LustfulAngel Posts

So, wait, we "get it better" due to biological advantages? Isn't that the point of the flaw of Feminism? It tries to 'fix' that which couldn't be fixed regardless. I'm sure a worm would like wings like a bird, but it can never fly and it'll have to live with that fact.

Men also have biological differences from women, especially in terms of care taking abilities. Some Feminists would like to believe that men can do so, but study after study shows that single fathers have as much difficulty as a single mother.

As much as we would wish for it(we don't), we can't become women. But, that in fact is the difference: You don't see men "wishing" to be women, in fact accepting the relative inequalities that may in fact exist.

Why? Because a man takes pride in what he is, and what he accomplishes. The Feminist Movement, came from a self hatred. A hatred of themselves, a hatred of their husbands and the hatred of this country.


Feminists, in short, were and are a bunch of children who couldn't/don't recognize what the willing and able husband was doing for them. Now, marriage and love have become abstract. And still yet, they proclaim their crusade is incomplete.

As this forum has demonstrated, the Feminist can't even identify what 'rights' she lacks, other than the right to be the complete and total jerk she once despised.

What a fatalistic way to look at things **shrugs**

Life is considered precious, because of evolution. From the Wheel, to modern technology, to hybrid cars and eventually getting off the grid. Mankind has grown, evolved and will continue to march forward into progress.

Without Humanity, the earth would be simply one of the other nine planets on the solar system either with no life, or inconsequential life which has developed nothing.

I simply think there's a level of respect to be had when discussing another person's problems. To make snide remarks here or there, isn't becoming IMO.

Yeah, there were red flags but that doesn't necessarily mean that you can or should harp on it. How would you like it if I harped on your relationship ending with some guy, taunting that it never worked out.

Do you always have to be sarcastic and rude? Dude posts asking for advice, you give the guy advise but don't make light of the guy's experiences for your own kicks.

Or should I remind you that you too, were once a "stupid high schooler"? We all were.

The situation clearly resolved itself, but let me give you some advice anyway: There are many women, who are rude and have a weird complex in which they are both egotistic and yet insecure. To them, relationships are a play thing. They're usually called "bitches".

Avoid them like the plague, nothing good comes out of dating someone who can't even take the prospect of a relationship seriously. Girls like your EX GF for example, fit this characterization. She wasn't willing to talk things out with you, GOD FORBID you question her.(But she has all the right to question you)

Avoid those women, they aren't worth it. Its because they put such low value on even themselves.

Fiery perhaps used the wrong terminology when he said "self aware", I think a better term would be "Worldly conscious". To know the world, the child must first know him/herself and then it expands outwards.

In this way, I'd say children lack a theory of mind(That is to say, a conscious understanding of the world around them) until ages 7-9(And coincidentally that coincides with puberty.)

But even with this worldwide viewpoint, we adults continue to look through the lens of the globalized world through individual perspective. "Respect" is acknowledging the individual perspective of another, collectivism tries to force this agreement among individuals without their own individual consensus(or agreement.)


For humanity to achieve a collective, it must first do so through mutual self respect and thereby understanding. In other words, a government cannot cohere individuals to "respect" another race, just because.

If Hispanics want to gain a stronger voice in America, they have to then understand and respect American culture. Which in turn, will make the American respect and understand Hispanic culture.

That said, America lacks a social identity today. We proclaim freedom, but we believe insomuch in this freedom as to restrict it based on qualifications such as "terrorism", etc. While we claim we're defending ourselves, this justification can be used at any time for any reason at all.

IE: East Germany and the Gulags.


Nationalism allows for the unity of individual people, respect for other Nationalities will lead to a union. Without Nations, people lack an individual basis from which to understand each other from.

Our ethos is what separates us from the animal kingdom, where as a Tiger is a Tiger is a Tiger. A human is NOT a human, a human is a core of feelings, attitudes, beliefs and social status.


It's here, Jacob, where I encourage you to read not only more on the esoteric concept of humanity but also the biological concept. There's certainly themes to take from both avenues of understanding the Individual Man.

But you cannot destroy the individual through the collective, that's Marxism and it was so reviled that even Nazi Germany fought a war against it.

The Cold war was fought for that same reason, and while it might not have been necessary, I can see why our leaders too feared this doctrine reaching into America.

However, just because a war is fought doesn't necessarily mean that it was fought as aggressors. Britain attacked the capital of Pennsylvania in 1812, to try to take back her colonies and to pressure us politically to pay up.

Today, Britain maintains her empire not through political force but through political coercion.(Money bribes, etc. The City is even more powerful than Wall Street.)


The fact that we have a wall street, should show the divide in American classes and why Americans as a whole do not have control over this country, much less the government.

