Children Are Not Pinatas
Click below to get Dick in your Ear and listen to the podcast of this article.
Child abuse is one of the most shepugnant acts of violence known to man. It’s wrong for the same reason it’s wrong to beat up crippled people. They can’t fight back. That’s also why it’s wrong for fat ladies to squeeze themselves into anything that couldn’t be packaged and resold as a tent. No one can fight that.
There should be no size 4, 6, or 8. If you can’t fit into a 2, cut a hole in the bottom of a trash bag and throw yourself away.
All women suffer from a form of female narcissistic personality disorder, FNPD for short. Here are a summary of the symptoms:
1. Being loud and obnoxious.
2. Speaking when they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.
3. Beating the shit out of children.
That sums up every woman in the world.
Also: can’t drive for shit.
In the wild animal kingdom, mothers eat their babies all the time. Hamsters do it. So do fe-weasels and woman-guinea pigs. One of my friends had some gerbils when we were younger and it happened right in front of our very own eyes.
Men are better than women.
In a recent study, it was discovered that the wives of American soldiers are twice as likely to beat their kids and four times as likely to neglect them while their husbands are overseas fighting for the freedoms that make that kind of atrocious behavior possible. The neglect I can understand. Women would forget to feed themselves if men weren’t around to take them out. But the abuse?
Just like putting them on a leash, having a man around keeps women in line.
Here are some government statistics that will send you running to the pet store.
Women are 36% more likely to abuse children than men.
41% of child abuse victims were maltreated by mothers acting alone, compared to a low and manly 19% for fathers.
In the age range of 20 to 29, women are twice as likely than men to abuse their children.
Anyone with a penis will tell you that the younger women are, the more abusive and dumber they are. If teenagers had kids more often, child abuse would be so prevalent there would be no more racism. Everyone would just be black and blue.
Here are the results of a study I financed and undertook personally.
100% of women’s bodies turn to shit after they give birth.
I have a friend who would have been a pro footballer except late in a pre-season game, he blew his knee out. It was never the same and he blamed this blown knee for his ruined football career.
Now, if he had had absolutely no other prospects in life, and if he could have given birth to that knee, he might have smacked it around. However, as women so frequently and arrogantly remind us, men can’t give birth.
Men are better than women.
If women were my friend, football was their bodies, and grinning idiot kids were the weak knee that ended an illustrious career as a third stringer, the reasons for women and their out of control child abuse become painfully obvious.
When women aren’t thinking about their ridiculous sexual fantasies, they spend their day either beating children or thinking about beating children. That violence is all they have left after giving birth to a football that ruins their vaginas and turns their C-cups into tube socks. That’s why women in their 20’s beat children at remarkably higher rates. At that age, they have the most to lose.
Just because women can have babies doesn’t mean they should, and it definitely doesn’t mean they should raise them. We don’t put cops in prison. We don’t give fat kids schoolbooks printed on donuts. We don’t dress up in Bid Bird costumes, beat the fuck out of some German shepherds and then drop them off at a kid’s party.
It’s reckless and insane.
Army Child Abuse
Women More Likely To Go To Hell
Women Acting Alone
Women In Their 20’s Are The Worst
Related Articles:
August 13th, 2007 at 9:47 pm - IP Man-Hash: ae179e9967da1
I agree 100%
August 13th, 2007 at 9:51 pm - IP Man-Hash: acd0eedbf59f7
Children may not be pinatas, but parental abuse can be just as useful to an individual’s growth as abuse in the schoolyard can be. It is certainly true that what does not kill us makes us stronger, and I decided at age 11 that I was going to raise myself instead of letting my shitty parents choose the direction. I would say that this early sense of responsibility in my own development made me a better man in the long run, and indeed made it easier for me to deal with shittier circumstances.
Hey, maybe there’s even a biological factor playing in a woman’s desire to murder her children in the absence of their father (besides inherent biological irrationality). It is rare for a non-blood relative male to become an effective parent for someone else’s children, thus children without their natural father have few options available to them as far as becoming the best that they can be (I’m not sure about this, but isn’t it true that in some animal species, when a mother finds a new mate, that mate will often kill those children which are not its biological relatives?). A mother may instinctively recognize that these fatherless children are a lost cause (never having an effective male influence leads to some stupid bloody children) and thus resolve to kill them, saving her love, time and effort for future children with a father who’ll stick around.
