When Women Should Shut the Fuck Up
People are always asking me what the qualities of the perfect wife are. Mostly men. That’s because women don’t give a fuck about what makes a perfect wife.
Have you ever seen a “romantic” comedy? I say “romantic” because what it should be is “woman” comedy — and by woman I mean “shitty” or “not a”. Those bullshit movies are all about how horrible and fucking stupid women can behave whilst the right thing to do is staring them in face like a Stop sign, and how some poor schmuck with a job that lets him loaf around town all day doing nothing can be guilted into putting up with getting fucked over for two hours and calling a spade with a shrew nose a fucking prize pig by the end of it all.
Maybe instead of romantic comedies they should be called documentaries.
The perfect wife is one who knows when to shut the fuck up. That’s it. I think Indiana Jones said it best.
“You’re insulting them and you’re embarrassing me.” -Indiana Jones
That’s all women do when they speak: insult and embarrass; them and me respectively. That’s why the perfect wife just has to know when to shut the fuck up. I’ve always said women are like works of art. Even if they’re atrocious and moody (which they mostly are) they can be enjoyed because you can look away or close your eyes whenever you’re done with them.
For some help on this topic, here’s my helpful set of rules for women on knowing when the fuck to shut the fuck up. I call it Dick’s Guide On The Prudence Of Women Shutting The Fuck Up.
1. Shut up when a man is talking or when a man starts to talk.
2. Shut up when a man stops talking suddenly.
That first rule is a man-obvious one, even wild animals follow it. The second, however, is the key to the perfect wife. It’s the extra mile. See, when a woman is speaking and insulting and embarrassing everyone, the man she’s with will likely stop speaking from insult or embarrassment. It happens every day. I used to be a bartender so you can trust me on that one.
Imagine you’re at a cricket match. You don’t know how the game works because fucking no one does, but you know when to cheer and when to leave. It’s because everyone else is doing it. That’s all I’m saying here. Women don’t know how to speak or be civilized. It’s like cricket to them. Women just need to take their cues on shutting the fuck up from everyone else. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s smart (womanly speaking).
Let me put it like this. You know how we have toilets as a species? That’s because running around shitting all over ourselves and sleeping in it is for animals, not for humans. Humans doing it would be embarrassing. When women speak it’s exactly the same thing. It makes all men feel a little less human. It reminds us that yes, we too were once running around shitting all over ourselves and trying to eat fucking rocks or some stupid shit like that — something nearly as stupid as a twenty minute conversation on why American football is “practically the same game” that football is in the rest of the world.
What the fuck?
Related Articles:
December 29th, 2006 at 4:19 pm - IP Man-Hash: c670e8108de13
Just taking a moment to recognize this brilliantly written statement. I couldn’t agree with this statement more Oldone, what you have said has hit the nail on the head, I think, with respect to one of the biggest issues with regards to feminism…. it scorns the differences between men and women like it is a bad thing. Well said, Oldone.
December 29th, 2006 at 6:20 pm - IP Man-Hash: 23500eaac44c3
My thanks to you Luka, my intent was to show that one may view women as wonderous creations, feminism and feminists are a virus to society. :-)
-Oldone
December 30th, 2006 at 2:56 am - IP Man-Hash: c670e8108de13
Wow. That is the most intelligent statement I have read in this place for a long time.
December 30th, 2006 at 10:56 am - IP Man-Hash: 5fdb78f644952
No, I went out of my way to make it clear I didn’t. See post 87, and read it carefully.
I don’t think you thought about it enough, and that resulted in a poor argument that didn’t represent most of your views.
That there are paranoid whackos in Europe as well? Sure. But this is a silly thing to state.
Luka… I read the Economist. The Times, the Telegraph, and the Guardian. Typically weekly. Granted, the Economist is the only one I generally read beginning to end. I occasionally read Le Figaro (though no longer subscribe).
I even watch UK TV now and then (thanks UK Nova), and listen to the BBC several times a week. I used to visit several times a year, now not so much.
I do not form my judgments based upon what paranoid nutcases write.
I believe England is much closer to being both a police state and a surveillance society than the US, and has been for a very long time.
Just look at the Official Secrets Act and D-notices — something that is unconstitutional in the US, but routine in the UK!
I respectfully think you’re mistaken.
