When men have something women have less of, such as money or power, women simply take it by force. It's called affirmative action and feminists believe it's right. I am not going to argue against that. I accept that as a lost cause. So instead I am going to embrace forced equality and demand it for men as well.
What women have that men don't is of course sex. If anyone doubts that sex is a female resource, go here and request the PDF file Baumeister, R.F. & Vohs, K.D. (2004). Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339-363.
In light of feminism, or if you believe in equality, this article makes such a compelling case for rape that Baumeister felt obliged to include the otiose disclaimer, "Our analysis should in no way be construed as excusing sexual coercion and we roundly condemn any such acts."
So let us give women equality if that's what they really want. Remember that due to the hypergamous nature of women, men get less sex as women get more money and power. Women are generally incapable of feeling attraction for men who are not better than they are, and soon men are no better than equal. So it is about time men in feminist countries such as Norway stop thinking of rape as wrong. I have previously argued this point e.g. here as Arpagus, and no one has been able to justify why affirmative action is right when it benefits women and hurts men but is wrong when it helps men and hurts women.
Bio
- Eivind Berge
- Politically I am a sex-positive men's rights activist, now called a male sexualist to set us apart as the true MRAs. Male sexualism is just what it sounds like, an ideology aligned with male sexuality while respecting the human rights of all. In addition to advocating for sex law reform, we also have a self-help aspect which most fruitfully consists of shunning porn and masturbation (aka nofap) in order to realize our fullest sexual potential. Since we recognize that political progress against feminism is unlikely any time soon, the practical essence of male sexualism is how men can attain love and understanding in the face of oppression of our true natures; what we believe to be the best possible approach to the meaning of life under the circumstances. We may be criminalized, but we shall not allow ourselves to be shamed. If you are a normal man, your nature is denied not just by law but pretty much any other philosophy, so there is much to gain by joining us. And not just men, but women who value sexual freedom over "abuse" hysteria should also support our movement.
Donations
1MRAbudkmGvxi6ZqVZjFcrSAEvqG7mZvJ4
357 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 357 of 357If only you were richer than women, they would sleep with you. I'm crying my eyes out over your sad, sad fate.
Men have a resource that women do not -- they have penises. Therefore, by your theory, it should be acceptable for women to take *by force* the resource they lack. Think about *that* for a while.
I am certainly against other kinds of affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws, too.
You’re opposed to anti-discrimination laws, but you don’t believe women have a right to be selective when choosing a mate?
What do you define as 'adequately' then?
To the best of the victim's ability.
So, let’s say you manage to get some chick to go out with you. You go out for dinner and then invite her back to your place for, say, a movie. She says “Oh, I don’t know. It’s just our first date, I don’t think I should go back to your place.” And you tell her it’s fine. “It’s just a movie!” So you get there and half way through the movie, you make your move. You put your hands on her, try kissing her… maybe she kisses back, maybe not. Either way, at some point she says, “No,” and you persist. You try unbuttoning her blouse, and she pushes your hands off and tells you to stop. You lean against her and she turns and leans away, and you continue in your pursuit. Pausing for a moment, has she not adequately indicated that she does not want to have sex with you? Do you seriously contend that because she has not, to this point, attempted to claw your eyes out, she has not adequately resisted?
This is true, but sex only happens on women's premises (except rape). Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Whenever a woman wants sex, she can simply have it. Sexuality belongs entirely to women. Men have no sexual agency, and this is what sexual equality would address.
Demonstrably false. I’ve had sex when I did not want to, but because my partner did, and I’ve been denied sex by sexual partners (and yes, they were men) who were not in the mood. So, again, your claims are wholly unsupported personal opinions that have no basis in reality.
Generally speaking, men are more preoccupied with sex, much more easily aroused, and care more about the physical aspects than the emotional. This imbalance is not our gender’s doing. It’s biological. Your desire is for women to do all the compromising when it comes to sex. That’s bullshit.
In normal, healthy relationships between sane people, there is a compromise by both. If the man wants sex far more than his women, in my own experience, it has been a matter of him having sex less often than he’d like, and me having sex more often than I’d like. Mind you, this was a previous relationship and he wasn’t a good lover, so sex really did nothing for me.
That brings us to an topic we haven’t yet discussed. All the reasons you’re undesireable to women have been covered, but let’s speak for a moment on why sexual encounters you have experienced didn’t lead to opportunities for sex with that same woman again. Perhaps you’re a shitty lover. You’re intensely self-centered, so it seems likely that you’d also be selfish when it comes to sex. If the sex isn’t good for her, she’s not going to be interested in it again. That simple. My current relationship… let’s just say I want it.
The best lovers derive pleasure from giving pleasure. The best men enjoy the power of inflicting back arching, toe curling, screaming orgasms in their women. Pathetic losers with small penises, low self-esteem, and no skills in the bedroom derive pleasure from the power they experience from dominating a woman by raping her.
That said, judging by your responses, I’m guessing you haven’t raped a woman. Among other reasons, you clearly don’t appreciate that while dry sex is extremely painful, emotionally traumatic, and physically damaging to a woman; it’s not pleasant for a man either.
I would like for you to explain how chafing one's penis while forcing it into a woman who is pinned to the ground, screaming, tears streaming down her face, is sexually gratifying for someone who is not a sadistic fuck who derives pleasure from the dominance aspect of the rape. Can you explain that to me, please?
Don't you understand, LT? Even if you're not turned on by rape, having your victim cry and be in pain is totally not a turn-off once you get her penis inside of her! Magic!
Also people keep repeating lies that I've already debunked above, like the hateful feminist propaganda about rape being motivated by power rather than sex. I am so sick and tired of that calumnious lie.
Where’s this science? Because there is plenty of scientific evidence to show that power is a motivator in rape. This isn’t a matter of 100% of cases, but you’re calling it a myth, as if to say that power is never a motivator in rape, and that’s just patently false.
Gillen, K., & Muncer, S.J. (1995). Sex differences in the perceived causal structure of date rape: A preliminary report. Aggressive Behavior, 21, (2), 101-112. This study found that males’ need for dominance a clear motivator in date rape.
Wolter-Warmerdam, K. (2008). Rape. University of California at Santa Barabara. http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/article/rape. This one explains the various motivators of rape, including sexual gratification as well as power and anger. Also makes good points about prison rape, a fate for which you’re headed in the right direction.
Baumeister, R.F. (2001). Social Psychology and Human Sexuality: Essential Reading (Key Readings in Social Psychology), p. 229. This is your favorite author, right? This article is one you’ve probably read and serves as a good example of why Baumeister is not a reasonable source for these matters. His arguments, much like your own, are often flawed and poorly supported. His questioning of other studies is weak, at best, regarding this issue. I use this example, however, because I don’t believe you’re worth the effort for me to go find the source he cited for the piece of information I’m interested in, which is:
“84% of the rapists cited sexual motivation “solely or in part” as the cause of their acts.” Baumeister appreciated that specific bit of information, despite the fact that the pesky 84 is a few short of 100; but he easily explained that away by saying the rapists themselves were unreliable sources when it came to their motivations. I mean, really… that’s absurd. But I do understand why you like his work on this topic so much.
Knowles, L. (2009). Acquaintance Rape Motivation: Sexual vs. Power & Control. A Case Formulation, abstract. Now, this is just a dissertation, but it was a case study of a rapist. “It was found that, in this case, power and control was the primary motivator but that duality of the motivators was also highlighted.”
Scully, D. (1994). Understanding Sexual Violence: A Study of Convicted Rapists. This book gives many examples of power and dominance being a key motivator in rape, and it includes testimony from convicted rapists. I’d like to snag a couple quotes, though.
“The idea that rape is impersonal rather than intimate or mutual appealed to a number of rapists, some of whom suggested that it was their preferred form of sex. The fact that rape gave them the power to control and dominate their victims encouraged some to act on this preference” (194).
”Rape is always a symptom of some psychological dysfunction, either temporary and transient or chronic and repetitive” (41). And that was actually a direct quote of Groth from his 1979 work Men Who Rape: The Psychology of the Offender, p. 5.
You may want to read that last one again.
Where are your scientific sources that show sex as the sole motivator in rape? And, if you don’t mind, I’d like to see work from someone other than Baumeister.
Hey, LT, do you want to gay marry me?
Seriously, though, I respect that you went through so much trouble to point out the immense amount of FAIL in Berge's argument (and the pathetically small number of sources he uses to "back them up").
I also find it interesting that Berge is ignoring what I said in my first post: that rape may be partially motivated by sex, but that you cannot force sex on someone without there being an issue of power (overruling another person's will and physical autonomy for one's own benefit). Does he not see that power and sex are not mutually exclusive? Why is he so immensely dense? And why is it that someone who is in fucking college thinks that ONE SOURCE somehow makes an argument infallible ?
@Otoki
Thanks for the proposal, but it's not legal where I live. ;)
"... power and sex are not mutually exclusive ... And why is it that someone who is in fucking college thinks that ONE SOURCE somehow makes an argument infallible ?
If you stop and pay attention to your surroundings in the world, you may quickly realize that you're swimming in a sea of stupid. While few idiots make it through college, some do, and more at least try.
I know that plenty of idiots make it through college. I just don't get how you can be a student at 32 (I'm assuming he's working on a masters) and seriously think one source is enough. And I thought America's education system was bad.
Oh, marrying you wouldn't be legal where I am either. Yet. We should do it just so we can cut down on the available women in the world, thus increasing the competition for the already unattractive, incompetent, sociopathic ax-murderer in the making. Ooh, wait, are you white? Because if you are you should marry one of the "privileged races" so they get "more than their share" of white women. It's a win either way!
LT--
I am going to reply in detail to your last couple of posts, but just wanted to say quickly that I am not just using one source. My favorite source on rape is in fact not Baumeister at all, but Thornhill and Palmer's A Natural History of Rape, and it has 31 pages of bibliography. They spend chapters 5-6 debunking the feminist explanation of rape, including Groth and the others you cited. You can read some of it here on Google books right now if you don't have access to it. Chapter 6 is most relevant.
Also, I'm not saying rape is NEVER about more than sex, but sex is the primary motivation behind most rapes and the sole motivation of the kind of affirmative-action sex that I am talking about.
VShe already has; she's with a strapping black man. LT, get back to fucking bed. The kids are crying. Oh, and make me a sammitch before I rape you.
He's neither strapping nor black! Haha.
Also, I'm not saying rape is NEVER also about more than sex, but sex is the primary motivation and the sole motivation of the kind of affirmative-action sex that I am talking about.
Okay. Thanks for the clarification, but that still makes no sense to me. Perhaps your response to my question that includes the descriptive bit about the act of rape will bring further clarity.
My boyfriend is blind and I frequently pay for things he needs, and yes, I earn much more money than he does. My mother married a man who was building a business... he borrowed money from her and paid her back after the business took off. These are two examples that counter your argument.
All human beings have a right to bodily security. Rape is a vile act that violates the confines of a person's body. I was almost raped in college by a stranger who broke into my house and I was devastated for months afterward (I even had to drop out of school for a while). What you are suggesting is not only lacking in logical soundness, but also vile and disgusting. You should think more carefully about your position. Really.
well, this is the best corroboration of Nietzsche's maxim "fight not with monsters lest ye become a monster" i've ever seen.
I would just like to point out that rape is about POWER not sex, so raping someone would not help men have more sex it would help them rape more women. Also, affirmative action does not "victimize" men, it allows people to have opportunities to do the jobs they want to do and are best at.
I ask you how long a similar post about "Lynching is equality" would stay up, and how many people would respond with "Hmm, maybe you have a point."
Your ridiculous views reflect your complete lack of any real world experience with rape.
You really need an education that apparently all your years of schooling haven't yet taught you.
I find your existence to be sad and pitiful. I would pity you if you weren't so dangerous to me and other women who are just trying to live their lives.
Why do you want sex so badly anyway? You're clearly not interested in any sort of good sexual experience if you think rape is a substitute for sex. If you think the two are interchangeable, this may account for your lack of success, since a man who thinks rape is a substitute for sex is likely to be an incredibly lousy lay. No woman will want to fuck you twice unless she's desperately horny and out of options.
You seem to crave sexual contact with a woman but I can't imagine what it is about the experience that you want badly enough to resort to rape.
If you just want an orgasm, cum into a tissue or something, or buy a fleshlight (Google it if you're unfamiliar)- it'll feel more realistic. If your goal is to have a child with the woman, then you'll have to go through serious therapy because you are in no psychological state to be a father to anybody. If you're looking for love and companionship... you'll never find it, because you're a creep. And if you're looking for wild, fun, pleasurable sex with a partner with whom you have mutual attraction... that's not rape, that's sex... so your solution fails. Rape will never ever provide that experience nor will it be anything close to a substitute.
What exactly does rape solve, except that it allows men to treat women as nothing more than cum receivers? And why do you need a woman for that job? Just use your hand and your imagination like other sexually frustrated men do.
@LT
You’re opposed to anti-discrimination laws, but you don’t believe women have a right to be selective when choosing a mate?
