There’s Nothing to Wrong Except Wrong Itself
I hear this question all the time; never directed at myself, but while hearing shrill she-devils screech and harp on their man-friends while standing in line for the cinema or the man-theater or a meat restaurant.
“Were you checking out that girl?”
I carry around a special stash of Man Points for the first man to answer it correctly. I haven’t given them out yet, so if you see me hanging about the correct answer is:
“Yes.”
Honesty is not the best policy. Lying is always the best policy. It’s fun and it gains you Man Points by the boatload. I was at the pub the other week and the lady-bartender was wondering if I should have another seven and seven. As an aside, can I comment for a moment on how men are better than women at being bartenders? Always go to the female bartender. They’re a curse on a money making bar who pour drinks like the liquor is free. A bartender’s job is getting women as drunk as possible, not men.
I said yes just like I answer most questions women ask. See, women don’t ask anything unless they want you to say no — and that’s only because they want you to agree with their ‘no’. Women don’t give a shit about what you think or what you want, it’s all them, them, them. Anything that ends in a question mark is their way of telling you you fucked up somehow. You think they would be the experts at spotting fuck ups, but they’re not. They’re just the experts at fucking up.
I gave myself 65 Man Points for lying.
The reason you should simply say “Yes, I was,” when some daft princess asks if you’ve been checking out another woman is because you were and it doesn’t fucking matter. It’s not your responsibility to explain the complex workings of the man-mind to a woman. All the reasons you were checking her out for are beyond her limited comprehension.
1. Men notice everything. We notice everything and we need details. We need details to occupy the cogs of our massive brains so they keep spinning. Man brains are like boats and motorcycles. If you let them sit they need an expensive tune-up.
2. Men are wary of all creatures that come within our personal space. Our personal space includes (but is not limited to) our field of vision.
3. Halter tops are fascinating. How do they stay up like that?
If you’re going to explain to a woman the motivations men subconsciously consider before everything they do, why not start with the free market system which no woman anywhere understands? Why not explain democracy to a woman — who all have the attention span of a fucking child. Teach her why she has her precious right to vote. That ought to be a treat!
Why not just sit down and teach the poor girl why the men in her office want to help her move so badly?
There’s no fucking point.
Women will take whatever they’re given with a smile. They need to know when they’re supposed to get upset. That’s why a simple, “Yes,” works so well. There’s no mumbling or nonsense. You didn’t do anything wrong anyway so there’s nothing to get upset about.
This brings me to a point about why women consider it their job to raise children. Children give obvious clues when they’re supposed to be punished. A child might throw food on the floor or defecate on the wall. At that point a woman knows to punish the child. The same works in relationships. If you act like you didn’t do anything wrong, you didn’t.
Two hundred Man Points.
Related Articles:
September 28th, 2006 at 3:58 am - IP Man-Hash: eadd56da2c7c9
You know, I read all these stats about how many prisoners come from single parent families.
I’d like to know how many prisoners come from single parent families where the single parent is a man.
-Big Al
September 28th, 2006 at 10:20 am - IP Man-Hash: 6897e3ddf8ad0
That’s a good fucking question, Big Al.
-Dick
September 28th, 2006 at 11:38 am - IP Man-Hash: 353cca5539f84
Here’s the answer:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/ArtificialChicken/FathersCount.jp g
September 28th, 2006 at 11:48 am - IP Man-Hash: 6897e3ddf8ad0
That is not astounding at all, Patriarchal Oppressor.
For those of you who don’t click the link. The ratio of prisoners from single-mother homes to single-father homes is 75 to 1.
-Dick
September 28th, 2006 at 11:55 am - IP Man-Hash: 4555637db20cf
How the hell did you find that? Mantastic statistics!
September 28th, 2006 at 12:03 pm - IP Man-Hash: 4555637db20cf
Women are better than men at getting pregnant.
Women are better than men at giving birth.
All through history we have been fed this bullshit about women being better at raising kids, and now this has been proven wrong. And now we see that you are even less likely to be incarcerated if you’re being raised by a single-Dad than if you were raised in a two-parent household (probably because the mother isn’t there to fuck things up).
Men are better at raising kids than women.
So the question of the day is, what use are women (apart from sex objects and baby-processors)?
