The F Word
The F word today is Feminism — not fuck like it is usually.
It seems that on the topic of men being better than women eventually the topic of feminism should be covered.
Although I don’t really see why.
Since no one gives a shit about it.
Instead of summing up The Feminism, Feminists, or the Feminist Movement in any way shape or form, I’m just going to let the experts do it for you.
Point your browser over to feministing.com, a harem of horn trumpeting and the slandering of nonsense the likes of which I have never seen before. It’s as if someone has hot-boxed horseshit hysteria. Remember that one short-lived game on American Gladiator, where the contestants and the gladiators would bounce from platforms on bungee cords, with a frantic and desperate mania, to stick Velcro balls to a suspended pole in the middle of an arena? Of course you remember it you’re a man and every episode of that show was man-tasticly great. Feministing.com is a lot like that game. Except instead of contenders, gladiators, and balls; there are only women and their lust for getting outraged as quickly and as often as possible about absolutely any news story that has to do with men, women, or gender. The frantic and desperate mania is quite the same.
Since only men are allowed to read this, I can guarantee what the first thing that catches your eyes on that page will be, and that is the giant picture of the braless woman on the right hand column of the page with her nipples sticking through her shirt.
Let me repeat that.
With her braless nipples sticking through her shirt.
Interesting.
That’s a very interesting thing to see on a site whose sole purpose is to counter that exact kind of female empowerment (read exploitation). It’s so interesting that one might even call it not interesting at all, typical, and complete bullshit hypocrisy.
Far be it from me to tell someone how to run a business — which feminism definitely is, just as much as is Nike Jogging Wear for women. The picture is an ad to sell T-shirts. That’s fine. Everyone knows attractive women sell the goods as well as their goods (while still not being as good as men at doing so). Women see that ad and immediately lust for her braless attention like rabid wolves, frothing at the mouth for their chance to casually tread the line between “taken seriously” and “woops”.
Put your hard helmets on, ladies. Your integrity is dropping like flies as Girl Power strikes again.
Addendum:
If you would like to see what feminists have to say about this site, click here.
Related Articles:
April 30th, 2008 at 3:04 pm - IP Man-Hash: 1f4eded23142d
You are doing it again…
write on cunt, write on
After all a swamp between your legs is all you have got
April 30th, 2008 at 3:07 pm - IP Man-Hash: b9acdedb38018
Maybe we should try reverse psychology….? lol, seems to work with training my horse
April 30th, 2008 at 3:24 pm - IP Man-Hash: 1f4eded23142d
You see this now, after you started to see haw to be a woman, how this cunt attacked you? She wants to be like you, she just doesn’t know how - to stop being a cunt. It’s jealousy.
April 30th, 2008 at 3:28 pm - IP Man-Hash: b9acdedb38018
Women are such needlessly jealous creatures….
April 30th, 2008 at 3:44 pm - IP Man-Hash: 1f4eded23142d
Then let’s wait for another one…:) and have some fun
April 30th, 2008 at 3:48 pm - IP Man-Hash: b9acdedb38018
I find it interesting how they hate me now….lol
And I doubt we’ll be waiting long. It seems every 2 minutes there’s some woman posting some pointless dribble that has no significance or meaning whatsoever
April 30th, 2008 at 11:32 pm - IP Man-Hash: 2d6fd213d1198
Arfter this, they might not be so brave. For some reason they only want to win and never lose. Also now they can see that you did more with few words, than them with bitching all their lives, that’s why they “hate you” in that peculiar, yet interesting way - they wanna know the secret, but they rather bitch than aks.
