“Why no, Antz, I am ignorant on this subject. Why don’t you explain it to us?”

I do not have time to educate you. But possibly you can learn from the words of Sylvia Pankhurst, an early leader of your violent movement:

“The destruction wrought in the seven months of 1914 before the War excelled that of the previous year. Three Scotch castles were destroyed by fire on a single night. The Carnegie Library in Birmingham was burnt. The Rokeby Venus, falsly, as I consider, attributed to Velazquez, and purchased for the National Gallery at a cost of £45,000, was mutilated by Mary Richardson. Romney’s Master Thornhill, in the Birmingham Art Gallery, was slashed by Bertha Ryland, daughter of an early Suffagist. Carlyle’s portrait of Millais [sic] in the National Portrait Gallery, and numbers of other pictures were attacked, a Bartolozzi drawing in the Dore Gallery being completely ruined. Many large empty houses in all parts of the country were set on fire, including Redlynch House, Sommerset, where the damage was estimated at £ 40,000. Railway stations, piers, sports pavilions, haystacks were set on fire. Attempts were made to blow up reservoirs. A bomb exploded in Westminster Abbey, and in the fashionable church of St George’s, Hanover Square, where a famous stained-glass window from the Malines was damaged … One hundred and forty-one acts of destruction were chronicled in the Press during the first seven months of 1914.”
— Sylvia Pankhurst, 1914.

Lets just say this one more time:

ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-ONE ACTS OF DESTRUCTION.
IN SEVEN MONTHS.

Feminism was born as it remains today: a movement that uses violence to promote opression, bigotry, sexism, and tyranny.

Also, I hear Nellie McClung broke a vase once.

Well, the Seneca Falls Convention–the birthplace of modern feminism in the US at any rate–came up with a Declaration of Sentiments, which included a list of Grievances and Resolutions. Strong stuff, I know, but it even included the following bit of extremism:

On her own, [Elizabeth Cady] Stanton added a more radical point to the list of grievances and to the resolutions: the issue of women’s voting rights.[29] To the grievances, she added “He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.”[29] Stanton then copied the Declaration and resolutions into final draft form for presentation at the meeting. When he saw the addition of woman suffrage, Henry Stanton warned his wife “you will turn the proceedings into a farce.”[30]

So, there you have it: radicalism–indeed, farcical radicalism–at the very outset of the women’s movement.

Bin Laden would have turned green with envy.

He wouldn’t have approved, though, because it was done by going outside instead of staying at home watching porn like a true freedom fighter. :D

Hey, wasn’t there a time in American history when white dudes couldn’t, like, elect a leader and shit? It was as if they had no representation, but at the same time they were being taxed? Whatever happened with that?

Actually the colonists could, and did, elect leaders. WIth a few exceptions when the brits were getting pissed, such as specifically Boston, the colonies were left to manage themselves, and had considerable leeway in doing so. Some colonies weren’t actually established as democracies to begin with but even they began yielding to representation. And for internal purposes, colonists actually did have the power of taxation; it was a weapon wielded against the colonial governors, because the governors had only the budget given to them by the colonists.

Britain set a great deal of policy in addition, and notably followed a mercantilist policy in trade, which did create additional barriers in some matters, but what the colonists notably lacked was representation in parliament (For all the good it would do, as with their puny population they would have had only a token vote), and the british setting overarching taxes above colonial ones ticked them off. Never mind that the taxes paid for the troops that guarded land the colonists were desperate to move into, or the war that Americans got their heads collectively handed to them, they didn’t like not getting their voices heard in the process! Well that and not getting to shoot indians and settling the land they refused to pay for the guards for, all of which was a big part of tensions.

Feminism started in 1914? Lol, did you know, AntZ, that Russian and Spanish use the same characters?

So what was Seneca Falls then?

So by Antz’s logic, because some people of color committed acts of vandalism and violence during the Civil Rights movement, that means all people of color are violent and destructive?

