Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Yup, Men are Still for Sale - Better Go Elsewhere

The point of this blog is that men are for sale. Men are individuals free to make their own choices until.... a woman enters the picture. Then they are more or less toast, financially speaking. Does that sound bitter? Sound far fetched? I'm afraid it isn't.

Men having been choosing and marrying women out of their free will for centuries, and supporting them and their children, voluntarily, despite being able to abandon them and leave at any time. The "power dynamic" has shifted, whatever that means (I guess there is some kind of power struggle happening that I wasn't aware of). Women now have control of their destiny and so everything is different. Later in this post, you might recall the old adage, "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

As a woman, if you date a man and have kids with him, out of wedlock, with or without his consent, you have successfully used, er, rented this man. Now you may sell (think "extort") him for monthly payments that could last the rest of your life. This is called 'child' support, even though it'll be in the thousands most likely and no child costs that much who isn't dipped in gold.

If you, as a woman, have married this man and had children with him, you have successfully bought him. Marriage doesn't happen much anymore. Why? See above. Marriage doesn't gain men much, if anything. In both cases women are legally entitled to his home, 40% of his income, and in the case of marriage, half his assets. But then, I lost half my assets and I wasn't married, so its pretty much 'anything goes.' You can close your mouth.

In either case, the moment a woman has children, her obligations, duties and responsibilities DON'T EXIST in this country. She has none. Zero. She must do nothing. She will be judged on nothing. She will be held to no standard, she must give no reason or excuse for divorce. She is not even suspected or considered a cause of the divorce. This nation has 'no fault' divorce, so there is no investigation or questions raised about fault or cause of a divorce. She can lie, cheat, steal, whatever she wants to do. Literally. It does not matter. If she's rich, the massive wealth transfer that is child support still stands. If she is poor, it still stands. If she is middle class, it still stands. If she has 10 children with 10 different men, it still stands. If she cheated on you, it still stands. If she told ten different men your baby is theirs or their baby is yours, it still stands (yes, more than one man may be legally forced to pay support for the same child. So far, just two have been forced to pay for the same child, but I'm sure we'll surpass that soon enough).

Given this license to blow out a man whenever she feels like it, and women's massive increase in education and earnings in the past forever, women have declared victory.

Good for them. High-five ladies. You are the "winners!" YES! The winners of..... of..... of.....well, what did they win, Bob?

I don't know. They won something. Money I guess. And power. And control. Now she can.... I don't know. What do women do again? Oh yes; buy a really, really nice handbag. French, no, Italian! And shoes. And dresses. And jewelry to impress your friends with. Unless your friends are married of course. Then they will pity you for being a lonely, superficial money-grubbing spinster who secretly cries herself to sleep at night. That is, unless you've rented a man after selling your first one. In which case... wait. Who in their right mind would marry a woman who totally financially crippled another man before you? Idiots I suppose (women who divorced for legitimate reasons including actual, real, abuse or who left their husband without blowing him out are exempt).

But basically, women have won. They don't need men anymore. Thank God. It was a real chore to need a man. So much work and time and what about a poor girl's career!?!? So its over now, we can all breathe a sigh of relief. They won.

So give up men. Just throw down your sword - you do have a sword don't you? This was a 'fight' of some kind, wasn't it? I mean, the women have won, so I assume there was some kind of.... competition or something.... right? A competition for.... the right to... I don't know. But I'm sure it existed. After all, there can't be a victor without a contest. Duh.

So where was I... oh yeah, Give Up Men! SHE has bested you in every category! So there. You have no role left. Ta-daaa. Once a man's role in the family is in extreme jeopardy or unnecessary, then HE is pretty much unnecessary and will, in all likelihood, give up. And you, wimpy, loser man, have lost. Your wife, er, ex-wife, makes more than you and has more education and lives in a really nice house with REALLY nice clothes. So fall to your loser knees and genuflect.

Just... stop getting married. After all, what person, man or woman, would enter into a contract, agreement, or partnership, of any kind, knowing that they will always 'lose?' A man, after all, can have all of his present AND FUTURE earnings legally stolen from him for no due cause (that is, adultery, alcoholism, abuse, etc.). And in that case, you would have to think that your wife was TOTALLY INCAPABLE of divorcing you because she met someone "better," experienced depression, mood swings, extreme selfishness, identity crisis, severe anxiety, or simply was unsure of your feelings toward her and decided to leave before she was left. And honestly, to be fair, very few human beings at all are totally incapable of those things, especially in the anxiety-filled, prozac-popping Western world.

So congratulations Ladies. You have won.... something. Do your touchdown dance. Woo Hoo.

