The widespread dissemination of media came about in a time where very few women were taught to read. Therefore, we can infer that it was not created for women.

My example of the car was to illuminate how both men and women are swayed by advertising/media. The emphasis was more on this issue, than on the reasons that they do so. But now that you mention it buying a ferrari, if it is to attract women, is EXACTLY as conscious an act as women buying cosmetics (to attract men). Feasibly, you could even suggest that women are more rational because they are spending $30 at the chemist, rather than $300,000 at the dealership.

How Ironic

I can’t help but notice that you’re being disingenuous with your comparison of cars and cosmetics. You shouldn’t try to illuminate an issue while putting the motives in the back seat.

Sure you shouldn’t go over the speed limit but I imagine many Ferrari owners do. Also, you can reach the speed limit faster in a Ferrari than a Mazda. The fast acceleration is dangerous and speaks to men on a primal level.

There’s also the aesthetic appeal of supercars. When I look at photos of an Aston Martin, I’m not thinking “I can attract more women in THAT car”. While I’m aware that I probably would, I am thinking “that is a work of automotive art”. The looks and engineering have been fretted over for many, many hours to come up with this extraordinary achievement. I can’t afford these cars but it doesn’t stop me looking at pictures of them. I use the Aston Martin example because it’s a conscious decision of my favourite car. Not because they have more advertising power than Ferrari (they really don’t).

Do women pick a lipstick because they are aware of the slavish lab work that goes into creating them, the time spent coming up with an attractive packaging or because it’s Max Factor?

Yes some men buy expensive cars to attract women, and apparently some women wear make up because THEY want to, rather than to appear attractive. That makes about as much sense as buying a supercar and using it as a paperweight.

Irony: Still wishing you the best but I clearly see the firmly indoctrinated in you. You have made points I concider valid but also the last point RB made directed at me holds a lot of water personally to me. In short my marriage was definately ALL about me ‘getting in touch with my feminine side’ or my immasculation. Also about me jumping through hoops, throwing money into the bottomless pit todays society calls a wife. Making her life easier (though her actual workload was pitiful in comparison to mine) while mine was meant to get harder. All in the name of what feminists call equality, what ever your definition or opinion of what it means. So sorry, but feminism multiplies a females allready present unreasonable personality traits. In regards to a female with a chainsaw. You are aware that they take a certain amount of strength, dexterity and definately spacial awareness to operate them. MOST women couldn’t use them safely. MOST men could. I personally wouldn’t stand anywhere near a woman operating one. Of course I needn’t point out what gender will have invented it.

Harry, I don’t think either of us would be able to communicate with Ironic in any meaningful way, firstly, because she can’t understand what we are saying, and secondly, because she can’t understand that she can’t understand what we are saying.

I’ll let her have the last word, or maybe you. :-)

RB:Lol Mate, read my last post to her, I just officially gave up to ;)

Harry,

I am very sorry to hear about your marriage. That cannot have been pleasant. While I do firmly believe in equal support/honesty/contribution of effort etc, you wife should not have tried to emasculate you/make unreasonable financial demands and so forth. Marriage, in my opinion is a partnership, and from what you have said, she let down her end of the bargain. But I truly hope that her behavior and manipulation (of you and of feminism) does not cause you to project her traits onto all women.

I have enjoyed our conversation. I think (hope?) it was informative for both of us and it was certainly food for thought.

I wish you well.

Ironic: Don’t worry about my marriage, once over the initial shock I now more than realise the benefits of being single again. My account wasn’t to moan about my marriage in particular, I’ve seen it in other marriages too. This is the reality of feminsm in the marital home. Which is why you don’t see men posting disagreements, we’re merely pointing out what they allready know. I’ve enjoyed the conversation too and have the opinion theres a decent personality behind the name Irony. Informative? Honestly most of what you’ve said I’ve heard in one form or another, though rarely delivered with any hint of maturity (what ever your age). Be Lucky Irony and do your eventual partner a real favour don’t nag and don’t turn into a hag (personality) :)

I don’t know, since I am not among their number.

If you don’t know, then there was no reason for your speculation about the reason as to why they made those comments.

Ironic: We can actually truelly agree on one thing then. False accusations hurt your gender as much as they hurt ours and definately make convictions harder. Perhaps females should direct some real anger at them.

Trust me, they do. The vast majority of women would agree that such allegations are deeply damaging to everyone involved and to society. In fact, I’ve never actually heard a woman suggest that it is a positive thing.

