Multi-Task? Don’t Make Me Multi-Laugh — Or Multi-Shit.
I was sent this question by a reader:
In the beginning, when God made men and women, it was pretty simple. God made men strong and smart so they could hunt and he made women to carry children, cook and clean. Then as women realized how much greater men were they started to attempt manly jobs. Now, women get pissed at men because they have to do their day job then come home and do what God intended for them to. What do you think?
The reason women are so fucked in their heads these days is because they invented The Career Woman. The Career Woman is like that guy in Short Circuit. Not that guy; that robot. He can’t do anything right, it takes two other guys to babysit him all day, and before he learned his lesson he caused about ten million dollars in property damage. Go watch that film with an insurance adjuster. He’ll tell you.
That’s women for you.
God certainly did make men strong and smart. God made mankind in his own image. If I had to make the opposite of a man in my own image, then I wouldn’t know what the fuck to do. If I was God, I guess I would make her totally incompetent and rude. I would also make her hate facial hair. How fucking annoying.
Women will always have to cook and clean. Ask any married woman and she’ll tell you the same thing, “I don’t mind cooking and cleaning and doing laundry for my family.” Good. Then shut up and do it because men do mind that kind of brainless shit. We’ve minded since we invented having a job.
Over the course of a million years, men have evolved into problem solvers par excellence. When out hunting woolly mammoths, men had to invent shit on the fly like flanking and sign language and the Half Nelson. Women didn’t have to evolve any of that shit into their brains. And that’s exactly the stuff we men use every day at work. It’s the extra 30 cents on the dollar women are always complaining about. When women try to match men in the job market, they’re not jumping into the deep end, they’re diving into the Grand Canyon with water wings strapped to their ankles.
Yet women still have to do the cooking and the cleaning. What are men going to do it? What next? Use the television to prop the door open and draw reruns of Coach on the doorstop? Don’t be absurd. Everything has a purpose.
Women’s purpose is to tidy up. That’s what you evolve by sitting in a cave for a million years and waiting for food to come home. You evolve the fucking invaluable skill set of tidying and fucking obsessing about tidying. Women can escape their curse of tidying as much as men can escape their curse of taking care of business and making shitloads of money. We’re fucking televisions and doorstops in here. You can use a television to hold your door open, but why the fuck would you do that?
Well you would if you were a Career Woman. You’d hold doors open from 9-5 and then come home and do the dishes like you were supposed to in the first place. That’s not multi-tasking, it’s just stupid and exhausting.
Men are better than women because we don’t think the grass is greener on the other side. We’re men. We’ve got the greenest grass in the whole fucking universe. We’ve got grass as green as 100 dollar bills.
Related Articles:
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:39 am - IP Man-Hash: 8689deeedf41e
WOOT!
Well said!
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:59 am - IP Man-Hash: 9bb86edabd30a
The only reason people believe human fuckups are so prevalent is because they think women are people.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:08 pm - IP Man-Hash: 9bb86edabd30a
Also pjanus is wise on feminism. As Dick has said a million times before, women achieved feminism like pandas achieved zoos.
Filthy rich globalists(who are majority diaspora Jews) who own media companies and politicians have brought this all about. The only thing they hate more than the primate-minded women they use as tools, is their hosts in US and Europe and their “brothers” in Israel.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:53 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Man offers woman the square choice and it’s arguably the woman or random chance (use interchangeably) that truly prevails and decides.
In this sense, reproductive processes in the woman’s body are akin to her ‘thought patterns.’
XY and XX chromosomal combinations are equal in population numbers.
Whatever the gender of the baby will be, it’s really decided/chanced outside the man’s body.
Did I mention all women are bonkers?
- paul oakenfold - set it off featuring grandmaster flash-nvs
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Pardon, make the Y and X spermatozoa.
May 23rd, 2007 at 2:26 pm - IP Man-Hash: 0da82aefb99ab
Bit like saying, when you fire at a target, the target decides which bullets will hit the mark and which will miss.
Swing & a miss.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:10 pm - IP Man-Hash: 71eaeac99a872
In other words men may now need to consider whether they should always wear a condom, even husbands with their wives, and you think this is a good thing? Unsurprising.
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:22 pm - IP Man-Hash: 6ec6c2ab6784a
Yes, I shed millions of tears for dumb fucks who marry whores and then are shocked to realize that unprotected sex with them may be unhealthy.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:16 am - IP Man-Hash: 0393e6d40aa57
Nope. The 1990’s. Thirty years after what you suggest. And radical feminism is at a peak of influence in the supreme courts of many western countries.
@Alex, you’re an intelligent woman. I’m dismayed you’d try and slip out of this with a “oh that was in the 60’s” when TEN seconds of googling would reveal otherwise. I don’t know if you’re dishonest or just don’t want to know the truth. Since you’ve repeatedly engaged sincerely on this site I’ll assume it’s an overlook.
A cover story in Time Magazine? You have a strange definition of “no support”.
Let’s quote from that story:
Along with Swift, I have a modest proposal. Let’s accuse all female students of rape. Let’s put them in a brutal single-sex jail for a year or two, and register them as sex offenders for the rest of their lives. Let’s then state that the experience will be salutary for them, regardless of their guilt or innocence. That’s feminism, no?
