Based Chad
Was it me?
Only about the internationalist fascist takeover of the world.
Uppity Wimmen
- Thread starter Canceled.LTroll.28
- Start date
Only about the internationalist fascist takeover of the world.
evince
Truthmatters
And all those women who fail to see the wonderful gifts you have to offer them huh?
Based Chad
Was it me?
Based Chad
Was it me?
Based Chad
Was it me?
I think you probably just have a crosswise fart.
Based Chad
Was it me?
You're clueless about my life, so take your Mrs. Dr. Phil bullshit and insults and shove them in your skankbox.
Based Chad
Was it me?
Women Manipulate Men
Men's brains are designed to spend their time figuring out how to get objects in the environment to do their bidding.
Women's brains are designed to spend their time figuring out how to get **men** to do their bidding.
Men manipulate the environment. Women manipulate men.
This is why, for example, men devote so much of their time to fiddling around with gadgets, solving problems and playing games, whereas women spend much of their time and money altering the way that they look and 'chatting about relationships'.
This is, of course, a sweeping generalisation. But from my own observations, it is a pretty good one!
Indeed, within 48 hours of being born, female babies are more likely to spend their time gawping at human faces while male babies tend to be attracted by just about everything else.
Even baby chimps prefer toys more appropriate for their gender.
And you cannot blame the 'patriarchy' for that!
Most men would be staggered if they understood the lengths to which women normally go in order to manipulate them. But they seem to be completely blind to it.
And the reason is that, for the most part, men are just not operating in the same realm.
And this, for example, explains why women are apt to get so uptight and make false accusations against men (e.g. 'date rape') when the relationship does not go according to their plan the following day. (They see such a thing as a 'failure to manipulate the man successfully' and this goes right to the very core of their egos.) Whereas the men involved in such situations were usually not thinking about 'relationships' at all!
And **one** of the reasons that we are facing so many problems here in the west is that feminism and political correctness have hidden from view the truly manipulative natures of women.
Indeed, if you look closely at the details surrounding much of the inter-gender disharmony that takes place these days (e.g. domestic violence) you will usually see therein a woman who failed to get what she wanted out of the man involved - rather than the other way round.
For example, he whacks her not so much because he wants to control her, or because he wants to achieve something, but because she persists in going on and on and on and on about something that she wants. And in doing so, she is well-trained in the art of using the verbal knife in order to hurt him and to drive him crazy.
Indeed, if you study the court cases, it transpires that many men have killed their partners because they could no longer stand the sound of "her voice going on and on and on".
50 years ago, if a man slapped his wife, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN were usually of the view that she deserved it in some way. And the reason that they usually thought this was because they **knew** how easy it was for women to manipulate men and they also **knew** how hard it was to provoke normal men into assaulting women - particularly their loved ones.
In fact, most societies - and religions - seem to have been aware of this for thousands of years. (Remember the ducking stool!)
In the west, however, the astonishing ability that women have to manipulate men has been hidden from view. And so when there is some kind of inter-gender conflict taking place, the only focus is on the behavioural actions of the men involved. The women are purposely portrayed as passive dummies who are completely innocent. And yet nothing could be further from the truth.
When a man is watching a football match, he sees strategies, angles, tactics, formations, combinations etc to do with the game. A woman sees a group of men wasting their time, pointlessly kicking a spherical object around a field.
When a woman is watching a soap opera, however, she sees strategies, angles, tactics, formations, combinations etc to do with the manipulation of relationships. A man simply sees a story unfolding.
It is fundamental gender differences such as this that feminists and political correctoids have managed to hide to the detriment of us all.
...
Wives make decision upon high
The attitudes of wives is a key factor in whether or not their husbands smoke marijuana, a US study has found.
Research by the University of Buffalo found men were more likely start or resume smoking cannabis in the first year of marriage if their wives smoked. They were more likely to quit in this time if their wives did not share their fondness for it.
Men did not influence their wives' marijuana use but were more likely to determine the couple's drinking habits - at least for the first year. But by the second year, women were back in control.
Kenneth Leonard and Gregory Homish, from the university's addiction research unit, looked at 634 couples and gathered information before marriage, at their first anniversary and a year later.