True, they aren’t identical.
By US standards, the UK is missing quite a few liberties.
- privacy - far more restrictions on governmental access to surveillance in most of the US; (The US has less protection from corporate data-mining and surveillance though).
- right to bear arms. Love it or hate it, this is an important key civil liberty to many Americans that prevents a tyranny from ever taking over. The UK used to think the same way, once upon a time.
- right to hunt
- freedom of speech. This doesn’t seem to exist in the UK any more, in any fashion I can recognize. Libel laws are much looser, making it easier for journalists and academics to be sued, but worse yet there’s all this “hate speech” nonsense that essentially says if someone somewhere is offended, then there might just be a crime. (Academic campuses in the US are also very bad here, but the first amendment protects).
- right to be secure. See the Tony Martin case. (This might be a wash: The US is very, very bad at violating civil liberties in the name of the War on Drugs. Right now, violations in the name of the War on Terror are actually much rarer than those from the anti-drug campaign, but this too could change).
I travel to Europe now and then, I read copiously on the place (using reputable sources, though leaning slightly to the right), and I think. I form conclusions.
But I never suggested that you live in fear of the police or that you live in a dictatorship. (Note the definition “often considered”). I nonetheless contend that you are sliding towards a police state.
Yes. Very much so. Arouet, de Toqueville, Smith, Franklin, and Jefferson are intellectually all alive and well. At least in America.
I don’t remotely agree with the way Sots addresses you, and I think on almost all of the topics you post on here, you post intelligently and lucidly.
But I think you’re mostly wrong on what you seem to be arguing here. Stipulated: you don’t say surveillance societies — or police states — are good things.
Kind regards,
-wolfe
December 30th, 2006 at 10:59 am - IP Man-Hash: 5fdb78f644952
As almost always (and like Luka in this instance), I agree with what Oldone has to say. I just chose to highlight a different (and funnier) line.
-wolfe
December 30th, 2006 at 12:48 pm - IP Man-Hash: 4ea5b60c84502
@Luka: Again my thanks to you, for your kind words.
@Wolfe: I am once more humbled that you find my words of such value. Even more so that you thought them amusing. :-)
-Oldone
December 30th, 2006 at 2:46 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Luka and SotS, SotS and Luka seem to be getting a little sparring match on. Could there be more to this than meets the camera?
Doesn’t the P in PM stand for private? Or is civil discretion but a mere antiquated, men’s only flaw?
Funny, however, how venetics and total aliens presume to know better than natives what Britain and other nations are and were like yet all the same take exception at the heathen, skewed views of ignorant foreigners the very instant anyone refers their homeland into discussion.
- Domenico Modugno - Malincolia
December 30th, 2006 at 3:26 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5fdb78f644952
I can see how venetic could be a cut at SotS. You’ve got me lost on “total aliens”, other than as obvious foreigners.
One parent was born a British subject and (partly) educated there; I have lived and worked there. I do not claim to know better than natives what Britain is, but I certainly have considerably more knowledge than simply reading the musings of “nutcases”.
Yes, I do take exception to ignorant views, foreign or otherwise. Luka, however, is not ignorant. I’ve no idea if she’s a heathen, and her views seem no more skewed than mine, simply skewed in a different way. I therefore take no exception to her comments upon my country; she is as welcome to express her views as I am to express views on her country.
Finally, an intelligent, well-read and well-traveled foreigner might well be one of the very best at understanding another country, though few seem to have done very well with America since de Tocqueville.
-wolfe
December 30th, 2006 at 6:50 pm - IP Man-Hash: dc37015e35788
There was nothing contained in that message that was “private” or worthy or even deserving of “discretion”. There was nothing said in that message that he couldn’t have said in public, so one has to question his motive behind posting in private… yes, the plot thickens.
As far as the comment regarding total aliens knowing more than natives etc. I have to admit I was upon first reaction tempted to say that as well, for it does seem like I am being told about the situation of my country as if I was not already aware of it. I live here, damn it.
Yet, having the experience of being a traveller abroad I realize that sometimes we have blind spots as far as our own culture is concerned. It is only through living in another culture and interacting with people from other cultures that one starts to realise that what you once considered “universal” was really just something particular to your own country, or culture.
