Sports Are a Woman’s Best Friends. She Hates Them.
If I could go back in time and invest in something that would make me millions of Pounds Sterling, it would be this:
If there’s ever any kind of man-sanctuary from women’s constant BS (bullshit), it will immediately be overrun and ruined by women.
That’s a rock fucking solid investment. And it’s been true since the first primitive man said to himself, ‘Fuck. Woman are annoying.’ Then made a crude caveman type sign that said, ‘No fucking women allowed in this cave today.’ Then found himself ass deep in women.
That’s how women operate. They’re like locusts. They have no respect for anything — especially themselves.
What I’m talking in this case is the hallowed halls of sport and sporting. So rich they are with man-ness that fully grown men are want to fall to their knees and weep. But they don’t, because there’s no fucking crying in sports. Even in victory there’s no crying, because that’s completely fucking embarrassing. Suck it up.
When a woman starts talking about the outcome of an event of sport — talking like she actually gives a shit about it or has the first clue as to why it’s monuMANtally important — I politely roll my eyes, make a sour face, and think to myself.
I sure hope you have a dick, lady. Because otherwise you’re completely full of shit.
Women who claim to be interested in sports are complete frauds and, like usual, are lying to get attention.
There has never been a woman interested in any sport. And when I say any sport I mean baseball and football and soccer and the sorts of things played by men. Girl-soccer and girl-hockey and softball played without a keg on second base are not sports. They’re charity.
Need proof? Probably not because whenever a woman talks about how much she loves sports she sounds about as genuine as a pedophile on Halloween.
Here’s some proof anyway.
1. Most women haven’t gotten off their ass in ever. At the age of twelve, women give up all physical activity and begin a long life of posturing and posing and sitting on comfy ottomans while slinging catty remarks at one another. When it comes to sports they have absolutely no frame of reference.
2. You can’t be an alcoholic unless you drink by yourself. The same is true for being a sports fan. It’s great to scream and cheer at the bar, but do you think any woman has ever had a San Jose Sharks logo on her underwear without anyone else knowing about it? No. Because if she did she’d take the next bus to San Jose and start trolling the sports bars half naked. I’ve seen it a hundred times.
Here comes the most important reason. This is the big money investment.
3. Listen to a woman after her “favorite” sports team (which is always coincidentally the exact same team as the mate or mates she’s trying to attract) has won the game. What will you hear? Only the following:
“They won!”
They? What the fuck they? As men, we all know what any legitimate sports fan would say.
“We won!”
Because we men know that they as a fan — and as a man — we had just as much to do with the victory as some Gatorade-swilling, hot-ass-model-wife-having, endorsement-jerking so-called “athlete” with their million dollar shoe and perfume deals.
And that’s why women hate sports.
Related Articles:
Pages: [4] 3 2 1 » Show All
There are some sports that women excel at, particularly finesse sports. Take America’s number one extreme sport for example: Skydiving.
For many years, skydiving was considered a “machismo” sport, and not many women participated. However, more and more women are participating every year, and they do a great job at it. Some women have even exceeded male records on the national level.
My point is, this sport doesn’t care if you have a penis or a vagina. And you know what? I have never met a chauvinist skydiver either. I skydive myself and it’s all about having fun, and learning new tricks as you go. I never rub it in a man’s face that I have the physiological advantage (as a female, my center of gravity is closer to my torso than a man) and I never made fun of the boys in my AFF class because I performed better on dives and landings.
