Women Would Vote for Hitler
A woman voting on anything other than American Idol or her personal favorite type of chocolate is like watching a small child run full speed into a wall. Clearly the fundamentals are understood. The child runs, it’s going somewhere and there’s no doubt about that. The child can run. But very quickly one comes to the understanding that somewhere, somehow, the process has been perverted. Then comes the wall. Then comes the crying.
Women would vote for Hitler. Not because a woman could be talked into buying a catsup Popsicle while she was wearing white gloves, but because women are all fascists.
Don’t believe me? Let’s leave the constant threat of castration out of it for the moment. That makes it a slam dunk in my book, but that’s fine. Women are just “joking” whenever they play fascism card #1.
How about oppressive dictatorship by force or threat of violence?
Anyone who’s married will tell you a lot of things. The first of which will be, “Don’t get fucking married for any reason you dumb shit.” But a likely secondary is that marriage is not a democracy. What is it then?
Marriage is a fascist dictatorship of oppression — and so is any relationship with a woman. Work, professional, “professional”; they’re all the same. If you don’t like the flavor of the Kool-Aid and you want to add some mix, prepare to have a wailing siren of bullshit go off in your ear. That’s assault and that’s oppression. That’s enforcing your opinion through the threat of violence. If you press the issue, prepare to receive the threat of withheld friendship — or even sex whether it’s applicable or not! There was another man who pulled the same kind of shit. Yep, Hitler.
The biggest women/fascism link is a woman’s reliance on violence. Women will be the first to hit during any kind of dispute. It’s not even a percentage. It’s as much of a guarantee as it is that the sun will rise tomorrow. And as men we can all understand that the sun rises because it’s actually a star that our planet rotates around, therefore it is guaranteed to rise. We are able to remove ourselves from our personal point of view and understand that the sun isn’t rising at all. It’s actually us who are spinning around the sun. Women don’t even fucking know that.
Every morning when a woman wakes up at the crack of 10:30 she’s thrilled to shit to see that the sun’s in the sky again and her fake orange tan will look just as radiant as it did yesterday. That’s one of the biggest reasons why women shouldn’t vote. They don’t know fucking anything about anything. They know nothing.
But that’s not why women would vote for Hitler if given the chance. Say what you want about the merits of an individual ethos of governments as you will. You’re all men and therefore deserve the right to express opinion unmitigated by slander or censure. What I’m saying is that by an intrinsic party affiliation — fascist — all women would check the box marked ‘Kill Or Savagely Beat Anyone Who Doesn’t Agree With Me’. That fact has always held women back more than any mythical glass ceiling.
Related Articles:
November 8th, 2006 at 3:09 pm - IP Man-Hash: f07728d5ecfae
Just curious–how many of you are married or have a partner? How many have successfully reproduced? I think I see my next journal publication….
November 8th, 2006 at 3:30 pm - IP Man-Hash: 6897e3ddf8ad0
What would it be about?
-Dick
November 8th, 2006 at 4:32 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Her own scribbled misconceptions of the world around us and whatever vested tenets of feminism she might attempt to ‘prove’, etched unto paper.
- Chris Rea - The road to hell.
November 8th, 2006 at 4:49 pm - IP Man-Hash: a1da9f9ac370d
Abaddon, Gwallan my hat is off to the both of you, excellent points.
@KBM804 - Yes i am engaged to a quite wonderful woman, you may see also her posts here she posts under the name “Grump.”
Now KBM804, you said the following: “Incidentally, I’m the father of three little girls. I spend MY energy trying to make the world a safer, better place for them, and all people. Maybe that would help you understand my absurd position that all human beings are valuable… ”
Now let me ask you a question, would it be right or rather would you stand behind your children speaking out against a media in which women are portrayed as ignorant, worthless, unable to manage even the most simple tasks without asking a man for help? Would you allow a man to slander your daughters and assume them worthless simply because they are women?
If you would answer no, then why loose your venom upon us? Who stand against those who do the very things i have described to us men?