You don’t support that?
Really?
Why not?
Are you a SEXIST?
Do you really believe in different treatment for men and women?
Active feminism, as it operates in the US academic community, tends to extremes. And fairly vicious extremes at that.
-wolfe
May 24th, 2007 at 5:47 am - IP Man-Hash: 3c8b05bf321cc
I knew Andrea Dworkin to be an radical feminist from the 70s, which is why I said “many” were probably taken from that era, the others I was unfamiliar with.
The “crazy with no support” comment was in reference to the female journalist who claimed women were genetically superior, and who celebrated the fact that men die earlier and commit suicide at greater rates. I can’t fathom any woman I know finding that anything but incredibly offensive, let alone agreeing with it or stating it, so in that sense those types of comments don’t have support. The fact that something like that could be printed in a newspaper, however, is shocking to me.
May 24th, 2007 at 6:13 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
I believe Female meant unhealthy for women, the providers of sexual gratifications and fellatios.
Thus the feminist and womanly characteristic of arbitrary imposition on others and impinging on their rights and free will. With condoms, in this case.
Or do you believe she and her feminist kin give even a flying fuck for men’s health issues?
- David Morales - Better that you leave ft Lea Lorien
May 24th, 2007 at 7:17 am - IP Man-Hash: 3a8cd1479aff5
Let’s play a game of reverse-the-gender-roles. True equality. Let’s see some of Dick’s stuff get published on a major newspaper. It’s actually based in reality, and not just some whiny hormonal rant… oh, wait, the double-standard. But that isn’t equal.
It appears we will have to phase out all the privilages of young girls until we can finally arrive at a mutually beneficial solution. That means:
No more rape trails based solely on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of the one and only witness, the said whore.
No more running your mouth without any fear of reprocussions - because you should have been born male, you know.
No more wearing short skirts and halter tops, walking around in your platform shoes and trying to act like you can look down to people taller, smarter, stronger, bigger, and just better than you without being laughed at.
Well, I say we start today. I know that I’ve stopped using the double-standard and reclaimed my body from the feminazis. I can take a good look at an exposed rack without any fear of reprocussions because if anyone asks, they’re my eyes. I can have several different girls at the same time because I was born male. I made a good decision based on logic and reason, not fetishes and perversion.
May 24th, 2007 at 8:07 am - IP Man-Hash: 7cbc2a449cdd3
I realize that full well sonyad, but she was trying to get me to give a fuck that her disease spreading sisters might give spread their pestilence to one of my fellow men.
And yet, anyone who marries a whore is hardly a man.
More like a cuckold.
May 24th, 2007 at 8:50 am - IP Man-Hash: c46011aeb3b2a
She’s not just representative of radical feminism of the 70’s. She was instrumental in Canada passing a pornography law that prohibits anything can be construed as “degrading” to women. I don’t need to tell you all how ambiguous and subjective that is.
My point is that she’s still making her horrible misandristic influence felt, even more horribly in the form of law.
As an aside, I remember watching Andrea Dworkin and Al Goldstein (publisher of Screw magazine) being interviewed by Tom Snyder. Al was perfectly composed and articulate while his counterpart threw a shredded copy of his magazine at him, raved incoherently and spouted insults. Really a high point for women’s rights. She looked entirely the stereotype of the fat, ugly, man-hating lesbian feminist ideologue that eventually took over the women’s liberation movement.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:00 am - IP Man-Hash: c4d026b819ad4
And to think, I never would have known that had I not started this site.
-Dick
May 24th, 2007 at 7:02 pm - IP Man-Hash: 71eaeac99a872
Well you’re wrong. I meant dissatisfying for the men who have to wear them, and if it is true that unprotected sex is correlated with higher rates of cervical cancer in women, then this perhaps would lead to widespread condom use, even in marriages, which I found a strange thing for sots to be ecstatic over.
I’m not impinging condom usage on anyone. People are responsible for themselves. I was, however, suggesting that there might actually exist some responsible married men who may consider their partner’s health and choose to wear condoms, clearly you will not be one of those men.
May 24th, 2007 at 7:11 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3a8cd1479aff5
What? Wearing plastic is just common sense. And if a whore has unprotected sex, I believe that she deserves whatever she has coming, and the sooner she’s out of the gene pool, the better. Really, what more is a whore than a disease trap?
It’s just like taking a trip to Chernobyl. It’s going to be fun as hell, yes, but wear your damn protection!
May 24th, 2007 at 7:51 pm - IP Man-Hash: 71eaeac99a872
and what about married men? Do you think they should also wear condoms to protect themselves from diseases and/or to decrease their partner’s health risks?
May 24th, 2007 at 8:04 pm - IP Man-Hash: 20cb9cc741fa3
Because I give a fuck about marriage why?
Why would you think someone who doesn’t even put up with females for an hour of sex would want to put up with one for a lifetime?
May 24th, 2007 at 10:22 pm - IP Man-Hash: 71eaeac99a872
I wasn’t addressing the question to you, obviously.