Friday, February 11, 2011

Debate With A Female Supremacist

-"We see what the male moral subjectivity and “logic” has accomplished in the forms of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Ze Dong, Pol Pot, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, and so on."


Per my previous statement you mean male objective morality unless you mean that men as a whole overwhelmingly present subjective moral reasoning. You base your whole basis of understanding of objective morality on the moral constitution of no more than 8 individuals. Just because men demonstrate objective moral reasoning does not mean that all men are moral. Your statement is a strawman argument and non sequitur...try again....Again, you prove my point i.e. the subjective relativity of female morality and in this case the projections of its thought process. If you notice, the form of alternative structure that women come up with on their own within feminist circles is that of wican goddess worship and thus a projection based upon the subjective self. Overwhelmingly female devised religion does not produce an objective and external goddess for which they themselves are subject to but rather profess and worship the self as the goddess, your self included. This has also been refered to as "The Devine Feminine". This is to be expected based upon evident aspects and expression of her nature in other realms of her subjective reasoning process, associated gynocentricity and resulatant moral ethos.


Furthermore, these men gained power through the subjective, morally relative gynocentric central ethos of the female in order to transition the sovereignty of the family and the mated pair bond as the core of society to at first the gynocentric nature of the female and consequently the control of State and working industry. If it were not for women falling prey to their own nature, the Communist Revolutions in China, Cambodia and the former Soviet Union could never have happened.

"Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." Communist luminary Mr. Karl Marx

The element that drives males to acquire such power, territory and resources is not the result of an essentialist element of androcentric nature but in actuality to meet the ends to which female gynocentric nature seeks for herself. Contrary to gynocentric female projectionist thought, the male does not do all of these things for himself, he does them for you. The Male's nature (which is supposed to be complimentary to the female) does not exist or has come about in a vacuum but rather it is your own nature through sexual selection that you have embodied in him. He is in fact everything you selected for him to be. It is your own gynocentric nature, when manifested with political agency that destroys the mated pair bond and transfers power to State and working industry.

A timeline of feminist thought which has risen as a prominent ideology right here in The United States:



Here are quotes from an early feminist and leader of Stalin's women's section of the Communist Party the prototype which has formed Obama's Council On Women and Girls, a council which has the same stated goals and thus effectual outcome of Marxist equality upon society.


On Women in the Workforce:
"Nowadays the working woman hastens out of the house early in the morning when the factory whistle blows. When evening comes and the whistle sounds again, she hurries home to scramble through the most pressing of her domestic tasks. Then it’s off to work again the next morning, and she is tired from lack of sleep. For the married working woman, life is as hard as the workhouse. It is not surprising therefore that family ties should loosen and the family begin to fall apart. The circumstances that held the family together no longer exist. The family is ceasing to be necessary either to its members or to the nation as a whole. The old family structure is now merely a hindrance." "Communism liberates women from her domestic slavery and makes her life richer and happier." -Alexandra Kollontai (female)-Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920

It was by the use of the gynocentric all consummate all consumptious but most importantly, subjective reasoning mind of the female that centralized power was and is achieved. :

Female Gynocentricity leads to the centralized powers of State and working industry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdafJpieIJ0

On Childcare Facilities:
"The state is responsible for the upbringing of children" "The woman who takes up the struggle for the liberation of the working class must learn to understand that there is no more room for the old proprietary attitude which says: “These are my children, I owe them all my maternal solicitude and affection; those are your children, they are no concern of mine and I don’t care if they go hungry and cold – I have no time for other children.” The worker-mother must learn not to differentiate between yours and mine; she must remember that there are only our children, the children of Russia’s communist workers." -Alexandra Kollontai (female)-Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920


It is important for you to recognize the merger of female gynocentricity with State, and the merger of corporations and working industry with State that leads to totalitarian governments.


"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


If the tenets of these totalitarian governments and their central machinations were female it would merely result in mutual squalor for all which I will explain later in this writing. In fact these central machinations are achieved vicariously through the female to begin with.


As you can see and as you have already confirmed females do not care or focus on the objective but rather any means to acquire their subjective proclivities and requisites. Nothing matters to the female but to acquire these things by any means and yes as you have demonstrated even by the expendability of the male from the mated pair bond and the lives of their children.


Women don't believe in Independence, Liberty and Freedom. Inherently women do not believe in depending on themselves but rather a more dominant, more capable force either centralized through the power of the State (which they see as alpha or through the power of the collective through which they seek to defer their dependent tendencies upon in order to fulfill) or as is evident by female implemented marriage laws, the removal of Independence, Liberty, Freedom, Rights, property and children of the male. Yet again, the subjective moral relativism and gynocentric nature of the female presents itself : )


Both of these support structures women either naturally see or are convinced to see as a better alternative than the mated and mutually dependent pair bond with mutually dependent liabilities. No-fault divorce was implemented by females to relinquish themselves of their portion of liability to the mated pair bond while still being entitled to the males and likewise was implemented during the Bolshevik Communist Revolution and to some extent during the decline of the Roman Republic. Before no-fault and default female child custody men VERY RARELY divorced their families and if they did they still bared their liabilities and obligations to the female. Even today men VERY RARELY divorce their family and even less so when there are children involved. Females initiate 70+% off all divorce. Of the 30% of divorce initiated by men, very few if not most do not involve children. Women do this after an average period of 7.9 years (a predictable pattern) and do so to follow through on the unequal ability such laws present to them in order to spread and increase their genetic fitness. Men would do this as well if we likewise bared no liability to women. Conversely under patriarchy (unlike our current and growing matriarchal construct) men do not absolve themselves of obligation and liability to the female. Again, female gynocentric and subjective moral relativism presents itself : )



-"I think Matriarchy is favorable to patriarchy, but you know I’m biased!"