It doesn’t mean that all foreign viewpoints on another culture are always 100% accurate, some are laughably ignorant, but the viewpoints of an educated foreigner on the otherhand can be invaluable, at times.
December 31st, 2006 at 8:10 am - IP Man-Hash: 248d108644572
Sonyad the nationalist? I wonder how such a person faithful anti-alien-opinion could possibly live in Romania and make so many comments about the US and our politics.
@Wolfe: True about the corporate data mining shit here. However, I’m far less disgustipated by some upper middle class corporatist salesman data mining people to try to sell them shit, then I am by Government electronic eyes everywhere. The two are really incomprable.
December 31st, 2006 at 9:29 am - IP Man-Hash: dc37015e35788
Are you not then disgusted by Bush’s actions regarding US security services tapping into phone conversations or IM conversations online?
I am less bothered with the concept of some camera watching me walk into a shop than I am with the idea of some government body listening to my telephone conversations. I consider phone tapping far more intrusive to a person’s privacy than cameras are.
I don’t find the presence of cameras to be that intrusive to my privacy, it’s not like the government have them planted in every British home.
December 31st, 2006 at 12:00 pm - IP Man-Hash: d91853e8898bb
The huge difference is Bush taps phones of suspected terrorists, mostly Muslims. See, here in the US we have different cultures, but are not multi-cultist yet. In your country your masters just assume everyone’s guilty and do mass survaillance, the only question is why is it allowed by their subjects(you)? I know people like you(estrogen) have no concept of freedom other than freedom to get knocked up and live on welfare, but what makes your men so weak?
The way the UK acts is like a super-nationalist state without any balls. Like it fears the browne invading horde greatly, but is too pussy whipped to curb immigration or do something proactive. So you just slap cameras around entire cities like they’re road signs and ban whites from joining the police force and say prayers to the God of Femiosocialist-Survalliance-State and beg for his benevolent grace.
December 31st, 2006 at 12:51 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5fdb78f644952
SotS hits the nail on the head with his first line: The US [warrantlessly] taps the phones of suspected terrorists [outside the US].
Let me ask you this Luka: Does the UK government, the French government and virtually every government in Europe that can not do exactly the same? Moreover, do they not continue to monitor conversations that have one endpoint in their countries and one outside?
I find it passing strange that Europeans should be so excited about what the US does when their own governments do exactly the same thing. It really does fit the ‘ugly American’ stereotype that argues only what the US does is of importance to the world.
No, I’m not disgusted by warrantless monitoring of international phone or IM conversations with one end rooted in the United States, and the other at a foreign-based person of interest (even incorrectly so) who is suspected to be linked to terrorists. I would like to see more careful oversight of such programs and I’d like to see formal legislative authorization for them with a (renewable) 5-year sunset clause. I don’t like it, but disgusted? No.
I am, by contrast, disgusted with the frame-up jobs the UK government, security services, and police forces did back in the 70’s (and stuck to in the 80’s) for example with the Birmingham Six and Guilford 4. I am disgusted by the Bush (41) administration’s FBI gunning down Vicki Weaver, the Weaver’s dog, etc. at Ruby Ridge. I am disgusted by the Clinton administration’s FBI burning a group of people alive, including small children, at Waco, Texas. I am disgusted by Bush (43’s) INS offering Visa renewals for at least 5 of the 9/11 hijackers, months after they’d crashed into the WTC.
I’m not certain I agree, but let’s say I do. Would you agree that a full body cavity search and searching all your property without a warrant is even more intrusive?
Well, that’s what can happen any time you go to an airport, or any time you cross a national border.
Since these telephone calls are crossing a border, I think there’s a strong case to be made that the fourth amendment doesn’t apply. It may be an incorrect argument, but it’s far from a weak one.
It’s rather facile and deceptive for people to simply refer to this as “listening in to telephone conversations”. More accurately, “listening into telephone conversations with people outside the country who are believed linked to international terror”.
There we differ, but it’s a great big world and not unreasonable for us to do so. I will repeat, so it’s clear: I do not like warrantless surveillance of any telephone calls, but, no, I’m not disgusted with the program as described.
Happy New Year,
-wolfe
January 1st, 2007 at 5:18 am - IP Man-Hash: dc37015e35788
@wolfe - at the end of the day, the UK (and other nations in Europe) has its own problems with civil liberties, (even more so after the event of 9/11, and with good reason) but I don’t think the US are any better as an example.
