considered unattractive and unappealing to men when measured against traditional standards of beauty and femininity."


Also, few American women were ever strictly homemakers in the sense Mr. Anon and Bob use it. In poor families, the men, women, and children often had to work outside of the home to earn enough money for food and other necessities. Homesteading in the pioneer years also required the combined physical labor of the whole family.

yak, yak, yak


And, of course, there is also the question of what would happen to men and women who are infertile in Mr. Anon's ideal civilization. His ideas ignore the fact that there are a number of men who cannot father children, and a number of women who cannot become pregnant.

They can adopt children, and create families that way. They would still be expected and encouraged to reflect well on their community, and be productive citizens. Issue solved

December 29, 2008 7:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"be a whore like Jerry Springer's daughter"

Springer?

December 30, 2008 4:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Professional careers should be reserved only for those women who are un-feminine, un-attractive, or un-healthy either physically or psychologically -- females such as butch dykes, fat women, welfare sluts, and other rejects whom normal, red-blooded men would otherwise have nothing to do with"

Whoever wrote that childish, insane nonsense, close your eyes.

Think.

Suppose you could never see again. You have two women as potential wives. One is kind and loyal. The other, hateful and cruel. Which would you pick?

Common sense would dictate, pick the nice one. She may be considered fat, homely, unattractive by sighted men. But their view is shallow and childish.

If you want a flashy beautiful toy, go to Toys R Us and get one. It's only property, with no feelings or humanity. But heck it's pretty - all that counts.

December 30, 2008 4:21 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous:
Please review Bob's Comment Rules in the left column before posting comments.

December 30, 2008 4:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

YAWN, can we please move on, the comments are good, but its getting old already.

December 30, 2008 6:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (December 29, 2008 3:42 PM) said...

Suppose a brilliant and attractive woman wants a career as a surgeon (like Jerry Falwell's daughter)? She is smarter than Mr. Anon and Bob regarding I.Q. score, scientific/academic abilities, etc. Perhaps you fellows are jealous?

Who gets to decide she can't pursue that career, but must instead marry because of her feminine beauty? A panel of special Judges, of which Mr. Anon is Chief Justice?

Talk about ridiculous and tyrannical.



To use a simple analogy: In the US, people under 18 are not allowed to vote. No doubt there are bright, informed minors under 18 who have a better awareness of political issues than some adults, and could be capable enough to vote.

Yet, we still don't allow those minors to vote anyway, because there is a general agreement (or acceptance) of a principle that minors are not capable of taking part in politics, even if there are exceptions that disprove this rule.

In the same way, those women who are more intelligent and have higher IQs than men should not have professional careers anyway either. It doesn't matter if women could be capable doing the work.

Listen up, American women, and pay attention here: Careers are NOT showcases for women to make political statements about "being just as good as men." Neither are careers ways for women to "discover themselves," and enhance their egos and personal, individual happiness.

When you get right down to it, no woman needs a career -- absolutely NONE. Women are simply not critical or indispensible in career positions, only men are. You could replace all the women currently in professional careers with men, and society would still function normally without a hitch. You absolutely cannot do the reverse, and replace male career professionals with females. Because we all know society would fall apart not long after.

But to give a more ethereal answer, when you understand what society is and its relation not just to the individuals, or even to humanity, but to the universe, you begin to see the union of man and woman in a totally different light. And then the concept of females having careers becomes utterly absurd and deviant.

Man and woman are not individual entities alienated from one another, but two inseparable parts of one whole. Without the union of the two, there can be no humanity, no life. And without life, the universe becomes devoid of a higher purpose or meaning to its existence.

Each part of the whole -- man and woman -- is thus not only an essential part of nature; each is essential in achieving one-ness with the universe, giving it divine purpose. Each has its own inherent nature that, when joined together, complements the other in fulfilling their purpose on this earth: of extending the lifetime of humanity to eternity, and making possible a world in which children can develop into healthy men and women striving to achieve greatly in their endeavors, progressively reaching ever more advanced levels in all fields and aspects of human existence.