"Wives influenced their husbands' initiation of marijuana use, but husbands did not influence wives' use," Dr Leonard said.
...
One of the most interesting observations often made by stand-up comedians is that, apparently, if you want to make an audience laugh, then you must make the women laugh. If you have successfully amused the women, then the men will be amused too!
The converse, however, does not apply, and so canny comedians know that to win over an audience then you must win over the women.
The above article concerning drug abuse also demonstrates just how influential are women over the attitudes and behaviours of men and, hence, over society. And, as such, it helps to expose the ubiquitous feminist lie that women have been mostly mistreated in the past by men and that they have been 'powerless'.
Indeed, as my regular readers will know, whenever I have looked closely at different times and cultures (through a decidedly non-expert eye) it always seems to me that men have been far more badly treated than women regardless of when and where they might have existed!
So much so does this appear to be true that I cannot help feeling that there must be some kind of relatively simple biological/evolutionary 'law' - that is applicable to human psychology - that prevents any other possibility - given the circumstances in which human evolution has taken place.
And in the piece Were Women Oppressed in the West? I tried to explain perhaps part of the process that might be involved in the psychological applications of such a 'law'. ...
Here is a somewhat silly and oversimplified example.
Imagine two competing social groups, the Oppressors and the Equalitarians. Each group consists of 100 people, 50 men and 50 women.
In the Equalitarian group, everyone feels that they are being treated well and they are happy. In the Oppressor group, the 50 men treat their 50 women in a manner which displeases them.
Surely it is the case that when these groups mingle, fight, or interact in any way (even if only through the exchange of ideas) the 50 men in the Oppressor group will be opposed by 150 others!
The odds are therefore continuously very heavily stacked against any male oppressors of women.
And the only way that the men of any Oppressor group could avoid being deposed is by isolating their group from any Equalitarian group.
And if you also accept that, by and large, women are very adept at manipulating men, then you can perhaps imagine just how huge - throughout History - will have been the forces stacked against any form of 'oppression' against women.
And I would also hazard a guess that - throughout History - women will have judged 'how badly they are being treated' by comparing their treatment with those of the men who lived around them.
And if they had ever determined that they were being treated rather shabbily in comparison to the men who lived around them, then they would have used their huge psychological power - both collectively and as individuals - to ensure that such a situation would not prevail for very long!
In other words, I doubt very much that women have ever been treated worse than men throughout most places and times. Indeed, the evidence seems to show quite conclusively that it is men who have been mistreated the most.
Finally, it is surely worth pointing out that if women are the primary arbiters of what men may be permitted to laugh about, then they surely perform the very same function when it comes to what men may be permitted to cry about.
After all, the emotions relating to laughing and crying are inextricably bound up with each other.
And if women are, indeed, the determiners of what society cries about, then this means that they also determine what people should be concerned about - which means, of course, that they exert a great deal of control over what actually takes place in a society.
And what we have seen over the past century in the west is women not only exerting their huge psychological power in order to bend society to their will but also colluding with both government and business to exert an even greater force.
Both collectively and individually, women are not the hapless victims that they so often portray themselves to be. And, in my view, it is men who are - and have been - mostly in need of liberating from 'oppression'; not women.
...
Also see AH's Women and Chimps to gain an insight into how men and women got to be the way they are.
http://www.angryharry.com/esWomenManipulateMen.htm
Men's brains are designed to spend their time figuring out how to get objects in the environment to do their bidding.
Women's brains are designed to spend their time figuring out how to get **men** to do their bidding.
Men manipulate the environment. Women manipulate men.
This is why, for example, men devote so much of their time to fiddling around with gadgets, solving problems and playing games, whereas women spend much of their time and money altering the way that they look and 'chatting about relationships'.
This is, of course, a sweeping generalisation. But from my own observations, it is a pretty good one!
Indeed, within 48 hours of being born, female babies are more likely to spend their time gawping at human faces while male babies tend to be attracted by just about everything else.
Even baby chimps prefer toys more appropriate for their gender.
And you cannot blame the 'patriarchy' for that!
Most men would be staggered if they understood the lengths to which women normally go in order to manipulate them. But they seem to be completely blind to it.
