The Myth of the Female Orgasm
Someday, a long time from now, historians and sociologists will look back on the 20th century and scratch their heads over the “sexual revolution” that began. Of course, assuming the collapse of society doesn’t breed a new era of book burning, they will have ample material to analyze though it may not ultimately explain how feminists were able to convince themselves that their libidos were at least the equal of men. Of course, as with all of their deranged claims, when the proof fails to manifest, they blame men.
The claim is laughable and can easily be machine gunned down by the following bullet points culled from the best source of truth - reality:
* Men view sex as an end, women view sex as a means
* Men need little or no prompting for sex, you would have an easier time talking a woman into buying a new car.
* When men orgasm, there is demonstrable proof. With a woman, you must take her word for it.
* When men fail to be aroused it is invariably physical in nature. When women are incapable of faking arousal, it is usually in her head (where it would have ample leg room).
* Prostitutes are women who sell themselves for sex and can be found around the world. Gigalos are men who sell themselves for sex and are slightly less common than Bigfoot.
* For a man to get off, all he needs is a tissue, his hand and a few minutes. Women however require a vast array of machines with more RPM’s than a lawnmower and most of an hour - if she’s in a hurry.
Needless to say, any woman who mentions her legendary sex drive should be laughed at. This kind of claim is on par with a third world communist nation calling itself great when it’s not even discovered the concept of paved roads. The vestigial response to sexual stimulation that women experience is the equivalent of the nipples on men. They are an genetic holdover from men and women sharing the same racial gene pool. I imagine some of you will insist that there are indeed some women who genuinely do enjoy and crave sex. So what? Apparently some men can lactate too.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
Customer Service - A Case Study
There was a time, long ago, when companies were large enough to be staffed by customer service departments decided they would staff their positions with women. This was based on the misleading research that showed that women tended to elicit more positive responses from those who had were having problems or needed assistance. This is one of those situations where the kunts took a grain of data and ran rough shod over reality. The greater experience, that women have never failed to ruin any industry they have graced, was ignored because as we all know, feelings will always trump reality in a kunt’s mind.
This is the origin of the much deserved bad reputation of “Customer Service”. You might ask how this conclusion is reached? If you are a woman, don’t bother, logic is an elusive concept so no degree of explanation will suffice. If you are a man however I only need one elegant reason: When a man is faced with a problem, it is his gut reaction to correct the problem. It is this innate quality of man that leads to things like science, capitalism and technology. When a woman is faced with a problem, her gut reaction is to figure out how best to avoid it or put it off to somebody else.
This is bad enough when the women are merely occupying the phones and front desks, but women ever leave well enough alone and once they infiltrated the successive levels of their departments, you wind up with a hierarchy of useless staff who’s only talent is in blowing off customers. This of course suits the corporations just fine, because if customers leave without having to be satisfied that’s money the company didn’t have to spend to rectify the problem.
This is the origin of the much deserved bad reputation of “Customer Service”. You might ask how this conclusion is reached? If you are a woman, don’t bother, logic is an elusive concept so no degree of explanation will suffice. If you are a man however I only need one elegant reason: When a man is faced with a problem, it is his gut reaction to correct the problem. It is this innate quality of man that leads to things like science, capitalism and technology. When a woman is faced with a problem, her gut reaction is to figure out how best to avoid it or put it off to somebody else.
This is bad enough when the women are merely occupying the phones and front desks, but women ever leave well enough alone and once they infiltrated the successive levels of their departments, you wind up with a hierarchy of useless staff who’s only talent is in blowing off customers. This of course suits the corporations just fine, because if customers leave without having to be satisfied that’s money the company didn’t have to spend to rectify the problem.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
You think it's bad now?
Just like the global warming pundits, I feel compelled to paint the picture of what the future will be like “if things don’t change”, as just like them I do not expect anything to change. So imagine a good decade or more down the road, figure that no other major catastrophes to give society the electro shock therapy that it desperately needs.
Marriage of course will be dead in the eyes of any man under thirty. It will be relegated to that thing that only old people and creepy women participate in, kinda like what the Catholic church is now. There might be some public notice given to it, however I am not inclined to think so as the media has done everything short of closing it’s eyes and putting its fingers in its ears to ignore it so far that it’s not likely it’s total demise will alter this policy.