I do believe women have the right to be selective. That is their nature and not what I am arguing against. What I don't believe women have a right to are laws facilitating female selectivity by making them more than naturally equal so they can be more picky with men than they otherwise would be. The men sexually rejected as a result have as much right to redress by force this as women had to forced equality in the first place.
Either way, at some point she says, “No,” and you persist. You try unbuttoning her blouse, and she pushes your hands off and tells you to stop. You lean against her and she turns and leans away, and you continue in your pursuit. Pausing for a moment, has she not adequately indicated that she does not want to have sex with you? Do you seriously contend that because she has not, to this point, attempted to claw your eyes out, she has not adequately resisted?
She has probably adequately indicated that she does not want to have sex, but she has certainly not resisted enough to make it rape if she gives up at this point and lets me have it. This does not mean that I would necessarily not respect her wishes or recommend behaving in such a way that women always have to fight to avoid sex. What you and feminists don't seem to realize is that there is an area between completely courteous behavior and what is supposedly, or used to be, a very serious crime. You feel so entitled that you can call it rape and get the man locked away forever as soon as things don't go your way, and you expect to not have to lift a finger or risk any injury to attain the status of rape victim. This is completely unacceptable to men.
In A Natural History of Rape, Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer define rape as "Human copulation resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless such resistance would probably result in death or serious injury to her or others she commonly protects." Why do you think they define it thus, and not as any sex unwanted by the woman where this is simply made clear to the man? These researchers are not men's rights activists, merely honest. Rape has always through entire human history meant forced sex. Feminists have completely redefined the concept and make it include all unwanted (and regretted) sex, a vastly greater concept that means the crime has been trivialized. It leads to contempt for women, such as mine and lack of sympathy for real victims. It leads to the kind of absurd trials that I have witnessed taking place every day and men being convicted simply for women regretting sex, or with no evidence beyond her word. It means that women are legally feeble dimwits who constantly have to be asked for their consent and no matter how absurd the accusation, the justice system will only be concerned with maximizing the conviction rate. This is incredibly empowering for women, so I understand why you support it, but MRAs will oppose it and hopefully there will be a backlash.
The two definitions you've given are both extreme. Classifying regretted sex as rape is absurd. Saying that it's not rape unless the woman violently fights back is not only absurd, but it depicts men as blithering idiots who are more concerned with getting off than with the life of another human. And while that clearly defines you, it does not define men.
A more realistic definition is that rape is "penetration against the victim's will of a bodily orifice (vagina, anus, or mouth) by a penis or other part of the body, or by an object." Short of penetration, you'd have sexual assault.
http://grc.nd.edu/resources/definitions.pdf
So, a female has a man forcing himself on her, and you and other stupid men want to toss in this ridiculous "to the best of her ability" bullshit about her resisting. It basically suggests men are too stupid to understand that a female simply resisting means she's not interested in sex with you; and that says a lot about a man's opinion of his own gender.
The reality of the matter is, for the women, there's a determination they have to make. If they get violent, does that risk the rapist becoming more violent? Probably. For the women, the decision of whether or not to *fight* back could be the difference between being raped or being raped and murdered.
Curiously, you didn't answer my question: I would like for you to explain how chafing one's penis while forcing it into a woman who is pinned to the ground, screaming, tears streaming down her face, is sexually gratifying for someone who is not a sadistic fuck who derives pleasure from the dominance aspect of the rape. Can you explain that to me, please?
@LT
I’ve had sex when I did not want to, but because my partner did, and I’ve been denied sex by sexual partners (and yes, they were men) who were not in the mood. In normal, healthy relationships between sane people, there is a compromise by both.
Sure, but the point is that sex is vastly more available to women, and has exchange value for women and not for men. There will be mutual compromise within couples, but the market as a whole is overwhelmingly ruled by women.
Perhaps you’re a shitty lover. You’re intensely self-centered, so it seems likely that you’d also be selfish when it comes to sex. If the sex isn’t good for her, she’s not going to be interested in it again.
No woman I've been with has called me a bad lover, and some of them have indeed been interested in it again. I had a relationship last two months back in 2002, and I've had one girlfriend for a month and another for six weeks. That the rest have been one-night stands is not because I am selfish when it comes to sex, which I'm not. However, at a time when no women want anything from me at all and I get so much hate, it would be rather absurd to speak about pleasing women.
Among other reasons, you clearly don’t appreciate that while dry sex is extremely painful, emotionally traumatic, and physically damaging to a woman; it’s not pleasant for a man either.
One can use lubrication.
I would like for you to explain how chafing one's penis while forcing it into a woman who is pinned to the ground, screaming, tears streaming down her face, is sexually gratifying for someone who is not a sadistic fuck who derives pleasure from the dominance aspect of the rape. Can you explain that to me, please?
It would be much less gratifying than consensual sex and I have never said anything else. Of course men prefer consensual sex, and only the idiots who believe rape is about power disagree with this. The point is that raping is better than getting no sex at all.
@LT
Where are your scientific sources that show sex as the sole motivator in rape? And, if you don’t mind, I’d like to see work from someone other than Baumeister.
My claim is that sex is usually the primary motivator in rape, and I have cited Natural History of Rape, which in turn cites a lot of evidence. Did you look at it, and do you still disagree? Do you want more sources? This is not a controversial point in biology, only in the social sciences, which are mostly based on feminist ideology rather than reality. Just to mention one more book The Red Queen by Matt Ridley also argues that rape is motivated by sex. And he pretty much comes across as a feminist ideologically, just a little more intellectually honest than most feminists.
Since when are you a biologist? Do you honestly think you can understand the complexities of biology and human evolution enough to safely say all this crap you've said about rape?
I know an alarming number of men who would rather have a date with Jill Palmer than rape a woman. What makes you so special that your sexual needs are more important than theirs? And, you know what else is funny, almost all of them get laid on a regular basis. Maybe there's a correlation.
The point is that raping is better than getting no sex at all.
So you think it's "better" to commit a serious crime, risk a long prison sentence and traumatise another person for years if not decades than it is to go without sex?
Quite aside from being a proposition so idiotic that it raises serious questions about your mental health, no able-bodied individual need go without sexual relief. Personally, I think masturbation is infinitely preferable to sexual contact with someone I don't care for that much.
Incidentally, I thought of you last night when making love to my wife - one of those perfect encounters where we were so turned on that we didn't even need to use our hands, and the genital contact was a very small part of the whole emotionally overwhelming experience. I bet you've never had sex like that in your life - and I'm certain that you never will unless you make drastic changes to your present mindset.
@LT
The two definitions you've given are both extreme.
No, they are not. They are perfectly reasonable and consistent with how rape has been defined by all of humanity up until the last few decades when feminists have managed to corrupt justice. It is your definition that is extreme. "Penetration against the victim's will?" This creates a reign of terror for men, where everything hinges on the internal state of the woman and she can claim it was rape with no evidence. It also makes a lot of rape very trivial indeed. Suppose the woman does not want sex, but she doesn't feel strongly enough about it to lift a finger in resistance and merely says no. It is just a slight nuisance to her, say with a longtime partner. If you want to trivialize the crime to this degree, then you have to live with alleged victims not being taken seriously. Currently it is best to assume a rape accusation is either false or trivial until we know the details of the case.
If they get violent, does that risk the rapist becoming more violent?
They better take some risk if they plan to accuse the man of rape! The line is drawn at threat of serious injury. Either rape is a serious crime comparable to horrible violence, or it can be as trivial as the slightest scratch and we need to adjust the punishment accordingly. You can't have your cake and eat it.
It basically suggests men are too stupid to understand that a female simply resisting means she's not interested in sex with you; and that says a lot about a man's opinion of his own gender.
Understanding has nothing to do with it. Men can understand perfectly well that the sex is against her will, but that still does not make it rape. Rape is not just sex without consent. Rape is also forcible sex. Period. This is very banal and shouldn't be so hard to understand.
Incidentally, men are hardwired to oversexualize women's intentions and interpret willingness to sex where there is none. A mere smile from a woman is usually interpreted as sexual interest, while the truth is that most often women are just being friendly, and I can cite references for this bias if you want. It is adaptive because it helps us not miss sexual opportunities, however unlikely. So in a sense, it is indeed true that men blithering idiots when it comes to sex, and often a woman will consider herself violated when a man thought she wanted it. Feminist have addressed this by removing mens rea from the legal definition of rape (happened in 2000 here in Norway) to put more innocent men in prison.
I should add that women are blithering idiots about sex too -- in the opposite direction. Women are hardwired to undersexualize men's intentions. This is how they are able to fool themselves into thinking men help them out just to be nice or pay for dates because they believe it is the right thing to do.
Ladies, you can try a simple experiment yourselves to see how men oversexualize the world. Just go out and smile to strangers, and you will get some very creepy behavior from men in return.
Wrong again. It must be nice to live a little deluded world where you think you know exactly what women want without being one.
I see. Women take your money? By force? Frequently enough for you to make an issue of it? Get a tazer and zap the next woman who beats you up for your lunch money.
Or do you mean, you pay for dinner for a girl, then she doesn't put out, so she stole from you because the social contract said that dinner = pussy time for your dick? Next time get a hooker. Seriously, dude, people aren't generally in long-term relationships just for the sex.
On a realistic note - If a guy ever tried to rape me I'd take it as attempted murder. I don't know what diseases he has. I don't want his germs. I'd kill him, in a heartbeat, without thinking twice or feeling the least bit sorry. And if a guy came up to you and wanted to stick a potentially herpes-ridden dick up your ass, you'd kill him too.
Rape isn't like arm-wrestling, or mugging, or beating someone up a little. It can kill a woman or get her pregnant. Or both - she might die in childbirth. The baby might die too. It happens. If you rape a woman you choose the consequences of that act, forever. And I don't just mean jail for you.
Or, worse still from your rather self-centered point of view, you could pick some sweet-looking girl to duct tape and rape and end up with genital warts (I've heard one in six people have the virus), and your dick could end up looking like a cauliflower. You've have to have them frozen off with liquid nitrogen every so often.
Or you could pick someone off the street and end up trying to rape a guy. I've heard guys really freak out when they find a penis under a skirt instead of a vagina.
So many ways it could go horribly wrong.
I think the worst way it goes wrong is this: you're assuming that genitals matter. That there's some fundamental absolute always difference between men and women. Guess what? There isn't. Innie or outie, man or woman, xx or xy, it doesn't matter. The differences are minuscule. Sometimes literally. Some men are feminine; some women are butch. Some people are gay or straight or bi or asexual, some have both sets of genitals, some have ambiguous genitals. The world is much larger than you have allowed it to be, in your mind.
Committing rape isn't about sex, anyways; it's about power. Your blog shows your fear and the fact that you feel powerless; rape won't actually solve that for you. It's a temporary physical exertion of your will over someone else - that's all. Just like holding a gun to someone or drowning a kitten, it lasts a moment in time and goes away. When you get done you're nothing more than you were when you started, except you're missing a few sperm. Like washing dishes, there's always another dirty one in the stack. It'll never change, never end for you because you're looking the wrong way. You're looking at the world outside to fulfill your needs, to give you recognition. The world will never give you enough recognition to make you happy. Things from outside wil never fix what's inside you.
I'd suggest you find someone to talk to. If you go on like this, advocating violence and feeling helpless, you're going to hurt someone or be hurt.
I'm posting this anonymously because I'm afraid you're not rational. Please talk to someone, ok?
I don't think intelligent women are unaware that most everything men do for them is sexually motivated. Many women, I think, consider it sort of ridiculous how consumed by sex men are. I mean, the average man, in my experience, will freely admit that he thinks about it all the time. When it gets to the point that you're at, though... it's really more pathetic. You're so overwhelmed by your own sexual desires that you can't function in society in any sort of healthy way.
Anyway, I also think most women are probably incapable of fully grasping just how consumed by sex men are, because our minds don't work that way; but like I said before, you think that women should make all the compromises when it comes to biological differences between the sex drives of men and women.
Your way of thinking is just so absurd I can't even begin to process it. You have these short little relationships and think that's somehow indicative of you being someone women want to be in a relationship with. No. My current relationship just passed a year. The one before that was over eight years. If you want sex on a regular basis, become the type of person a woman wants to be with.
Another issue that hasn't been discussed here is the double standard with sex. Men who get laid often are studs. Women who do are sluts. Society teaches women not to be promiscuous while teaching the opposite to men. And you cannot make a claim that the feminists are responsible for that one.
Furthermore, with the risks of sexually transmitted diseases (or, less accurately, but more pc, "infections") constantly rising, it's not safe to be promiscuous. And you stated you don't like whores so much because they usually won't let you stick it in them without a condom. Gross.
The more I read from you, the more convoluted the whole thing becomes. There is just so much you don't consider. So much you completely disregard. You're not making an objective argument. It's impossible for you to. You objectify women, your logic is shamefully flawed, and you're morally bankrupt.
I hope that you someday realize your desperate need for psychological treatment, not to mention the serious need for medication to curb your sex drive.
You know, LT, I sort of glossed over the prostitution-condom remark before because there was so much else to respond to, but I seriously don't get why he finds unprotected sex with strangers to be an attractive notion. Does he think condoms are a Feminist conspiracy to oppress his sperm or something?
