Feminism

The Future Is Female. And She's Furious.

Is rage the future of feminism?

|

In October, a few days after Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in as a Supreme Court justice, The Washington Post published one woman's account of channeling her rage into half an hour of screaming at her husband. "I announced that I hate all men and wish all men were dead," wrote retired history professor Victoria Bissell Brown, entirely unapologetic despite conceding that her hapless spouse was "one of the good men."

While Brown's piece was more clickbait than commentary, it was an extreme expression of a larger cultural moment. 'Tis the season to be angry if you're a woman in America—or so we're told.

The storm of sexual assault allegations that nearly derailed Kavanaugh's confirmation was just the latest reported conflagration of female fury. The Kavanaugh drama coincided with the first anniversary of the downfall of the multiply accused Hollywood superpredator Harvey Weinstein. But this decade's wave of feminist anger had been building for several years before that—from the May 2014 #YesAllWomen Twitter hashtag, created to express women's vulnerability to male violence after woman hater Elliot Rodger went on a shooting and stabbing rampage in California, to the November 2016 election, in which the expected victory of America's first woman president was ignominiously thwarted by a man who casually discussed grabbing women's genitals.

While the "female rage" narrative does not represent all or even most women, there is little doubt that it taps into real problems and real frustrations. The quest for women's liberation from their traditional subjection is an essential part of the story of human freedom—and for all the tremendous strides made in the United States during the last half-century, lingering gender-based biases and obstacles remain an unfinished business. But is rage feminism (to coin a phrase) the way forward, or is it a dangerous detour?

The case for rage is made in two new books published almost simultaneously in the fall: Rage Becomes Her: The Power of Women's Anger, by activist Soraya Chemaly, and Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women's Anger, by New York columnist Rebecca Traister.

Traister's book is, despite its forays into the history of American feminism, very much of the current moment. It is dominated by the 2016 presidential race, the Women's March, and the #MeToo movement. Traister believes that Donald Trump's election woke the "sleeping giant" of female rage at the patriarchy. (Along the way, she seems to suggest that pre-2016 feminism was a mostly "cheerful" kind, with a focus on girl power and sex positivity—an account that airbrushes not only #YesAllWomen but many other days of rage on feminist Twitter and on websites such as Jezebel.) She wants women to hold on to this anger and channel it into a struggle for "revolutionary change," rather than to move on and calm down in deference to social expectations. "Our job is to stay angry…perhaps for a very long time," Traister warns darkly.

Rage Becomes Her provides a broader context for this anger. Chemaly, the creator of that #YesAllWomen hashtag, sets out to count the ways sexist oppression continues, in her view, to permeate the lives of women and girls in America. Her indictment includes inequalities in school and at work, ever-present male violence, rampant and usually unpunished sexual assault, the sidelining of women in literature and film, male-centered sexual norms, subtle or overt hostility toward female power and ambition, and a variety of petty indignities, from "mansplaining" to catcalls to long bathroom lines. Like Traister, Chemaly sees women's long-suppressed anger as a necessary driver of change.

The themes that preoccupy Traister and Chemaly are also explored in an earlier book—Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny, by the Cornell philosopher Kate Manne—which was published in late 2017 and has been widely hailed as a new feminist classic. Like Good and Mad, Down Girl views Trump's victory as the triumph of patriarchal backlash; like Rage Becomes Her, it treats Rodger's massacre as a defining moment in American male-female relations. Manne may not issue an explicit call for anger, but the logic of Down Girl is unmistakable: A deeply entrenched misogyny ruthlessly punishes women who refuse to defer to men, and female fury is a natural and salutary response.

You can debate the extent to which gender inequalities in 21st century liberal democracies stem from present-day sexism, from cultural baggage from the past, or from personal choices and innate sex differences at an individual level. But does the gallery of horrors in the literature of feminist rage really reflect women's lives in today's America?

In 1994, dissident feminist Christina Hoff Sommers published a controversial book, Who Stole Feminism?, that charged feminist activists and authors with using bogus facts and other "myth-information" to portray modern Western women as brutally oppressed. Much of this critique has held up—and, as the new crop of feminist books shows, has remained relevant.

Indeed, one pseudo-fact debunked by Sommers and mostly retracted by its authors, school equity crusaders David Sadker and the late Myra Sadker, makes a comeback in Chemaly's book: the claim that boys in class call out answers eight times as often as girls do, while girls who speak out of turn are usually rebuked. Manne not only recycles that "fictoid" (as Sommers called it) but garbles it.

These are no isolated lapses. A cursory fact check of Chemaly's lengthy endnotes reveals that many of her sources don't say what she claims they do. The claim that "when women speak 30 percent of the time in mixed-gender conversations, listeners think they dominate," for instance, is sourced to a 1990 study that shows only a slight tendency to overestimate the female portion of a male-female dialogue. (Chemaly's claim is apparently derived from a passing mention in the study of a 1979 article by Australian radical feminist scholar Dale Spender.) The purported source for another alleged fact—"domestic violence injures more American women annually than rapes, car accidents and muggings combined"—is a book appendix by journalist Philip Cook that debunks this very myth.

Three new books suggest that a deeply entrenched misogyny ruthlessly punishes women who refuse to defer to men, and that female fury is a natural and salutary response.

Chemaly's treatment of news stories is just as cavalier. For example, she claims that Michigan Circuit Court Judge Rosemarie Aquilina was criticized for showing "clear contempt" toward former sports doctor and confessed sexual abuser Larry Nassar at his sentencing, supposedly due to "deep unease with women passing judgment on men." In fact, Aquilina was widely praised as a champion for victims. The criticism had to do with her suggestion that Nassar deserved punishment by rape.

Beyond the fictoids, what is the bigger picture? Manne defines misogyny so broadly—as a "systemic" bias that threatens women with "hostile consequences" for violating patriarchal norms, especially the expectation that women will be "givers" who tend to male needs—that any antagonism toward any woman for almost any reason can fit the label.

According to Manne, "misogyny is killing women and girls, literally and metaphorically." Deadly misogyny is exemplified here by Rodger (a severely disturbed man who killed two women and four men and planned to cap a sorority massacre with indiscriminate slaughter in the streets), but also by more ordinary domestic killings. Manne also asserts that men who victimize women get disproportionate sympathy, a.k.a. "himpathy" (a word to join mansplaining on the list of atrocious feminist neologisms).

Down Girl never grapples with issues that complicate its narrative: the ways men have been traditionally expected to "give" and sacrifice for others' needs in war and breadwinning; the fact that the primary victims of male violence are other males; the reality of domestic abuse in same-sex couples and intimate violence by women; the evidence that violent crimes with female victims tend to be punished more severely while female perpetrators tend to be treated more leniently.

Nor is Manne a particularly reliable narrator. At one point, she quotes excerpts from a news story in which a woman's family refuses to blame the boyfriend who fatally stabbed her and was later shot dead by police. But she leaves out a key detail: The woman was apparently unstable and prone to violence, and the man had likely acted in self-defense.

In all three books, the 2016 election looms large as an odious testament to the enduring power of patriarchy and misogyny. Yet you can loathe Trump and still question the assumption that Hillary Clinton's loss was the result of sexism. Some anti-Clinton sentiment certainly had to do with her gender; then again, so did what enthusiasm her campaign managed to generate. Traister, Chemaly, and Manne lament the stereotypes and double standards faced by ambitious and powerful women. Yet they never mention recent research by scholars such as Deborah Jordan Brooks of Dartmouth College or Jennifer Lawless of American University, who looked at actual political campaigns in the last decade and concluded that female candidates were not held back by voter biases.

The central theme of the call to feminist rage is sexual victimhood: #MeToo and the crusade against American "rape culture" that began a few years earlier. Few would doubt the worthiness of the cause. The scandals that followed Weinstein's exposure included story after story in which powerful men seemed to regard the women in their professional orbit as a personal harem and in which women's attempts to complain were deep-sixed; many of these stories, backed by contemporaneous reports to colleagues, friends, or family, involved allegations of criminal conduct ranging from sexual assault to indecent exposure. Even critics of feminist sex panic, such as Sommers and Northwestern University film studies professor Laura Kipnis, were mostly on board with #MeToo.

But from the start, the anti-patriarchal revolt had its own complications. For one, while revelations of male victims (and, eventually, female abusers) do not negate the claim that sexual harassment is linked to male power over women, these incidents do suggest that sexism is not the only reason high-status predators have had license to abuse. What's more, some career-killing accusations involved clumsy but noncoercive come-ons, awkward compliments, off-color jokes, or even vaguer offenses. Veteran National Public Radio host Leonard Lopate was fired over "inappropriate" comments such as telling a female producer working on a cookbook segment that avocado was derived from the Aztec word for testicle. Vince Ingenito, former editor of the pop culture website IGN, was accused of harassing a female staffer and onetime friend by complimenting her looks, disparaging some men she dated, and once telling her that he wished he could "go all night" as he'd done at her age.

When comedian Aziz Ansari got #MeTooed for being a jerk on a date, many supporters of the movement felt it had gone too far. But not Chemaly, who insists that the resulting "conversation" was needed to challenge "the tremendous power…that men can wield over women" in intimate encounters, even when no institutional power is involved. For both Chemaly and Traister, sexuality in the workplace is virtually always a male imposition on women, and male-female sexual dynamics under any circumstances are steeped in male "entitlement" and privilege. In this paradigm, female agency is virtually nonexistent.

Drew Forsyth/EyeEm/Getty

Perhaps the most revealing part of Good and Mad is Traister's elegy for the late radical feminist writer/activist Andrea Dworkin, whom she sees as a tragic, misunderstood, maligned prophet of #MeToo: She speaks of "the sorrow I felt that Dworkin was not here to see what was happening." While she admits that Dworkin's anti-porn crusade was misguided, Traister defends her larger vision and her relentless fury while sanitizing her more outré views. (Traister insists that "all sex is rape" is a misreading of Dworkin's Intercourse, even though the book clearly equates penetrative sex with female subjugation and violation: "There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse.…The thrusting is persistent invasion.…She is occupied—physically, internally, in her privacy.")

Traister's tribute to Dworkin is a whitewash, but she's not wrong about the current feminist revival as a Dworkin moment. Many of the ideas championed by Dworkin and her sister in arms, legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon, since the 1970s—that the lives of modern Western women and girls are an everyday "atrocity" of male depredations; that feminism, in MacKinnon's words, "is built on believing women's accounts of sexual use and abuse by men"; that bad speech constitutes "harm"—are now mainstream feminist beliefs.

That does not bode well for feminism.

In many ways, 20th century American feminism was one of liberal democracy's great success stories. Overtly discriminatory laws and policies crumbled; cultural attitudes on a wide range of subjects underwent a dramatic shift. (By 2000, more than nine out of 10 Americans said they would vote for a female presidential candidate, up from about one in two in 1955.) For some, this means that feminism has won its battle. For others, that it must now fight subtler and more complicated obstacles.

Even in the generations raised with the norm of gender equality, it's still mostly men who occupy positions of power and mostly women who tend to home and children. Conservatives and many libertarians see this as the result of free choices and differing preferences; most feminists blame structural sexism and deep-seated, often unconscious prejudices. While feminist arguments often rely on far-reaching speculation, feminism's critics can be too dismissive of the role played by cultural biases, social pressures, and similar factors in hindering equal opportunity. For example, several studies of employee performance reviews, most recently by Harvard researcher Paola Cecchi Dimeglio, have found that women tend to get less constructive feedback and more personal criticism, especially for being "too aggressive."

Addressing these issues is a legitimate goal, and one that doesn't require state coercion. In recent years, social media have given activists highly effective tools allowing them to use public opinion and consumer power to work for change without getting the government involved—whether it's to hold corporations accountable for condoning sexual predation in the workplace, to call for children's products that don't treat adventure and invention as the sole preserve of boys, or to push for more gender balance in various projects from films to academic conferences.

Unfortunately, when grievances become wildly inflated and the default mode for activism is rage, advocacy can easily turn into a baneful hypervigilance (do women really gain when every conversation is zealously monitored for "microaggressions" or "manterruptions"?) and misfocused mob outrage. Take the trashing of renowned British biochemist Tim Hunt in 2015 over alleged sexist remarks about the trouble with "girls in the lab." Hunt was roundly reviled as a misogynist on social media and in the press, then stripped of several posts. That fate came despite objections from attendees who said his offense was a misreported self-deprecating joke—a claim later supported by a partial audio recording—and despite his undisputed record as a champion of women in science.

Modern feminism, with its framework of male privilege and female oppression, takes a simplistic and one-sided view of gender dynamics in modern Western societies. It ignores the possibility that some gender-based biases (such as the expectation that males will perform physically grueling and/or dangerous tasks, paid or not) may benefit women or disadvantage men. It disregards the vast diversity and flexibility of cultural norms. It refuses to recognize that there is no perfect solution to the problem of dispensing justice when someone alleges a crime with no witnesses and both parties tell a credible story.

Rage-driven activism can be particularly destructive when it targets and politicizes interpersonal relationships, an area in which the sexes are probably equal but different in bad behavior. Victoria Bissell Brown's verbal abuse of her husband is hardly a typical example, but even Traister sees nothing wrong with the fact that, at the height of #MeToo, her husband once marveled, "How can you even want to have sex with me at this point?"

Anger can be productive, usually as an impetus for short-term action. But rage feminism is a path of fear and hate. It traps women in victimhood and bitterness. It demonizes men, even turning empathy for a male into a fault, and dismisses dissenting women as man-pleasing collaborators. It short-circuits important conversation on gender issues.

Urging women to disregard warnings about the perils of rage, Traister writes, "Consider that the white men in the Rust Belt are rarely told that their anger is bad for them." But aren't they? The anger of "white men in the Rust Belt" is commonly portrayed as an unfocused, dangerous emotion that scapegoats innocents and empowers unprincipled demagogues like Trump. The anger of privileged women is not much of an improvement.

NEXT: Brickbat: The Grass Is Always Greener

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The future and the present is the truth defined by the evidence of logic and science.

    Fuck the murdering cunt hypocrite sex clowns.

    1. Thanks for proving their point, idiot.

      1. Even if nobody “proved it”, they’d make up stats to do so anyway.

      2. It didn’t prove their point.

        No amount of emotionalism–however directed–can alter the fact that “The future and the present is the truth defined by the evidence of logic and science”. People can attempt to avoid this, But reality can only unfold in this manner.

        Screeching lies over it can’t change that.

        1. Good to know your word salad is impervious to emotion

          1. How the fuck was that word salad?

          2. Aww, what a darling illiterate. Did you have a handler read this to you?

          3. This “word salad” makes perfect sense to me.
            The future, the present and the past are evidentiable and don’t care about your fee fees.

      3. If the future is to be female, let it be horny, hot and with big boobs. Something we can all get between, I mean behind.

    2. “The future and the present is the truth defined by the evidence of logic and science.”

      You, of all people, should spend some time acquainting yourself with the subjects. So far, you’re proven to be an idiotic conspiracy buff.

  2. ‘entirely unapologetic despite conceding that her hapless spouse was “one of the good men.” ‘

    No he’s not. He’s a weak one.

    Perhaps she picked him because she desired a mate to dominate and humiliate. Perhaps she’s enraged that her mate is weak and seeks to provoke him into standing up for himself. Probably a combination at this this point. She’s enraged at his weakness, enraged at having tied herself to it, resents him for it, and so lashes out against him.

    And notice that this was spousal abuse. “I announced that I hate all men and wish all men were dead.” This is what she screamed to her presumably *male* husband. For a half hour. I hate you and wish you were dead.

    No one would ever question whether a man who behaved similarly was abusing his wife. No magazine would ever publish such an article from a man. The police would arrive, and hubby would be hauled in for threatening to murder his wife.

    But when it’s a wife abusing a husband, no one bats an eyelash.

    Surprisingly, not even Cathy in this case, who normally notices sexual double standards.

    1. You’re a kinda of a pussy if you think being ridiculously yelled in this context is abuse.

      1. Then the other side should man up! Right?

      2. Being yelled at for a half hour is emotional abuse. It’s low level abuse compared to battering (which women do as much as men, BTW) and it is abuse that, as isolated incidents, is normal when two people live together. Occasionally you abuse each-other, and apologize after.

        Why do I think that this deranged twunt hasn’t apologized to her husband, ever?

        1. If my wife pulled this shit with me-I would have been like “have a nice life, honey” packed up a few things and hit the road, taking my two sons with me (I Would think I would be awarded custody given that their mother hates the male gender but I could be wrong here)

          If my mom pulled this shit with my dad, he probably would have either laughed in her face or slapped her.

          1. My wife once pulled the “I wish I was single but I cannot afford to leave” bullshit with me. I reminded her that I very much CAN afford to leave but CHOOSE not to. And our child has long preferred me to the point where I have to force him to be nice and loving to his mother.

            1. Damn; just giver her enough money to get the hell out already. You and your kid would likely be better off for it.

              1. If it were a one-time thing, I’m sure he would. Almost certainly, what she means is, “I cannot possibly afford this lifestyle on an on-going basis, and I refuse to learn to tighten my belt or improve my employability.”

        2. Yup. I have seen some studies that showed women actually physically assault their partners MORE OFTEN than men do. The difference of course being that men are typically stronger, so they tend to not get actually harmed as much by their women… But if it’s “the thought that counts” then women are as bad or worse than men, they’re just not as capable of doing harm due to their weakness.

          I know this is true in my personal life. I’ve had girlfriends spas out on me several times in my life, and I’ve never once initiated any sort of violence whatsoever. I did have to hold their arms so they would stop hitting me once or twice, but that’s it.

          1. Ditto. I did have one arrested when i left her because she wouldnt stop attacking me and bruised so easily that any attempts to tie up her arms wouldve led to bruises and legal trouble for me.

            1. That’s how slanted the legal system is today too… You could have a black eye, bloody lip, scratches all over yourself… And if you barely bruise a chicks arm while restraining her from harming you more, there are decent odds the police will arrest you and you’ll end up with charges. You MIGHT get off if you’re in a sane part of the country, but you’ll almost surely be arrested. It’s nuts.

      3. You’re a kinda of a pussy if you think being ridiculously yelled in this context is abuse

        This isn’t boot camp. Being screamed at for half an hour by a spouse who says, “I hate you and wish you were dead” is the very definition of abuse.

        1. “This isn’t boot camp. Being screamed at for half an hour by a spouse who says, “I hate you and wish you were dead” is the very definition of abuse.”

          Idk if it’s abuse, but it can’t be good. To the best of my knowledge, my wife has never done that to me.

      4. There’s abuse and there’s worse abuse. He had the option of yelling back. Or just walking out and down to the nearest bar.

        At any rate she’s a bully and he’s enabling her to become even more of a bully. She’s also a crybaby like most bullies and he’s letting her get away with that. One day she’ll try to bully the wrong person and get clocked.

      5. But if you have a pussy, being yelled at is abuse (probably rape), right?

        1. To progtards, yes.

      6. You’re a kinda of a pussy if you think being ridiculously yelled in this context is abuse.

        Proving the point again. Men yelling at women is contextualized as emotional abuse and this type of abuse is recognized by law. But when men point out the reverse they are called pussies.

        If it is so unimportant men are pussies for mentioning it why do feminists and the law consider it abusive to women? Is it because they are emotionally fragile and need protection?

