Is this an ongoing thing?
Is it an accepted paradigm that men now bow down to everything and women do sweet FA except usurp that which has already been worked for?

Generally, I have believed women to be fairly honest, to the extent that I think that they have the ability to draw out a long term lie better than any Islamic extremist.

The reason that I am asking this is for the reason of fairness, and for the reason that men ought to find the strength within themselves to play the short-term capitalist and dictate that laws shall accommodate this democratic viewpoint, if it were to eventuate back to normality.

It's all fine and dandy atm, where feminists assume that they have successfully usurped, but wait for the fallout. Capitalism lurks.

The average bloke doesn't really care much for some exponent of sexual and financial freedom who is fat,
can't cook and dictates that her mind is superior to anything ever known.

No, the average bloke likes the simple stuff. The average bloke doesn't even take into account the opinion of the average nagging woman.

So, I'm wondering, what makes the average bloke shun capitalism when he can control his own finances (without the shoe stores...etc.) and have beautiful ladies at his beck and call who know how to cook, clean and treat a man right?

Is a democratic capitalism which ousts the lies of feminism all that wrong?

I conclude that I will always have value for truth, and that has been reflected in the honest women that I have been lucky enough to have known thus far.i

I've proved that I have something which is required by some at least.
Others will eventually realise that they need it too.

I trust in honesty, not bs artists.

I won't risk my life listening to total crap  feminism or egotist bs.

You sound like you would be happier in another country - maybe afghanistan . . .'

SOB

Happy doing what I can do here for the moment. My options are always open.

And believe me, I can have yoor Mrs. if I wanted.

She pines to be away from yoo.

Yoo are too boring and weak for her.

Once she has total control, she will throw yoo over, yoo are not part of her life, and never were.

I watched my sillyass excse for a mother try to hide the facts from me since the age of 3 bro.
I know what they're aboot.
Now the lies have been exposed and her lover is dead, I have the power.
I Own. The tables have rotated.

Yes it is a simple fact that any bloke here can get a better lover op OS.
That's capitalism.

See how the economy goes when we are all scared off to be with slim perky os women.

When it becomes apparent that they were always trying to play a game when it was not thought necessary, then it's bloody well time to play back.

Amadd wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 5:07am:

Yes it is a simple fact that any bloke here can get a better lover op OS. That's capitalism. See how the economy goes when we are all scared off to be with slim perky compromising  Philipino lovers. 8-) Take a short lesson from capitalism and bat yoorself into a time-sharing sit. with as many lovers as yoo can afford from compromising nations. That's real capitalist love for blokes in the feminist world. It works.

Are you talking sex or love?

There is no difference.

Amadd wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 6:09am:

There is no difference.

Wow.

It's scary in here.

Good luck with sorting that one out, Amadd.

No, it's up to you to state the difference now.

A child born from a one-night stand is called a ?

A woman who has sex with a 90yr old is called his?

The legal difference between a one night stand which produces a baby and a 20yr "relationship" which doesn't is?

A man is not obliged to pay maintenance for a child which was produced during a one night stand because there was no assertation of love involved...True or false?

Keep going..I'm all ears.


I see the point yes. I think I have a fair idea of what you think you are talking about (feelings blah blah), but legally speaking, you have no point at all.

Sex is a physical act, it has nothing to do with emotional attachment.

Just because a woman allows you to have sex with her, doesn't mean she has a strong emotional connection with you.

I'm sure you know all this. What exactly are you saying?

Amadd wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 6:22am:

No, it's up to you to state the difference now. A child born from a one-night stand is called a ? A woman who has sex with a 90yr old is called his? The legal difference between a one night stand which produces a baby and a 20yr "relationship" which doesn't is? A man is not obliged to pay maintenance for a child which was produced during a one night stand because there was no assertation of love involved...True or false? Keep going..I'm all ears.

Are you required to pay maintenance for a child from a one night stand? I don't know?

I'm saying "Legally".
Not what I expect to be felt in certain situations. I have no say in that.

Quote:

Are you required to pay maintenance for a child from a one night stand? I don't know?

What planet are you living on? Of course yesss.

Keep breaking it down, and then you will see that there is no difference between sex and love, nomatter how absurd you first thought the statement to be.

Amadd wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 6:45am:

Quote: Are you required to pay maintenance for a child from a one night stand? I don't know? What planet are you living on? Of course yesss.

It's a situation I've never come across. All my friends who pay maintenance were either married or in a relationship.

DNA will tell the tale....and I'd urge them to check.