Another trend, that has already begun and is already being noted by feminists and men alike, is that of the fear women seem to have about ‘dying alone surrounded by cats’. If my observation of women has shown me anything, it’s that they can barely tolerate each other in their relative youth and in old age they all but completely ignore each other in old age. The ones already locked into this trajectory I suspect will make overtures to their fucked up children in the hopes that somebody will be around to notice the dead body.
While this future isn’t much better for men, the young men are going to envy their fathers as the girls who are being raised now will make our generation look like saints by comparison. What will now be a third generation of girls who are treated better than the historical princesses whose title they have taken, they will not only expect to be pandered to, they will begin seeking ways to enforce this attitude on an increasingly resentful male populace. To compound this problem, younger men will find a tidal backwash of thirty-something men who will make an already grossly overvalued dating market reach levels that could only be rivaled by the dotcom bubble.
One element though that I find amusing is that given this toxic environment for men, I predict at some point in the next decade, when the advancements in computer technologies and virtual interfaces reach a degree, that somebody will craft a truly palatable form of virtual sex. When that happens, though it may take more than a decade, dating as we know it will come to a crashing halt. The phenomenon caused by World of Warcraft, where literally millions of people have all but disappeared from the lives of their friends should give a good idea of what women will have in store for them.
Marriage of course will be dead in the eyes of any man under thirty. It will be relegated to that thing that only old people and creepy women participate in, kinda like what the Catholic church is now. There might be some public notice given to it, however I am not inclined to think so as the media has done everything short of closing it’s eyes and putting its fingers in its ears to ignore it so far that it’s not likely it’s total demise will alter this policy.
Another trend, that has already begun and is already being noted by feminists and men alike, is that of the fear women seem to have about ‘dying alone surrounded by cats’. If my observation of women has shown me anything, it’s that they can barely tolerate each other in their relative youth and in old age they all but completely ignore each other in old age. The ones already locked into this trajectory I suspect will make overtures to their fucked up children in the hopes that somebody will be around to notice the dead body.
While this future isn’t much better for men, the young men are going to envy their fathers as the girls who are being raised now will make our generation look like saints by comparison. What will now be a third generation of girls who are treated better than the historical princesses whose title they have taken, they will not only expect to be pandered to, they will begin seeking ways to enforce this attitude on an increasingly resentful male populace. To compound this problem, younger men will find a tidal backwash of thirty-something men who will make an already grossly overvalued dating market reach levels that could only be rivaled by the dotcom bubble.
One element though that I find amusing is that given this toxic environment for men, I predict at some point in the next decade, when the advancements in computer technologies and virtual interfaces reach a degree, that somebody will craft a truly palatable form of virtual sex. When that happens, though it may take more than a decade, dating as we know it will come to a crashing halt. The phenomenon caused by World of Warcraft, where literally millions of people have all but disappeared from the lives of their friends should give a good idea of what women will have in store for them.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
They're still feminists.
There are is a ongoing bit of chatter in the hive, mostly dealing with how so many women are put off by the idea of feminism and that they are leaving “the movement” in droves. It’s amusing to watch the capital F feminists bemoaning this situation but while I am not sure if they are sincere in their worry, fear not, there is absolutely no truth in it.
Women have not rejected feminism and all it’s fascist self absorbed mantras, they have however rejected Feminism, NOW, and any other official organization representing it. It’s like when I was young, and in the vile redneck shithole I grew up in there was a stir over how the local KKK chapter was disbanding. I was pleased by this and told my teacher (an elderly black man) how great it was. He responded that it was meaningless, that just because the official organization shut down it didn’t mean racism was over. He was right of course and the same is true with feminism.
Women are not rejecting Feminism because they are bothered by what it stands for, they just don’t want to suffer for it by openly claiming to be feminists. They are quite happy to go on being materialistic self absorbed monsters, they are just uncomfortable with advertising the fact.
Feminism is another form of bigotry pure and simple. Just like the KKK, it had a moment in history when it was chic to be openly hateful but just because it’s no longer popular to do it in public doesn’t mean they have stopped doing it. Women will continue to hate men and tarring the word feminist has made them less open about it.
It is a shame though, when the women were open about their misandry they had a brief flirtation with something else, something they don’t experience too often - honesty.
