smug feminist wants to debate us, then INCARCERATE US

Niggers want to test us? Bring your #2 pencils. Get your webcam, a dry pair of panties, and let's get it the fuck on! Also we interview hos.

smug feminist wants to debate us, then INCARCERATE US

Postby guarded guest » Wed Dec 29, 2010 2:52 pm

I just have two simple questions.

First - is this site serious? Or satire?

Second - if this site is serious, what do you gentlemen know of the history of the Women's Movement (both the first and second waves here in the United States)?

Thank you for your time.
guarded guest
 

Re: two basic questions...

Postby Professor » Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:11 pm

guarded guest wrote:I just have two simple questions.

First - is this site serious? Or satire?

you have to have the reading comprehension of a 2-year-old to mistake this coherent, reasonable presentation of social interaction for satire.

unfortunately for you, this site doesn't print high school diplomas.
Second - if this site is serious, what do you gentlemen know of the history of the Women's Movement (both the first and second waves here in the United States)?

Thank you for your time.

what does your question have to do with the price of tea in China?
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.
User avatar
Professor
Dean of Beatdowns
 
Posts: 8947
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:34 am

Re: two basic questions...

Postby guarded guest » Wed Dec 29, 2010 4:34 pm

Thank you for your non-answers. They told me all I needed to know.
guarded guest
 

Re: two basic questions...

Postby guarded guest » Wed Dec 29, 2010 5:54 pm

Alrighty, with your nonanswers, and my thanks - pleasantries being out of the way and all...

On page 9 of your book, you state that your work "speaks definitively about the principles that govern all social interactions" - yet from your enrollment page it's clear that you're based in sunny SoCal. For only $10/mo, non-Cal residents can take your classes...and you even offer up for foreign exchange students. That is quite generous of you. But back to that "all social interactions" bit...

You're clearly an American boy...so it's rather funny you should ask me about the price of rice in China. What would you know, personally, about the social interactions in China? Doesn't count? How 'bout a little more familiar? What about any country in Europe? What do you know of ALL the social interactions there?

Throughout your ebook, you make loads of claims, without any citations or evidence to back up your assertions. Much of what you delve into related to "men's" and "women's" natures is easily (too easily) traced to Freud's flawed conclusions that have long since been debunked - and with the most current neuroscience blowing any difference you note between men's and women's "functional gender roles" blown completely out of the water...by scientists like Jay Giedd and Lise Eliot.

What education do you have related to actual gender history? The question of the Women's movement (1st & 2nd wave American, specific) is directly related to your blither about masculinity and femininity in your tutorial ebook, so your nonanswer to that question tells me you actually know very little about the American Women's movement and what it was really about, much less the European & Canadian Women's movements - particularly the French - so tell me what DO you actually know?

Or are you a 20-, maybe even early 30-something guy who's either hard up for a lay, can't find a woman who'll put up with his misogynistic ways long enough for him to dispense "pain & pleasure" so that she can attend to your every need...circa 1954? Do you have a daughter...? Something tells me your a neophyte to reality.
guarded guest
 

Re: two basic questions...

Postby Professor » Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:01 pm

guarded guest wrote:Thank you for your non-answers. They told me all I needed to know.

well here's the problem: at Manhood Academy, we teach men how to stand up to aggressive, smug, childishly-sarcastic, condescending, competitive, self-righteously indignant cunts like you.

we DON'T teach men to cater to your unreasonable demands or to humor your condescending attitude.

Image

[btw, this demanding cunt posted this literally 5 minutes after her first post-- before we even had a chance to reply. in her mind, we were supposed to DROP EVERYTHING and IMMEDIATELY CATER to her irrational demands. if we didn't have her answer ready in TWO SECONDS, that's all the evidence she needed to condemn us. you can see the chronic entitlement mind-set characteristic of feminists peeking through.]

let's examine your initial questions:
I just have two simple questions.