In 25% of cases (at least), there will be no maintenance required.

I'm merely being realistic about a woman's objective there.
It's somewhat likely that they will want one man to look after another man's genes. Not that that's a bad thing.

Amadd wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 6:50am:

Keep breaking it down, and then you will see that there is no difference between sex and love, nomatter how absurd you first thought the statement to be.

While this is true under the law for certain circumstances it is not true in general.

It is true in general.
It is true within the law.

Amadd wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 6:57am:

DNA will tell the tale....and I'd urge them to check. In 25% of cases (at least), there will be no maintenance required.

What about this situation. John and his wife separate. They have an eight year old boy who sees John on weekends. He pays maintenance. Later John finds out his son is not his. Can John stop his maintenance payments and is he entitled to some sort of repayment?

Amadd wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 7:05am:

It is true in general. It is true within the law.

So what does it mean when you tell your mum you love her.

I think that's besides the question, however, I will always have good reason to love my mum nomatter how much I disagree with (and sometimes display hate for) some of her actions.

Disliking a portion of a person is not akin to hating the whole. And sometimes, that disliked portion may turn out to be the most loved portion..who knows?

Certainly, I feel an indirect blessing from both my mother and father to play the system as I see fit. (And that might mean that one or the other has been nagging me against it).

So that is apart from the laws that I hate.
It's subjective and as the laws in which I am in so much disagreeance with.

SO, if it is legally so that sex and love are in actually one in the same...will you believe that and have faith in the law?
IMO, that's a pretty big one.

Love is all, is it not?

Some men do bow down before anything in a skirt.
I dislike them and don't trust them.

Most women are fine. Don't take a backward step though.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 8:09am:

Some men do bow down before anything in a skirt. I dislike them and don't trust them. Most women are fine. Don't take a backward step though.

Yep, and those are the men whos missus (if they ever get one) will cuckold them for the bikie or the drug dealer.  Women can't stand a beta supplicating schmo, hence the phrase 'nice guys finish last'.  We've all heard it, but few have the brains and/or the stones to take it on board.  Which doesn't bother me none - soneones gotta entertain the ugly fat chciks.

http://jezebel.com/5938972/a-call-to-arms-for-decent-men

beta/omega male throws a hissy fit, in the hopes he'll be allowed to lick a feminists feet.

It won't work mate. 

A pretty interesting indoctrinated article from that bloke.

However, I do see a glimmer of hope in some of the rational comments that followed - by both men and women.

I gotta say, I've fallen in love with this marvelous maverick woman.
There's far more chance of women like her being listened to by other women than any silly ol' bloke who would be labelled a misogynist in his first three words.

So listen up ladies and girlymen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-N9daqANcw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlvMAS_20K4

... wrote on Sep 6^th, 2012 at 10:19am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:09am: Some men do bow down before anything in a skirt. I dislike them and don't trust them. Most women are fine. Don't take a backward step though. Yep, and those are the men whos missus (if they ever get one) will cuckold them for the bikie or the drug dealer.  Women can't stand a beta supplicating schmo, hence the phrase 'nice guys finish last'.  We've all heard it, but few have the brains and/or the stones to take it on board.  Which doesn't bother me none - soneones gotta entertain the ugly fat chciks.

Agreed.

There was an article recently about a real estate agent contesting his pre nup  - his wife was banging truckies on the side.

Shane B wrote on Sep 8^th, 2012 at 6:53pm:

... wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 10:19am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 6th, 2012 at 8:09am: Some men do bow down before anything in a skirt. I dislike them and don't trust them. Most women are fine. Don't take a backward step though. Yep, and those are the men whos missus (if they ever get one) will cuckold them for the bikie or the drug dealer.  Women can't stand a beta supplicating schmo, hence the phrase 'nice guys finish last'.  We've all heard it, but few have the brains and/or the stones to take it on board.  Which doesn't bother me none - soneones gotta entertain the ugly fat chciks. Agreed. There was an article recently about a real estate agent contesting his pre nup  - his wife was banging truckies on the side.

I wonder how many of them were married.

Amadd wrote on Sep 8^th, 2012 at 12:28am:

A pretty interesting indoctrinated article from that bloke. However, I do see a glimmer of hope in some of the rational comments that followed - by both men and women. I gotta say, I've fallen in love with this marvelous maverick woman. There's far more chance of women like her being listened to by other women than any silly ol' bloke who would be labelled a misogynist in his first three words. So listen up ladies and girlymen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-N9daqANcw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlvMAS_20K4

This woman is boring.
I think I know what she needs.  ;D

"in Anglo-Saxon countries the prostitutes look as if they purveyed, along with sin, the attendant pains of hell."