All ideologies, or “schools of thought” contain divergent opinions.

While that is true, they do have one definite pattern that prevails. On the other hand, the only definite pattern in all the types of feminism seems to be that they are all about women, which I don’t consider a definite pattern. But that’s just how I see it.

I don’t think it’s a school of thought because, firstly, the ideas expressed and the arguments adjoined therewith are not enough clear, logical or backed by proof, to be called “thoughts.” Secondly, as you say, feminism contains too many divergent opinions to be called a school of thought.

Ideologies are theoretical, not definitive. With any ideology you can point to inconsistencies in the logic, and none can “prove” that they are right- that would be contrary to their nature (and there would be only one, not many).

What I said was that feminism contains divergent opinions, not that it contains so many that it cannot be a school of thought. Obviously, there are ideas universally shared by feminists. Feminism, as a theory, also contains a theoretical framework used to critique issues (this is the case with all ideologies, ie realism, liberalism etc). As such, it is an ideology/school of thought.

To deny that is to be deliberately obtuse.

Irony: Now now, don’t start trying to silence someone with satements such as;

To deny that is to be deliberately obtuse.

While I daresay you’re correct in what you say about different schools of thought in any ideology, when you choose to combat an ideology, you combat it all or at least we used to, that way your target can’t hide behind someone else. I can’t bat a conversation around like yourself and RB but I also know that sometimes you don’t have to. BTW, you’re not trying to become a politician are you Irony? You answer an awful lot of questions without actually answering them. Um can realism be classed as an ideology? Reality is reality. Or did it get mixed up in quantom machanics or the string theory somewhere along the line. Ye, I watch to many science programs.

Ideologies are theoretical, not definitive. With any ideology you can point to inconsistencies in the logic, and none can “prove” that they are right- that would be contrary to their nature (and there would be only one, not many).

In the case of some ideologies, I can prove, through logic, that some of the things they say are right. That is, if you hold that there is an absolute logic(which is a logical stance.)

What I said was that feminism contains divergent opinions, not that it contains so many that it cannot be a school of thought. Obviously, there are ideas universally shared by feminists. Feminism, as a theory, also contains a theoretical framework used to critique issues (this is the case with all ideologies, ie realism, liberalism etc). As such, it is an ideology/school of thought.

Feminism is not clear enough about its core ideas to considered either an ideology/theory, and even less so a school of thought. If it’s core idea is said to be the advancement of the state of women, then it may be considered an ideology/theory, but not a school of thought. I define “thought” as a process reasoning, backed by clear logical and/or empirical proofs.

RB: I stand corrected, my knowledge of language isn’t as good as yours so couldn’t say one way or another. My point still stands, I see feminism as destructive, even if it’s through this one point. Making women unrealistic about themselves and men. End result? Who knows where it’ll end but I’d say very little positive for our society. I do however think if we’re going to be able to discuss these problems with any women, it has to be with women such as Irony because the others that come on here are guaranteed future divorce cases. To bad Irony sees this more as a competiton than a discussion and (hope you read this Irony) also suffers from what many females suffer, has to have the last word syndrome.

My comment about being obtuse was not intended to silence RB, but to move the conversation along.

If we are to go by agreed upon definitions, (and not those simply made up), there is no denying feminism is a school of thought- ie its contains a particular set of ideas and a framework for critique etc. I personally dont subscribe to feminism… or communism or realism (an international relations theory) or neo-liberalism but I do not deny that they are schools of thought, just because I see faults in their logic/reason etc.

Furthermore, Harry, I think its unjust that you would say I am trying to “silence” RB, and then make a comment that insinuates that any response from me would be a case of “last word syndrome.” I’m not competing (if I were I imagine I would respond to every single little detail I found to be inconsistent), but if I did not respond then it would not be a discussion.

Ironic: True enough. I fear this is a dance of words that I don’t know the steps to. So I’ll wish you well. The fact you didn’t come in firig insults and shame tactics at least gives me some hope. I’d gain more if after a while you at least give some of the points made by men on this site at least some thought, whatever your eventual opinion.

If we are to go by agreed upon definitions, (and not those simply made up), there is no denying feminism is a school of thought- ie its contains a particular set of ideas and a framework for critique etc.

All ideologies, religions and cults have their ideas. That does not qualify them to be schools of thought. I wouldn’t classify Christianity as a “school of thought”, but I would classify Buddhism to be one, as the latter, at least in its original form, has a definite thought pattern that is backed by logical proof.