Women have not rejected feminism and all it’s fascist self absorbed mantras, they have however rejected Feminism, NOW, and any other official organization representing it. It’s like when I was young, and in the vile redneck shithole I grew up in there was a stir over how the local KKK chapter was disbanding. I was pleased by this and told my teacher (an elderly black man) how great it was. He responded that it was meaningless, that just because the official organization shut down it didn’t mean racism was over. He was right of course and the same is true with feminism.
Women are not rejecting Feminism because they are bothered by what it stands for, they just don’t want to suffer for it by openly claiming to be feminists. They are quite happy to go on being materialistic self absorbed monsters, they are just uncomfortable with advertising the fact.
Feminism is another form of bigotry pure and simple. Just like the KKK, it had a moment in history when it was chic to be openly hateful but just because it’s no longer popular to do it in public doesn’t mean they have stopped doing it. Women will continue to hate men and tarring the word feminist has made them less open about it.
It is a shame though, when the women were open about their misandry they had a brief flirtation with something else, something they don’t experience too often - honesty.
Monday, March 31, 2008
The Great Sperm Drain
Well it has been going on in England for some time. Sperm donors had their anonymity stripped away from them and instantly became the targets for paternity suits. Of course, now that the number of donors for the whole country has dropped into the double digits they hypocritically bemoan the dearth of donors. You would think the kunts on our side of the pond would for once show a spec of foresight and not fuck themselves over with the sharpened end of their broomstick.
Clearly, if you suffer from that delusion, this will strip it away. No? Maybe this then.
The kunts here are going to do exactly the same thing and the men here who feeling even less forgiving than their British counterparts. It is a pity that some train wrecks take so long to unfold but sometimes the best revenge only comes in slow motion. Once this registry gets started there will be the first uses of it, some claim that the child is somehow defective, suffering from some imaginary problem like bushy eyebrows or her fingernails grow too fast. Then they will insist they need to know who the father is and before you can say “opportunistic bitch” there will be a paternity suit slapped on the clueless idiot.
This isn’t a matter of if, this is a matter of how soon. The irony is that this will leave open grounds for countersuit from the men, to demand that their own samples be removed from the banks and destroyed. Of course the next question to ask is when there is such a severe shortage of Instant-Paternity-Seed, what will the kunts do? This is where the question prompts some potentially scary answers. One could easily envision some crackpot stabs at coercing men to become donors but thankfully the kunts don’t quite have the pull that they need. Yet.
Of course one amusing technological note is that some research into bioengineering has shown that female eggs can be potentially converted into sperm (and vice versa). Now this raises a truly hilarious notion, women suing each other for paternity. I can see how women would insist that would never happen, that women are all one happy homogenous hive mind and would never fuck each other over given the first opportunity.
Clearly, if you suffer from that delusion, this will strip it away. No? Maybe this then.
The kunts here are going to do exactly the same thing and the men here who feeling even less forgiving than their British counterparts. It is a pity that some train wrecks take so long to unfold but sometimes the best revenge only comes in slow motion. Once this registry gets started there will be the first uses of it, some claim that the child is somehow defective, suffering from some imaginary problem like bushy eyebrows or her fingernails grow too fast. Then they will insist they need to know who the father is and before you can say “opportunistic bitch” there will be a paternity suit slapped on the clueless idiot.
This isn’t a matter of if, this is a matter of how soon. The irony is that this will leave open grounds for countersuit from the men, to demand that their own samples be removed from the banks and destroyed. Of course the next question to ask is when there is such a severe shortage of Instant-Paternity-Seed, what will the kunts do? This is where the question prompts some potentially scary answers. One could easily envision some crackpot stabs at coercing men to become donors but thankfully the kunts don’t quite have the pull that they need. Yet.
Of course one amusing technological note is that some research into bioengineering has shown that female eggs can be potentially converted into sperm (and vice versa). Now this raises a truly hilarious notion, women suing each other for paternity. I can see how women would insist that would never happen, that women are all one happy homogenous hive mind and would never fuck each other over given the first opportunity.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Of Vegans and Vixens
Sometimes I wonder if these things fly into my inbox just to bait me.
Wow what a shocking revelation, kunts are naturally given to side with animal rights extremists. Somebody stop the presses, next you’ll be telling me that women support leftist causes and are pushing for a total Marxist transformation of the free world. Oh wait...they are.