The Founders would've never seen this country in a centralized oligarchy like that of Britain, they'd be stunned at the state of affairs today.

In comparison to Britain, Germany and Japan's conquests, in comparison to France's era under Napoleon Bontaparte, should I list the countless others? Mao Mao in China, Stalin's Soviet Union?

And the only thing negatively on our resume is a war with Native Americans and the African slave trade?

And at that, Native American culture and rural areas are protected by U.S. Federal Law! http://www.infoplease.com/toptens/indianreservations.html

Should the U.S. Government make more of an effort? Yes, and particularly in the manner of nationalizing native Americans as American citizens. If Native Americans were nationalized, that would be productive for the Indian Reservations, which in turn would be a boost for the American Economy.

I'd rather nationalize Native Americans, then illegal immigrants.

Furthermore, never did I say that you *were* your father, I'm sure your father taught you some things that were very valuable. Even as you assimilate the various factors of knowledge into your being, you are still an individual person.



This segment here identifies your intellectual shortcomings. A man is not judged by his nationality, but his identity is forged in part by it. The community from which he(or she) was raised, brings pride to that person(or at least it should). The fact that you want to so utterly distance yourself from it(and you extend this desire of yours into a world view) shows how you dislike your nationality and thereby your own relatives.


In such a world where the base of a family, a place from which he may be born is irrelevant and inconsequential, there is nothing for the human race to stand on. In this world, an era of materialism even beyond that of what we presently see would take place.

Because there is no spiritual value without a home, without a community and without a bond to said community. Because if you believe all of humanity can bond "as humans", you utterly disregard again their individuality.

Humanity will bond when they accept their individuality, your idea is to destroy that very individuality. And there's a complete difference between tolerance and acceptance.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/acceptance

"3. Favorable reception; approval"

And here's Tolerance:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Tolerance


"a. Leeway for variation from a standard."


Do you see the utter difference from making "leeway for a variation from a standard" and favorable reception and approval?

In other words, if you could get gays and straights to see what they do have in common: IE: The love for their partners, under that common understanding comes acceptance.

But when you force straights to accept gays, just because it's their "right",disposition will eventually occur and lead to (at worst) violent opposition. For gays and straights to be recognized, the straight majority of
the people had to move in that direction(if they wanted to) on their own.



This presumes the faulty notion that a world without borders would subconsequently mean a world without stereotypes. I have some pretty disappointing news for you: Irregardless of our nationality we are humans and humans have stereotyped and will continue to stereotype.

http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/stereotypes

Note in none of the solutions, do they propose to wipe the world 'clean' of the problem of negative stereotypes. But rather, encourage the use of positive stereotypes(which generally enable us to get a glimpse into other societies) while engaging in reform.





Arguing with you is incredibly dense, you do know we have this thing called globalization right? Of course it's more than possible to connect with all humans,and many of whom will become our dear friends. But we *should anyway* try
to hold a more special bond to those of us who are closest, who've raised us and
who through the bond of a connection believe that we deserve the best of what we can give each other.

Also, in a country where there are 300 million Americans and maybe 500 hundred representatives in both chambers of government, I would ask you to please refrain from calling a country a collectivist borghive. We are not yet Soviet. Our economy hasn't been privatized.

And it should be noted that under an oligarchy economy, it is not the people whom make the country that dominates and plunders the general goods and services. Its those in wealth!

What does a country 'own', what is a country made up of? A collective group of individual human beings with their own individual preferences and desires.

The country owns nothing, it is the people whom own the country. This is the very foundation with which the Declaration of Independence was written.

However, there can't be a country if individual people do not identify themselves as such. But without an identity(and no, human is not an identity. Its a very vague one at best. Human, my first and last name. Seriously?) Humanity cannot survive.

And if we can't love our families, or love ourselves we cannot love the whole of humanity as you wish to do in your crusade.




Your speaking in hypothetics. And I don't even know why you should be afraid of traveling. Are you afraid of airplanes? Buy a greyhound ticket or whatever canadian transportation affords. If you are limited by your own limitations, either surpass them or live with them and adjust. But don't expect society to cater to your individual needs. Hypocritical, in the era where "Everyone can win" and everyone's needs are attempted to be held for account as much as possible.

The result, however has been a weakening of the entire structure and the idea of competition and individuality. What legal fees for flying? The passport?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120328152903AAJ72g9

It comes up to around $200 dollars. -_-, come on now. And afraid of your life? From whom? From what? The DHS? Well, FPOD and I probably share the same sentiment surrounding that corrupt organization which is Anti American in principle. But unless you're remotely connected to anyway to Al Qaeda, radical terrorists, criminals et.al I think you're going to be pretty okay.