And the reason is that, for the most part, men are just not operating in the same realm.
And this, for example, explains why women are apt to get so uptight and make false accusations against men (e.g. 'date rape') when the relationship does not go according to their plan the following day. (They see such a thing as a 'failure to manipulate the man successfully' and this goes right to the very core of their egos.) Whereas the men involved in such situations were usually not thinking about 'relationships' at all!
And **one** of the reasons that we are facing so many problems here in the west is that feminism and political correctness have hidden from view the truly manipulative natures of women.
Indeed, if you look closely at the details surrounding much of the inter-gender disharmony that takes place these days (e.g. domestic violence) you will usually see therein a woman who failed to get what she wanted out of the man involved - rather than the other way round.
For example, he whacks her not so much because he wants to control her, or because he wants to achieve something, but because she persists in going on and on and on and on about something that she wants. And in doing so, she is well-trained in the art of using the verbal knife in order to hurt him and to drive him crazy.
Indeed, if you study the court cases, it transpires that many men have killed their partners because they could no longer stand the sound of "her voice going on and on and on".
50 years ago, if a man slapped his wife, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN were usually of the view that she deserved it in some way. And the reason that they usually thought this was because they **knew** how easy it was for women to manipulate men and they also **knew** how hard it was to provoke normal men into assaulting women - particularly their loved ones.
In fact, most societies - and religions - seem to have been aware of this for thousands of years. (Remember the ducking stool!)
In the west, however, the astonishing ability that women have to manipulate men has been hidden from view. And so when there is some kind of inter-gender conflict taking place, the only focus is on the behavioural actions of the men involved. The women are purposely portrayed as passive dummies who are completely innocent. And yet nothing could be further from the truth.
When a man is watching a football match, he sees strategies, angles, tactics, formations, combinations etc to do with the game. A woman sees a group of men wasting their time, pointlessly kicking a spherical object around a field.
When a woman is watching a soap opera, however, she sees strategies, angles, tactics, formations, combinations etc to do with the manipulation of relationships. A man simply sees a story unfolding.
It is fundamental gender differences such as this that feminists and political correctoids have managed to hide to the detriment of us all.
...
Wives make decision upon high
The attitudes of wives is a key factor in whether or not their husbands smoke marijuana, a US study has found.
Research by the University of Buffalo found men were more likely start or resume smoking cannabis in the first year of marriage if their wives smoked. They were more likely to quit in this time if their wives did not share their fondness for it.
Men did not influence their wives' marijuana use but were more likely to determine the couple's drinking habits - at least for the first year. But by the second year, women were back in control.
Kenneth Leonard and Gregory Homish, from the university's addiction research unit, looked at 634 couples and gathered information before marriage, at their first anniversary and a year later.
"Wives influenced their husbands' initiation of marijuana use, but husbands did not influence wives' use," Dr Leonard said.
...
One of the most interesting observations often made by stand-up comedians is that, apparently, if you want to make an audience laugh, then you must make the women laugh. If you have successfully amused the women, then the men will be amused too!
The converse, however, does not apply, and so canny comedians know that to win over an audience then you must win over the women.
The above article concerning drug abuse also demonstrates just how influential are women over the attitudes and behaviours of men and, hence, over society. And, as such, it helps to expose the ubiquitous feminist lie that women have been mostly mistreated in the past by men and that they have been 'powerless'.
Indeed, as my regular readers will know, whenever I have looked closely at different times and cultures (through a decidedly non-expert eye) it always seems to me that men have been far more badly treated than women regardless of when and where they might have existed!
So much so does this appear to be true that I cannot help feeling that there must be some kind of relatively simple biological/evolutionary 'law' - that is applicable to human psychology - that prevents any other possibility - given the circumstances in which human evolution has taken place.
And in the piece Were Women Oppressed in the West? I tried to explain perhaps part of the process that might be involved in the psychological applications of such a 'law'. ...
Here is a somewhat silly and oversimplified example.
Imagine two competing social groups, the Oppressors and the Equalitarians. Each group consists of 100 people, 50 men and 50 women.
