The Longest (And Most Annoying) Yard
Recently, I was buying some shirts, socks, and various sundries at a retail store. Of course something like this is always a major disaster for a man because at some point, there’s a good chance you’re going to have to deal with a woman.
Maybe a woman will be sitting in an aisle of the parking lot, completely blocking traffic, while waiting for another woman to load six carts of crap and two poorly behaving children into her SUV. Maybe some female-type will be asking you to register to vote or sign some dumb fuck petition for saving an animal she secretly wants to fuck.
Or maybe she’ll just be the damn cashier. In this case, she was the damn cashier.
Something about women and money just doesn’t work. I don’t know how to fix it either. It’s pretty fucking obvious women can’t be taught how to handle money — at least not while vaginas are around. The obvious answer is to then make money somehow less appealing to women — to make women money-averse.
Perhaps we could introduce newly colored bills and call them ‘Low Calorie’ money. Same value, but less calories — and with pictures of Pamela Anderson and Eva Longoria making out on the front. I don’t know, but that seems like a pretty good place to start. What I do know is that would get women avoiding money like the plague. Naturally, old ‘Regular Calorie’ money would be phased out.
Or maybe we could all just start calling money ‘work’.
I was paying for part of my purchases with a gift card to said retail store. And since most purchases don’t add up to exactly 25 quid or 50 dollars or whatever you have, I assumed it wouldn’t be a big deal to split up the check.
Boy, was I fucking wrong!
When I posed this idea to the female cashier, she acted as though I had just asked her to sign a prenup — which I definitely would in this girl’s case, just like in every girl’s case.
It’s called an incentive. Women need incentives with every step that they take. They need a compliment to not eat another scone. They need a pat on the back to feed their fucking kids. They need a slap on the ass to do even a half-assed job. That’s why under no circumstances do you marry a woman without properly man-incentivizing her to not steal half of your fucking assets for completely no reason.
It just doesn’t make any sense.
End of the story? I paid for my entire purchase with a credit card. I’m not in the habit of wasting all my fucking time teaching cashiers and women how to subtract by 30.
Related Articles:
Pages: [2] 1 » Show All
My aunt was a stock brocker, and was very good at what she does.
And who are you to judge?
Some stuck-up bigot who couldn’t connect with another human being is you were the last one on earth
The thing that shocked me the most was that you actually have a friend to get you the gift card.
What a cunt.
Thanks. I was and am sincere — I do try and see things from both perspectives. I believe I see them correctly, though I won’t deny I have a matrix through which I view the world that can, like anyone’s, distort.
I’ve followed up my post in answer to a question you raised. I will say I’m dismayed at the initial reaction to my post as profoundly counter rational. (Some of the reaction to your posts here has been the same; not all). But all of the reaction to mine was non-rational.
Your comments there have caused me to partially reevaluate my impression of your purpose here. I still have serious concerns, but if you’re willing to acknowledge a couple of things I’m willing to talk seriously.
Thanks for the shout-out to my blog. You’re welcome there as a poster, and you and your comments will be honored as long as you don’t trash other posters.
Otherwise, yeah, both of us are wasting time.
-wolfe
By the way Wolfe-
Nice post on punkass. . .
I thought it balanced out the rest of your ideas nicely.
Why don’t you consider the gender generic aspect of fucking off the site?
You certainly did “out” me Wolfe. I was very excited to see that there are many different kinds of bloggers all over the internet, and that those on one particular website, called punkassblog.com were considering the gender aspect of the killings in my neighborhood, which I unfortunately have to deal with everyday at the hospital which I work at. I messaged the name of your website here, I hope that was not insulting to you, as well as my first post (in the context of talking about the killings at Lancaster). Also, I think it will not be surprising to you that over the past week my experience with this website was that there are many misogynistic men. I would think that this WOULD NOT surprise you given that I have flatly stated more than once that I think the blogs on this site belay a “hatred towards women.” I insist, all the same, that I find the conversations that I have here interesting and that I’ve gained something from them (e.g. consideration of men’s perspective on custody and divorce, looking closer at false allegations of rape which I had not reviewed the literature for before, etc.). I hope the individuals from that website find their way here and gain something as well.