so, see you - partner in crime,
May 4th, 2008 at 8:20 pm - IP Man-Hash: 24f18f4a1984f
yes its true for centurys male
sluts its enough to jerk off on your face don’t need it ever in your mouth.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:25 am - IP Man-Hash: 3e8d1e2b2a4c4
To Muzalon,
There can be little doubt itself that the culture of contemporary India is rigidly puritanical and characterized by a very conventional morality; one could even plausibly argue that modern India is probably more uptight than the English Victorians at fin de siècle who preceded them ever were. This is amply demonstrated by the well-known controversy in the spring of 2007 over Richard Gere kissing Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty in public. Alas, one need only be reminded of the fact that public kissing is still a criminal offense, punishable on summary conviction, throughout the length and breadth of the Indian subcontinent in order to accurately gauge the depth of Indian puritanism. Moreover, India has some of the highest rates of HIV infection in the world; much of the civic opposition to the free and unrestricted teaching of those health issues surrounding human sexuality is most certainly to blame for such a pandemic. The rapid spread of the AIDS virus and other STDs within the local population demographic, now surpassing rates of HIV infection in other parts of the globe, is also facilitated by public pressure to ban sex education in schools and to place a moratorium on the open sale of effective prophylactic devices. It is this aforementioned undertaking of a reactionary Hindu public which, in and of itself, constitutes a continuing reflection of the taboo placed on certain discursive practices enveloping the subject of human sexuality within the fabric of Indian life and culture.
As a preliminary remark, it must be said that it would be a mistake to assume that any patriarchal society whose basic marital institutions are founded on polygamy and servile concubinage are necessarily repressive or rigidly conformist. As a matter of fact, the connection between modern liberalism, social welfare economics and the old-fashioned values of the Calvinist work ethic is much stronger than any of the linkages between patriarchy and social traditionalism. All liberal utopias produce bastions of rigid social conservatism; it is these new orders of “right” thinking that eventually come to dictate the kinds of socio-political discourse that ultimately helps define the individual as a social subjectivity in relation to the spatio-historical conjuncture he finds himself in at any given moment of continuous homogeneous time. After all, the conceptualization of the New Man and Woman in the utopian vision of Friedrich Engels (from whose pen originally sprang such quaint notions as mother right and matriarchy), especially after the abolition of private property, the dissolution of familial bonds and the equalization of wages across social substrata, are really the New Puritans remade in the image of a secularized Christian Messianism.
Only a civilization that remains male-dominated, staying close to its patriarchal origins could produce a society capable of celebrating the sensuality of the body in a new poetry of eroticism. Such an example would be the culture of classical India. Before the Muslim and especially British invaders, it was strongly characterized by a kind of sexual liberalism without precedent in the culture of Western Europe in general, and Protestant Anglo-Saxon civilization in particular. The India of the pre-Gupta period was an alien world in comparison to the British India of the Victorians. Virginity was not particularly revered and celibacy was never regarded as any sort of necessary virtue. Many ancient temples and monuments, such as the Khajuraho monuments of Madhya Pradesh, are decorated in explicit sexual imagery. Although Hindu sexual liberality helped shield such actions as sexual assault and child abuse from the daily gaze of others, it otherwise allowed people considerable personal autonomy in the expression of individual sexualities, without the daily threat of persecution, within the privacy of their own homes.
In medieval Hindu culture, the sacred whores, or “deva-dasi”, who had dedicated their lives to the service of the local god, were worshipped as goddesses; they were seen by many Vedic thinkers as the purest incarnation of true womanhood. With the exception of those men of the Brahmin caste, there was virtually no stigma attached to a man who chose to be serviced exclusively by whores. Much of the sculpture and art, as well as many of the song and dance rituals of the period, were characterized by an explicit eroticism that in many respects, still shocks many today. When the English began colonizing India at the end of the eighteenth century, many were shocked, even outraged, by what they saw as the pervasive sensuality of much Indian culture. The blatant display of so much eroticism, not only deeply offended the sensibilities of the British Raj, but was seen as a reflection of that wanton excess so often associated with pure barbarism as understood by the Victorian imagination. To the English Tories of the day, although slightly tempered in their remarks by those Orientalists who recognized India as a great civilization, sexual repression was the chief mark of civilization and “progress.” As a faithful compendium of the sort of British attitudes towards Indian sexuality as they existed in 1817, James Mill writes in his “History of British India”:
It is by no means unnatural for the religion of a rude people to unite opposite qualities, to preach the most harsh austerities, and at the same time to encourage the loosest morality. It may be matter of controversy to what degree the indecent objects employed in the Hindu worship imply depravity of manners; but a religion which subjects to the eyes of its votaries the grossest images of sensual pleasure, and renders even the emblems of generation objects of worship; which ascribes to the supreme God an immense train of obscene acts; which has them engraved on the sacred cars, pourtrayed in the temples, and presented to the people as objects of adoration, which pays worship to the Yoni, and the Lingam, cannot be regarded as favourable to chastity. Nor can it be supposed, when to all these circumstances is added the institution of a number of girls, attached to the temples, whose business is dancing and prostitution, that this is a virtue encouraged by the religion of the Hindus.