Eivind: You have a problem. It's that you think sex = something concrete, and a limited resource you must compete for. I don't know how to address your misunderstandings of evolution.. E.g. he ideas you have regarding hidden ovulation are, for want of a better word, inane. They require almost Lamarckian mechanisms.
Your intense focus on sex (and your lack) is twisting your thinking.
So I have a few questions.
1: Are women people? If the answer is yes, explain why they are not entitled, to economic equality?
2: Hypergamy is a cultural trait (just read the wikipedia article you linked to... societies with high levels of gender inequality are more likely to have women who "marry-up" for the benefit of their children, and more likely to have men who "marry-down" to ensure that their mates have a higher incentive to remain faithful. It's, in short, an attempt to balance the books, because women are social disadvanted.
3: Your anger is, apparently, fueled by a sense of not being top-dog (and yes, I am reading for comprehension.. the comment about being willing to reconsider lynching minorities if they are getting an "unfair" share of "white women", and your statement that "older feminists deserve" to be raped, are purely about dominance; and show a latent hatred you are trying to hide, perhaps even from yourself, but this argument you make, it's not about sex, it's about anger, and power, and how you have one, and lack the other). Well, that's part and parcel of the MRA mindset. There are only so many Alpha's out there. It looks as though you are just a Beta.
Mind you, this is only a problem if the MRA/Game model of the world is correct. I would argue, from some 30 years of being sexually active, that it's not. That charm, confidence, and an honest approach to dealing with women as people, are more than enough to get all the sex one might want. It helps to like them, as people. To see them as equal human beings, but even if you can't do that (which is pretty much needed to maintain a healthy relationship... for at least the partner one has), you can still get laid, a lot.
Your, "logic" about the mechanisms of the enactment of affirmative action laws is part of this too. You complain that women have lobbying groups, that they petition for the redress of grievances and use their majority in the population to get things passed. In short you are upset they are being treated like human beings, with rights, and everything. ( I am also amused at your dismissal of how women were treated in the past (and if you think women had it so well in Norway that no need to balance the present playing field is needed, I suggest you go and read some Henrik Ibsen,).
Really, do you think, in your present condition that were you able to make "Rolling back" rights such that women will be dependent on a man and thus more likely to trade sex for resources indirectly," happen (which you said ought to be tried, even by violence), you would have enough of those resources to get laid?
5: Let's try a little thought experiment. You are about to be born, today; right this very moment. You are given the choice to be male, or female. Which would you choose?
http://pecunium.livejournal.com
@LT
You're so overwhelmed by your own sexual desires that you can't function in society in any sort of healthy way.
I don't have an abnormal sex drive, and am perfectly able to function in society as long as I am in a relationship or somehow get sex. But I am not able to function in the long run living in involuntary celibacy, and don't want to, as that would be highly maladaptive. The rage, hatred and violence bred by celibacy is a healthy reaction; it is nature telling you to do something about your dismal fate of likely becoming an evolutionary dead end.
like I said before, you think that women should make all the compromises when it comes to biological differences between the sex drives of men and women.
I never said this. What feminists are doing is both denying biological differences and refusing to compromise at all. I am simply attacking them for that, and what you said about compromise within couples I agree with.
Men who get laid often are studs. Women who do are sluts. Society teaches women not to be promiscuous while teaching the opposite to men. And you cannot make a claim that the feminists are responsible for that one.
This is true; feminists are not responsible for the double standard. The exaltation of studs and shaming of sluts are just reflections of biological sex differences. I hate slut shaming myself and try to discourage it, since I depend on female promiscuity to get laid, but must admit that everything else being equal, I would prefer a woman with a more restricted sexual history over a slut. That is just how men are. Women don't actually face much shame for being sluts anymore here in Norway though, but a recent study shows they are just as selective as before. So getting rid of the double standard doesn't make women more like men anyway. Their weaker sex drive, extreme choosiness and hypergamy are just the ugly truth about female sexuality. To the anonymous social constructionist just posting above, how do explain away that study? Women don't lie about the number of past partners anymore, at least on an anonymous survey (it was equal to men, as it mathematically must be), so we know they are honest, yet they report as limited desire for more sex compared to men as ever.
Some one may have already said this, but you're assuming that only women get raped.
Yeah...if you can't function relatively normally without sex, your sex drive is NOT normal at all. See a therapist. Seriously.
Otoki, functioning normally without sex is in no way a goal -- that would be idiotic defeatism -- and I would never seek therapy for that purpose. On the contrary, I would violently resist it to my death.
Women can function normally without affirmative action. It is mere luxury to them, and they can have relationships and kids and everything without equality. Sex, however, is a basic need right there at the bottom of Maslow's pyramid. Don't you see how hypocritical it is to ask me to just deal with not getting it?
I pity every woman with whom you ever have contact.
You mentioned a potential fate of becoming an "evolutionary dead end." There's a reason things evolve a certain way. Evolution doesn't get it wrong.
It's not normal to be unable to function in society without sex. It's not. It is very much abnormal. And, to remind, the reason you can't get laid is because of your personality.
Eivin: "Excuse me, but I decide which topics are appropriate on my own blog."
Yes, you do, but you're not doing a very good job of it. I know at least one person has written to the head of your department urging that your contact with female students be restricted because they believe you pose a serious threat the their physical security. Personally, I think I could beat you senseless with one hand tied behind my back, but who am I to judge how much of a threat you are? News flash: expressing a desire to rape women in a non-anonymous blog is bad for your career.
Sounds like somebody is frustrated and doesn't understand boundaries. Whatsa matter? You can't handle "No" ? You think you're entitled to nooky because "she led you on?" Maybe you couldn't register "no" the first few times she said it. Maybe you can't handle the fact that she has the right to end the act at any point. Maybe you have no concept of discipline and controlling yourself. You are so pathetic and weak to think you can manipulated by "must have the sex because her body, her clothes, her moves, compels me to do so."
"I am the male response to feminism..."
"More feminism will only produce more men like me."
I have to say, as a man, that I heartily disagree with these statements. In fact, I am ashamed that you can pretend to my support for your incredibly offensive argument by dint of our shared gender.
There are many male responses to feminism, most of which I expect (and indeed hope) are much more level-headed and sympathetic than yours.
Further, I don't get why you argue this way at all. I mean, even if I don't agree with it, I think I understand your basic premise: affirmative action hurts men. Fine, but I don't see why you insist that the appropriate response is to say it's okay to hurt women. Does hurting women help put an end to affirmative action? I would say that our experience tells us, in fact, that it does the opposite.
Dude, it is just not that hard to get laid.
I'm a 30-something guy of below-average height and slightly above-average income with a not very interesting career. I've slept with about 40 women, all attractive and including a few who should have been "out of my league."
And I didn't rape them, drug them, lie to them or buy them shiny things in order to get my dick wet.
This includes several long-term relationships, two threesomes, and my wife, who btw, I don't cheat on, because I'm not an asshole.
Your problem isn't feminism. It's hatred - of women and of yourself.
If you do want to go the "sex is a product" route sex-workers do exist in every flavor and price-range you might be interested in, but you should know, in that world, the customer is not always right. You want good service? The rules are the same as on the dating scene: act like a human being and treat women like they are too.
@Terry Karney
E.g. the ideas you have regarding hidden ovulation are, for want of a better word, inane. They require almost Lamarckian mechanisms.
No, they are mainstream theories without any Lamarckianism. See concealed ovulation.
Are women people? If the answer is yes, explain why they are not entitled, to economic equality?
Of course they are. But no group of people are entitled to economic equality if it involves force, which affirmative action is. This is basic libertarianism. And if they are, then forced equality for men is equally right. Everyone should have equal opportunities, but forced equality of outcome is wrong, just like rape.
Really, do you think, in your present condition that were you able to make "Rolling back" rights such that women will be dependent on a man and thus more likely to trade sex for resources indirectly," happen (which you said ought to be tried, even by violence), you would have enough of those resources to get laid?
No, but then I would have more motivation to work hard to get enough resources. Anyway, I am making an abstract argument independent of my personal situation.
Hypergamy is a cultural trait
It appears to be much more than that.
Let's try a little thought experiment. You are about to be born, today; right this very moment. You are given the choice to be male, or female. Which would you choose?
I have no desire to be a woman, but that is irrelevant to my argument.
This includes several long-term relationships, two threesomes, and my wife, who btw, I don't cheat on, because I'm not an asshole.
^ Real man. Sort of slutty, but that's a man.
Haha, you are an extremely broken person and you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. If you're actually serious about this, I sort of wish you get raped yourself. Maybe it'd give you some perspective. Foolish ignorant boy
http://worstpeopleawards.com/
Check out #8.
Anonymous, that was a fantastic reply. I think you have hit the nail on the head. As much as he says rape isn't about power, he obviously feels powerless in a society where there are strong women and wants to use rape to reclaim some power for himself. He is the perfect example of what he is arguing so vehemently against.
I haven't seen so much science fail from one person in a long, long time. I'm impressed. Hypergamy "appears to be" a non-cultural trait? Seriously? Fail. Find ten resources from scientific journals (not people making money off of "boo hoo men don't have rights waah" activists) and I'll give you a fucking trophy.
Oh, kiddo. At first I was pretty angry at you, but it sounds like you're hurting a lot. If lack of sex makes you enraged, you're not ok, you're not healthy, and all this "pyramid of needs" talk is not helping you get any better. Even animals who don't get sex don't get enraged about it.
What you think is normal is so far afield from reality - you keep saying how normal it is, but if it were normal, other guys would be agreeing with you. Loads of guys have dry spells. Long, long dry spells, with no sex at all. Sometimes years go by. I know it's not popular in the media, because having sex is more interesting than not having sex, but seriously - in real life, guys can go for a long time without getting any nookie and be just fine. A little depressed, a little addicted to porn, a little jittery - but not enraged, not like you.
You need help and you need it soon. Talk to a psychologist. Please. You're going to do something stupid and criminal, if you haven't already done so in posting these.
How do women take money from men by force?
The designs of feminists to systematically deprive or forcefully extort from men, have created a society where every whims and fancies of women are considered as genuine demands, while any genuine needs of men are looked upon as if men are too demanding or demeaning women!!!
Moreover, the feminists designs have resulted in so many false and frivolous rape and sexual harassment charges against men. What about that??
Is it justified in name of equality??
There are numerous examples:
One example is a recent one happened in India, where a woman after a full 1-year live-in relationship with a man calls RAPE and the poor man has now been arrested. Isn't this an emotional/financial/social RAPE of MAN? : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Jet-Airways-co-pilot-held-on-charges-of-raping-air-hostess-/articleshow/5989439.cms
@ carrie - how do women take money from men by force?
Study Indian Marital laws. and Indian laws related to protection of women and exploitation of husband and his joint family by the wife.
"One example is a recent one happened in India, where a woman after a full 1-year live-in relationship with a man calls RAPE and the poor man has now been arrested. Isn't this an emotional/financial/social RAPE of MAN?"
This poorly written story is vague on details. Women can be raped, and violently so, by men they are in a relationship with. This story doesn't read like that's what happened in that case; but, of course, it doesn't explain what did happen either. Can you provide scholarly examples as opposed to a news story written by someone with a weak grasp of journalism?
As for the above comment about Indian marital law exploiting men, I have to admit I laughed out loud for a moment.
Women are owned by their husbands in India. When a husband dies, the wife becomes the property of his family. The families of the bride pay to the groom and his family tens of thousands of dollars (in a country where the mean income is ~$1,000 a year), give land, business opportunities, and whatever else they may have that the groom and his family want as a dowry.
Check out statistics on dowry murders. Grooms and their families take everything they can, financially crippling already struggling families, then murder the bride. In other cases, when the groom and his family don't get what they want, they burn the bride alive; and the only other country bride burning is seen in is Bangladesh.
The prevalence of gendercide in India is rivaled only by Pakistan. Check out statistics of female feticide and infanticide, where families use selective abortion to kill female fetuses, or where they murder their daughters after they are born to avoid any of the above.
Women are not only of no value in India, they are considered financial burdens. Society perpetuates this with absurd ancient traditions that benefit men and their families only.
If you want to toss out examples of women somehow oppressing and exploiting men, try to use examples from countries that aren't among the most violently oppressive of women in the world.
If you want sources for any of the above information, I'd be glad to provide them from the 20 page paper I wrote on the matter last year.
LT, please do not make it seem like ALL OF INDIA follows those practices. That is not at all the case. These practices are still prevalent in some rural and conservative areas, but they do not reflect the country as a whole.
I do, however, agree with your other main points.
indian husbands do not have the machinery to record complaints as cognizable so you wont get their stats and you too would join 'THE FOOLS LEAGUE' who believe the feminist stats and shit dowry STORIES and TALES.
even accidents are recorded as dowry death without investigations. a failed marriage is reported as a dowry demand case to extort hefty amounts as alimony.
do you know the youngest accused in india for committing dowry atrocities is a 2 month old baby? and worse she got bail too without the court noticing it (google it). stats are bloody manufactured against the tax paying husbands. and learned friends from abroad are FOOLED.
come to india and see the real picture. i hate what u think of india from afar.