Matriarchy by definition amounts to men not being a part of the family and in the animal kingdom it is likewise. Polyandry in such a structure is so rampant to the point where men do not even know who their own children are. You will notice this is a prominent aspect of the most definitive matriarchal communities in the United States, the African American community. If matriarchy is implemented men naturally feel, nor do they have obligation to women or their own offspring. In one of the only matriarchies that survive today men live with their mothers and marginally invest in the offspring of their female relatives. For the most part however men in matriarchies do not produce ANYTHING AT ALL.


Here is a picture of a matriarchy:


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/090619-fathers-day-2009-no-fathers_big.jpg


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090619-fathers-day-2009-no-fathers.html


You can see that they live a rather primitive life with no modern implements THAT MEN PRODUCE anywhere to be seen. There is a tractor tire that is cut in half on the ground in the background and the scattered leavings of the prosperous patriarchies around them. The only reason this matriarchy has been allowed to survive is owed to the surrounding patriarchies having not come in conflict with them for territory and resources. Matriarchies do not survive long. They consume themselves, through female gynocentric agency, associated resultant polyandry and thus any semblance of their own enfranchisement and means of production through the male competitive echelon : ). Women simply do not produce anything and furthermore do not know how nor do they need to in a properly functioning patriarchy, how's that for "oppression". In females, the propensity for external demonstration of selective variables, associated utility of such, nor the associated competitive echelon that accompanies it exists at all and thus you have a society that lives in squalor.


-"It is My wish that Women realize their innate power and likewise realize how rewarding male submission is"


Submission??? You mean slavery....females are not capable of leadership in this regard nor morally objective thinking..Females are capable of no more than succumbing to their gynocentric, all consummate and consumtious nature. Their leadership would be brutal and fascist and yes amount to slavery. Simply take a look at the laws that women lobby for and create : ) Women are capable of nothing more than attending to their own requisite needs of THEIR OWN survival and that of what they believe are THEIR offspring. To females, yourself included males are nothing more than a means to an end.


-(In reference to the forced resignation of former President of Harvard University upon upsetting the feelings of females within the once sacred sanctity inside the highest chambers of academia and intellectual conjecture) "Noooo, Mr. Summers made an ignorant, throwback statement"


No, what Mr. Summers made was an opinion. Again females are incapable of objective thinking. They think in terms of how something subjectively affects the self and as such freedom of speech is born of male objectivity. Women lack reason, all intelligent men know this.


"Opinions can only be tolerated where reason is left free to combat them"


-=President Thomas Jefferson=-


In fact it is your nature to delete this entire writing from your site for the same reasons.


"Overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability-there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means-which can be debated-there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population."


The above is what Mr Summers said and Mr. Summers has scientific data, g factors and other OBJECTIVELY MEASURABLE elements of proof to back it up. The Dimorphic curve of variance shows males proportionally populate the top and the bottom of the curve. Suffice as to say if you are going to find the most talented, the most gifted most exceptional individuals the chance increases exponentially as you go up the curve that that individual will be male. I know that females have a hard time accepting this but it is a proven fact.


Again here is the curve:


Again here is more evidence of the numbers behind the exponential curve. Before you claim "patriarchy monster" and "cultural bias" or "gender is a social construct" the curve is proportional to the bottom percentiles as well:

More Nobels but More Dumbells, Why Men Are At The Top: by Helena Cronin:
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_10.html#cronin



Females have a MASSIVE inferiority complex. What women need to understand is that they are not men, they are not male and never will be. You are so gynocentric that you seek your requisites and follow your programed proclivities to the point of male nullification itself. Females have to understand that they are heavily represented in the clustered mean average for a reason, they are the constant for a reason. Likewise their chromosomes along with the associated carried variables reflect likewise. The 50 million dollars women demanded and recieved after a "patriarch" expressed his OPINION (based in fact) will do nothing to change this. What it will do however is reduce the net production of our science base and thus in the end we will succumb to a patriarchy who does not allow women's gynocentric and subjective understanding of the world interfere with their science base.



"There is nothing “average” about the X chromosome, especially when you have two of them. You would do well to read about X inactivation in Female adaptation to disease and environment."