September 28th, 2006 at 1:23 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
First, that is mantastic, as diamatik says. Where did you find that PO?
Second, it’s very important that we not misread this in a womanly way. While Dick’s stats snapshot (75:1) is correct, it is somewhat misleading. Sadly, single parent female-headed households are roughly 4 times more common than single parent male-headed households (according to PO’s stats).
This means that we’d expect more prisoners from female-headed households simply because there are more of the latter.
The real difference appears to be 18:1.
That’s still a wow moment. Staggering. Gobsmacking.
If you’ve got a single Dad, your chances of going to prison fall by nearly 90% as opposed to having a single Mom. (Yes, even that is a simplification, but it’s still not a bad first order approximation).
But wait! It gets better. Simply from the chart…
Normalizing, we see that children from a dad-headed single parent household are:
-half as likely to go to jail as children living with a mom and dad;
-a third as likely to go to jail as children living with relatives
-a seventh as likely to go to jail as children living with fostercare
-nearly 20 times less likely to go to jail as children living with a single mother.
That’s… stunning. Single dads are better than a nuclear family? That’s… hard to believe. Amazing.
As Diamatik says, men are better at raising kids than women..
Bigtime.
-wolfe
NB- usual caveats apply - dunno about this data source, and also, the REASON a family becomes a single parent family is vital. Stats show that single-mom families where the mother does NOT abandon the father do just about as well as families with the father present (e.g. where the father dies rather than where the father is divorced).
September 28th, 2006 at 1:24 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
woops… that should read “over 90% — nearly 95%”.
-w
September 28th, 2006 at 3:53 pm - IP Man-Hash: 620db7e22a363
Now, that truly must by a thorn in the side of feminism.
- Oldone
September 28th, 2006 at 4:20 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7f0331adb6577
Woman are useless at everything. Why doesnt the goverment do anything about these clear stats?
September 28th, 2006 at 6:13 pm - IP Man-Hash: 4555637db20cf
Oldone, women are a thorn in the side of feminism.
September 28th, 2006 at 8:41 pm - IP Man-Hash: 9113ee5a6c662
Because the government doesn’t care Aaron. Thats why. As long as they have little worker drones and votes, the elitist shitbags could give a rats ass about families. Follow the money and votes and you will find the anwser.
-Strength and Honor-
September 29th, 2006 at 2:30 am - IP Man-Hash: 7f0331adb6577
so we are doomed
September 29th, 2006 at 3:39 am - IP Man-Hash: eadd56da2c7c9
Wrong attitude, Aaron. Think Chesty Puller. Think “All right, they’re on our left, they’re on our right, they’re in front of us, they’re behind us…they can’t get away this time.”
-Big Al
September 29th, 2006 at 4:46 am - IP Man-Hash: 7f0331adb6577
Wrong attitude, Aaron. Think Chesty Puller. Think “All right, they’re on our left, they’re on our right, they’re in front of us, they’re behind us…they can’t get away this time.”
-Big Al
that is the voice of reason, well said
September 29th, 2006 at 5:36 am - IP Man-Hash: 54f297af1830d
Likewise I’d really like to know the source.
I should point out that the “factor” for the “other” group should be 1.5:1 rather than the 1:1.3 in the table.
I did search unsuccessfully for relevant data. Most refs I found were for articles about poor lil mums stuck in prison away from their kids and how unfair that was.
I did however end up at fathermag.com which gave the following little titbits
And perhaps most scary of all
Of course not much info on how these numbers were calculated.
Not surprised this stuff is hard to find. Feminists have been very successful at shutting down anything that doesn’t shine a light out of womens’ collective arsehole.
September 29th, 2006 at 8:18 am - IP Man-Hash: 06ed5ff70ac4b
I think we give feminuts way too much credit for things.
They really aren’t that smart.
September 29th, 2006 at 9:42 am - IP Man-Hash: c17d989f3617f
But very manipulative. And experts at the bait and switch games women have always played. Their infiltration of the media, publishing and education systems has given them great power where public opinion is concerned. It also enables them to stifle any attempt at rational debate which would spell disaster for them.
September 29th, 2006 at 10:41 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
@gwallan I agree. I’d add (in many countries) well-funded NGO’s.