CSR report says 2% of the cases match the statement of the complainant 98% dowry cases are acquittals.
the suicide ratio of indian husbands v/s the wives is 67:33 as per the national stats.
google "498a misuse" before concluding nonsense. 'excluding slums' this misuse is high in the urban and progressive educated people in rural areas who dominate the indian population.
- rishab.
Otoki, I did not mean to imply all of India is like that. My point was simply that India is not the country to cite when making claims of gender inequality slanted toward women.
Couldn't agree more. Very apt post. Also keep in mind, you will face very harsh criticism for speaking out the harsh truth.
But I can't be happy without a woman.
That is your problem, in my humbly opinion. You seem to be defining you 'being happy' as 'having sex regularly'.
If you don't want a companion and someone to share your life, I doubt any woman will want you. If you just want sex, good luck, not many women are interested in that.
What makes everything even more sad for me is that you may find a way to disguise your true self for long enough to have someone like you, then you'll make her life miserable and, when she loses her 'attractiveness (value)', you'll leave.
If you don't want a companion and someone to share your life, I doubt any woman will want you. If you just want sex, good luck, not many women are interested in that.
I never said I don't want a companion and someone to share my life. I very much do.
If your true motivation is equality in the face of affirmative action, shouldn't you be arguing that men can steal from women? It's obviously much more aligned with your perceived grievance, and puts men back in the position you think they would naturally be economically, vis-a-vis women.
The fact that you present rape as your solution shows that your argument is in fact unserious and intended merely to agitate, as noted in comments very early on.
This is the most offensive thing I have ever read. You are a seriously deranged individual. I am frightened for any woman that comes into contact with you.
Do us all a favor and get hit by a bus.
...I seriously hope you're never the target of rape, dude. But if you want to be single for the rest of your life, show this blog post to the women you're interested in. I hope you enjoy being known as a creep with the police following you everywhere. If you condone rape, surely you yourself would rape? And you would rape another person, then you must want someone to rape you in return? It's only fair, right?
wow! just got banned from twitter again, after a whopping 5 tweets! didnt even have the word misandry/misandrist on the damn thing. i WAS john_smith45. i think im done with witter till i get my damn i.p number changed. i am proud of all the misandrists that i forced to 'protect' their tweets-heyjude408, chenoamonster, many more. wish they were all forced to talk stictly amongst themselves how dangerous all men are and spread the fabricated stats. now, the only question is, will THIS comment be posted? my last one i havent see YET.
i really dont see anything wrong with eivinds hypothesis about a possible blowback to radical feminists hypergamous golddigging. i myself have been called crazy, ' troll'etc for the 'outrageous' commenst ive made concerning the abusive, killier pig cops in the u.s . anyone who shoots and kills a cop is the real hero to me. ive also been dubbed a traitor and crazy for wishing death on america's imperialist, murdering war crimes commiting 'army' spreading 'freeedom' overseas. wheres the outrage on here to u.s 'soldiers' constant rape and murder all over world?
wheres the outrage on here to u.s 'soldiers' constant rape and murder all over world?
If a US soldier was to post a comment here justifying rape and murder, I think it's a safe bet that it would generate a fair amount of outrage.
But one hasn't, so your complaint is meaningless.
i am getting a wee tired o' being banned from twitter. first,as anti_misandrist, stop_misandry. and heres the bitch doing it: @delbius. how she gets to ban at will even when i never violate their tos is just another example, of thousands that if youre 'fighting' over there for my freedoms you are a real dunce and DEF expendable. im finished with twitter. will be blogging from now on. oh yes, here are pics of me, being attacked online by a bunch of insane tori amos afns for no reason! yay! http://www.yessaid.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27391&page=14
guess what? i registered on this forum and refuted all their lies about me, and what do you know? all my comments were deleted and i was banned! this 'freedom of speech' is awesome isnt it? to get my photos removed from this site, ive been informed i have to go to boston, where this bitch lives: @angiezherself and file a civil suit. i go up there, i think ill just strangle the bitch instead.MUCH faster result.rape? nah, american women arent even worth raping. they flatter themselves.
oh, right, its called american expansionism now. im forever going to call it imperialism even though ill be censored and banned for it. no, i havent forgotten the ppl against it, uncluding myself. the problem is, the anti war effort isnt large enough. fail. american colonialists will NEVER be leaving iraq or afghanistan, or okinawa either, as we all just witnessed. fail.
@john halder ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion
haha, well if you had bothered to even visit that link i just supplied, you would see its no delusion!and what theyre saying about me on yessaid.com is NOTHING. thats amateur hour compared with what women and their best pals -the cops have put me through in the past.
anyway, back on topic.
eivin, dont go and 'bulk' up for american/westernized women.
simply do as all my friends and all my aqquantances have done.
theyve quit american and are all married to philipina ladies. vietnamese, thailiand.sooner or later they all got tired of b.s restraining orders, made up dv charges, strippers on meth who demand respect, lol!
yea, youre 100% correct. its all about the cash.
just look at tiger, o.j, spitzer, clinton. kobe, list goes on forever. the u.s is a feminist culture firmly entrenched, unfortunately. and like u.s global conquest, torture, supporting genocidal regimes like israel i see no change ever. americans are much too stupid, lazy, apathetic and overmedicated to care about anything really.
"eivin, dont go and 'bulk' up for american/westernized women"
As soon as I saw this, I knew the poster was going to recommend Asian women. Sigh. M. Butterfly, anyone?
lemme guess, you also have a nice amateur bullshit psychiatric 'diagnosis' for me right? someone other moron said i have a 'persecution delusion'.
isnt it possible, just MAYBE that people ahve RIGHTEOUS anger? yes, indeed they can, only thing is, american cannot recognize it as they have NO empathy, NONE, for anyone, anywhere. dont you EVER wonder why, the WORLD hates the us.? and no, its not because they are jealous, idiots. it MIGHT be because the u. shave bases EVERYWHERE, over 750, in fact, AND drop bombs anywhere and everywhere willy nilly on anyone, doesnt matter. eivin has righteous anger, and i share it! doesnt mean we have ocd, or bi polar. or any other bullshit thing big pharma tells 'shrinks' to diagnose on the spot.( and you fools instantly believe) if EVERY woman on the planet, right now, got REALLY raped, yknow, (NOT the i gut drunk and regret last years sex with my boyfriend 'rape') but actually forcibly raped by a STRANGER, i wouldnt give one damn shit. not one damn lil bit. and i SURE as hell dont care about what goes on in africa, and i wish feministing, pixel project, 1000's of other misandrist sites would stop using rape stats and transferring them to the u.s 1 in every 3 raped? giant ridiculous, totally unsupported by the facts lie.
So did your mommy just not love you enough? Could she not afford that GI Joe you wanted when you were five?
I agree that America has a lot of problems and there is a reason other countries hate us. However, the people that make America like that are men.
I mean, you're a perfect example of how shit the American education system is. I bet you even went to college. What a load of garbage.
oh yeah, lest i forget, there is plenty of REAL persecution happening as i type this. millions of men are are REALLY being persecuted by unfair and unjust rape & dv laws. tens of millions of men( myself included) watch tv every night alone, and its NOT by choice! i didnt reject women, believe me! as eivind has said, and i have said for decades is simple fact: women can have sex anytime they want.
simply cant do that as men.
women arent looking for nice guys, lol.
they want wealthy famous men with power.spitzers wife never left him. tiger woods wife will never divorce that twit. nicole got her ass beaten daily by o.j. stuck around for years though, till he sliced her head off.
yea, western women are well, garbage, no offence! so, yep, i advise men to look elsewhere. its a big world, and there are a FEW places left unspoiled by the 'american way'. just watch out for the landmines, depleted uranium, america has dropped to bring freedom to so many ppl who are now mentally ill! theyre angry that their entire families have been killed by drones! is their a pill for this condition?
haha, women love war and violence more than men! plenty of women over there pushing buttons, merrily killing babies. hillary and condi? war criminal scum. and you dont have to feel like you need to 'defend' womens 'honor'( ha, does that even exist?) even men that get plenty of nookie hate women. so, anyway, berge is pissed off he's alone and women dont find him attractive. he's supposed to be happy? really? i guess i'm as mentally ill as he is then. me and MILLIONS of other men. were all 'crazy'! and all those crazy terrorists america keeps manufacturing daily are nuts also! you guys have been so goddamn enlightening!
I don't even know where to begin, so I will simply say, go to a psychiatrist. Show them this blog post, and all your responses to people's comments.
Oh Hey, John H. Tiger Woods' wife is leaving him. Just so you know. In fact, I think if you opened your eyes and looked out past the end of your own dick, you'd see that plenty of people get divorced, regardless of who has more money.
and i KNEW someone would ALWAYS so very predictably bring up 'mommy' he has mommy issues!
this shits getting old, you people are emotiionally UNABLE to put yourselves in anyone else'shoes. youre the ones who are emotionally stunted, crippled. youre just consumers so, what can i expect?
as for my 'momma' she was a lying dog, (that EVERYONE hated.) as are all western women. no offence, of course.
why would i waste money on a shrink? you guys are free! berge is insane, im crazy. bitter( being alone for decades could do that to some,hope it happens to you!). one good thing that is happening to all the misandrists? other than their cats, they will all be living and dying alone.( i hope) aww sniff'.
I read your blog a few times, and it still does not make any sense.
Rape is not equality...
I just don't get it. Please don't give liberals a bad bame dude.
@john halder ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutory_delusion
I've seen him get banned from Twitter repeatedly for no good reason, so it's not a delusion.
But John, what did you do to piss off all those Tori Amos fans? Are they lying about you stalking her or something?
"as for my 'momma' she was a lying dog,"
Well you just validated my point. You're probably a sociopath.
thanks eivind! what did i i do to those tori fans? absolutely nothing. and i wouldnt spend a penny stalking tori amos! they just dont happen to like her having ANY straight male heterosexual fans, AND they dont like that i dont automatically believe tori's bullshit 'rape' story, thats so shot full of holes you dont even wanna know. tori 'founded' rainn and was never even raped. tori amos fans ive known a long time now. she DOES have REAL stalkers though, i know all of them by name(s) and they have been to 300+ of her shows! those are the stalkers, ya think? as i stated before, i signed up on yessaid.com and refuted all their insane ramblings and i was banned. all my comments deleted. but thats all part of my persecution delusion, haha
heres a link some might find interesting :
http://www.anandaanswers.com/pages/naaFalse.html
at least 50% of all rape claims are later proven false! wow, who knew? i did.
women lie, all the time.
Well, I guess the positive thing is that TWO psychopaths are exposing themselves for the misogynists they are, hopefully setting themselves up for a lifetime of loneliness. I thank you both for making sure women know to stay away from you, and why.
I've also gotten hours of amusement from the ridiculousness in this blog and the comments. So, it's a win for me.
o.k. 'otoki' but, in reality, its you misandrists that are definetely setting themselves up for a lifetime of loneliness, and even WORSE youre doing so by choice! ouch! me? not by choice, thats life though, i'm no pretty boy and i'm not a billionaire. shit happens! pretty much, the only difference between me and eivind is he hasn't experienced decades alone yet. will he make it by himself? i dunnoooo...
whoa! hold on there! its ME, i MYSELF who stays far, farrr away from women.i have to.
got too much cash and property to lose now.
anyway, as ive mentioned before.
i would ONLY strictly go overseas for 'romance'.
you american 'women' go for the gold, OR the dude who works out 3 hours a day, with all the tats, whos on steroids.
watch out for that roid rage though, haha.
Explain to me then why me, an American woman, is dating a poor lower middle class college guy who has never been to the gym in his life and plans to spend the rest of his life doing badly paid research?
You've prejudged all women based on a few incidences. Your mom probably contributes to this. See a therapist.
Also, you're pretty racist yourself saying foreign women are a specific thing.
And honestly, what about women who make more money than you? Ever talked to one of them? Or could you just not stand the idea?
'see a therapist' o.k i will! but only if you see a serial killer.
agreed?
oh, lmao! i just read that last comment!
women that make more money than me wont even LOOK, glance, at me!
haha, you are funny though!
Where are all of these women who care about how much money a man makes? I don't seem to be one of them, nor are any of my friends. Of course, we care about HOW one spends one's money. People who waste it on stupid shit, or live beyond their means, that's an issue. Someone who doesn't make much money: why would that be a turn-off? You're supposed to be attracted to a person, not their wallet. There are going to be materialistic people in any culture, of any sex, from any class. It's just a matter of surrounding yourself with people who are less shallow.
And, frankly, I find it laughable when someone throws around "Asian women are X, Western women are Y", and then complains about women being shallow. Ah, sweet sweet Orientalism.
well, im single otoki! check out my profile! i just undated it! where are you? nippon? ever go disneewoud? i live near by! lets meet up!
to answer your question otoki. where are all the women who care about how much money, property, status, etc, are?
answer: AMERICA, and the western 'civilized' world.
LOL I like how you completely ignored my first point. Did I mention that I'm a sub-class above my boyfriend (middle middle vs lower middle)? And that I'm on my way to becoming a doctor? How does that figure?
Maybe you need a change of scenery. Do you bathe daily?