One must wonder though why kunts are instantly on the side of every delusional left wing cult. It can’t just be because women are naturally drawn to sociopaths, there’s plenty of fascist right wing lunatics they could clamp their cooch around. Clearly there is more to it than that.
One of the underlying principles of all these leftist organizations is the denial of the individual. Men, being the wild free spirits that we are, enjoy working together but do not feel the hive mind compulsion to only exist as a group. We can and often do operate alone for long stretches, some of us even preferring the solitude for most of our lives. Women on the other hand are like individual ants, mindless and directionless without the rest of the collective to give her direction. Hell, they can’t even go to the bathroom by themselves, even this must become a joint effort.
So knowing this, it is easy to understand why women don’t just prefer left wing causes, but openly cheer for them. Anything to dilute and devalue human life and bring it down to their level of misery and mediocrity.
Wow what a shocking revelation, kunts are naturally given to side with animal rights extremists. Somebody stop the presses, next you’ll be telling me that women support leftist causes and are pushing for a total Marxist transformation of the free world. Oh wait...they are.
One must wonder though why kunts are instantly on the side of every delusional left wing cult. It can’t just be because women are naturally drawn to sociopaths, there’s plenty of fascist right wing lunatics they could clamp their cooch around. Clearly there is more to it than that.
One of the underlying principles of all these leftist organizations is the denial of the individual. Men, being the wild free spirits that we are, enjoy working together but do not feel the hive mind compulsion to only exist as a group. We can and often do operate alone for long stretches, some of us even preferring the solitude for most of our lives. Women on the other hand are like individual ants, mindless and directionless without the rest of the collective to give her direction. Hell, they can’t even go to the bathroom by themselves, even this must become a joint effort.
So knowing this, it is easy to understand why women don’t just prefer left wing causes, but openly cheer for them. Anything to dilute and devalue human life and bring it down to their level of misery and mediocrity.
WhoreMart
You may not have picked up on it, but when women refer to ‘whores and sluts’ they invariably lump the two together, never referring to them individually as though the two were just synonyms for the same thing. The odd part is that the two groups are really nothing alike at all when you think about it. Whores are women who sell sex for money, with a set rate of hourly exchange for various forms of service. A slut on the other hand is a woman who for whatever reason loves to sleep around with various men and may genuinely be enjoying herself. This would be like comparing WalMart to the Salvation Army, one does this to turn a profit, the other does it for shits and giggles.
Now you might wonder, why do the kunts like to lump these two groups of women together? Might it be because these two groups DO have one thing in common - they disrupt the kunts monopoly on sex. With either of these two groups you have a serious revaluation of the male orgasm. Imagine if you live in a town and the only had this grossly overpriced department store which for the purposes of this analogy I shall call Neiman Kuntus. The store having had a total monopoly has gotten incredibly snooty over the years and most of the men can’t even afford to shop there. The few that try have had their credit record ruined.
Now suddenly next door opens up a plain cinder block establishment where there are no frills, a minimum of bullshit and instead of exorbitant payment rituals there’s just a simple cashier who will happily give you a price check on anything you ask. We will call this place WhoreMart. WhoreMart was started on the simple policy that men like to have sex and shouldn’t have to fill out a credit check just to get their nuts off.
As though this wasn’t bad enough, in various locations around town women are ‘volunteering’ to give sex with seemingly no obligation at all. This service which I have not been able to aptly name (“Tits for Tots” was the best I could come up with but it just doesn’t work) and they are offering it as a service to some men regardless of their ability to compensate.
Prostitution has been hated since it’s inception, not by men, but by women. Not because it degrades women. Women will gleefully prostitute themselves out for goodies, they just despise the idea of having to compete for it. Competition lowers costs, it improves the quality of the product. This would be great for sex, wonderful men, and the ruin of the kunts. Kunts loathe having to compete for anything and the thought of having the one thing they can offer men commoditized scares the living shit out of them. They will fight to keep it illegal and would sooner have abortion made illegal than have prostitution decriminalized.
Now you might wonder, why do the kunts like to lump these two groups of women together? Might it be because these two groups DO have one thing in common - they disrupt the kunts monopoly on sex. With either of these two groups you have a serious revaluation of the male orgasm. Imagine if you live in a town and the only had this grossly overpriced department store which for the purposes of this analogy I shall call Neiman Kuntus. The store having had a total monopoly has gotten incredibly snooty over the years and most of the men can’t even afford to shop there. The few that try have had their credit record ruined.