Harry,

I understand if you feel unequipped to continue the discussion.

To be fair, I would like to add that I have tried to give the points made on the site some thought. For example, I have admitted where some of the critiques of my comments were justified (ie when I talked about the influence of others in/over your life, and my acknowledgment that men have contributed greatly to human advancement). And I appreciate that you in turn have given mine some consideration.

On that note, I would like to add a quote that I read recently, that I think was pertinent to our discussion.

‘The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of opinion is that it is robbing the human race…- those who dissent from the opinion still more than those who hold it. If the opinion if right, they are deprived of the opportunity to exchange error for truth; If wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clear pereption and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.’ – John Stuart Mill

I wish you well, also.

I hit send too soon. I wanted to add that I respect your flexibility of thinking, and openness to alternative views.

Irony: I have a very open mind and can honestly give any view concideration, I like to think it is a clear sign of intelligence. I’m not appologising for the less open views of some on the site but propose a possible reason for them anyway. There are undoubtedly better educated and more intelligent men than myself on the site that appear less open minded than myself. However I feel this is merely a reaction to the almost absolute lack of openess to our views. So many women appear to be just reciting what they’ve learned of their ‘equality’, while actually showing so little of it. Until women actually learn to listen and more importantly give other opinions some thought and form their own opinions afterwards, I’m in no doubt the problems that exist between our two genders will increase. My personal opinion is this problem exists as a direct result of feminism and the political correctness it helped give birth to. Even accepting both were brought about with the best of intentions, too many, myself included see the result so far is more than a little madness (probably not the best word). I still believe that an imbalance (law given) exists between our genders that favours females.

You make a good point about the possible frustration caused by the unwillingness of the general public to listen to the views expressed on this site.

I think that perhaps these frustrations exist on both sides, and that this leads to miscommunication and eventually distrust and resentment. I read recently about a study that found that if people discuss an issue with like-minded people that tend to be pushed to extremes. As such, perhaps both men and women need to be more willing to listen and form considered opinions and communicate with one another.

To be fair, political correctness isn’t just about women, but also about including/not discriminating against people of other ethnicities, faiths, economic situations etc.

Because I’m an optimist I would like to think that present conflict in society over this issues is the turmoil that comes with change and eventually a middle ground will be found.

As for the legal imbalances, while I’m not really familiar with english divorce/rights law, I tend to see such changes as something of a “see-saw” where it tilts too much to one side, then overcorrects and tilts to the other, and so on, until a balance can be/is found between the rights of one individual and another.

@Harry, I am not open minded about some views because I know, for certain, that they are wrong.

The problem with feminism is that it has no real objective or ideal. The only objective that it can be said to have seems to be to make it possible for women to do whatever they want, without having any responsibility for their actions.

There was some idealism and thought involved in the earliest form of the feminist movement, but for the last 50 or 60 years it has deteriorated to what I would call – nothing. It’s just as mindless as your average woman.

Ironically, the greatest feminists of all time are called misogynists, because they criticised the one thing that prevents women from being equal to men – women. Men and women are not “equal,” except in the sense that both of these groups are ultimately the same as everything else in nature. They are equal in the eyes of “God”, if you will.

Men are virtually entirely responsible for the creation of science, philosophy, literature, all the great works of art, and all the useful inventions of mankind. In short, men are largely responsible for everything of value we possess today. Does this point to an “equality of the sexes”?

I’m far from saying that all men are commendable in what they do. Most of them are not. In actuality, it is the feminine in them that makes them as mediocre as they are. They want to be happy in an “equal” world of unconsciousness, smugness, immediacy and mundanity – a woman’s world. They are not masculine enough to reach higher, and so they seek equality with women.

Its a mistake to think feminism has anything to do with “female strength” or “female unity”.

Feminism isn’t about that.
It’s about cultivating MALE WEAKNESS.

That’s why feminism is the biggest cultural failure of the last century. It FAILS the minute a man doesn’t tolerate it – or subscribe to it.

Drives women fucking insane.

The cunts only disguise is it pussy “power” and female strength… but like everything else typically female –>> ITS A GODDAM LIE FROM HEAD TO TOE.

The irony is clear when you hear women pretend they are “strong and independent”…. until a man tells her to fuck right off.

RB: ”The problem with feminism is that it has no real objective or ideal. The only objective that it can be said to have seems to be to make it possible for women to do whatever they want, without having any responsibility for their actions.”