I’d also ask: Why has socialism so surrendered to feminism? Certainly in the 19th century and early 20th century this didn’t seem an obvious alliance (other than, debatably, socialists like upheaval and conservatives don’t … but that’s a gross oversimplification unfair to both camps).
-wolfe
September 29th, 2006 at 12:15 pm - IP Man-Hash: 20de71915fc29
I found it in a long-gone ebook I stumbled on and saved it.
September 29th, 2006 at 12:19 pm - IP Man-Hash: 20de71915fc29
By the way, please share the link with everyone you know.
September 29th, 2006 at 12:44 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
I think Dick should do a post on Chesty Puller. That’s like 240 man points, right there, just saying his name.
-wolfe
September 29th, 2006 at 5:33 pm - IP Man-Hash: eadd56da2c7c9
It takes a special kind of person to look back at the last hundred years and think that what the world needs is more socialism. And feminists are special.
Capital suggestion, wolfe.
-Big Al
September 29th, 2006 at 5:53 pm - IP Man-Hash: 261f688076ac6
There isn’t a more perfect alliance than feminism and socialism.
Are you forgetting Eve, the original rebel without a cause?
September 29th, 2006 at 6:23 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
What, that little story with the McIntosh and the affable serpent?
Big Al, almost noon already in Ozzy land, I gather?
September 29th, 2006 at 10:19 pm - IP Man-Hash: eadd56da2c7c9
UCT + 10 here, sony. I think you’re UCT +2. Substantially correct, but I posted some hours ago and things are a little blurry right now.
This could well be due to the effects of Wolf Blass’s chardonnay and James Boags’ beer.
Both are excellent. However, my monitor is looking slightly blurry right now.
-Big Al
October 1st, 2006 at 5:31 am - IP Man-Hash: 6d589b37beaa5
i think the very reason why feminists exist in the first place is because of gays like you who haven’t been taught respect by your oh-so-manly dad’s before. congratulations.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:49 am - IP Man-Hash: 7a27933f8f303
Silly cow, you’ve put the cart-before-the-horse. But then, I guess a cow wouldn’t know any better. Anyway, the proliferation of gays only came about with feminism.
Feminism also created the disrespect of women. Feminists have no morals, principles or integrity, and they have spread their bad attitudes to modern western women. Our fathers treated our mothers with respect because they deserved it. Our mothers knew their place, and didn’t run around the place with no bras on screaming utter bullshit about patriarchy and then expecting equality without doing equal work. Thus todays women don’t get respect because they didn’t earn it.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:03 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Nope. Men naturally respected women. Today’s women get disrespect because most have earned it and persist. Quite the difference.
Bob your head all the way, sweetheart, that’s perfect!
October 1st, 2006 at 8:47 am - IP Man-Hash: a2af982316d00
wrong et slut, no one respects feminists because if it walks like a man, talks like a man, fucks like a man, must be a ………
meanwhile if i happen to spot a real women somewhere i wil show proper respect.
cunt.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:17 pm - IP Man-Hash: d2bf73bae8061
“Our fathers treated our mothers with respect because they deserved it. Our mothers knew their place, and didn’t run around the place with no bras on screaming utter bullshit about patriarchy and then expecting equality without doing equal work.”
To believe all women are confined to a certain “place” is to disrespect them. To view women as beneath you is to disrespect them. As sonyad pointed out, plenty of women haven’t earned respect, but plenty have. It’s only fair to judge on a person-by-person basis. As to your point about feminists, early feminists did have a patriarchy to complain about: they couldn’t vote, they could only find jobs in certain “female” fields, etc. Women in the 60s had less reason for complaint, but sexism was still prominent.
October 1st, 2006 at 3:37 pm - IP Man-Hash: 0363c503d25ea
very well-said
October 1st, 2006 at 8:01 pm - IP Man-Hash: f1fc112d0a055
Did they? Are you sure you aren’t mistaking heirarchy for patriarchy?
Can you define patriarchy for us?
When did men get the vote?
Marie Curie won a Nobel Prize over a hundred years ago. Nobody tried to stop her. Women had been heads of state even before women were enfranchised. Nobody stopped them.