Do you know how big a cave is? Do you know bears live in Caves? Think of our brick and stone houses as a human cave. Furthermore, do you know that there's a government agency to regulate and protect Wildlife?

http://www.fws.gov/





Coming from the man who advocates the destruction of the foundation of human society, while at the same time saying that any human who doesn't want to give up these very individual structures(America is VERY far from the only country) doesn't deserve to exist is a very scary sentiment.

Its also a very naive viewpoint. However, let me correct you for yet another time: I've never contradicted myself. Humans find value through their individuality, and tracing that back to their roots gives them something to be proud of, to stand on. Just because YOU don't want to stand on it, doesn't mean others don't.

Much the same, I support legal immmigration, yet I oppose massively immigrating immigrants. Why? Because Multiculturalism at the same time has violated the principle of individual countries and people. Selectively immigrating the most talented and the best fits to our society, is a better way to conduct our immigration business.




You know, you use the word freedoms in much the same way feminists argued that male privilege existed. Only this time, you've wrapped your warped sense of reality among the entire human population.

I don't restrict your(or anyone else's freedom) to travel, I don't have that right. Nor does the government restrict people's freedom to travel, pending those crucial things which yes, establish for a successful citizen.

Guess what? It's the same in the other 195 countries on the planet! If you want to travel freely(or as freely as possible within the limits of our current society), you would be a tourist! And there's nothing wrong with that.

Just don't apply for citizenship in the country. And this is the end of the conversation. The "debate" is non existent, your thesis is illogical. It has no biological or ethical standing and frankly it's annoying.

Such a world is illogical, I don't know of what nationality that you came from but I can assure you, you learned things from your parents, who in turn learned from their parents and the generations learned from their peers.

Get it? This social structure has been the basis of Humanity since the dawn of its origins. If I'm to draw it so painfully obvious to you, birds build nests in the trees. Ants have their colonies, bees live in bee hives.

A world without nations and borders, is a world where a singular identity doesn't in fact exist. The singular can only be created by the individual, collectivism failed and always has failed.

One might call a country collective, but that's only true insofar as it's neighbors. The individual relates to the neighbors and as such, feels a sense of brotherhood(or sisterhood) among his or her peers.

True collectivism, lies in Marxist principles, such as the ones you describe where there's no borders, where nationality is a "disease".

Tell me, should humans live outside of the house? That is to say, should we somehow make a living out on the street in a similar fashion to roaming animals such as the tiger in the desert?

We have the fortune in our ecosystem at this day and age to have homes that are relatively secure. Depending on the climate and natural weather disasters pending of course. But if an animal could comprehend human affairs, and compare it to the simplicity of how they live in the exact same ecosystem I know what they'd be asking:

"What the fuck is up with Humans?" And I still can't answer why we'd destroy our OWN perfectly workable ecosystem which is copied from animals to plants.

Its not a contradiction, it is the responsibility of the parent to take care of the child. If a parent cannot take care of a child, she shouldn't have one. The likes of Margret Sanger(and other radicals) would like to burden the U.S. Economy with their idea of "Sexual Freedom."

Also, we have to be careful when people speak economically of "downturns"(IE:Lowering House prices), many of these people are still caught in the false economic dynamic that your House is an asset, that it provides net worth.

http://www.nation.co.ke/Features/saturday/Your-home-is-not-an-asset/-/1216/1674726/-/dxmad6/-/index.html

It's also noted that the reason most Americans have struggled in the farming industry is the move to a technological economy. Soon, even the illegals won't have this job anymore and instead computer operated machinery(think those moving hands) will do the trick.

Not only that but illegal hiring also pushes out these very LEGAL Americans

http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-aliens-taking-u-s-jobs





Before or after the Second Great Recession? Even during the Great Recession of the 80's, I bet gas barely topped at around $1.50. Food prices similarly were tame compared to what they are today. A pair of T Bone steaks can cost up to $15 bucks in your local supermarket!





Did you even read the court ruling? Remember when I said the U.S. Supreme Court has become politicized and essentially worthless? Reading this ruling affirmed that. The TLDR version is that not that it was wrong to make a judgment based on race, but to declare you made that judgment. You can still use "Affirmative Action" to
put "Minority workers" into significant positions, just don't be stupid enough to let the candidate know he's being passed over because he's white, male, etc.


Because, how else can the candidate suggest he was being discriminated due to his race? The only way he could even vaguely make the case is if the place of employment is clearly biased towards a certain race or ethnic group.

I know, like Black Colleges, the Black Congressional Caucus, ETC. Or even the NAACP. Is there a White person on their board?