In the Equalitarian group, everyone feels that they are being treated well and they are happy. In the Oppressor group, the 50 men treat their 50 women in a manner which displeases them.
Surely it is the case that when these groups mingle, fight, or interact in any way (even if only through the exchange of ideas) the 50 men in the Oppressor group will be opposed by 150 others!
The odds are therefore continuously very heavily stacked against any male oppressors of women.
And the only way that the men of any Oppressor group could avoid being deposed is by isolating their group from any Equalitarian group.
And if you also accept that, by and large, women are very adept at manipulating men, then you can perhaps imagine just how huge - throughout History - will have been the forces stacked against any form of 'oppression' against women.
And I would also hazard a guess that - throughout History - women will have judged 'how badly they are being treated' by comparing their treatment with those of the men who lived around them.
And if they had ever determined that they were being treated rather shabbily in comparison to the men who lived around them, then they would have used their huge psychological power - both collectively and as individuals - to ensure that such a situation would not prevail for very long!
In other words, I doubt very much that women have ever been treated worse than men throughout most places and times. Indeed, the evidence seems to show quite conclusively that it is men who have been mistreated the most.
Finally, it is surely worth pointing out that if women are the primary arbiters of what men may be permitted to laugh about, then they surely perform the very same function when it comes to what men may be permitted to cry about.
After all, the emotions relating to laughing and crying are inextricably bound up with each other.
And if women are, indeed, the determiners of what society cries about, then this means that they also determine what people should be concerned about - which means, of course, that they exert a great deal of control over what actually takes place in a society.
And what we have seen over the past century in the west is women not only exerting their huge psychological power in order to bend society to their will but also colluding with both government and business to exert an even greater force.
Both collectively and individually, women are not the hapless victims that they so often portray themselves to be. And, in my view, it is men who are - and have been - mostly in need of liberating from 'oppression'; not women.
...
Also see AH's Women and Chimps to gain an insight into how men and women got to be the way they are.
http://www.angryharry.com/esWomenManipulateMen.htm
Based Chad
Was it me?
The Methods of Women
Feminine traits are called weaknesses. People joke about them; fools ridicule them; but reasonable persons see very well that those traits are just the tools for the management of men, and for the use of men for female designs
Immanuel Kant
.... Looking into "the battle of the sexes" we find that men are naturally inclined to use direct physical force. Women, we see, tend to use indirect physical force, which usually involves getting a man, or men - privately or through a state apparatus, to use physical force against other men. Rousseau, in "Emile" writes that while man has physical strength on his side "Woman, weak as she is and limited in her range of observation, perceives and judges the forces at her disposal to supplement her weakness, and those forces are the passions of man. Her own mechanism is more powerful than ours; she has many levers which may set the human heart in motion. She must find a way to make us desire what she cannot achieve unaided and what she considers to be necessary or pleasing; therefore she must have a thorough knowledge of man's mind .. she must learn to divine their feelings from speech and action, look and gesture. By her own speech and action, look and gesture, she must be able to inspire them with the feelings she desires, without seeming to have any such purpose." In other words, her power lies in the emotional control which she skillfully and subtly employs.
As our rational faculty gives us our abstract concept of justice, a consideration of human emotion and interest in both private and public spheres causes us to seek a "balance of power"; Kant writes; "A harmonious and indissoluble union cannot be achieved through the random combination of two persons. One partner must subject himself to the other, and, alternately, one must be superior to the other in something, so that he can dominate or rule. If two people, who cannot do without each other, have identical ambitions, self-love will produce nothing but wrangling. In the interest of the progress of the culture, one partner must be superior to the other in a heterogeneous way. The man must be superior to the woman in respect to his physical strength and courage, while the woman must be superior to the man in respect to her natural talent for mastering his desire for her." The close proximity of individuals creates the need for a symbiotic relationship; the poor state of marital relations in this country has been caused by the balance of power being upset in favor of women.