Maybe you see discrimination where it was actually womens’ choices that limited them to “female fields”. Today men are 95% of workplace deaths. Where are the women working in mines, on oil rigs? Where are the women constructing buildings and roads? Women still, even to this day, choose to do the environmentally comfortable and safe jobs. They limit themselves.
Women in the sixties, and since, are the most pampered and comfortable individuals who have ever existed.
Their mothers understood the value of their menfolk.They knew they owed their freedom, and possibly their very lives, to the sacrifices men willingly made.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:05 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
@Alex
Oh, the inanity, and all the feminists screaming around here!
I told you… I can’t even talk to people… around there. There aren’t any! It’s… I can’t talk, gentlemen. Honest, they’re just laying there, a mass of patchouly stinking feminists, and everybody can hardly breathe and talk… I-I’m sorry. Honest, I can hardly breathe. I’m going to step inside where I cannot see or smell them. Charlie, that’s terrible. I… Listen folks, I’m going to have to stop for a minute, because I’ve lost my nostrils… This is the worst thing I’ve ever smelled or witnessed.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:17 pm - IP Man-Hash: d2bf73bae8061
By “patriarchy” I meant that our society was run by men and policies and cultural norms reflected it. I know in America originally only white men with property could vote, but I think all white men were permitted to vote somewhere around the early 1800s, all men could vote in 1870, no women could vote until 1920 . Yeah, there were a few extrodinary women throughout history who broke through the barriers against them, but the average woman was infintely more restricted than the average man. And I’d agree, the reasons women are underrepresented in the workplace in modern times are because of personal choice and the simple fact that women need to bear children and it affects their career options. I would say, though, that SOME discrimination still remains, and workplace discrimination definetly existed in the 1960s.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:25 pm - IP Man-Hash: d2bf73bae8061
Sonyad- I don’t think I’ve said anything explicitly feminist or offensive. I said to think women must be confined to certain roles or to believe women are beneath men is to disrespect women. I said that women should be judged on their behavior instead of their gender. I said that early feminists did have a right to feel opressed, considering the fact that women couldn’t vote and were extremely restricted in their career options. None of this is anything radical.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:32 am - IP Man-Hash: f1fc112d0a055
I prefer to believe that it is human nature to create heirarchies. While you say “society was run by men” I would suggest to you that it was also created BY men. And women came along for the free ride. Is it unconscionable to you that the people who created our civilisation were also it’s leaders. They could easily have denied women the benefits of that culture and civilisation. Instead much of what they did was FOR women and to protect them. Look at art throughout history and tell me that much of it wasn’t done in celebration of women.
The “cultural norm” was that women were to be protected even if they didn’t necessarily need or warrant it. Honestly do you really think men couldn’t have truly oppressed women had they wanted? Slavery is oppression. Press ganging is oppression. Forcing young men to fight and die for their country against their will is oppression. The real forms of oppression that have occured throughout an often brutal history were not gender based. And when they were it was men who were subjected to it rather than women.
A little regarded fact is that until the early twentieth century in much of the west(and still in some countries) if a woman broke the law her nearest male relative was held equally, if not more, responsible. Is it any wonder men sought to control womens’ behaviour.
In fact there are records of US women voting in the early/mid 1800s when owning property, rather than gender, was the prerequisite. I’m more familiar with the Australian and British situations where universal franchise was obtained for men only ten or twenty years ahead of women(and in some states at the same time). Indeed for much of the twentieth century the right of men to vote(as well as many other freedoms up to and including their lives) was also tied to their willingness to defend their country. Women won the right to vote but, as usual, had none of the responsibilities confronting men.
As an aside Emily Pankhurst, all round feminist hero, widely attributed with winning the vote for women in the UK, was also the convenor of the White Feather Brigade and was intricately involved in the introduction of conscription(for men only of course) in the UK in 1916.
It is more accurate to say that there were a few extrodinary people throughout history who broke through the barriers against them. Our history as recorded is only that of a very small minority of the population at any time. Women of high status were just as inclined to lord it over others. Oppression and discrimination were always class based rather than gender based. That more men have achieved greatness is not an indication that women were oppressed. Rather it is a symptom of mens’ greater willingness to explore, to take risks. The reason I mentioned Curie was to show that if women did the work they could gain the recognition they deserved. Achievement was recognised even then regardless of gender.