The colonists vandalized a shipment of tea while declaring independence from Britain. Therefore all US citizens are violent.

My domestic kitten evolved from wildcats that wouldn’t have batted an eye at eating prehistoric people. I’d better go club him in the head before he can kill me in my sleep.

the last one is true tho

Anyone who’d like to read Mary Wollstonecraft’s

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman
With Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects

Can do so online.

Published in 1792, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman was the first great feminist treatise. Wollstonecraft preached that intellect will always govern and sought “to persuade women to endeavour to acquire strength, both of mind and body, and to convince them that the soft phrases, susceptibility of heart, delicacy of sentiment, and refinement of taste, are almost synonimous [sic] with epithets of weakness.”

Take your pick, AntZ. Are you ignorant, or just delusional?

I don’t think this is right. When looking at the Great Wall of Mississippi, and the VR partners which will make everyone happy, we have delusional covered.

The ignorance pretty much speaks for itself.

Ray: Because Feminists!!!!!!!

So I suppose Sparky went to a good cause… my stomach! *insert evil manic fymynyst laugh here*

This made me giggle.

Also, to everyone who commented on unicorns and/or sluttiness…Related.

darksidecat: Not that I could see.

On elections and the colonial era, US governers were mostly crown appointed, not elected. This was an area of considerable dispute. Most of the colonies also had some form of parliment and local elected governments. Some excutive offices were crown appointed, some were legislature appointed, some were elected. So there was a mixture in the pre-revolutionary US (this was also true of Britain at the time, to a lesser extent).

Oh they certainly didn’t elect the heads of their colonial government. But they elected the people who made a huge number of decisions in their colony, and governors relied on the colonies for funding, so the governors had to clearly compromise.

forgot to add that women being allowed to smoke was already a thing feminists were talking about and bernays was just smart enough to monetize it

Why is it that misogynists ALWAYS being up holding doors open, eventually? I swear, it always comes up, like some sign of the ‘good old days’ that men will now deny women because they swear they heard somewhere some woman complain about a door being held for her. Dude, feminism isn’t about not holding doors open for women – it’s about being nice enough to hold them open for everyone (and not being offended if someone holds it open for you – yes, I have seen a man refuse to go through a door a woman opened for him).

Except if someone, female or male, is far away and by holding it open you’re making them rush so you don’t have to wait. That’s just douchey.

I just LOVE those pictures of “feminists” you showed on the reddit mensrights website! They are a little prettier than the way that I would have drawn them, but I think that the artist got the point. I think wings of vampire bats would be more to the point where feminists are concerned, but hey, you can’t have everything!

Maybe their hair should have some live vipers in it or something, to show how poisonous feminists really are, but that is a matter of taste, after all.

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

Ami Angelwings, I understand your challenge to be something on the order that feminists on manboobz.com posted compared in malice with something that your critics may have written.

That is no challenge! Everything that I have written is really, if you think about it, sound, reasonable, and entirely logical observation of reality as it is. Men and women are different, and the differences are those of aptitudes, talents, and abilities which are, fortunately, complementary to one another. Contrary to Nobinayamu, Bee, KathleenB, and other venom dripping haters, none of my posts degraded women in any way. My suggestion of their “elimination”, much touted by my adversaries here like pecunium, Voip, Kirbywarped, et al, as I explained a number of times in terms that even a woman should be able to understand, was simply an EXTRAPOLATION of events as they have unfolded over the past few decades, over a century or longer, if feminists continued to alienate men, and attack us in every way possible. It was a warning, not a threat, and a warning that would only take place if men had no other choice for the survival of the human species! There has been venom even when I have AGREED with all of you, for example, when I suggested that maybe women ARE equally good soldiers to men, and the armed forces of the USA, and even our possible adversaries, should be composed exclusively of women! You can’t get more equal than that! I still regard the entire notion fo a feminist armed forces as utterly ridiculous, but I think that I deserve points for trying, at least!