You sir, are a moron. Most of the word vomit you spewed is your opinion, and the opinion of other men, not FACT. Your never gonna understand women that way, as it is clear to see you don't, at all. Aw, has the poor boy been victimized some way? Is some woman trying to take you from everything you own? What do you own anyway? Nothing. You don't have sh**. Your just a prepubescent little boy who heard some guy spew this nonsense and dove in head first for the sake of sounding "intelligent". Saying big words doesn't make you smart, proof right here in your inane blog. Your a moron. I hope for the sake of the women, wherever the hell you live, I don't care where, that they stay away from you. For their sake, and for what hopefully won't happen, your future daughter's sake. Please do not have children, we don't need you raising little rapists and self-hating women.
Now that we are on that subject...I wonder what you would think if your mother, sister, daughter, or WIFE got raped.
Your appearance means nothing when your this ugly inside. If you keep spouting these ridiculous theories, then you'll never find a woman. Unless she's some self-hating moron.
Stop being angry with women because you can't get laid. Looking and sounding and being pussy, doesn't get you pussy.
Freaking idiot.
When my daughter comes to me crying about whats wrong in the world, I have to explain that it's because of idiots like you.
Oh no...because men are such victims. This is a man's world honey. Grow the f*ck up. Women are victimized by men, by their own lovers, in ways that losing a little bit of cash, can't even compare.
John, Your a moron. Firstly, learn English, and speak properly. Secondly, with that grammar, I doubt you have that much money or property or status etc. Sure you may be foreign, if you even are, but the context in your posts says it all: Your a moron.
Women in America are probably more free than in any other country. In other countries, women barely have rights, and in some women can even be beaten just for showing some skin. Excuse American women for taking a stand, and not being anyone's personal chew toy. As much as there are gold digging women, there are gold digging men. Where I'm from, you'll probably find more men, than women, who care for such things. Even the strong, empowered women I have met in my years, don't speak such nonsense about "taking their man's money" or anything of the sort. Get informed. At least Eivind here is TRYING to pretend he is smart. You could do the same.
* In a 1999 longitudinal study of 3,000 women, researchers found women who had been victimized before were seven times more likely to be raped again. (Acierno, Resnick, Kilpatrick, Saunders and Best, Jnl. of Anxiety Disorders 13, 6.)
* Women with disabilities are raped and abused at twice the rate of the general population. (Sobsey 1994)
* Women reporting a combined childhood history of physical and sexual abuse report the highest rape rates. (Merrill, Newell, Gold and Millen, Naval Health Research Center 1997)
If rape is a form of power for women and men have a "right" to take it... why are most rape victims the powerless or already "damamged" goods? Shouldn't men want to take from the most "wealthy" like gold digging women do with the most wealthy men?
9% of rape victims are male (and the numbers are rising due to some lovely priests), 99% of offenders are male. You're a seriously handicapped dude. I wonder if you'll be a target for rape by your own kind.
right. anyway, yo EIVIND! it occurs to me that while ive been responding to posts packed full o' bad grammer attacking ME for bad grammer, ive got a lil off the topic!
i am 150% FOR mass and/or individual rape. they do it in africa, and MORE power to those real men!
america,england ,france germany, ESP america were founded and built on taking what you want by force all day long.
anyway, no matter how much women overdramatise it, RAPE IS JUST SEX.it's not murder, and has an historical, and evolutionary component to it that is well documented. we evolved, contary to what a shitload of idjits out there believe.
rape is natural, its simply sex. its a mans BIRTHRIGHT to have sex whenever ,wherever, whomever he desires to have it.
just as iraqi's have every right to try to expel the UNWANTED foreign u.s trash by any means possible. and america feels like it has every RIGHT to steal oil. sex should just be taken, period.
unfortunately, women report REAL rape, they dont report most 'rapes' NOT because they 'didnt know they could' lol, or because 'the police wont believe me( police live to arrest, evidence not necessary) and def not tori amos' b.s 'it was the 80's, cops wouldnt have believed me.
they dont dont report most rapes beacuse they were/are post coital regret/drunken sex bullshit 'rape'.
becausee of this, and because of womens control of govt, police, courts in femarica, rape is right up there with triple homicide. dont get caught, dont leave evidence, wear a condom, wear a mask. choose women you dont know, complete strangers, and travel, raping in different cities each time, or better yet, other countries.
in conclusion, as a counterbalance to womens' war on men.extreme choosiness,and hypergamy i WHOLEHEARTEDLY 150% agree to take what you want.
VERY WELL put eivind.
similarly, most victims of gun violence are innercity youth.
contrary to many racists fear mongering over the decades, their is very little black on white crime. the vast majority is black on black.
during the la. riots in the early 90,s the cops gladly let the 'hood' burn, BUT, when the mob started moving uptown, like magic! they reappeared in force.
as you just stated correctly, the upper stata is very well protected and isolated from us 'lower' classes. that's why i got a good hearty laugh from i think 'otoki's suggestion i speak with women above my socioeconomic status! as IF!
if they happen to glance at me out of their huge suv's its an accident.
probably the only thing i disagree with you eivind is that i'm very much anti-wealth, and i'm always amazed ANYONE could possibly be happy with this massive wealth divide.
heres an insane fact: the 4 heirs of sam walton have a combined wealth that is greater than the bottom 100 million people in this 'democracy'.i would love to see a class war in this country, but, as usual, the good people at the top have too much power, and the actual support of tens of millions of americans who truly believe they arent bilioniares because they didnt get enough 'schooling' or 'work hard enough', omg, the stupid shit ppl believe!
of course, id naturally like to see men take this country back from women, but dont worry ladies, will never happen.'men' in america are scared of the cops, govt, and the media has actually convinced a lot of these manginas they are born bad, simply because they were born male.
so, nope, no uprising, and no future for america either since no country can or ever has survived for long with women in power.
but, the good news is that i want my country TO fall. it deserves it for killing tens of millions, stealing land, war crimes against humanity, torture, use of wmd on a daily basis,illegal wars, coloniaism, terrorism.
i love this oil spill also. COULDNT happen to a greedier, more hypocritical 'culture'.
jh, I never suggested that you talk to women of a higher socioeconomic status. That would require women having to deal with you, which would probably be annoying, creepy, and exhausting. I'm simply pointing out that there have been quite a few women and men responding to this blog saying that they are in a heterosexual relationship in which the man makes less money, yet they are happy. I didn't realize that was such a difficult concept to grasp.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020217090106/http://www.geocities.com/i_sang_holy_holy/time_essay.html
hmmm could it be that were angry BECAUSE of the world we live in, and its NOT a psychiatric condition?
i hate and mistrust cops.
i dont think that makes me insane.
ever dealt with those lying pigs? i have.
i live in a matriarchy full of hate filled misandrists.
im supposed to be happy, just thrilled about that huh?
big pharma has really done a number on a lot of you idiots. wow.
So basically this boils down to you not being able to get laid and you're bitter.
Sorry bud, you're not anti-feminist, you're misogynist.
Eivind, I think you are right that since (most) women have a lot more sexual power than (most) men, women's increasing financial equality is something women should "compensate for" by "giving" men "sexual equality". But do you honestly think that if those men, who now don't get as much sex as they want, would start raping women, there would be sexual equality? I think there would be sexual inequality in the opposite direction, like in those countries where men can legally rape women.
When you say involuntary celibacy is every bit as bad as rape, in terms of psychological suffering - are you then comparing a woman's being raped ONCE, to a man's life-time of involuntary celibacy? If not once, how many times? A life-time of, say, being raped daily is definitely worse for a woman than a life-time of daily involuntary celibacy is for a man. Honestly, which one would you choose yourself?
Clearly, a woman being raped daily would be a huge overcompensation for any sexual frustration in a man, and thus unfair, clearly even much more unfair than what the present sexual inequality is unfair in the opposite direction.
You might now suggest that a fair balance could be achieved if the number of times that an involuntarily sex-starved man would be legally allowed to rape a woman would be very restricted, so as not to allow him to overcompensate for his present sexual inequality, but only compensate (approximately) for it.
But there is a better solution: legalize the buying of sex, and abolish the social stigma around buying and selling sex, so that prices for sex go way down as selling sex starts getting a status similar to that of other jobs. And if that still doesn't solve the problem, perhaps poor men who have to buy a lot of sex should get most of it payed for by the tax-payers, in the form of tax reductions and grants? Wouldn't that be a much nicer solution than mass rape everywhere in the society? Not only the raped woman suffers from the rape; most sane men simply prefer not to have to force a woman to anything.
What do you say?
Two more questions, Eivind:
1) Have you been attacked physically by any feminist males for what you have written? I can't believe you choose not to be anonymous when you write the kind of explosive stuff you write here. Do you really think it is worth the risks? How did you reason to come to that conclusion?
2) You advocate sexual equality between the genders; why not also advocate "attractiveness equality" among men - for example, you could demand that the more attractive males pay higher taxes or something? Some men naturally attract a lot more attractive women than other men; shouldn't this inequality, too, be fought? Sure, you are a libertarian, but that doesn't seem to prevent you from advocating the forced creation of one kind of equality: sex equality between the genders. How come?
Eivind, I think you are right that since (most) women have a lot more sexual power than (most) men, women's increasing financial equality is something women should "compensate for" by "giving" men "sexual equality". But do you honestly think that if those men, who now don't get as much sex as they want, would start raping women, there would be sexual equality? I think there would be sexual inequality in the opposite direction, like in those countries where men can legally rape women.
I never said there should be unlimited acceptance of rape. Obviously it can be taken too far in the other direction, leading to oppression of women. Equality would mean striking a balance.
When you say involuntary celibacy is every bit as bad as rape, in terms of psychological suffering - are you then comparing a woman's being raped ONCE, to a man's life-time of involuntary celibacy? If not once, how many times? A life-time of, say, being raped daily is definitely worse for a woman than a life-time of daily involuntary celibacy is for a man. Honestly, which one would you choose yourself?
Obviously a lifetime of celibacy is worse than being raped once, and being raped daily is probably worse than a lifetime of celibacy. Equality would be somewhere in between. I have known women who have claimed to have been raped, and they seemed much happier than I. Their sexual agency has only been compromised on one or rare occasions and most of the time they have been able to decide if they want sex. I, on the other hand, have had no sexual agency whatsoever for most of my life. I was celibate against my will until I was 21 and finally paid to lose my virginity. In between some intermittent success since, years at a time have gone by without sex. This year it does not look like I will be able to have consensual sex. There is practically zero correlation between when I want to have sex and when I have it. If had a say in the matter, I would have sex at least 1000 times more often than I have had it. It would take a lot of raping to compensate for this. But yes, we need to take into account that a woman's sexual agency is decreased when she is raped as much as man's sexual agency is increased, as well as how the suffering of celibacy compares to the anguish of rape, which is a matter of empirical investigation.
Clearly, a woman being raped daily would be a huge overcompensation for any sexual frustration in a man, and thus unfair, clearly even much more unfair than what the present sexual inequality is unfair in the opposite direction.
Agreed. A simplest-case thought experiment might be a man and a woman on a desert island. Being typical, the man wants to fuck the woman every day and the woman rejects the man altogether. So sexual equality would be rape every other day. Working from that scenario, and taking into account the fact that women sometimes do want sex, as well as rape being more concentrated pain than celibacy, one can arrive at a model of sexual equality for society at large.
You might now suggest that a fair balance could be achieved if the number of times that an involuntarily sex-starved man would be legally allowed to rape a woman would be very restricted, so as not to allow him to overcompensate for his present sexual inequality, but only compensate (approximately) for it.
Yes. Research is needed to determine the relative harm of celibacy and rape. Also, milder forms of sexual coercion than rape will probably suffice (though feminists will still call it rape), e.g. arranged marriages or heavy taxation of single women to fund free brothels. I really only advocate the minimum sexual coercion needed to achieve equality, and use "rape" in the headline for rhetorical effect.
But there is a better solution: legalize the buying of sex, and abolish the social stigma around buying and selling sex, so that prices for sex go way down as selling sex starts getting a status similar to that of other jobs. And if that still doesn't solve the problem, perhaps poor men who have to buy a lot of sex should get most of it payed for by the tax-payers, in the form of tax reductions and grants? Wouldn't that be a much nicer solution than mass rape everywhere in the society? Not only the raped woman suffers from the rape; most sane men simply prefer not to have to force a woman to anything.
Yes, legalized, subsidized prostitution would certainly be much better, but Norwegian men lost that battle in 2008, when the purchase/barter of sex was criminalized for Norwegian citizens worldwide (while women are still free to sell without even paying taxes). We had a very public debate in which it became clear that women are culpable for the passing of this law, motivated by the desire to drive up the price of sex so they can wield even more sexual power. This was the last straw, and I honestly don't think Norwegian women deserve to be paid for sex at this point. Feminists have ensured that the police are quite prepared and eager to use violence against me for merely attempting to have consensual sex with a willing whore in a country where it is perfectly legal, so I see absolutely no reason why I shouldn't simply take sex by violence instead. Either way I am a criminal, and the punishment is not dramatically lighter for johns than rapists. In climate of hatred, where my sexuality is officially so despicable that women and the state can't even tolerate my having sex in faraway countries where prostitution is legal, why should I bother paying for local prostitutes, only to have the violence of the state exact punishment as well? I would rather just be charged once, and I don't think women deserve to be paid after ensuring that I will have to pay a second time and go to prison.