You need to feel good about yourself? Alright, go play some football and run a bunch of guys into the ground. But don’t say that women suck at all sports, or that we can’t excel. That simply isn’t true, and it doesn’t make you look any better to drag the name of female athletes through the mud either.
i wont lie on this, indeed there are sum above average women out there that are better average guys
also some world class athletic women that are better at that sport then a lot of guys
but to say that a woman can do everything a man can, and not trying to sound woman-hating as many will find hard to believe, that statement is simply not true
as just about almost all the best men in their physical achievement beat the best women by a longshot. ill give this one for a example
mens biggest benchpress was 1010lbs - http://youtube.com/watch?v=BlDWdfTAx8o&feature=related
women biggest benchpress was 551lbs - http://youtube.com/watch?v=aexqCRvfASA&feature=related
basically God made men better at certain areas as he made woman better at certain areas, as this just one example to show how wide the gap is 0_o
“1. Most women haven’t gotten off their ass in ever. At the age of twelve, women give up all physical activity and begin a long life of posturing and posing and sitting on comfy ottomans while slinging catty remarks at one another. When it comes to sports they have absolutely no frame of reference.”
Some women may give up physical activity at age 12, but definitely not all. I played competitive soccer, horseback riding and softball in high school. I’m 21 and I still play soccer competitively, I go to a military college, so physical fitness is basically my life.
I don’t even own a piece of comfy furniture in my dorm room other than my bed, and half the time I don’t even get to sleep in it; I’m out in the middle of the woods with my squadron, sleeping on the ground. And I don’t complain about it, I goddam love it
Indeed not. I merely wished to indicate my impression that Dick’s was more on functional and protective grounds, solely in my opinion of course. (I stress that: my views on the rationale for the ban on women are just that; my own views, not Dick’s).
Female, you objected to my characterization of someone’s words as inebriated. I find it interesting you assumed I was speaking of you. You object to that word, “inebriated”, on the grounds that you were high rather than drunk. Given the definition of the word:
I think “stupefied” describes your behavior that night. I’ve come to believe, viewing your recent posts, that it is describing your behavior in general.
You then objected to my characterization of your remarks about my girlfriend. Yes, I found this insulting to me and her:
Female, that was your quote. I found it objectionable then, and I find it even more so now. You imply I am abusing her; you imply I am preventing her from experiencing reality (rather than shielding her from things that aren’t germane to her that will upset her). You then assume things about her that you have no right to assume. She is a strong and intelligent woman; I am not abusing my experience or her, and the very idea that I would be able to keep her in a “perpetual dumbed down position” is laughable if you knew her (to say nothing of me) and insulting if you don’t. Protecting her from things I know, a priori, will bother her does not remotely equate to keeping her “dumbed down”.
If you had genuinely ever loved someone, you would know why your quotes were objectionable. You would also know why you raised Arielle’s hackles when you made an off-hand snide remark about her husband/fiance/bf [sorry, too lazy to check]. Given your description of past relationships and emphasis on “fucking” men, I doubt that love has entered the picture for you. I hope it will one day, before you die old, bitter, and alone.
Female, if you wish to genuinely rationally debate something that is on topic and relevant to these boards — I refer, as an example, to your comments on J.M. Barrie where you showed a spark of intellect — that’s fine. I will respond politely, and in kind. But if you wish to hurl invective, hit at our loved ones, and behave like an ignorant fool, then do not be surprised when you are treated as one.
The only reason they’re being nice to you sister [Arielle] is because I’ve done all the hard work for you and BROKEN THEM DOWN. They’ve become so fatigued with fighting with me that it’s become joyless and BORING. Ergo, they have adapted by now deciding to be nice to you. No need to thank me. If you don’t believe me, try reading all the posts to and from me over the last 2 months. Knock yourself out.
First, that is an excellent suggestion if Arielle has plenty of time to waste. Read the posts; judge for yourself. I can summarize my approach to Female:
1. Polite but intellectually cold when she swanned on to give us a lecture about global capitalism and the environment. She never responded to my cogent criticism of her babble. I was likely condescending, though actually intellectually helpful. But if you are going to spout notions that sound stupid even in the mouth of a 14 year old on these boards — and be a woman — then you will either be ignored by me or you will get a scathing response.