Racial Bias exists, not due to "discrimination" but due to the natural tendency for social groups to get together. It's usually in these social groups that exhibit ironically the most peace.

With the sad exception of African Americans:

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/02/06/african-american-dressed-in-kkk-hood-on-street-corner-sparks-controversy-in-philadelphia/

While I highlighted the situation as it pertains to African Americans, we already know that Latinos are quickly taking advantage of the system as well, with La Raza across the Mexican/California Border.

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/02/texas-student-punished-for-not-reciting-pledge-to-mexican-flag-2589570.html

And our politicians idea of reform is to allow illegal immigration to become legal(A new Dream Act if you will), so long as vague promises about border protection are made.

I believe in proper legal immigration channels and making those channels easier to access, thereby curbing illegal immigration. I believe said efforts would be mitigated by "forgiving" 11 million criminals.

And as far as the problems relating to some of the social issues surrounding minorities. I plan to make a post about my political and national beliefs on "diversity"




So you just advocated for genocide of the entire human population(Because everyone lives in a country(even despotic second and third world ones), everyone believes in their country and sadly yes:

Race does in fact exist, it is a part of our biological and genetic makeup. We can claim to be separate all we want, but our families also share the same biological, genetic make up. And share the same social values and beliefs of our ancestors before us.

Does it have to be a social factor in our decision making? No and Yes. We'd like to believe we have individual value, but that value differs from person to person, born in utterly different social structures.

An African American for example might be a very intelligent young man, but the generation of "men" before him have made his road quite difficult among employers. Hell, even this intelligence could possibly be a facade(Hence when on an interview
they ask you to 'dress professionally')

The only way for our individual value to stand out irregardless of race would be to be among others of our same races. OR, for all races to share the same values.

Generally, we'd like to believe that we do: To be happy, successful, etc. But our differing political viewpoints, our differing social lives indicates a reality far different from a liberal's imagination.

These differences are real, exist and will continue to influence our lives. Not because of some biased or evil dogma, but because its a logical survival mechanism.

Firstly, an apology is due about my assumptions of your nationality. That's me forgetting that this in many ways is a universal and international site and thereby forum(Where we gather for 'reasons' other than debate. This is just a nice little perk to have when we aren't wanking off). So I was wrong there.

Secondly, in America or at least among high level scholars and intellectuals, topics are not one linear in principle. That's typically a high school setting(Because a teenager can't even pay attention in class, let alone having the comprehension to understand the depth of a conversation).

Here's a little chart for you:

Male Privileges> Female Privileges>Feminism> The effects of Feminism on society.

We did not deviate from the main topic, we expanded on it. And eventually we do find ourselves coming back to the main point. If the conversation seems to have changed, it's as I said before: We've beaten the original point(Male Privileges) to death. There is no such thing, when you find that FPOD and Lustful Angel agree fundamentally on at least that, you know pretty well that the debate has been significantly lost.

Now tell me, is there any purpose in us repeating, and constantly pointing out that in 2013, there aren't any "Male Privileges". To the contrary, the effects of 1969 have been negative on the U.S. Economy, particularly the Main Street Economy(IE: Average working American citizens). Wall Street's getting off quite fine with the added production and thereby pay of women.

So, if as they proclaim they were held in suffrage by the men due the one worker system, they are now most surely held in suffrage by banks and corporations. They will argue that these high ranking positions are held by "men"(Which is true)

But by the average man? By the blue collar husband? No, by quite literally the top 1%(Let's say about 100 men. America has a population of 300 million Americans. The population is roughly split, slightly leaning to females so lets say there are
146 million Male citizens. Of those 146 million. Only 100(One Hundred) can be said to be economically "discriminating" against them.

My mother most recently pointed out the costs of Day Care, etc. These costs can only rise due to the static expectation of higher incomes in two household families.

But let's be clear: They aren't even discriminating against women, their practices are "ethically lawful". That is to say, the current main street ecoeconomic system was gamed to their advantage. How can one prove that the increasing prices are due
primarily to women in the work force?

Furthermore, proving it would utterly damper the Feminist movement, in fact it'd be the death kneel. It was as if the prior generations only thought of the money and self interest and wasn't listening to their husband's complaints about long working hours, taxation and the ever annoying higher up boss.


Yeah, they're now learning those complaints weren't "small". Infact, they're much bigger now thanks to this dynamic. I don't want to make feminists out to be the economic version of what Jews were for the Nazis, but damn. Can you imagine if we had kept the one worker system?

The demand is likely lesser on gas and transportation(due to women staying primarily at home or working primarily half time hours). This means gas prices have
dropped dramatically. If you can imagine, without the advent of disgusting open sexuality(promoted by Margret Sanger, among other radicals) many of them wouldn't be single mothers today! Food prices would drop, so would day care, ETC.