        Separately if you stay married to a woman who blames you for the actions of other men you’re an idiot. Respecting someone because he accepts such blame is accepting a life of abuse and unhappiness.

        1. He should have burned her bed while she slept, he would have been justified

        2. “Proving the point again. ”

          Thanks for saving me the trouble of explaining to the clueless.

      7. Ordinary Person|1.28.19 @ 7:56AM|#
        You’re a kinda of a pussy if you think being ridiculously yelled in this context is abuse.

        And women should be able to take a punch.

      8. No, you’re a pussy if you just stand there and take it.

    2. As he said, reverse the sexes buddy.

      The truth is men are expected to put up with the irrational bullshit out of women, because we’re men. We’re supposed to just shrug off their crap, because they’re just women being irrational women, like women do, after all!

      It’s just double standard # 632,843.

      1. Sun hot, rain wet, sky blue, women bitch.

        1. If that is not on a bumper sticker it should be.

          1. LOL

            That would be an AWESOME bumper sticker. I’ve never been much for bumper stickers, but that one I might put on my car.

            1. Favorite bumper sticker ever, seen on a tricked-out jeep in Utah: My Other Toy Has Tits.

              I suppose Victoria would not like this, either.

              1. Haha. I love misogyny!

                1. That’s pretty evident.

                  1. And no sense of humor to boot! Who woulda thunk?

            2. You’d get your tires slashed and windows smashed. I’m just making a prediction, but I’m guessing it’s accurate.

      2. the irrational bullshit out of women … they’re just women being irrational women, like women do, after all

        Are they as bad as niggers, fags, chinks and kikes?
        (The self-righteous arrogance of all bigots. “I’m just being honest. They ARE inferior. ALL my friends agree!”)
        *vomit*

        1. Way to miss the point, FOURTH.

        2. I’m sorry Hihn, but facts are facts. Women are emotional and irrational at far higher percentages than men. These character traits SHOW UP in statistics. Not ALL women are basket cases, but many are. Especially when they’re on the rag. My mother lost her mind every month… And I’ve had a couple girlfriends that did the same.

          I’m sorry that evolution didn’t realize it should have been more conscientious and politically correct when it was deciding what biological traits best served the survival of our species…

          1. Women are more emotional? I guess it was cold hard rational logic which begat the naval arms race between the Kaiser and Britain, assassinated the Archduke, locked themselves into mobilizations, killed millions in trench war, kept the German blockade going for a year after the armistice, bankrupted Germany, led to communists and fascists battling on the streets, elected Hitler, wasted war effort killing their own citizens and battling the partisans who wanted to help their liberators ….

            Yes, so much rationality, it’s easy to see why you would blame women for this irrational world.

            And before that, all those kings … yes, blame the 10 years of the Troy war on Helen for being too beautiful, I can see the rationality of that. But the rest of thousands of years of trouble and strife?

            1. Did I say men were fucking Vulcans?

              All humans are largely irrational, but here in the real world we must discuss things using relative scale here.

              Anybody who has lived on planet earth should be able to accept that women are more emotional and irrational than men in many situations. How often do guys break down into tears over stupid little things?

              As far as males go, our irrationality almost entirely goes in the direction of violence and conquest… Which is actually not entirely irrational, it’s just mean. Conquering, subjugating, enslaving, and stealing resources from enemy tribes is actually a perfectly rational thing to do in many situations, in that it leaves you and your people better off in the long haul if it is successful. It’s not MORAL perhaps, but can be rational.

              Was it not rational for European settlers to conquer North America from the Indians? Fuck yeah it was! It lead to their progeny having the most affluent society in world history. VERY rational. Not nice, but rational.

              1. RIght, and when women cry to get their way, is that not rational?

                Buncha fucking loser arguments.

                1. Beck makes a good argument. You merely don’t have the good sense to see that.

                  1. “Beck makes a good argument. ”

                    He’s got two turn tables and a microphone……which, you’re probably not aware, is a euphemism for the ol’ cock n balls.

            2. As far as arms races etc, also very rational. Sometimes rational to destroy or weaken your enemies before they do it to you.

              WWI was all about knee capping Germany, which was a rapidly ascendant world power. The British and French knew that Germany could become a geopolitical rival that had animosity towards them, so they gladly used the excuse to kick their ass. If a certain Austrian Corporal hadn’t come along, it probably would have worked out damn decent from the perspective of the UK and France too.

              The world is NOT a utopia, therefore preparing for and engaging in war is simply a reality one must plan for. To not keep up in an arms race is to essentially declare yourself to be wide open for invasion. The ONLY thing that has changed this dynamic in the modern world is the invention of nuclear weapons. If nukes didn’t exist we would have had WWIII, IV, V, and VI by now.

              So pull your head out of your ass, and realize not all mean things don’t make sense when living in the real world.

              1. Right. All wars are started for entirely rational reasons. Even if the men have to blame women for looking too good. I guess it’s entirely rational then to cover them up. Muslims are entirely rational that way.

                1. Ugh. Did you not see my bit about men not being Vulcans?

                  It’s a relative scale thing here dude. You are fucking trippin’ if you think there isn’t a difference in the way men and women think. There is. And men, on average, tend to be able to be more detached from situations, and think about practical/logical outcomes.

                  As I said war often, but not always, is a rational decision. It’s not nice, or moral, but we’re not talking about being moral, we’re talking about being rational. Conquering land and territory, enslaving its population, etc can be a very lucrative endeavor for the conquerors.

                  I’m not even going to engage with somebody who is so deluded they can’t accept that men and women think differently, because you’re so brainwashed it will serve no purpose.

                  1. I’m not even going to engage with somebody who is so deluded they can’t accept that men and women think differently

                    Your ridiculous insistence that when men do stupid, destructive things it’s totally rational but when women do stupid, destructive things it’s totally irrational is not really helping your cause, boyo.

                    1. men and women think differently

                      You also seem to be incapable of making the next logical step. You keep getting “men and women think differently therefore men are rational and women are not”. The next step put correctly is “men and women think differently therefore men and women reason differently”.

                    2. That isn’t what Vek said you inane asshole. You really are stuck on stupid, aren’t you?

                    3. He’s so stupid he’s wearing a new name that literally says “I went at Tulpa and lost”

                  2. Vek, he’s an idiot. It’s like arguing with Little Jeffy or Sarcastro.

                    1. “Vek, he’s an idiot.” Full. Stop.

                    2. “Vek, he’s an idiot. It’s like arguing with Little Jeffy or Sarcastro”

                      Quick, threaten violence against progtards or whatever label you’re seething with rage at today, you goddamn inbred moronic psycho.

                    3. “Vek, he’s an idiot. It’s like arguing with Little Jeffy or Sarcastro”

                      Quick, threaten violence against progtards or whatever label you’re seething with rage at today, you goddamn inbred moronic psycho.

            3. I guess it was cold hard rational logic which begat the naval arms race between the Kaiser and Britain, assassinated the Archduke, locked themselves into mobilizations, killed millions in trench war, kept the German blockade going for a year after the armistice, bankrupted Germany, led to communists and fascists battling on the streets, elected Hitler, wasted war effort killing their own citizens and battling the partisans who wanted to help their liberators

              Technically, yeah, most of it was VICIOUSLY logical.

              Germany wanted to rule the world and the British navy was a huge impediment. So, increasing their forces to meet Britain’s is logical. Alliances are, by and large, bad ideas (honoring them led to World War I. Not doing so led to World War II). The blockade was to force Germany to sign the treaty — cold and rational. Germany chose to bankrupt itself rather than make good on the treaty. The allies were helped by Hitler being a military moron.

              1. To the two manginas above: I’m not saying men are perfect. We’re fucked too! We’re just fucked in different ways, and in some ways slightly less fucked than women IMO.

                Our proclivity for war is indeed one of our biggest dumb things. The problem is that any nation who tries to be “above” war in the past would just get taken over. So nobody ever went that route, for obvious reasons. So it is rational to be prepared for war.

                Logical thinking is not always NICE thinking. It is logical to put down the mentally ill or permanently disabled… Yet most have a moral problem with this, including men. Not nice, but VERY practical. Morals and logic need to be balanced. I think men do an okay job of this. Women, IMO, tend to be too feelz-ey about all their decision making.

                Men are fine telling able bodied slackers to get a job, or starve. Because that is logical AND fair. Yet the overwhelming majority of women can’t get over “But the poor guy will be hungry for awhile before he gets motivated enough to get a job! It’s just so sad!” So we have multi trillion dollar welfare states instead of common sense. Even the commie FDR made people work for their damn hand outs!

                We think differently. Men are more logical. Scientific fucking studies have showed this dude. Women consider their emotions more in the decision making process. It IS NOT debatable.

            4. Many of those actions were not taken by “men” but by male adolescents- perhaps the only species of human more illogical than women.

              1. Teenagers are indeed dumb!

                But making war is not “dumb” in all cases. It is mean, immoral, etc… But if one isn’t concerned with those, then it can be eminently practical sometimes. This is why it has happened so often in history.

                I think I already used this example elsewhere on this page, but was it not a great move for Europeans to conquer the Americas? Of course it was. Them and their progeny have become some of the wealthiest, and most successful people in the history of mankind because of that “immoral” act.

                To NOT take the North America from the Indians would have been the stupid move. Keep in mind I’m actually a good chunk native blood, and I have no problem with this. It’s just how shit goes down in the good, and I’m quite sure if the Aztecs had invented guns first they would have gladly sacked England and Spain.

                Moralizing and whining does not an argument make. Men ARE less nice than women, but when tempered just a touch, I think that is precisely the reason we make better decisions. You can’t be nice all the time, or others will take advantage of you, as many are doing in the modern west.

          2. but facts are facts.

            Like you have none is a fact.
            More wind, never a source.

            Women are emotional and irrational at far higher percentages than men.

            And all niggers can dance while dribbling a basketball after winning the high jump.
            *sarc*

            Equating those two SCREAMS misogyny. But I shall not that such blatantly irrationality says you’re female.

          3. Have you ever heard of the bigotry of low expectations?

          4. Have you ever heard of the bigotry of low expectations?

        3. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

        4. Dumbfuck Hihnsano knows all about being neglected and ignored by women.

        5. Are they as bad as niggers, fags, chinks and kikes?

          See the parody. Be the parody.

            1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano knows all about being a coward.

          1. Be the meme!

      3. I’d presume that he’s bigger and/or stronger, so he’s holding back for some reason. I doubt she’s irresistibly hot because screaming feminists aren’t.

        1. Not to a misogynist — nor to anyone who sees sexuality in tribal political terms.

    3. As my father used to warn me: Marry in haste, repent at leisure.

    4. Facts are this:
      Women will not do difficult, dangerous, or dirty jobs. They have little patience for hard work or long hours,, and want to have many leaves and vacations.
      Men pick up the slack and partner with women to share the resources we earn from doing all the jobs women refuse to do.

      Such oppression!
      Real oppression would be forcing women to take that diesel mechanic job and put in 60 hours a week and then share their income with a loafing husband who sits around all day.

      1. Yup. Studies have been done that showed even when women end up in “important” work positions, like being a doctor, they basically fuck off way more than men. IIRC male doctors work almost 50% more hours on average than women. Women worked just barely 40 hours a week on average, whereas male doctors worked around 60. So every diversity entrance for a woman to medical school reduces the number of doctor hours available by 1/3.

        Not to mention the actual dirty or hard jobs. Women just can’t hang with men when push comes to shove, in basically anything. There’s a reason why even in “feminine” fields, the best in the world tend to be men. Think chefs, designers (including those that design female clothing!), etc etc etc.

        This doesn’t mean any given woman can’t be better than any given man at something… But if we’re going to talk about aggregate societal level outcomes, this must be acknowledged.

        1. “Studies have been done that showed ….”

          Care to cite these studies? Probably not because they don’t exist except in the barren waste that you call your mind.

          1. Female doctors work less:

            https://www.google.com/search?source=hp= 1TxQXKDlNcKe0wLl77jICA&q=female+doctors+work+less

            Enjoy your stupid fuck. I don’t talk out of my ass on this stuff… I’m just not a brainwashed moron, and get information from BEYOND CNN and other propaganda mouthpieces.

            1. Yea and if you actually RTFA you would realize that nearly everything you claimed is complete bullshit. Here it is in case you actually want to extract your head from your ass.

              https://tinyurl.com/ybb9rveq

              1. Thanks, McGoo, virtually every link at his google search confirms his ignorance.
                Do all women babble so incoherently as the Authoritarian Right alpha males.?

              2. Thanks, McGoo, virtually every link at his google search confirms his ignorance.
                Do all women babble so incoherently as the Authoritarian Right alpha males.?

              3. Do you realize this confirms what he said, right?

            2. LOL

              I am already aware of what I presume is your brilliant rebuttal… Work life balance!

              It’s fine and well to want a better work life balance… But that doesn’t change the fact that female doctors cost just as much to educate, and only put in 2/3rds the amount of hours male doctors do… Which makes them… Drum roll please… Less good investments than man doctors!

              The fact that there is a reason, work life balance, doesn’t really matter at all… You think male doctors wouldn’t rather be out drinking, or watching football? They still decide to work more. This is one of those pesky things that seems to be wired in. Men work themselves to death, for better or worse, as a matter of course. Women tend not to, which is a major part of why women don’t rise as high as men as often in the business world.

              Thanks for NOT refuting what I said.

  3. Having a problem with Kavanaugh and then verbally abusing one’s husband simply because he’s the same gender as Kavanaugh makes as much sense as if had verbally abused her sister for sharing the same birthday with Kavanaugh.

    Imagine this woman was Jewish, and, taking exception to Louis Farrakhan, decided to scream at and curse the very next black person she saw? I wonder how that would go over.

    Collectivize much, wackjob?

    Her husband ought to remember the sage life advice to “never stick it in crazy” and move on before he gets knifed or gets arsenic in his coffee because of Ms. Wing Nut gets upset watching the 2020 election night reports or something.

    1. No, because victim/opressor is not only intersectional, it is adaptable to whatever case the victim desires.

  4. Patriarchy is clearly so deeply rooted that the every action taken to uproot it has proven to only reify it. Read any manifesto against women’s suffrage from a century or more ago and tell me the writer’s concerns have no merit, even leaving aside the dark spectre of the WCTU and Prohibition. The more time passes the more I think second wave feminists were right, half measures will not do, either Sharia or Shulamith Firestone.

    1. Rage never lasts. Activists get older and realize they haven’t convinced people as much as they thought they did. They keep having to bring in young people to keep it going, but that just gives it an image of immaturity.

    2. Rage never lasts. Activists get older and realize they haven’t convinced people as much as they thought they did. They keep having to bring in young people to keep it going, but that just gives it an image of immaturity.

      1. Rage never lasts. Activists get older and bodies that could withstand suck extremes when young wear out and aneurysms put an end to these flaming ninnies.

        Or so one can hope.

      2. As far as feminism goes, I think what will do it in is the fact that their premises are WRONG. It is factually incorrect to assert that we’re the same. Something that is incorrect and against nature simply cannot last for that long.

        1. Just the differences in our body chemistry prove how different we are. But you’re arguing with a lot of dummie Vek. So they can’t understand things like that.

          1. Yup. The human brain is an electro chemical computer… But somehow the fact that the way the elctrons bounce around in it, AND the fact that we have different chemicals, cannot POSSIBLY mean we process data differently!

            LOL

            It’s really mind blowing how delusional and counter to facts and logic these blank slate people can be. It’s not like we’re just guessing at this stuff… There’s endless hard science to back it all up… But the “party of science” doesn’t seem to like that science for some reason…

          2. “Just the differences in our body chemistry prove how different we are. But you’re arguing with a lot of dummie Vek. So they can’t understand things like that.”

            Except you two dumfucks aren’t arguing that men and women are different. You’re arguing that women are inferior in ……pretty much everything. Assholes like you two are almost more annoying than the feminazi’s.

            1. Hey, women can make babies… That’s a pretty damn useful thing to keep a species from going extinct! They’re also more loving and nurturing. Something I certainly appreciate in the women in my life. But those same instincts make them inclined towards bad political decisions.

              Look dude, EVERY species has MASSIVE male/female differences. Lions and lionesses are obviously better than each other at different things, and their behavior is completely different too. Ditto with ALL species that aren’t asexual.

              Humans are no different. Until the last couple decades, NOBODY in the entire world question this obvious reality.

              Since you’re such a retard on actually knowing facts on this issue, like that females are KNOWN to work far fewer hours in basically every profession, I will point out a few things. These are all ON AVERAGE, and don’t necessarily apply to any given individual.

              Women are weaker physically. PERIOD. This means they will NEVER be able to out compete men in almost any physical activity, including being soldiers. They’re INFERIOR at these types of tasks.

              Women have about the same AVERAGE IQ, but far lower numbers of retards, and geniuses. This is according to literally every single IQ test, or other measure of intelligence test, ever done. Not debatable. This is why men make up the majority of super high achievers, AND super big blow it cases. It’s both favorable AND unfavorable for men, isn’t it?

              1. Women are more empathetic and nurturing, and consider their feelings more when making decisions. This has pros and cons. It can make them nicer about some things than men would be, but that can be taken to the point of doing dumb shit too, like having welfare with no work requirements for able bodied people!

                Women have better multitasking skills, AND language/communication skills than men. Nobody debates this, AND that is a good skill to have.

                Men have better visual spacial and mathematical skills as per every test ever.

                Bottom line is, we’re different. Males happen to have many traits that both sexes value highly. Women ALSO have some skills both sexes value. There is a lot of overlap between the sexes in the middle, but clear differences in averages. Deal with it dude!

                Why people think it is possible that humans would be THE ONLY SPECIES on earth that doesn’t have massive sex trait differences is insane, and contrary to all known stats. You are buying into a false religion of equality.

                You can say we’re different but equal if you want… But I would merely say that we’re complementary to each other. We both need each other any way you slice it. I do think that men come out on top on several measures that make us the dominant and more capable sex though. You can call that an opinion if it makes you feel better.

                1. You’re trying to channel Jordan Peterson, but without the critical thinking skills, you just sound like a prick. Shouldn’t you be out convincing women they shouldn’t vote or run countries? Go. Fuck. Yourself. Because I’m pretty sure that’s the only person willing to.

                  1. ^This

                  2. There is nothing illogical, or factually wrong in any of that. There are psychological or statistical studies that back up everything I said.

                    You are obviously offended by the very concept that our innate differences, which are not debatable by hard evidence, might make men/women better/worse at different things. Why this is so hard to accept is beyond me. I’m fine with accepting women are better communicators, why can’t you accept men tend to be better at math? These are just AVERAGES after all, and say nothing about any given individual.

                    The IQ spectrum thing means there are going to be more male rocket scientists, AND prisoners. That is perhaps a wash for men. Yet the fact that women arguably on average have better outcomes in that regard still drives you nuts. Why is that? Because you only see the fancy scientist, and discount suffering of the poor sod with an 85 IQ?

                    Likewise, you could argue that women being more empathetic and better communicators make women BETTER leaders. People DO argue this. The problem is that as a non leftist, I see all the downsides of that excess empathy. It shows up in poorly constructed welfare programs, being willing to hurt our own communities by letting in problematic people from shit countries, etc.