2. Polite in response to some attempts to be rational
3. Dismayed, colder in response to her assault on my girlfriend and me.
4. Polite in response to an attempt worthy of a first year student to critique J.M. Barrie’s views on gender, sex.
5. Very kind, and cautious (and urging others to be) when it became apparent she might be mentally ill. (That’s not a slur at her; I’ve a cousin who was quite ill; she was no less a human being for it)
6. After her denial of illness, repeated rudeness/insults/insanity/inanity and when it became apparent that her symptoms of illness were in fact those caused by using recreational pharmaceuticals, I became fairly dismissive. We had a ‘conversation’ over the weekend where she went all over the map; I responded to even her most egregious non-rational leaps [e.g. with suggested reading], but she was then off like a flash to another bizarre tangent of neurotic unreality.
7. Fairly cold to her subsequent to 1-6 and her rather disgusting discussion of her sex life/mores. No thanks.
Female can respond as to the accuracy of my summation. I have never cursed her, never used abusive language (certainly not initiated). My worst offenses have been to be cold and condescending. Unkind, yes, but considering she is violating the terms of service and spewing garbage, not unreasonable. If I were on an astrology or marijuana or heroin website (heaven forbid!) I would not say a word against Female’s endless posts.
I operate under both Christian and game-theory assumptions; attempt to apply the Golden Rule, and tit-for-tat game theory. Assume the best of your interlocutor, but prepare for the worst and respond accordingly.
I will treat Arielle with kindness, courtesy and restraint, provided she shows the same to others. It is possible I will behave in a manner towards her that a feminist would consider condescending. So be it. That is not my intent. I will respond with rationality provided she remains fixed on a rational plane. If she seeks to go off-topic, spew irrelevant trash, I will respond appropriately.
As long as any woman here (forbidden by terms of service, mind you!) advances a rational argument and responds to a rational criticism with either:
1. That’s a good idea; you have probably convinced me/I need to rethink;
2. That’s a good idea, but here’s why it’s wrong…
3. That’s a bad idea, here’s why . [very rare, but conceivable].
I will treat her with courtesy and respect, though I will not for a moment abandon the view that men are better than women. On this site, I remain open to any honest constructive criticism — even from women. To date, Female, you have had none.
If a woman is repeatedly abusive and nasty, then… well… she will get what she deserves, here and there.
-wolfe.
`
More long-winded, self-indulgent verbal diarrhea that no one cares to read from the 27 year-old virgin loser hilariously named “Wolfe”. If this faggot is a Wolf, I cannot even fathom how weak and pathetic the lamb must be…
P Coderch
It’s like watching paint dry !
You mean you didnt go to watch the Australian Womens team in the 2003 Womens World Cup Final? I wonder why.
Is it my imagination, or did Female just post something that was not obnoxious or insulting?
I’m glad she shared her pleasure with us. I bet she’ll really feel at home with the Germans.
Ha! I’ve a few neighbors who’d vehemently disagree, but, as a spectator sport, curling is like watching paint dry… or snooker… or bowling. As a participant it’s actually not bad. If you are stuck spending a few months on the Saskatchewan Prairie, there are far worse things to do than to go down to the local Arena. The benefit of curling, unlike hockey, is that virtually all of the community can participate if they so choose. It’s more a social thing in that sense.
As for a spectator sport, I quite like hockey, though not the version played by the NHL with rubbish like the neutral zone trap. A good hockey game is ballet on ice. Sadly, I don’t play the game at all well, but then neither does the NHL these days.
Baseball is perhaps the most intelligent game that I like to watch, though seeing it on TV (or in the giant major league stadia) is a bit of a yawner. Far better to see even a local AA or AAA game on real grass out in the hot summer sun with a picnic lunch.
Indeed, in general, watching sports on TV is not that exciting; far better to participate or watch live in person.
I’ve never understood the Euro/South America/Australia fascination with soccer. To each his (or her) own.