When some feminist activists ask for "flexible working hours", in reality this would be returning back to females occupying part time jobs(Only with much higher pay.) Now, this makes a lot more sense. Females would get economic opportunity but the vultures of wall street couldn't possibly exploit it. It would be all the more apparent, and all the more unfair considering the female works a half time job(even if more than properly compensated for it) as compared to the male.


They really weren't thinking and they don't think about their revolution. Reactionary in its premise, degrading in its core. Feminism is a big bust.

Now, with respect to your country you may have different ideas on what an attack constitutes. But you're really the first(and only person) who has had much of a problem in this particular thread. And that is because I didn't attack Loli nor Gal as individuals.

I attacked their position(More accurately, in the form of court this would be called cross examination). Also, you took excessive liberties in your translation of what I was saying to you: I was saying I didn't care for what YOU were saying to me, never once did I say I didn't care for what Loli or gal had to say.

Just that they(and by extension Modern Feminism) is very illogical, if it wasn't illogical when their revolution began(They had some finer points certainly. But as I prove in this post, they should've focused primarily on these points. Our social ecological economic system would be better for it. Feminism's outreach went too far, destroying both genders in the process.)

If anything, you should have a beef with Loli if you want to pertain to this pointless crusade of yours. She said that my comparison of feminists(as a self degrading and totally destructive group) to mutilation made me a "Poor, degenerative being."

If you'll notice, I never went on the defensive to her words or even so much as cared for them. In American political debate, such extremes(especially from a group whose core actions need ever more defense because they surely cannot be logically justified) have always been taken.


My calling out the immaturity of the group(as well as the immaturity of the participants arguments) is a very small, very small offense in the texture of American debate. I'm sure FPOD would agree that I've conducted myself rather properly in the context of our nation's often heated debating platform.

If, it's to be proclaimed wrong to not be so high keen on their beliefs as feminists, then do know(as they've exclaimed) that they're not so highly keen(and they probably never will be) on modern society.

You also got a lesson in American Corruption. There really aren't that many true charities in this country, even the most "benefic" corporation has a corrupt slime ball who focuses on the money.

Warnings to the public health about safety? Hah. What of the "Swine Flu" epidemic? Where the ratio from vaccine to patient was that there were several times more vaccines than actual patients.

Propaganda, for the purpose of drugging the people for god knows's what purpose. And this kind of thing? Is common among Western business titans.

I don't necessarily care if you share my vision or not, and to be honest: I don't expect you to because here's the definition of derailing:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/derail

" To come or bring to a sudden halt" So tell me, my "friend", in what way did I derail the topic? In other words, when did I bring it to a sudden halt? I only expanded the conversation to include similar factors, discussions and effects.

The fact that others have also made this absurd charge implies to me the American Education failure. Its not possible for several of my generational peers to engage in a conversation from Point A to Point B. Its only possible for many of them apparently to stay on Point A and rehash it ad nauseam.

You see, the conversational transition is no different from the transition from addition to subtraction to multiplication.

The only way I could derail this conversation is to bring something that cannot be logically linked to the discussion, and feminism and its effects can quite easily be linked.

And the facts haven't been proven false, they've been politically shut down. Do you want to know what also was politically shut down? Tobacco Warnings. Is there a link between Tobacco smoking and Lung Cancer? Absolutely. Do people know this? No, but with that little stamp on the side of the cigarette carton, companies can proclaim they're warning consumers(even though they wouldn't care to look at the
side of a 6 inch carton box)

Also, your version of being objective also speaks of Liberalism. Your idea of being objective is me outright submitting to the other person's argument. This fourm is virtually an academic setting and in academic debates you'll be very surprised with the tone of most debates.

When I proclaim Feminism to be self sabotaging, when I proclaim that Feminists who adhere to it are akin to drug addicts who can't even see what they're doing to themselves, let the record be known that there are a few vocal voices(one of whom I posted earlier) who actually agree.

Furthermore, in calling Loli and Gal Feminists, it's a tag that they wear with pride. By golly, Loli still believes they're defending some unknown right. In fact, women today are more disadvantaged than ever(Of course, by their own doing)

And Gizgal believes quite hilariously that men are privileged.

In closing, you were completely and utterly wrong in your attacks on me. I never derailed the conversation, because I didn't link male privilege with anything of irrelevance. If we speak of male privilege, of course we must speak of female privilege which of course leads to feminism, and their after effects.

And the manner with which I referred to our participants, isn't your concern. It's theirs. And they seem to hold their positions with as much vigor. If they feel the need to complain, I surely hope they will let me know.