My western brethren. Gentleman. It is time you embraced alternatives. I'm sorry. I wish this wasn't necessary. I know, I know. You fell in love. You saw her and you were sold for life. I know. She's all you ever wanted, her hair, her eyes, her creamy white skin, blah, blah, blah. But she's western, buddy. She's a western woman. West as in American, European, Canadien, etc.. She owns you the moment you have kids and/or get divorced. Your life BELONGS to her. Not in an emotional sense. IN A LEGAL/FINANCIAL sense. FOR LIFE. In divorce, well after you don't know her and don't care about her, SHE STILL OWNS YOU. And can actually DEMAND MORE OF YOUR MONEY (child support automatically goes up when kids hit 13). This may leave you penniless, depressed or even suicidal, as providing is essential to a man's self-worth. It matters not. You'll refuse to pay? The court will throw you in jail - JAIL JAIL. With hardened gangs and killers. No more life, no more anything. Do you see the kind of risk I'm talking about?

So I'm sorry, but forget all about her. It won't be an equal relationship because you hold nothing over her. The law is all on her side. It won't matter if she is the one who cheats, leaves, remarries, or makes more money than you do. So forget it. Now.

Let's talk about better options for you.

I would suggest considering 1) foreign born women, 2) remaining a permanent bachelor and dating forever (there are lots of lonely women out there), or else 3) embracing women of conservative faiths and religions who are serious about traditional marriage - see #1. Regardless of the cold stares and disgusted looks you'll receive from American women, you have no obligation to be with them and your refusal to consider them would be a big wake-up call to what women before them have done to their opportunities with American men.

But don't worry. Given you are smart, hard working and somewhat educated, YOU are in good shape. There are some truly LOVELY foreign women out there. The spanish, persians, indians, asians, greeks... simply gorgeous women. Wars have been fought over these ladies. Trust me. Plus, to them, you are not a guarantee, a slave or a puppet. You are not some guy who is going to "give her the children she is entitled to." If she wants children she is told she has to EARN them. That is what she was most likely taught, growing up. She must EARN them; that means BEING A GOOD WIFE. That includes, cooking, cleaning and keeping a good appearance for you in addition to any hobby or job she wants to do. In exchange, you must work hard, provide money and discipline for the children and routinely make love to her (yes, it will hurt her feelings if you don't). Good deal huh!?!? I thought so too. I weighed my options and decided this was the best option for me. Many men do. And for good reason - its a fair deal. And a deal's a deal. Its a deal set up to avoid divorce and keep the family intact.

Now I read articles in Western magazines asking where the "Real Men" are, I hear female coworkers and friends complain about the lack of available men with good jobs, and I read stories of college girls dancing with eachother for lack of available boys at parties, and its a pity. It really is. BUT THAT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM, brother. The law has decided to declare war on men at the behest of radical, bitter feminists, many of whom are quite clear in their objective to destroy and/or ruin as many men as they can. I'm very sorry that's the case, but be sure of it: THAT IS IN FACT THE CASE.

In lieu of this, I would like to congratulate you on your soon-to-be foreign born wife. And here's a tip: if she cooks good food all the time, brings you your robe and slippers and rubs your back, do not be alarmed! Do not argue! Do not stop her! This is what she was taught a good wife does! And she wants to be a good wife because.... SHE WANTS TO REMAIN MARRIED! So let her be a good wife! Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, friend! And by all means spoil her! Give her presents, massages, sex, clothes, brush her hair, and tell the kids how special their mother is! Don't worry, she's not Western! She won't see this as a sign of weakness or some kind of 'game' to be plotted against! She won't suspect you of trying to atone for cheating! She will become even more loving in return! Its a good deal, this option that I present you! Why it is a present unto itself. You could become a perma-bachelor or else celibate, or a monk or something, but I think the first option is better. Take it, sir.

Now you may have to convert to a religion that some consider radical... that is, a religion that doesn't believe young women should have reckless, drunken sex with men who will not marry them, a religion that believes killing the innocent is wrong, a religion that encourages honesty and integrity, that disavows irresponsibility, drug-use and prostitution, that believes women are sacred, powerful and beautiful, that protects children by keeping them within the sanctity of the family and which may declare non-believers to be confused, dangerous and immoral. But hey, you may believe some of those crazy ideas already, so this won't be any kind of radical adoption for you, now will it? So kiss your WASP ladies goodnight and wish them well, but tell them you just can't enter into an arrangement with them that puts you at their mercy like some kind of whipped, helpless puppy. After all, you're not a whipped, helpless puppy. You sir, are A MAN. And you'll do what you see to be fit, right and just. If the consequences are a bunch of cold, lonely, childless Western women, then so be it. Tell them not to feel bad.

After all....... they have won.

There is a word for it....

MISUNDERSTANDING is the word you are looking for.

And its the reason why the author writes for and isn't practicing law.