Another frequently cited example of the “oppression” of women was the denial of education. Again it involves half truths and deceptions. Historically the only non wealthy people able to gain an education were those involved in the churches(the term “clerk” comes from “cleric”). Men, as preists, and women, as nuns, were equally involved and equally likely to gain the limited education that was available. Interestingly the first universities sprang from the abbeys and monasteries of the time. The convents/nunneries had a reasonable amount of independence but didn’t do this. Mens’ willingness to explore and expand boundaries strikes again.
Women are NOT underrepresented in the workplace. However THEY CHOOSE to limit the fields they are willing to work in. There have been anti-discrimination laws in place for over thirty years and they still funnel themselves into a restricted number of fields. To claim discrimination exists after all that time is simply disingenuous. Arguably with affirmative action laws women are advantaged in the workplace compared to men. I’ve been in a variety of work environments for thirty years and seen numerous better qualified and performed men passed over because of AA rules. Whether or not women bear children has no bearing on the type of work they actually do. It is still almost exclusively men who do the dirty and highly dangerous work in our society. And the death rates clearly show this.
What we now have in our society is a female population that is acutely aware of it’s rights because of the influence of feminism. There has not been a parallel recognition on womens’ behalf that along with rights come responsibilities. Often time I’ve heard cries of “rights for women” that actually have overones of “license for women”. We still refuse to hold women equally responsible for crimes they commit including sexual abuse and murder(a woman can rape a boy and THEN successfully demand child support from her victim). They have complete control of absolutely everything relating to reproduction, sex and relationships. In almost every transaction between a man and a woman the woman has the upper hand.
Men throughout history have understood responsibility. From an early age men have always known that in times of chaos and need it was they who had to step forth and bear the brunt. I learned at the age of eight that a ping pong ball bouncing out of a barrel could lead to my being sent to fight and die in foreign lands. Have you ever had to live with that knowledge? When the barbarians are battering at the gates will it be you who has to fight them off - or me? When the boat is going down will you give up your seat in the lifeboat for me?
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:28 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Outstanding post, gwallan. Ladies, you should read what he wrote, even though it’s wrong.
I’m going to amplify one point gwallan makes. He spoke about the charming and delightful Emily Pankhurst who worked hard to send young male children off to mental breakdown and death at a merciless front. She worked hard to ensure that a protected, pampered culture of females mercilessly mocked those suffering from shell-shock (as it was then called) as cowards.
The front was horrific, and while the war may have been necessary, I note that there’s never been a widespread call amongst women for women to be drafted to serve on the frontlines. As gwallan says, women are all about wanting to have the right to serve in whatever role in the military they want, just not the responsibility of having to do so once the balloon goes up. (Look at pregnancy rates amongst lady soldiers.)
So, when I hear young women rabbiting on in ignorance re: the patriarchy and how men have always had it so good, I chuckle. Now. When I hear condemnation of Pankhurst’s assault upon children and the mentally ill; when I hear condemnation of Sanger’s vicious eugenics and fascist ideology… then, well, then I’ll think that at least the women speaking aren’t profoundly ignorant, merely wrong.
-wolfe
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:30 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Ahem. An unfortunate typo. Should have read LONG. What can I say, I’m too used to lefties being wrong…
-wolfe
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:53 am - IP Man-Hash: d2bf73bae8061
In the case of the military, I don’t think it make sense to draft women. Some women might be physically strong enough for battle, which is why they should have the right to join if they’re able to meet the standards, but the majority wouldn’t meet the standards. In any other case, though, I’d completely agree; it’s hypocrisy to want to be equal only when it benefits you. As for men having it good in the past… women were protected but opressed, men were free but not protected. If you’re arguing about modern feminism, that’s different, but I don’t think anyone can fault women for wanting the right to vote and the ability to pursue the life/career of their choice without facing insurmountable obstacles.
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:01 am - IP Man-Hash: d2bf73bae8061
(Just for reference, I’m against men being drafted as well.)
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:19 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
How about meeting the standard of not contributing to massive breakdown of unit cohesion, morale, and efficiency, even of some support units, let alone front-line combat units. How about the problem that lady soldiers are 67 times more likely to mysteriously give birth in war zones than to die?