I have witnessed prostitution laws gradually deteriorate to the detriment of men my whole life, beginning with criminalizing landlords renting housing used for prostitution when I was a little boy (I vividly remember how this ignited probably the first spark of anti-feminist hatred in my heart), then criminalizing men for buying sex from women under 18 even though the age of consent is 16, until finally every kind of exchange (not just money!) for sex was criminalized on January 1st, 2009. These laws are very empowering for women, and women are the majority of the electorate, so there is no way men are going to reverse them without some serious violent activism. Women here won't even tolerate a strip club, so you don't know what kind of hateful feminist setting we are dealing with and are exceedingly naive if you think prostitution is a realistic alternative. The only language feminists understand is violence.
The only language feminists understand is violence.
Is there anything more pathetic than an obviously geeky nerd trying to sound all macho?
But if you ever act out your repulsive fantasies, here's hoping you encounter one of these.
I imagine you think it's part of an evil feminist conspiracy to deny men their fundamental right to rape women, though.
1) Have you been attacked physically by any feminist males for what you have written? I can't believe you choose not to be anonymous when you write the kind of explosive stuff you write here. Do you really think it is worth the risks? How did you reason to come to that conclusion?
I haven't been physically attacked so far, though I have been threatened by a cop (Tage Gaupseth) who wrote he wanted to smash my face in -- simply for blogging. I'll publish his full missive later for all to see the nature of the pigs. I will just have to defend myself if it happens, of course. After all this celibacy I have so much pent-up hatred and aggression inside just waiting to explode in homicidal rage that physically attacking me is probably not a good idea. I lead a sober lifestyle and avoid fights, but if attacked by cops or other male feminists, I am extremely motivated to kill them in self-defense. That would do wonders for my success with women, too.
I am not anonymous because I want to be taken seriously and believe the impact of advocacy is greater when you use your full name. Also, I want credit for my ideas.
Being anonymous is for sissies. I wouldn't have reached such a large audience and probably been dismissed as a lunatic or satirist if I hadn't signed my name to this blog. Now the world can see that not all is well in this Scandinavian feminist utopia. At least one sane, educated man is profoundly upset by radical feminism and proposing a solution that will sting.
2) You advocate sexual equality between the genders; why not also advocate "attractiveness equality" among men - for example, you could demand that the more attractive males pay higher taxes or something? Some men naturally attract a lot more attractive women than other men; shouldn't this inequality, too, be fought? Sure, you are a libertarian, but that doesn't seem to prevent you from advocating the forced creation of one kind of equality: sex equality between the genders. How come?
This is a really stupid question. As a libertarian, I am fundamentally opposed to forced equality. Rape is an exception only due to exceptional circumstances. Sexual coercion is justified under feminism because the violence perpetrated by feminists and their enforcers directly hurts male sexual opportunity. Some men attract more women because of competition and female choice, and I have no problem with that. Life isn't fair, and unequal success with women is only natural. Feminist-enforced equality is NOT fair or natural, however, and rape is justified to staunch it.
If you have to take a woman by force, you're obviously too cowardly (or too unattractive, or both) to get a woman consensually.
Rape is a hell of a lot different from most of the kinds of anti-male sexism that women engage in.
1. This is sick. You need help.
2. I can get happiness without destroying a woman's life. You need to look up the effects of rape.
3. If I knew where you lived, I'd make damn sure you couldn't do something to a woman that's so bad that there's a serious risk of her killing herself because of the trauma she has to live with, as you are advocating.
4. No wonder you can't get women. When you actually start treating them like people, and have respect for them, then you might find one who likes you. Until then, the MOST you will get is short term relationships which the woman will always end.
Until then, the MOST you will get is short term relationships which the woman will always end.
I'm curious: presumably all of Eivind's longer-than-one-night relationships were ended by the woman?
If so, what were the reasons, and did they have any common factors?
wow really your comparing something so detrimental to a womans life that people see rapists as scum of the earth (pssst we have laws against that) to stealing i am sooo sick of rape apologists (rape has kinda been around *gasp* before feminism) and there are dare i say it that there are conservative women against feminism who may get raped (tradgically) over here we have a saying MAN UP!! i no i REAL man who has litterally been robbed blind by his ex and i mean it she didnt even leave a cup and he worked hard for all his stuff he was bitter and unable to trust for a long while out of curiosity i asked him is it comparable to rape he was sickened that anyone would even fatham that idea (i also know many men who think like this and they have been lied to cheated on and have had pretty bad experiences with women)
now you fail to mention the tradgedy of say a innocent child who is a victim of rape (at least i havent seen it) even criminals treat people who do this as scum (what does that tell you) now which is more harmful getten stolen from which hurts ego and may or may not hurt someones ability to trust OR an act that quite literally rips apart the insides of a child that is not physically ready nor phsycologically ready for such acts causes them to suffer from depression, suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, low self esteem become suicidal ect in essence literally screw them up FOR LIFE!!!! ill give you a hint its something that is frowned upon in civilised society even from some mysoginists and guess what the same truama and effects from said horrible act of sex with a child has the effects of women who are raped (phsycologically) even a teenager could tell that they are not in fact equal
You are disgusting
To clarify my previous post.
I think rape is wrong, but if women are allowed to use the state to steal men's money and power, then why shouldn't men be allowed to use the state to steal sex from women?
No, I don't support rape, but I don't support women "raping" men either. Both are wrong.
Too little, too late.
You've proven yourself an utterly insensitive asshole.
And, where do women steal money from men, fool? You know men still earn one dollar for every seventy cents earned by women for the same work, right? You know that white men make those million dollar bonuses for driving their companies into the dirt, right?
You get that of the list of billionaires and millionaires, most are white men, right?
Do you honestly think RICH WHITE MEN don't USE THE STATE, to steal resources from poor people, disproportionately female, EVERY DAMN DAY?
"Insane" is too kind a word for what you are. Your sense of reality is grounded in a form of political psychosis rarely seen on the internet. Uhhhh... congratulations? (Nope.)
What is your damage exactly? I mean if there's something seriously wrong with you, let us know, and then stop posting YOUR PRO-RAPE perspectives and fantasies online! And stop being PRO-RAPE offline.
Because you're little "well, this is what I really meant to say" statement after ALL THE PRO-RAPE, RAPIST viciousness and venom you've unleashed here, IS TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE.
And, make sure the MEN in your family aren't invested in companies that promote genocide, and that steal natural resources from the world's poor people.
Fool.
classism. racism. it exists guys. only middle class (disproportionately white) women with the ability to hire lawyers and 'steal' from men get raped according to FS. which doesn't make sense because last time i checked most rapes happen to either underage women or women of lower classes (generally women of color, you racist pig). remind me what they did wrong, plz.
i like how the state hires thugs (wut) to make sure (white middle class) men pay child support when these 'thugs' then turn around and discriminate against lower class men of color. i guess they don't count as real men huh?
also, LOL you seriously think the state cares that much if a dude doesn't pay child support? a woman has to go through hell just to force him to. most women don't and most judges will let the guy off on a bare minimum (200$ a month, for example, is not anywhere near enough to support a child but plenty of men only have to pay that) if the man whines about how he can't pay it.
i also hope someday you end up in jail for not paying child support because you knocked up a women who is willing to put herself through the hell to make you pay for your kids, and get raped. and then have someone tell you it's no big deal. oh, please come back and tell us if you do.
And, where do women steal money from men, fool? You know men still earn one dollar for every seventy cents earned by women for the same work, right?
This is a myth. You can see it debunked here at The Misandry Bubble along with other feminist delusions and lies.
Julian, your profile reads like a parody of political correctness.
I am a radical profeminist who is working to promote anti-patriarchal, anti-racist, anti-colonialist, pro-Indigenist perspectives and activism. I also seek to hold profeminist and antifeminist men accountable, so women don't have to do all that work all the damn time. I am a white, class-privileged, Western, academically and non-academically educated, gay intergender male who is also Jewish, disabled, and a survivor of childhood sexual assault. Most of the women in my family, and a couple of the men, are also survivors of childhood sexual abuse and some of the women are also survivors of rape as adults. Most of my friends are working very hard to survive racism, misogyny, heterosexism, and many other forms of gross discrimination and abuse on a daily basis. I am, appropriately, outraged.
LOL! You take the cake, and I guess you are serious since you continue to spout the same victimologist nonsense here and on your radical profeminist blog.
Eivind, for this blog post, what you should have done is abused political language more. Using political language would have made your blog post a lot more acceptable.
Yes, you are calling a spade a spade, but your enemies don't mind abusing political language to make their slavery and rape of men more acceptable, so you should have used the same tactics.
For example, don't use the word "rape" use the term "sexual socialism" instead.
@FS, aka Fucking Stupid,
"Misandry". You really should do stand-up. LOL.
Go on with your little pathetic patriarchal pity party, and your mythology of "man-hating". LOL
You only make yourselves look more and more bigoted, completely out of touch with reality, and ridiculous. Keep going: you're doing such a great job of it!
You take the cake, and I guess you are serious since you continue to spout the same victimologist nonsense here and on your radical profeminist blog.
There's nothing more victimy that Eivind's bitter little woe-is-my-daddy whiny rant here. Curious you don't notice how whiny--oh my poor, poor daddy had to pay alimony, whine, whine, whine. His little daddy's world was hurt because he dicked over Eivind's mom. Whine. Whine. Whine. It doesn't get much more victimy than how you and he are behaving here. Or hadn't you noticed? LOL Why don't you take a photo of the two of you and post it to an online dictionary under the term "victim?
And you seem unwilling to note that most mothers and fathers can't even afford alimony and child support, that many men who can are deadbeat wealthy dads. You fail to mentional the parts of something called "reality" that don't fit with your ridiculous out-of-touch, borderline paranoid, self-absorbed men-are-victims-of-women "vaginalimony" theories. LOL
Really, you do have to take this shit onto the stage for laughs.
And what percent of men who don't pay alimony or child support go to jail and remain victimy slaves for the rest of their lives, Fucking Stupid? You neglect to mention that. Why is that? Why not tell the people what percent of poor, poor beleagered dads that actually is? Is it because, well, you don't want anyone to know because the percentage is so very, very tiny, like your and Eivind's dick-for-brains?
It's kind of sweet how you rush to your boyfriend Eivind's defense, because he's being so victimised and all. LOL
I'm a faggot... in your dreams. Sleep well, "poor" little victimised white man named Fucking Stupid. With Eivind right next to you.
You keep taking such good, devoted, loving care of Eivind, Fucking Stupid. And one day, maybe, you can get married.
And you seem unwilling to note that most mothers and fathers can't even afford alimony and child support or that many men who can are deadbeat wealthy cheating, lying-through-their-teeth dads who were abusive and neglectful husbands. You fail to mention the parts of something called "reality" that don't fit with your ridiculous out-of-touch, borderline paranoid, self-absorbed men-are-victims-of-women "vaginalimony" theories. LOL
Really, you do have to take this shit onto the stage for laughs. Just say the words "misandry" and "vaginalimony" but first warn people they might wet their pants laughing so hard.
And what percent of men who don't pay alimony or child support go to jail and remain victimy slaves for the rest of their lives, Fucking Stupid? You neglect to mention that. Why is that? Why not tell the people what percent of poor, poor financially strapped dads that actually is? Is it because, well, you don't want anyone to know because the percentage is so very, very tiny--like your and Eivind's dick-for-brains?
It's kind of sweet how you rush to your boyfriend Eivind's defense, because he's being so victimised and all. LOL
I'm a faggot... in your dreams. Sleep well, "poor" little victimised man named Fucking Stupid, with Eivind right next to you, crying on your shoulder about his victimised daddy and his pitiful self living in such a woman-dominated world. LOL
You keep taking such good, passionate care of Eivind, Fucking Stupid. You must love him so very, very much to keep showing up like this and rushing to his defense as if he can't argue his own points for himself.
He really is lucky to have to so devotedly by his side. Maybe one day you two can get legally married.
The truth is scary, isn't it?
julian, you're my hero, you bamf.
@Anonymous,
Thanks. And it's probably best we leave these two bitter spouses--Eivind and Fucking Stupid--to keep each other company and support one another's delusions of victimhood. What with those winning qualities of bigotry and ignorance, it's obvious they will only ever have each other.
Here's a suggestion: Don't be an idiot. Stupidity is not an attractive feature in either sex. First impression? You're hopeless. (As Ron White says, you can't fix stupid.)
On the other hand, should YOU ever have somebody shove their dick in you against your will, I won't gloat. I would however bet you change the rape portion of your half-wit theories.
After reading your blog I still can't understand HOW you could be serious about this. Several things came to me, though. First, you are a delusional psychopath. Second, my hypothesis of how this blog and you view came about: you had met some girl, she claimed she was a feminist, you asked her out, and she declined. Therefore, you decided that you hate feminists. Along the way, you got all pissy that you weren't getting laid and in your anger have justified rape, since that is most likely the only way you can have sex. Sad, sad, sad.