                    You could at least argue that empathy is good. But you don’t. You just rage because you can’t dispute my facts.

                    Any logical person could concede that it’s at least a case of which skills one values more, not that there are no differences.

    3. I think the people who wrote against women’s suffrage WERE RIGHT. Women DO NOT think in the same rational way as men. Anybody who isn’t lying to themselves knows this. And the female vote has pushed everything in the western world in fucked up directions. Socialism, being nice to everybody to the point of self destruction, etc. The western world would not be the shit show it is today without women voting. It’d probably still be fucked mind you, but not nearly as bad.

      It might be MEAN to not let women vote… But I think it’s suicidal to LET them vote. So take your pick.

      1. Seems Cathy is quite logical and rational, as are many other women I know.

        One thing I will say about collectivists is that they usually can identify problems, but they are always SHIT at the solutions. Banning all women from voting is a shit, collectivist solution.

        1. Well, if I was trying to write a treatise here I would have said that I have several ideas for how we should decide who gets to vote.

          I think a history and civics test would be a good start. Perhaps an IQ test.

          Others have suggested only allowing net positive tax payers being allowed to vote.

          All of these things weed out stupid men, and a large number of women. Women have less interest in history and politics, and tend to be net negative tax payers as well.

          1. “I think a history and civics test would be a good start. Perhaps an IQ test.”

            Better think twice about this one if you hope to vote in the next election.

            1. Ohhh, burn! Too bad the government issued IQ test I took in school came out well into the genius range… Mind you, the average was pulled up by having a ridiculously high score on the math portion, and weak language scores… But that’s actually a very common thing. Math brained people are very common, and I’m one. Interestingly, people whose highest sub score is on language tend to not have as large a gap between that score and their math score.

              I know silly things like this because I have actually STUDIED intelligence, IQ testing data, sex differences, and other stuff that you completely reject out of hand, despite not knowing a damn thing about the voluminous amounts of science that exist on the subjects. So long as it goes against your preconceived notions of blank slateness you will just completely ignore it!

              1. you so smart

                1. Well, if you consider having an IQ in the top 1-2% of people smart, then I suppose I am. Thanks for the compliment!

                  I have always wished I was a better writer though… On the annual school standardized tests I usually only got 90th-95th percentile or so for reading/writing/spelling scores. Since I usually made it into the 98th-99th percentile for all the other subjects, I always felt kind of inadequate in this regard… But I suppose I can’t complain.

      2. I think past history of how men voted stands as a rational argument to your sexist position.

        1. I’m not saying men are perfect… Our whole species is fucked, but on the whole men are a lot more common sense about stuff. We let touchy feely emotions cloud our judgement a lot less. “But what about the children!” doesn’t fool most men, if the solution is a shit solution it doesn’t work on us. It works on almost 100% of women 100% of the time.

          Look at opinion polls on men versus women. They want bigger government. More safety net. More nanny state laws. Etc etc etc. If only men voted, we’d have a balanced budget. We would have low/no welfare, and whatever we did have would probably at least be structured sanely, like having work requirements.

          You can trot out the bullshit “We’re the same!” card all you like… But it’s still bullshit. Our whole political spectrum has been shifted FAR to the left by feminine thinking. If you are actually so deluded you don’t believe female voting has a massive effect on our politics, I implore you to study some of the polling data, voting trends, and studies on female psychology. That should remedy your incorrect opinion.

          NOW, not voting doesn’t mean women had no influence. They very much did influence their men. Keep in mind the founders also didn’t let dumb men vote either… And for good reason. Universal suffrage is a HORRIBLE idea. How it was turned into a virtue is beyond me.

          1. I would also add that women have pretty much been in charge of education for over 100 years in the USA.

            While US basic literacy is super high, we have a bunch of dumb people. Decades past, many of those dumb people at least learned a trade to earn a living for their families. The super smart people would have cheap access to really outstanding academia.

            Now dumb people live in their parent’s basement and are baristas the rest of their lives. Paying off $60k in student loans for a Feminism Studies Degree. The bright side is that they tend not to have kids to further those stupid genes.

            1. A lot of the problems in education stem from feminine thinking. The idea that one cannot accept that some people aren’t as good as others… Men don’t generally have a problem with this. But women don’t like the fact that Johnny is an idiot and Billy is brilliant, which means Johnny shouldn’t be put on the same track as Billy. Trying to force equality of outcomes, instead of allowing both to do what is best for them.

              Not to mention basically criminalizing all male behavior. Women have always been killjoys to a large degree, but when you give them institutional power, they let that natural inclination run wild. See the entire modern western world for examples…

          2. I agree that men and women think differently but I don’t agree with your opinion that allowing women to vote has screwed us up. What has screwed us up is much more complicated from the protection of unions and mass incarceration of little children in the name of education to removing personal responsibility for business through corporations. All of these things happened under the watch of men.

            My opinion is that we need political tension of many kinds to keep us straying too far into one direction or the other and women and their type of rationality plays into that nicely as long we stick to upholding human rights and liberty. Unfortunately, men got us off that track a long time ago.

            1. As I said above, don’t make the mistake of thinking I believe men to be perfect. We’re shit too… Just less shitty in a lot of ways I think are very important, especially for a free society.

              Men tend to be more risk taking. We don’t mind people failing, or suffering from the consequences of their own bad choices. We’re less empathetic, which I think in government is a good thing… It’s not the governments job to be everyone’s fucking mother! But that is exactly what women think government should be.

              The reality is that women DID have influence back in the day. People who pretend they didn’t don’t know how things worked. Women hustled their husbands, and their husbands considered their opinions when voting, because the feminine touch does have some value in it when tempered by logic.

              I just think that the feminine type of thinking has gone too far in the modern west. We’re too afraid of being “harsh,” because women can’t stand people failing.

              Think about this: A society CAN be overly harsh, but be strong and successful… See most of history. But a society CANNOT survive being overly altruistic, because it will destroy itself. Balance is what is needed, and we’re tilted too far towards the feminine altruistic end of the spectrum.

      3. The socialism of Marx and Engel was decidedly pro-male,since men were the vast majority of laborers back then. Also blue collar men voted overwhelmingly democrat in the US until relatively recently.

        1. In their defense, Democrats didn’t utterly hate men back in those days as they seem to now.

        2. But what the Democrats were is a perfect example. Back then masculine thinking still dominated the world so thoroughly that even the leftist political party in this country was actually half way sane. And THAT was after several decades of allowing women the vote.

          Back when it was only men voting, the political spectrum in this country more or less ran from Libertarian to Hardcore Conservative, in modern terminology.

          When masculine thinking was still dominating the Democrats were more right wing and conservative than half the Republican party is today.

          As feminine thinking became ever more influential we’ve had the current shit show crop up. Now to even DARE consider NOT bending over backwards to be nice to some “victim” group is sacrilege.

          There are fundamentals of how men and women think. Everybody knows it from their personal lives. Somebody fucks up their own life and a woman goes “Oh no, that’s so horrible. We should help them out!” And a guy says “Fuck ’em. They made their own problem, they can fix it themselves.”

          It’s as simple as that. Women are programmed to be that way, and so are men. It is biology, and describes most men and most women, on average.

          1. It’s fine that men and women think differently about solutions as long as it’s private solutions. Men are the ones who started eroding liberties and freedoms long before women had the vote and that’s where the differences between men and women become a political issue because it’s no longer private actions.

            1. Women are worse. If you subtract females from the vote in every presidential election since they could vote, the more conservative candidate wins, every time.

              1. Exactly. As I said above, if only men voted in the USA the political spectrum would mostly be from Libertarian to Conservative, with almost nothing in there that we consider to be “left wing” in modern parlance. That is how the USA was when only men could vote. Maybe things would have shifted a little more left wing even in men since the good ol’ days, but it wouldn’t be ANYTHING like what we have now.

              2. If women didn’t vote, Bernie Sanders would not be the Senator from Vermont.

            2. The problem is that women think government SHOULD be the answer! Women have a habit of liking to defer responsibility for things, whereas men are used to having to take the blame/success for their actions.

              Also, women literally don’t even have as much interest in politics, history, science, etc. They don’t even understand why private is better than government, because they can’t be assed to learn about it. They just think “Oh, just have the government fix it! That’ll be easy!”

              The differences in how ours brains work is so fundamental that it is insane. The studies that have been done, and mostly suppressed by leftists, is voluminous. When I’ve researched male/female differences over the years, some of the most interesting stuff I ever found was put up by pick up artists/gettin’ chicks coaches and the like. They wanted to REALLY get at the root of how women think, and some of the better ones dug out REALLY interesting studies that had been done that showed just how different the female brain is from ours.

              It’s deceptive because we all THINK, and seem to be able to take in the same information, etc. But how it gets processed is as fundamentally different as running something through a Mac versus a PCs basic OS code… The same 0s and 1s get interpreted COMPLETELY different from the get go.

          2. You should read up on The Progressive Era

            1. Ugh. This is not about individuals… This is about group averages.

              There are men who completely think in traditionally feminine ways… But they are a minority. Just as a minority of women think in more traditionally masculine ways.

              I hate how so many libertarians refuse to accept the usefulness of aggregate statistics. Individual exceptions to generally applicable rules do not refute the fact that when talking about society wide issues, the average will be what determines reality.

              The fact that there are some number of guys that are 6’6″ in Japan DOES NOT mean that department stores in Tokyo should stock clothing for that size guy as their most common size!

              Also, as I said above, even left leaning men tend to have more common sense about their leftism. FDR had work requirements for most hand outs of the era… Not just giving people free shit for doing nothing. THAT is the way a leftist man thinks, a leftist woman just gives people free shit without requiring work.

        3. Until relatively recently, the Democrats were the party of racism, sexism, trade protectionism–in fact, all the ills projected onto the GOP were positions openly held by the Democrats.

          Today, they are hidden.

          Unfortunately for the Democrats, they were hidden in such a manner that a good number of their dupes could see the truth–that these policies had never had their interests at heart at all.

          That they were always about maintaining a simulacrum of the antebellum status quo. For the wealthy ‘planter’ class.

      4. I think the people who wrote against women’s suffrage WERE RIGHT

        You ALWAYS shit on individual liberty, as a threat to your authoritarian compulsions.

      5. Have you ever heard of the bigotry of low expectations?

        Women certainly signed into treaties like this, because it’s better to pretend incompetence than to evidentiate one’s ill will. Women didn’t wanted the draft and were quite happy to impose it on men and had enough political power to successfully push one of the worst mistakes of the united states, the prohibition.
        They were almost successful in prohibiting even coffee houses.
        So women knew the vote matter little and that male voter were expected to refer to the women in their lives to the point electoral propaganda frequently targeted women way before they had the vote.

  5. This is virtually guaranteed to elicit snarling tribal rage, from both right and left. Cathy DARED to write a balanced view, instead of total and absolute hatred against either extreme.

    That’s what journalism does, for any adults in the room.

    1. Where did you get that Cathy, the author of the article, DARED anything? She isn’t the one who had some sort of psychotic break with her husband. She was recounting what someone else did.

      If you were actually as libertarian as your handle claims, you’d know that most libertarians see people as individuals, not as members of a collective or tribe.

      Criticizing someone who has attacked an innocent bystander simply because that person happens to look like someone who is disliked isn’t a matter of political tribalism. All modern, enlightened people, on the left, on the right, or libertarian, can readily understand what that sort of scapegoating leads to.

      1. Where did you get that Cathy, the author of the article, DARED anything?

        He already anticipated that, and answered it/

        She isn’t the one who had some sort of psychotic break with her husband. She was recounting what someone else did.

        Your obvious illiteracy explains a lot.

        If you were actually as libertarian as your handle claims, you’d know that most libertarians see people as individuals, not as members of a collective or tribe.

        That’s what HE said!!!

        Criticizing someone who has attacked an innocent bystander simply because that person happens to look like someone who is disliked isn’t a matter of political tribalism. All modern, enlightened people, on the left, on the right, or libertarian, can readily understand what that sort of scapegoating leads to.

        She called it clickbait, did NOT defend it. Gave examples from both sides of the issue.

        This is virtually guaranteed to elicit snarling tribal rage, from both right and left.

        He missed illiteracy!

        That’s what journalism does, for any adults in the room.

        1. A Hihnsock defending a Hihnsock. You aren’t fooling anyone, Michael, and you’re doing damage to any respectibilty you’re trying to achieve.

          1. That boat sailed a long, long time ago

            1. With an all-female crew?

              1. “With an all-female crew?”

                That left late and forgot the compass?

            2. The trolls and Hihn socks have been doing it for months.

          2. Horacio, Hihnfaggot has so scorched the virtual earth behind him that I don’t even read what he pukes up for his comments,

            I just slap him down.

            1. No one else reads him either, but Zeb does piss andd moan when you tell Hihn to fuck off. Because Zeb is a fucking clown.

            2. It’s a shame, though, because I occassionally find Hihn’s points interesting. If only he’d engage in a civil, honest tone, instead of constantly trying to reinforce his belief that he’s the smartest person in the comments, maybe he could put together a coherent argument. Oh, well.

              His second comment was deleted… Strange.

              1. Yeah, Hihn does occasionally make some legitimate statements. His endless copy and paste nonsense and not actually replying in a relevant way is what makes it all so infuriating and pointless. He probably was once a semi sane and rational person.

    2. Where did you get that it was balanced? Fake and misleading stats are identified as Central to the narrative then swept under the rug as if that didn’t disqualify the authors as trash.

      “They lie about everything to rile people up, but they still have a point”. Thanks Cathy. Try again.

      1. They lie about everything to rile people up, but they still have a point”. Thanks Cathy. Try again.

        You proved him right! (Or cannot reason) (Likely both)

        This is virtually guaranteed to elicit snarling tribal rage, from both right and left …. total and absolute hatred against either extreme.

        Marcus, a bellowing blowhard, PROVES his bigotry. And IRRATIONALITY.
        LOGIC: Denies that someone can have a valid point, IF they use a lie to defend it. SAYS IT IN PUBLIC.
        “Her point is NOT valid, because she told a lie.”

        LOGIC: Reality does not exist as and absolute. Reality is determined by HOW it is described. The world is either round or flat — not in reality, but how well ANYONE describes their choice.

        Still confused?
        AD HOMINEM: What if others make the same point, without lying? What’s your excuse then? (His brain now EXPLODES)

        I know Marcus Aurelius. You’re no Marcus Aurelius.

        1. Fuck off and die, Hihn

        2. I know Marcus Aurelius.

          Dumbfuck Hihnsano was his pissboy back in the day.

        3. Hihnfaggot talks to a schizo who thinks he is Marcus Aurelius at the insane asylum where he is involuntarily committed for eating his own shit in public.

    3. The real problem are scumbag shitposters, like the one who called himself Michael Hihn, amd his various socpuppets. Nothing but inane antilbertarian garbage there. Just insane babbling likely brought on by self hatred because his dick doesn’t work.

      1. Quick, threaten to murder people again shitlord, that always makes you look calm and rational, and does wonders for attracting neutrals to your cause.

  6. I’m not surprised they are full of rage. They expected they’d be worshipped as goddesses by now. It can’t be that surprising that they’d have the rage of Hera for not being given their due respect.

    For this female, I rage against these harpies for the world they created for me and my daughter.

  7. It’s a fucked thing in my opinion because women are biologically predisposed to want to be sorta dominated. I’m not talking about control freak behavior or stupidity in control just assuming everything being on the up and up many women prefer a dominant man. It’s a tricky thing though and it can easily spiral out into resentment if the male is a bad alpha. All that being said the thing about humans is that we’re so unique and mixed up. Women can dominate too is what I’m getting at so you have to consider that as well. Many stupid men mistake this predisposition of some women to prefer being sorta contolled with all women prefering it so they react violently buoyed by their stupidity and then create societal conditions that don’t allow women to choose how they would prefer to relate to the world. Once you’ve enslaved women it reinforces the belief among the dumb men that enslaving women is the natural order of things.

    1. And that desire of women to be sorta controlled is a moment to moment thing. It’s a choice not destiny.

    2. Pretty much. The problem is that women have the natural inclination to have a dominant man, who also treats them well, in charge… But they’ve now been brainwashed to HATE that natural inclination… So they’re confused as fuck and in self denial. They’re trying to be what they are not all the time, and then hating themselves, and men because it doesn’t work and they’re not happy. Leftists have made a right big mess of things with this shit.

      1. This seems to be most prevalent in women’s generally negative attitudes towards being involved with men who make less than them or is of a perceived lower class. Which is a problem, since many men can make very good money in careers that do not require college.

        1. Totally. Women want a provider, because it’s been drilled in by a couple million years of Homo evolution. But they consciously deny it, while everything in the back of their head still runs on the basic programming. It’s a real mind fuck for the poor gals.

          1. Ever go shopping with a woman? Takes forever to make up their minds about very simple choices. Imagine the difficulty making up their minds about how to live their lives with the myriad of possibilities in play today vs the 19th century and before.

            (Of course, this is a gross generalization, but not without foundation)

            1. Yup. I think a lot of that probably comes down to the fact that men were hunters, and had to make instant snap decisions when hunting or making war. Women did foraging, where they could ponder which fruit to pick off the tree or whatever… If a man pondered his actions too long, he got gored by a woolly fucking mammoth!

              It is a generalization… But one of the things that DRIVES ME FUCKING INSANE about a lot of people here is the idea that generalizations don’t matter, because individuals!

              THEY DO MATTER. If there is a large, statistically significant difference between group A and B, that has real world implications. It doesn’t matter than any individual might not have that trait, because when you’re talking about millions of people there will be a real world effect.

              One needs to use generalizations for the things they’re good for, and take individuals as individuals in situations where that is relevant. Just because there are some Japanese men that are 6’6″ doesn’t mean Nordstrom Tokyo should stock nothing but clothing meant for guys that size!

              1. Lefties ignore that biological instincts take a long time to fundamentally change sometimes.

                Just because men dont fight sabertooth tigers anymore, doesn’t mean that men don’t apply our male human instincts into everyday life in different forms.

      2. You mean like how modern Soviet comrade workers are all happy to bust their asses all day so others can have stuff?

    3. You’re not allowed to say biology overrides the socially constructed sex (er, I mean gender). Overlook the fact that 30 years of fathers, disenfranchised from the family (45% of kids live absent their father) and the bulk of divorces filed by women have created a generation of men who steer away from the hostile environment marriage and children (MGTOW). Also, ignore the fact that 65% of college graduates are female, which combined with the lower incomes of males has women complaining of “no marriageable men”. And overlook the fact that women’s biology scream “breed” in their 20’s and 30’s as it’s coming to an end, but men have no such imperative. FemiMarxism is a left wing socialist movement which has made many men unhappy, and ironically, more women than men. It gives women rights without responsibility while removing men’s rights and leaving them with all responsibility. http://nymensactionnetwork.org…..e-service/

    4. True. I’ve dated plenty of chicks with daddy issues. Many of whom needed daddy to scold them.

      1. I’m sure you did that in your Fritzel rape dungeon.

  8. They rage because they have won pretty much everything they wanted and the world still does not live up to their expectations. In large part, because women, in the aggregrate, do not prefer the life path that results in equal outcomes with men. This being due to the physiological and psychological differences between the sexes are not tractable to social policy in a free society.

