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:
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:18 pm - IP Man-Hash: 4be7d1bf122ac
I have been getting a bit wrong winded lately haven’t I?
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:59 am - IP Man-Hash: 60b660aafc3e4
I second Wolfe’s praise of Gwallen’s post. I’m impressed.
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:36 pm - IP Man-Hash: 731ced04c4ed5
Another feminist idealogue, I see.
it reminds me of the time in the 90’s when that obnoxious cretin Rosie, had women on it’s program bragg about “making false allegation against Males in it’s workplace”, the audience applauded and laughed, the audience thought it was funny, guess the sex of that audience ?
Here we have another “woman apologist”, once again trying to make some little gain by trying to elecate women above the self-serving, selfish nature that they are.
You are wasting your time woman, we know what women are like, we have the evidance what women are and you once again demostrate clearly what women are.
We do not need you or require you to make a single comment on here, but alas.
Still of the opinion that someone gives a damn about what you think ?
Or your irrelevant commentary, going over the same lies and exaggeration as the 500 bitches have ranted before you ?
Do you honestly think that you are going to change someone’s mind about women’s attitude or thinking, you demonstrate exactly what this site is about.
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:23 pm - IP Man-Hash: d2bf73bae8061
Christian J- Where did I lie or exaggerate? Also, again, judge women on an individual basis rather than as a whole. Not all women are self-serving or selfish, and certaintly plenty of men are.
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:40 pm - IP Man-Hash: bf79b5cc76a51
Where did you lie? You claim women have been oppressed. You have not proven this in any way. We don’t believe in the historical oppression of women. It is up to you to prove your claim.
Then pay men the same respect. Herein lies much of the reason for this site. Women seem to have no problems with generalising about men. “All men are rapists”. “All men are pigs”. “Men are solely responsible for war.” It’s even got as far as men being solely responsible for global warming as if women don’t breath or fart. If women want respect they must learn behave in a way that warrants it. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:17 pm - IP Man-Hash: 16deeb4d04893
Alex said:
Christian J- Where did I lie or exaggerate? Also, again, judge women on an individual basis rather than as a whole. Not all women are self-serving or selfish, and certaintly plenty of men are.
-As they have judged us Alex?-
–Strength and Honor-
October 4th, 2006 at 6:32 am - IP Man-Hash: d2bf73bae8061
“Where did you lie? You claim women have been oppressed. You have not proven this in any way. We don’t believe in the historical oppression of women. It is up to you to prove your claim.”
A difference of opinion, then, I guess. I consider being denied the vote (or at least, largely denied the vote, assuming your statement about women property owners somemtimes voting is correct), not being able to own property, being restricted in their career options (sometimes outright barred from certain occupations by law, such as from practicing law or holding public office), and the cultural norms of the time to be oppressive.
“Then pay men the same respect. Herein lies much of the reason for this site. Women seem to have no problems with generalising about men. “All men are rapistsâ€?. “All men are pigsâ€?. “Men are solely responsible for war.â€? It’s even got as far as men being solely responsible for global warming as if women don’t breath or fart. If women want respect they must learn behave in a way that warrants it. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”
I’d never make such generalizations, they’re ridiculous. As for women who do, they’re either very ignorant or off-the-deep-end feminist.
October 4th, 2006 at 10:12 am - IP Man-Hash: bf79b5cc76a51
@Alex
The things you cite, even if true, do not constitute oppression.
To claim they do is to belittle the real victims of oppression - slaves, victims of genocide, victims of persecution etc - who have suffered throughout history. It is simply one example of the hyperbole consistantly practised by feminists on a whole range of issues. Hence my insistance that even where feminists do have a point to make they always resort to exaggeration. The result of this has been that where men have been targeted they have been treated far more harshly than necessary.
“All men are rapists” While it sounds rediculous laws are framed throughout the west that virtually enshrine this. In the UK a woman can have a couple of drinks, initiate sex and subsequently claim to have been raped(the presence of alcohol negates consent). The UK has also reversed the burden of proof for rape so the accused will have to prove his innocence. When have you heard anybody ponder whether or not a man consented? In Sydney recently a young man and woman, both drunk, ended up in the wrong bed. Each thought they were with their partner. They had consensual sex. He’s been charged with rape.