First - is this site serious? Or satire?

this first question implies that this entire site could be some type of elaborate ruse. but you'd either have to be a complete idiot or a sarcastic cunt to arrive at that braindead conclusion. from even a cursory reading of our free ebook, The Principles of Social Competence, it's quite clear that we mean business.

to imply that this site was created to satirize, shame or humiliate men is insulting to the men around the world who have been greatly helped by our work.

why does your insulting question deserve any respect?

it shows ZERO FUCKING RESPECT for men.

why should men be forced to answer a disrespectful woman like you on your terms? why would any socially competent man tolerate your behavior when he can more practically manage his expectations to change dysfunctional behavior.

the only reason you act like a cunt in the first place is because the emasculated men in this feminist society ALLOW IT--we don't; at Manhood Academy, we don't tolerate women trying to undermine the functional gender roles of men by competing with them for male authority. on the contrary, we give you exactly the respect you deserve. and since you refuse to show us any respect, we refuse to offer you any as well.

i know; like a spoiled child, you're used to throwing an emotional tantrum and guilting others into meeting your childish, irrational demands. but we're men, not manginas.

if you want to offer a coherent or at least thoughtful criticism, be my guest. unlike many other sites, we don't censor critical opinions, no matter how adversarial. but insulting our academy right off the bat isn't the best way to gain our attention.
Second - if this site is serious, what do you gentlemen know of the history of the Women's Movement (both the first and second waves here in the United States)?

here you've made a ridiculous, irrational demand, just like a self-entitled cunt.

what did you expect? for us to write a 200 page thesis for you? did you expect us to read your mind and figure out what aspects of your argument you wanted us to focus on?

this is a thoughtless, childish question, no different than me asking you: "what's your opinion on life?"

maybe you're used to asking thoughtless questions, but we're not used to providing thoughtless answers. i.e., if you want something, you're gonna have to ask. and as we advise all our incompetent critics: BE SPECIFIC.

all too often intellectual cowards like you hide behind vague sentiments or language with double meanings. speaking plainly and getting to the point are terrifying prospects for anyone with a dysfunctional agenda. but it challenges everyone to refine and perfect their opinion, as only those of substance will be able to endure the burning eye of public scrutiny.
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.
User avatar
Professor
Dean of Beatdowns
 
Posts: 8947
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:34 am

Re: two basic questions...

Postby Professor » Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:47 pm

guarded guest wrote:Alrighty, with your nonanswers, and my thanks - pleasantries being out of the way and all...
you could have cut the bullshit and gotten to the point from the start. we actually prefer it here.
On page 9 of your book, you state that your work "speaks definitively about the principles that govern all social interactions" - yet from your enrollment page it's clear that you're based in sunny SoCal. For only $10/mo, non-Cal residents can take your classes...and you even offer up for foreign exchange students. That is quite generous of you. But back to that "all social interactions" bit...
how is that a "yet" statement?

that's about as fucking retarded as saying: "watermelon is red inside, yet hotel rooms are often beige inside."

what exactly does one statement have to do with the other?
You're clearly an American boy...so it's rather funny you should ask me about the price of rice in China.

we've never hidden the fact that this site is based in America. we freely speak about it.

and the reference to "the price of tea in china" refers to the IRRELEVANT NATURE of your statements. what's funny is your inability to grasp the obvious.
What would you know, personally, about the social interactions in China? Doesn't count? How 'bout a little more familiar? What about any country in Europe? What do you know of ALL the social interactions there?

as we've already stated in the ebook, social interactions are governed by immutable principles.

are you actually dumb enough to believe that the gravity governing China is somehow different than the gravity governing America?

are you dumb enough to believe that because people eat more rice in China that they will suddenly sprout more toes and fingers than their counterparts in America?

the only variable affecting this social interaction equation is CULTURE.

culture is LEARNED. it is NOT universal, therefore it's subject to change; i can take a Chinese kid from China, bring him to the U.S. and Americanize him to our culture. that STILL won't change the nature of the principles that govern social interaction. the only thing i've affected are his cultural beliefs, nothing more.
Throughout your ebook, you make loads of claims, without any citations or evidence to back up your assertions.

your obviously lack of reading comprehension doesn't equate to some imagined withholding of 'evidence.' if you had any brain cells left, you'd realize there's TONS of evidence on this site. the real problem is your FAILURE to cite anything we've ALREADY presented. we haven't put anything into coloring book form yet. maybe that's the problem?