    1. “. This being due to the physiological and psychological differences between the sexes are not tractable to social policy in a free society.”

      If you worked for Google you’d be fired for saying this.

      1. Or Harvard.

  9. “I announced that I hate all men and wish all men were dead,”

    Words you will never hear uttered from my sex robot.

    1. Unless you program her to say that, amirite?

      1. Or it becomes self aware.

    2. Until it is hacked

  10. What it mainly comes down to is this:

    Women are angry because women are not as good at being men as men are.

    The truth is males are the dominant sex in our species. We are physically stronger. We have personality traits that make us more dominant, more liked, respected, etc. We also have greater diversity in our IQs, which means we have more idiots, but ALSO more geniuses… And the smart men tend to own and control everything. Men retain their sexual desirability for longer than women. So on and so forth.

    The thing is, since we’re thinking beings, they can rationalize all this stuff in a way that a Chimp cannot… So it kind of pisses them off that they got the short end of the stick. But at the same time, they can’t actually change any of it, or compete with men on a level playing field. So they just get angry.

    It’s a lot like how dumb or ugly people hate smart and pretty people… There’s nothing they can do about it, because they were born the way they were born, BUT they sure can rage about it.

    Then there’s the fact that SOME women HAVE all of those male traits, which complicates things further. There will never be equality between the sexes, because we’re not equal. We have differing traits, but if one wants to be honest, on average men have an advantage on a lot of traits both sexes consider desirable.

    1. But modern feminists cannot accept this reality, so they lie to themselves and tell them it’s men artificially keeping them down… Just like how a dumb person might blame an external source for them not doing well in life, when really it’s just that they’re not naturally gifted in the ways that allow one to make smart life choices.

      We need to come to a new understanding on sex relations… Namely that we’re not the same, not gifted in the same areas, that men will generally be more powerful, but that exceptional women should be free to do as they please… But it shouldn’t be expected that women will try to be a poor imitation of men either. Because most suck at it, AND it doesn’t make them happy.

      Until we come back around to accepting our un-equalness things will never functional well again. But once we do, then maybe we can return to having a sane and functional world.

      1. “Exceptional women should be free to do as they please…” And the average ones should be chained to the stove and slapped when they open their stupid mouths, right.

        1. These kinds of arguments are fucking retarded.

          Women WERE NOT treated like that in the western world even centuries ago, at least not in the civilized countries. Women could divorce their husbands for abuse going back hundreds of years in most placed in western Europe. Women had many choices available to them, the right to own property, etc.

          But what we didn’t do was tell them that they were the same as men, or just as good at everything as men… Because that’s a fucking lie. We also didn’t tell men we were as good at things women are better at! We lived in reality.

          There were famous female authors, artists, etc going back hundreds of years. Women WERE involved in politics in various ways. Through organizations, charities, etc.

          IMO I think we had a good balance of sanity/living within the biological reality between the sexes in the first half or so of the 20th century. Women knew they were women, not men. They could do what they wanted, but it was understood that they probably couldn’t hack it at certain things unless they were exceptional. This doesn’t put up false hope, or create false disappointment, but leaves it open for those that are capable.

          1. Men are agreeing to equality at many levels of life.

            Women are never going to be completely in charge of men. Just as women did not want to be subservient, most men wont want that either.

            Some people learn the hard way and women are going to learn the hard way.

            1. Yup. I don’t mind women choosing to work outside the home at higher rates than 100 years ago… But I don’t think it’s right to try to force indoctrinate them to believe they MUST do that. Nor is it right to tell them they will one day dominate men, or even have equal power as men, because neither of those is a realistic prospect. Barring personality trait differences, women just don’t have nearly as many people in the 120+ IQ range, which is where most leaders and important movers and shakers are. They are literally destined by biology to perhaps have 1/4 of important posts or less, even if everything is 100% meritocratic.

    2. “on average men have an advantage on a lot of traits both sexes consider desirable.”

      Civilization and technology are minimizing this gap, and reversing it to some extent.

      Who got hit harder by the Great Recession? Men.
      Who are in the minority on college campuses? Men.
      Who are infrequently seen in any commercial advertising these days? Men.
      Who can be abused, parodied, and bullied without consequence? Men.
      Who have (on average) weaker verbal skills in demand in today’s market? Men.

      1. Ehhhh… You’re kind of falling into buying into the ascendant women propaganda though.

        Who got hit harder by the Great Recession? Dumb men, fair enough, because we’ve outsourced all our manufacturing, and automated most of what’s left.

        Who are in the minority on college campuses? Getting REAL degrees? Women are the minority. Because men get far more actual useful degrees in all good paying/important programs. Women get a lot more bullshit Women’s Studies and English Lit degrees though.

        Who are infrequently seen in any commercial advertising these days? This is nothing burger leftist anti-male propaganda and has no bearing on objective reality.

        Who can be abused, parodied, and bullied without consequence? Same as last.

        Who have (on average) weaker verbal skills in demand in today’s market? This is true! But men are also better at math, science, engineering, visual spacial, etc. We win overall.

        The reality is men could stop all this BS in a single day. If men woke up tomorrow and decided we’ve had enough of this bullshit, it would be over immediately. Because women DO NOT have the power to stop us. Low IQ men have lost a lot of power and influence lately… But those people have never really mattered. The fact that men outnumber women greatly in the upper reaches of intelligence is why we will always have most of the power. Not to mention brute force, should that ever be needed. But women simply can’t out maneuver men if we don’t allow it to happen.

        1. I take your points.

          My points about the abuse, college, and propaganda are reflections of “traits both sexes see as desirable”, not necessarily traits that are objectively desirable. It’s about attitudes of society. I think we are in agreement.

          1. Yeah, I think so!

        2. The core problem men have is progressives. Be they weak sniveling beta makes, or shrill ball busting feminazi bitches. Get rid of e laugh progtards and the remainder will be once again subservient and these problems go away.

  11. We’re all Valerie Solanas now.

    1. We all know damn well that deep down all she really wanted was a good, deep dicking.

      1. A feeling you know all too well…..

  12. There are some people who say that there are biological differences between men and women which leads to different ways of looking at things and different ways of dealing with problems. Not that I believe such nonsense of course, I know that there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between men and women and all the other genders. So I’m confused by how the future can be described as “female” when this word has no meaning at all. Nor can I understand the anecdote about the person yelling at their spouse – how can anybody know which is “him” and which is “her” and how can one person say they hate all “men” when there is no such thing as “men”?

    1. Being a woman is wearing dresses and make-up and that is all, duh.

      1. And shoes, don’t forget about all the shoes, and shoe shopping.

    2. THIS. This is the “logical” conclusion one must come to if you believe all of their nonsense… And yet it is so patently absurd, they themselves don’t even believe it.

  13. “I announced that I hate all men and wish all men were dead,”

    Did I miss the part where he then walked out, moved to a shelter, and filed abuse charges against the sexist?

  14. / shrugs.

  15. I pity any woman who had such bitter resentment in her heart towards men, or anyone! She’s obviously in a toxic relationship, and I pity her poor husband! Imagine if a man screamed at his wife like she describes! That would be abuse, but when she does it, it’s empowerment??? Wow. Just wow. So glad I was raised not to be a “nasty woman” like her!

    1. Think the problem is women like the one who wrote the WaPo article are so enraged BECAuSe the men in their life are total wusses, or they are unable to find a man at all. There was even a story in the NYT not long ago about how women who divide domestic work equally with their husbands are much less satisfied with their marriages

      1. Because women don’t really like sensitive men, they just like to say out loud that they do. But they don’t. They like cave men/bad boys.

        1. Yup-or they want a guy who can afford to hire a full time maid/nanny, and guess what? Sensitive dudes aren’t the types who usually can (I guess Mark Zuckerberg is an exception)

          1. Yup. Being assertive and aggressive are some of the main traits of successful people… The funny thing is that Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, and many other people who come off as being “sensitive nice guys” are actually anything but. They’re not big, tough guys… But they’re actually fairly ruthless in a lot of their person traits. Rememer Zuck’s year of only eating what he killed?

            You don’t have to look like a linebacker to be aggressive, and I think the public image they always tried to portray was a lot nicer than the way people have described them in private.

            1. Yeah, people think of Bill Gates as just a dork, but this is the guy who turned the screws so hard on Apple in the mid-90s that Steve Jobs, who was as competitive as they come, had to admit that Apple needed an infusion of cash from Microsoft if it was going to survive.

              1. Then you have the liberal arts major, drippy guys I see a lot of around here. Many are stay at home dads and their wives almost always look pissed off at the world.

            2. +100

              Really great discussion guys.

              I laugh when Lefties think that a guy like Warren Buffet is 100% on their side. He might lean heavily Lefty because he has more money than he can spend before he dies.

              You also don’t earn billions in wealth by asking people to give it to you. There is business in there and business can be ruthless.

              Business sometimes being ruthless is why Libertarians are okay with Detroit 3 going bankrupt.

  16. “In all three books, the 2016 election looms large as an odious testament to the enduring power of patriarchy and misogyny. Yet you can loathe Trump and still question the assumption that Hillary Clinton’s loss was the result of sexism.”

    Changing the attitudes of the general population towards race, gender, and orientation is central to what it means to be on the left today.

    How various groups are depicted on television and in advertising seems to be more important than how those groups are actually treated.

    I think it’s true that the election of Trump was a conscious repudiation of that. I maintain that Trump not only won despite the way he was covered by the media but also won because of the way he was covered by the media.

    Middle America spent much of the Obama years pilloried for being homophobic because they’re Christian, stupid for not being willing to sacrifice their standard of living to fight global warming, racist because they’re white, and, yes, misogynist for being male. When they saw Donald Trump being likewise pilloried by the media in 2016 for being stupid, racist, and misogynist, they came to imagine that he was just like they are! How else to explain why casino magnate, billionaire Donald Trump, with his foreign trophy wife, came to be seen by middle America as a man of the people?

    Hillary Clinton didn’t lose because middle America is sexist, but Donald Trump may have won, in part, because the media proclaimed him a misogynist.

    1. Hilary lost because she bought into the entitled mentality that she should win because she was a woman, her utter lack of charisma, her support of progressive politics and her awful ethics. They cannot accept that she lost because she was, objectively, a terrible candidate.

      1. Not to mention her defense of Bill Clinton back in 1998.

        Accusing Trump of sexual harassment fell on deaf ears because his opponent was a prime architect in defeating the perjury charges against Bill Clinton.

        1. How can you objectively expect people to believe that you are a Pro-Women woman when you attack multiple rape accusers of your husband?

          1. There is nothing wrong with questioning the veracity of the claims of multiple rape accusers.

            Surely criminal justice is not anti-woman.

      2. The funny thing Mickey, is that is the problem with ALL these bitchy women.

        Most of the ones you’ll find that whine about being oppressed are just non performing, bitter, charisma lacking, tools… That’s why they’re not the CEO of some mega company, or whatever their silly goal is.

        They wanted and affirmative action president, and when people rejected voting for her JUST because she was a women, despite not actually being an awesome candidate, they freaked out.

        They want all the perks without having to actually be qualified.

        1. +100

  17. These rage filled idiots seem to be doing their level best to bring about the “Handmaiden’s Tale” future they claim to fear. Sooner or later men will tire of being browbeaten and called evil names and decide that – *sigh* – the equality experiment is a failure and it’s time to try something else.

    I have to wonder if these ninnies have a deeply suppressed BDSM Haram fantasy. If I believed in remote-psychoanalysis on Freudian lines – they way the Left does – (what Kipling used to call The Higher Cannibalism) I would be sure of it.

    1. The equality experiment IS a failure.

      It was always doomed to fail.

      I don’t think we need to do things like Saudi Arabia, but the way society functions in the modern west simply does not work. We need to bring back SOME of the old school ways of thinking that accepted that women and men are not the same, and plan/organize society around that reality.

      1. No. The ‘equality experiment’ need not fail, so long as we accept that equality before the law and equality of persons with equal qualifications is as far as it should go. I do not want to return to the days of the Victorian or Edwardian eras, never mind the fantasy that the Progressive Left has woven of them. But those of us who value real equality need to start telling the foam spewing Feminist Left “Sit down and shut up until the adults are done talking.”

        1. I always tell women how we can try and create and equal playing field but ultimately Men and Women are not equal.

          Put an average man and average women in a UFC ring and that shows you how Men and Women are not equal.

          Men used to “not hit women” not because they wouldn’t be able to bash their brains in but because its was not a fair fight.

          1. And now we HAVE to hit them in every situation where we would hit a man,
            (as if there were men left)

        2. Equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome is what should be gone after.

          The problem is, those who are not equally capable don’t like a fair competition… They want to slant things in their favor. Which is exactly what women have been doing. We’ve probably declined MILLIONS of more qualified men from getting into various university programs over the years to make room for less qualified women or minorities “for the sake of fairness.”

          This kind of thinking needs to end. Until it does, things will be fucked.

          1. Jordan Peterson you are not. Not even close.

            1. Oh, I see you haven’t read anything about the affirmative action policies at colleges in America then?

              The ones that give black/Hispanic students almost a 100 point lower SAT requirement than Asians, and around 75 points IIRC lower than whites?

              They do the same thing for females. Because diversity is more important than only accepting the best student academically.

              Thinking this through logically means that a bunch of Asian and white men MUST have been denied entrance into schools they would have otherwise qualified to get into, to make room for that LOVELY diversity.

              You REALLY just can’t handle reality can you Mcgoo?

              1. Also, Jordon Peterson is mostly a moron. I don’t even like that guy. He’s correct about a number of things, but puts in far too much effort to try to tone down some of the facts, and be all PC/cucked out. I mean, I get WHY he does it. It’s not even a bad strategy to be a bit soft to get the ideas out there to more people. But I still think he’s a tool personally.

  18. My thought to cling to is that a woman wants a man who is a leader. Now a good leader has many qualities–they understand not only the outer needs of their following, but the inner needs. They build confidence by choosing successful policies (whether or not those policies are explainable to the troops) and through inspiring by example. They tend not to betray contracts or confidences, but a strong leader can sometimes get away with a lot in regard to those things and be forgiven.

    Most of all, a leader understands that most people want someone else to do their thinking for them. Too much work, that cogitating and reason business! There is a minority of followers or underlings in any group, however, who are proud of their independent thinking and like to flaunt it. These are often necessary, even critically essential people. A good leader knows how to jolly them along and make them feel like their wonderful ideas have been praised and honored, when in actual fact a major part of the leader’s work load involves making seriously flawed ideas appear like they work in practice and are even needed.

  19. “Reagan Democrats no longer saw the Democratic party as champions of their working class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos and other groups.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat

    Feminists did the same thing for Trump in 2016 that they did for Reagan in 1980 and 1984–only more so.

    If you’re not an African-American, an illegal immigrant, an environmentalist, LGBTQI+, or a feminist, then neither the Democratic party nor Hillary Clinton gave a shit about “deplorables” like you. In fact, they despised you.

    Progressives not coming to terms with why hating on the voters they need to win hurts them when it comes time to elect a president is a big part of what we’re talking about when we’re talking about TDS.

    1. The problem with progressives is that they need victims. The Democratic Party is the party of victims. In order to have victims, you must have scapegoats. Some might think this is a catch .22 of sorts, but it really is not, as this is how authoritarian countries generally gain absolute power over the populace.

      People who do not understand this do not generally get why there is a subset of libertarians who believe (or know) that the Democratic Party is the greatest threat to liberty, bar none, in this country.

  20. There has always been a strident misandrist faction of women. Intelligent people understand that they are not rational and pay them no mind except to limit the physical damage they do to others.

    1. When I read Valerie Solanas in college, people were still arguing that it was satirical, that it was to some extent tongue in cheek.

      Sort of like Christians who claim that when Jesus said to turn the other cheek, he didn’t really mean it. He was being metaphorical!

      Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

      1. “Sort of like Christians who claim that when Jesus said to turn the other cheek, he didn’t really mean it. He was being metaphorical!”

        I’ve read that Jesus was actually taunting the Romans with that saying. Roman army regulations allowed a soldier to strike a civilian only once. (Similarly those regulations allowed him to tell a civilian to carry his load for only a mile. Jesus’s offer to carry it another mile was perhaps not motivated by pure benevolence, but by a tactical appreciation of how this might win him over and perhaps entice him to become a friend in need on some future occasion.)

    2. Heck, in the old days we used to lock some of these crazy bitches away in an asylum where we wouldn’t have to deal with them.

      1. Burn the witch!

    3. Like I said in my post above, these are the women or either consciously or subconsciously hate men because they realize they are not men. They WANT to have all the traits that a stereotypical man does, but they do not posses them… And it infuriates them.

      Of course some women actually do have some/all of those traits, and they generally don’t turn into these bitter, crazy, bitches… They just go out and succeed in life like a man would, and don’t complain.

      1. Testosterone is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands.

        It can take years of jacking off and getting laid to get a handle on what that shit can convince you to do.

  21. The future is men completely indifferent to crazy women.

    1. That should make boys nervous.

  22. Third wave feminism was the “girl power” and “sex positive” feminism. It introduced “intersectionalism” as a way to support the many ways women with other marginalized identities experience extra burdens. While sex positivity is all well and good, it obscures the ongoing harms women face from performing sex work. A vast majority of the world’s women in sex work are not voluntary cam girls. They are coerced.

    Fourth wave feminism took the third wave structure, ported it to social media, and promptly went insane. Feminism is now an incoherent philosophy about elevating every marginalized group except women. Women who haven’t decided they are non-binary or trans are considered “privileged” and therefore must sit down and shut up while men in dresses who started hormones two years ago give keynote talks about the issues facing women. Queer Theory is postmodern nonsense based on metaphysics (“sex is a social construct” meets “gender is an inner feeling”), and anyone who says “wait a minute, I’m pretty sure biological sex is a scientific fact” is immediately fed a red herring (“but intersex!”) or accused of transphobia. Having actual female parts and talking about them in feminist groups is considered “non inclusive” because trans women don’t have those parts. The excesses of trans activism are driving a wedge into the left while fourth wave feminists police one another’s purity on Twitter ready to denounce every heresy.

    I’ll stick with second wave feminism, thanks.

    1. “I’ll stick with second wave feminism, thanks.”

      We didn’t know we had it so good.

      Seriously, I believe what you describe, a la “intersectionality,” will eventually [and sooner not later] implode of it’s core nonsense. And the fact that it entails a conflict between every group who deems themselves more oppressed, and therefore entitled.

      1. Yup. The fact that many in the crazier corners of the left now consider gay males to be privileged says it all. A mere 5-10 years ago being a gay white dude was a huge sob story, now they’re part of the problem!

        How much further can you take it?

        In another decade or two only a black, Jewish, trans, dwarf, paraplegic, quad amputee will qualify as being oppressed, and everybody else will be an oppressor!

        1. Slaves are the ultimate form of privilege!

          Look, they have everything taken care of for them. All they have to do is work!

        2. No, they’ll never accept Jews as “marginalized”. Make that a Black Muslim trans dwarf.

          Oh, and by “trans dwarf” do you mean a tall person who identifies as short?

          1. LOL

            Yeah, you don’t actually have to PHYSICALLY be 4 feet tall to be a dwarf… You just have to identify as one. Ugh.