That said, I think the main difference lies in the constitutions of the US and the UK… in the UK the issue of privacy is barely protected by the law whereas I think the US the constitution does a better job (on a general basis) of protecting these liberties… however, this doesn’t mean that such liberties are not being eroded in practice and the governments in Europe and the US are not known for obeying the law as far as such things are concerned.
I think both telephone tapping and cameras can be intrusive although in different ways. The overall political situation in the world today with the threat of terrorism, coupled by the drastic speed at which technology been developed means that citizens of all nations may find their privacy more and more difficult to keep and in all countries (the US included) the “war on terror” ha been used as an excuse to abuse civil liberties in the name of protection of citizens.
January 1st, 2007 at 6:04 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Capitulation, Luka? Already?
- Rammstein - Links
January 1st, 2007 at 7:28 am - IP Man-Hash: 473f623090c4e
Why? Is there something intelligent you wanted to add Sonyad? Or are you just stirring the pot?
January 1st, 2007 at 8:53 am - IP Man-Hash: 29509894795f1
Luka’s right though, the US has better individual liberties because we were born a Republic. The UK is a former monarch Empire with hacks added to make it a representative government. It’s not easy to get over centuries of authoritarianism, most especially in times of crisis.
It’s just the natures of the two respective peoples, if the US is attacked again we would give up no more liberties but demand more offensive wars against terrorist states(Suadi or Iran?). I sense the UK would pull out of Iraq and blame everything on the US and follow with even more of a “National Security State”.
On the bright side.. these wars are shadowy and confusing.. But such a great threat to the West has never been fought with so few deaths. 3000 dead? Sounds like day in WW2. We’d be lost without technology and those who create it. And like Bush I still believe people can overcome their ethnic and religious differences for the cause of liberty and riches. It may take 20 years but I believe Iraq will work, and they will be made rich off selling their oil to the West.
January 1st, 2007 at 9:50 am - IP Man-Hash: 5fdb78f644952
I still think the US is better off in some ways. Worse in others. For example, no one except libertarians seem to pay much attention to the huge erosions in civil liberties in the name of the War on Drugs. Far greater than those in the War on Terror, so far.
I agree.
Both Bush (43) and Clinton had a very expansive view of executive power. Bush has (fortunately?, though unconstitutionally and illegally) been stymied by endless leaks from partisan civil servants; Clinton was (definitely fortunately and constitutionally) stymied after the first two years by a Republican Congress.
Yes. The power of data-mining — in any hands — cannot be underestimated. Not to sound like a broken record, but I think the War on Drugs has been a bigger threat so far than the War on Terror in the US. (Most other countries don’t have this problem to the degree the US does).
Again, the Drug War makes me far uneasier — so far. I agree the Patriot Act is not exactly something to dance about with joy over. Heck, it came out of the institutional Justice Department under Janet Reno and the Congress rightly took one look at it and laughed.
-wolfe
January 1st, 2007 at 10:12 am - IP Man-Hash: 473f623090c4e
Didn’t the drug war start in the 1980s with Plan Colombia? Or am I thinking of something completely unrelated?
January 1st, 2007 at 10:27 am - IP Man-Hash: 5fdb78f644952
Plan Columbia was a Clinton-era initiative in the mid to late 90’s.
The War on Drugs was a 70’s era Nixon initiative. Both parties loved it since, hey, who doesn’t agree, “Drugs are bad”.
You’re right on this much, in the 80’s the War started to expand to South America and revved into high gear in the Clinton era, but that wasn’t really the source of chaos and instability there. It would be more accurate to argue that the American populace’s tireless appetite for cheap pure cocaine was.
Crazy, horrible insane stuff goes on in the name of the drug war. (And I think people who take illegal drugs are stupid and wrong, btw). You get 10 heavily armed and armored (but very poorly trained) non-uniformed cops slamming down a door, going in in the middle of the night, if anyone moves inside, they’re liable to get shot.
And then it transpires that they had the wrong house because of a clerical error. This happens monthly, sometimes weekly somewhere in America.
How many clerical false address terrorist raids? I don’t know. But probably not more than zero to two in the last 5 years.
-wolfe