Now suddenly next door opens up a plain cinder block establishment where there are no frills, a minimum of bullshit and instead of exorbitant payment rituals there’s just a simple cashier who will happily give you a price check on anything you ask. We will call this place WhoreMart. WhoreMart was started on the simple policy that men like to have sex and shouldn’t have to fill out a credit check just to get their nuts off.
As though this wasn’t bad enough, in various locations around town women are ‘volunteering’ to give sex with seemingly no obligation at all. This service which I have not been able to aptly name (“Tits for Tots” was the best I could come up with but it just doesn’t work) and they are offering it as a service to some men regardless of their ability to compensate.
Prostitution has been hated since it’s inception, not by men, but by women. Not because it degrades women. Women will gleefully prostitute themselves out for goodies, they just despise the idea of having to compete for it. Competition lowers costs, it improves the quality of the product. This would be great for sex, wonderful men, and the ruin of the kunts. Kunts loathe having to compete for anything and the thought of having the one thing they can offer men commoditized scares the living shit out of them. They will fight to keep it illegal and would sooner have abortion made illegal than have prostitution decriminalized.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Female Cop = Predatory Bully
Yet another article about a female cop going above and beyond the call of kuntdom. I find it amazing how many seemingly intelligent men can read through report after report of how a woman bravely beats a quadriplegic man or just recently how a wily cop, dressed as a prostitute, busts open a ring of eager 90 year old johns. However one thing I have to ask, how does a prostitute dress to stand out from other women these days?
As an aside, I have to ask, why is it always in Florida? No, this isn’t rhetorical as I grew up in that shithole and it seemed like every deranged law, sociopathic murderer, freakish miscarriage of justice and lowlife to hit the national pages was doing it in Florida. The only place on earth I think that can match the level of societal insanity in that state is the middle east.
You will never read about women in law enforcement doing anything brave or heroic because she might break a nail. I assure you, were there some woman who did this, it would be grounds for a epic TV mini series before you could say “There’s an exception to every rule.”
As an aside, I have to ask, why is it always in Florida? No, this isn’t rhetorical as I grew up in that shithole and it seemed like every deranged law, sociopathic murderer, freakish miscarriage of justice and lowlife to hit the national pages was doing it in Florida. The only place on earth I think that can match the level of societal insanity in that state is the middle east.
You will never read about women in law enforcement doing anything brave or heroic because she might break a nail. I assure you, were there some woman who did this, it would be grounds for a epic TV mini series before you could say “There’s an exception to every rule.”
Where Nature Went Wrong
There are those who would blame Feminism for the behavior of women. I am not one of them. There are those who believe that women behave as they due because of bad socialization or gender stereotyping. I am not one of them. The reasons for why women are what they are, is not the fault of men (or even Feminists, though they do make it worse).
Nature has given women something of a shitty genetic hand to play. The brain of a woman is at best slightly below average that of a man and quite often is seriously lacking. Women have by genetic predisposition bad social skills which are only made worse by poor social skills. Compound these external problems with internal ones like a hormone imbalance that makes peace of mind a stranger and something as simple as an orgasm is often heard about but never personally experienced.
Now put this group around another, this other group, though wildly varied (in contrast) of intellect and talents will on average achieve things they never will. Boys will discover orgasms long before girls will get their first period. As they grow into men, they will find their passions either in art, in science. They will become poets, painters, philosophers, thinkers, scientists, or leaders. Women will go shopping. Yes, some women have the capacity to rise above the crippling flaws of their genetics but they are the rare exception to a disturbingly pathetic rule and even they are tainted as they walk through life gritting their teeth at the men who so seem to do effortlessly what is a major struggle for themselves.
So what of the rule then? What do you do when you are so obviously outclassed and outgunned in this modern market place? Well, any good tactician would you that the answer is simple - you wage a guerrilla war. When you lack strength, impugn strength. When you lack intelligence, speak derisively of intellect. When your neighbor has a nice house, you sabotage it. This is why women will instinctively create misery and suffering where there was no need for it. They are jealous of men, not for their achievements but because they are men. This is the heart of misandry, women feel collectively cheated by nature and they are taking it out on men like a hateful petty sibling.