The quantitative does not equal the qualitative. More X chromosomes means nothing in the mind of one with objective reason. Again this must be a product of your gynocentric consumptious and all consumate reasoning. Futhermore I am already well read on this subject. You are speaking to a dominant male and not the beta males you surround yourself with, you know, the ones even yourself are unattracted to. This is also why a social structure like the one you have built in your home will never exist on a grand scale. Again, your mental pathology precludes you from acting upon the normal sexually selective preference of females. Suffice as to say that the likelihood that you will reproduce is slim to none and if you do it will be with these beta males. By chance you do reproduce this inferior offspring (as defined by nature and sexual selection) and this offspring happens to be male you will abuse him as you do the beta males you are so proud of attracting. In this case it is very likely he will grow up to abuse females. Ask any criminal pathologist this question.


Besides I will place a good bet that you do not plan on reproducing because it will nullify the vacuous lifestyle you aspire to. The ultimate reward will be that your genes will be extinguished from existence. Furthermore if your offspring is male you will not raise him to be fit for spreading his genetic fitness but rather to exist in some sort of psycho-sexual femdom underworld of disturbed females like yourself. Again you lose, and again to your disappointment, he will likely develop your own pathology. If your offspring are female I can guarantee you will not be doing her a favor in gaining the attention of men IN THE REAL WORLD:


"There is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men - 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993). A strong case for the need to identify female perpetrators can be found in Table 4, which presents the findings from a study of adolescent sex offenders by O'Brien (1989). Male adolescent sex offenders abused by "females only" chose female victims almost exclusively."


Anyway, to the point of your statement. What the X does carry is our base blueprint. All human beings are modeled from it. The X carries cross redundant back up mechanisms to repair damage to this base blueprint. Consequently the lack of selective variables carried through the X is the reason why females are clustered in the mean average of variance in EVERY measure of adaptive and selective variables. Suffice as to say that you are doomed to mediocrity as far as selective traits are concerned, intelligence being one of them.


-"the male is an expendable sort of experiment by nature; he is without a doubt the more disposable sex."


He is without a doubt the most valuable sex in maintaining genetic variance and as such the adaptive health of the species. You would like to believe that males are expendable to you. Again this is due to the innate gynocentric and subjective moral reasoning of the female and as you practice your central female ethos out in the open you will only serve to garner expendable beta males into your "stock". However much to your disappointment, male expendability is not the case outside of your gynocentric self as much as you would like to believe it. Nature ensures that there are more males born to maintain this value of males. Given your mental pathology you have certainly keyed in on male variance and the expendability of certain variants as a reason you are superior. By definition there is nothing exceptional about the female representation as the base blueprint, the constant. What is exceptional, valuable and precious by definition is variance. The males with the best variables (which are not determined by you believe it or not) are more valuable than ANY FEMALE.


"To assert the male brain is superior to the Female brain is chauvinist fantasy, however."


You are the one focusing on supremacy which I have concluded by other examples elsewhere must be an innate part of female nature to be preoccupied with. Your obsession with an oppressive patriarchy is nothing more than projectionist psychology. As such your subjective and gynocentric nature makes you unfit to lead. Not to be condescending but in terms of functional aspects females are more so a parasite than a host. You consume, you do not produce or provide anything to men nor society at large outside of the social fabric which you manipulate and latch onto in order to survive.


(The males that keep your company are beta) "Very funny, and proof positive you know nothing about Me or the lifestyle I lead!"

Non sequitur argument....disqualified. Try again. Though now you have to come up with a reason you are attracted to these men. This will be difficult for you so you will have to lie on this matter or come to terms with your mental pathology. Again fundamentally as referenced from the whole of the female population and sexual selection itself the female is not attracted to them.


"I invite you to realize that the above is only a partial list (of female inventors.)"


Fine, I am willing to agree there are exceptions to the rule. The fact that men are MUCH more suited to the intelligent utilization of resources is the rule. I know this from countless encounters with females in my personal life, my observations of where females predominate in the areas of higher education and my observations of the world around me. Females by nature do not know how to design, build, maintain or repair the world around them which is built by the male mind. Nor do they have the motivation to. Females by nature do not produce. You are more so a parasite upon the male and the associated things which men produce.


Females do not produce and have never done so to the capacity of the male. Again due to your gynocentric nature any resources you do acquire are spent upon yourself. You have been carried on the backs of male protection and provision for so long, the capability to produce is not represented in the innate ability of the female population. You are social creatures by enlarge and instead focus on "the people sciences" more than anything else. You can't stand the fact that you possess different apptitudes in such capabilities as men. This is why your sex demands Affirmative Action, Title IX, bribery in the form of female only loans and free ride scholarships in order to force numerical parity of representation in the hard sciences.


"Does the name Grace Hopper mean anything to you?"


No but it should. She is such an exception to the norm. I wish we could have done a FMRI scan of her brain. Very odd indeed. She married at 25 which is exceptionally old for her time and never had children. Given her male like brain and capabilities along with female hypergamous mating preference it is a wonder she married at all. Usually such females like her produce themselves out of their own preference for a mate:


See:





Furthermore it is likely that Ms. Hopper was exposed to inordinate amounts of androgens during fetal development. Her facial characteristics show many signs of male androgenically induced secondary sexual characteristics. She looks much like a man with makeup on: See:




-(In reference to the dimorphic curve chart) "Be that as it may, this chart (which has been around for a while) represents an old logic of IQ axis, blind to the fact that cultural evolution shapes the brain through belief systems"


Ahhhh yes the old gender and gender differences are a social construct. Dream on sister. The two genders exist for a reason. It is not to be superior, but to be complimentary toward the ends of our common felicity and sacred bond ordained by nature. Unlike the male the female is valuable for the simple fact that she exists. She is the constant in sexual selection. Congruently, this nature of innate inherent value, a sense of primary importance or chooser as the constant in sexual selection seems to embody itself within the central psychological and fucntional modalities of the female ethos.