I agree. You don’t have to win me over RB I see little equality in the genders but I do realise we have to live with each other. As I’ve said repeatedly, women have an unrealistic opinion of themselves and I realise this has been taught to them by society itself. Unfortunately when the ‘movement’ began the points this site make weren’t pointed out to them then. Or even during the last 50-60 years. What is actually pointed out to them, usually by the use of the television is the exact opposite. Or ignored entirely if it can be seen as pro male.

The basic ideal/objective of feminism: equal rights and equality before the law. It is a continuation of the liberal tradition (equality among men, regardless of ethnicity, wealth, nobility etc).

There are, as I have acknowledged, different opinions of how this should/could be achieved (ie, corrective measures such as affirmative action). But the means of achieve aims are distinct from the aims themselves.

Finally, as I have said repeatedly, there are extraordinary people of both genders. They are both capable of great achievements. Capability differs with the individual, and I think that this is far more dependent on how they were raised/the opportunities they were given in life/inherited traits from their parents, than the (in the scheme of things) very minor biological differences between men and women.

The basic ideal/objective of feminism: equal rights and equality before the law. It is a continuation of the liberal tradition (equality among men, regardless of ethnicity, wealth, nobility etc).

I’ve no problems with this.

There are, as I have acknowledged, different opinions of how this should/could be achieved (ie, corrective measures such as affirmative action). But the means of achieve aims are distinct from the aims themselves.

There is only one way to achieve equality before law, and that is to give everyone equality before the law. So, there is only one means to achieve that aim.

Finally, as I have said repeatedly, there are extraordinary people of both genders. They are both capable of great achievements.

I don’t agree. Where are the extraordinary people among women? Civilisation in its entirety has been built up by men.

Capability differs with the individual, and I think that this is far more dependent on how they were raised/the opportunities they were given in life/inherited traits from their parents

If it truly depended largely on their upbringing and inherited traits, we wouldn’t have been having this conversation over the internet. In fact, we probably wouldn’t have even existed.

very minor biological differences between men and women.

The differences between men and women are not “very minor”. They are quite large, as is evident before our eyes.

About equality before the law. Women, like anyone else, would ideally have to *earn* whatever rights they have. They evidently have not. They have done nothing to prove that they deserve the rights they have now.

Although I think that there should be justice for all men and women before the law, women, in their current state, should not have an equal share in political affairs and public welfare.

While, yes, the only way to give equality before the law is to make the laws equal, SOME think that there should be some redress for past inequalities and the effects that these have had on the lives of that groups. So, for example, there are quotas in America in the colleges for a minimum number of African Americans, as traditionally they have lacked access to tertiary education. There are a (very) few similar provisions for women.

——-

Extraordinary women in history: Cleopatra, Sappho, Elizabeth I, Joan of Arc, Anna Etheridge, Florence Nightingale, Helen Keller, Margaret Mead, Hannah Arendt, Grace Hopper and I could go on and on and on.

——–

Im not clear on what you are saying next- are you saying that the “truth” is that upbringing and inherited traits have no role in how successful we are in life? Because that is patently untrue.

—–

Please don’t quote me selectively. I said “in the scheme of things”. A Y chromosome and the descent of the gonads, and elevated testosterone are minor considering that a woman’s heart/lungs/liver/spinal cord/brain, all function in the exact same way that a man’s does.

—–

You dont ‘earn’ rights. That is the point- that rights are bestowed equally and to all (see example of person in coma above).

All people should be able to have say in political affairs that affect their lives, because it affects their lives/it is politicians that make the laws that they must oblige by, etc.

Public welfare is for the good of the public as a whole, not men alone. It would unjust to exclude women from this support. Especially since they pay taxes. The suggestion is odd. What would you do, for example, with an 85 year old woman, too old to work, her husband dead, her children too poor to care for her? Let her die in the street rather than give her a pension?

Domestic Violence is a necessary evil.

problem is we dont know and chris would agree with me. i believe if a man hits me i deserved it plain and simple.

Wrong.

I would NEVER agree with that.

NObody deserves physical violence.

NOBODY.

Not even the biggest bitch in the universe.

Anyone who HITS someone else (especially in some kind of “relationship”) is SICK and they need HELP.

And anyone who stays in any kind of abusive relationship doesn’t need a “shelter” – they need to have their head examined.

Domestic violence is no worse than any other kind of violence. Because it is AVOIDABLE. If you are intentionally going home to someone who is abusive – or who will hit you – you are SICK.

You can LEAVE.

You CAN.