As for the titles placed upon these articles, they are rather shocking and that shock compelled you to read and how can one better spread a message than to have people read it for themselves. The titles then served a purpose and served that purpose well.
- Oldone
November 8th, 2006 at 5:22 pm - IP Man-Hash: eed3bb6a75c47
Hahahaha.
Thrice - Stand and Feel Your Worth
November 8th, 2006 at 7:39 pm - IP Man-Hash: c39aa6c7046da
I will take you more seriously on this when I see you make an equivalent effort to decry womynkind.org (for example) for their publication of, and reverence afforded to, the SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto. Womynkind is a site ostensibly devoted to advocacy against violence. You can email Nancy Hulse(site owner) here - nhulse@womynkind.org. Bear in mind as you do this that the SCUM Manifesto is compulsory reading in all Womens’ Studies courses. Do something like that and we may begin to believe you are being balanced in your criticisms.
MABTW is reactionary. Nobody is arguing that. It posits that men are better than women rather than hatred of women. However there are countless examples of the hatred of men to be found throughout our entire culture. On the internet. In the media. In our schools. Remember “all men are rapists”? Were you aware that, according to the UN, only men are responsible for global warming? Women don’t even fart apparently! Also, according to the UN, a fourteen year old boy who becomes a smear on the asphalt in Iraq is not counted as a casualty. He’s a combatant regardless simply because he’s got a dick! He’s not even given a number.
Dick does not have permission to present his rants in our universities, on our tellies, in the press. Only hatred of men is permitted therein.
The current “societal phenomena”, courtesy of gender feminism, is that men have NO say on any issue relating to reproduction.
You disgust me. Not only are you attempting to mitigate the murder of children by their mothers you want to make men responsible for those murders committed by women. Pig.
You reference to the Daly and Wilson research is invalid. It simply compares non biological fathers with biological fathers. It says nothing about the gender relativity. In other words it’s a strawman.
Get over it. Women kill far more children than men.
Time you updated you research on testosterone then.
Daniel DeNoon and Maciej Tomaszewski among others have demonstrated that increasing oestrogen levels in men increases aggression while increasing testosterone in women has the same effect. That aggressive men are likely to be relatively deficient in testosterone. It’s looking increasingly as though the balance of various hormones is the cue rather than a simple measure of the level of one hormone.
I believe it was you who said that men are the vast majority of paedophiles. The fact is that in inter-gender and domestic violence women are more abusive than men.
Notably as soon as it was made clear to you that violence is not the sole preserve of men you start to trot out “evolutionary biology”. It’s called “weasel words”. What you have done here is prove conclusively that when women need defending everybody springs to that defence but when men need defending they’re automatically items of disgust. Until you apply the same effort to combating the constant attacks made on men over four decades you are not to be taken seriously.
I’ll sum it up like this. In our culture a woman can rape a twelve year old boy and then demand, successfully, child support from her victim. It’s chivalrous, ignorant twats like yourself who enable this.
November 9th, 2006 at 8:01 am - IP Man-Hash: a0bd2fb809b91
Slight aside:
Normally, I would offer condolences and commiserations, but in this case I can happily offer congratulations to both of you, not, I’m sure, that it’s a recent event.
As usual, I largely agree with the rest of what oldone says. (The extent to which I disagree is trivial and likely largely semantic therefore not worth mentioning).
-wolfe
November 9th, 2006 at 8:25 am - IP Man-Hash: 06d74269d4bbb
KBM804 talks about war crimes but doesn’t mention the female torcher sadist in US prison in Iraq.
So if we compare that to Mai Lai, what do we get… Women will torture people a few months into a war for no purpose whatsoever. Men will break down towards the end of a 10 year war, and might slaughter a village full of civilizans that was probably half VC anyway. What would women do on the frontlines for 10 years? Conduct a coup and nuke the entire nation?
November 9th, 2006 at 11:58 am - IP Man-Hash: 6897e3ddf8ad0
Most likely yes.
