Katie’s Revenge? Or Man Revenge
If you pay attention to the news like a man does — and I know you do because you’re a man, then you’ve heard about the case of poor Anthony Stockelman.
Stockelman is serving a life sentence in Indiana, America for the molestation and murder of a 10 year old girl.
I can only imagine what would have become of him in a prison of women. He probably would have been taught how to knit or how to believe in Tantric yoga or some other bullshit where women just run their fucking mouths for hours on end and then give themselves a medal when they’re done. Stockelman was in a man’s prison though, so he was beaten and tattooed across the forehead with the words KATIE’S REVENGE.
It’s the kind of thing that makes you proud to be a man.
Women have no concept of justice; either making it or dispensing it. Have you ever seen the show Super Nanny? Not one single mother on that show knows what the fuck she’s doing and that is the standard fare when it comes to the household.
Let me ask you a question. Do you let the guy who builds your house decorate it? That burly man, man with the tool belt and the man ass crack? Do you let him or someone who looks like him tidy up after a party? Fucking no. Just because he built the house doesn’t mean he knows shit about cleaning or developing it. Same goes for women and children.
“But, Dick! On those shows it’s always the father not spending enough time at home.”
That’s true. I’m not going to argue with anyone who says men are better than women and that definitely says that. It is the man’s fault the little bastards are out of control. It’s his fault for making money to put food in their bellies instead of teaching them how not to hit. It’s his fault for setting the invaluable example of taking care of man business that makes him too busy to get some children dressed for fucking school. For fuck’s sake.
The point is no woman has ever enacted an appropriate level of justice on anyone who deserved it. It’s like women are missing the organ that tells them when something is cool and when it deserves a rubber-hose beating and forehead tattooing. That gland is either called the brain or the penis. I’m not sure which is funnier.
Whatever happened to that woman who molested all those 13-year-old boys? Debra Lefave? Did she get her forehead tattooed? No because women are cowards.
Related Articles:
October 7th, 2006 at 7:17 pm - IP Man-Hash: 9a411a51af9ea
Absolutely.
1. 75% of females voted for Hitler.
2. If women were literate, they would read something other than smut like cosmo, or pedophilia scum like Germanine Greer.
3. Women cheat more often than men, but lie about it. And then use their divorce court winnings to support their thug boyfriends who are the biological fathers of the children that the divorcee husband is paying for. The Republic has been damned by association with such trash happening in it’s courts.
Of course, for a good college educated mangina like you, I know very well that intellectual discussion about the true nature of feminity is sacrilege.
So kindly fuck off the site.
October 8th, 2006 at 2:22 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
How perspicacious of you, Concerned. Yes, I also do assert that what son of the suns and diamatik (notice correct spelling) meant by the remark. After all, the best insults are those that only state the obvious.
I’ll go have a dump now. And when I’m all grimaced and red faced, I’ll be sure to recall and praise the goddess for every little gold pebble I squeeze out and think of you, Concerned. How’s that for flattery?
If I may quote the men who said this before myself…
Enjoy your cats, concerned ladies.
Now, if only you’d remove your rancid rankness lump off the site. We’re understandably reluctant to prod the likes of you, see.
On to the man (?) of the household.
There’s something unexplainably comical, yet eerily familiar, about a woman referring to her gender as “us men” on mabtw. Ah, the ubiquitously known and universally disdained sock puppeting tendencies of those of lesser intellect strike once more.
Is there any more stereotypical mind than a woman’s except, another’s? Be it meager and obtuse as it is.
The rest of your crazed, idiotic rambling is not worth reading, much less responding to.
October 8th, 2006 at 2:45 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
How utterly jennet asinine of you to answer a point blank question with itself.
I’d be content to see you fuck off the site.
October 8th, 2006 at 2:49 am - IP Man-Hash: 1320084b9e30d
@Concerned and, I guess, Concerned Man given that you seem to be operating as a tag team.
Maybe I need to give you some personal context. This feeds into my wondering when you studied rather than what you studied.
