Uppity Wimmen

AssHatZombie said:
But with out our precious fluids, your bellies would be but mere fleshy tombs, swollen cells of useless meat.


you complete me, desh.:)
Click to expand...

You complete me too dude.

That is how it is supposed to be.

Next time love her for who she is and DONT try to change her.

Just open your heart my man and you will be happy beyond your dreams.

Life aint easy but it can have momments of pure JOY. The only way to them is to accept the pain that will surely follow when you let another being in to see your messy insides that you think no one will accept. We all have messy insides and the only way to harness them is honest self examination and not relenting to the fear of rejection when you open it to others. In the end the big bad monsters turn out to be common mites that we all have.
 
evince said:
You complete me too dude.

That is how it is supposed to be.

Next time love her for who she is and DONT try to change her.

Just open your heart my man and you will be happy beyond your dreams.

Life aint easy but it can have momments of pure JOY.
Click to expand...

Now this is true. I'm sleepy and tired today because the misses and I were up well into the night talking and making love. It is worth the tiredness but it was a joyous night.
 
leaningright said:
Hold on desh, don't get your panties in such a bunch. I said women were the "weaker vessel" not that you were useless or without power. What I said was the truth. I never said I agree with the vitriole that has been posted on this thread. I was just making a passing comment.
Click to expand...



My dear there is always someone stronger fisically than you.

That fact is even true for any body builder who exsists.

My vessel has always been strong. I was born of sturdy stock and have met many a man I could have done some ass kicking on.


I in no way accept your "truth" as viable.

When society drops all its shackles for women (very soon I think).

The world will embrace women who it had previously shunned because they were not feminie ENOUGH to be of any use. You are going to see women linebackers someday.
 
LOL, I've already seen women linebackers...and those who could be. The women are the "weaker vessel" plain and simple. You can take a boy and a girl from the same genetics and train them the same way from youth...the boy will be stronger. That's the design.
 
leaningright said:
LOL, I've already seen women linebackers...and those who could be. The women are the "weaker vessel" plain and simple. You can take a boy and a girl from the same genetics and train them the same way from youth...the boy will be stronger. That's the design.
Click to expand...

Not if you take the female from my family and the male from Karl Roves family.

Thus your idea of truth is not truth
 
AssHatZombie said:
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
Click to expand...

Oh my but that is one big heaping pile of crazy you laid out there...sorry, just sayin.

I mean really, you gonna stand by this: "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."
 
Natural selection.

When women and men are not tied to the idea that the woman should be smaller than the man for a good partnering then the effect that you call "the weaker vessel" will disapear.

This all began as a result of mating being basically rape. The man picked a woman he could subdue. Thus the women who got fertilized were smaller. With the advent of society this was retained by the idea that smaller women were more desirable because they made more men feel strong and powerful. Men of all sizes would court a smaller women because all men wanted a spouse who was smaller than them. This favored smaller women genetically.

When society loses this bias women will get bigger. In differeing times in history thos has been shown to exsist. When men needed real women who could work the farm with them we got bigger people including women. Americans for decades were BIG compared to the others. You see Bigger stronger women being admired more today. Yes they still have to look like sexy women with lots of curves makeup but big is not as BAD as it used to be for women.

This trend will continue until women and men are more comparable.

Did you realise that men and women who have simular sized forearms have a better chance of staying married?

Equality will save us all and make us far more happy.
 
christiefan915 said:
Okay. I just don't get the math over rep and/or thanks.
Click to expand...

The amout of rep you have determines how many points you can give to and subtract from people when you rep them. If you have zero or negative points, your rep power is 0. I have a rep power of 252,938 points.

If you thank a post, whether you have a rep power of 0 or 6 trillion, the poster is awarded 100 points from it.
 
evince said:
Natural selection.

When women and men are not tied to the idea that the woman should be smaller than the man for a good partnering then the effect that you call "the weaker vessel" will disapear.

This all began as a result of mating being basically rape. The man picked a woman he could subdue. Thus the women who got fertilized were smaller. With the advent of society this was retained by the idea that smaller women were more desirable because they made more men feel strong and powerful. Men of all sizes would court a smaller women because all men wanted a spouse who was smaller than them. This favored smaller women genetically.

When society loses this bias women will get bigger. In differeing times in history thos has been shown to exsist. When men needed real women who could work the farm with them we got bigger people including women. Americans for decades were BIG compared to the others. You see Bigger stronger women being admired more today. Yes they still have to look like sexy women with lots of curves makeup but big is not as BAD as it used to be for women.

This trend will continue until women and men are more comparable.

Did you realise that men and women who have simular sized forearms have a better chance of staying married?

Equality will save us all and make us far more happy.
Click to expand...

Except chicks always want to date someone taller than them. no? the blame game is all we have left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top