  23. OT
    Beware the tiger about to decline, and take much of the world with it.

    https://tinyurl.com/ya3gw4s4

    1. “Demographics are not destiny, but the baseline projections produced by the United Nations in its World Population Prospects imply things will only get worse. By 2049, the centenary of the founding of the People’s Republic and the target date set by the Communist Party for China to become a “modern socialist country that is prosperous,” the number of working-age Chinese will have shrunk by 25% from current levels, while the number of Chinese in their 40s will have dropped by another 30%.

      China’s total population, however, is expected to remain relatively stable over this period. The rapid shrinkage of the working-age population is projected to be offset by the booming population of elderly Chinese as today’s workers age. The share of Chinese aged 70 and older is projected to rise from less than 7% today to 20% by 2049. That will place severe burdens on working-age Chinese, who will need to sacrifice their own consumption to support their elders.”

      1. “The problem is the government’s widespread and persistent interference in investment decisions?a problem that has been getting worse. Since the end of 2012, the share of new credit extended to China’s state-owned enterprises has soared from about 50% to more than 80%. China’s vibrant pockets of private innovation have been squeezed for political reasons. While it is possible the political situation could change, and therefore lead to a renewed burst of productivity growth, as in 1978, that is not the likeliest outcome. Zero productivity growth, or even continued declines, are far more likely.”

        Trump’s policies could push, or at least accelerate, Chinas slide into chaos.

      2. That will place severe burdens on working-age Chinese, who will need to sacrifice their own consumption to support their elders.”

        *Looks at how much of the US federal budget is allocated towards SS and Medicare*

        “Welcome to the party pal!”

      3. They were such idiots to go to a 1 child policy… If you’re going to be an asshole authoritarian regime, at least do it right! This was an OBVIOUS outcome from such a policy. If they’d made it a 2 child policy, it wouldn’t have been nearly as bad.

        What makes it even worse was that it never actually was a 1 child policy across the board, they allowed peasant farmers to have 2 IIRC. The exact OPPOSITE of what they should have done, which is encourage the most successful and well off people to have multiple kids.

        Whatever. Anything that fucks up communist China is fine by me.

        I saw some article the other day that said India will pass them in population way sooner than I would have thought… Like 2024 or something?

        1. Not only that, it they overvalued having male children. Not a lot of available young women over there. Smart parents would have held out for a girl. Who would be in high demand once of a marriageable age. The potential dowries would be huge, especially if she was hot.

          1. Yeah. If China was smart, they would allow in immigrants, especially female ones, from other Asian countries.

            I STILL don’t think that multiculturalism works, because it doesn’t… BUT America proved that societies that are ethnically and culturally SIMILAR enough where after a single generation of inbreeding, and growing up in a society that forces you to integrate, you a nation can meld into a single thing again fairly quickly.

            If they allowed in hordes of Africans, or Arabs, or whatever it’d be a shit show… But since a Vietnamese or Thai person would just get lost in the mix 1 generation in, that should be eminently workable. And would help them out a ton.

            Not that I want them to fix their problems. I want to see that shit collapse! If they weren’t a ruthless dictatorship I’d wish them well though…

  24. Feminists always had this idiotic notion that “man’s world” was fun or enjoyable.

    It is not. We tried to spare them the drudgery and misery of having to deal with all of the bullshit, but they were convinced we were actually keeping tons of fun shit from them. It’s like when you hear kids in high school discussing how great it will be when they’re adults…because paying bills and being responsible is just a hoot.

    Well, lessons were learned…oh who am I kidding? They STILL think we are hiding the fun from them.

    Wait until women start to die on the job in anywhere near the numbers men do.

    As a man, it is easier to not have to shoulder all of the stress of the world. And women do not seem to grasp that as “non-vital” as they feel we are, many men have realized that things like marriage are hardly vital for their lives, either.

    1. Grass is always greener syndrome.

      Everyone suffers from this at times. It creates a victim mentality.

      Self reliance and independence used to be American ideals. No more.

    2. LOCK THEM IN THE KITCHEN! …. FOR THEIR OWN GOOD

      (Stepford Wives may not be fiction. Not regarding intent)

    3. LOCK THEM IN THE KITCHEN! …. FOR THEIR OWN GOOD

      (Stepford Wives may not be fiction. Not regarding intent)

      1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano shrieks as he lives in his apartment, alone and unloved.

      2. The Hihnfaggot is babbling again.

    4. Totally true.

      Seriously, think about this for a minute:

      What if all you had to do to have a comfortable life was be a 5-6 or so in the looks department, and then find a nice, fun, attractive person, with a good personality to marry… And then kick it at home and deal with household tasks and kids?

      How fucking cake is that? Because basically any woman who isn’t hideous can do exactly that. You can find an endless number of nice, decent guys who would be STOKED to settle down and marry a decent chick who isn’t insane.

      That’s it. As a man I have never really had that choice, and never will. I will ALWAYS have to bust my ass to make it in life. Even if I met a rich heiress, she would still have the mental expectation that I would work… Or she wouldn’t be interested in me!

      In a lot of ways women don’t know how good they have it.

      1. Also, good oral skills are a plus for any female

      2. “How fucking cake is that? ”

        To be fair, a lot of original feminism came from a time when women truly were actively discouraged from doing anything OTHER than that. We can all agree now that if you want to be a doctor, woman, be a doctor. No one cares. But that battle is won. The fight has now morphed into something absurd that no rational person can follow. They actively denigrate women who DON’T want to be a doctor! It’s crazy. This is the natural outcome of a movement that GETS THE VICTORY. Feminists have WON. At least, normal everyday ‘women should have the right to (fill in the blank)” feminists. The current loud feminists are just a bunch of disgruntled crazy people looking for a fight.

        1. Yup.

          It’s much the same argument as I have made about the environmental movement. We genuinely FUCKED UP the environment HARDCORE during the industrial revolution. Rivers lighting on fire is NOT COOL.

          But by the late 70s/early 80s they basically won every legit fight there was to fight for. So instead of disbanding all their big, fancy, well endowed organizations, they have simply kept looking for smaller and smaller, or sometimes even imaginary, problems to “fix.”

          Feminism has done the same. We need to roll back the last few decades of crazy, and more or less leave it where it was in the 60s or a little earlier, as that’s about where it properly belongs.

    5. Women are already bitching about them winning the War of the Sexes.

      Socialism doesn’t work, yet women think if only they had TOP WOMEN they could make it work.

      Many women are stupid fucking bitches who refuse to learn from their mistakes and use logic when solving problems.

      Men are not doing them any favors by saying that Women are smarter than Men. Men and Women both have positive and negative traits and having different kinds of intelligence.

      1. Whole lotta stupid in that one….

      2. Poor mcgoo troll. Programmed to troll this comment section all day.

        1. Trolling the stupid is not for the faint of heart, I dare say. It’s also becoming a full time job around here.

  25. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come…… http://www.Mesalary.com

  26. It demonizes men, even turning empathy for a male into a fault, and dismisses dissenting women as man-pleasing collaborators.

    JINDER TRAYTER!!11!1111!!!!!!1!!!!!

  27. The US is a country transitioning into matriarchy. Just like the slave owners of the South had to rationalize that blacks were subhuman in order to justify what they were doing to them, feminists are working themselves up to the same conclusion about men, to much the same end.

    I don’t think it will work in the end, because the biological bonds between men and women are so strong, but it will be a long, ugly time failing.

    1. Yeah… Women can never actually rule any real society across the board. They don’t have the character traits required to pull it off and sustain it. We’ve basically been smiling and nodding at leftists nonsense for so long, because we basically thought it was all a stupid joke, that they’ve got this far… But I think people are realizing it’s not a joke at this point. I suspect things are already starting to get righted, but it will take time.

      1. You’ve not read much history if you’re foolish enough to believe that.

        1. I think you’re the one deluding yourself.

          The only matriarchal societies that have ever been around have been pathetic little backwards hunter gatherer groups for the most part. NAME an important, powerful civilization that was matriarchal.

          Some PATRIARCHAL societies with monarchies would allow females to inherit the throne if they were the only close relative to the previous king… But those women rarely ever fully ran things the way male kings did.

          Their male advisors, male generals, male relatives, male lords beneath them, male administrators, etc managed and decided much of what went on. Queen Elizabeth I herself was almost totally reliant on several powerful and brilliant men around her to actually get shit done. She did make decisions, with their advice, and was a decent leader… But she was constantly afraid of being overthrown for a male relative the whole time, because she understood she didn’t have the kind of authority a king would, she didn’t command the fear and respect the way a king would.

          So try again dip fuck.

          1. Except “matriarchal” is not what what you said dumbfuck. Way to move the goalposts. There’s also been plenty of women advisors to male presidents/kings/.tyrants. There’s truth in about half of the diarrhea you sprayed all over this page, the rest is just pathetic generalizations that make it clear you’re the hateful halfwit I know you to be.

            1. Poor McGoo troll.

              IT is upset.

              1. Nope. Entertained.

                1. Nope. Clearly he triggered you Mcgoo.

            2. Except “matriarchal” is not what what you said dumbfuck. Way to move the goalposts.

              He was responding to a comment about the US becoming a matriarchy, dumbfuck.

            3. McJizz spews his inanity once again.

              1. There’s little shitty…right on Que. RRWP I realize what he was responding to, fuckface. I was responding to what he said.

                1. RRWP I realize what he was responding to, fuckface.

                  Not based on your comment, shitwit.

                  1. Here dumbfuck. This is what I was responding to that you’re too fucking stupid to figure out.

                    “Yeah… Women can never actually rule any real society across the board. They don’t have the character traits required to pull it off and sustain it. ”

                    It’s a patently false, stupid claim by every metric of recorded history. The fact that you seem to agree with it means you’re as fucking stupid as the person making it.

                    1. Here dumbfuck. This is what I was responding to that you’re too fucking stupid to figure out.

                      Don’t blame others for your inability to communicate or address what was actually said, shitwit.

                      It’s a patently false, stupid claim by every metric of recorded history.

                      Name one advanced civilization that had an actual matriarchy in place. Not “fallacy of the lonely fact” one-offs, but an actual matriarchy. Bet you can’t do it, dummy.

            4. As mentioned, tard, I was responding directly to a post that used the phrase matriarchy… And it was implied in my post, because I was responding to one that used it.

              But either way “Women can never actually rule any real society across the board. ”

              Is still accurate. Note “across the board” there. Almost every society in history has been ruled nearly exclusively by men. There are no societies where women made up ALL the powerful rulers. NONE.

              Find me a single great monarchy where it was a Queen, female generals, female trade ministers, female ambassadors, etc. THERE ISN’T ONE.

              As I said, even monarchies that had queens or empresses had mostly men doing all the heavily lifting of running everything day to day. I do not discount that there have been some decent queens in history, or that there were decent female advisors to kings now and again. Some queen consorts to kings were widely known to be smart and important influences on the king…

              But you cannot refute my statement that no civilization at any level of sophistication or scale has ever been run by an entirely female dominated elite. It has literally never happened. Ever. It is post modernist, ultra egalitarian fantasy land bullshit.

              1. “Almost every society in history has been ruled nearly exclusively by men.”

                Wrong. With the possible exception of your goosestepping role models.

                “Find me a single great monarchy where it was a Queen, female generals, female trade ministers, female ambassadors, etc. THERE ISN’T ONE.”

                So your proof is that because the Amazon’s from Wonder Woman the movie don’t really exist, women don’t have the “character traits” to be rulers? That’s a whole bunch of stupid. By the way, Toby, the definition of Matriachy is “a system of society or government ruled by a woman or women.” All you need to qualify for a matriarchy is female ruler….which has occurred frequently enough throughout history to thoroughly debunk your stupid claim.

                “I do not discount that there have been some decent queens in history, or that there were decent female advisors to kings now and again.”

                If you don’t discount this, then how can you stand by the stupid shit you asserted in the first place? Fuck.

                “But you cannot refute my statement that no civilization at any level of sophistication or scale has ever been run by an entirely female dominated elite.”

                That is true. The Amazon society you require does not and likely never will exist. But your all-male fantasyland has also never proven to be a wining formula for humanity either.

                1. LOL

                  By YOUR OWN DEFINITION of male dominated societies never really existing… Then your female dominated societies never did either genius.

                  The point you keep trying to escape is that virtually all societies in the history of the world have been patriarchal, with only minor input from women, if any at all. The few female analogs aren’t really even appropriate, because women did not ever exert the same level of power in those societies than men did/do in the societies they have run… Which is all of them. Saudi Arabia men control EVERYTHING, even in the few matriarchal societies women share power with men in crucial areas out of necessity, whereas men frequently DO NOT.

                  It’s not JUST the Nazis or some such nonsense like you’re trying to portray.

                  Babylon, Egypt, Ancient Greece, Rome, Ottoman Empire, China, England, Germany, Japan, Aztecs, Zulus, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA… Take your fucking pick. Every society of ANY note has been a patriarchal society.

                  The concept that there might be a single woman, who when supported by dozens of competent men surrounding her and advising her, might make an okay leader does not negate the fact that an entirely female run society would not function for shit.

                  But I’m seriously tired of arguing with you. You’re delusional, dodging facts right in front of your face, and clearly cannot break free from your brainwashing to see reality for what it is.

                  1. “The point you keep trying to escape is that virtually all societies in the history of the world have been patriarchal, with only minor input from women, if any at all. The few female analogs aren’t really even appropriate, because women did not ever exert the same level of power in those societies than men did/do in the societies they have run… Which is all of them. Saudi Arabia men control EVERYTHING, even in the few matriarchal societies women share power with men in crucial areas out of necessity, whereas men frequently DO NOT.”

                    No dipshit, the point I’m trying to make is that most systems are neither strictly patriarchial nor matriarchial. If the ancient Egyptians, European monarchies and nearly every Eastern society were strictly patriarchies there would never have been female rulers and there clearly were…and they were numerous. And despite your OPINION, they were effective rulers as judged by everyone who isn’t as willfully fucking stupid as you. You did get the wahhabi’s correct though…so good work.

                    1. If you want to call societies where they literally traded their daughters like cattle (arranged marriages + dowries baby!), but would occasionally allow an empress/queen to reign on the throne surrounded by male advisors, matriarchal… Be my guest!

                      But most feminists nowadays would argue that is not the case… They consider saaay England, circa any time in its entire friggin’ history, to have been an oppressive patriarchal society. HELL, they STILL call it that.

                      A single monarch does not make a society matriarchal, or patriarchal for that matter. It’s the whole SYSTEM, and the rules imposed on the sexes throughout. In my humble opinion anyway.

      2. Yup. There is not a single documented nation run completely by women.

        McGoo the troll believes otherwise, but he is a total moron.

        1. Yup. See my response above. Yet somehow there are, well, every single decent nation ever that were run completely by men.

          Funny… If women were equally capable, you’d think that with all the randomness in the world they would have ended up utterly dominating roughly have the great civilizations throughout time… Yet they ran precisely NONE. How does that make sense in the ultra egalitarian, blank slate mind?

          Primitive hunter gatherer societies are the only ones I have ever heard of that were actually “run” by women, but even they had to RELY on men to deal with lots of things… Like making war. Which meant their rule was entirely dependent on the men not saying “Fuck this shit, I’m taking over.” Which means they never really even ran those.

          1. There are modern societies run by women inside other nations run by men.
            6 Modern Societies Where Women Rule

            Which is why I said it the way I said it. These are local jurisdictions run by women inside large nations, like Indonesia.

            Evidently women cannot completely run their own countries.

            1. “There are modern societies run by women inside other nations run by men.
              6 Modern Societies Where Women Rule

              Which is why I said it the way I said it. These are local jurisdictions run by women inside large nations, like Indonesia.

              Evidently women cannot completely run their own countries.”

              Your first sentence makes no sense but keep pedaling backwards….you’ll get back up that hill eventually. It’s not even worth mentioning all the of the female heads of state in just Europe alone. The fact that you are so willfully ignorant betrays your stupidity.

              1. Nah, you just got shut the fuck up mcCathy.

              2. It’s not even worth mentioning all the of the female heads of state in just Europe alone.

                Fuckin’ LOL at this guy citing a phenomenon that’s occurred only in the last ten years. Talk about cherry picking.

                1. Fuckin Lol at this guy who’s never heard of Nefertiti, Cleopatra or Catherine the Great. I thought RRWP was smarter than the cousin fuckers……guess not.

                  1. “Fuckin’ LOL at this guy citing a phenomenon that’s occurred only in the last ten years. Talk about cherry picking.”

                    Also, you apparently missed the part where LC essentially claimed there were no ‘modern’ societies run by women. Note the word ‘modern’. It applies to last 10 years. Reading comprehension can be difficult.

                  2. Fuckin Lol at this guy who’s never heard of Nefertiti, Cleopatra or Catherine the Great.

                    Nefertiti was the wife of Akhenaten and her “reign” as Pharaoh is in dispute.

                    Egypt was a Roman vassal during Cleopatra’s reign, and she had to latch on to much more powerful men to keep her throne.

                    That you even cited Catherine the Great is hilarious, considering the phrase “Potemkin Village” came into being during her reign.

                    You know even less about history than you do the difference between matriarchal and patriarchal societies.

                    1. So what’s your point? You are guys are saying that women “can never actually rule any real society across the board. They don’t have the character traits required to pull it off and sustain it”.” Just because you don’t like the way they ruled doesn’t mean they weren’t effective rulers. Your assertion that every woman ruler has been manipulated by men is fucking laughable on every level. The examples from antiquity to modernity are too numerous to list.

                    2. So what’s your point?

                      That you’re fucking ignorant of history, and even the examples you try to cite in support of your thesis don’t apply once one gets past your grade-school level understanding of it.

                  3. Poor mcgoo doesnt read well and understand the difference between a female head of state surrounded by male government and a nation run by women.

                    All women. Women as head of state. Women as bureaucrats. Women as advisors.

                    Men were said to have ruled the world when males were heads of state, bureaucrats, advisors, and legislators.

                    1. “Poor mcgoo doesnt read well and understand the difference between a female head of state surrounded by male government and a nation run by women.

                      All women. Women as head of state. Women as bureaucrats. Women as advisors.”

                      So in order for you to believe that women can be effective rulers, you require proof of an Amazon society such as the one from the movie Wonder Woman? Fuck. Name one nation YOU WOULD WANT TO LIVE IN that had only men as head of state. Only men as bureaucrats. Only men as advisors. I’ll bet it’s not as easy as you think.

            2. McGoober, see my post above. Every woman you mentioned had MEN running almost everything in her government, and was just a convenient place holder for the royal family until another male heir came around.

              Additionally, did you even read that article? 4 of the 6 EXPLICITLY said that men either ran some or all of the political functions in those societies! Whose name you get, mom or dads, isn’t really that important. And that’s the best that feminist morons can come up with in THE ENTIRE WORLD.

              Female leaders in Europe today are just a BS diversity hire thing, because it’s trendy to be PC nowadays. As I said above, I don’t dispute that there are SOME female leaders that have been decent. But there has never been a society of any consequence with an entirely female ruling elite.

              You cannot refute that, because there is no known instance in all of human history. Yet without fail, every single great civilization in history WAS exclusively ruled by men, with the occasional place holder female royal allowed to ostensibly run things for a period of time in between male rulers.