-"Also, what do you think about this graph?"

http://tinyurl.com/4pfv3ax


I think that different variants of the human genus very likely have differences and adaptive advantages. Black people for instance despite them denying it openly have superior athletic ability.


-"Other studies find a small female advantage on IQ tests. After controlling for sociodemographic and health variables, “gender differences tended to disappear on tests for which there was a male advantage and to magnify on tests for which there was a female advantage.”

http://tinyurl.com/49fl4md


This was not an IQ test, does not appear to be peer reviewed, has a limited sample size and does not represent the sheer mass of aggregate results from standard, more broad and nationally conducted tests on the ENTIRE population nor the sample sizes used to produce the aggregate results in question produced from IQ tests. I will agree that females may have different abilities in language and communication function. If my understanding of females is correct they may excel in the areas of choice of words and understanding of social context.


"(the males that are my "slaves") are more often than not are alpha males by definition"


And what is an alpha male by definition? If this is the case, females like you are merely an outlet for them to escape the dominant role and plethora of opportunities they have with a myriad of females other than yourself. You are by no means a superior when it comes to surmounting the base principals of sexual selection. They, in fact, may be numb from being "superior" (as you like to call it) themselves and are looking to pretend or play with the feeling and desire not only to find a female of equal selective value but exacerbate this desire by creating a disproportionate and even submissive interaction with a female. It is something they may miss IN THE REAL WORLD. Again, back to my point that you are not superior over them but merely appeasing them. They are over-qualifiers so to speak and far from inferior when it comes to the power you believe you actually hold over them.


It makes sense that they are either extreme betas in which case you are fooling or overriding your own biologically selective preferences for a male in favor of the predilections produced by your mental pathology in which case selectively speaking you lose and are surrounding yourselves with losers of the mating game which any female is capable of but will never manifest on a grand scale in some sort of female dominated utopia you have in your head. Otherwise as previously stated these males are extreme alphas in which case you are again not superior in the first place but serve as an appeaser to create an exaggerated dynamic based upon creating an imaginary lack of worthinesses they LACK IN THE REAL WORLD.



-"How many men understand how a DVD player or computer works, from front to back end, for that matter?


More men than women I can assure you of that. Would you like to challenge me to a debate upon the inner workings of a DVD player or computer system : ) Come on its ok....open your eyes.


-"Are you suggesting there are no Female computer scientists? Are you suggesting there are no Female engineers? Mechanics?."


No, but there are far fewer of them and this is so not only because of innate lack of female ability but lack of interest as well. As with many if not all things they will not be represented in the top percentiles either. As with everything else, nor do they want to be, or, sexually selectively speaking, nor do they need to be.


- (Affirmative Action "women first laws" and the myriad of female special privilege laws) "such special privileges for women serve to "counter-balance cultural bias."


Ahhh yes the vaunted imaginary patriarchy that serves to hold females down. Yes, that's it, the imaginary male monster. If it were about cultural bias they would simply remove the name of the person and gender from the entrance exam. You know as well as I do that it is not about merit at all but forcing "gender parity" and "equality". The only thing feminists seek equality in is the high paying professions and they seek to do so by force and not by female merit. As such, due to these policies females have accomplished nothing upon their merit. Furthermore if it were about fairness away from the mandates of an "oppressive patriarchy" and not forced superior or equal access to resources feminists would insist that there should be forced parity in such fields as car mechanics etc. Quite frankly If I were you I would be embarrassed. Typically male fields are higher paying fields for a reason...they produce i.e. the requisites to support life itself.



-"While there are of course abuses in any system, such abuses do not invalidate the utility or overall merit of such systems."


Well at least you admit these policies are abuses.


-"such abuses do not invalidate the utility or overall merit of such systems."


LOL these abuses invalidate "overall merit" itself LOL : )


Have a wonderful day : ) You have such a charming character! I wish you the best in your goal to enslave the entire male population. You are the perfect example of a feminist and likewise the proprietor of the innate female mindset of what I believe to be embodied in ALL WOMEN which has manifested itself into and has the goal of changing actual social, political and economic policy according to your gynocentric natures....a real disappointment your "equality" has been. I find solace in the knowledge that the foreign hordes will be here soon. Again as history has shown, matriarchies do not last long and historically speaking the development of such, through my studies, is correlated directly with the "death cycle" of great civilizations before us. http://saharaheve.com/blog/