This is a pointer towards the peculiar hostility between the sexes that is subtly and persistently cultivated in Anglo-Saxon countries. This is the first hurdle for an Anglo-Saxon to overcome if he/she wants to be cosmopolitan. There is no ready ability to distinguish between flirting, badinage on the one hand and bullying, and sexual confrontation on the other. Men and women do not know how to enjoy each other's company as sexual beings. Encounters have to be drained of all blood before they can go ahead.i

Toxic feminism




In the light of the recent massacre by terrorist group Hamas of 364 twenty-somethings celebrating peace at a rave in the desert, Clementine Ford took aim at “Zionist” women, saying: “I don’t care that you felt betrayed or let down, and I especially don’t care that you want to have a big crybaby rant … You’re pathetic, you disgust me, and I pity you for being so basic and gross … Honestly, you actually can’t get any whiter than that.”

Actually, I’m not sure you could get any whiter than Ford – a queer, bleached blonde agony aunt whose father ran for One Nation in Queensland, but: tomayto, tomahto.

Ford also displays a deep, sustained, and ugly rage against men, which she justifies as an appropriate reaction to misogyny (although one assumes there isn’t anyone from Hamas in her orbit; if so, I could perhaps understand her rage.) While there is no question that some of the points she makes in I Don’t: The Case Against Marriage are accurate, the degree of disgust she expresses for men is more than disturbing; it should be illegal.

Ostensibly about the “corrupt and oppressive institution” of marriage, the book is, in fact, little more than a celebration of her own separation. Ford, who likes to pose with baseball caps printed with the happy legend “Leave Your Husband” says she has never “felt like more of a family” since separating from her son’s father.

Like all extremists, she is not only immature but almost entirely self-involved.

“I am a marriage abolitionist because I cannot in good conscience support an institution that has enslaved women sexually, reproductively, financially and domestically,” Ford writes, adding: “Marriage is a system whose foundations are built on the erasure of women, and the exploitation of everything that we are.”

Throughout the text, such projections and generalisations are presented as fact. “An enormous amount of research has been undertaken to ensure the arguments I make … are supported by historical fact and feminist scholarship,” she said.

An example of this rigorous, fair-minded scholarship? “How dare any modern man compare the long-overdue and still-not-far-enough uprising of women against the rapists, abusers and misogynists who have terrorised us for millennia as a witch-hunt. F —k them all to hell.”

Unsurprisingly, Ford fails to mention the women who abuse and torture children. The only reason women are, on the whole, less overtly violent than men is because the only ones vulnerable to their physical aggression are children, whom – curiously – they do regularly attack.

In Australia, men account for 75.6 per cent of suicides (my 32-year-old brother and a number of male friends among them). In Australia, 92 per cent of prisoners are male. Multiple studies show that illicit drug use is “significantly” more prevalent among men than women, both here and overseas.

Given this – and to share Ford’s enthusiastic use of expletives – what the f —k is she on about? Wherefore, then, the Toxic Patriarchal Utopia against which she rails? Is her entire philosophy – if it could be called that – a sustained episode of red-faced foot-stamping against Daddy?

Women, in Ford’s universe, are responsible only for their triumphs. If a woman succeeds, it is on the basis of her courage, determination and vision (“I have fought the odds to get here, empowered by the knowledge that every single woman who has come before me has fought her own battle in order to survive”); if a woman fails in any way or experiences a negative feeling, it is almost always because of a man (“Women hate men because they force us to”).

Ford doesn’t want equality. In 2017, she signed a fan’s book with the words, “Have you killed any men today? And if not, why not?” And, as she tweeted in 2020, “Honestly, the coronavirus isn’t killing men fast enough.”

Imagine, if you will, if the same comments were made of women.

Imagine, if you will, how her son may feel on reading her words as a man.

Ford’s primary interest is not understanding, or philosophical evolution, but an extremely profitable divisiveness.

Like an American television evangelist, she whips her audience – for the most part, hurt, lonely, overburdened, or vulnerable women – into a frenzy of fear and loathing for men (unless they’re trans, gay, or have facial piercings and pink hair). Is it any surprise that so many men now want to be women? Who would be a man in such a world?

Antonella Gambotto-Burke’s latest book is Apple: Sex, Drugs, Motherhood and the Recovery of the Feminine