I also never argued for the “enslavement” of women! I explained before, probably several times, that women–and their children–could NOT be bought or sold, would be legally protected from whipping and other physical violence, and would have some right to divorce–althouth this ‘no-fault” mess which dispossesses men and alienates children on a woman’s whim has gotta go–if her relationship or marriage to her mate doesn’t work out. Women would NOT be allowed to corrupt and paralyse the larger society and economy, would NOT be allowed to run or enforce the law, the arbitaration or mediation apparatus, or sit on juries!

In short, women would have their rights protected, esoecially as it pertains to women’s sphere inside the home, but not the “right” to f**k up the larger society with their lies, their endless demands, their ill bred tantrums, , and their callous and sly sex wiles! If this is “slavery” than I don’t know what to do!

Nothing that I have said even remotely deserves the venomous hatred and contempt manifest by the hateful posts that too many of you displayed. Just look at and read the my posts here–Okay, I went a little ‘over-the-top” with the one about laughing about women dying from cancer, but I was making a point,and even some of you agreed that Sharon Osborne–and the women like her–went too far!! Almost EVERY post from a woman, Ami Angelwings, is a hate-filled screed. Look at EVERYTHING the women whom I have cited, e.g. Bee, Nobinayamu, KathleenB, hellskell, and a few more have posted. After your eyes have stopped burning, I think you would agree that they have surpassed any malignity and viciousness over mine by a factor of ten, or even a hundred. I also have been willing to apologize when I have been wrong, but I can’t–and won’t–apologize to man-hating feminists who regard me as subhuman because I possess a Y chromosome! I also DON’T consider ‘”equality” as the be-all and end all of relations between the sexes. Other factors and features, like complementarity, harmony, and love, are vastly more important, supersede equality at all times, and lend every pleasure and joy to relations between the sexes! I suppose that I could illustrate this by asking simply, would you rather be in the hands, and submissive to the will, of a man whom you trusted completely, who cherished your mind–what there was of it–your body and beauty, and your spirtual qualties, a man who loved you with everything he had, and that you KNEW that you were the center of his universe; or would you be content with “equality”–equality with a man who was nothing more than a ‘significant other’, a so-called friend with benefits or really nothing but a roomate with whom you experienced occasional “intimacy”?

The feminists–including the poor shrews on this website–make the second choice, but real women may disagree! Yes, I accept your challenge, if there are any postings from women which I have overlooked, and their posting was one of reason, consideration, and thoughfullness. However, with my posts being like this one here, and their postings being like theirs elsewhere else, no challenge exists! My posts are the more civilized and intelligent, no questions asked!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

Would you rather be in the hands, and submissive to the will, of a man whom you trusted completely, who cherished your mind–what there was of it–your body and beauty, and your spirtual qualties, a man who loved you with everything he had, and that you KNEW that you were the center of his universe; or would you be content with “equality”–equality with a man who was nothing more than a ‘significant other’, a so-called friend with benefits or really nothing but a roomate with whom you experienced occasional “intimacy”?

I’d prefer equality, before God and within the social order. I’d rather be lonely, if I had to, than be a slave.

I also have been willing to apologize when I have been wrong, but I can’t–and won’t–apologize to man-hating feminists who regard me as subhuman because I possess a Y chromosome!

cool story bro
actually, it’s because you’re a Nazi.

I have a question, Mr. Meller. What happens when women don’t want to be a part of your dystopian wank fantasy?

My suggestion of their “elimination”, much touted by my adversaries here like pecunium, Voip, Kirbywarped, et al, as I explained a number of times in terms that even a woman should be able to understand, was simply an EXTRAPOLATION of events as they have unfolded over the past few decades, over a century or longer, if feminists continued to alienate men, and attack us in every way possible. It was a warning, not a threat, and a warning that would only take place if men had no other choice for the survival of the human species!

Dracula – Shit, what happens when 99.9% of men don’t want it either?

I think even most men who are sexist by normal-Earthling standards would be taken aback by the grand sweep of this bullshit.