The British response to the overt sexuality of so much of the local Indian culture was to stamp out as much of it that it possibly could. Through the direct imperial administration of the Indian subcontinent, the British gradually imposed their own culture and views, especially those of the hypocritical English Victorian morality much in vogue at the time. Thus, the previous ritualistic practices that had gravely shocked the first English colonizers were gradually stigmatized, erased from the consciousness of an entire populace, and substituted with the ideals of modern Western European culture. Much of the Victorian morality of the English was spread by a number of nineteenth century Hindu socio-religious mass movements, such as the Brahmo Samaj and the Prarthana Samaj. Many of these movements ultimately strove for the rapid westernization of India through the embrace of the pivotal ideas of European culture, such as the education of women. Unfortunately, many of these movements also advocated the harsh morality and strict temperance of the English Victorians as integral to the civilizational development of India as a culture. Although women were allowed to freely mix with men in public, an elaborate set of formalized rules and prescribed castigations were developed which determined how men and women were expected to behave around one another. Even Mahatma Ghandi’s voluntary renunciation of his own sexuality through his eventual conversion to the practice of “brahmacharya” in the Hindu faith is a spitting image of the constant tension between Victorian morality and medieval Indian sexual liberality. From the perspective of Ghandi, it seemed as if the union of the self with ultimate reality could only be carried out through the medium of Protestant (especially Calvinist) influenced theology! It is this Puritanism of nineteenth century Anglo-Saxon culture which characterizes, even defines, much of what is seen as ethically normative in the India of today.
Concerning books about the British imposition of Victorian morality over the Indian subcontinent, I did manage to find one of some interest. It is called “Race, Sex and Class under the Raj: Imperial Attitudes and Policies and their Critics, 1793 – 1905.” It was authored by the late Kenneth A. Ballhatchet, a former Professor Emeritus of South Asian history at the University of London. His central thesis is that colonial British attitudes towards Indian sexual behaviour helped preserve those mechanisms of political control already established from the time of the initial colonization. The spread of Victorian morality also helped dissuade against symbolic transgression across racial lines by discouraging miscegenation amongst the British colonizers; by persuading them to seek out wives from amongst the Anglo-Indian class (White Protestants who had been born and raised in India) it prevented them from “going native” by providing a buffer against the unnatural lasciviousness of the heathen and the civilized morality of the “domiciled British.” The rigidification of ethnic boundaries through the systematic encouragement of racial endogamy also helped to further reinforce English control of the Indian subcontinent by placing the native inhabitant in a double bind; if he decided to keep his native practices, he was sharply denounced by the colonial British as a benighted savage in need of enlightened guidance; if he decided to pursue a Western education in the colonial metropole, he was cast in a pejorative light as a clumsy imitator of European culture and sneered at by the English as another “babu.” It was this policy which not only separated the supposedly civilized European from the undifferentiated sensuality of the racially defined “other” by a great chasm, but it also helped perpetuate a disenfranchisement amongst the people by preserving a British hegemony that was ultimately echoed in the Imperial hierarchy of the Raj.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:30 am - IP Man-Hash: 5573b0a7dccc4
i’m a woman, i lold. xD
May 6th, 2008 at 11:56 pm - IP Man-Hash: 4eb10dfb83528
Warning!