              The fact that you need to fight SO HARD to try to believe something that is obviously false is pretty impressive… PC brainwashing has done quite a number on you my friend.

              1. “McGoober, see my post above. Every woman you mentioned had MEN running almost everything in her government, and was just a convenient place holder for the royal family until another male heir came around.”

                That’s complete bullshit. There are plenty of others. Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher…maybe you could use the ol google machine yourself and find plenty of other female rulers that ruled and rose to power through their own force of will. Of course you won’t because you don;t really have any interest in expanding you narrow world view. Something is wrong with you…I don’t know what your mom did to you but she probably had good reasons.

                “Female leaders in Europe today are just a BS diversity hire thing, because it’s trendy to be PC nowadays. As I said above, I don’t dispute that there are SOME female leaders that have been decent. But there has never been a society of any consequence with an entirely female ruling elite.”

                Do you even think before you vomit the meager contents of your brain onto these pages? This is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read here. Again, the ol google machine can find lots of female Heads of State from Antiquity to Modernity that ruled effectively.

                “PC brainwashing has done quite a number on you my friend.”

                Yea well, I choose to live in reality. I would say that you’re the one that’s been brainwashed but I’m not sure you even posses one.

                1. Ugh. I actually like Thatcher, but again you’re missing the point. A single person in a male dominated system DOES NOT make a society ruled by women. Whereas true male dominated societies have been everywhere throughout all time. Males STILL dominate all power positions in the western world… I guarantee you if they didn’t, it would fall apart.

                  And to answer your question, what male ruled society would I want to live in? The USA when it was a hardcore patriarchy would have been the freest place to live in human history. So there. Or Britain. Or Germany. Or Japan. Or pre commie China. Or France. Or Rome. Etc. Those were all functional and prosperous civilizations in their time.

                  Females never rose to power through their own force of will until the last couple decades, because it’s trendy to elect women now, with basically no exceptions. A few female royals were supported in claims for thrones, by mostly male lords and advisors, because they disliked the other claimants more for whatever reasons.

                  You show your lack of historical knowledge by thinking people like Elizabeth or Victoria actually ruled things with an iron fist… They didn’t. They made some decisions, sure, but did not rule in the way a man like Augustus Caesar did, or Alexander, Napoleon, Alfred The Great, etc. Not all kings did either, but most did, and virtually no women did.

                  But I am really growing weary of trying to correct your fallacious understanding of history…

                  1. “You show your lack of historical knowledge by thinking people like Elizabeth or Victoria actually ruled things with an iron fist… They didn’t. They made some decisions, sure, but did not rule in the way a man like Augustus Caesar did, or Alexander, Napoleon, Alfred The Great, etc”

                    So now you are moving the goalpost to “ruling with an iron fist”? So if a woman didn’t conquer and expand an empire she wasn’t an effective ruler? Any idiot with access to the google machine will quickly find out the the periods of time ruled by Victoria, Elizabeth or Catherine the Great were among the most prosperous periods in those respective countries. But to a dumbfuck, goosestepping, sexist such as yourself, that is evidence of weakness. Fuck. Off.

                    1. Also, just to clarify, during the reign of these women, they did wage war and effectively expand their empires.

                    2. GOD. You still can’t get an obvious statement, even after I’ve said it a dozen times.

                      I know all about Elizabeth. Ever heard of Sir Francis Drake? Francis Walsingham? Lord Burleigh? Those are some Liz’s top guys. No chicks… How odd.

                      First, I have already said some women were decent heads of state. But they still ruled male dominated systems, had all male advisors, generals, admirals, etc.

                      I don’t dispute that a female monarch can do a good job of sitting at the helm of an empire. Elizabeth and Victoria both put their MALE generals to good use during their tenure. Although of course by Victoria’s reign Parliament really ran most things anyway, that was not the case with Elizabeth.

                      As I already said, Liz was terrified her whole reign that she would be replaced by a male relative, because she was a woman. If you look into the DETAILS of most female monarchs, them not feeling totally in control, having to make concessions to advisors/lords they didn’t want to make, or always feeling vulnerable are recurring themes. Successful kings usually didn’t worry about that sort of thing, only fuck ups.

                      I’m seriously not going to go on with this nonsense. You are willfully ignoring all my points, because you don’t want to accept something contrary to your imagination.

                    3. You citing Victoria is even further proof if your historical ignorance. England’s monarchy by this time had been largely reduced to that of a figurehead, due in no small part to George III’s mental illness and subsequent Regency Acts. Victoria locking herself up after Albert’s death only solidified this process.

          2. “Yet somehow there are, well, every single decent nation ever that were run completely by men.”

            This is also complete bullshit. For nearly all of recorded history society has been ruled by Kings along with Queens. What all-male run nations are you fantasizing about?

            1. Because the only ones that I can think of have been catastrophic for the human race.

            2. For nearly all of recorded history society has been ruled by Kings along with Queens.

              Except for the whole “King being the last word” thing, you’re correct.

              1. Even so, society wasn’t ruled “completely by men”. Which is what you assholes are arguing in the first place.

                “There is not a single documented nation run completely by women.” &&
                “Yet somehow there are, well, every single decent nation ever that were run completely by men.”

                Which is a fucking stupid argument to make. But why try to start following the discussion at this point?

                1. Even so, society wasn’t ruled “completely by men”. Which is what you assholes are arguing in the first place

                  If you think the Queen had any real, actual authority to do anything outside of the King’s concurrence, you’re deluding yourself.

                  1. “If you think the Queen had any real, actual authority to do anything outside of the King’s concurrence, you’re deluding yourself.”

                    Who the fuck said they had any authority outside the king’s concurrence? I didn’t, twerp. They helped the king rule and ruled when he was sick. Try to follow the fucking discussion if you’re gonna throw shade.

            3. LOL

              In most of those societies, a queen wasn’t anything more than the kings baby maker dude. Are you really that ignorant of history?

              Sure, a queen could order about a male servant… But they weren’t calling the shots. That was the king. In cases where there wasn’t a suitable male heir, SOME societies allowed queens to hold power in between male heirs coming of age. But if you look into the DETAILS, in every case I know about, male advisors held far more power over their rule than advisors with the same positions did when an actual king was on the throne.

              You’re just grasping at straws…

              Women have always had influence in the world dude, nobody is disputing that. But they’ve never had direct, real, absolute power over any nation of note in the same way that men always do. Reality is not PC my friend.

              1. “Sure, a queen could order about a male servant… But they weren’t calling the shots.”

                Just because you say it doesn’t make it true, unfortunately for you.

                “Reality is not PC my friend.”

                How would you know? You’re not my friend.

                1. Yeah… Random queen consorts bossed their husbands around back in dark ages Europe huh? Talked down to powerful Dukes and generals like they were bitches? Tole men they were their equal, if not superior! That TOTALLY happened…

                  No. Women treated men with immense respect and deference back then. Probably a touch more than was fair really, but it was expected of them… Including queens. A queen with a king alive could surely discuss things with her husband, but they DID NOT have equal power.

                  A queen who was the actual ruling monarch had more power, provided she didn’t piss off enough people to be overthrown. But it is a universally accepted fact that Elizabeth was terrified of being overthrown her whole reign, because she was a woman. She didn’t have kids, because she feared her own son if she had one would supplant her while she was alive.

                  That’s not the kind of fear most competent kings had. It’s because women’s power, even queens, was in no way, shape, or form comparable to kings.

                  As I said, women had influence… But not the way men did. Period.

                  1. “Yeah… Random queen consorts bossed their husbands around back in dark ages Europe huh? Talked down to powerful Dukes and generals like they were bitches? Tole men they were their equal, if not superior! That TOTALLY happened…”

                    No dumbfuck they ruled with absolute authority.

                    1. LOL

                      No they didn’t! Queens who had Kings, and were not ruling on their own, did NOT have absolute authority. They were subordinate to the king. And in most cases their husband would have told them to keep their mouth shut when discussing politics in court, unless it was about something relating to marriage or they were directly involved somehow. There are a few exceptions, as there are to any rule. Like Ferdinand and Isabella for instance. She held some legit and real power. But that was not typical of female monarchs of the era.

                      You clearly have a very surface deep knowledge of history. Perhaps you have only seen recent politically correct documentaries that go out of their way to inflate the importance of women in the past? Like pretending Cleopatra was an actual absolute monarch, when she was really a Roman puppet from day one.

                    2. That kind of stuff has been happening EVERYWHERE in books, movies, etc for a few decades now. Silly stuff like showing women fighting in medieval battles and that kind of nonsense. Or imaginary female Navy Seals and the like. I watched some dumb movie with that in it the other day, and just thought “Well, that sure is funny, since not a single female Navy Seal has ever existed… And maybe 1 in a million women could actually pass the physical tests.”

                      Go read some books from pre-1990 or so, they’re a lot less filled with fantasy about this kind of stuff. It should make you feel better anyway. Even then they DID talk about how mean and oppressive men were, without feeling the need to make up that women had more power than they did.

        2. “Yup. There is not a single documented nation run completely by women.”

          All women for women? Is that the stupid fucking argument you are making? You and Vek the Retard are two peas in a pod. Que little shitty to come stick up for his boyfriends…..

          1. Poor troll.

            1. Poor comrade won’t even acknowledge his own heritage by recognizing Catherine the Great.

              1. Hey, so weird how McCathy namechecks another Cathy.

                1. Ironic that Tulpa the Turrd chugging thread shitter shows up to accuse others of being socks. Get. Fuct.

                  1. Try reading a history book that doesn’t require crayons, McGump.

                    1. At least I can read.

                    2. Poor mcgoop. He thinks Czar Catherine ran the nation of Russia all by herself.

                      It wasnt 10,000 men to 1 woman or anything.

                    3. “Poor mcgoop. He thinks Czar Catherine ran the nation of Russia all by herself.”

                      I never said that she ran the Russian Empire by herself. But while she was the Ruler a.k.a. Empress, the Russian Empire fits the accepted definition of a matriarchy; a system of society or government ruled by a woman or women.

                    4. Still can’t grasp the concept of having an exception to a rule can you? Allowing A single woman some power does not make an otherwise completely male dominated society a matriarchy. Even if it did, that still means 99% of all societies at all times were patriarchies, as women were only selected as monarchs as a last resort in most civilizations.

                      I really don’t get how you can’t make these distinctions… You must be a woman? Can’t allow logic to overcome the emotions swirling around your head perhaps?

                      LOL

                    5. This is like arguing with a three year old.

                    6. “Poor mcgoop. He thinks Czar Catherine ran the nation of Russia all by herself.”

                      Also she was able to successfully overthrow her husband (the emperor) in a coup d’etat, consolidate power, have her husband murdered (most likekly), prevent other males from claiming emperorship, expand the empire by 200,000 sq mi and reign with an iron fist for ~30yrs. What more proof do you dumb cocksuckers need? She OVERTHREW the patriarchy through sheer will and intelligence.

                    7. I’ve been very adult, straight forward, and logical the whole time. You just don’t like the facts I have trotted out throughout this whole thread.

                      I have already admitted some women have been decent rulers. Some did hold fair amounts of real power. I’ll even just give you “absolute power” in a few instances, even though they were really beholden to top nobles, as even many weak kings are. But that was not the norm.

                      Even then, those women relied on having an all male set of advisors and administrators. Male kings didn’t need to have all, or any, females on board when they were running things. You can’t seem to get this distinction.

                      At best, you can make what Stefan Molyneux likes to call a “tall Japanese man” argument. YES there are tall Japanese men… But the vast majority of them are not “tall” by the standards of any society outside of the far east. YES there are hyper capable women. No, there are not nearly as many as there are men.

                    8. She OVERTHREW the patriarchy through sheer will and intelligence.

                      LOL, no. She took over the throne with the blessing of the Russian ministers, who hated her husband for his Prussian sympathies, and then heavily relied on those ministers and her male boytoys to help her run the Empire. After she died, Paul I took over, not one of her daughters.

                      Calling Russia a matriarchy during her reign is, to be blunt, ignorant.

                    9. “Calling Russia a matriarchy during her reign is, to be blunt, ignorant.”

                      So you agree with Vek and every third/fourth wave feminist, that throughout known history, women have been oppressed by the patriarchy? Fuck. From every fucking dictionary:

                      ma?tri?ar?chy
                      Dictionary result for matriarchy
                      /?m?tr???rk?/
                      noun
                      noun: matriarchy; plural noun: matriarchies

                      a system of society or government ruled by a woman or women.

                    10. At least I can read.

                      Being more ignorant of history than someone you claim is illiterate is a great self-won, twerp.

                    11. “LOL, no. She took over the throne with the blessing of the Russian ministers, who hated her husband for his Prussian sympathies, and then heavily relied on those ministers and her male boytoys to help her run the Empire. After she died, Paul I took over, not one of her daughters.”

                      So basically, she did everything as good or better than a man and that demonstrates that “Women can never actually rule any real society across the board. They don’t have the character traits required to pull it off and sustain it.” Fuck off. Go beat your wife or something.

                    12. So basically, she did everything as good or better than a man

                      Which doesn’t prove that matriarchal societies are lasting or self-sustaining.

                      Fuck off. Go beat your wife or something.

                      Fuck off yourself, shitheap. Why beat my wife when beating your dumb ass was so easy?

                    13. “Fuck off yourself, shitheap. Why beat my wife when beating your dumb ass was so easy?”

                      It’s pretty easy to win an argument when you don’t even know what the argument is. Congrats. Maybe you and Vek can get together and have a beer and discuss your IQs and midevil history.

                    14. “Being more ignorant of history than someone you claim is illiterate is a great self-won, twerp.”

                      Because I can’t spew a bunch of useless trivia that has no bearing on the discussion about Queen Victoria makes me ignorant of history? Sorry I don’t consider that a “self-won”, twerp. I’m done. If you two cunts want to believe women have never been effective rulers and never will be because they don’t have the right characteristics, I don’t give a fuck. I’m not married to either of you two assholes. Fuck. Off.

          2. If you want to put it to extremes, to prove a point, where is the female equivalent of Saudi Arabia?

            Where is the society where women proved they are so tough, capable, and brilliant that they utterly dominated their men??? Because at the end of the day having the POWER to rule over others, against their wishes, is the truest sign of being capable.

            Oh, that never happened… Anywhere… Ever. I see. So in short, the few societies that are even remotely matriarchal are actually only such because the men decided to let women have the power.

            That is all that is going on in the modern west, and men could put the kibosh on it in a single day if we felt so inclined. Women in the most literal sense do not have the capability of dominating men in the way men can dominate women. Period. Every right and privilege women enjoy it at men’s pleasure, and can be taken away at the drop of a hat.

            I’m not saying we should turn into Saudi Arabia… I’m simply saying that women COULD NOT do that to men even if they wanted to. And that says it all.

            1. Fuck. this is stupid.

              “If you want to put it to extremes, to prove a point, where is the female equivalent of Saudi Arabia?”

              I think it’s up your ass…..you should be able to see it? The rest of your infantile gibberish is basically saying women aren’t as violent/physically stronger than men. No. Fucking.Shit. Your original statement was that women didn’t have the character traits to be effective rulers of society. You’re moving the goalposts again.

              1. Being able to impose your will IS a trait that is needed to rule a society genius!

                If you can’t run your shit on your own, then you can’t stay in power. Violence is the purest essence of power.

                But women clearly don’t have the other traits needed either… If they were the smarter, cleverer sex, then surely entire “cabals” of women would have convinced males to bend the knee all over the world, give them control of great empires for them to command! Their queen, female generals, female advisors…

                Right? Because proving their brilliance and leadership abilities doesn’t TECHNICALLY require violence if you’re that good, right?

                So why has that never happened? Because there aren’t that many women who are that good, that’s why.

                Female monarchs were place holders. Sometimes decent ones! Because there ARE exceptional women. But there are not enough women with the traits needed to “role swap” across the board with males and actually hold shit down.

                If you’re a woman, I’m sorry. But nobody has it all sweetheart. I’m not 6’4″ with Brad Pitts good looks and Ron Jeremys member. People are individuals, we all have pros and cons. This doesn’t mean we have to deny inconvenient facts or statistics just because they don’t conform to what we want to be true.

                1. Wow…you just hit maximum derp. Nice work.

                  1. Really? What’s logically incorrect about it?

                    If women are really just as capable as men in all ways, wouldn’t it be logical to assume that at least SOME, if not fully 50%, of powerful civilizations would have been ruled mostly or entirely by women?

                    That seems logical to me. The fact that the best anybody can find is a few primitive hunter gathers that have anything remotely resembling matriarchy, OR patriarchal societies that were ruled by hereditary monarchies that would occasionally accept a female ruler, says that women don’t have the juice to take over and rule large scale societies.

                    If they were capable of it, THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT. How the hell do you think men ended up in charge? They took power, and held it, on their own abilities. This includes convincing people willingly, threatening people, bribing people, killing people, the whole gamut. Why didn’t women do this over and over like men have if they’re JUST AS GOOD AT IT?

                    You are what is wrong with the world. You cannot accept that everybody has limitations, and that the world isn’t fair.

                    1. Well this for starters..

                      “If they were the smarter, cleverer sex, then surely entire “cabals” of women would have convinced males to bend the knee all over the world,”

                      It’s called marriage…..

                    2. It’s called marriage…..

                      By that stupid definition, every society is matriarchal.

  28. If one reads the post … shudders … and expects to see much rage, by misogynists, you understand.
    ALL bigots beleeb they are merely “speaking truth” about niggers, kikes, chinks, faggots and “irrational” bitches.
    “They ARE that way. But Political Correctness.”

    1. Hihn, there are many criticisms to be made about ALL those groups that are totally legitimate. There are also many NOT legitimate things people claim about all those groups.

      It would be incorrect to say that ALL women are irrational bitches… But to say that women, on average, are more emotional in their thinking, that is a scientific fact as per many studies over the years.

      And seriously, who actually hates chinks? Pretty much everybody loves Asians! They’re smart, neat, orderly, polite, and generally awesome people. I just don’t like the Chinese government.

      1. Naked Asian chicks in Kimonos or other Asian robes….

        Fucking hawt!

        1. Who needs robes??? 😉

  29. The future is female. With dozens of cats. Sad.

    1. LOL

      This is the only life my last girlfriend has in store for her… It’s kind of sad really.

      1. I have a favorite saying: “Be careful what you wish for”.

        Some women want this and that for men to do without ever giving an inch on their flaws. Then the men leave.

        Remember when everyone was saying “There should be a law” about 20 years ago. Be careful what you wish for.

        1. Yeah. This was the first time I dated a chick who was older than me too… So she’s thoroughly hit the wall at this point. She probably can’t even have kids if she tried. It’s kind of a shitty thing, but her life choices are what got her where she is.

          I on the other hand will find a woman several years to a decade + my younger, and still have plenty of time to get married and pop out several kids. The biological card deck is really not stacked in womens favor in many ways. Nature is harsh.

          1. Speaking as somebody who had his first kid at 50, keep in mind a ten year old will really tire you out when you’re 60. And I’ve got some doubts I’ll live long enough to meet my grandkids.

            1. My dad had a second set of kids at 55 and was a grandpa at 80.

              Hang in there Brett.