As I said to Loli, do you ever find yourself talking to yourself? Because never once have I framed my arguments with pure capitals, even as I find myself annoyed by the incompetence behind the failed mainstream rebellion and its consequences to men and women.

If your the mainstream American female of today, then god help this country. From amongst the lot of you I wouldn't nominate a leader either.

But as you said, you're out. I just wanted to take the time thank you, your post if rather utterly useless allowed me to respond in a more sensible fashion to Jacob.

You point out a video that lays out an argument that abortion helps reduce unwanted pregnancies, which in turn reduce future crime rates. However, as the video points out(and the one conducting the study denied it rather flatly and not convincingly) is that these rates do not take into account the obvious racial implications in Abortion.


http://www.nbccongress.org/features/abortion_silent_no_more_01.asp

35% of Blacks is a very significant minority number, especially considering other minorities. Abortion is basically eugenics against minorities, the unspoken crime of humanity in America.

Also, not mentioned in the crime rate/abortion discussion is the economic factors:
http://prospect.org/article/demographics-abortion-its-not-what-you-think

A whole 69% of those seeking abortion are economically disadvantaged. Taken in the reverse, this means that if they weren't economically disadvantaged, they may not actually have an abortion. And the crime rate among families that have a sufficient income, logically are of course significantly less.

The article above hopes more contraceptives will solve the issue of economic inequality? HAH. When considering the costs of health care, abortions and insurance, these very solutions are causing the problem.

Heartbleeding Liberals take the opposite route to the correct solution: Illegal Immigration should be dealt with harshly, the currently 11 million illegal immigrants are not citizens of this country and aren't entitled to anything in this country.

The health benefits, the jobs that they take from legal American Women(which is a part of this 69% number), etc.

How about significantly lowering, if not completely eliminating Marriage Taxes? Why do Married Couples have a significant economic disadvantage over Singles?

Because of higher taxes and inflation, the two-parent working households of the feminist ideal failed completely. Higher wages meant more for government to spend and take away from people's pockets.

Therefore, the one(male) worker society was actually more sustainable for females. Even though their income was lower, the economy adjusted for that making it affordable.

Making work hours more flexible is certainly an approach we could try, but why should companies be forced to adjust to the demands of their employees? There has to be a benefit to the company, one could argue that benefit would be that the woman worker would feel more confident and more stable as a career woman.

But this 'flexibility' means there's a gap in working hours, the company would then logically try to fill this gap either with hopefully A: Internal workers, or likely B: Outside workers(This would be a great way for men to reclaim the jobs they lost to Feminism).

If it's B, Females will once again find themselves in the same position they were pre-1969. Only, I don't think it would be held up as discriminatory. Rather, it's a business's MO to decide if they would like more consistent, around the clock workers.

Even in the advent of Feminism and their access to higher career opportunities, the reality is the necessity of the male to complete the female's life. The Feminist, such as Loli and Gizgal would never want to admit that. Because to admit that, is to submit to what I said:

Feminism, in its outset is self defeating and hadn't even accomplished what they wanted. To be fair, its because it couldn't logically be accomplished.

Do you see female animals separating from their male herds?

Do you ever sometimes get the feeling you're talking about yourself? Particularly when you proclaim that I don't know what I'm talking about. I just traced Abortion back to Eugenics, which goes back to 20th century Europe at the time of WW2!

It's also interesting to say that I ignore 'statistics and facts' when I'm the one posting links all the time, citing sources. And when you have women activists(such as the ones I linked to a page or two ago acknowledging the socio economic flaws of Feminism) and making the same arguments as myself, how can you even suggest I lack understanding of these issues?


Your greatest ignorance and the greatest ignorance of the females at the time, was the absurd suggestion that the very idea of being a committed partner in a relationship was objectification. Feminists have made this statement, and what has been your response to your new found freedom?

Sex strip clubs, skimpy clothing(More out in Public), ETC. The very objectification you supposedly fought against. All men wanted to establish was a strong middle class family. And the idea of a wife and children, completing his life.

Objects? If so, of the spiritual sense rather than the materialistic one, unlike today where you feminists have encouraged the materialistic objectification of sexuality. Is this still, yet freedom?

Hell, as I said to Gizgal and now to you(Though in your ignorance, your incapability of understanding renders any logic absolutely useless): You proclaim equality, Gizgal made the absurd argument that men enjoy privileges.

What privileges do men enjoy today in 2013? Men actively search for relationships: For women a relationship is now a past time, a child a hassle.(And in fact, if worst comes to worst, she becomes a baby butchering murderer legalized by the State).