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, that's a nice little speech you wrote! However, your missing an obvious point. WOMEN WERE YOUR RESOURCES. Just like a cow in the barn, and our legal status wasn't any better. Go ahead, and give men all the credit for "resources and inventions". After all, how can us women compete against you "superior" men? We didn't stand a chance when half of us were DYING IN CHILDBIRTH. The other half that survived was forced to bear and raise child after child. We, and the children bore, were YOUR LEGAL PROPERTY. You deprived us, women, of the right to divorce, own property, get custody of our children, denied us access to education and high paying jobs to support ourselves, legally took any wages we did manage to earn away from us. You beat us, and raped us in the name of "marital relations". You deprived us of the right to vote. You prostituted us and you even murdered us. And in the end, you used our bodies to get your greatest resource outside of ourselves-male children to carry on your family names and patriarchal traditions as well as female children to be used and abused just like their mothers. The only reason you guys managed to get any resources or invent anything was because you had the education and the time to do it. Yeah, your real superior to us to have done that. Excuse the fuck out of us because being your legal property and brood mare was a full time job! I guess in between birthing children and trying not to die from it, inventing the lightbulb was out of the question!

Anonymous said...

This shit went on for millenia until fairly recently. And you guys whine because women have managed to gain rights in the last hundred years? See, this whole blog and others like it are just MRA temper tantrums because deep down your afraid. You want to believe your superior to women, but in reality, YOUR INSECURE BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT ISN'T TRUE! That's why you whine and cry when women have made any gains that might have outstripped men (even though you still control most of the world). Your like a bunch of little boys crying for the toys they aren't allowed to break anymore. Well, tough! We're not going backwards. That said, women have more than earned our share of any resources through our blood, sweat, tears, shackles, prostituted, beaten, broken, and raped bodies. If making you guys pay for that empowers women, so be it! As far as I'm concerned, you owe us anyway. One thing hasn't changed though. We were and still are your greatest natural resources along with our children. I find it amusing that you bring up Larry Summer's Harvard speech. Apparently, you don't know that Larry Summers was one of the biggest advocates for EDUCATING GIRLS AND WOMEN. He knows that educated girls and women brings ECONOMIC GROWTH AND HUMAN CAPITAL TO DRIVE THAT GROWTH. We carry the children. We provide most of the care for those children. We also invest far more resources in the education and health of our children than men do. Healthier and educated children (especially girls) brings more economic growth. It's a fact. However, Larry Summers knows that women can only do this if they have some control and access to resources of their own. Larry Summers is a huge advocate for increased funding for women AND BETTER CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT. He also knows FEMALE EMPLOYMENT IS A HUGE RESOURCE FOR THE ECONOMY. Not only do women put more of their wages toward their children than men, but women create economic growth in their own right just by having access to education and careers. Larry Summers has said along with other economists that women are the most untapped natural resource that the world has. That's why it's important to make it easier for women to combine motherhood and careers. Women were and are the backbone of the economy. The only difference is that now we are in the driver's seat. So, congratulate yourselves on your superiority! Once the legal barriers YOU put on us were removed, we managed to flip the situation around so fast-your heads are still spinning. We haven't quite caught up to you, but we're almost there. And you MRAs are running scared because you can't cope with change. It's like evolution-survival of the fittest and all that stuff! In other words, only the species who adapt will survive. Those men you call Manginas will be the only survivors while the rest of you will just get voted off the island. That's it in a nutshell!

Anonymous said...

Have you ever seen such obsession to women than in this blogger? How unfortunate he lives his life complaining about women. What a gigantic waste of time. It's embarrassing to see another male so preoccupied pointing his finger at women for all his unhappiness. Maybe years on end of not having what it takes to find and having a relationship with a woman has left him sour.

Bwec said...

Not really, this topic is actually a formidable part of social culture and society. It is a topic which is important to those with the intellectual capacity to realize this.

Your ad hominem attack is revealing of your understanding of these matters.

Anonymous said...

"Have you ever seen such obsession to women than in this blogger?"

Unfortunately, yes, I have. I use to argue with another MRA who had the same views. That guy was in his early 40s, and he whined constantly about those awful American women because he couldn't find one who would marry him. He was married to a mail-order bride. What does that tell you about him? A woman chose him over starvation in the third world. Nice. Our little blogger here will look like that guy in another 20 years. As for his "intellectual capacity", what a laugh! With his views, he probably hasn't figured out how to put a stick in the termite mound yet. Chimpanzees are more intelligent.

Julie said...

It’s a fact male! We are much better than you! We are the center of humankind, the first sex.

Ok boy, let’s just return to the fundamental instinct of Gynocentrism. This is something you must understand because it’s the key of every thing, the crux of it all. Since We have a greater biological value than you. Since every fucking culture on this planet agrees that We deserve that you DIE for Us. We obviously also deserve a superior status, priviledges, deference, etc. We deserve that you serve our needs first. This is a smaller sacrifice than dying after all. So, call it a ‘Princess complex’ if you want but things will remain the same: We are your biological Superiors – period- and you will never ever be able to do anything to change that! You are here for two things: moving DNA around for Women and serving Us.

Keep it in your mind, you will NEVER be our equals, not even in your dreams. Nevertheless, I think you deserve fairness, respect and gratitude for what you are doing for Us.

namae nanka said...

"This shit went on for millenia until fairly recently.And you guys whine because women have managed to gain rights in the last hundred years?"