So understand this, American women: The purpose of having a career isn't to make people feel good about themselves. You are not fulfilling your own noble purpose on earth by proving to others that you can do a job "as good as a man can." This type of frivolous thinking, which underpins feminism and the motivations of modern American women, is why we see so many professional career women today running around aimlessly like chickens with their heads cut off.

There is not one solid, good reason for women to have a career. It is simply not essential to humanity, to society, to families, to men -- and, of course, to women.

December 30, 2008 7:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (December 30, 2008 4:21 PM) said...

"Professional careers should be reserved only for those women who are un-feminine, un-attractive, or un-healthy either physically or psychologically -- females such as butch dykes, fat women, welfare sluts, and other rejects whom normal, red-blooded men would otherwise have nothing to do with"

Whoever wrote that childish, insane nonsense, close your eyes.

Think.

Suppose you could never see again. You have two women as potential wives. One is kind and loyal. The other, hateful and cruel. Which would you pick?

Common sense would dictate, pick the nice one. She may be considered fat, homely, unattractive by sighted men. But their view is shallow and childish.

If you want a flashy beautiful toy, go to Toys R Us and get one. It's only property, with no feelings or humanity. But heck it's pretty - all that counts.



You are obviously a very physically unattractive American woman -- and your personality reflects that as well. Sucks to be you.

December 30, 2008 7:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If anyone wants to read an outstanding piece about women doctors and whether or not they are worth their alleged value go into Angry Harry's website and read "Is training women to be doctors a waste of money". He hits a upper deck grand slam home run on the issue.Bob links to him on his blog so it is real easy to get into his website.

December 31, 2008 6:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Anonymous, December 30, 2008 7:02 PM.

Very well put!

Here's a link worth checking out regardless of ones religious beliefs!

http://www.churchofnaturalpolarization.org/What_is_Natural_Polarizatio.html

Here's a few excerpts from this site,

"once there were men and women.
(natural polarization)"

"now they are democrat and republican
(unnatural polarization)"

"once men and women had opposite but complimentary roles
(natural polarization)"

"technology has destroyed the respective role and function of both men and women leading to gender confusion and homosexuality
(unnatural polarization)"

"For 5,000 years, the institution of marriage has sustained the human family and has been the foundation of civilizations not just in the west but throughout the world. With the industrial revolution (man's artificial manipulation of nature), this foundation has been and is being destroyed."

December 31, 2008 11:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just read Angry harry's article, but it was a little tough to find.When you log onto the website look to the left for Angry Harrys male students guide to feminism. Click on that and then scroll down just a little way to the section Did women really want to go out to work. The ariticle,"Is training women doctors a waste of money," is the first one.There are also some other excellent pieces there.

December 31, 2008 12:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There is not one solid, good reason for women to have a career."

That is absurd. Women are human beings first, female, 99th. Everyone needs a career, good wages and benefits so they can function as free, independent ADULTS. When one gender is subjugated to the other (eonomically, socially, etc.), the whole of humanity is harmed. Not to mention that economic subjugation is a form of SLAVERY.

December 31, 2008 3:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If you want a flashy beautiful toy, go to Toys R Us and get one. It's only property, with no feelings or humanity. But heck it's pretty - all that counts."

The writer above is correct.


"You are obviously a very physically unattractive American woman"

That is a silly, bitter, and ugly response to the common-sense truth stated. Most sane men and women (doubtless many of them attractive, vibrant people), would concur, that outward appearance is a childish criterion for judging the worth of a person.


"and your personality reflects that as well. Sucks to be you."

You never met the writer in person, so you don't really know anything beyond your dark, bitter imagination. "sucks" is rather bad language.

December 31, 2008 3:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"women doctors and whether or not they are worth their alleged value go into Angry Harry's "....