How often do women say “men are pigs”? I’ve heard this said too often to assume that only ignorant women will say it. Whether they believe it or not they assume the right to to make the generalisation. In our culture the ongoing denigration of men is quite acceptable. Any man making a similar comment about women in their presence would be attacked unmercifully. Men are expected to put up with constant generalised villification without complaint.
“Men are solely responsible for war.â€? No! The real truth is that throughout history it is only men who have been forced to fight in wars. Unfortunately this thinking has even penetrated the UN. Were you aware that males over the age of thirteen are considered combatants in any war zone? Their involvement is irrelevant. An eighty year old in a wheelchair, if killed, is not included as a casualty. A fourteen year old on his way to school in Falujah when the US attacks becomes a smear on the road but is not considered a casualty. WE DON”T EVEN GIVE HIM A NUMBER. How many Iraqi soldiers, 98% conscripts apparently, have died? Who cares - they’re only men after all.
So when Hillary Clinton says that “women and children are the only victims of war” you can believe her. She must be right - even the UN backs her up on this.
October 4th, 2006 at 12:47 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
It doesn’t dawn on people in places like America that most nations’ armies are mainly comprised of (as in fighting body almost interely made up of)… conscripts. Male only, of course.
That means compulsory military service for all males at or over the age of 18. Which I myself dodged through successful admittance to higher level education and part-time jobs so far.
Otherwise, if you’ve got a conviction null criminal record and are devoid of strings to pull or grease to grease with or some other insidious way of getting out of it, you, as a a young man or father with kids, will serve.
This basically means that gipsies and upper class progenitures in the army are scarcer than hen’s teeth. Of course, there’s the odd woman here and there, voluntarily serving.
As for cowardice on the battlefield (as in surrendering) - summary execution (no court martialing).
Go figure, must be why so many conscripts actually choose to fight, huh? Either certain death from an ak 7.62 round in the back (can’t miss from so close) or almost certain death from a howitzer, 5.56 nato round or 500 lb clusterfuck from the front.
Heck, hell of a choice but I’d opt for trying to drill me some blue helmets or rusky, yank or hun, etc. skulls any day rather than trying to have a go at deserting.
And I’ve lots and lots more delightful insights into the vast and ever more appealing options available to an Iraqi conscript, for example, but I’d be pointlessly wasting them on logique féminine.
The least you can do is not take their condition into derision just because you happen to have more chances of winning the lottery than ever finding yourself in a similar situation.
And Alex, anything and everything I’ve seen, heard, or read from a feminist or feminist in nature, design, conception or fruition is manure, crap and full of bullshit. Just like your fallacious points.
October 4th, 2006 at 2:54 pm - IP Man-Hash: d2bf73bae8061
The actual facts I stated are true. Whether or not you consider such a condition “opression” is another matter. Also, where did I take the position of soldiers into derision? I’m very much against the draft for men as well.
October 4th, 2006 at 3:09 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Any claim of comparison between feminist bullshit propaganda purposes construed oppression and veridic, actula, oppression, such as gwallan and I have exemplified above, is denigration thereof.
October 4th, 2006 at 7:40 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
@Sony Actually, most American men are very aware of this. After all, selective service still exists for males 18-25, and I’d bet every American male posting on this board has had to register — even those of us who lived abroad. But you’re right, American women tend to be clueless.
I certainly agree with your analysis of the misery of conscript service. Indeed, in general, professional armies (like the British, Canadians and now the Americans are a whole lot better than conscript ones). No question, in the US case, the professional military of the 80’s, 90’s and today is considerably stronger than the drafted force of the 60’s and 70’s.
All that said, Switzerland sure hasn’t lost any wars recently.
Awesome. Alex’s emotional opinions are ‘facts’ and men’s logical opinions are mere considerations. What outstanding logic.
