>
 |
| See, they ARE children! |
More insane misogyny from the “manosphere.” Part 4 in what could easily turn into a 10 billion part series.Today’s theme: Women are children. I’ve bolded the best — as in worst — bits.
Women are: Children who don’t deserve the right to vote.
Just as those who oppossed the female vote 100 years ago predicted, women will vote for what’s best for women as a group only, and the politicians that cater to them. Little else matters to them, especially men and children. Convincing them to give up any power at all, for the good of society as a whole, is absolutely fruitless. They won’t do it unless forced to through a period of civil instability or anarchy, which is exactly where the breakdown of the family and disenfranchisement of men has us headed towards. But don’t tell THEM that. They don’t want to hear it. They’re high-functioning children, and they vote.
Women are: Retarded children with guns
Some say that women are children.
I think that women are way below children.Imagine a retarded child playing with a machine gun and you will have an accurate picture of women.
Pathetic, yes they are…
What a curse it must be to be born a woman..
Women are: Lying, cookie-stealing children
I think one of the absolute best things men can do with women is follow the advice of so many of those “misogynists” of old, and view women as children. … Of course, it is not actually that they are children. It is more likely that they do not develop the same sense of principle and justice to navigate the world, because society enables them not to have to. … They exist somewhere in between child and man. …
You can catch a woman dead to rights in a lie – like a child with cookie crumbs still stuck on the corner of her lips insisting she wasn’t in the cookie jar – it simply does not matter to them. They just create a new truth in their heads and carrying on as if nothing matters.
Women are: Children who need a time-out
Women are like children. They need clearly defined limits. They will test those limits continually, but they MUST know they are there, and that they are enforced.
Both children, and women, are happiest when there are clear limits and those limits are enforced.
A smart man will NEVER lower himself to child’s level, nor a woman’s.
Women are: Infants.
Some men in the men’s movement have accused feminist women of being children. This is inaccurate. They are one step behind children — they are still infants. … This grown-woman infant consciousness is so widespread that most of us don’t even comment on it any longer. We take it for granted that many women are going to act like infants. I suggest that it’s time for the men’s movement to address the fact that feminists are suffering from arrested development, that feminists are acting like infants. … It’s time that the men’s movement pointed out that infants are dependent, and must not be given positions of responsibility, such as a public office or a top management spot at a corporation. … Until women start acting like adults, until women are forced by our laws and customs to shoulder both responsibility and accountability like all other adults, they should have no right to even ask to be promoted to leadership positions.
>I'm glad I've been informed that I'm an infant as it's not something I was previously aware of – thank you that guy for clearing things up. Now I'd post a more detailed reply but I have just shat myself as is appropriate for an infant and I am screaming for assistance due to my lack of language skills, although so far nobody is coming. Probaby this is because I live alone. An infant living alone? Someone should notify social services.
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1336905/Jet-set-housewives-Id-daughter-marry-rich-man-career.htmlAs long as there are women (mother and daughter) like these ones who prefer to marry rich men instead of study and work (a link from your own articlehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1336905/Jet-set-housewives-Id-daughter-marry-rich-man-career.htmland as long as there are laws giving these women the right to claim alimony for life, even 40 years after divorce,http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=4612then I cannot help to say, these women are like children…That's feminism, women created such opportunities and laws and now they have live with that …. being treated like children.Not independent financially 40 years after divorce? I sthis a joke or what?I think, if you do not want to be treated as a child and be accepted as an equal, you should work hard enough not to depend financially on your ex-husband – 40 years after divorce…
>Uh huh. As long as there are individual women who choose not to work and study and make something of themselves, every single woman in existence, including the many women who do work and study and make something of themselves, should be treated as children? A large amount of these women not being 'hot babes' who have rich men queueing up to bone them and pay their way. It is one cross-section of women who have the opportunity to be gold-diggers, but as always with you lot, 'women in general' are judged by the worst examples of femalekind while the same does not seem to apply to men.Does this also apply to workshy men who claim welfare when they are capable of working? Does their existence mean every single man should be treated as a child? Of course not, that's ridiculous. You'd never claim that, would you?