Women doctors are great and I am thankful for their excellent care. Angry Harry is just that - an angry chap spinning his wheels in the mud, refusing to call a towtruck.

December 31, 2008 3:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Man and woman are not individual entities alienated from one another"

We are ENTIRELY separate. Women's greatest suffering comes from men who torture.

December 31, 2008 3:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"why we see so many professional career women today running around aimlessly like chickens with their heads cut off."

Like Phyllis Schlafly?


btw, did you have any objections to slave women being forced to work outside the home? Being separated on the auction block from their families? Beatetn and raped by some White slaveowner?

Did you object to poor uneducated Black women having to hold down 2-3jobs, often cleaning the pretty houses of wealthy White folks like your Father? And working nights as a janitor?

Do you even have a job yourself, let alone a professional career?

December 31, 2008 3:49 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to anonymous (3:32 PM)
Marriage and family is division of labor, not "subjugation" or "slavery." Your absurd feminazi propaganda nonsense doesn't work with thinking people.

Note to anonymous (3:45 PM)
Your hateful squeal, "men who torture" demonstrates the lack or reasoning ability of females, and the reason why females should stay home and mind their kitchens. That kind of hate speech is as irrational as it is bigoted.

Note to anonymous (3:49 PM)

Phyllis Schlafly and other feminists should get out of the public arena and go back to their kitchens. Women belong in the private sphere.

Also your hate squeal about "slavery" is absurd. Old dried up sows like you shouldn't try to do logic. It only demonstrates your incompetence along with your bigotry.

December 31, 2008 4:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (December 31, 2008 3:45 PM) said...

We are ENTIRELY separate. Women's greatest suffering comes from men who torture.


Anonymous (December 31, 2008 3:49 PM) said...

btw, did you have any objections to slave women being forced to work outside the home? Being separated on the auction block from their families? Beatetn and raped by some White slaveowner?

Did you object to poor uneducated Black women having to hold down 2-3jobs, often cleaning the pretty houses of wealthy White folks like your Father? And working nights as a janitor?

Do you even have a job yourself, let alone a professional career?


HAHAHAHA oh Christ, are you serious? there's nothing funnier than a worthless, unlovable, unattractive American woman furiously striving to portray herself as a noble victim.

I have news for you, American Female: you are nothing of the sort.

Now get back in the kitchen and get me a beer.

~ Mr. Anon

December 31, 2008 5:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Now get back in the kitchen and get me a beer."

Ask your Mommy.

December 31, 2008 6:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"HAHAHAHA oh Christ, are you serious? there's nothing funnier than a worthless, unlovable, unattractive American woman"


To Mr. Anon, ALL women are worthless. But it's amusing, making Mr. Anon spew his venom. His anger is palpable. Poke the snake....

btw, men like Mr. Anon have a DESPERATE need for women. Hence their killing anger when they know they'll never get what they want. Women have no such corresponding need for men, especially for those like him.

December 31, 2008 6:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (December 31, 2008 11:36 AM) said...


To Anonymous, December 30, 2008 7:02 PM.

Very well put!


"For 5,000 years, the institution of marriage has sustained the human family and has been the foundation of civilizations not just in the west but throughout the world. With the industrial revolution (man's artificial manipulation of nature), this foundation has been and is being destroyed."


Thanks. Industrialization was indeed the double-edged sword that disrupted male-female relations, and contributed in part to the feminist mess today. Societies changed too quickly for us to properly adjust to them, and so we made mistakes, such as allowing women to vote and enter the workforce alongside men.

We cannot turn back the clock, but the establishment of an enlightened patriarchy could lead to a society that is eventually less industrialized and urban. Industries would be managed and planned not around the narrow goal of maximizing profit for a few corporations, but around the goal of creating healthy societies for men and women to develop into healthy, intelligent, attractive, and productive citizens.

~ Mr. Anon

December 31, 2008 6:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (December 31, 2008 6:16 PM) said...