August 13th, 2007 at 9:56 pm - IP Man-Hash: ae179e9967da1
Catherine, for all the complaining you do about how insulting men are on this site, you don’t realize that every time you post something, you sit there and vomit unprovoked insult after insult at everybody around you. You’re the only one here insulting anybody. And you’re also the only one here complaining about all the insults.
Please stop trying to hijack this site to be your personal toilet / therapy session. You’re never going to realize that it was your mother who just made the wrong decision (people do that sometimes, ya know) and that the “system” doesn’t owe you anything.
August 13th, 2007 at 10:08 pm - IP Man-Hash: ae179e9967da1
Alexander, that is a mantabulous point! I had never considered that, but now that you mention it, it makes perfect sense. I guess that’s why bastard children were so frowned upon in the old days.
That means instead of giving children to divorced mothers, it would be better for courts to just order the bastard children executed, eliminating the dead-weight in our society.
For those of you thinking, “My God Ralohcs, that’s horrible!”, you must be a woman, because you’re not thinking ahead. What it would mean, is that women could not divorce for their materialistic stupid reasons, and those children would grow up in 2-parent homes. It would hold women accountable to their marriage contracts! (Of course, a feminist doesn’t want that!)
August 13th, 2007 at 10:18 pm - IP Man-Hash: acd0eedbf59f7
Ralohcs, you just made my day. There’s something extremely funny about defending unpopular views - even more so when they involve people being executed. It would certainly make the mothers think twice, if divorce meant they were killing their children.
… Maybe they could introduce this in China…
August 13th, 2007 at 10:20 pm - IP Man-Hash: c6800ea7e8d1f
Ahh….pabre cito. Don’t cry baby, just because you lost out. There’s plenty of fruit out there for all of us, even though you do your best to spoil it.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:09 am - IP Man-Hash: 14b7f9f8985f0
An interesting and well written point. I particularly like what you said about men being able to fight a metaphorical dragon for a woman who treats him with love and respect. I find that in my own experience to be true. I take the view that in a relationship a man and a woman are a team, and should fight for each other rather than against the other.
I think a lack accountability occurs in many spheres of society today and it certainly isn’t just women who suffer from it, although I cannot deny that most women do seem to have lost a grasp of cause and effect in situations that involve children and relationships.
I do not subscribe to the assumption that women are always natural caregivers, there are women who are incapable of raising children. There is also that assumption that men do not care for children, which is also incorrect since men (on a general basis) have a deep protective instinct for children and care much about them. Both these assumptions create a paradox as many women who shouldn’t be looking after children are automatically given that right because it is assumed that as a woman she is a better caregiver. Whereas men who are perfectly capable of raising children are overlooked because it is assumed they do not care based on their gender.
Maybe these assumptions are the views of feminism… I am not sure. They are damaging nonetheless.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:31 am - IP Man-Hash: 71d0be43b04c7
True examples of the maturity and development of modern feminism and sexual empowerment find themselves stumbling into this site daily.
August 14th, 2007 at 5:55 am - IP Man-Hash: a8fc8ce9fb283
Let’s see…yup - just did a search for the word “owe” on this page and the only one that came was yours, Learned.
I’m fully aware I’m insulting everyone here. Since you were generous enough to say that I’m the only one insulting everyone here, I assume you mean I’m the only one who’s been successful - since obviously every (every? mmm - pretty close) guy here is attempting to be insulting. Mission accomplished, then.
Because of that, and because you said “please” I may actually take your request to heart and leave this “toilet” to you boys. What a perfect way to describe it, Learned, thanks!
Ok, I’m going to try to go now, I really am. But no direct challanges, ok?! You can even have the last word, and call me a whore again (or a retarded monkey, or a redhead, or maybe you can come up with something new and equally shattering), but don’t call me out, cause I won’t be able to resist…
So long, Learned, and thanks for all the therapy. Even if I never read another word from your fingers, you’ve left me wondering why you chose to respond in your most sincerely virulently and least objective manner (completely devoid of any entertainment value at all!) to my least insulting and most honest post. Says something about both of us, doesn’t it? Hmm.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:11 am - IP Man-Hash: c72d3d7fa1251
No shit, Necro, and that long, rambling, self-aggrandizing “personal essay” that Catherine wrote was just too much! Holy shit! Poor boyfriend. Can you imagine to hear that all the time?