Hmmm… if women overspent, the men in their families went to debtor’s prison, while the women remained free. Please explain to me how being sent to debtor’s prison (or drafted to the front) is being “free”. You have a novel new definition of freedom.
In reality, neither men nor women were ‘free’ as any reasonable person would understand the term. Both had responsibilities and obligations, though men had more of them (and, yes, marginally more freedom overall). Now almost all women in the west are ‘free’, and men remain in chains. (Draft, and enforced slavery via divorce laws in the US are but two examples).
We are, mostly, but not exclusively.
Certainly women can be faulted for wanting the right to vote. Whether or not one should fault them for this desire is another matter. I don’t fault them for this, but it doesn’t prevent one from making strong cases both against women having the vote, and them wanting it.
As for the ability to pursue the life/career of their choice without facing insurmountable obstacles, this is muddy woolly-headed thinking. No one has that right, male or female. If you are stupid and klutzy, you do not have the right to pursue your chosen career of ‘neurosurgeon’; you should indeed have insurmountable obstacles placed in front of you. If you smoke pot all-day long, and have the reflexes of a bathtowel, you should have insurmountable obstacles placed in front of your chosen career of ‘pilot’. Or ‘busdriver’.
If you are physically weak, or have limited lung capacity, you should indeed have insurmountable obstacles placed in front of you if you want to be a policeman or fireman. Instead, feminists propose we change the requirements. Wonderful idea. Just great. It means death, so a few immature women can dress up in uniforms and play at being lady policemen and lady firemen. (Women who actually do meet all necessary qualifications for those civilian jobs, I’ve got no issue with them being employed in that capacity. They are then entitled to considerable respect as firemen and policemen who happen to be women… rather than girls playing at being ‘lady firemen’ and ‘lady policemen’)
-wolfe
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:37 am - IP Man-Hash: d2bf73bae8061
“In reality, neither men nor women were ‘free’ as any reasonable person would understand the term. Both had responsibilities and obligations, though men had more of them (and, yes, marginally more freedom overall). Now almost all women in the west are ‘free’, and men remain in chains. (Draft, and enforced slavery via divorce laws in the US are but two examples).”
I would say the average man had significantly more freedom overall. I agree, though, that men today have a disproportinate amount of obligations, and I’m against both the draft and most divorce laws (divorce laws, by the way, I feel are a product of sexism more than anything else; it’s assumed women are helpless and need the advantage, which isn’t true).
” If you are stupid and klutzy, you do not have the right to pursue your chosen career of ‘neurosurgeon’; you should indeed have insurmountable obstacles placed in front of you. If you smoke pot all-day long, and have the reflexes of a bathtowel, you should have insurmountable obstacles placed in front of your chosen career of ‘pilot’. Or ‘busdriver’.
I meant insurmountable obstacles based purely on gender, which existed in the past.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:26 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Sexually dimorphic abilities, affinities and aptitudes as well as lack thereof are mainly based on gender, sweetheart.
Wolfe, how very caustic of you.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:36 am - IP Man-Hash: 3a73609f7ddfe
Women want priviledges. They want things handed to them. The entitlement mentality and never appreciative or satisfied. So yes they appear helpless.
Women suck as human beings.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:41 am - IP Man-Hash: d2bf73bae8061
Sonyad- I never said a women who didn’t have the ability to perform a certain job should be hired. I merely said women deserve the opportunity. If a woman, through her education and career experience, has proven herself qualified for a job, she shouldn’t be turned down simply because she’s a woman. In the past, such would be the case.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:43 am - IP Man-Hash: e4eafa26290f5
Alexandra, you just think women aren’t helpless because you weren’t alive in the age before they allied with communists to corrupt the court systems of the Republic to the breaking point in order to secure their “rights”.
You’ve never lived in “reality”, the time before women got accepted into education, military, and whorporate world based on their sexual organs, and not talent.
Life is not what the feminist dominated TV sitcoms or Katie Couric or Orca tell you it is. Soon reality will hit the feminists like a tital wave forged from an an angry God, and then you can have fun baking pies and breastfeeding infants.
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:18 pm - IP Man-Hash: 4be7d1bf122ac
I have been getting a bit wrong winded lately haven’t I?