Peddle this bullshit somewhere else.
Google "women in Tang dynasty" for one example, not to mention the fact that an upper class woman had infinitely better life than lower class men.

"See, this whole blog and others like it are just MRA temper tantrums because deep down your
afraid. You want to believe your superior to women, but in reality, YOUR INSECURE BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT ISN'T TRUE!"


Yeah the caps are convincing.

"That's why you whine and cry when women have made any gains that might have outstripped men (even though you still control most of the world)."

Why, thanks, the pains of this world are too much for one man to bear alone.

"Your like a bunch of little boys crying for the toys they aren't allowed to break anymore. Well, tough! We're not going backwards."

You will be born as a man in the next life, enjoy, haha.

"That said, women have more than earned our share of any resources through our blood, sweat, tears, shackles, prostituted, beaten, broken, and raped bodies. If making you guys pay for that empowers women, so be it!As far as I'm concerned, you owe us anyway. One thing hasn't changed though. We were and still are your greatest natural resources along with our children."

lol, indeed. You have hit the nail on the head.

"I find it amusing that you bring up Larry Summer's Harvard speech. Apparently, you don't know that Larry Summers was one of the biggest advocates for EDUCATING GIRLS AND WOMEN. He knows
that educated girls and women brings ECONOMIC GROWTH AND HUMAN CAPITAL TO DRIVE THAT GROWTH."


He is an economist, once the opportunity cost makes it unviable to educate all people, I am sure about which sex he will choose.

"We carry the children. We provide most of the care for those children. We also invest far more
resources in the education and health of our children than men do. "


Yeah the rise of child-care seems to be an incontrovertible testimony to the fact.
Why not go the whole hog and declare that motherhood is a social construct and mothers are not needed. Oh wait, where have we heard that before...

"Healthier and educated children (especially girls) brings more economic growth. It's a fact."

I am trying to make love to your facts here.

"However, Larry Summers knows that women can only do this if they have some control and access to resources of their own. Larry Summers is a huge advocate for increased funding for women AND BETTER CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT. He also knows FEMALE EMPLOYMENT IS A HUGE RESOURCE FOR THE ECONOMY."

heh, who knows whether he is lying to you gals.
He gets to keep his job regardless of truth or untruth of these assertions.


"Not only do women put more of their wages toward their children than men, but women create economic growth in their own right just by having access to education and careers."

Yeah well, if we removed the overconsuming mother from the household, men could/would do better too.

" Larry Summers has said along with other economists that women are the most untapped natural resource that the world has."

omg he objectified women. Are you cool with it?

"That's why it's important to make it easier for women to combine motherhood and careers."

Bullshit. It's important only because some idiots want to see women to achieve equality with men.


"Women were and are the backbone of the economy."

more like a hungry sloth that can't move from its position and yet keeps on consuming more and
more.

namae nanka said...

"The only difference is that now we are in the driver's seat."

Or rather munching on the branch on which you sit.

"So, congratulate yourselves on your superiority!
Once the legal barriers YOU put on us were removed, we managed to flip the situation around so fast-your heads are still spinning."


Yeah, who cares about the birth control pill, we could have ripped out our child.., oops fetuses by
our own hand in order to become equal and then surpass men.

"We haven't quite caught up to you, but we're almost there."

Like the hare and turtle story, only this time the hare has been beaten up before the race began
and then ordered to carry a 10kg bag in order to make the contest "fair".

"And you MRAs are running scared because you can't cope with change. It's like evolution-survival of the fittest and all that stuff!"

There are only three things in the world that women do not understand; and they are Liberty,
Equality and Fraternity.

"In other words, only the species who adapt will survive."

and of course, all that stuff.

"Those men you call Manginas will be the only survivors while the rest of you will just get voted off the island."

Delusions of utopia, I wonder if that's what chick lit is like.

That's it in a nutshell!"

won't you like to have one.. - Sigmund Freud.

Anonymous said...

"heh, who knows whether he is lying to you gals.
He gets to keep his job regardless of truth or untruth of these assertions."

Larry Summers said those comments way before he was at Harvard.

"There are only three things in the world that women do not understand; and they are Liberty,
Equality and Fraternity."

Apparently, you don't understand. Fraternity means BROTHERHOOD genius. We saw how "liberty" and "equality" was defined through the fraternity (patriarchy), and we aren't interested.

Anonymous said...

WOW! This is a great post! A lot of truth and information here. Completely agree.

This really got the feminist's goat. They don't like truth very much. It gets them all flustered and red in the face. Funny how you never mentioned anything about male superiority yet women see this as some sort of power struggle. Like you said it must be gynocentric projection of their own natures.

namae nanka said...

"Larry Summers said those comments way before he was at Harvard. "

haha so that's how he got to Harvard. Come to think of it, he must've got Nancy Hopkins swooning with those words, after all he got her nauseated with some words too.

"Apparently, you don't understand. Fraternity means BROTHERHOOD genius. We saw how "liberty" and "equality" was defined through the fraternity (patriarchy), and we aren't interested."

lol and women just tacked sorority onto it. The height of female intellect, for the feminists at least.