Nature has given women something of a shitty genetic hand to play. The brain of a woman is at best slightly below average that of a man and quite often is seriously lacking. Women have by genetic predisposition bad social skills which are only made worse by poor social skills. Compound these external problems with internal ones like a hormone imbalance that makes peace of mind a stranger and something as simple as an orgasm is often heard about but never personally experienced.
Now put this group around another, this other group, though wildly varied (in contrast) of intellect and talents will on average achieve things they never will. Boys will discover orgasms long before girls will get their first period. As they grow into men, they will find their passions either in art, in science. They will become poets, painters, philosophers, thinkers, scientists, or leaders. Women will go shopping. Yes, some women have the capacity to rise above the crippling flaws of their genetics but they are the rare exception to a disturbingly pathetic rule and even they are tainted as they walk through life gritting their teeth at the men who so seem to do effortlessly what is a major struggle for themselves.
So what of the rule then? What do you do when you are so obviously outclassed and outgunned in this modern market place? Well, any good tactician would you that the answer is simple - you wage a guerrilla war. When you lack strength, impugn strength. When you lack intelligence, speak derisively of intellect. When your neighbor has a nice house, you sabotage it. This is why women will instinctively create misery and suffering where there was no need for it. They are jealous of men, not for their achievements but because they are men. This is the heart of misandry, women feel collectively cheated by nature and they are taking it out on men like a hateful petty sibling.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
The Connecting Flight Between Airlines and Leadership
You learn lessons in the funniest places. The best and most obvious ones are picked up on when I am in a place where my mind is desperately looking for something to gnaw on before it starves from boredom. The airlines are brilliant for this because if you are an observer of human behavior like myself this is like being dropped into the human interaction equivalent of the Amazon rain forest.
One thing that occurred to me was the children, much the way an air raid siren occurs to a person sitting next to it. I realize children probably enjoy flying even less than I do but while I was ready to inform this particular child how she could just shut the fuck up about it, I had a revelation. Looking about, I made several observations based on this revelation:
While observing the unruly children running about (no shortage of them on flight 856) when they were finally chastised, if it was the father it took very little. An ugly glance or a polite reminder of what would happen if they didn’t behave themselves at most.
If it was the mother, there would be a short frustrated demand that the children behave AND immediately followed by the child being slapped, smacked, and in one case spanked. This isn’t to say that I’m against spanking children who are clearly in need of it, but really it amazed me at the disparity in how parents approached the use of it.
(One third thing I’d have pointed out too, the male children were usually the far better behaved ones, but maybe that’s because the screaming child next to me was a twat in training)
This actually conforms rather well to when I was a child, my father could easily command his boys to behave themselves with a word at most, usually a displeased glare was all he needed. It wasn’t from fear of some brutal beating either, we feared his disappointment far more than his anger.
Is it that children just possess an innate wisdom about this? They know when a strong respectable father figure is around they will behave themselves and the only way a mother can enforce her rule is through the immediate and habitual use of corporal punishment? The differences in these two is much like the difference between a charismatic leader who inspires people to follow and the unlovable vile dictator who gets people to obey because they are afraid of them.
This is yet another reason why women should never be allowed into positions of power and authority. Women do not know how to inspire others to follow, all they can do is intimidate people into giving in to their demands.
One thing that occurred to me was the children, much the way an air raid siren occurs to a person sitting next to it. I realize children probably enjoy flying even less than I do but while I was ready to inform this particular child how she could just shut the fuck up about it, I had a revelation. Looking about, I made several observations based on this revelation:
While observing the unruly children running about (no shortage of them on flight 856) when they were finally chastised, if it was the father it took very little. An ugly glance or a polite reminder of what would happen if they didn’t behave themselves at most.
If it was the mother, there would be a short frustrated demand that the children behave AND immediately followed by the child being slapped, smacked, and in one case spanked. This isn’t to say that I’m against spanking children who are clearly in need of it, but really it amazed me at the disparity in how parents approached the use of it.
(One third thing I’d have pointed out too, the male children were usually the far better behaved ones, but maybe that’s because the screaming child next to me was a twat in training)
This actually conforms rather well to when I was a child, my father could easily command his boys to behave themselves with a word at most, usually a displeased glare was all he needed. It wasn’t from fear of some brutal beating either, we feared his disappointment far more than his anger.