To Mr. Anon, ALL women are worthless. But it's amusing, making Mr. Anon spew his venom. His anger is palpable. Poke the snake....

btw, men like Mr. Anon have a DESPERATE need for women. Hence their killing anger when they know they'll never get what they want. Women have no such corresponding need for men, especially for those like him.



Hurry up with that beer I told you to get.

~ Mr. Anon

December 31, 2008 7:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (December 31, 2008 3:32 PM) said...

That is absurd. Women are human beings first, female, 99th. Everyone needs a career, good wages and benefits so they can function as free, independent ADULTS. When one gender is subjugated to the other (eonomically, socially, etc.), the whole of humanity is harmed. Not to mention that economic subjugation is a form of SLAVERY.


Ok slave, go back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich.


~ Mr. Anon

December 31, 2008 7:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (December 31, 2008 3:40 PM) said...

"If you want a flashy beautiful toy, go to Toys R Us and get one. It's only property, with no feelings or humanity. But heck it's pretty - all that counts."

The writer above is correct.

That is a silly, bitter, and ugly response to the common-sense truth stated. Most sane men and women (doubtless many of them attractive, vibrant people), would concur, that outward appearance is a childish criterion for judging the worth of a person.


Obviously, this whole idea of beautiful women got a rise out of you LOL. Otherwise, you wouldn't take the time to post your churlish nonsense.

I'm afraid it is YOU who is bitterly resentful of something you cannot hope to be. In your self-centeredness, you disregarded men's desires. You denied men the effort of trying to please them, because you bought into the perverse feminist nonsense that physical ugliness was some kind of virtue -- and you lived that nonsense in your personal life.


... You never met the writer in person, so you don't really know anything beyond your dark, bitter imagination. "sucks" is rather bad language.

It still sucks to be you. Face it: you're a physically unattractive, unappealing American woman pissed off at men who reject you in favor of beautiful women. That's why you posted.

~ Mr. Anon

January 01, 2009 3:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Women have no such corresponding need for men, especially for those like him."

Those women are useless to Men and should be executed. It will help the enviroment as they will not consume resources while serving no purpose to Men. Go green.

--MikeeUSA--

I wonder why Men allow such females to live? In the past they were killed. How do we achive a society that will clean house again?

January 01, 2009 6:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (December 31, 2008 3:32 PM) said...

"That is absurd. Women are human beings first, female, 99th. Everyone needs a career, good wages and benefits so they can function as free, independent ADULTS. When one gender is subjugated to the other (eonomically, socially, etc.), the whole of humanity is harmed. Not to mention that economic subjugation is a form of SLAVERY."


It's interesting how you phrase that. How does a job make you free? It seem to me that all it does, at best, is transfer your subjugation from the control of your husband, to the control of some random employer. Instead of serving one master, you serve many. But there's a far bigger difference. Even as you serve your husband, he also serves you. Traditionally, a husband gives up his freedom outside the home, to provide for his wife. A plumber most assuredly does not go to work each morning for the sheer enjoyment of wallowing in other people's feces. He does it, traditionally, so his wife doesn't have to.

The difference between a husband having an outside job, and a wife having one, is that the wife has a choice. That fact is made clear when you look at how few women become plumbers. That's not a "fulfilling" job, so women don't want it. Men, on the other hand, must do what's necessary, regardless of whether they feel "fulfilled." The plain truth is that most men despise their jobs. Most jobs in existence are not jobs that anyone would ever volunteer for. But men get up every morning and subjugate themselves to their employers, simply because the alternative is starvation. Again, traditionally, he works a job he hates, so that his wife doesn't have to.

Men don't get the choice of being "house husbands." It's unacceptable, at least as much to women as it is to men. No man gets a wife by telling her he wants to stay at home with their children. But many women get husbands after the same statement. A man without an outside job is universally seen as lazy, and leeching off of his wife, while a woman in the same situation is somehow considered a victim. Similarly, a woman in a degrading job is also considered a victim, even while no one thinks a thing about the overwhelming majority of degrading jobs being held by men.