Now we just have to pull children out of the oppressive matriarchy that they have been put through thousands of years(save for some time in Sparta).

After all, more boys than their aging mothers have the computer skills to survive in this technological age, and so many great video game players couldn't pursue their dreams because their mothers don't allow them to play a little bit more.

And that's because so many boys have been forced into jobs that they don't want to do, or even any job in itself in order to support their mothers(who will live mroe than they do).
No more.
They will have the freedom of non-attachment and to do whatever they want, and less risks of bodily harm due to stress and all that a job might entail.

Women use children to meet their own emotional needs, while dumping them in child care centres to look after their own careers when that is fulfilled.
This psychological attachment that a woman fosters to an unknowing child; the child's sense of helplessness of not owning their own toys but had to be brought for them after lot of begging and pleading, all shall be done away with.

Children will be granted the same rights as adults, they will hold property and be allowed to choose their own names, and in order to help them to overcome this age-old oppression and gain equality, special government departments will be propped up in due time.

They will also vote better than their erstwhile "mothers".

And there will be no more deaths of innocent children before childbirth.

Say with me, "Death to matriarchy, long live freedom".

Anonymous said...

"Why do male narcissists seem to lash out most at women?

The researcher suggest it may be due to women’s unparalleled potential for gratifying, or frustrating, men’s narcissism. They are crucial players and even gatekeepers in men’s quests for sexual pleasure, patriarchal power and status.

“Although narcissists may want to maintain feelings of superiority and power over all people, narcissistic heterosexual men are particularly invested in subordinating heterosexual women,” noted Dr. Keiller."

http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/07/28/women-anger-narcissistic-men-most/16157.html

michaeltoo said...

"If making you guys pay for that empowers women, so be it! As far as I'm concerned, you owe us anyway. One thing hasn't changed though. We were and still are your greatest natural resources along with our children."

OUCH! Who are you referring to because THOSE GUYS are DEAD?!And is this your idea of an objective, historical sense of the problems we face today? I have absolutely no intention of paying YOU for the mistakes our parents might have made and as far as "childbirth", the "economy" and "progress" is concerned KNOCK YERSELVES OUT because living in such a world of increasingly depleting resources like we do about HALF the current world's population is gonna have to go anyway . . .

We'll soon truly see who's "best adapted" to do without who and as far as our "greatest natural resources" goes Lord knows it won't be murderous abortion that we will miss the most! American feminists are disgusting - everybody knows that - so go show off your "manginas" somewhere else 'cause I have custody of MY YOUNG CHILDREN not only by legal decree but by their own choice!

Anonymous said...

"This shit went on for millenia until fairly recently. And you guys whine because women have managed to gain rights in the last hundred years?..."

This comment reminds me of little miss Lady Raine, what with the 10000 word stream of consciousness peppered with random all caps phrases.

Anonymous said...

"OUCH! Who are you referring to because THOSE GUYS are DEAD?!"

Well, your alive, aren't you? By agreeing with the ideas on this blog, your just as bad if not worse than the dead guys. The only difference is that the laws no longer make women your property. It pisses you guys off that you no longer have the same rights as grandpa. That's the real reason why your so against feminism, and if given a chance, you would gladly roll back any rights that women have gained.

"American feminists are disgusting - everybody knows that - so go show off your "manginas" somewhere else 'cause I have custody of MY YOUNG CHILDREN not only by legal decree but by their own choice!"

There is such a thing as Domestic Violence by Proxy. An abusive husband gains custody of said kids, and threatens the children with violence if they show any love or preference for mommy. The fact that you describe your kids as "young children" really raises red flags for me. Those are the most vulnerable to the tactics of abusive husbands/fathers. So, your bragging about having custody doesn't mean shit to me. Who knows how you got it? I'm not going to believe anything you say. Besides, you probably have some girlfriend, or second wife doing the real parenting while getting all the credit for having custody. Most custodial dads do that!

Anonymous said...

"American feminists are disgusting - everybody knows that"

Ah, mail order bride alert! That would certainly explain a lot. It's not unusual for those women to have their kids taken away by abusive losers who blame all American women because they couldn't get laid in their own country. Don't bother denying it! That "American" written in such distaste with "feminists" is a dead give away.

Bwec said...

"YOUR LEGAL PROPERTY. You deprived us, women, of the right to divorce, own property, get custody of our children, denied us access to education and high paying jobs to support ourselves, legally took any wages we did manage to earn away from us. You beat us, and raped us in the name of "marital relations". You deprived us of the right to vote. You prostituted us and you even murdered us."

I hate feminist revisionist history. It is so tedious to go though and debunk the feminist version of the social history of women and gender relations. I really need to sit down and put all the facts I've gathered together for an article.

First of all women were not kept tied up like dogs. Chivalry, reverence and elevation of women was common. Jan 5, 1643 was the first recorded divorce in the American colonies. In the first record of a legal divorce in the American colonies. Anne Clarke of the Massachusetts Bay Colony is granted a divorce from her absent and adulterous husband.

You see, adultery along with domestic violence was forbidden. Legislation was enacted in the American colonies that outlawed domestic violence in 1641. It was not common for women to be beaten by their husbands. Women didn't walk around the town square bruised, injured with black eyes and broken bones.