The chief passions that women control begin with sex and expand into sexual love. A strong state of sexual arousal causes the conscious faculties of men to be shunted off - to be literally brainwashed, leaving the void to be filled by manipulative women. The mere anticipation of intercourse produces a tension and craving that has been compared to drug addiction, draining the wealth of men and putting it in the hands of women. Love also causes a lack of consciousness and control in men, however, while sex causes men to be controlled by women as group, love tends to be restricted to a single individual, for it arose as human society evolved into more monogamous behavior. The growth in sexual stimulation in our society accompanied by a loss of love among men and women is regressive and reminiscent of the primitive matriarchies of old when "men did not know their fathers."
Closely tied to emotional control we see the behavior described as "guile," "cunning," or "deceit." Unlike rational persuasion which operates by uncovering truth to the listener, deceit operates in reverse manner by covering up or circumventing the truth so that the listener will act according to false information that serves the interests of the deceiver. Another category, consisting of verbal harassment or "nagging" or "hen-pecking" is applied over a period of time to wear a person down. A physical analogy can be read in Proverbs 27:15; "A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike." Similarly, in Chinese water torture, we see the steady dripping of water on the eye, the harm though is from the psychological effect, like that which Delilah worked on Samson; "she pressed him daily with her words, and urged him, so that his soul was vexed unto death" (Judges 16:16.) Next, there is the appeal to the ego; "With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him. He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks" (Prov. 7:21-2.) Taking our lesson from the woman above, it should be noted that these various emotional methods are often naturally interrelated and can therefore be used simultaneously or applied sequentially until a successful method is reached. A woman may first attempt to seduce, flatter, or deceive, and if these fail, she may browbeat and threaten, and finally, if all else fails - "she disarms him with her tears of exasperation" (Kant); this sympathetic appeal almost always succeeds.
Another psychological method which can include any of the methods above or stand alone is what may simply be called persuasion. Women can be seen everywhere employing this method on their husbands and boyfriends, and frankly, on anyone's ear they can grab a hold of; anything that benefits women; any book, film, article; any topic, social cause, or politician, is said to "Wonderful," or some other positive expression, complete with a glowing intonation of the voice; anything that doesn't serve the interests of women is ignored or attached with a negative description in an icy cold, angry, or otherwise negative tone of voice. All that is left for a man to do is to walk into a voting booth and to do as he has been commanded - or manipulated, and this is called "Democracy." The media, with its twists, spins, fabrications, and seductions - its propaganda and mind control, is largely a projection of feminine behavior into the public sphere. You can understand now why Aristotle said "When the demagogues take over democracy is an illusion" and "What difference does it make if the women are the rulers or if the women rule over the rulers. The results are the same." Solon, the great law giver of ancient Athens recognized this type of control and made anything men did under the influence of their wives to be void under the law. Incredibilly, in America, women have been exonerated for being under a "Svengali" influence, but no man is found innocent by virtue of being under an "Eve," "Delilah," or "Jezebel" influence.
Persuasion and deceit are not only accomplished with words but with false attitudes, body language, clothing, makeup, ad infintatum. One of the main ideas for this is so women can exaggerate or fabricate good qualities and hide bad ones in order to make themselves appear better than they really are, to what end we may see in Kant's example; "By virtue of her sex she maintains a feminine haughtiness in order to restrain all importunities of men through the respect which haughtiness instills; and she claims the privilege of respect even without deserving it" In the the realm of non-verbal communication, he find that male feminist Stendal writing in De L'Amour; "Glances are the big guns of the virtuous coquette; everything can be conveyed in a look, and yet that look can always be denied, because it cannot be quoted word for word." You can see why it is so difficult, with such intangible and deliberately ambiguous methods, to pin blame on a woman .. yes, even a "virtuous" one. Then there is something in between words and looks; "Comte Giraud .. developed an original method of communication, using amputated words which mean everything and yet nothing. He conveys his meaning amply, but you cannot compromise him, however much you quote him verbatim. Cardinal Lante accused him of having stolen this accomplishment from women; and I would say that even the most honest woman knows the trick." When you look at Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton, Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon, and other politicians, you wonder just how many of their ways they have borrowed from women .. yes, even of "the most honest woman."