>@yohan,You continually present this same example of alimony as if it is the norm. It's not. Not even close. How often does a case end up like that? 1 in a million divorces? 1 in 5 million? It is so rare that to present it as representative of all women is such an extreme exaggeration that it makes your argument ludicrous.
>O my goodness! What a CURSE it is to be born with this lovely vagina! A CURSE! Yeah, only a curse because stupid people like to put women down and hold them in a submissive state. And even then, I am just fine with my vagina because I know I'm just as good as any man. A curse? Yes. It is a curse to be so awesome.
>Comet: Does this also apply to workshy men who claim welfare when they are capable of working? I did not know that men in USA/UK are in a position fully protected by law to claim welfare on a monthly basis for lifetime or at least for 30 or 40 years…Christine WE said… @yohan,You continually present this same example of alimony as if it is the norm. It's not. Not even close. How often does a case end up like that? 1 in a million divorces? 1 in 5 million? It's not so rare…In USA there are about 450.000 people, who have to pay alimony, and guess how many of them are men…The problem is not even about how many cases, the problem is that there are laws existing, which make such cases possible from the very beginning on..•As of 2003, 43.7% of custodial mothers and 56.2% of custodial fathers were either separated or divorced. And in 2002, 7.8 million Americans paid about $40 billion in child and/or spousal support (84% of the payers were male). http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsus.shtmlhttp://www.boston.com/ae/celebrity/articles/2009/11/04/nantz_must_pay_916000_yearly_in_alimony/Another example of alimony for lifeCBS sportscaster Jim Nantz must pay $916,000 yearly in alimony and child support to his ex-wife and give up their Connecticut home under terms of a newly issued divorce decree……Under the ruling, Nantz must pay $72,000 in alimony monthly until he dies or his ex-wife remarries, and another $1,000 weekly in child support for the next two years. A woman who needs support like a child… totally unable to earn her own money…How many example of horrible alimony payments from men to women do you need?
>@yohan,So based on the statistics you provided, you're saying:Nearly 3% of Americans are paying an average of $5,128.00 a year in child and spousal support combined. Of those paying, 6,552,000 are men, and 1,248,000 are women. So since 450,000 of these get alimony in addition to supporting their children, about 378,000 of these are women who are children and the remaining 72,000 are men who are children – because they are not supporting themselves. So less than .002 of the U.S. population are adult children receiving alimony. It appears that alimony is not so common. And how many of this teensy, tiny percent of men and women receiving alimony are getting it for 30, 40 years, or for life? I'd bet a teensy, tiny percentage of that teensy, tiny percentage of Americans receiving alimony. Any numbers on that?
>@yohan"I did not know that men in USA/UK are in a position fully protected by law to claim welfare on a monthly basis for lifetime or at least for 30 or 40 years…"In many areas of the UK there's a culture of what the government are calling 'lifetime dependency on benefits': individuals who have never worked, families with children who have grown up with neither parent working because they are claiming welfare. It's not gender specific.http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/targeting_benefits_culture_1_1112299http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8187210/Number-of-people-who-have-never-worked-jumps-by-200000-since-Coalition-was-formed.htmlhttp://www.thisismoney.co.uk/work/article.html?in_article_id=514551&in_page_id=53928http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/1579693/Tories-can-end-culture-of-benefit-dependency.htmlI hope those articles give various sides (I only did a quick search, but the point is that it's a genuine issue, it has been very possible to survive on benefits for a lifetime (the system has not been able to differentiate well enough between people unable and unwilling to find work), and there are male people who do it. Do all men, hard-working or otherwise, deserve to be judged by their standards? "How many example of horrible alimony payments from men to women do you need? "How many to justify treating ALL women as children? You'd need examples of every woman in the world doing it or at least a vast majority.Yes there is such thing as women who sponge off the state or their ex-husbands. Nobody is denying that. (And I think you're confusing being 'unwilling' to work with being 'unable'.) But if you must judge all women by their standards, you must also judge all men by male examples of sponges and leeches.
>comet, your post got caught in the spam filter; it's up now.
>"Alimony" now is generally short term support so that the low earner/non-earner can become financially independent. It is not sex based.