Image

btw, i don't see you making any citations or providing evidence for your silly opinions. so obviously, such things don't really matter to you. you're going to remain stupid no matter what evidence we provide.

our goal with the ebook is not to prove the existence of gravity. our goal is provide men with a competent social interaction guide. if we had to go into explicit detail, worrying about citing every single detail down to the color of the sun, the book would be 1000+ pages long.

the fact that men from AROUND THE WORLD have testified to the effectiveness of our work PROVES that we're not just giving out cultural/sentimental advice. we've never met most of these men face-to-face, and yet they all provide the same evidence to support our work. this only serves to confirm the universal nature of social interaction--the location and culture are IRRELEVANT.
Much of what you delve into related to "men's" and "women's" natures is easily (too easily) traced to Freud's flawed conclusions that have long since been debunked

your uneducated assumptions about the nature of our work reveal the incompetent nature of your emotional critique. we defy you to prove your silly accusations.

we've already done our homework by proving our conclusions THROUGH PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, unlike you and your reliance upon wishful thinking. or maybe you're too lazy to read?

and like a typical hypocrite, you hold us to a standard that you can't even meet yourself. where's your 'evidence'? where's your proof? i'll save you the trouble of answering: you have none.
- and with the most current neuroscience blowing any difference you note between men's and women's "functional gender roles" blown completely out of the water...by scientists like Jay Giedd and Lise Eliot.

the sheer idiocy of feminism's zealous, fanatical supporters is the exact same reason it's being picked apart by public scrutiny as we speak.

like most feminists, you rely on wishful thinking. you say "functional gender roles" don't exist, but the myriad of men who have benefited from our work can testify FROM ACTUAL EXPERIENCE of their existence.

ending up in a polyamorous relationship with 500 cats while normal people end up in relationships with actual human beings should tell you that something is wrong with your feminist gender theories.

Image

What education do you have related to actual gender history?

i suggest you get a refund on your education as you display an embarrassing lack of common sense. you can't even formulate a coherent, reasonable argument. a competently educated person wouldn't hypocritically throw out baseless assertions from one side of their mouth while demanding evidence from of the other. if you can't perform according to your own standards, your credibility gets flushed down the toilet.
The question of the Women's movement (1st & 2nd wave American, specific) is directly related to your blither about masculinity and femininity in your tutorial ebook, so your nonanswer to that question tells me you actually know very little about the American Women's movement and what it was really about, much less the European & Canadian Women's movements - particularly the French - so tell me what DO you actually know?

i don't know what's more comical; the irony of someone as intellectually incompetent as you lecturing us about "nonanswers," or the fact that your argument sounds like Carrot Top pulling random items out of a prop chest in some bizarre attempt to form a linear joke.

Image
Or are you a 20-, maybe even early 30-something guy who's either hard up for a lay, can't find a woman who'll put up with his misogynistic ways long enough for him to dispense "pain & pleasure" so that she can attend to your every need...circa 1954? Do you have a daughter...? Something tells me your a neophyte to reality.


Image

You forgot: "lives at home in his mom's basement, is going bald, beats his wife, rapes children, and has a small penis."

so in conclusion, your idea of a rational debate involves making childish assumptions about sexual prowess in an emotional attempt to shame men..?

nothing like a cliched answering machine to make your ears bleed.. sadly, you represent the pinnacle of feminist "education."

Image
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.
User avatar
Professor
Dean of Beatdowns
 
Posts: 8947
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:34 am

Re: smug, poorly educated feminist wants to debate us

Postby Entitled » Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 pm

[Some tired cliched feminist insults about penis size]

[A hypocritical lecture about behavior]

[I'm smart. I got my GED!]

[More cliched feminist insults about men being violent]

fin
Entitled
 

Re: smug, poorly educated feminist wants to debate us

Postby Professor » Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:39 am

guardedguest's last bitter reply was so hilarious, we decided to move it to the student forum to spare the other visitors from committing suicide..