-wolfe
October 4th, 2006 at 8:38 pm - IP Man-Hash: d2bf73bae8061
Whether or not it was oppression is an opinion. The fact that women were largely denied the vote, and the fact that the average woman was much more limited in her career options than the average man (and that there were many state laws restricting women from certain occupations), are all facts. I’ll agree that whether or not cultural norms were oppressive is a matter of opinion.
October 5th, 2006 at 12:35 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
I’m glad you at least agree on the issue of cultural norms — which cut both ways, denying freedom to both genders.
As for the rest, women were briefly denied the vote relative to most men for a period of 0-100 years depending upon the country. In some cases, this was indeed a form of oppression, but it’s naive and ignorant to suggest that all men sat about cheerfully with the vote for centuries while women lacked it. In most cases, there was at most a generation or two of discrimination between universal franchises for males and females. And that’s been over for roughly a century.
As for occupations, women didn’t have to be drafted. A major bonus. They didn’t have to go to debtor’s prison. The simplistic feminist calculus of “Evil patriarchy where men were free and women oppressed” is asinine.
Alex, you seem to simply repeat that perspective, and, frankly, it’s neither novel nor accurate.
-wolfe
October 5th, 2006 at 4:43 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Anyone so much as inconveniencing die liebe Schweiz would have the fate of Iraq 100 fold metted on them. Anvers? 2 fold at most.
Just like Kuweit, exquisitely protected from all potential aggressors by all potential aggressors (we all know why; wink, wink), not at all because their dear ol’ army makes them inexpugnable in the least.
Though they’re probably perfectly capable of putting up a daunting fight against and stalling prolongedly any of their border neighbours and surely defeat many in their larger vicinity.
Their fascinating implementation of democracy as the logical precursor of virtual democracy the likes of which one first saw in Civ: CTP. I think they certainly have the means and opportunity to be the first to put such a system of government into practice.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:04 pm - IP Man-Hash: fecff644282fd
I wouldnt call it oppression. I wish we went back to those days. The household has gone to shit because women just had to have the same things as men. Now most women feel complelled to have carreers and the kids are left to be raised by total strangers in day care.
Not that any women should be denied a job if she can do it, and the household does not suffer for it. Women hate to hear me say that, but then again women dont mind screaming when a man cannot support his family. Why is that??
An why is it ok for a women to choose carreer and demand these other rights and privledges at the expense of the family and kids, but the man cannot???
The man has no choice at all in the matter, even if the bitch decides to just leave and take the kids… the man still has to provide, but the women does not?? What the hell is this country commin too….
October 5th, 2006 at 3:27 pm - IP Man-Hash: 0d17ac160ff85
The thing is Dutch, most woman really don’t want to work - they just want the option of working if they choose to. You ask most (especially once they have hit their 30s and have been at it for the better part of a decade or so) to make a choice between working for the next 30 years or having a husband take care of them, I guarantee that the vast majority (if not, all) would opt for the latter. Those that say no are the extreme exception (or they realize they are too disgusting to get a man, so they are shit of out luck in any case).
In short, all this shit about oppression (see Wolf’s comments above) is just that: shit!
October 5th, 2006 at 7:41 pm - IP Man-Hash: 8df2f2039bad3
In the face of genocides, witch hunts(40% men), pogroms, slavery, religious, political and racial persecution as practised throughout history any feminist claims of the oppression of women are hyperbole of the worst kind. Those billions of victims of true oppression would have every right to spit in the eye of those pampered little princesses.
Who remembers the Hans Christian Andersen story The Princess and the Pea?
December 12th, 2006 at 3:42 pm - IP Man-Hash: 4f576073a6d67
this is a laudable point and i completely agree.
December 25th, 2006 at 6:10 am - IP Man-Hash: b9b7e9fe9772b
As an expert on Hans Cristian Andersen’s stories, and for those… less literate of us, the Princess and the pea was about a girl who was only proved to be a princess once she could feel a pea through something like 10-20 matresses meaning she was fragile enough to be a Princess.