I grew up in a world not far removed from the ravages of two world wars, a global depression and firmly esconced in the early parts of the cold war. The effects of anti Japanese and anti German propaganda were still very plain. The nexus between capitalism and socialism was growing on a seemingly daily basis. The family I grew up in has a history of involvement in the labour movement and left wing politics dating back over a hundred and fifty years. Among my ancestors and relatives are presidents of Trades Hall Councils, union representatives and office bearers, members of parliaments(including a current state govt minister), board members of DV shelters and sexual assualt services, feminists, socialists, communists. To not be involved in leftist politics is virtually grounds for excommunication.
I mention these things not as a means of big noting myself but to add some context to what drives me idealogically. My own educational background is not related to the issues under discussion here. What little knowledge I have is a consequence of a thirst for information and a very sophisticated understanding of the workings of politics, the interplay of the media with political/government systems and critical observation of half a century of western civilisation. Wolfe has me classified as a “rational socialist” (a rare creature in his estimation) while I see myself as the eternal fence sitter. He may be closer to the truth than I. Understand that I am acutely sensitive to the true meanings behind the words of politicians and other propagandists.
I go back to the late sixties in terms of my active political involvement and worked with the women’s libbers of the time. That movement did stand for equality of opportunity. It correctly believed that we didn’t treat women as full adults. The libbers did believe that men and women needed to stand together to improve things for everybody.
Much of what they wanted was achieved in a very short time frame. At this point it fell prey to the same problem many political movements face when the primary goals are achieved. What now? Interest wanes among the membership and suddenly the extremists are the only ones with the energy to keep pushing it along.
I pinpoint the introduction of affirmative action as the tipping point. This is the time when feminism moved from equality of opportunity to equality of outcome as it’s primary goal. This is the time when vengeance for the imagined wrongs of the past became part of the ideology. And there is no greater tyrant than the one seeking revenge.
Everything feminism has advocated since, even where the issues were genuine, has been grossly exaggerated at best and outright falsified at worst. It is incapable of acknowledging anything positve about men or anything negative about women. It plays the “strong woman” card when it suits but reverts to perpetual victim status at the drop of a hat. It defends the vilest of acts by women while demanding metaphorical lynchings of men who merely look at a woman the wrong way. It is the ultimate in passive aggression.
The majority of people when hearing the word feminism mistakenly identify it with women’s lib. This belief is so embedded in our culture that anyone who speaks against feminism is automatically assumed by most to be anti-woman.
Unfortunately it ceased being a movement for equality many years ago.
So now you know something of where I’m coming from. I already know you. I’ve seen you in many shapes and sizes and over many years. I’ll address your previous post to myself shortly. In the meantime here’s something to knot your knickers and entertain everybody else.
Q. How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb:
A. 11
One to screw it in
One to blame men for inventing such a faulty means of illumination
One to exclaim that the light-bulb has violated the socket
One to secretly wish that she was the socket.
One to blame men for not changing the bulb
One to blame men for trying to change the bulb instead of letting a woman do it
One to blame men for creating a society that discourages women from changing light bulbs
One to blame men for creating a society where women change too many light bulbs
One to complain that female light bulb changers are underpaid compared to male light bulb changers
One to alert the media that women are now “out-lightbulbing” men
One to just sit there taking pictures for her blog for photo-evidence that men are unnecessary.
October 8th, 2006 at 6:48 am - IP Man-Hash: 47282aa9c8980
Gwallan- Thanks for your response about your personal history in politics and historical context. I don’t have much time this morning, but I would like to say that you are right in suggesting that I have grown in a very different context. Without going into too many more personal facts, I can share that, like many Americans, my parents were immigrants to this country. They were not involved in the kind of political/social change movements that you describe. Going back one generation more, my grandparents were very involved in politics, but in a different country with very different social issues.
I will try to get back to this soon, and I look forward to the response you intend to write to my post. Have a good day.
October 8th, 2006 at 8:14 am - IP Man-Hash: 1320084b9e30d
Rather I believe we have reached a point where any useful dialogue with feminists has become impossible. The issues men face will be sorted out in due time in spite of feminists. The only question I believe is relevant now is whether it happens the easy way or the hard way. The great tolerance and amenablility men have demonstrated over a long time needs to be viewed as a rubber band. The further it’s stretched the harder it will snap if it breaks.
You tread dangerous ground using selective abortion as a debating point given that this has only been possible for a few decades and that abortion as a womans “choice” is one of the foundation stones of feminism. Western lesbians seem quite keen on aborting male foetuses purely on idealogical grounds. Isn’t abortion every woman’s right regardless of the reasons?