DKM- I cordially and civilly invite you to entertain any ideas you please about ‘complementarity, harmony, and love’ as regards YOUR OWN relationships with any women who freely choose to associate with you. I also categorically refuse to describe as civil or reasonable any suggestion that naturally all women should give up their rights to suit your personal beliefs.

Further, no, saying you don’t believe women are entitled to equal rights is not civil conversation. You don’t believe we are capable of taking part as full citizens, nor as an equal and cherished partner in a loving and respectful relationship. You make snide asides like ‘your mind, what there is of it’, you call feminists names and describe them in derogatory terms, you liken women who believe in equality to hags, vipers, shrews and more- and you call yourself civil?

You daydream of a world where women are owned- for their own good and that of the species. You warn that if we do not voluntarily stop working for equality we will be forced to submit- and you call yourself civil? You’re only extrapolating, after all, and you don’t think women should be beaten but…

But they shouldn’t have equal rights. They shouldn’t be full citizens under the law.

You may dress up your beliefs in as many pretty words as you please but what you advocate is denying half the human race equality based in what set of reproductive organs they have.
You are talking, let’s be clear, about denying me, ME PERSONALLY, and every other woman and girl on this planet equality. You suggest we submit.

We are not slaves, nor performing animals nor property and to tell us we should consent to less than full equality is in fact pretty goddamned uncivil. Oh and now I’ve used a naughty word so you can have the vapors about that while you’re at it.

Further, if you want to tout the good of the species then refusing to allow the full participation of half the species is stupid. I don’t care what gender the scientist who cures cancer is- so let’s educate and encourage any kid who’s interested to apply themselves.

“Oh, I’m sorry, Susie, only boys can make laws.” Really? As if we have too many smart people in government already?

And you say feminists are hateful? You would take away women’s rights to full and equal representation under the law- but it’s okay because you don’t use bad words?

Fuck that.

(Note- My reply is US-centric and I want to acknowledge here that women in other countries often already have fewer rights. Me? I wanna lift everyone up. DKM advocates keeping one half the human race down, permanently, based on their gender- but he says he’s being civil about it so I guess that makes it okay?)

“There has been venom even when I have AGREED with all of you, for example, when I suggested that maybe women ARE equally good soldiers to men, and the armed forces of the USA, and even our possible adversaries, should be composed exclusively of women! You can’t get more equal than that!”

You seem to have a lot of trouble with this “equal” concept. If someone gives you a basket and asks you to fill it with an equal number of apples and pears, do you proudly hand it back to them filled with nothing but apples?

DKM: Sorry, laughing at the pain of people with cancer makes you a vile pustule on the bottom of the collective human arse. Trying to deny woman equal rights with men is just being a douchebag. If believing this makes me a harpy, then so be it.

So the guy who says this:

none of my posts degraded women in any way

In the same comment advocates for a society like this:

Women would NOT be allowed to corrupt and paralyse the larger society and economy, would NOT be allowed to run or enforce the law, the arbitaration or mediation apparatus, or sit on juries!

And further states this:

In short, women would have their rights protected, esoecially as it pertains to women’s sphere inside the home, but not the “right” to f**k up the larger society with their lies, their endless demands, their ill bred tantrums, , and their callous and sly sex wiles!

But he’s not degrading women; oh no, not him. He’s just telling it like it is.

Seriously, did you time travel in from the 19th century or something?

Of course, when he says this:

However, with my posts being like this one here, and their postings being like theirs elsewhere else, no challenge exists! My posts are the more civilized and intelligent, no questions asked!

It’s obvious that he’s fucking delusional. The fortunate thing is that virtually no one cares what DKM thinks, and that his ideas are not likely to be adopted any time soon.

Just don’t expect me to get involved.

Either DKM is a liar, a hypocrite, or he has some severe memory probelm regarding pretty much everything else he has ever said on this blog, and some of the things he said in the same post! You decide!