There's another term apparently no one outside of law school knows - "mens rea," its latin. And it means you have to INTEND to commit a wrong when you do it. Its the difference between an accident and a crime.

Ever play sports? Well when you stick your elbow out when playing hockey and someone falls into it, its not a penalty. But if someone nears you and you see them and then jab them in the ribs with your elbow, intentionally, its clearly a penalty. Players who try to blur this line are called "dirty" and "scumbag."

The same rule applies in the legal system under which you live. If a man is flirting with a girl all night (slapping her butt? Not really just-friends stuff, is it?), and then later starts to take a few liberties touching her as she's LYING ON HIM, pauses, hears no rebuke, and continues, then he's not really a rapist, is he? Is he overstepping his bounds? Perhaps. But he's not trying to hurt her and I would PRESUME (call me a monster if you wish) that she has a mouth that works, right? So she can speak up AT. ANY. TIME. As women have down for 3 millenia. Or are you quiet, foolish, mousey little dolls too sweet and innocent to possibly object to the caveman you have placed yourself with?


That's an insult to women everywhere. If you can't speak up ladies, DON'T BE WITH A MAN, NOT EVER. 95% of men out there want to PLEASE you physically, not hurt you. But young men are fairly awkward in attempting this. He should've spoken up, sure, but its not uncommon for first encounters to be quite silent. Again, men have always labored under the impression that unwanted advances are met with a push, slap, harsh word, some sort of objection. Silence? Doesn't exactly say "this is horrible. stop now." I have literally been told "stop" - and it meant stop one kind of touching (but don't stop altogether), and no, I'm not confused on that, I confirmed it. This can happen. Everyone's playing the situation by ear.

In an age where women are as educated, rich, and powerful as they have ever been, why on earth would men suddenly expect them to turn into a silent mouse who can't find the right words!?!?!?!

Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me. I'm not the only one who has figured it out, as many women also blame women in these fuzzy-no-harm-intended-cases. No, these "blaming women" are not brainwashed, THEY'RE JUST NOT NAIVE. By the way that's a whole another volume of articles - the difference between naive women and innocent ones - men love innocent women, but are often astounded by how naive they are - this stark difference just adds dynamite to the sparking gas can of male-female relations.

Now in this case, the girl simply fell asleep - but she woke up, halfway through and both of them were still clothed, no one was pregnant, so no real harm was done save her embarrassment and the awkwardness of it all. Further evidence of no wrong doing - she didn't report the incident until days later. Odds are she didn't know how she felt about the whole thing. Young women can be pretty dense too. She was having fun and just ran with it. The moron guy (we're all morons at that age) did not tenderly contact her afterward and say I adore you, I want you, I need to be with you, etc. as he too was embarrassed, and missing this key declaration, the girl felt understandably used in all likelihood - not a pleasant feeling. So did she tell him he tresspassed? No. She did a far more reasonable thing - she accused him of an actual crime. Brilliant, sweetie.

Men don't continue with touching when at first it doesn't work - THEY THINK THEY MERELY NEED TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN ORDER TO STIMULATE YOU, LADIES. 

Well the crime this poor boy was accused of is bunk from moment 1 and she knows it. Because the man didn't intend to hurt her at all. He had no idea she was asleep and in fact takes responsibility and blames himself. These two are simply incredibly young and naive and didn't communicate when they needed to. He didn't hurt her at all and regrets the entire incident - not exactly the mark of a guilty mind.

He intended no harm and mostly she received no harm. Oh and what do you know, alcohol was involved.

Go figure.

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

When Alone, Feminism is Perfect and Unfallible, When Part of a Couple.....

... feminism is quickly discarded like a dirty, damp dish rag: other words, modern feminism is nothing more than a set of (bigoted) rationalizations that can be used by women to make themselves feel better when they are alone, depressed, and looking for someone or something to blame.

Monday, June 22, 2015

Who Is Teaching Our Daughters to be Psycho Femi-nazis?

This lady:

Professor Says Fake Rape Story “Rings True” and Calls For “Men Control”

Its fun to attack psychotic social justice warriors’ fallacies. But even when such claims are debunked right in front of them, they still claim that the fake injustices are real problems. They just make it too easy sometimes.
Last year, Rolling Stones‘ journalistic integrity took a hit when the magazine ran the rape story as truth and permanently damaged a fraternity’s and students’ reputations when it was later learned that the allegations were false.
An independent review of the coverage was printed in Rolling Stones’ April 2015 edition, and despite the admission of untruth, Ashwini Tambe, a women’s studies professor from the University of Maryland this the fake rape story “rings so true.”
And the professor has had other questionable Tweets during her time as a revolutionary social media activist.
Remember that time she said we needed “men control?”
And remember that time she compared Charlie Hebdo, the victim in the Je Suis Charlie bombing, to Rush Limbaugh? And when she said she’d feel “uneasy” about people supporting Rush, as they did with Charlie?
Screen Shot 2015-06-22 at 12.05.23 PM
Personally I’d feel more “uneasy” about the whole bombing part, but what do I know, you know?
Oh yeah, and she wants women’s studies taught in high schools, because #rape.
Screen Shot 2015-06-22 at 12.15.53 PM
What a cool gal. Arguing injustice even when your claims are proven false shows true dedication to the cause. Way to go, professor.