Have a fabulous Sunday.
Regular readers of this site: I think this is a post worth reading, and it might be worth your while to click on the link at the bottom — the one in my apology to “Concerned”.
Well, this was a post directly responsive to things you and “Concerned Man” have been talking about, in a thread that you were reading, immediately below a post responding to something you’d said (which you did acknowledge reading).
I’m sure you’ve had enough posting experience to grasp the thought of reading posts that are in threads you are actively chatting in, especially ones that occur after your arrival, are in response to your views.
I will admit I am a suspicious man at times. I sometimes even assume the worst about some people’s motives. That is not, to be sure, terribly nice of me. I have to admit, I began to suspect you might be a denizen of some other site on the net, and here simply to troll via ostensibly pleasant but ultimately non-responsive and passive-aggressive postings.
Worse yet, I actually began to suspect you of having a rather sinister motive, that of perhaps painting yourself as a noble high-minded “Concerned” person, and every man here as a misogynist bent on committing violence just like, oh, let me pick an example entirely at random… say, a disgusting rampage killer of little girls.
Clearly I am a very unfair person, and I feel terrible for suspecting you of such a vile deed, and of espousing such a repulsive view.
I’m glad you’re not someone like that!
-wolfe
Flatulence, albeit muted. The entire body of your, loosely termed, written contribution to the site strikes as an ideomatic representation of a monumental outbreak of flatulence culminating in an accidental, but not really, maroon outcropping - ideologically speaking.
flatulence, huh?
Well, at least I am beyond disappointing you, sonyad.
I sort of enjoy these little talks together :>
Concerned, you needn’t concern yourself.
You are long beyond disappointing anyone here with your flatulence analogue discourse and string of inanities.
I was referring to panties, alias smrtpants.
which lewd remarks would that be?
I’ve the vague impression I’ve read Concerned’s dumbing, insanity inflicting mad elucubrations before, somewhere on this site, written under some alias or other.
Panties, you are being atrociously hateful and rude. I cordially invite you to join Concerned in vacating the virtual promises.
I find it hurtfully disappointing for you to regress to such inappropriately lewd and bitter remarks after your string of reasonable polite, intelligible and somewhat intelligent comments.
All semblance of common sense and decency, you’ve tossed in the wind.
Good bye.
Wolfe-
Maybe it would have been clearer for you if I said “we can continue BY discussing”… So sorry about the confusion for you there.
Also, I’m glad to hear the you are, in fact, relaxed. You sounded quite possibly irritated.
You can believe or not believe my assertion that that was the first time I read the comment you quoted from previous posts, and yet the fact remains that it is the first time. I was referring in my post to posts directly above mine discussing issues of shoe- shopping only. I’m relatively new to the medium, and I’m not sure how likely it is that everyone has read what can be up to 106 posts (!) in any given message board. If that is the expectation before commenting, I apologize for jumping in without having read every post.
I’m mostly surprised (and maybe disappointed) that you feel I’ve ignored your responses, since I’ve found them at times interesting and often I’ve felt that they made me think outside of “my box,” so to speak. If there is any particular “logical counter” that you think I’ve ignored, feel free to share.
I wonder what the alternative purpose you think I have for being on this site would be. Truly, if you believe that there is no way that I am gaining anything from your comments (and that I am here as a “committed believer”only), how much more so would I have to believe the opposite is true (that those on this site would not gain much from what I believe) on a site called “menarebetterthanwomen.com”
“…beneath the job…”
“…jaw dropping…”
Hmmm, I thought that was one of the oh-so-important ‘activities’ that you ‘dicks’ are always complaining you never get enough of…besides which at least that ‘activity’ shuts those young’ins up…
No, that was not a rant. Telling me to relax — when I am relaxed indeed is pointless, though an amusing debating tactic and psychological ploy on your part.
Then why did you say “We can continue to discuss the many reasons why those incomes are substantially lower than the median male income”. Words have meanings, both denotative and connotative.