-Dick
November 9th, 2006 at 12:26 pm - IP Man-Hash: f07728d5ecfae
And maybe learn to spell “torture.”
November 9th, 2006 at 12:29 pm - IP Man-Hash: f07728d5ecfae
The inverse relation of male mating success and male demand to control female behavior.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:33 pm - IP Man-Hash: 6897e3ddf8ad0
Sounds enlightening. Male mating success certainly does imply controlling female behavior.
-Dick
November 9th, 2006 at 12:40 pm - IP Man-Hash: f07728d5ecfae
gwallan,
Thanks for the suggested SCUM link–I’ll check that out. It’s important to know both sides of an argument.
Good research on your part! Do you have a science background? This is the kind of intelligent reasons for your position I was looking for. I don’t personally agree, but you make valid, logical points.
BTW, I’m obviously not at all defending violence, murder, infanticide, etc. That’s where a lot of people have a problem with evolutionary biology–it’s not looking to excuse those behaviors at all, it’s looking to explain them, and therefore help find ways to eliminate them.
I wasn’t weaseling by starting with pointing out the prevalence of male commission of violent crime and then moving into evolutionary bio–I was more fishing. No sense in trying to explain evolutionary bio to a group that can’t come up with any intelligent response to facts that contradict their position, so I started with the simple stuff first to weed out those who can’t construct an argument.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:54 pm - IP Man-Hash: 8df4b9656c70a
I see. You haven’t stated your position clearly and I don’t have all decade so I’ll just assume that you equate mating success with bagging many woman. Your argument is then that a guy who foregoes committing with one woman in order to mate with multiple women on a regular basis is somehow in a better position to control the behaviour of all those women.
Yea, okay.
While he’s off with one, how is he supposed to control what the 5 others are doing? And if your logic says that all women are cheating whores, then those five must be off with other guys, thus your definition of mating success/spreading the seed, does not equal control of female behaviour, unless your guy managed to get every single one of those woman pregnant, in which case he has effectively controlled their behaviour, assuming they want to keep the child. In turn, each of them can then order paternity tests and thus effectively control him into the poor house for term of his natural life. Assuming he hangs around and we all know he will simply disappear.
November 9th, 2006 at 1:35 pm - IP Man-Hash: f07728d5ecfae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:My_Lai_massacre.jpg
Yeah, I’m quite sure that baby on the left was VC.
Don’t try to defend the indefensible.
Men commit far more violent crime than women, that’s too well documented to argue (see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_2001_Nov/ai_87080427). There are reasons for this, and you could argue from those…you know, this gets really boring when I have to argue both sides to get a more coherent argument than some “Fuck off!” rant.
November 9th, 2006 at 3:58 pm - IP Man-Hash: 34c1526e1bfa3
KBM804, you managed to look at an entire paragraph of wisdom shattering your horse shit views, and you managed to do nothing but correct a typo. Congrats on being a woman. Women prove time and again that when they are given the opportunity to act as brutal as men, they go above and beyond.
If you believe in evolution, you can’t eliminate it anymore than religious people can eliminate GOD. They both control your past and future destiny depending on your belief in science or faith.
My point stands that before “women’s rights”.. divorce, infidelity, drugs, fatherless thuglife kids, and all the other social devastation we face was a non-issue.
Sounds like evolution is a horse shit idealogy of naval gazers and a society built on Judeo-Christian values is the only to survive. Or perhaps your people are right but GOD evolved in the minds of men to control female behavior such as limiting them to one lifemate and actually mothering instead of whoring.
Evolution is built to ensure survival of the fittest. Can you think of anymore fit of a society than ones built on patriarichal Judeo-Christian beliefs?
November 9th, 2006 at 4:43 pm - IP Man-Hash: a0bd2fb809b91
Actually, if you read through this site, you’ll see a goodly number of us have no difficulty understanding — or even teaching — evolutionary biology.
Men are far more exceptional (more exceptional? What an ugly turn of phrase) than women — that includes exceptionally good, and exceptionally bad. The paucity of Female Mozarts, Einsteins or Fields Medalists has little to do with sex discrimination by society, and everything to do with sex discrimination by biology/Nature/Gaia/God/(insert choice here).