And you SHOULD.

What never ceases to amaze me is that women RETURN to abusive situations.

That’s as insane as getting mugged in a dark alley and going back the next day.

Agreed

Also agreed. I’ve never favoured violence against women but the more I see of women I can understand what would drive a man to it. Too bad they don’t choose the easier path either walk or through the nagging fucker out.

As for violence is avoidable Chris, depends on the world you live in, there are different kinds of Alpha male

Exactly.

I also fully understand what drives men to hit / beat / abuse women….. and guess what, it isn’t the MEN like everyone “thinks” it is.

And every woman here is proof of it.

But I learned long ago that you can hurt a woman MUCH deeper and more-permanently by ignoring her altogether.

Less effort.

More results.

Its awesome.

FACT: A woman would rather be beaten, yelled-at or abused than totally ignored. This is where cunts actually come from.

When they are CUNTS some men are “nice” enough to treat her BETTER for that. To apologize for HER shitty behavior and treat her BETTER for that.

NO FUCKING WAY.

Why REWARD a woman for being a CUNT?

You don’t treat her BETTER for that.
YOU TREAT HER LIKE A PIECE OF SHIT.

Eventually she will start to get it.
And she will be trained almost as well as a DOG.

Because at least a DOG won’t bite the hand that feeds it.

Dogs are better than women.

MEN ARE FUCKING ANGRY NOW CUNT FEEL THE RAGE!

Re-reading some of my lousy typing and spelling, *laugh* note to self:: Have to proof read. Quick add to your statement about beating of females, I have no doubt, if they outlawed nagging, domestic violence would likely end.

Technically you should have written nothing.

Thank you! You just implied that I was you’re moral and intellectual superior.

another typo- should be “your”

regardless… the point still stands.

Telling a stupid, intrusive cunt to fuck off because she is unwelcome and unvited doesn’t “imply that she is morally superior”.

You epic failure.

Firstly: I didn’t say whether I was a man or a woman… Why make that assumption? Because I simply pointed out that it is possible that some people may or do choose not to comment? Because I challenged the logic of watcher’s statement?

Secondly: you should read back over the exchange we had- he didn’t say that they should fuck off, just that those who consider themselves to be above this discussion to leave. I suggested that they may do exactly that. He said that I shouldn’t have commented, the implication being that I was “intellectually and morally superior” (because those who do not comment demonstrate or as watcher said “show” that they are morally and intellectually superior- his words, not mine).

In fact, I never claimed to be so (I will admit that I joked about it though). Nor did I denigrate the site. All I did was point out that his suggestion may already be taking place.

If someone is going to make an illogical or ridiculous statement then they deserved to be called out on it.

So actually YOUR epic fail.

Hey mate, its just SATIRE- ‘exposing the truth through humor,’ right?

For example, deliberate spelling mistakes to show that those that challenge you make ‘childish, misspelt attacks’ (I thought you might like that one).

No need to get angry (read: emotional) about it. Some one might think you were responding with ‘emotion without reason [and] opinion without understanding.’ And I know we can expect better from you.

How Ironic::

No, you misunderstand.

“Are you stupid?” was a statement of incredulous disbelief at your seeming inability to grasp the fundamental concept that you are unwelcome here.

Ultimately I blame myself. Obviously I did not make the message clear enough. Please permit me to try again.

What I was trying to say was, “You win”. You are better than us, there is no need for you to debate or prove it, so now you may leave here completely satisfied. Correct?

Should you choose to respond to this post it would serve only to prove that your arrogance is matched only by your ignorance.

I’m certain you won’t disregard this humble request for surely you are an individual of superior integrity and reason, are you not?

I never said I was superior- that was you remember?

It’s not about proving myself to be better than you, but to challenge your arguments. I’m contributing POSITIVELY to the site, by encouraging you to construct logical and literate arguments to back up your claims.

So why do you want me to leave? I’m a bloke (or am I? You just cant know on this nameless, faceless internet, and you probably wouldn’t believe I was a man regardless of anything I say), I haven’t said a single negative thing about the site, therefore I fall into neither of the categories required to leave (as outlined in your original post.)

You’re a woman and therefore required to leave (as outlined in my original post.)

You’re just saying that because I am challenging you. You cannot know either way. It’s evident that you immediately claim that all non-sycophants are women. Of course you would say I was too.

Is it so hard to believe that another man might have a problem with the statements you make, especially when you make sweeping generalizations about both men and women that are quite frankly, completely irrational?