Female infanticide has been practised historically in some cultures and was often justified by those involved on economic grounds. Personally I find the taking of any life abhorent. Interestingly “infanticide” in the west is a female only crime. I often wonder why we distinguish it from murder if not to give us another way of being more lenient with women. Also of note is that when women do murder their children two thirds of their victims are boys.
The witch hunts, contrary to long standing feminist propaganda, were not gender specific. In some regions more men than women died.
It’s not just feminists which is why I made the comment, which you chose to misread, about the contrast between your complaint about a bit of name calling and violence against men being comedy. I was trying to contrast your own upset at the expression “sugar tits” and the frequent use of violence against men as a comic device. John Bobbit didn’t get much sympathy even though he was the victim of a sadistic attack. His attacker was feted globally. How can we justify a culture which affords standing ovations to Lorena Bobbit and celebrity status to Debra LaFave? Those men viewing rape porn may very well be disturbed individuals but they are not able to practice or celebrate their particular perversion in public and be applauded for doing so.
With regard to men as victims of violence being victims of other men I am disgusted at that attitude. This shows a preference to focussing on the gender of the offender for reasons I assume to be gender politically based. The victims of violence care not one jot which gender their attacker happens to be. This is an argument used by those whose gender ideology outweighs their concern for victims. It is no different to the case involving the Brewster Centre which I mentioned in post#75.
These are the reported comments of individual lawyers. That lawyers would have this attitude doesn’t surprise me at all. I will track down some references if necessary but the fact remains that in family courts there is no burden of proof. Allegations alone are sufficient even for intervention orders which, I might add, can subsequently be used as “proof” of abuse. This needs to be changed. And it is undeniable that it is a frequently used and abused tactic.
The work I have seen relies on an admission on behalf of the accuser that the accusation was false. Personally I’d not take them seriously otherwise. One of them was a study of cases in the US military. The New Zealand situation was strange. The police there were totally flummoxed as to what was going on. I suspect it was an abberation in a small demographic.
And yet how often does one hear the statement that “no woman would ever lie about rape”? Our culture by default will believe a woman before it believes a man.
Allow me to pose a question then. In a discussion regarding adult rape what statistics would you reference?
I’ve had this particular argument with feminists frequently so I suspect I know. Their tendency is to use survey stats for adult rape and justice dept or conviction rates for offences against males. ie the highest available vs the lowest available.
I’ve seen everything ranging from the 3% Justice Dept stat you mention up to 50% from specialist psychologists. It’s simply not valid to use stats based on oficial reporting for abuse that wasn’t even seen as a crime until a few years ago and that women are rarely punished for anyway even when guilty. The extensive works I’ve accessed through our local sexual assualt services libraries put it just over thirty percent on average(my estimate based on a couple of dozen books written over twenty years and it was bloody hard work getting through them I can tell you). CASA staff certainly believe it’s about a third and that the younger the victim the more likely it’s a female offender(this makes sense in a way as it parallels the situation with physical abuse).
Dealt with in a previous post. My background is Phys Ed and IT(database & stats primarily) which as I said is not relevant here. You may choose to claim superior knowledge or status due to your own education if you wish. You would be misguided particularly where it comes to broad political(both mainstream and gender) and historical issues .
As I said I don’t consider your field as relevant as when you actually studied. If you care to answer I’ll explain the relevance in it’s proper context.
Do you understand statistics at all? Do you question anything you hear? It’s quite simple really. The 78% you cite is a straight average which doesn’t even take into account the hours people work. Women work about 9-10 hours per week less than men. And guess what!!!!!! They take home about a quarter less. Surprise, surprise.
Again I have to question your understanding of statistics. Here you state that the variance among men is greater. Does it not make sense to you therefore that there are more men at the top and bottom ends of the distribution? Have you ever considered the bottom end? 95% of the homeless are men and our society doesn’t care. In fact we view them with disgust. If this was true of women it would be screeched from every rooftop as proof positive of the oppression of women. Feminists are busy complaining about what goes on among the very elite and claiming it’s a consequence of discrimination. Tommyrot. I’ve already pointed out that the very fact that women do reach those positions proves they aren’t being discriminated against. You have identified the the real reason but your gender blinkers don’t allow you to accept the truth.