What's even sadder, is that your conclusion that sex= payment reminds me very much of something that my parents had told me. After I became engaged, my fiance and I moved in together. My parents found out I was paying my half like any woman of the 21st century usually does. For reasons that still baffle me, my parents told me that I should not be paying for anything because I am "having sex with him" and that is payment enough.
Needless to say, I cut of all contact with my parents. It was a very hurtful and disgusting and no matter how much I tried to explain to them that this is not the 1950s they were convinced I was being taken advantage of. So, to save my own sanity I no longer speak to them. I even sought therapy after this, and my therapist reassured me that this is the best for me until my parents can see reason.
I am a feminist. Yet, I am not using sex to get what I want. If anything, that would be what my parents were trying to get me to do, but I respect my body and my fiance.
I will grant you that some fanatical feminists I've come across rub me the wrong way. They are too extreme. But, most of the time, when women say they are feminists it's because they believe in EQUALITY. They go to school and work hard to make it in life. To justify RAPE is despicable. And it does seem to be brought on mostly because you seem unable to get laid. I do not doubt that any SANE woman would run as fast and far away from you after hearing your views on rape and women.
Oh, and I am considered out of my fiance's league, by my friends and his. But, he is a cute, wonderful guy and he is my best friend. I have yet another reason to be happy with him: he thinks rape is disgusting and any man who commits rape should have their penis fed to them.
Thank you, Eivind, for saying what so many must be thinking but I never thought any would have the courage to say! I truly applaud you. I am so sick of feminist lies and sexism. Radical lesbian feminazis just want to kill all males. I will not stand by and be exterminated, NO, I will defend myself with every fiber of my being, I will make my stand to the very end, NO, I will not just fade away because females think themselves superior, want to marginalize me off this planet! NO! If anyone can leave this planet, let it be the XX's!
Sick of the lies! When they say that rape is a crime of pure violence and control? Bullshit! Absolute bullshit. Of course it's not! Idiot, it's sex, it's about sex! What do you think?? Everyone knows, most guys will do anything to have sex with a girl. What is the logical end-point of that? Forcing her to? Maybe SOME times their might be a violent element involved, but 99% of the time, he just wants sex, he can't stand being denied it any more. Yet we swallow the lie that rape is about violence or control? Absurd! It's all about sex and biology!
These women are saying, "You don't understand how bad rape is it shatters your soul etc etc.". Well yes it does do that, all at once. Humans are DNA machines, built over billions of years to reproduce the best possible genes. When we can't do that, it destroys something deep inside us. We're just built that way, it's how nature endures our survival. So when a woman is violated, raped, her body knows she's not choosing the best genes, that's why it is so traumatic.
What these women don't understand is that SLOWLY, over the course of time, it becomes just as traumatic for a male to never be able to have sex, for the same exact evolutionary reason. Deep inside, it feels just the same as being slowly raped over time. That's how it is for males who never get to have sex.
But women don't give a shit about that. Because they're utterly selfish. They could care less if males, boys, men are happy. I've had enough of it. NO MORE! No more women and children first. Men first, from now on!
Hi Eivind,
I admire your courage, and as a libertarian anti-feminist myself, I go along with large parts of your attitudes - but I differ on certain issues in ways you might find surprising.
First, not so surprising, rape is equality, but also anarchy. Rape doesn't match to affirmative action, but to ordinary robbery.
The "fitting counter-evil" to feminism isn't rape, but the pushing for a law that institutionalizes rape, similar to the laws that condoned rape in marriage that have been abolished in the last century. Since feminism also promotes wealth distribution from men to women who are not affiliated, such as quotas, a law coercing all women to serve as prostitutes for a year might be fitting - similar to national service.
That said on theoretical grounds, I, personally, promote only liberty, not retaliatory evil. Why? Because I believe it's not about a battle of sexes to begin with.
You say yourself that you're not a misogynist, and some of your statements can only mean that indeed you're not. Neither am I. So if taken this stance symbolically, I can find it funny and inspiring. As a matter of fact, I've been using your argument humorously myself in the past.
A similar reasoning goes as for the police officer who got killed. I reject psychiatry as pseudo-science and, without knowing the facts of the case in question, I assume there are many cases of psychiatry causing the infringement of liberty rights. However, the police is a necessary organ of any civilized society and each individual policemen is not accountable for immoral laws made by legislators and pushed for by pressure groups. Witch doctors and feminists are those who are guilty, not policemen and women.
Also, feminism is bad for women too, at least some of them (see below). Hypergamy is not only wealth-seeking, it's a deeply-rooted emotional need. If men are made weak, women suffer too - not from poverty, but from loneliness.
I have two additional objections. These are based on my believe that there is a great variation of sexual identity and preference. I believe that there is a large group of men and women who do not suffer from feminism, because their sexual identity and preference is not quite what you describe it to be. That is not to say that you're fundamentally wrong about the sex market, but there is likely to be more to it.
[continued in next comment...]
[...continued from last post]
Also, I, myself, being a man, don't find looks being enough. It is necessary to have a certain intellectual dynamic - about pride, leadership, dominance - to trigger attractivity. Rape, for me, wouldn't work as long as the woman doesn't consent on some level: If you've read The Fountainhead, that's the level of consent that would be necessary. If I can't be proud as a consequence of feminism, rape is not even practical, moral issues aside.
Feminism appeals primarily to the kind of person whose sexuality is disconnected from dominance, self-confidence or wealth. Many men fall into that category. The most feminist men are usually those who have no expectations.
The last and most important point is about what I find most appalling about feminism.
I could get laid more often than I am, so my issue with it is different. I grew up in an environment - Germany in the eighties - where, without any exception, every person I had contact to was a feminist. The notion that men and women have natural differences in character was the most extremely opposed position I could find, and that only in literature. The notion that masculinity is not either ridiculous or evil was completely absent, even in literature. There was not a single male role model.
Women getting privileges is a nuisance, but young boys being fooled into hating themselves is on a different level of perversity. It left me profoundly intimidated up until I learned about alternative opinions, most notably the libertarian American perspective.
I absolutely relate to the social alienation you're hinting at. There is not a single person from my childhood I have positive feelings towards to - the best of them managed to make me feel indifferent. My parents didn't manage to do that. I realized, to my own great shock, that I was capable of loving someone in my late twenties. That's largely an issue of feminism and being raised to be a wimp. Then again, self-pity isn't helpful except perhaps for encouraging one another and seeking alliances. In the end, earning money is the only way to a self-determined life.
Despite your overtones to anarchism, which I reject, I see that you're rational and well-spoken. You don't react to all the insults thrown at you by trolling back. I respect that.
America will see its cultural revolution someday soon, and the world is going to change with it. Make sure you don't spoil it for yourself and have become bitter when the world's changing for the better.
Wish you well, Jens
It's too bad you are such a misogynist, because you're actually quite cute. Such is life, I guess. Good luck with that whole pro-rape thing.
I find the entire premise of this article disturbing. You are basically stripping sex down from an act of intimacy that reaffirms relationships or produces offspring to a dollar amount. You are also claiming that the amount of sex that men receive right now is the amount of sex that they deserve or need in order to function and live happily. Considering the number of masturbation aids, or the number of men who seem to need sex, men should either simply masturbate more or have sex with other men, and since men seem to be the only people emotionally capable of marrying 'beneath' them, never mind that women are behind on the class system because no one would employ them until the 1940s, then men should simply hoard the wealth of sexual activity by having sex with each other. That way men can get the sex you feel they need to be having and women can be paid the same for doing the same job as a man.
Everybody wins.
Gingerjuice, are you having trouble understanding the concept of heterosexuality? Most men feel sex with other men would be a disgusting further punishment, not a solution to sexual frustration.
Girl babies, toddlers and school children are, by definition, FEMALE and will one day become WOMEN ... do you then draw the monstrous skewed conclusion that rape of female minors is equality? What about rape of men by men? You need to go and have a lobotomy and rid the world of your written/verbal excrement
Have you ever raped anyone? Why or why not?
I have the perfect solution to your problems, Eivind: The artificial breeding of anencephalitic females for sexual use for frustrated men like yourself. After all, you do think that a man putting his penis into an unconscious female is "having sex" and that it somehow makes sense to force women to give up "sex" in order to make unattractive men happy. What the woman in question might feel about the matter obviously not a matter at all. A clone bred with only the basic brain functions would satisfy all your needs.
You sir, are the most brilliant Rape Philosopher in the history of the world! Your logic is unassailable. Let the mass serial raping begin, before it's too late!
You make me fucking sick and I hope you die alone and get what your promoting
~From a rape survivor
There is a some truth in the argument but Eivind Berge doesn't develop sufficiently for most people to understand.
I think the aim of this post is obviously to suppress affirmative action rather than promote rape.
It's a reductio ad absurdum.
Eivind wrote '...no one has been able to justify why affirmative action is right when it benefits women and hurts men but is wrong when it helps men and hurts women.'
The ultimate reason is that women are more valuable to a successful society than men because they are the scarce reproductive resource-holders. The proximal reasons are harder to summarise quickly and are only the means to the end, anyway.
You've mentioned Thornhill & Palmer (2000), I think. If I remember correctly they propose a much more cogent counter-behaviour to rape than affirmative action: paternity deceit. Western culture permits, and sometimes even acts to enforce, paternity deception. However many societies have taken as prohibitive a view of paternity deception (usually via female adultery) as the West takes about rape, which is interesting. This is likely to be a function of the different values of testosterone and oxytocin at different times and places (e.g. The Moral Molecule, PJ Zak).
If rape should be equality I assume some women have stolen your money and power. But insted of raping in revenge I suggest you tell the police about the theft.
Could be implemented less controversially by making brothel work a component of sexual affirmative action positions. The result would indeed be better "career" opportunities for women, better sex opportunities for men, and moderation of the self-esteem of both. If equality is possible, such a plan would self-correct, since women would get jobs even if they declined affirmative action consideration, and/or they would give it up if their male competitors were also able to get priority by whoring themselves out to women.
That's a good idea, if I understand correctly. Sexual equality does not need to involve sexual coercion if we merely attach the condition of brothel work to affirmative action in other positions, and then women can take it or leave it. Problems only arise when women demand equality unconditionally.
Reading these comments has been highly entertaining. It's fascinating to see how most people a) lack some pretty basic logical faculties and b) are unable to temporarily adopt an alien perspective, just for the sake of comprehension.
A good portion of commenters seem to be stridently irrational, with a veneer of moral sanctimony barely concealing a really ugly vulgarity. They actually scare me more than Eivind.
This article's author has apergers syndrome, and hopefully will not ever reproduce and create more creepy weirdos that are just like him.
When you're done reading this comment, go organize your My Little Pony collection in your mom's basement.
No, I do not have Asperger's, and even if I did, it would have no bearing on the argument, now would it?
The sad thing about all of this is that the first time you have sex will likely be when you rape someone.
If women exchanging sex (as a forced scarcity commodity) for money and power is a problem you want to solve, then the solution isnt rape, but rather libertinizing sexual desires and roles, abolishing the utility of inequal money and power through the establishment of Full Communism.
You say that a women's body is the only resource valuable to men is their body. Does that mean the only thing valuable of a man is the protection he may offer to a woman? Everyone seems to think that men are always going to be more powerful than women, because apparently, we are weak. By you stating that men should be allowed to rape a woman, does this mean us women should be allowed to right to seek protection from a man? What I mean by this is if she is being attacked with lethal weapons, should we be allowed to grab any man we so choose and use them as our shield? Yes, possible murder and rape is not the same thing. But when a person is raped, it stems a deep emotional effect within the said person. It is something they can never get back, and sometimes, the said victim commits suicide. The burden became too much. Is it so right?
Don't start unless you have time, it's long, and I feel it's important you read all of it, as I did throughout this sad post.
There is more than one, so follow to the next
The response to your logic is simple. It requires little thinking: you're trying to turn existential quantification into universal.
So to fix that: just because there is a case in which something occurs or exists, does not mean it always does, as a rule. Something jumped... that doesn't mean everything did. Take human vegetables for instance - no jumping.
A serious example, though, and a relevant one: just because feminist lobbyists (which I would like to currently applaud - and I am a straight male) have created opportunities for some women - who may or may not have had a chance prior to such events - to ascertain funds and acquire jobs, the right to a second/third chance at teenage life (not to mention adult life in the case of RAPE; on the point of abortion) etc. It does not necessarily follow, then, that ALL women should succumb to the torture of rape, because quite frankly: not all women are benefiting from affirmative action (yes I realize the abortion point was not relevant to affirmative action, I moved beyond that for a moment).
Also, as a pointer, you DO realize that it doesn't matter how you WANT to define rape, or equal, and who debunked what in what paper, and who is brainwashed and how, right? Take it from someone who analyzes everything, always, and is an atheist with a few degrees that involved more research than you will ever do in your life (I know, I get it, I hate it when people say things like that, too, but you need to hear it. Just clear your mind and calm down, it's not your turn to talk yet): you have to find a morality line. A point where no matter how bad things are, you just will NOT stoop that low. I hope yours is actually drawn prior to rape, because if it's not I don't doubt that you already have.