-wolfe
“Mythbusters” is indeed a fun show, Half-soul!
it sucks Denmark didn´t qualify for the world cup, even though we have world class players..we actually beat England with 4-0. at least we are some of the best when it comes to counter stike. heh i didn´t even know Uruguay had a soccer team, just as much as i didn´t think Irak had a soccer team.
one of my favorite programs on discovery channel has to be the American show “Mythbusters”, on animal planet i usually like the programs presented by Steve Irvin, but i also like David Attenborough who is a very good presenter, though he may lack Steve´s enthusiasm: “oiee look that that little fellow!! this is soo graet woohoo!!” :D
Australian Idol Series 3 has been on the air for the last 6 months so the only tv I’ve actually seen in the last 8 weeks was that tennis match and of course, watching Australia beat Uruguay in the Soccer. Truly magical penalty shoot-out. First time in 32 years that we will get to compete in World Cup, so some friends & I are planning a trip to Germany next year (how excitement!!!!). We only have 5 free to air channels here, or did, until a year or two ago when they introduced digital tv. This means there are now about 6 free to air channels (provided you have a set-top box/digital signal decoder) and the news one are supposed to be community/grass-roots channels. We pay for cable (digital foxtel) and I don’t know how many channels we have (too many) cause I don’t watch it. A few years ago I was seriously addicted to National Geographic, Discover y and I will always love Animal Planet. David Attenborough RoX0rS!!1!
Nalbandian beat Federer?! well it only shows, that he is human hehe.
man why do i always miss good programs, and when i finally get to see some t.v. there are either really nonsense programs on, or a good syncronized movie on a german channel.. though it has a comical value in itself to hear i.e. Eddie murphy “speak german”. so i mostly watch discovery and animal planet or i rent some movies, when i want to relax and just to get my mind away from everything-for a while.
Half-Soul
what is that HF? Yes I love tennis & Federer. Was up late the other night watching Nalbandian beat him. Maybe Roger has decided it’s time to start throwing a few matches and let the other saps actually win some of the tournament cash?
to be honest i don´t like sport that much, though i ocationally watch tennis. what about you guys?
My god the most boring sport i have ever seen is something called curling, that sport should seriously be banned.
Half-Soul
And sheesh *slaps forehead* get over the ’supposed’ gf criticism will you? How you can possibly be running an international business but be unable to move on from that seems somewhat incompatible.
Oh, I see you’ve decided to cross the floor Arielle. Good for you and good luck with that.
I’d imagine, Mr. Masterson, that she is either trying to wind me up, or sully my reputation by implying a (non-existent) sisterhood.
Given that she appears to be of the desperate, attention-seeking type, I try not to give too much of it to her.
Hmm, the comment system has mildly owned me. I note that, unlike Female’s pathetic attempts, neither meaning nor functionality is lost. Obviously in my mantastic attempt to quote from the forums in the same manner we can quote from the comment base, I left an unclosed tag. Sad.
-wolfe
Long post, but I’m stuck waiting in the early morning for a response from the Far East (getting late for them). Managing a business relationship with roots in four time zones spanning roughly 19 hours of the globe is… painful. Enough introspection; the year’s quota has now been filled.
Indeed not. I merely wished to indicate my impression that Dick’s was more on functional and protective grounds, solely in my opinion of course. (I stress that: my views on the rationale for the ban on women are just that; my own views, not Dick’s).
Female, you objected to my characterization of someone’s words as inebriated. I find it interesting you assumed I was speaking of you. You object to that word, “inebriated”, on the grounds that you were high rather than drunk. Given the definition of the word:
I think “stupefied” describes your behavior that night. I’ve come to believe, viewing your recent posts, that it is describing your behavior in general.
You then objected to my characterization of your remarks about my girlfriend. Yes, I found this insulting to me and her:
Female, that was your quote. I found it objectionable then, and I find it even more so now. You imply I am abusing her; you imply I am preventing her from experiencing reality (rather than shielding her from things that aren’t germane to her that will upset her). You then assume things about her that you have no right to assume. She is a strong and intelligent woman; I am not abusing my experience or her, and the very idea that I would be able to keep her in a “perpetual dumbed down position” is laughable if you knew her (to say nothing of me) and insulting if you don’t. Protecting her from things I know, a priori, will bother her does not remotely equate to keeping her “dumbed down”.