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Thursday, June 04, 2015

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Drunk Driving Argument Twisted and Mangled by Idiot

This is normally a pretty good site, but the author fumbles this one, pretty badly.

He sets up a strawman, and its a horrible strawman to boot.

He claims libertarians want drunk driving to be legal. First off, that's wrong, libertarians simply think its possible to drive safely after having a few glasses of wine and that the state-mandated .08 standard of "legally drunk," is a total joke that gets people thrown in jail who have HURT NO ONE and demonstrated NO reckless behavior of any kind. Secondly, he claims that "drunk driving" is horrible and "this video of a drunk driver slamming into a pedestrian is one of the million reason why," followed up by a horribly drunked driver (probably 1.6 intoxicated, not .08).
Who the Hell would defend a driver slamming into a pedestrian DRUNK OR NOT?!?!!?!?! 


Secondly, RECKLESS driving is what the author MEANS must be outlawed, not drunk driving. He gives examples of reckless driving and then tells you that not only is that drunk driving, that is the driving of everyone who has taken a sip of alcohol and gotten behind the wheel. Its a slick move but its logical shit and he knows it; if he doesn't, he's an idiot.

There are simply bad drivers out there. We don't know who they are until they do something to reveal themselves. I'm sad this is the case, but I'm not outlawing cars for everyone or demanding everyone retake their driver's test every year to smoke out the potential accidents waiting to happen.

How about falling asleep at the wheel (and killing people) - is that EXTRA bad because sleeping is horrible and puts others at risk!?!?! Let's make it illegal to drive on less than 7 hours sleep. Cuz, hey - this is about safety; no, even better - its about the safety of children! Innocent children riding in cards demand you get 8 hours sleep or else not drive, you selfish prick. Bang. On the books. Do it.

Reckless driving is the problem. Consuming alcohol doesn't help, certainly, and I don't advise you do it, but consuming alcohol affects everyone differently (I tended bar for years), and they need to exercise judgement before driving, regardless of their alcohol consumption. Period.

The problem is that you can have a few drinks AND NOT DRIVE RECKLESSLY. You can go home perfectly safe.

Now we get on to measuring risk:  "’s the problem with the argument that all drunk driving which doesn’t inflict harm should be legal. It doesn’t take into the factor of aggression by risk taking. It’s akin to firing a gun up in the air, which my father taught me NEVER EVER to do. Why? Because sure, even if there’s an almost zero chance that you will hurt someone, what happens when you do? It’s one thing to take risks with your own life. It’s quite another to take risks with other people’s lives."

Bullshit. The cop with a gun puts my life at risk, but he needs it to do his job, so I live with that risk. People need their cars to travel, so you live with the risk of bad drivers and those who have a beer or two; even with those that are sleepy. Texting while driving is just as dangerous as drinking and driving (more so) and so is being sleepy at the wheel. So what do you want to do Mr. Wrap-everything-in-bubblewrap!?!?!?  Outlaw less than 8 hours sleep before driving? Make it a felony to possess a text message device while driving? No. Neither lack of sleep nor cell phones matter UNTIL YOUR ABUSE OF THEM CAUSE YOU TO DRIVE RECKLESSLY.

ITS THE RECKLESS DRIVING that's the problem, THE CAUSE IS IRRELEVANT. Further AGAINST his point is the fact that millions of people have a few drinks at night (and yes, blow a .08 - legally "under the influence" - oh, the state is careful not to say drunk, cuz you know, odds are you're not and they want to arrest you anyway) - and then safely drive home, making sure to swerve out of the way of text'ers and sleep-deprived college kids and truckers. They are in full control of their vehicle and their reflexes have not taken a decline or else a significant enough decline to prevent them from operating the motor vehicle safely. And no, I don't drive drunk and do not advocate anyone else do either. I also don't advocate driving sleepy or texting while driving, in case you care.

And lastly this blithering fool does not ask where his suggestions lead - as he is advocating OUTLAWING BEHAVIOR and NOT end results. It leads to the Nanny-state, the Police-infested, spying, communist nation I find myself in today. Where my own small opinions on this small little blog are most likely monitored by the FBI as "subversive" or "potentially gorilla/anarchist/anti-federal" in nature.

So pat yourself on the back Mr. "Liberty Viral," you just advocated anything but Liberty.