Hmm…

‘How Mornic’ can’t write, can’t think, unable to follow simple instructions… FEMALE!!

It’s a female. One of the reasons they come on here posing as males (and are exposed) is because they’ve seen themselves, males don’t come on here and disagree

That pretty much sums it up…

It wouldn’t supprise me if it’s one of Greers disciples, bound to happen sometime.

No, I don’t think so. This one is educated and reasonably intelligent but lacks a certain depth of either. I think a serious feminist scholar would probably be more intellectually subtle and erudite than ‘How Ironic’.

On the other hand, perhaps you’re right…

psychology/logic… same shit, different smell I guess?

psychology/logic… same shit, different smell I guess?

I’ll give you a taste of female logic. Since I’ve been visiting this site, I’ve never once seen any comments on what should be done with rapists and paedophiles. I have seen mention of ‘men like us’ being culled, or should have been aborted because we’re male. Our crime? We dare to disagree or point out the many faults of todays woman. Clearly this makes us the offal of society. You may not have stated your gender but you’re female, as you’re an Aussie linked some way to Greer are you?

1. I assume that they do not discuss rape and pedophiles because this site is nominally about gender relations and not sex crimes. On the other hand, I have noticed that some commentors have advocated for rape or implied the threat of it, so it could be said that those that do make such comments (ie culled etc) ARE discussing those issues. Just something to think about.

2. I don’t think that disagreement, or the pointing out of faults is a crime, obviously, since that is what I have been doing here. I have also never said that you should be culled or aborted etc. Quite the opposite- I have acknowledged your opinions and comments and responded to them without resorting to name calling or abuse.

3. The only relationship I have to Greer is that we share citizenship. But quite the logical link you made there.

RB: I do, I’ll have to get you to explain to me why you think it’s better to remain uneducated some time when/if it ever quietens down enough for men to actually exchange ideas.

RB:Thinking about it further, holding them above myself might not be accurate. Interest me, very much so, as do the intelligent.

What’s AMAZING is that while we have certain little ladies on here trying to show us the error of our ways – whether in reasoning or our facts – feminists and their scribblings are FULL of awful reasoning.
For example:
Mp – “A fair employer pays their workers an equal wage.”
mp – “At the company I (woman) work for, the whimmin only make .70 to the man’s dollar.”
C – “My employer, among others I’m sure, discriminates against whimmin!!!”

Now gents, what’s wrong, yet SO typical about the above “reasoning” as it pertains to the feminist types
(that’s a rhetorical question for the men, a literal one with an answer to follow for the whimmin>>>>>>>).

MANswer: when whimmin complain about such things, they leave their complaint out of the context of RATIONAL reason(s).
For example, while whimminly-types like How Ironic have the gall to critique the flaws in our syllogisms, etc., they carry on with their own, ubiquitously, and live as though everything they feeeeeeeeeel, is FACTUAL.

In other words, one would think that if How Ironic, among others of her type on here, actually gave a damn about IMPROVING people’s logic, she’d spend her time CLEANING UP feminist “reasoning” before attempting to improve ours.

So, in the syllogism of the complaining vagina I proposed above, she (as per my point), makes NO ALLOWANCES for facts like: men tend to work more overtime, men are on average a lesser legal liability to a given company, and the men in this example are WORKING THE MINE SHAFT while she and the other girls are inside yakking on the phones, etc.

Yes, THAT sort of “reasoning” is COMMON among them; yet they have the nerve to spout off here.

I mean, “How Ironic” that when I provide a link for someone of (supposed) superior reasoning ability, they can’t seem to find their way to hyperlinks on the landing page which not only PROVE my contention regarding the RATIO of male to female invention, but given a comparison of that number, and what those inventions consist of, make it almost impossible that more than one of any given decade’s “top ten” inventors would be carrying around a vagina.

http://inventors.about.com/od/astartinventors/a/Famous_Inventor.htm

PLEASE…ANYBODY…FindWhereANYDecadeHasMore
ThanOneOrTwoWhimminInTheTopTenForAnySuch
Accolade

Touche!

Men are better than women.

Technically speaking, a PS3 is actually better than a woman.

Evening Watcher, Chris, you’re not talking to Greer herself there are you?

Evening,

Sorry bro but I gotta go (Early shift), but have fun with ‘How ironic’. Remember, she’s a little ’slow’ so go easy on her. LOL

LMAO. have a good one bud, I got a film starting anyway, talking to a wall isn’t on my agenda tonight. Be well