I shall ask again as I did in post#71.
In that case I assume that you have been vociferous in your objections to the statements of such renowned and influential feminists as Andrea Dworkin, Catherine Mackinnon, Germaine Greer and their ilk. I presume that every time you hear women blithely refering to all men as rapists or pigs that you firmly put them in their place. That feminist websites purporting to stand against violence get a stern email from yourself when they publish articles such as the S.C.U.M. Manifesto.
All I wanted was a yes or no answer. Is that so difficult?
Feminists have been doing exactly the same for many years so you’ve had plenty of opportunity to prove your devotion to equality and fairness. Too late if you’ve only decided to do it now.
The difference between us and feminists(who have been doing exactly the same for decades and much more overtly) is stark.
We start with obvious hyperbole and, through often lengthy discussion, attempt to modify that position to a much more reasonable one.
Feminists start from a position of hyperbole and translate it directly into legislation and jurisprudence which affect the lives of millions.
Something for you to ponder Concerned Man. I’d almost guarantee I’m a better javelin thrower than yourself. Does this mean I’m a better or more valuable person than yourself?
Consider that in relation to this website.
October 8th, 2006 at 10:53 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Mantastic, gwallan. An exquisite read.
October 8th, 2006 at 2:06 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7ffb869857bb3
Again, this is why women should be banned from this site and their posts deleted. Concerned is concerned only for herself and her kind. Her posts speak of a stunning amount of selfishness and contempt for men. On the other hand, maybe thy should be allowed to post so others can see how me, me, me some of them are.
October 8th, 2006 at 5:44 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3b6ac04b422db
I understand statistics very well, thank you. I have a high-level education in stats and a lot of business experience as well. The stats I reference don’t tell the whole story, but they sure speak to the changing role of the women in the workplace and societal expectations and are the basis for further research. I ask the question: why do men work longer hours? Is it fair that it is often man’s burden to support his family? Is it also fair that women are expected to put careers on hold for children? I think neither of these should be expected in our society.
I was agreeing with previous posts about research showing greater variance in male IQ’s. Not sure why you’re arguing with me here. I care deeply about the plight of the homeless and agree that social welfare doesn’t do enough to help. Remember, those “elites” are responsible for providing social services for the homeless. Here’s some numbers for you: since the mid-1980’s, many more women have become homeless with the ratio of men to women approaching 3:2. Where did you get your numbers?
And I believe it is you who needs to get out a statistics textbook. You said “the very fact that women do reach those positions proves they aren’t being discriminated against”. That is statistcally ridiculous. That’s like saying that if 2 of every 100 black men were allowed into colleges in the 1960’s then they were not being discriminated against. Those two men were not, but there is no basis for making that generalization for the population.
I’m not convinced that everyone posting on this site or Dick himself are not taking these ideas seriously. I agree that the specific blogs I’ve mentioned and many others sound ridiculous, but I don’t believe a lot of the posters here agree. You, I, and several others may have that nuance, but it is clear that many here don’t. I certainly do not think your javelin skills make you a better person than myself. However, this seems to be opposite the concept of http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com.
October 8th, 2006 at 10:47 pm - IP Man-Hash: 1320084b9e30d
@Concerned Man
In that case why do you cite the statistic you know full well to be misleading?
Now we get to see you shifting ground. It’s all about “changing roles” and “societal expectations”. “More research is needed.”
Who says women want careers? For that matter who says men do? Most people simply work because they have no choice.
It is feminists who have told women they are sub-human if they wish to stay at home with their children. In all the guff about choices for women why isn’t that a valid choice for them?
As for the rest maybe it’s time women realised that, contrary to feminist fantasy, you can’t “have it all”.
Maybe because you saw fit to revisit something I also thought we had dealt with.
Several years ago I did some work in a campaign for the Brotherhood of St Lawrence. These are the BSL figures from the mid to late nineties. They are, however, Australian(more particularly Victorian) numbers. I understand from discussions with Brits that their situation is similar. If what you say is true in the US - and given the broader welfare systems of the UK and Australia - it seems likely that improving the welfare system won’t help those men in your country.