              As you said though, he seemed exhausted around kids in his 50’s. He says that the grand kids keep him young.

            2. Oh yeah, I’ve finally got to get “serious” about trying to find one that’s actually worth marrying. I spent 10 or so years of my 20s and early 30s dating 2 women, one 4 years one around 6. Both were awesome in their own ways, but neither were worth marrying and breeding with…

              I’m still in my early 30s, and up until now I wasn’t really stressed about the time factor… But since the idea of having kids at 50 or something does bring on the obvious issues of being older at all life stages for your kids, I don’t want to wait until that late. I figure I have a couple years to take a couple stabs at finding a decent one, if I find one I think will work give it a few years, then marry if it seems good still. I’m hoping to get the first one knocked out by 40 or so at the latest…

              It’s not optimal, I should already have 10 or 12 year olds! But it’s not the end of the world for a guy either. Even if things go off track from that, it’s nice to know I CAN do it at 50 if I need to.

              1. Here’s a tip. If you actually manage to find a woman that is willing to spend time with you, don’t show her this thread.

                1. I don’t have problems with women for the most part… I’m fairly good looking, and rather charming actually!

                  Funny you should say that… I don’t lie to my girlfriends about my views, because that would be dishonest. The girl I dated for 4 years was a pretty hardcore conservative. Pretty line towing So-Con actually.

                  Before we broke up I convinced her that weed should be legal, so should prostitution… Even though she HATED the idea of both. I ALSO convinced her that women voting was one of the main reasons that freedom in America had gone to shit.

                  See, she was actually pretty logical and intelligent for a chick. She was able to get past her emotions and actually look at the data on the differences between how men and women think. Eventually she agreed with me completely that while it sucked for logical chicks, if you want to have a stable and free society, women shouldn’t be able to vote.

                  I won’t lie… It took some time, and showing her a lot of studies that have been done… But logic won in the end!

                  1. “Eventually she agreed with me completely that while it sucked for logical chicks, if you want to have a stable and free society, women shouldn’t be able to vote.”

                    Wow. You actually managed to find a woman stupider than yourself. You shouldn’t have let that get away, cowboy.

                    1. LOL

                      Facts are facts. Women vote based on the feelz. She doesn’t like commie bullshit, and thinks not having that crap is more important than women voting. It’s not like that’s a very realistic prospect anyway. As I discussed with her, the best road forward that might actually be doable would be a history/civics test to be able to vote.

                      Women, statistically, tend to be less knowledgeable about that kind of stuff on average. Therefore a reasonable hard test on such things would probably weed out more women than men, and the especially dumb ones of both sexes… Which is exactly what we need if anything is ever to be straightened out.

                      Universal suffrage is most assuredly the thing that ruined this country. The founders were smart enough to not have it. We need to return to it. Democracy is a horrible idea.

                      As far as her, she’s doing well. She got married a few years back to a friend of mine. They have 2 kids and are doing well. Funny thing, she found out he voted for Obama the first time he ran, after they got married, and she almost divorced him over it! LOL He’s centrist more or less, but lied about who he voted for… She figured if he’d lie about that, what else might he lie about? But he got out of the doghouse somehow. 🙂 I may well regret not marrying that girl one of these days!

                2. If you actually manage to find a woman that is willing to spend time with you, don’t show her this thread.

                  Perhaps the women you suck up to are ball-cutters, but my wife actually appreciates someone who thinks independently and doesn’t parrot her views just to get laid.

                  1. And you’re the kind of asshole that has also probably convinced her women shouldn’t vote. Suck a turd.

                    1. And you’re the kind of asshole that has also probably convinced her women shouldn’t vote. Suck a turd.

                      And you’re the kind of pussy who rages at more successful, virile men. Go crawl back in the locker you got stuffed in.

  30. OT:

    “BIG LEAGUE NATIONAL SECURITYREPORT: US Troops to Leave Afghanistan in 18 Months Under Peace Agreement”

    Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize…or be given Obama’s.

    1. Nobel prizes, like the Oscars and all the competing Hollywood–TV land self-congratualatories, are meaningless because the elites at the pinnacles of all human pyramids have become meaningless and/or embarrassing. Take for instance, the pope. The comish of the NFL. The editorial boards of all major newspapers. Time Magazine. Any talking head on the legacy broadcast TV networks.

      Nobody (well, very few) in academia have an opinion that is worth a bucket of warm shite (Victorian spelling.) They have tenure, they are politically correct to a fault, they stick their fingers in the air well and circle their wagons promptly. They will continue to sell foolish students “knowledge” leading to useless degrees as long as the student loan well does not run dry.

  31. Not a woman alive that wouldn’t be improved by an occasional cuffing.

  32. Rage and sex positivism are at odds with each other. Because men don’t want anything to do with a ragey women. Maybe the future of rage feminism is lesbianism. But not a very sexy lesbianism.

    1. You want a glimpse at an angry lesbo, observe Tony.

    2. Rage and sex positivism are at odds with each other.

      Not really. Even tradcon women take all the benefits of feminism as it suits them, while decrying how awful those other women are (or more likely, while standing on their backs). And even sex positivism is a joke, using the promise of sex as a bargaining tool to gain useful idiots. Remember the Antioch sex contract was born of sex positive feminism.

      Eventually there will be a backlash of men giving feminist everything they want, and walking away and laughing at the shitstorm that ensues.

  33. Both the Left and the Right rage. But as someone who has lived in both the reddest of red counties and bluest of the blue, I have to say only the Left rages over political stuff. The Right may rage over sports calls or bad drivers, but when it comes to spittle spewing and aorta bursting screaming, the Left has a firm monopoly on this kind of pants shitting.

    Yeah, people on the Right will shout, but I’m talking about rage. The kind of hatred where all rationality is stripped away leaving only raw quivering emotion. The kind of rage that is only microns removed from murder. The Left has it sewn up.

    Rage Feminism is merely the next iteration of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    1. That’s how the right has been LATELY. But if the left keep trying to force this kind of insanity on everybody, I think we’re all going to get to see how the right wing rages… And it’s going to leave quite a trail of bodies.

      As somebody somewhere said “When the left gets angry, they begin to riot. When the right gets angry, they begin to march.”

      I think people who are inclined towards right wing thinking are slow to anger, but when they do get there, they unleash it in an organized and brutal fashion. This country will end up with a Pinochet long before we end up with a Lenin IMO.

      1. Is there s difference between Pinochet and Lenin? I mean other than the Left still worshipping Lenin and the Right having nothing whatsoever to do with Pinochet?

        1. Yes!

          Authoritarianism is authoritarian… Sure. But the GOALS and the SPECIFICS of how, and why one is authoritarian REALLY does matter.

          People who just like to ignore this fact are silly. Sometimes in history you NEED to lay the smack down. George Washington did tons of stuff that would be unacceptable AFTER the Revolutionary War. Pinochet, Franco, etc were VERY imperfect. Their economic policies weren’t great, BUT they were far better than the alternative. If they had not come around, both those countries would have turned into communist hell holes.

          They served as the Sulla for their nations. Look up Sulla if you don’t know who that is, he was a Roman dictator who saved the Republic.

          Anyway, to not make distinctions between different dictators or types of authoritarians is foolish. There WAS a difference between Augustus and Caligula. Both are less awesome than a Thomas Jefferson, but sometimes Jefferson isn’t on the table.

    2. Well, if you go back to British Queen Boadicea who accused young Roman officers quartered in her village of molesting herself and her sisters (they might have been her daughters) and then proceeded to lead her warlike tribe the Icenii on an extremely bloody sacking of Londinium and terrorizing of Roman villas until the Icenii masses ran headlong into a Roman legion marching full speed down the road to meet them.

      Queen Boadicea, her chieftans, and their hordes outnumbered the Romans by at least three to one, and they were all fired up by her rage as well as barrels of mead The tribesmen as individuals all fancied themselves to be quite the dandy, fearsome warriors, and dressed the part. The Roman legions of the day were professional marching and fighting machines that had battle tactics against barbarian throngs down to an art. Just another day’s slaughter for the Romans. Boadicea ended up a suicide.

      1. Yup. The angsty rabble usually doesn’t do well against an organized, disciplined opponent. The modern left is nothing but the worst kind of weak sauce rabble. They don’t even have the hard edged, working man kind of toughness that commies of old tended to have… They’re all soy boys. So if it comes to violence in the USA, I’m puttin’ my money on the right wing side.

        1. The old school commies all had the horrors and deprivations of WWII to temper them. Modern Lefties only have a shared bond of dodging the draft. Not that I have anything against draft dodging, but most Lefties have almost nothing in their shared culture that builds character.

          I’m not sticking up for the Right here, they can be every bit the pansy that the Left can be. They just don’t excel at it like the Left.

          1. Pretty much. I mean the business class right wing types can be wimps, but most of the middle/working class right wingers are anything but. The modern left has no similar equivalent. They’re all pussies. Who also hate guns… That’s going to work out REAL well for them if they force this into a civil war. LOL

    3. The more conservative of people tend to get upset when people try and take things from them or try and hurt them or their families.

      Lefties tend to get upset about more freedom for people.

      Lefties tend to be the busybodies who want to control others via government power.

      Libertarians want to control things by convincing other that their position is stupid and probably authoritarian.

  34. Rage is the future of leftist, radical feminism. Actual feminism is not about rage or any of the other issues being pushed by the radical left. Many feminists I know support abortion, but with limitations. They do not have problems with employers not providing certains forms of birth control and supplying others. They see feminism as giving women CHOICES about how to live and those who choose to stay home and raise kids are just as valid and important as those who choose careers. They do not ascribe to the radical, inflexible and intolerant view of the hard left who claim to represent women and yet then ridicule anyone who does not accept their doctrine without question. They are offended by people like Hillary Clinton who claim to represent women and yet has a history of being the most rabid defender of a sexual predator in US history for her own political reasons. They are offended by a media that protected her and after the election of
    President Trump claimed they were all weak, and incapable of doing anything other than what they were told by their husbands. They are tired of themselves and their husbands being branded as racists for not supporting a radical leftist agenda that they find offensive. Feminism as defined by the left is not feminism. It is simply another part of an agenda that seeks to replace freedom with state control.

  35. Rage is the future of leftist, radical feminism. Actual feminism is not about rage or any of the other issues being pushed by the radical left. Many feminists I know support abortion, but with limitations. They do not have problems with employers not providing certains forms of birth control and supplying others. They see feminism as giving women CHOICES about how to live and those who choose to stay home and raise kids are just as valid and important as those who choose careers. They do not ascribe to the radical, inflexible and intolerant view of the hard left who claim to represent women and yet then ridicule anyone who does not accept their doctrine without question. They are offended by people like Hillary Clinton who claim to represent women and yet has a history of being the most rabid defender of a sexual predator in US history for her own political reasons. They are offended by a media that protected her and after the election of
    President Trump claimed they were all weak, and incapable of doing anything other than what they were told by their husbands. They are tired of themselves and their husbands being branded as racists for not supporting a radical leftist agenda that they find offensive. Feminism as defined by the left is not feminism. It is simply another part of an agenda that seeks to replace freedom with state control.

  36. As men, perhaps we should give women something to really scream about.

    1. Women have never had so good in all of human history.

      1. “Women have never had so good in all of human history.”

        Human history only goes back some 5000 years. Humans, and women too, have been around a lot longer than that.

        1. Are you suggesting anyone had it better more than 5,000 years ago?

          Shirley, you jest.

          1. “Are you suggesting anyone had it better more than 5,000 years ago?”

            Certainly freer.

            1. To non-Anarchists, giving up a few freedoms can make a society which in turn can make life easier.

              Even the Founders gave up a few freedoms to form the USA.

              Libertarians are not for 100% freedom. Those are Anarchists.

              1. Some value freedom and rely on themselves to make their lives easier.

  37. “I announced that I hate all men and wish all men were dead,”

    Sounds like a lesbian who values death, sociopathic violence, and irrational thinking over empathy, nurturing behavior, and rational thought.

  38. Great comments, and I would recommend a reread of the article. After I did so, I was stuck by the simplest sentence, 3/4 of the way through, “That does not bode well for feminism.” Our author knows is is a terrible plan to embrace this man hating approach, but that is what appears to be trending. Don’t hate the messenger. I think this problem is compounded by our “outrage” centered culture. We have food, shelter, protection from predators, a decent amount of security towards our futures, and amazing tech… But we are all built to sniff out what threatens, and react. And the media, which exists to perpetuate itself, is only to happy to supply outrageous stuff. Our irrational selves govern us way more than any of us want. What is the solution? Our author doesn’t offer one, nor can I, nor did I read one in the comments. Unsatisfying… But, I have been pondering on this crap for years without reaching a satisfying answer, and by the comments, most of the commentators have too.

    1. The rational solution is to objectively look at our biology, and actually plan around our imperfectness. Men and women can never be equal… So you need to accept that, and plan around it. As I said above, I think a society that views sex differences somewhat like we did up until about the mid 1900s is probably as good as it gets. We allowed women plenty of freedom, but also had realistic expectations about what could be expected out of both the sexes.

      1. Personal speculation, but I often wonder if much MeTooism results from the past few decades, when we abandoned traditional mores in favor of “if it feels good, do it” behavior. And often, what feels good to one person, might be a problem to others. Now many feminists seem to want to reconstruct some new mores that put women in protected classes, at least in some contexts. Back where we started?

        1. Much of the #MeToo is bullshit.

          Most of those women that started that meme, willingly got naked or sucked a dick to get a movie part. Then they had buyers remorse after being in the biz.

          If a guy rapes you, then fuck stab that dude. If a guy offers sexual favors for some job, turn him down or swallow and forget like a real woman.

        2. LC is right too… But I think there very much is a lot of women wanting to restore social standards of yesteryear, while not admitting that the old ways were actually better.

          Keep in mind banging a chick against her will would have got a man beat half to death, and expelled from polite society 100 years ago too.

          But they don’t want to give up a lot of other irrational gains they’ve made. They fundamentally want to have their cake and eat it too. All the gains, without any of the responsibilities that need to accompany such new freedoms.

      2. While men and women are not biologically equal (I mean, duh!), they should at least be politically and socially equal. And in modern Western Civilization, they ARE politically equal, and most socially equal. There is no need for an ERA today because the goals of the ERA have been fully realized.

        Most real feminists understand this. But there’s a small but loud and vocal strain of feminism that wants biological equivalence as well. They don’t want men to act like men. I DON’T mean this in the Gillette way, I mean merely pursuing sex without first asking permission to pursue is forbidden. Not talking about groping or stuff like that, some feminists don’t even want men even having interest in women without permission. Women tend not to pursue and biological equivalence will mean that mean will not be legally allowed to pursue either. Wooing is traditionally a man’s role and it will be forbidden under a regime of sex equivalency.

    2. “What is the solution?”

      Look to India, not America, where resentment rules. Indian feminists recently mobilized millions to protest anti-women religious practices without any of the kind of hand-wringing evidenced by Young or the commentariat here.

    3. I also saw that the author mentioned multiple times about how man hating feminism is a bad idea.

      Much of the comments on here seem to be an expansion of that theme.

    4. “What is the solution?”

      How about designating various large (county-sized or state-sized) locales as being “red” and others as “blue” and others as other colors within them for various shades of the spectrum, and then encouraging persons to move into a locale that suits their preference, and out of any that don’t. (There could be an agency that facilitated job swaps and house swaps, etc.) For instance, leftists in New Hampshire could move left, and rightists in Vermont could move right, and all would be happy in a reasonable time (at most a couple of decades to complete the swap.) Similar swaps could be done in N. & S. Carolina, N. & S. Dakota, and between several pairs of rectangle states. Red states would have constitutions that are red-aligned, and blue states would have blue constitutions.

  39. Feminism is why there are so many childless singles out there now. No man wants to take a chance having children anymore because of how batshit crazy they’ve become. If they’re going to take my child away from me, and force me to pay a mortgage every month or go to jail, then they’d better look good when they’re walking away.

    Or we can have a conversation about male abortion rights. I pay you a sum of money and I wash my hands of your pregnancy and walk away. Or we could just start telling mothers they made their choice when they opened their legs and start imprisoning them for the crime of being poor.

    1. Locking people for not paying child support is ridiculous.

      Its a debtors prison, which is specifically prohibited by the Constitution, in that only duly convicted people can be imprisoned.

    2. When discussing abortion or female rights with people, I’ve brought up that it would only be fair for men to be able to “disavow” a child they don’t want… Since as it stands now a woman can kill a baby that a man may want. Heck, why not allow men to FORCE a woman to have an abortion? The logic is much the same, as both are equally responsible for making the baby!

      The looks you get using logic like this… It says it all.

  40. . . . .conceding that her hapless spouse was “one of the good men.”

    If he was actually a man that statement would read ‘one of the good men *was* her spouse’.

    1. And WTF is up with these people? If the situation was reversed, if the husband laid out screaming at his wife, it would be ’emotional abuse’ and people would be calling for his head.

      She does it and people consider it an act of bravery? Consider it understandable? Channeling my inner Bill Burr – not saying there’s no reason to . . . you just don’t do it.

    2. He may not be an ‘actual man.’ And in English we say “if he were…”

  41. “I hate all men and I wish all men were dead”

    Sounds like she’s having a hard time finding the door.

    1. ” I wish all men were dead”

      Correct use of subjunctive.

  42. While the “female rage” narrative does not represent all or even most women, there is little doubt that it taps into real problems and real frustrations. The quest for women’s liberation from their traditional subjection is an essential part of the story of human freedom?and for all the tremendous strides made in the United States during the last half-century, lingering gender-based biases and obstacles remain an unfinished business. But is rage feminism (to coin a phrase) the way forward, or is it a dangerous detour?

    Young, you live in America, right? You’re not a millennial. And you’ve been around long enough to remember living in the Soviet Union. And you write this as if modern American women are facing real problems *in America* – remember that the women in Saudi Arabia don’t have the luxury of spending an hour screaming at their husband?

  43. the expected victory of America’s first woman president was ignominiously thwarted by a man who casually discussed grabbing women’s genitals.

    1. It was only ignominious because *she* ran a shitty campaign, assuming without evidence that she’d sweep the election because ‘its her turn’ instead of fighting for it like a man.

    2. That women also defending an accused rapist. Several in fact. In fact she’s actually deliberately worked to destroy the reputation of a *minor* in pursuit of getting an accused rapist client off the hook.

    1. ” That women also defending an accused rapist.”

      That woman is a lawyer. They defend people against worse charges than rape.

  44. The Future Is Female.

    The future can nag the paint off the walls?

    And She’s Furious.

    But is she fast and loose?

  45. Contra others I think this is all political posturing. The belief that women should have the same opportunities as men – and be judged the same – is so widespread there effectively isn’t anyone to fight against. But the institutions of feminism aren’t going to declare victory any go home any more than the March of Dimes did when Polio was effectively eradicated. They’ve built a powerful tool and they are going to find a use for it, and also what would those excellent tool wielders do for a living, learn to code?

    They invent offenses because reality doesn’t justify their movement any longer. And they will continue to do so because the alternative – getting a productive job – is mush harder than writing about how people you hate suck.

    1. Like Socialism, Feminism will implode in on itself.

      Women will get tired of being lonely cat ladies and have an attitude adjustment.