Guys,
Few days ago on April 30 th, I closed the Pandora’s box. Now you are eatching to reopening it. WTF for? If you still “feel” compeled to talk to women, do it the way I showed you.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:47 am - IP Man-Hash: 08962552cf01c
Well, this is quite the debate..
I suppose that there are many different opinions flying about, but often when an individual gets overly passionate about a certain point of view; opinions tend to lean toward the extremes.
I mean sure, nobody likes a feminist bitch or a wifebeating womanizer… but I think it’s a question of a little bit of healthy balance. So while i don’t endorse the generally extreme anti-woman attitude of this website, i don’t completely disregard some of the good points made…
Because ultimately, Women want the tall, hansom, tough guy in spite of the chance of him being a total - excuse my phrasing - dick! And guys want the hot, irrational, emotional chick because it’s a challenge and it makes her alien enough to be interesting (to the favor of Dick’s argument, I found no better reason for us wanting women to be confusing as they are)!
Men have a need to know that a woman sort of “belongs to them” (and is in a way below the man in rank of “control”) and women need to know that their men will “protect” them and give them stability and safe refuge.
That is what our genes have intended for us… but we ignore it, only to our own loss.
Well… until we either reinvent the sexually liberal lifestyle of old India for our own culture… or somehow learn to appreciate each other so much that we find lifetime partners that we in fact bother to stick around with…
…i wish you all best of luck on your endeavors :-D
May 8th, 2008 at 7:01 am - IP Man-Hash: a5f3a30b88dc6
Very close. We want the hot chick, but with a rational mind who won’t hold it against us if we make less than 6 figures a year. In light of the fact that said woman does not exist, we will create a reasonable surrogate: a sex- bot, and the appropriate psychopharmacological agents to make us think she is real.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:34 am - IP Man-Hash: 4144e596343d7
Magnificent, as always.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:07 pm - IP Man-Hash: 0bed90d601488
Diddi,
A plus for you for not bitching like some famale idiots, but wtf did you get this info into your mind from????
May 11th, 2008 at 8:19 am - IP Man-Hash: 2bc5844a0f6c6
the stupid thig a woman did was giving birth to ungrateful basterds like this………..
May 14th, 2008 at 3:48 pm - IP Man-Hash: 762f592339f3a
@girlgirl
It’s not that they’re ungrateful…..what do they have to be grateful for really? Women have been treating men like dogs for too long. Far too many women expect their men to do their bidding, they use sex as some kind of weapon, thinking they can threaten their man into doing things for them by saying “Do it or I’m not sleeping with you anymore.”
May 14th, 2008 at 5:00 pm - IP Man-Hash: 2bf9071d7785e
Oh! Thank you for gracing us with your vagina on this website girlgirl! you’re a fucking prostitute…
May 14th, 2008 at 5:17 pm - IP Man-Hash: f2944216e9f0c
AIDs is also at increasingly levels in Papua New Guinea. This is attributed to the fact that male tribal chiefs are allowed to have multiple wives and it is considered normal for older (elderly) men to have sex with young women/adolescents. Hence sexually transmitted disease are more easily and more quickly able to spread through the generations than they otherwise would. Condoms? Yeah, I don’t think they’ll go for those, too advanced for primitive thinking. If you don’t believe me, PNG is a culture where if something bad happens to a man, like say, he’s having a bad day because a 13 year old girl that he likes is on her period and he can’t have sex with her, then no worries, he can just say the girl is a sorcerer witch who killed his goat. The consequence of her bewitching him is that she must die. This reality should tell you that the dumbest gender on the Earth is the one lead by the cock. And men wonder why women joke about wanting to cut it off.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:30 pm - IP Man-Hash: f2944216e9f0c
I’ve always though that men who have sex with robotic women were just masking their interest in necrophilia. I mean, aside from the smell, there really wouldn’t be that much difference, would there.