Even supposing you, the God Woman in your blessful heart grants the man his family and his child; if for any reason it shouldn't work out rather than shared custody and responsibilities, the man is expected to pick up the tab while the mother takes
care of the child, thereby eliminating the father from the child's life.


Feminism is the advent of selfishness that far exceeds any wrong doing that the previous structure may have done to women. And like any destructive selfishness, much the same as the drug addict you are utterly unaware of your own pitfalls.

There is sadly, no known therapy for stupidity.

Ouch, sounds like I hit a nerve when someone has to type in all capitals. Furthermore, referencing a 1997 study. REALLY? Furthermore, I'd like to take notice that the particular study I linked to was in Asia, not America.

The different dynamics also impacts Case studies(IE: In China, a case study is more likely to be accurate than in America)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kioSuxh2QIw

When we talk psuedo-science, most liberal tree nuthuggers believe we have an impact on the earth's climate. A suggestion about as logical as stating that we can control people's thoughts.

We're speaking of "Male Privilege"(Which I and a few others has proven doesn't in fact exist in the modern age.), which in turn brings about the Feminist discussion, which in large part deals with the degradation of the feminine

Abortion is a very large part of that degradation(of humanity overall), for the only defense applicable being: "It's our choice". It would be very interesting if fetus's could develop telepathic communication and asked for the chance of life, what would Loli do in that situation?

A choice, at the expense of another is sickening. And if this nation is going to talk about life, liberty and independence, then it needs to be serious.

According to the numbers, 5,000 lives were taken via back door abortions. 53 million lives have been taken via legal abortion, and according to a recent study, about as many as 300,000 women are affected with Breast Cancer.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/26/study-shows-abortion-linked-to-high-breast-cancer-risk/

Does anyone see anything wrong here? The Feminist idea of reform is totally backwards from actually improving the quality of life.

What about the Fetus's god-given right to life? Oh WAIT! That proves another point Loli: Murder isn't acceptable, I don't care if it's a fetus, if it's a child or if it's an adult. It's a living human being.

Worse yet, it's a living being that due to biological reasons cannot speak out nor act in it's own defense. Do you know where it comes from? Eugenics. As in forceful human breeding. In an attempt to find the Human Superman, as once described by Fredick Nietzsche.

So between your fantatical, ideological rebellion which taken to its extreme opposes the very existence of men, and allows for the murder of babies actually has its history in far right German politics.

Shocker, isn't it Loli?

There is no such thing as a "radical" Feminist, being a Feminist IS radical: The rejection of their spouses, significant others. The freedom to do "whatever they want" with their body(IE:The most degenerative clothing and sexual attitudes)Hell, the idea that they would even want a committed relationship. And if so, totally on a whim. If women wonder why men practice infidelity today, they might want to look at the fact that their feminist position means they couldn't give two shits.

If you treat a person with value and respect, they tend to stick around. When Feminists can't even respect themselves, asking them to respect a significant other(or their offspring) is wholly laughable.

To be a Feminist is akin to a male mutilating his skin. The male's degrading himself, no? The entire Feminist Movement is degrading by its very nature.

A "privilege" with which Leon Panetta revoked a month ago, a "privilege" to which if you honestly asked most men who served, if they thought of it as a "privilege", it would differ.

"Privilege" in serving the country? Some think that, others, like me, acknowledge that it's the right to get your freaking head blown off. Quite literally as it pertains to the current ME Wars, and the roadside bombings, suicide bombings and land mines.

Do you even know what a 'privilege' is? Were the German Mercenaries privileged to fight a war for Britain that had absolutely no implications for Germany? To die for an empire that didn't in so much as care for their interests? They got money for it, whoop dee damn do.

The worst case scenario, is that as this supplies more fooder for the military(Oh, sorry, I mean soldiers) this can only encourage our government and our military generals. For whom, more body bags is the merrier.

Women were in fact privileged not to fight wars, they were privileged to have their domestic needs taken care of, above all else. Women were privileged to be courted, now they've denied their own privileges.

I watched that movie, and between the blatant disrespect of the men to whom they were negotiating, as well as the disrespect of benevolent marriages and their benevolent partners, perhaps the most enlightening statement came at the end(and it came from a woman):

"The problem with Feminism, is that it teaches women to be victims"

You think? The whole Movement is filled with self hating, self loathing and contemptible principles and people.

That doesn't make sense:

"a. A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste."

If a group, individual or class is granted a right or even an immunity, how could they NOT recognize it? A privilege is socio-politically sought after by those very groups!(What do you think Lobbying and PAC's are for)

I have the right to freedom of speech, hell, we automatically assume that right even before we read the bill of rights(Do you think a child, uttering its first words ever asks itself if it should or should not speak?).