-wolfe
November 9th, 2006 at 8:47 pm - IP Man-Hash: ce020167ed4b1
KBM804 said:
That’s where a lot of people have a problem with evolutionary biology–it’s not looking to excuse those behaviors at all, it’s looking to explain them, and therefore help find ways to eliminate them.
-I don’t have a problem with evolutionary biology at all, if you were talking about saay chimps. We aren’t chimps, monkeys, gorillas, ect ect. We are HUMAN beings, homo sapien sapiens. You speak of the human race as if we’re lower order animals, that cannot control our baser urges. We are different in the fact that we have reasoning and logic to tell us not to do such things. You take things like Love, Truth, Justice, and Equality completely out of the equasion, and say that Men just like to control women due to our mating instinct. You insult not only me, but all of humanity by trying to quantify us as mere animals.
I don’t see chimps painting the Cistene chapel, nor writing any great works at all. As a matter of fact I think they’re still picking ants off of sticks just to get by, so pardon me if I do take offense to your views.-
I wasn’t weaseling by starting with pointing out the prevalence of male commission of violent crime and then moving into evolutionary bio–I was more fishing. No sense in trying to explain evolutionary bio to a group that can’t come up with any intelligent response to facts that contradict their position, so I started with the simple stuff first to weed out those who can’t construct an argument.
-Yes you were KBM, Men and women commit violence, just different types of it. Was it mentioned that most of the violence that Men commit is against other Men and not women? What are we doing now “defending our territory”? People just can’t get too drunk and have a fight anymore I guess. Please don’t insult my intelligence with snide comments in a rational debate, it belittles your side of the arguement.-
-Strength and Honor-
November 10th, 2006 at 7:14 am - IP Man-Hash: 81124be999a3d
I have a science/stats background, an IT background, a history background, an economics/finance background and nearly forty years direct involvement in gender and mainstream politics. Others here could alert you to the dangers involved in playing with me.
Actually the dictionary definition for “weasel words” could use your approach as the perfect analogy.
As soon as it was made clear to you that we knew the truth and would not be suckered by the feminist party line you immediately reached for “evolutionary biology”. Where was this when you were depicting men as the only culprits?
As I’ve already stated women are responsible for most of aggression between the genders and against children. And yes I have read the Graham and Wells work. There is much more recent work than that they relied upon. They were too inclined to use judicial system stats in a number of significant categories and not able to effectively recognise differing reporting patterns between the genders. There is also no accounting for the violence commited between men but deliberately incited by women. It is not at all unusual for women to use men as the agents of their own violence.
The reporting patterns will always be a problem but simply put men are extremely unwilling to admit abuse, particularly at the hands of a woman, nor will they report it to female interviewers(who are in the majority). Furthermore much of the survey work they referenced was originally designed for a female target audience. Men need a different approach to questioning(especially with sexual abuse). There is a growing understanding of this which is why more recent studies are showing far higher levels of female offending and male victimisation than previously.
Given your claimed understanding of evolutionary biology you should be aware that it is a common tactic for women to adopt a victim stance if it provides them with advantage or safety. Feminists have been doing this in an extravagant way for forty years. Truth be told they have lied in just about everything even when they didn’t need to. Our overly chivalrous culture, and yourself it seems(and, indeed, myself until about two years ago), have been well suckered. In the meantime they go on their merry way enabling, excusing and, indeed, actively defending murderers, rapists, frauds and liars - providing the genitalia are appropriate of course.
It should be pointed out that your “fishing” is far more offensive to me than any amount of childish name calling which may occur here. Regardless of the narky content of this place you are a guest here. You need to earn our respect rather than the reverse. If this is unacceptable to you then you know what to do.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:18 am - IP Man-Hash: a0bd2fb809b91
A strange silence settles across the land as KBM804 digests posts. Will he/she return? Tune in to find out.
-wolfe