Moving from purely psychological means into more material ones, we could begin by listing all those household "duties" that women were once required to provide men with; cooking, cleaning, etc. These things, if truly desired by men, and not because a woman persuades him that these are things he wants, are not forceful extractions and can be part of an equal exchange in return for what a man's produces from his outside job. Woman's natural monopoly of child bearing and the current legal system, however, can lead to extortion, for if a man is desirous of children he can only obtain them through the compliance of a woman; hence, he must not only be concerned with meeting her initial terms for marriage, but he must also continuously strive to keep her happy for fear of being divorced and having his children taken away from him. It would seem that in even the most overbearing patriarchy of old, assuming such a thing did exist, a man could not allow his wife to be unhappy without running the risk that her unhappiness would pass on to his children and harm their development. It is both a pity and an injustice that more women do not realize the harm they cause their children by causing them to grow up without a father.
Having addressed those means and methods which women have a natural advantage in, we must add to these the ones they have usurped from men. The majority of wealth in this country belongs to women, most of governmental transfer payments (welfare etc.) go to women and their children, and every day more women surpass their husbands in earnings. Hence, a man's role as provider has been severely compromised and again we see things tending to imitate the matriarchy of old - only worse. Related to this we find more women than men entering college and getting degrees, preparing them to be the main breadwinners for the new matriarchy families. To their superiority in formal knowledge we must add the information learned in conversations along with all the articles, programs, etc. that the media puts out to "educate" women on how to pursue their private interests - as if they needed help. In the political arena, some 53% of the voting population is female, giving them control of law-making, the military, the police - or simply, all forms of institutional violence to which they can direct at men at their whim. Lastly, the latest studies show that women have equaled or even surpassed men in the private use of physical force. This should not be too surprising though, the movies have long depicted women, offended by mere words, being justifiably allowed to slap a man or throw a drink in his face.
The list above is hardly meant to be exhaustive, a set of books the length of an encyclopedia may be needed for that. Indeed, women have so many means at there disposal, so many variations and combinations of methods that it is hard to even conceive of a powerless woman. If one were to reflect rhetorically, it could be said that the average woman has more weapons at her disposal then the combined NATO forces. The real question should be; "What does a man have to counter this?"; his natural means of self defense - physical force, is denied to him by our feminist society. He can not even withhold his earnings because they are considered community property, and if his wife divorces him, she may still take his earnings through alimony and child support.
If it true, as Rousseau writes, that the methods of women are "more powerful" than those of men, and if it is also true that one of the main functions of government is to protect citizens from each other, than we would expect greater restrictions to be placed on women, and that fact to be reflected by more women being sent to prison than men. If restrictions were doled out equally between men and women without regard for whose methods were the most numerous and powerful we would still expect to find, because of their slightly larger numbers, more women in prison than men. Yet, as we have seen, the prison population is 94% male; and as said before, this is not justice - but obscenity.
http://www.angryharry.com/esWomenManipulateMen.htm
Feminine traits are called weaknesses. People joke about them; fools ridicule them; but reasonable persons see very well that those traits are just the tools for the management of men, and for the use of men for female designs
Immanuel Kant
.... Looking into "the battle of the sexes" we find that men are naturally inclined to use direct physical force. Women, we see, tend to use indirect physical force, which usually involves getting a man, or men - privately or through a state apparatus, to use physical force against other men. Rousseau, in "Emile" writes that while man has physical strength on his side "Woman, weak as she is and limited in her range of observation, perceives and judges the forces at her disposal to supplement her weakness, and those forces are the passions of man. Her own mechanism is more powerful than ours; she has many levers which may set the human heart in motion. She must find a way to make us desire what she cannot achieve unaided and what she considers to be necessary or pleasing; therefore she must have a thorough knowledge of man's mind .. she must learn to divine their feelings from speech and action, look and gesture. By her own speech and action, look and gesture, she must be able to inspire them with the feelings she desires, without seeming to have any such purpose." In other words, her power lies in the emotional control which she skillfully and subtly employs.