If you had genuinely ever loved someone, you would know why your quotes were objectionable. You would also know why you raised Arielle’s hackles when you made an off-hand snide remark about her husband/fiance/bf [sorry, too lazy to check]. Given your description of past relationships and emphasis on “fucking” men, I doubt that love has entered the picture for you. I hope it will one day, before you die old, bitter, and alone.
Female, if you wish to genuinely rationally debate something that is on topic and relevant to these boards — I refer, as an example, to your comments on J.M. Barrie where you showed a spark of intellect — that’s fine. I will respond politely, and in kind. But if you wish to hurl invective, hit at our loved ones, and behave like an ignorant fool, then do not be surprised when you are treated as one.
The only reason they’re being nice to you sister [Arielle] is because I’ve done all the hard work for you and BROKEN THEM DOWN. They’ve become so fatigued with fighting with me that it’s become joyless and BORING. Ergo, they have adapted by now deciding to be nice to you. No need to thank me. If you don’t believe me, try reading all the posts to and from me over the last 2 months. Knock yourself out.
First, that is an excellent suggestion if Arielle has plenty of time to waste. Read the posts; judge for yourself. I can summarize my approach to Female:
1. Polite but intellectually cold when she swanned on to give us a lecture about global capitalism and the environment. She never responded to my cogent criticism of her babble. I was likely condescending, though actually intellectually helpful. But if you are going to spout notions that sound stupid even in the mouth of a 14 year old on these boards — and be a woman — then you will either be ignored by me or you will get a scathing response.
2. Polite in response to some attempts to be rational
3. Dismayed, colder in response to her assault on my girlfriend and me.
4. Polite in response to an attempt worthy of a first year student to critique J.M. Barrie’s views on gender, sex.
5. Very kind, and cautious (and urging others to be) when it became apparent she might be mentally ill. (That’s not a slur at her; I’ve a cousin who was quite ill; she was no less a human being for it)
6. After her denial of illness, repeated rudeness/insults/insanity/inanity and when it became apparent that her symptoms of illness were in fact those caused by using recreational pharmaceuticals, I became fairly dismissive. We had a ‘conversation’ over the weekend where she went all over the map; I responded to even her most egregious non-rational leaps [e.g. with suggested reading], but she was then off like a flash to another bizarre tangent of neurotic unreality.
7. Fairly cold to her subsequent to 1-6 and her rather disgusting discussion of her sex life/mores. No thanks.
Female can respond as to the accuracy of my summation. I have never cursed her, never used abusive language (certainly not initiated). My worst offenses have been to be cold and condescending. Unkind, yes, but considering she is violating the terms of service and spewing garbage, not unreasonable. If I were on an astrology or marijuana or heroin website (heaven forbid!) I would not say a word against Female’s endless posts.
I operate under both Christian and game-theory assumptions; attempt to apply the Golden Rule, and tit-for-tat game theory. Assume the best of your interlocutor, but prepare for the worst and respond accordingly.
I will treat Arielle with kindness, courtesy and restraint, provided she shows the same to others. It is possible I will behave in a manner towards her that a feminist would consider condescending. So be it. That is not my intent. I will respond with rationality provided she remains fixed on a rational plane. If she seeks to go off-topic, spew irrelevant trash, I will respond appropriately.
As long as any woman here (forbidden by terms of service, mind you!) advances a rational argument and responds to a rational criticism with either:
1. That’s a good idea; you have probably convinced me/I need to rethink;
2. That’s a good idea, but here’s why it’s wrong…
3. That’s a bad idea, here’s why . [very rare, but conceivable].
I will treat her with courtesy and respect, though I will not for a moment abandon the view that men are better than women. On this site, I remain open to any honest constructive criticism — even from women. To date, Female, you have had none.
If a woman is repeatedly abusive and nasty, then… well… she will get what she deserves, here and there.
-wolfe.
Rats