Yes, husbands were considered the head of the household and solely responsible for the welfare and wellbeing of his wife and children. Men were expected to be the religious and spiritual leaders of their family as well. You come from a very sick place lady and your view on the world is entirely warped.

Upon owning property women and children were considered the core of society and as such inheritance was passed down to male offspring. A male with resources had a good chance of being a suitor to a woman who would accept his devotion in marriage. Men must work and provide money and all the needs and lifestyle he could possibly afford her and his children.

"denied us access to education and high paying jobs to support ourselves"

Women have attended schooling since the very founding of the American colonies onward. There was no such thing as "high paying jobs". We were largely an agrarian society until the Industrial Revolution. I suppose we could have asked women to do this work but I'm sure most thought it improper for a woman to slave her ass off with arduous and intense muscular labor.

"Legally took any wages we did manage to earn away from us."

Family income was always shared. Yes, the man was the one expected to make financial decisions for his family. There were no products, no major amenities NO CONSUMER CULTURE FILLED WITH GOODIES OF ALL KINDS.

We are talking money spent for to provide for the basic necessities of the family. There was no strong and affluent middle class.

Bwec said...

"You beat us, and raped us in the name of "marital relations"

Your idea that rape was a common form of marital relations is absurd. If you mean that part of a wifes expected reciprocal duty to her husband was to be sexually available to him even when one is not in the mood for it yes, this was expected of wives.

JUST LIKE YOU, MEN HAVE A SEXUAL AND REPRODUCTIVE CYCLE. Our bodies need to release at regular intervals. Masturbation and spilling ones seed alone and onto the ground was considered vile.

"You deprived us of the right to vote."

Actually Anti-Suffragism was a political movement composed mainly of women.

Men never denied women the right to vote....they never asked for it and when they did many women were against it..not men. Furthermore non land owning men could not vote either. Only those who owned land had the right to vote. Men gained suffrage and women gained it sometime later...when they asked for it.

"You prostituted us and you even murdered us."

Murder of ones husband or wife has always been a capitol offense under law. As far as prostitution goes would you like to know the fate of young lower class men??? You prostitute yourselves so don't give me that argument. Try being conscripted as cannon fodder in war so men can provide you the territory and resources you demand we provide to you.

Bwec said...

More on anti-suffrage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_suffrage

Also voting was considered a family decision. Men and women were not separate socio-political and socio-economic classes in conflict with each other as we are now. It was one vote per family and men were expected to be the public representative of the family.

Walter said...

Too bad that Anonymous never managed to acquire an education, She is clearly out of her league. Even a smal dose of "patriarchal liner thinking" (a.k.a. logic) would help her to make some sense.

Unfortunately, all she has at her disposal are ad-hominem slurs, the mark of an inferior intellect and clearly insufficient to make her case, whatever than may be. I don't think she has that figured out yet.

In the absence of logic, unstructured and unprincipled ideas turn to chaotic mush.

It is for that reason that the truth always easily trumps a feminist argument.

No wonder that Anonymous feels safe by hiding behind her anonymity. No reasonable and honest woman would want to admit to spouting nonsense.

Anonymous said...

"If you mean that part of a wifes expected reciprocal duty to her husband was to be sexually available to him even when one is not in the mood for it yes, this was expected of wives."

Sex shouldn't be an obligation or a "duty." It should be something both parties want to do.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, imagine the situation is reversed: that the male's duty/obligation is to have an object rammed up his ass every day regardless of whether he's into it or not.

Sorry, but when sex is an obligation or a duty, it's not consensual and that makes it rape.

Anonymous said...

The Y chromosome carries only gender information -- determining sex for the most part. The Y chromosme has less than 80 genes on it because all it is needed for is the determination of sex. The X chromosome, however, carries around 1,500 genetic markers, all responsible for attributes such as height, hair color, and even color-blindness (which is more common in men than women).

How does it feel to be diminished and minimalized by the opposite sex? Now you know how we have felt for the past several thousand years.

Anonymous said...

From Andrea Bennet: As an anthropologist and communication grad student who carries a 3.89 GPA, I just have to say that on a rhetorical level, your argument is full of holes and false logic. If you are going to argue such a contentious point, some education may be in order.

Ethan Stansmore said...

If either sex WAS superior the other would be eliminated and replaced with a better version to even it out -.- species aren't evolved for infighting and you're all suggesting that its the case? Or you botherers are saying that this thing decided one was better? Yeah you all clearly thought this out -.- go back in your caves and fight while I go with my equal girlfriend and be equal like normal people and not be Luddites and simpletons festering in ancient arguments long past usefulness

Nacho Bidnas said...

Anonymous said...

"The Y chromosome carries only gender information -- determining sex for the most part. The Y chromosme has less than 80 genes on it because all it is needed for is the determination of sex. The X chromosome, however, carries around 1,500 genetic markers, all responsible for attributes such as height, hair color, and even color-blindness (which is more common in men than women).

How does it feel to be diminished and minimalized by the opposite sex? Now you know how we have felt for the past several thousand years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyonization

You were saying?