      1. Next president of the USA could well be a feminist AND a socialist. I will then adjust my attitude.

        1. Not in 2020.

          1. As you wish. I can always wait a year before I adjust my attitude.

  46. Holy crap! I couldn’t even read all of this. It’s ridiculous to dissect a few unhappy women’s anger as though it matters. They just want everyone else to be as unhappy as they are.

    You wanna know how to succeed at school, business and in relationships even if (or especially if) you’re a woman? Don’t be angry all the time! Just don’t. Instead, put in the thought and work that leads toward success.

  47. It’s o.k. for a woman to be angry. It’s o.k. for groups of women to be angry.

    On the whole, women are less angry than men even in these times.

    OK- Now create some straw man statements that I haven’t made and rail away against them.

    If you are too afraid to approach women any more and they are all against you, just move to Thailand to marry a submissive woman or buy some porn and blow-up dolls. Sex is you need women for anyway. All those angry unreasonable stupid women will be sorry that you aren’t around any more.

    Or, they might not notice.

    1. Pussy.

    2. Its ok for men to ask women for sex.

      Its okay for men to have sex with women.

      Its okay for men to fight back with women.

      Its okay for men to call women bitches and cunts.

      Its ok for men to be in charge.

      Its okay for men to seek sex from prostitutes.

      Its ok for men to tell dirty jokes.

  48. If Feminism wants to have a future it really needs to stop paying attention to people who are miserable human beings. But that runs entirely counter to the victimhood olympics that is critical theory.

    Sorry Cathy, you are (metaphorically speaking) screwed. I mean, in four decades nobody has said anything better (or less bourgouisie) than Irma fucking Bombeck.

  49. I thought I was reading an article in Reason but I must have clicked over the Jordan Peterson fan club. While you’re watching all of the Peterson videos about women, watch one or two on how to tell an ideologue and why it’s not good to be one.

    1. Why? Because people don’t irrationally believe in a false equality that doesn’t exist? An equality that is scientifically proven to not exist?

      1. I didn’t say I didn’t agree. I pointed out that you’re all behaving like thoughtless ideologues.

        1. Meh? I always try to have real conversations with people. I offer facts and logic that back up WHY I believe what I believe. If they have counter arguments, I will either accept them, or refute them as seems appropriate. I don’t see what more one can do if you want to have a real dialogue.

          When you’re correct about something, and people keep bringing long proven false arguments against you, what else is there to do? I’m not going to go “Well, I know I said the sun is yellow, and you think it’s green… So I guess I’ll just agree that the sun is green to be an agreeable person!”

  50. People (men, women, whatever made-up gender you want to cook up) will be as irrational as they can afford to be. I don’t think it’s anything inherent to women, per se. It’s simply a matter that women, by and large, can afford to be irrational. Men will, usually and for the most part, shield them from the consequences of their irrationality. So, they have no particular incentive to abandon it. Irrationality is fun. It promises you instant gratification of your desires. It’s absurd to say, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too” if, in fact, someone will replace your cake after you’ve eaten it.

    Ms. Brown degraded and humiliated her husband. And went on to brag about it in a national forum. I might consider the behavior irrational. But, is it? She got whatever thrill it is bullies get from pushing others around and what downside has she seen? Did he leave her? Is she no longer accepted in polite company? From the sound of it, he took the abuse and even legitimized it.

    1. In America, women are paid some 70c for each dollar a man is paid. This seems to stem from their capacity to bear and raise children rather than their irrationality, or inability to defer gratification.

      1. And yet many seem to be protesting the “injustice” that their life decisions have an adverse effect on their earning capacity. And this strikes you as the height of rationality?

        1. “And this strikes you as the height of rationality?”

          Sure.I want you to look at this with a longer perspective. Any society that disincentives women from having children, fulfilling their role as god intended, is eventually going to run into trouble. If anything, society should reward, not punish, women who bear and raise children.

          1. Any society that disincentives men from being fully involved fathers and loving husbands is just as unsustainable. It seems to me that men having been shirking that responsibility since before feminism. I would suggest that feminism is the result of the mind set that somehow men can work a 9-5 and that’s their main responsibility.

          2. But you cannot pay somebody more than they’re worth… And by bearing children, women make themselves worth less. Not that that is a bad thing. It’s simply reality.

            It’s kind of like how you might not be able to pay somebody with only 1 arm as much money as somebody with 2, because they’re not as efficient. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t work, but that they need to accept the fact that they’re not as productive.

            In other words there’s nothing WRONG with women making less because they have to bear children… Things go wrong when they irrationally expect to be paid the same as people who get more work done, and end up having more work experience than them. We just need to accept that reality is what it is, and it’s OKAY the way it is.

            1. “But you cannot pay somebody more than they’re worth…”

              What’s the future of society worth to you? If it’s worth nothing then policies that punish those who bear and raise children are perfectly reasonable.

              1. Well, we dealt with it just fine in the past didn’t we?

                Nobody ever had problems having children. I think it’s more the anti having kids brain washing than anything.

                But even if we decided it was an ABSOLUTE emergency situation and we HAD to convince as many women as possible to have kids… It wouldn’t make sense to put that burden directly onto employers on a woman by woman they hired basis. That incentivizes them to NOT hire women, as they will cost them enormous amounts of money vs hiring a man.

                If THAT were the case, it should probably be done through the government and the tax system or something, so that the cost is “socialized,” which would NOT create a disincentive for businesses to hire women.

                As a libertarian I obviously don’t like that idea. I think people just need to get their heads out of their asses, and realize all this single/no kids til you die stuff is not really the best way to live a meaningful life.

      2. This seems to stem from their capacity to bear and raise children rather than their irrationality, or inability to defer gratification.

        You’re not wrong that it might seem this way.

        1. I think it certainly seems this way.

      3. “women are paid some 70c for each dollar a man is paid”

        Almost entirely a result of voluntary life choices, not societal sexism. All reliable data show the gender gap to be BS.

        1. “Almost entirely a result of voluntary life choices, not societal sexism.”

          I’d agree if the wages of both men and women were cut after they voluntarily bring a child into this world. In fact this is seen with the wages of women, not men.

          1. I’d agree if the wages of both men and women were cut after they voluntarily bring a child into this world. In fact this is seen with the wages of women, not men.

            When men voluntarily take several years off to raise children, it happens to them too.

            1. Do you think disincentivizing men or women from caring for children is a good idea?

              1. Incentivizing women to not work but have kids is not working either.

                1. “Incentivizing women to not work but have kids is not working either.”

                  Having kids is work. Unpaid, but work nevertheless.

            2. Parents have ALWAYS had to sacrifice other goals to have children dude!

              It can’t be any other way. It is something that just needs to be accepted as how reality works.

              It’s kinda like how parents accept they can’t go out to the bar 5 nights a week once they have kids, even if they were total party people… You also need to accept there will be minor career costs.

              Also, the 70 cents on the dollar thing is bullshit. That doesn’t take into account the type of job, years on the job, ANYTHING. If you look at stats adjusted for reasonable variables the gap goes down to a couple percent to maybe 5% depending on the study.

              1. “Parents have ALWAYS had to sacrifice other goals to have children dude!”

                Because they are parents and responsible for the care of their children. My point is that society has disincentivized people from becoming parents.

                “Also, the 70 cents on the dollar thing is bullshit. That doesn’t take into account the type of job”

                Women and men typically work in different types of jobs. If you work on Wall street trading shares, you’re probably a man. If you clean up after children in a day care, you are a woman. Why pretend that these jobs pay the same?

                1. My point was that people were disincentivized back in the day JUST as much as they are now. Probably more actually, since everybody was so much closer to starving to death back in the day. Back then having an extra kid might mean starving… Whereas now it means you have to keep your new car for an extra 2 years in between trade in cycles.

                  It’s peoples mindsets more than anything. People are too “selfish” in their materialism to give up that brand new car, for the joy of parenthood. Or so the statistics show. Throwing money at it might help some, but it’s not the root problem.

                  As for pay… I don’t even know what you mean. Women don’t CHOOSE to do high paying jobs as often as men. How is that a problem if it is willingly chosen? They prefer flexibility, time off, etc, which is fine.

                  Discussing the pay gap sans adjustments for doing the same work is a non starter as an argument. It’s basically arguing that women should become welders and garbage men instead of daycare workers, because those jobs pay better… Even though they don’t want to. The same is true for working on Wall Street. Apparently most smart women would still rather be a $150K a year doctor than a $300K a year trader. That’s nobodies fault, it just is.

                  To force them to do jobs that make them unhappy seems a far worse way to do things…

      4. Except there IS evidence that women have less ability to defer gratification. If you adjust for income, women tend to save and invest less, and have lower net worths…

        They also work fewer hours, take more vacations, more sick days, etc. Data is a bitch.

        1. A man and a woman have a child..The man’s income doesn’t suffer, but the woman’s does. This has nothing to do with her taking more vacations.

          1. That’s not really what data I have seen before shows… Women tend to take time off work after having the kid. Which is reasonable, but a downside. The dad tends to not.

            The woman MAY even take years out of her career while the child is a baby. Which is a great idea for the child actually. The dad does not.

            Even if working, the mother tends to take days off to take the kid to the doctor, etc. The dad does not.

            This is what the fine grained data I have seen has shown. Maybe there is a 5% or so pay gap after ALL factors like the above are accounted for, I have seen studies that showed as much… But it’s a far cry from 30%, and one could almost just call it a general flakiness adjustment on top of direct effects from things like the above.

            The world is not a utopia. I don’t know how one expects a business to pay somebody who takes years off at a time, more sick days, vacations, etc the same as someone who doesn’t.

  51. Rage Feminism.

    How adorable

    There is a thing that women–and yes, sweethearts, I AM mansplaining,- that women, at least those in the West, need to understand.

    Feminism is an indulgence.

    You are allowed to be feminists, to pretend at ‘equality’, here in the West. Men protect you and allow this type of play to you.

    But the rest of the world should be a warning–since it’s clearly not a clue–for all of you.

    Feminist Rage–pshaw! A group of teenage boys could clear out a nest of feminists with miniscule effort. And they DO, outside the West.

    Here, behind a wall of men holding guns, women flourish. They write, they learn, they live lives of human dignity. As that wall frays, women move back toward more traditional places.

    They don’t need to be told, it just happens. Pretty much the entirety of the female muslim population fights stridently for the right to be men’s chattel–and fight against those who would liberate them. ‘My hijab/burkha/niqab is a choice!’ they cry as they are stoned to death for the crime of letting a man glimpse their uncovered face as a gust of wind blew their veil aside.

    You need to understand this. All of you.

    Because, if you succeed in destroying that wall that keeps you safe, your fate will depend on what use you can be to a man.

    1. ^ TRUTH

      The feminists know it too. That’s why they won’t go and protest about women’s lack of rights in Islamic and African countries. They know they’d be summarily raped and murdered and/or captured and sold as sex slaves.

  52. “The storm of sexual assault allegations that nearly derailed Kavanaugh’s confirmation was just the latest reported conflagration of female fury.”

    Could someone please parse this sentence. Grammatically it’s a mess. A “storm” was a “conflagration.”

    It’s, sort of, poetic. But does it convey anything of actual meaning? Other than the implication that women are so ???what exactly??? as to become furious over the appearance of mere allegations.

    If that sentence says anything then whatever it says is not good.

  53. Who knew women were so fucked up…and long winded….

  54. “For example, several studies of employee performance reviews, most recently by Harvard researcher Paola Cecchi Dimeglio, have found that women tend to get less constructive feedback and more personal criticism, especially for being “too aggressive.””

    I’d like to know how they controlled for this. Perhaps women in the workplace are on average more “aggressive” than men in the workplace. We already know that far more women choose to stay with home and child than men. Perhaps the self-selecting group of those who enter the workplace are by and large more aggressive in general. Or have to be in order to get ahead. who knows?

  55. Remember this kind of radical man-hating rage feminism is NOT the norm. They are just very vocal about it. Even huffpo writes about how most women (80%) do not identify as feminist

    link here: feminism poll

    Men and women get along great and have for thousands of years. Most women LIKE the men in their lives, enjoy their qualities and value them for what they are. And vice versa. A few malcontents don’t change that. I would be very wary of equating a stupid rage feminists like Ms. Brown with ALL women American women. She is not representative. Don’t collectivize women based on this crazy person. It’s just as unfair as being collectivized as men because of a couple psycho mass shooters. . It’s just wrong.

    1. Propaganda from the media. Big surprise.

  56. If the future is the angry feminist female for whom the most important thing in life is her absolute right to kill her own children then forget climate change, it is all over.

  57. Feminists need to put their money where their front hole is and give up all those sweet taxpayer dollars paid for mostly by men (especially married men, who typically earn much more than single men in order to care for their wives and children–how toxic of them to support a woman and child(ren)!)

  58. Look on the bright side. We now have two sitting Justices who are direct victims of malicious false accusations of sexual misconduct, and the left is ready to hand us plenty more like them as soon as Trump makes more nominations.

    The #MeToo agenda is about to hit the Wall.

  59. Well, I am old enough I won’t have to live in the hell of a female utopia.

  60. #Fuckyou

  61. We need to criminalize abortion.

  62. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work -online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by -sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link?

    Try it, you won’t regret it!??? http://www.Mesalary.com

  63. Rage on Leftist idiots. There are lots of attractive, intelligent and sane women out there for masculine men. Pay no attention to these Leftist harpies screaming at their beta-male cum stains.

  64. This appalling article attempts in some ways to justify the use of rage in social relations between the sexes, cloaked in the language of feminism and womens’ studies. Let’s reduce this behaviour to the lowest common denominator. We are listening to the ranting of spoiled brats, who demand to have their own way. Public rudeness of this sort should never be tolerated. These people are third graders who have been continually allowed to act out in such unacceptable ways, that their twisted attempts at academic logic should simply be dismissed. My question is where were their parents when they were growing up? Their problems with self-control should have been dealt with by the judicious regular use of a hairbrush on their bare bottoms. That being said, we now get to enjoy similar outbursts from newly minted members of the U.S. Congress.

  65. “No one quite lies the way the morally indignant do! ”
    ~ Nietzsche

  66. Since when is rage a good thing? Damien Root was enraged. Anger begits anger. Fortunately, most women have better things to do that waste their time hating men.

  67. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom
    in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there
    pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than
    twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment
    and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…. http://www.briskgold.com

  68. It’s almost as if women expect to go on these rampages and attack the so called Patriarchy (I have yet to hear what it will be replaced with) but then return home to the husband and the kids and all those emotional strings tugging away at them.

    That’s not going to happen ladies. Women thru misguided laws have already made the country a hazardous and unfriendly place for men in many ways and many places. So far the majority of the country (us normals) aren’t affected all that much so the country keeps plodding along but eventually somebody’s going to pull the wrong string and the entire edifice will collapse and the women who caused it will be standing around trying to avoid the blame and certainly won’t know how or what to fix.

    Feel free to tear down what you don’t understand or have misidentified the problem. But don’t come complaining to men when you find out what you’ve done will permanently alter the society and not to the better.

    1. They already have probably permanently screwed things up. The part I like best is that female happiness has gone down steadily over the last few decades, while male happiness has remained the same. LOL

      There was a lot to be said for grandmas wisdom of “They won’t buy the cow if they can get the milk for free.” This is exactly what a lot of modern social changes have accomplished for women. They’re now disposable sex machines, which men are fairly okay with. More okay with it than women at least according to studies.

      But yeah, things can still get a hell of a lot worse. We’ll see how it all goes.

  69. It used to be understood, and acknowledged, even by women, that women are emotionally unstable and volatile for many biological reasons, and that they often act irrationality and need to be allowed to vent or cry or whatever until they return to sanity. The fact that it is now considered “politically incorrect” to acknowledge that reality is one more way in which the cultural left is based around fiction and fantasy. We have to pretend reality isn’t what it is in order to make mentally and emotionally disturbed people feel better about themselves.

    1. Yo. My mom was like this. And one of my long term girlfriends was REALLY bad too. On several occasions I straight up told her “I’m not going to engage with or react to this. You’re just acting crazy because you’re having your period. We can talk about it in few days.” Which she of course screamed and yelled at me over at the time… A couple days later came the apology and the you were right.

      I just don’t play by this politically correct bullshit game anymore. I refuse to do it. If some Progs don’t like me because of that, fuck ’em. We must be the change we want to see. If we ever want reality to creep back into the real world, we must just speak the truth, and deal with the consequences in the mean time. If we don’t, then things will just get worse and worse.

  70. These feminist writers are a-dwork-able…

  71. Anger at men does not have to translate into a compulsion to change them. Overcoming systemic bias with revolutionary change makes sense, but throwing tantrums until men behave the way women want them to is not revolutionary and will not change anyone. These calls to action are like Aristophanes’ Lysistrata, without the humor. Women can be free of men. Women do not need men to reproduce. Men can be avoided. To the extent women must interact with men in the workplace they have civil rights laws to protect them from discriminatory treatment. There are women lawyers to consult in this field. Women doctors can artificially inseminate women and women can deliver raise teach and coach their babies into people who respect women and who have experience of little else. If women want to have relationships with men they must never tolerate violence but must understand that relationships involve compromise. Outside of that, men are irrelevant to women’s happiness and not worthy of all this fuss.

  72. Stay angry if you want, but just stay the f*ck away from me…

  73. Marriage is dead. Gentlemen, do not get married. It is a legal farce that is used to take a man to the cleaners. Do not have children. There are enough people in the world already.

  74. Thanks for proving this information………………….if any one like prom dresses check out Jovani Prom Dresses 2019 collection.

  75. Yes future is female but Women do not need men to reproduce. Men can be avoided. To the extent women must interact with men in the workplace they have civil rights laws to protect them from discriminatory treatment.

  76. “Women do not need men to reproduce. Men can be avoided” This can’t scientifically been done still know !

    Hichem Mahmoud
    Chirurgien esth?tique maxillo-facial

  77. Boadicea was an angry queen of the Icenii who claimed that Roman officers raped her and her sisters. Her revenge was to go on quite a spree of killing, burning, and looting. Then her combined armies of wild British tribesmen ran headlong into a Roman legion about one-fourth their number marching down the road to Londinium (which was still burning.)

    Roman troops were professionals (the first army in the world with a pension system based on written service records) and their specialty was butchering barbarian hordes, no matter how fearsomely they dressed or what type of exotic weapons they flouted. Boadicea ended up a suicide.

  78. Anger can be productive, usually as an impetus for short-term action. But rage feminism is a path of fear and hate. It traps women in victimhood and bitterness. It demonizes men, even turning empathy for a male into a fault, and dismisses dissenting women as man-pleasing collaborators. It short-circuits important conversation on gender issues.

    1. The headlong progress of genetics and evolutionary genetics forces an intellectual appreciation of how and why male and female are distinctly different from the ground up, always have been, always will be. Our concept of absolute equality is based on spiritual equality from our religious heritage. The claim of mental or physical identicalness is absurd. The idea that unhappy individuals become another gender because they fancy they identify with it and adopt certain behavioral, cosmetic, and surgical/hormonal medication changes, well, that’s just, interesting. It is also interesting that they demand everyone they encounter honor these superficial changes they have made to themselves, or else! We even must use the pronouns they demand!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.