>Comet: In many areas of the UK there's a culture of what the government are calling 'lifetime dependency on benefits': individuals who have never worked, families with children who have grown up with neither parent working because they are claiming welfare. It's not gender specific. Yes, this is typically for any feminist welfare state like UK or Sweden. Feminism was always supportive to argumentative, non-productive and lazy people. It should not be like that, but correct as you said, such welfare services are misused by both, men and women. -My comment is not about such people and not about the welfare state. It's about alimony and it is difficult for me to understand why laws exist which makes it possible to claim money from the ex-husband 40 years after divorce.Such laws should be changed.About not sex based alimony, the first cases are now known, where male immigrants find out a stupid woman, marry and divorce her and demand alimony from the ex-wife. Again, as I said, such laws should be changed.However, more than 80 percent of paid alimony is from men to women and therefore these laws will not be changed.
>"About not sex based alimony, the first cases are now known, where male immigrants find out a stupid woman, marry and divorce her and demand alimony from the ex-wife. "Oh, I see. If a woman is claiming from a man, it's the woman's fault for being a leech. If a man is claiming from a woman, it's the woman's falt for being stupid.
>(Again, I double post, I apologize)Yohan, what is inherently feminist about a welfare state?My point was that there are men who leech off such systems, when you had claimed such a thing is not possible, and you seem to acknowledge that. Does that not make these men children as the woman living off alimony for years is? Does calling the welfare state 'feminist' let those men off the hook somehow?(And for the record I do agree with a welfare state, just tougher regulation to make sure those who are able to work and find a job do so. This and other issues should not be continually twisted into a gender-based issue when it isn't one.)And yes, your post wasn't about the welfare state, it was about alimony. But the original blog post was about whether ALL WOMEN should be considered to be children. You seem to think they should because of a minority of leeches, and I simply pointed out that there are cases where this can also be applied to men. Whether 'feminists' are responsible for these systems being in place or not (and to be completely honest I don't know enough about the history of them to comment) is beside the point. If an opportunity arises for someone to live on easy street without working, whether it's legal, ethical or not, there are men and there are women who will take it. Women are not naturally more inclined this way as many of the original quotes would have it.
>I wonder how many of these people receiving alimony are unable to find jobs because they are stuck looking after children (or perhaps a handicapped child)?Just a thought.I've always thought alimony was 'back pay' for all the unpaid labour one partner performed in order to keep the house running such as house cleaning, cooking, laundry, raising children et al. Also, such a gap in employment history would make finding a job very difficult.
>Hm, 450k men in the USA have to pay alimony.How many men are there in the USA? 150M.450k/150M = 0.3%A HUGE PROBLEM, LDO!
>Ironically, Scott Adams' recent hateful diatribe echoes this post completely in its women = children logic.
Sooo… I guess the question to ask the authors of those delightful extracts would be: are you gay or pedophiliac? Although I suppose they haven’t taken their thoughts to their natural conclusion.
Pretty sure that just about EVERY group of voters votes for what’s best for them as a group. Actually, I wish that was more true. Then we’d see women voting for candidates who support reproductive freedom and economic equality, we’d see workers voting pro-union, there would be no such THING as Log Cabin Republicans (or any members of the Tea Party who aren’t older white protestant RICH men), and our country would be more awesome for it.
Couldn’t take in much else; the ableism of the “retarded child with machine gun” got to me.
How do these people write things like “ALL women are terrible” (which is essentially this) and not consider themselves misogynists?
Also, I think I’m on moderation. If that means I said something wrong on here, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to.
@MKlein
If you’ve posted something with lots of links, it may have been caught by the spam filter, which is different to the moderation filter and isn’t set by Our Lord And Daviour.
I can see your post though, which suggests you’re not on moderation.
Lowquacks: There is also the, “link filter” which sets how many links are allowed without review.
MKlein, you’re fine. The word “retarded” is in the filter b/c of a troll or two who were overly fond of using it, but I let your comment through.
Why didn’t you include Arthur Schopenhauer in your ridicule list for similar views as well as Freud? Maybe it is a bit harder to ridicule one of the greatest philosophers as well as the greatest psychoanalyst.
RE: Good
…nobody mentioned Freud at all in this thread, which is three years old. What the hell are you babbling on about?
Good is not so good at reading comprehension?