Why would any woman ever want to regress to mere equality? You had a good thing going. A deal acceptable to both men and women, for millennia, because each has different needs and abilities. In denying those differences, and pretending they don't exist, women are forcing themselves into a completely new world. A world where women, as men, are judged solely by how much money they earn. A world where twice as many people are chasing the same number of jobs, thereby lowering everyone's wages. And a world where children are left to be raised by the government, instead of their mothers. Can't you see that this has been the goal, the whole time? To get the children out of your hands, so that the government can alter future society to suit it's own will. It's not men who are making you slaves. It's a very few people in government, admittedly mostly men, who are turning us all into slaves. And they're largely using your fears of inadequacy to do it.

You've been had. We've all been had.

January 01, 2009 7:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"reject you in favor of beautiful women"

Whoever wrote that, explain why 99.999% of all women (and men) believe in basic human rights (and thus Feminism, such as voting, education, careers, etc).

Also, explain why so many BEAUTIFUL women are pro-Feminist.... especially Hollywood stars.

I thought you whole-heartedly REJECTED any woman who favored Feminism. You mean you'd find a beautiful woman surgeon appealing?

Or would you want to kill her as you would the so-called "ugly" women?

Just checking for consistency.

January 01, 2009 12:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Now get back in the kitchen and get me a beer."

"Hurry up with that beer I told you to get"

"Ok slave, go back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich."

Little temper tantrums from an angry little bully, who pathetically attempts to humiliate women on the internet but can't in person.

I've seen many men scream about getting beer or ironing their shirts when contronting a woman who "threatens" them. Used to be, Whites would scream "shine my shoes, Boy" to a Black civil rights leader.

January 01, 2009 1:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Anon, Bob, RELAX.

Stop being so rigid about restructuring society. You stew over the reality that women now enjoy human rights, that society has left the patriarchal Dark Ages.

Heck, most men are GLAD of that. I don't know one grown man who sits before a computer, wishing he could restructure society, and thus find elusive "happiness." Maybe a mental patient, but not normal, functioning people.

Most men are enjoying their lives -work, sports, family, travel, hobbies. Remember Todd Beamer? Happy, productive guy, a real man of "Let's Roll" fame. Darned if he spent his life frowning, bitching because women around him voted and went to school. He'd say you're nuts to live like that.

Why can't you give up your bitter angst? Don't be such busybodies.

January 01, 2009 1:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In your self-centeredness, you disregarded men's desires."

When men are selfish, their desires are like children's tantrums. Nobody will cater to brats.

"You denied men the effort of trying to please them"

No one can please a spoiled brat like you, nor do you deserve to have a quality relationship where somebody truly cares. (It is doubtful you've ever had a healthy relationship with anyone; you probably exist in lonely misery).

If you had that perfect woman (wife, whore, call girl etc.) you would never be satisfied. You'd complain 24/7, bitch, scream, call names, probably physically abuse even a Saint who tried to befriend a snake like you. Not worth it.

"because you bought into the perverse feminist nonsense that physical ugliness was some kind of virtue"

That makes no logical sense. Are you in your right mind or on drugs?

Feminism is about human rights and thus is good. Physical appearance is irrelevant.

No human being is physically "ugly" not even a burn victim, or someone born with deformities. You focus so much on who's ugly, who's pretty, that your mind is stuck in kindergarten.

"and you lived that nonsense in your personal life. "

You never met that person, but even if you had, you'd still live in your hate-filled, fantasy world.

January 01, 2009 1:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" Face it: you're a physically unattractive, unappealing American woman pissed off at men who reject you in favor of beautiful women. That's why you posted."

There are NO beautiful women because they all want to vote and are therefore UGLY.

January 01, 2009 1:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Marriage and family is division of labor, not "subjugation" or "slavery."