I refer you to posts 70 and 71 in this thread,
I know you were reading that thread; perhaps it was naive of me to assume that when you said “continue to discuss” you meant “start to discuss, and that when you read and comment extensively in a thread you only read posts at random.
Either that or you’re being disingenuous. I don’t know what the reason is, but I see this as a repeated pattern of behavior on your part; you assert ridiculous things; people point out that they are ridiculous and/or offensive, you ignore most or all logical counters and re-assert the same things using slightly different language.
Well, it is possible this is the reason you are here. For me to believe that, I’d have to be able to square the behavior I note above with that reason. That’s not impossible; indeed, I very strongly suspect your academic training has lead you down a particularly unfortunate road common to most in what Jerry Pournelle once called the “Voodoo Sciences”.
As for “saved”, yes, I used that language deliberately as a play on the earlier references to religion. I did not make those references out of sarcasm; I see your style of discussion as exactly analogous to a that of a committed believer. You accept a series of truths on faith, and neither words nor logic seem to sway you.
-wolfe
Okay Wolfe — the only thing I have to say is that I have not been engaged in the conversation that you are ranting about. “The reasons why women are paid less in our society” is not a line of commenting that I’ve been following or involved in on your site. Breathe in deeply now, and relax. I’d be happy to look over all of your views on that topic, if it would make you feel better.
In addition, I’m not looking to be saved or to save anyone else, but thanks for your concern. I’m just interested in learning more about a viewpoint that is different from my own, and seeing to what degree I can relate. I think it is a valuable strategy when one finds themselves in the middle of a battle to step back and see what all the fighting is about from both sides.
We’ve discussed them in some detail, and you have proven utterly non-responsive. It’s clear that you don’t think rationally on these issues; facts and logic don’t impress you; you, like many women, believe in some mythical world that will ultimately work the way you think it should, rather than the real world we find ourselves in.
Your beliefs, fundamentally, are as peculiar and irrational as those of a young earth creationist. Given that you refuse to engage on a rational plane, it becomes impossible to prove or disprove anything.
Just as you ignore statistics about which career paths women choose — and which careers — as well as hours worked and lifestyle choices made, so too do you maintain — against all logic — the offensive fraud that most men are assaulters and harassers of women. And then you persist with cute (nothing sexist there; I’d use the same word to characterize a man who made the same arguments) little assertions about ’sugar-tits’ being a form of abuse comparable to any other form of abuse. Your wilful ignorance of what workplaces are really like for both genders is impressive.
The way you molest and pervert the language to achieve your ends leaves me impressed; you’ve been well trained in that art.
I can respect your right to hold those beliefs, and your free speech rights, just as I will respect those of the creationists, but I have no respect for you — or them — trying to impose those beliefs upon others in the public square or in our educational system.
There is a phrase that comes from Roman Catholic theology: “Invincible Ignorance”. Time and space are too short for me to discuss its origins, but suffice to say, you appear to suffer from invincible ignorance of a slightly different secular sort.
I see no point in repeating what’s been said to someone who appears to be entirely closed-minded on the matter.
I do respect gwallan’s willingness to continue to attempt to engage you, and I wish him (and you) well. Invincible ignorance is a tough nut to crack, and I doubt one such as you can be saved.
-wolfe
I can admit to having nearly that many at one point many years ago. Admittedly about fifteen of them would have been specialist sports numbers(and a lot of them freebies too courtesy of certain under-the-table arrangements. Aint amateur sports great!).
Women get into trouble for this too.
Woman charged with sexual assault after flight
@Concerned
Try something lateral. Keep an eye on the advertising you see and note what retailers are marketing and to whom.
It’s estimated that women control about 80% of discretional spending.
Your incomes are lower than males because all you do in the work place is cause strife and kill productivity. All your work is done by whatever kissass is near enough to you to do all your work and give you the credit.
Females won’t be happy until they are paid “median male incomes” to sit on their ass all day at home taking care of their cats.
Or you can fuck off the site. Which is far preferable.