August 14th, 2007 at 7:13 am - IP Man-Hash: c72d3d7fa1251
Let’s see…yup - just did a search for the word “owe” on this page and the only one that came was yours, Learned.
I’m fully aware I’m insulting everyone here. Since you were generous enough to say that I’m the only one insulting everyone here, I assume you mean I’m the only one who’s been successful - since obviously every (every? mmm - pretty close) guy here is attempting to be insulting. Mission accomplished, then.
Because of that, and because you said “please” I may actually take your request to heart and leave this “toilet” to you boys. What a perfect way to describe it, Learned, thanks!
Ok, I’m going to try to go now, I really am. But no direct challanges, ok?! You can even have the last word, and call me a whore again (or a retarded monkey, or a redhead, or maybe you can come up with something new and equally shattering), but don’t call me out, cause I won’t be able to resist…
So long, Learned, and thanks for all the therapy. Even if I never read another word from your fingers, you’ve left me wondering why you chose to respond in your most sincerely virulently and least objective manner (completely devoid of any entertainment value at all!) to my least insulting and most honest post. Says something about both of us, doesn’t it? Hmm.
Dick, can you please find some way to get this one off of this site? Please.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:32 am - IP Man-Hash: 4555637db20cf
Of course it was. She isn’t a feminist.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:45 am - IP Man-Hash: 0aa5087643b48
Good article, Dick. Fine work as always.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:00 pm - IP Man-Hash: a13ba81333017
I’m surprised that no one has mentioned this. Women are a terrifying six times more likely to bring another outside party in to abuse the children than men are. That’s staggering.
Even worse than I thought.
I agree with Sony’s initial comment on racism — the black and blue bit was very good.
I agree with Luka’s comments.
Someone above asked why wouldn’t men be happy that their wives could support themselves and their children when they are gone. Well, not at the price of it being worse for the kids.
After all, that’s what men invented life insurance for, and every man should have a policy.
Every woman too, actually, even a stay-at-home mom. For if she dies, he’s going to have to hire a caregiver.
Now repeat after me. Women are six times more likely than men to bring in an outsider to abuse their children.
-wolfe
August 14th, 2007 at 12:42 pm - IP Man-Hash: 6b5d8a918eeec
Women are six
I can, unfortunately.
Poor bastards.
August 14th, 2007 at 12:51 pm - IP Man-Hash: 0da82aefb99ab
Now repeat after me. Women are six times more likely than men to bring in an outsider to abuse their children.
And how likely is that outsider to be a man?
August 14th, 2007 at 12:59 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
As incentive for them too to be slain through a shotgun blast to the back?
- Bass Kings - The rhythm
August 14th, 2007 at 1:11 pm - IP Man-Hash: a13ba81333017
Probably pretty likely, Z. At least 50%. Are you saying that absolves the woman?
Considering simply children’s safety, if we have an abuse rate of (say) 10%, and we have 1000 children… 6 will be abused because a woman decides it would be fun for her and her new boytoy to abuse the children.
One will be abused because a man decides the same thing.
Are you adopting the feminist argument that women are morally inferior to men and not really truly human beings capable of independent thought and action? That the men in their lives are forcing them to abuse children?
Now please go consider the Paul Bernardo case.
He was a serial rapist near Toronto Ontario.
Every single victim lived. None were physically harmed apart from the rapes themselves.
A scumbag, definitely.
Then he got married to a woman named Karla Homolka.
Suddenly, they shifted to younger victims and the victims all started dying, including Homolka’s own 14-year-old sister.
The victims often died when alone with dear Karla.
Who was the evil one there? Who was the leader?
Fortunately, we don’t have to guess. We know. Video tape evidence survived, showing Karla was the ring-leader and master of the game.
A grisly, sick game.
She of course got about 7 years in a low-security prison, and Bernardo got live in maximum security.
Because women simply aren’t morally responsible for their actions.
-wolfe.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:12 pm - IP Man-Hash: c4d026b819ad4
That was was a dumb thing to say.
-Dick
August 14th, 2007 at 1:12 pm - IP Man-Hash: a13ba81333017
That’s why men also invented laws, including the one wherein you can’t inherit if you murder someone.
-wolfe