Not true. Whenever one family member is economically dependent on another, that is a form of slavery.... especially when the one holding power can also beat, rape, humiliate, control and destroy his victim.

How about a woman's employer? Is he an economic "master" of sorts?

Not exactly. Any employee is free to give proper notice, leave him and get another job. They can and SHOULD start their own business, make wise investments for financial freedom. It's much easier to break the ties between employer/employee, than Husband/wife.

January 01, 2009 1:26 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

The typical irrational sow. When she can't form a reasoned response she posts repetitive ad-hominem insults and other nonsensical squeals.

January 01, 2009 1:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (January 01, 2009 1:18 PM) said...

"Physical appearance is irrelevant."

And with this statement, this American woman has given away her physical un-attractiveness.

LOL It's very amusing how the idea of women living up to some standard of female physical beauty has angered and vexed American women.

In a patriarchal society where institutions would be set up with human quality and human progress in mind, women would be expected to live up to ideals of feminine beauty and grace.

Those who fail (like the American woman poster above) would be encouraged into professional careers, thereby increasing their marginalization as well as making it less likely that they will become mothers.

~ Mr. Anon

January 02, 2009 2:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (January 01, 2009 1:02 PM) said...

I've seen many men scream about getting beer or ironing their shirts when contronting a woman who "threatens" them. Used to be, Whites would scream "shine my shoes, Boy" to a Black civil rights leader.


Thanks for suggesting ironing my shirts. You can do that when you're done getting my beer.


~ Mr. Anon

January 02, 2009 3:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (January 01, 2009 12:57 PM) said...

Also, explain why so many BEAUTIFUL women are pro-Feminist.... especially Hollywood stars.

I thought you whole-heartedly REJECTED any woman who favored Feminism. You mean you'd find a beautiful woman surgeon appealing?

Or would you want to kill her as you would the so-called "ugly" women?



It doesn't matter, because American women today don't matter. You made your bed, and you will have to lie in it. That might not make sense to you right now, but it will in time.

~ Mr. Anon

January 02, 2009 4:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (January 01, 2009 1:09 PM) said...

Stop being so rigid about restructuring society. You stew over the reality that women now enjoy human rights, that society has left the patriarchal Dark Ages.


We are in the Dark Ages precisely because we have left patriarchy.

Though you are an un-feminine, un-attractive, dyke-ish American woman, you are still not a man. What men need, and what desires and motives spring from men, you are not qualified to say. Furthermore, you cannot convince men that it is in their interests as men to maintain the unnatural, feminized world that you currently thrive in.

~ Mr. Anon

January 02, 2009 4:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Thanks for suggesting ironing my shirts. You can do that when you're done getting my beer."

I used to act like that too. Well hope your Nemesis runs and get you that non-alcoholic beer; maybe if you stomp your little feet they'll bring a kiddie car too.

pssst... don't you feel a bit childish with those spitballs that boomerang? that's ok... we won't tell. You're Anon here; your coworkers will never know.

January 02, 2009 3:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's very amusing how the idea of women living up to some standard of female physical beauty has angered and vexed American women. "

Nobody is angry at your shallow stupidity, Mr. Ano, just saddened by it.

Decent people don't judge the ultimate worth of a human being by outward appearance but by the content of their character.

January 02, 2009 3:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Face it: you're a physically unattractive, unappealing American woman pissed off at men who reject you in favor of beautiful women"


You still believe stereotypes you learned in cartoons and Hollywood movies?

btw, do YOU, Mr. Ano, have a beautiful woman in your life? Probably not a wife. But maybe a girl you pay so you can enjoy playing with her beautiful body as a child plays with a toy?

January 02, 2009 3:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (January 02, 2009 3:27 PM) said...

Nobody is angry at your shallow stupidity, Mr. Ano, just saddened by it.


"Saddened"? Nah, you're angry. Yes, you are. This issue of female beauty clearly does vex you.

And I'm glad it does.