As our rational faculty gives us our abstract concept of justice, a consideration of human emotion and interest in both private and public spheres causes us to seek a "balance of power"; Kant writes; "A harmonious and indissoluble union cannot be achieved through the random combination of two persons. One partner must subject himself to the other, and, alternately, one must be superior to the other in something, so that he can dominate or rule. If two people, who cannot do without each other, have identical ambitions, self-love will produce nothing but wrangling. In the interest of the progress of the culture, one partner must be superior to the other in a heterogeneous way. The man must be superior to the woman in respect to his physical strength and courage, while the woman must be superior to the man in respect to her natural talent for mastering his desire for her." The close proximity of individuals creates the need for a symbiotic relationship; the poor state of marital relations in this country has been caused by the balance of power being upset in favor of women.
The chief passions that women control begin with sex and expand into sexual love. A strong state of sexual arousal causes the conscious faculties of men to be shunted off - to be literally brainwashed, leaving the void to be filled by manipulative women. The mere anticipation of intercourse produces a tension and craving that has been compared to drug addiction, draining the wealth of men and putting it in the hands of women. Love also causes a lack of consciousness and control in men, however, while sex causes men to be controlled by women as group, love tends to be restricted to a single individual, for it arose as human society evolved into more monogamous behavior. The growth in sexual stimulation in our society accompanied by a loss of love among men and women is regressive and reminiscent of the primitive matriarchies of old when "men did not know their fathers."
Closely tied to emotional control we see the behavior described as "guile," "cunning," or "deceit." Unlike rational persuasion which operates by uncovering truth to the listener, deceit operates in reverse manner by covering up or circumventing the truth so that the listener will act according to false information that serves the interests of the deceiver. Another category, consisting of verbal harassment or "nagging" or "hen-pecking" is applied over a period of time to wear a person down. A physical analogy can be read in Proverbs 27:15; "A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike." Similarly, in Chinese water torture, we see the steady dripping of water on the eye, the harm though is from the psychological effect, like that which Delilah worked on Samson; "she pressed him daily with her words, and urged him, so that his soul was vexed unto death" (Judges 16:16.) Next, there is the appeal to the ego; "With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him. He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks" (Prov. 7:21-2.) Taking our lesson from the woman above, it should be noted that these various emotional methods are often naturally interrelated and can therefore be used simultaneously or applied sequentially until a successful method is reached. A woman may first attempt to seduce, flatter, or deceive, and if these fail, she may browbeat and threaten, and finally, if all else fails - "she disarms him with her tears of exasperation" (Kant); this sympathetic appeal almost always succeeds.
Another psychological method which can include any of the methods above or stand alone is what may simply be called persuasion. Women can be seen everywhere employing this method on their husbands and boyfriends, and frankly, on anyone's ear they can grab a hold of; anything that benefits women; any book, film, article; any topic, social cause, or politician, is said to "Wonderful," or some other positive expression, complete with a glowing intonation of the voice; anything that doesn't serve the interests of women is ignored or attached with a negative description in an icy cold, angry, or otherwise negative tone of voice. All that is left for a man to do is to walk into a voting booth and to do as he has been commanded - or manipulated, and this is called "Democracy." The media, with its twists, spins, fabrications, and seductions - its propaganda and mind control, is largely a projection of feminine behavior into the public sphere. You can understand now why Aristotle said "When the demagogues take over democracy is an illusion" and "What difference does it make if the women are the rulers or if the women rule over the rulers. The results are the same." Solon, the great law giver of ancient Athens recognized this type of control and made anything men did under the influence of their wives to be void under the law. Incredibilly, in America, women have been exonerated for being under a "Svengali" influence, but no man is found innocent by virtue of being under an "Eve," "Delilah," or "Jezebel" influence.
Persuasion and deceit are not only accomplished with words but with false attitudes, body language, clothing, makeup, ad infintatum. One of the main ideas for this is so women can exaggerate or fabricate good qualities and hide bad ones in order to make themselves appear better than they really are, to what end we may see in Kant's example; "By virtue of her sex she maintains a feminine haughtiness in order to restrain all importunities of men through the respect which haughtiness instills; and she claims the privilege of respect even without deserving it" In the the realm of non-verbal communication, he find that male feminist Stendal writing in De L'Amour; "Glances are the big guns of the virtuous coquette; everything can be conveyed in a look, and yet that look can always be denied, because it cannot be quoted word for word." You can see why it is so difficult, with such intangible and deliberately ambiguous methods, to pin blame on a woman .. yes, even a "virtuous" one. Then there is something in between words and looks; "Comte Giraud .. developed an original method of communication, using amputated words which mean everything and yet nothing. He conveys his meaning amply, but you cannot compromise him, however much you quote him verbatim. Cardinal Lante accused him of having stolen this accomplishment from women; and I would say that even the most honest woman knows the trick." When you look at Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton, Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon, and other politicians, you wonder just how many of their ways they have borrowed from women .. yes, even of "the most honest woman."