You quoted the statistic not I. My point was that I find it strange that on the one hand you can acknowledge the broader distribution of male intelligence and then claim that a predictable result of that distribution is actually an indicator of discrimination. You contradict yourself. Maybe God is a sexist?
It’s one thing to understand the math involved in statistical method. Dealing with how those stats realate to the reality of the world around us is entirely different. This is where the politics and “spin” enter into the equation.
At no stage did I claim discrimination did not exist in the past(For heavens sake I was one of the people marching the streets about it in the seventies). Did you read my little history rant? Read it again. There is a big difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. There is no natural “right” for anybody to become a CEO or high achiever in any field based on gender or any other criteria. Those issues were dealt with decades ago. Today feminism clings desperately to the public perception that it is still the same movement. It patently is not and the frayed hems are becoming more apparent every day.
You still don’t get it do you? Let me be blunt.
For all our hyperbole we’re not the ones putting people in prison for having consensual sex with somebody else who actually initiated the act.
For all our exaggeration we’re not the ones enabling physical abusers to have their victims gaoled.
No matter how many “nasty names” we spout we’re not keen on the idea of paedophiles raping little boys and then legally getting child support from their victims.
For all our absurd dialogue we’re not in the habit of harbouring sexual abusers who commit their crimes on our premises.
And you STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED MY ORIGINAL QUESTION TO YOU.
Why is it suddenly so offensive to you when a few men do exactly what feminists, in particular, and women, in general, have been doing for years?
Have you EVER complained about them?
If not what reason do we have to think you anything other than an utterly sexist hypocrite?
October 8th, 2006 at 10:57 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
I’ve yet to behold or hear a man use the word ’societal’. Either in writing or free speech.
Except… when quoting a woman. Not least because it’s a made up word. And such a pussified word at that. Probably more edifying as to your gender and feminist views than anything else you’ve espoused.
October 8th, 2006 at 11:03 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
“gaoled”. Jolly good, gwallan. I do believe you concernedly baffled her with that one.
October 9th, 2006 at 2:31 am - IP Man-Hash: 6bd77daac30b2
Have you noticed that we have “Concerned” and “Concerned Man”?
Wonder who wears the panties in that household?
Actually I do think both Concerned and Concerned Man are genuine in their own beliefs. They are, however, like all of us, creatures of the times and cultures they live in. Selfishness and contempt for men are not unique in them alone. You can see these things reflected in everything we see around us. This is why I go to great pains to highlight the use of violence against men as comedy.
Feminists often complain about images of scantily clad women as being demeaning to women. Yet images(and often, as I’ve said, real instances) of men in agony are not only deemed acceptable we go so far as to laugh at them.
I am a man. Hath not a man eyes? hath not a man hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a woman is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a man wrong a woman, what is his humility? Revenge. If a woman wrong a man, what should his sufferance be by female example? Why, revenge. The villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.
Humble apologies to The Bard for subtle editing.
October 9th, 2006 at 3:30 am - IP Man-Hash: 731ced04c4ed5
Concerned Man sounds just like another femmie to me.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:36 pm - IP Man-Hash: 47282aa9c8980
I’lll respond to gwallan in a sec
Let me just lend a hand to sonyad first.
Sonyad, if you’d like to borrow a dictionary to look up the word “societal,” I’d be happy to loan you my webster’s with the word under society (as it’s adjective).
(That’s under “S,” sonyad: the letter before T and after R. )
Happy to help out :>
October 9th, 2006 at 7:27 pm - IP Man-Hash: 47282aa9c8980
Ok, gwallan. I’m so sorry for the delay in responding. I’m going up to your comment 103 and I’m just going to respond to those comments you directed at me.
I don’t think that it is dangerous ground to call selective abortion (or female infanticide for that matter) “gendercide.” I agree that a woman’s choice is a foundation stone of feminism. I think that you do understand, more than you pretend, that the reason that female-selected abortion exists in India, China, etc. is the true issue here (not the “right to choose”). In case you were not aware, in many countries women belong to their husbands and their husbands’ families after marriage. Therefore, they will benefit their husbands’ family and not their own. In addition, there are large dowries that families must provide when their daughters wed.
Also, I agree that women can be responsible for choices to selectively abort, commit infanticide, genitally mutilate their children, etc. My main point was that these all arise from woman-hating contexts that serve men’s interests as a group.