Decent people don't judge the ultimate worth of a human being by outward appearance but by the content of their character.


Only a physically un-attractive, un-appealing American woman could come up with such trite nonsense...

...which makes you a nobody. An utterly worthless American woman, without value to men.

Glad I smoked another one out.



~ Mr. Anon

January 02, 2009 4:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice projection you got going on there, "Mr." Anon. Maybe try being a bit more subtle with it next time?

I'll admit it: there have been times in the past when I treated people poorly because of the way they looked. And guess what? That was wrong. It was a shallow and petty thing to do to another human being. I was judging a book by its cover, as the old adage goes. I was looking at them as something almost less than human.

Like it or not, Bob, Anon, and Mikee, human beings are not reducible to their bodies. You can not reduce them to their faces. You cannot reduce them to their jobs or their gender. You cannot force the entire world to conform to your standards.

Anyway, I see it's useless to make you see reason. Good-bye, and good riddance.

January 03, 2009 7:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Decent people don't judge the ultimate worth of a human being by outward appearance but by the content of their character."

I judge by both. A female with neither is worthless to me.

Death To women's Rights.
Viva Men's Liberties.
--MikeeUSA--

January 04, 2009 7:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You cannot force the entire world to conform to your standards."

I'm glad to see you understand that. Reality doesn't conform to anyone's standards. So it makes no difference that you believe men and women are the same. There are plain, obvious, undeniable, biological differences between men and women. The musculature is different, the fat distribution is different, the hormonal balance is different, and yes, the brain architecture is different. Denying any of that is a purely political argument, in opposition to ALL scientific evidence on the subject, and ALL observations.

This thread itself plainly demonstrates a major difference in the thought patterns of men and women. Bickering and snide insults aside, look at the nature of the arguments made. Where men attempt to buttress their statements with logic and evidence, women use emotions and "what if?" statements. Where men rely on reason, women prefer proclamations. And here's the best part. Women, even after re-reading the whole thread, will still try to argue with that statement. And in doing so, they'll simply be demonstrating the differences in thought patterns. Most women are as unable to accept male thought processes, as men are to accept female processes. And that basic fact of life is why treating men and women identically is counterproductive.

January 04, 2009 9:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous (January 03, 2009 7:32 PM) said...

I'll admit it: there have been times in the past when I treated people poorly because of the way they looked. And guess what? That was wrong. It was a shallow and petty thing to do to another human being. I was judging a book by its cover, as the old adage goes. I was looking at them as something almost less than human.

Like it or not, Bob, Anon, and Mikee, human beings are not reducible to their bodies. You can not reduce them to their faces. You cannot reduce them to their jobs or their gender. You cannot force the entire world to conform to your standards.

Anyway, I see it's useless to make you see reason. Good-bye, and good riddance.



To the American woman above: you don't seem to understand some basic concepts of femininity that should already be obvious, so let me educate and teach you.

The fact is, one cannot separate physical beauty from femininity. Though appearances do not tell the whole story, physical beauty is in fact the highest expression of femininity -- the superior moral and mental development of a woman.

It is also a fact that a man will judge the worthiness and value of a woman in large part to her physical appearances.

And finally, your insistence that female attractiveness is irrelevant gives away your own un-attractive, un-feminine, low-grade physical appearance.

In other words, you're a reject. A nobody to men.

I'm pleased that this issue provokes anger in you, because this issue in fact shames American women, many of whom are like you who have fallen far, far short of what men look for in women. But then, this is what we expect from American women today.

But since there does exist a world of better quality, feminine women outside America, American women are actually quite un-necessary and expendable.

~ Mr. Anon

January 04, 2009 2:19 PM  
Blogger Bob said...

Note to readers:
These comments have gotten too far off topic.

Please review Bob's rules for comments. All comments must be germane to the topic.

January 04, 2009 4:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Beware the Stockholm Syndrome.

January 04, 2009 4:22 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home