Moving from purely psychological means into more material ones, we could begin by listing all those household "duties" that women were once required to provide men with; cooking, cleaning, etc. These things, if truly desired by men, and not because a woman persuades him that these are things he wants, are not forceful extractions and can be part of an equal exchange in return for what a man's produces from his outside job. Woman's natural monopoly of child bearing and the current legal system, however, can lead to extortion, for if a man is desirous of children he can only obtain them through the compliance of a woman; hence, he must not only be concerned with meeting her initial terms for marriage, but he must also continuously strive to keep her happy for fear of being divorced and having his children taken away from him. It would seem that in even the most overbearing patriarchy of old, assuming such a thing did exist, a man could not allow his wife to be unhappy without running the risk that her unhappiness would pass on to his children and harm their development. It is both a pity and an injustice that more women do not realize the harm they cause their children by causing them to grow up without a father.
Having addressed those means and methods which women have a natural advantage in, we must add to these the ones they have usurped from men. The majority of wealth in this country belongs to women, most of governmental transfer payments (welfare etc.) go to women and their children, and every day more women surpass their husbands in earnings. Hence, a man's role as provider has been severely compromised and again we see things tending to imitate the matriarchy of old - only worse. Related to this we find more women than men entering college and getting degrees, preparing them to be the main breadwinners for the new matriarchy families. To their superiority in formal knowledge we must add the information learned in conversations along with all the articles, programs, etc. that the media puts out to "educate" women on how to pursue their private interests - as if they needed help. In the political arena, some 53% of the voting population is female, giving them control of law-making, the military, the police - or simply, all forms of institutional violence to which they can direct at men at their whim. Lastly, the latest studies show that women have equaled or even surpassed men in the private use of physical force. This should not be too surprising though, the movies have long depicted women, offended by mere words, being justifiably allowed to slap a man or throw a drink in his face.
The list above is hardly meant to be exhaustive, a set of books the length of an encyclopedia may be needed for that. Indeed, women have so many means at there disposal, so many variations and combinations of methods that it is hard to even conceive of a powerless woman. If one were to reflect rhetorically, it could be said that the average woman has more weapons at her disposal then the combined NATO forces. The real question should be; "What does a man have to counter this?"; his natural means of self defense - physical force, is denied to him by our feminist society. He can not even withhold his earnings because they are considered community property, and if his wife divorces him, she may still take his earnings through alimony and child support.
If it true, as Rousseau writes, that the methods of women are "more powerful" than those of men, and if it is also true that one of the main functions of government is to protect citizens from each other, than we would expect greater restrictions to be placed on women, and that fact to be reflected by more women being sent to prison than men. If restrictions were doled out equally between men and women without regard for whose methods were the most numerous and powerful we would still expect to find, because of their slightly larger numbers, more women in prison than men. Yet, as we have seen, the prison population is 94% male; and as said before, this is not justice - but obscenity.
http://www.angryharry.com/esWomenManipulateMen.htm
Based Chad
Was it me?
True. Womanly guile is as old as time.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Google Images. It rulez much.
But, yes, she does have a gorgeous set of breasts!!!! So I will post her again. Mmmmmm!
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
faaaaaaaaaaaaaakkkkkkkkkkkkeeeeeee
Based Chad
Was it me?
Threedee think RuPaul is hot.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Ron Paul is HOT!!
A post like this just screams involuntary celibacy, and a decade of no dates with anyone of the female gender.
My suggestion? Filipino mail-order bride websites. Although personally, I view mail order bride websites as exploitative and uncouth, it may be your only option.
Canceled.LTroll.28
Banned
I bet most of the little boys who post their porno pictures here have never seen a real female naked.