Dr. Brian Pavlac (a historian) offers this commentary below from Barstow, and indicates that while the witch hunts were not “sex-specific,” they were definitely sex-related:
“Many witch hunters, particularly the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum, held that women were far more susceptible to temptation by the Devil, and thus more frequently became witches. Some witch hunts did almost exclusively target women, in percentages as high as 95% of the victims. Another interesting point is that the members of the legal system its “judges, ministers, priests, constables, jailers, judges, doctors, prickers, torturers, jurors, executioners” were nearly 100 percent male (Anne L. Barstow, Witchcraze: A New History of the European Witch Hunts: Our Legacy of Violence Against Women (San Francisco: Pandora/Harper Collins, 1994), 142)”
What an interesting way to avoid the issue! Having concern for victims means wanting to prevent violence. Wanting to prevent violence, means wanting to understand why it occurs. Understanding why it occurs, means understanding who the perpetrators are (among other things), gwallan. I think you’ve pegged me quite wrongly if you believe that I have no concern for victims of crime (male or female, gay or straight, of every ethnicity). I have a great deal of concern for victims. I even have a pretty decent amount of concern for perpetrators (I think it is a sad thing to make choices that harm others).
I agree that using an allegation that is unfounded as “proof” is pretty shady stuff. and it is horrible if it is a “tactic” that is used to discredit others/make them appear guilty. I work with children, so I also understand the need for caution in making decisions that affect their lives. I think that it is a difficult position for judges and the legal system. What do you think of mediation in divorce cases? I’ve been happy to hear that mediation is encouraged in the US more than every before for divorce cases. The courtroom is a place where one person is expected to win and one lose (in terms of money, custody,etc.) I feel like it is helpful for couples/parents to be in a less combative atmosphere that encourages respect for decision making that is in everyone’s best interest (including the child’s).
Then did you just give that percentage to purposely exaggerate the incidence of false allegations of rape?
I appreciate your “bloody hard work” and your final estimation that in your opinion, and some testimonials from people in the field provide support for your opinion, men are responsible for only two thirds (67%) of sexual abuse of children. That statistic is far off (30% difference) of that provided by the bureau of justice. I would venture to say that the bureau of justice may in fact underestimate adult female molesters — but I’d still hold out for a real study on the matter before deciding that the only statistics available by a comprehensive review are off by such a significant degree! In the end, we still have a significantly greater number of men molesting children. Would you like to share your ideas as to why?
I “may” but I don’t claim superior knowledge. By knowing that you studied PhysEd and IT, I know nothing else about your experience, and it would not dawn upon me to assume that I have superior knowledge to someone I know nothing about.
Thanks for your thoughtful reponses, as usual. A demain.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:23 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Concerned, if a cochroach knew how to read your comments, it’d be dumbed down by your evil, oppressive idiocy. Your writing emanates evil. You imbue ignorance. You abound in misandry.
You should fuck off the site.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:29 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
And “societal” is just a pussified made-up word born of and engulfed in stupidity.
And all I’ve stated above, do you ‘agree’ with? That seems to be your utmost favourite verb. You seem to delight in abusing it. Just as you do reason, causality, the truth…
October 10th, 2006 at 3:49 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
And no, you ignoramus. “Sociological” is what you’re looking for. The use of “societal”, except in metalanguage, is denotative of the sine lowest lacklustre intellect. As such, no feminist has ever passed up the chance and scarcely anybody, read nobody, else uses it.
Bijectivity, go figure. After you luck it up in vain as it undoubtedly surpasses your meagre power of comprehension, as well as the knowledge your websters - I’ve a couple myself - are comprised of, report back for the rest of your read.
Also bijectively related to feminism is the use of inane, made up meanings for existing, long established, legitimate words. The perversion of semantics. The laws of women, anyone?
See “patriarchy” as poignant example. It basically means a society where genealogy, lineage, descent (what ever the fuck you want to call it) is figured through the male line. Anything else is stupid feminist, notice the redundancy denoting the pleonasm I just concocted, codswallop.
Of course, people, including linguists and etymologists, are going to bow down to the persisting vociferously outspeaking stupidity of the masses of patchoully miasmic cunted idiots.
Enjoy your goddess fragrances off the site. Fuck off.