The rights and privileges that we assume today were granted by English Law dating back to the Marta Carta of 1215. How were those laws granted? They appealed to the King for them!

A privilege is sought for, it is granted by others. There isn't such a thing as a person unconsciously accessing privilege.

And Feminists have still yet to truly answer the question: What privileges do males have? Did you even look at the article I linked on the previous post?

Feminism has created a bunch of beta males, more females today have taken college positions than before http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-01-26-genderequity26_ST_N.htm

You also outpopulate us: http://www.mchb.hrsa.gov/whusa11/popchar/pages/101usp.html

So, if you proclaim some kind of privilege then it beseeches me to know where. Feminists often cite there are very few women in government, but at the same time you reject gender sympathy and in fact, proclaim it sexist.


If you don't wish to be elected on the basis of your gender, then you will be judged by the basis of the quality of your work. Even though Hillary Clinton wasn't nominated in 2008, she got well over 45% of the Democratic Vote. Tell me, were they sexist for rejecting her?

Hell, arguably she got an even better position as Secretary of State. There wouldn't be a popularity poll on whether or not she did a good job, arguably she had more power than the president. And there are plenty of major career openings for her(such as a report linking her to the World Bank) after her service.

Feminists should strive to look at Hillary as an example: Alpha, assertive and determined. I highly doubt she ever thought once in her mind "The guys owe me something", nor do females owe her or anyone anything.

What she owed and gave to herself, was her utter and sheer determination. And above all: Self Respect.

Gizgal: Everytime you proclaim men have some privilege greater than you, you loathe yourself. Men don't have a greater privilege than you, neither do other women. This isn't 1965, it's 2013.

If anything, females are more privileged than males:
Males have to court females for their affection, the female hardly ever courts a male and at that, the female has the absolute power to decide whether or not she wants the man.

The same is true for Abortion, the couple may have consented to sex and even discussed the possibility of a child. The father wants to be a father, the feminist female says otherwise, the baby's aborted.

In many ways, we're screwed. Feminism has only screwed us more, by making a very significant minority of us beta males. And yet, after all of this destruction to a male's structure. Do you still want to argue we have some right that you don't?

If you want to make the argument, then clearly define a right that men have given themselves, that women do not have today.

Ms.Danielle explains my thesis in a nutshell.

A: Feminism has degraded sexuality
B: It's degraded the concept of relationships
C: It has actually strained the capabilities of the career woman
D; It's degraded motherhood.

And now we can add E: Lowered livelihood expectations(What else would you call wanting to join the Military?)

Does the Feminist ever wonder why there hasn't been a revolution in which men wanted to take the same career paths and choices as females? Is it because the current "society" is convenient to men? Perhaps, but what if the female's role is inconvenient, nay, impossible for men to grow into?

The aesthetic beauty that females have, can only be acquired by a handful of males(Bishonens sadly exist mostly in manga unless Bieber counts). As such, whereas men must now juggle through the feminist pit holes and falls for an actual
relationship, the feminist can(and does) use her aesthetic advantage for just about any useful purpose.

We note that women win the majority(vast majority at that) of divorce court cases, often getting complete custody.(Shared custody is in fact a dream.) But even for men who have to take the brunt load of the parenting responsibilities, it's extremely difficult.

Perhaps, not so much from an economic standpoint. But from an emotional, nurturing standpoint. And this too, is from socio development that, as previously noted is to the advantage of women not the other way around(Men devaluing themselves in a sense has allowed for the pro female mentality in case of a fatal emergency or
war time)


Yet, interestingly enough: It's far more difficult for the single female parent. Not only on the obvious account of socio economic considerations, but whether it be a boy or a girl, the child steadfastly seeks out his/her own father and a bond with the father completes the child.

This socio reality means that it's disadvantageous for the female to have a cavalier attitude towards relationships. Both for her and for her offspring.

Feminism is devaluation, and the only justification a female can give when a person points out their own self devaluation is that the person is a sexist, or that we objectify them.

Of course we objectify females: In no different manner from which males objectify themselves. Doesn't anyone find it strange that feminists asked for equality, men have given it to them in full and feminists complain we're sexually oppressing them?

Actually, to be more specific: Alpha Males objectify themselves, in no certain order would we as Alphas accept our degeneration, much less asking a female to do the same. The Feminist is attracted to the Beta, because the Beta male accepts his own degeneration, and he has no qualms with female degeneration.

I honestly fear for children being raised by feminist women, not because they'll be taught to "hate males"(their irrational ideology will be blocked by their genetic design, THANK GOD). But because the socio environment will create a bunch of beta males, and more inferior complex women.

Which in turn, will provide for a lesser structured society as a whole. It's already happening: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/04/boys-men-education-work