Is it that children just possess an innate wisdom about this? They know when a strong respectable father figure is around they will behave themselves and the only way a mother can enforce her rule is through the immediate and habitual use of corporal punishment? The differences in these two is much like the difference between a charismatic leader who inspires people to follow and the unlovable vile dictator who gets people to obey because they are afraid of them.
This is yet another reason why women should never be allowed into positions of power and authority. Women do not know how to inspire others to follow, all they can do is intimidate people into giving in to their demands.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
When a girl says “No” she means whatever the hell she feels like.
In Muslim dominated countries, a woman’s testimony is only half that of a man. Now apart from the legal strangeness of giving a numerical valuation to a legal claim, I think that for once the religious nuts have a great idea at least in concept. The root of this I surmise is that the testimony of a woman can’t be trusted. This of course is a bit of male wisdom that transcends every culture and nation. It can be found in the oldest scriptures and this wisdom though disputed by every woman has never once been refuted.
Of course the questions arise, are women incapable of telling the truth? No that would mean that women are simply pathological liars which isn’t the case. Others claim that women would prefer to tell a lie because it’s more comfortable than the truth. This is closer but the reality, as it is so often, is more complicated.
The basic problem is that in the mind of a woman, the truth or a lie has equal merit. She will use the truth if it would gain her benefit (or inflict more harm) and she will tell a lie if it will reach those ends better. For a woman, there is no more moral conflict in telling a lie over the truth than there would be in choosing between orange soda and grape soda.
The ramification of this flaw in the behavior of women becomes obvious when one considers how unreliable the opinion of a woman can be. When they stand for nothing (which is impossible when you do not value the truth over deceit) their beliefs become as difficult to nail down as a mayfly. Think about all the times when women simply can’t make up their minds, regardless of the obviousness of a choice, be it a choice of great magnitude or something as simple as what to wear to work. All choices are made on a foundation of valuations which on some level have the labels of “right” and “wrong.”
So it’s not surprising that Muslims would treat the testimony of a woman with suspicion, though their reasoning is almost certainly not as sound, like the idiot who gets the answer to a question correctly by a blind guess, the answer though is still correct - women are dishonest by nature.
Of course the questions arise, are women incapable of telling the truth? No that would mean that women are simply pathological liars which isn’t the case. Others claim that women would prefer to tell a lie because it’s more comfortable than the truth. This is closer but the reality, as it is so often, is more complicated.
The basic problem is that in the mind of a woman, the truth or a lie has equal merit. She will use the truth if it would gain her benefit (or inflict more harm) and she will tell a lie if it will reach those ends better. For a woman, there is no more moral conflict in telling a lie over the truth than there would be in choosing between orange soda and grape soda.
The ramification of this flaw in the behavior of women becomes obvious when one considers how unreliable the opinion of a woman can be. When they stand for nothing (which is impossible when you do not value the truth over deceit) their beliefs become as difficult to nail down as a mayfly. Think about all the times when women simply can’t make up their minds, regardless of the obviousness of a choice, be it a choice of great magnitude or something as simple as what to wear to work. All choices are made on a foundation of valuations which on some level have the labels of “right” and “wrong.”
So it’s not surprising that Muslims would treat the testimony of a woman with suspicion, though their reasoning is almost certainly not as sound, like the idiot who gets the answer to a question correctly by a blind guess, the answer though is still correct - women are dishonest by nature.
Friday, March 21, 2008
I Endorse this Divorce!
In some other election, where Hillary wasn’t running, Obama would be the darling of Feminists everywhere. Of course like all kunts, when it comes between the best man in the race, sorry but that torture supporting hypocrite McCain can eat shit and die, and the worst woman to ever run for office, they will ALWAYS side with the woman. Hillary is of course the closest the feminists have ever come to their holy grail of having a woman in charge of the country. Because as we all know, once women are in charge, the skys will shower money onto us, the evils of the world will shrivel away and die, and we will all live happily ever after.