Assuming you haven't, let me talk you out of thinking about it...
You're talking about directly, and intentionally impacting a person's physical, mental, and emotional being (Which I'm sure is not what the woman who stole your job is doing. They are intending to get a job, not fuck you over to the marrow of your bones). Regardless if you think it's the same, it's still not OK buddy. You don't murder your brother because some brothers murder their sisters. And you definitely don't rape a woman because a woman raped your wallet. TRUE equality - in all honesty - would be raping her wallet back, and that's just stupid.
You marry her.
Equality aside, you said yourself that you at one time believed rape to be immoral, so why do it just to prove a point? That, my not-friend, is petty, selfish, and self-righteous to the max. You would give a radicalized religious supernut a run for their money, there. You don't give up your moral standards just because you see someone else doing it (not saying feminism is immoral, just arguing by assumption of his rightness that it is).
Now that I have the silliness at least beginning to seep from you...
And I mean that in the way that I can already sense your brain working together a counter-argument; how you can argue that rape is fundamentally OK, I don't rightly know ... Nothing you've said ACTUALLY strongly holds up to rape being OK, you merely have made a point that affirmative action is not accomplishing what it was set out to accomplish, or at worst it is unfair to men.
Still - just keep calm, don't think ahead, and keep reading. If you truly value your own mind, which I can see you at best attempt to, you will do your best to learn as best you can. Which, even if I'm wrong; I can't be ALL wrong as I am not helplessly mentally deficient, and so every bit of information is vital for the betterment of yourself.
Let me move on to your character flaw, since that is a tougher nut to crack, pure logic on the backburner.
Being as I've noticed you read the long posts that others offer (which I commend you on that, by the way), I will allow myself to build up a scenario or two, in which you may be able to follow and understand mentally, and emotionally (not that the two are necessarily mutually exclusive).
If not... well, then you are a sociopath - and I say that with all of its nonchalance, matter-of-fact tone implied.
But, I digress ... again ...
So, your mother gets a job thanks to affirmative action, will you rape her?
Maybe, an Oedipus complex could be meandering about your thoughts.
Hmmm ... *Taps nose in contemplation* ...
'Something a little harder for a behaviorist psychologists to explain away' (maybe, I'm a 24 year-old math tutor/major with a physics minor, so I don't know too much about psychology - never liked soft science):
Your daughter (Imaginary Deities forbid you multiply until you set your brain straight) grows up, and acquires a position within a law firm with skills that equal a man's. Affirmative action says she wins, so... Will you - sleezy genitals at attention - rape your own daughter and feel good about it? Even as a response to feminism, you cannot possibly say "yes" to that, and if you do, and you follow through, realize that you have now shown malice aforethought, and prison will be your life.
No longer will you sit upon your awkward perch where you can be heard, with all of your strange noises that people find fascinating. You will be getting raped, and you will deserve it - equal rights aside.
Under the assumption you are still a little sane, though:
It is normalcy to say "no" to those questions when we are talking about things that can be directly associated with one's own life. You may have fond memories of your mother. Surely, if you are any sort of human you might secure specks of fond (non-sexual) memories with a daughter in the future - assuming you don't already have one.
So instead, there is something else going on here:
Your brain is working like that of an inconsiderate - rather oblivious really - customer at a fast-food joint. Selfish and needy, like a baby with a spiteful vocabulary. Incapable of putting her/himself in the shoes of the powerless person behind the counter, and thus is pointing the anger in the wrong direction. Not to mention, you can't get back there and cook it yourself, because you're fucking lazy, else you would be at home making your own meal.
Still, this is not as intense as someone who advocates for rape (for any particular arbitrary reason)...
... I know, I called you a lazy baby and you're getting upset... don't worry I'm patient; take a breath and we'll move on ...
Ready? Kk.
... An equally fine and possibly more on point with rape simile is that you are like a road-rager.
Shall I set the scene...?
Someone is tail-gating you in the slow lane, and rather than think of the children you might render parentless, you take it upon yourself to teach this person a lesson...
Dude, I get it, nothing's worse than someone riding your ass, even though the left lane is wide open... well, rape is worse, but still it's pretty bad...
So you slam on your breaks, no doubt after watching the person look down for a moment so they can't see you do it. It's more startling for them that way.
But this time, your reliance on the response of the driver doesn't quite pan out, and you cause an accident. Mission accomplished? Surely it must be, right? With such a shock to their mind, they will have experienced an epiphany single-handedly caused by you, and never tail-gate again. Thus saving all potential freeway fender-benders for many years to come...
Absolutely not. First of all, you just intentionally attacked a single person directly, and unintentionally harmed others indirectly . And being as rape is even MORE culturally unacceptable; you would have a better chance getting a militia of break-stompers on your side.
You are incapable of gaining enough rape-supporters to "backhand" feminists. (Put emphasis on that period.)
Ok, ok, before you stop reading to tell me that some other country agrees and blah blah I don't give a shit, relax again... long breath - I'm doin' it too trust me you made me mad with this post... ok continue...
Aside from that, there are other forces set in motion here that you clearly, have not seen clearly (double worded on purpose).
Because if the trauma of the accident does not get to this person who is most likely fighting to survive under the wreckage of a car: the death of the child in the back seat will most certainly destroy them internally. And, if anyone cares about you, as you are probably dead as well, you have affected those who supported you in life.
You see, by condoning rape of women solely because they are accessing monetary gain faster than you, better than you, and better than SOME men (yes I mentioned you and men in different examples on purpose, because you are not a man, you are a frustrated little boy... breath buddy, I know it hurts to read mean things, but it's the truth, just keep reading) - albeit due to affirmative action or not; you are effectively condoning the traumatic events that occur post-victim. You are saying that because they tail-gated you and maybe even flashed their brights at you in the process: they deserve to mentally suffer for the rest of their Earthly existence.
You think women just get over rape? Not like a man can get over missing out on a job, buddy. In fact, not at all in most cases. The best they can do is fight to survive under the wreckage that is their new persona of themselves. You see, there is no other store where a woman can ask to have her rape returned. You can apply somewhere else, she can't get that back dude.
But wait, there's more...
The MALE husband that has shared two children with his wife of ten years, now knows that another man violated her. Not only against her will: but against his as well.
Her children, should they hear about the attack, now fear for their own safety and hold you and all other men of your particular faction of people that carry your ideological nonsense responsible, and grudgingly await the day to exact their revenge.
Or, in the ironic and quite possibly more believable case: feminism grows by billions (good on ya ladies).
Next, she commits suicide because she can't handle her body anymore; the way it haunts her, and reminds her of your unwanted invasion. Everyday she thinks about the moments prior to being attacked...
'What if I would've remembered to grab the bread before I left the store, maybe just a few more seconds...' She thinks while she grimaces at the thought of that moment you forced it in, and she cried out for help, but no one was there.
Just you and your vendetta against feminists...
(I'm going with a reality-based rape-scene, because speaking hypothetically about a world where all free-countries vote to force women to unwillingly give up sex is retarded, you nor I will ever see that day come, so instead we speak of your vigilante tendencies).
She feels your skin under her broken nails like it was yesterday, as she clawed to get away before you forced her to the cement. All the while she thinks 'What if I said "I love you" just one more time to my son before I stepped out for my morning jog? Would he have still found me?' Her body wracks with shivers, and she sweats with another panic-attack. The last one she can handle, and the last one she'll have to...
The husband, torn by grief begins leading others against reformed sex offenders, and those speaking out against feminists - just like you - believing none of them can ever change, especially if one could do such a thing just to spite the more sensitive sex.
And so, another vigilante is born...
You see, you're right about one thing: you're not just speaking for yourself here. Others have done what you say. You pan over to another country countless times as if to say you should jump off the bridge because they did.
And everyday, the female movement grows stronger, as it should: being the most persecuted gender for thousands of years prior to our current situation. Don't go look up some douche-bag who disagrees either, and quote him as if you came up with it, my being right about a little thing is pointless compared to the big ugly picture you painted for the world to see, and for me to burn.
I am not brainwashed, I see every day what anti-feminism does, I don't need someone to tell me one way or the other. I work at a college, where equality should be easy to find, and even with affirmative action: women are being shut-down and demeaned simply because they are women.
So what if men have to try harder to get a job than a woman does? So what if they want to call it equal and it's not, because affirmative action gives an equally skilled female the advantage?
Does that mean you don't open the door for a woman still?
No, you classless ignoramus. You grab that handle despite the pride on her face that lets you know she's out of your league and she knows it. You shake her hand when she bests you, as well. Because THAT is what being a man is. It's not about the physiological structure, the balls or the testosterone. Ya, that makes you a MALE, not a fucking MAN. It's not about making more than your wife. It's not even about equality, you shortsighted fool (not surprising that you claim libertarianism - but still, it's almost over, try to suppress your need to argue back just for a little longer).
It's about doing what is honorable, and showing a lady that she doesn't intimidate you, only that she inspires you. And that no matter what, you will be there to support every decision she makes, even if it's assisted by political movements out to give them a leg-up, possibly hiding behind equal-rights ideology.
Get over it. Quit being a little girl about it (I speak ironically, of course). Be a man.
As I rant, I realize a thing about you ... I believe.
You've never seen a single mom work two jobs and go to school to provide for her children because the man in her life was too worried about himself to stay at home and deal with his responsibilities. Thank the Imaginary Deities for affirmative action there, 'less you also advocate for homeless families.
You've never seen a woman change the shape of a man's heart just because she touched his face lingeringly and whispered in his ear.
You, my confused little person, have never loved.
You want women to be raped? Well, guess what? You'll just make them harder at heart, less like women, and more like men. Is that what you want? If it is, find another way to prove your point, because that is selfish and petty of you. Do what they did, and work through the proper channels. Get the people to agree with you. Don't lose sight of the greater good in the process.
Stop advocating for world-trauma. Because with every woman that's raped, at least one other person is being affected. You're not just getting women back for being astute politicians and entrepreneurs that have essentially beaten men at the arm-wrestling match that is the workforce at that point, you're hurting men to. You're hurting children. You hurt the tax-payers, the doctors, the lawyers, the police officers, the politicians, the school teachers, the construction workers. And not because you raped them for having a job and you didn't; you're hurting them because you raped their wives, their daughters, their sisters, their cousins ... their fucking family and friends you selfish prick (sorry, I got a little heated there... you are, though, but still keep reading, we're in the home stretch).
Let me, now, give you an experience I have had directly in the face of affirmative action, and then I will be done.
When I received my degree in Mathematics, I went to Sylvan to apply for work. Washington, mind you, is a "will" state. Thus, it does not need to offer reasons behind firings, or not-hirings, if you will. Though, the results were clear. I was more qualified than the female applicant gunning for my position. Blah blah blah I didn't get the job - obviously, or I wouldn't have brought it up. And it was because I was a man, I feel confident in that. You know what I did?
Mind you: I have terrible credit due to poor teenage decisions and trying to help my mother survive by taking loans out in my name at 18 ...
I started my own business. And guess what? Through hard work and reputable determination, I am the highest demanded tutor at my college. Guess what I did next? I joined up with a female, and together we are a powerhouse, making triple what that woman "stole" from me by getting her job at Sylvan.
My point isn't to brag, it's to say that if you can't get a job or an opportunity because affirmative action is in the way, then you better be DAMN happy you're not a woman. Because even with that in place, it's STILL harder for them to find work in many places. All it takes is determination, skill, and persistence dude. People skills are helpful as well, and advocating rape definitely doesn't work out for that.
Fix yourself up, take rejection like medicine, and be a real man: hold the door open for that woman who got the job you applied for, and go show her how awesome she is for it. Suck it up and be happy if a woman every let's you within inches of her. Otherwise you're not proving any points, you're just being a whiny little girl.
I think, Eivind, you make a very good and insightful argument.
It's just such a shame that so many people live in a world of notions unpenetrated by their own intellectual analysis. They just adopt ideas and, with blind faith, uphold them at all costs. Definition of narrow minded.
I have yet to see one post that provides intellectual opposition to Eivind's argument and conclusion. Ironically, only such a post would be effective in making a difference to the mindset of men such as Eivind; the plethora of anger injected nonsense, which is as intellectually unstable as a balloon filled with hot air, serves no purpose but to annoy those who are genuinely interested in clearing this debate up and to satisfy selfish urges to express anger.
If there is someone who truly wants to make an effective difference in favour of preventing rape then ffs offer a real deconstruction of Eivind's argument... that is, something real, not just hot-headed idiocy. It's simply boring that Eivind has to restate and restate and restate the same argument over and over again in response to people who are too stupid to kindly 'get it'.
My personal view is that Eivind makes a v good argument but I would like to hear an intelligent persons response who actually understands and confidently opposes his argument.. if such a person exists. As it is... as an open minded person... no one has given me a reason to disagree with Eivind. Your thoughtless anger fuelled responses are therefore not just annoying but potentially dangerous because they are causing me to believe there is no good argument against what Eivind says.... Else it would have surely been stated by now? Put some thought into your responses.
Post a Comment