Of course, those who aren’t humorless kunts can appreciate how the ‘best’ woman the Feminists can put forth, a humorless vindictive power hungry bitch, who using the most stacked deck a politician could ask for is still managing to lose to the new guy. Rather than acknowledge their bad choice and accepting that the better candidate is winning, they do what all women will do, they are having temper tantrums. The typical manhating shame speeches have already begun. The tirades by Geraldine Ferarro and patron saint of batshit kunts Gloria Steinum were just the start. Now there’s an article in Mother Jones which amounts to little more than a shame-speech and the only shocking part of the article was that the author didn’t ask him to bow out of the race.
If nobody believes me when I tell them that the marriage of Feminism kunts and the Religious fucktards in this country is inevitable allow me to make a prediction and that is when Hillary loses to Obama it will be the proverbial separation of the Feminist establishment from the Democratic party and their inevitable divorce. Of course like the metaphorical sociopathic bitch she will fuck that party over for everything she can before jumping into the arms of the next clueless moron she can woo over. In this case it will be the Religious wing of the now aged bachelor known as the Republican party.
One might say that this would be the death knell for the Democrats when this happens but I am not so sure. Feminists are only in it for themselves, those without ovaries are at best cannon fodder in their eyes (women LOVE wars), so they will gladly support the occupation of Iraq until the nation goes bankrupt and takes the Republicans with them. Also a Democratic party without the albatross of kunt ass kissing will win back large numbers of blue collar men - especially the single father variety if they opt to support father’s rights. What’s great is that the union of these two fundamentalist whackjob groups is that when they cause the Republicans to self destruct they will do more damage to each other as they go down than anybody could do to either of them alone!
Of course, those who aren’t humorless kunts can appreciate how the ‘best’ woman the Feminists can put forth, a humorless vindictive power hungry bitch, who using the most stacked deck a politician could ask for is still managing to lose to the new guy. Rather than acknowledge their bad choice and accepting that the better candidate is winning, they do what all women will do, they are having temper tantrums. The typical manhating shame speeches have already begun. The tirades by Geraldine Ferarro and patron saint of batshit kunts Gloria Steinum were just the start. Now there’s an article in Mother Jones which amounts to little more than a shame-speech and the only shocking part of the article was that the author didn’t ask him to bow out of the race.
If nobody believes me when I tell them that the marriage of Feminism kunts and the Religious fucktards in this country is inevitable allow me to make a prediction and that is when Hillary loses to Obama it will be the proverbial separation of the Feminist establishment from the Democratic party and their inevitable divorce. Of course like the metaphorical sociopathic bitch she will fuck that party over for everything she can before jumping into the arms of the next clueless moron she can woo over. In this case it will be the Religious wing of the now aged bachelor known as the Republican party.
One might say that this would be the death knell for the Democrats when this happens but I am not so sure. Feminists are only in it for themselves, those without ovaries are at best cannon fodder in their eyes (women LOVE wars), so they will gladly support the occupation of Iraq until the nation goes bankrupt and takes the Republicans with them. Also a Democratic party without the albatross of kunt ass kissing will win back large numbers of blue collar men - especially the single father variety if they opt to support father’s rights. What’s great is that the union of these two fundamentalist whackjob groups is that when they cause the Republicans to self destruct they will do more damage to each other as they go down than anybody could do to either of them alone!
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Political Marriage
No I'm not talking about Clinton. I'm referring to a phenomenon that ten years ago I would never have imagined. The religious nuts and the feminists are joining forces. However upon contemplation I realized that this is actually a inevitable joining of two groups who's differences are just as irrelevant as the differences between the religious right and wall street.
Think about it. The feminists hate sex. The church hates sex. The feminists have swaddled themselves in the illusion that they are all for "the family" (which means them, their child and the alimony check). The church has also made claims of an equally hypocritical nature. Also remember this, by far the majority of church goers are women.
This shouldn't surprise anybody when you consider the two groups. Both have as a central principle the negation of common sense, reality and trumpet intellectual dishonesty as theirs by right. If women had not been so gung ho on abortion back in the 60's this would probably have happened already.
Think about it. The feminists hate sex. The church hates sex. The feminists have swaddled themselves in the illusion that they are all for "the family" (which means them, their child and the alimony check). The church has also made claims of an equally hypocritical nature. Also remember this, by far the majority of church goers are women.
This shouldn't surprise anybody when you consider the two groups. Both have as a central principle the negation of common sense, reality and trumpet intellectual dishonesty as theirs by right. If women had not been so gung ho on abortion back in the 60's this would probably have happened already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)