Edit: well since we've been accused of being cowards, we're gonna post it in full public view now:


Your "Inadequacies" section is too disgusting and barbaric to even respond to. What is ironic about it is that my husband & I are considered...even by "your definition"...a physically attractive couple. Both tall, fit, fitting your "aesthetically" appealing features...


Image

[btw, take special note: this is a side view of this beast, which is about the same size as the front view of a normal sized woman not interested in eating fried Twinkiestm for a living].

In this, you sound like a nonsensical moron.

Further, you're clearly either gay or homophobic...

No wonder you can't get laid.

You want to "make friends" or "get a date"...much less have a circle of friends and a life partner, you don't tell people what's wrong with them based on your own perceptions, because your perceptions are limited, you FOOL.

...you don't get laid...you don't get a life partner...you don't have kids...you end up ALONE.

You're living in a fantasy land of your own design if you think that YOUR definitions apply to the entire human species. Dolt.

They're laughing AT you. Because you are little more than the butt of a joke.

The word "delusional" is worth repeating here.

Any real woman would not come within 50 miles of you.

Boiled down...appx 135 pages of self-important and delusional drivel.

i've taken the liberty of bolding the important parts.

in conclusion, i'd just like to say:

:barfy: :barfy: :barfy: :barfy: :barfy: :barfy: :barfy:
Image

we rest our case.

:D3 :D3 :D3
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.
User avatar
Professor
Dean of Beatdowns
 
Posts: 8947
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:34 am

Re: smug, poorly educated feminist wants to debate us

Postby Professor » Sun Jan 02, 2011 12:17 am

guarded guest wrote:Typo top of pg 10 - "hot to train" s/b "how to train"

thanks, we appreciate any editorial cleanup, no matter how small.
Where are functional gender roles being outlawed?
around the world.

childish cunts like you are always threatened by the the truth. you seek to demonize male expression as "hate speech," so you can legislate against it.

Edit: just as predicted--this vindictive feminist cunt contacted the LAPD to try and have us arrested for "hate speech."

this should serve as a warning to EVERY MAN OUT THERE: feminists are actively seeking to "legally" suppress your First Amendment rights. and this is the evidence.


silencing and demonizing the free expression of men has always been the cowardly tactic of feminists. public scrutiny always threatens feminism because when delusional, self-serving gender theories are exposed by public debate, the truth is the only thing that remains.

as far as functional male gender roles go, fathers are being limited in their authority over their wives and children. school teachers are being limited in their authority over their students. employers are being limited in their authority over their employees. in virtually every avenue of life, authority is being undermined and given to those who are unqualified to wield it.

if we look at the feminist nature of "domestic violence" laws or sexual assault laws, we can see further evidence of women being valued more than men. in the current feminist legal system that prizes gender over justice, we constantly see legal judgments that err on the side of women; females are accorded default professional victim status (Rhianna--her assault against Chris Brown was ignored) and males are relegated to professional perpetraors (Duke LaCrosse team, Kobe Bryant, Julian Assange).

In fact, feminism and its female entitlement agenda has invaded the legal system of countries around the world:

Refuse to have sex with your wife? GO TO JAIL.
MEXICO CITY | Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:31am EST

(Reuters) - Mexican men who ... avoid sex with their wives could be tried in court and punished under a new law, the special prosecutor for crimes against women told a local newspaper on Friday.

Men who stop talking to their wives or avoid sex ... are guilty of indifference, she said.

Men found guilty of ... indifference could face up to five years in prison...

Perez Duarte said the law would be a weapon that women could employ to level the playing field with abusive men.

Perez Duarte said indifference... or lack of love were crimes against women just as much as physical violence.

Translation: refuse to let a bitch rape you? GO TO JAIL.



Woman assaults man on video, so cops assault and arrest him for defending himself... so what do feminists have to say about equality under the "law" now? :liar:


[feminist hypocrisy in action: wife, Mary J. Blige--the same cunt who opened a Domestic Violence center for women--is seen punching her husband in the face (along with biting him). IN FUCKING PUBLIC.]

these are just a few example of feminism's "legal" hypocrisy.
Specifics, please?
hey demanding cunt, we already provide plenty of specifics.

how about YOU start providing specifics for your ridiculous, fanatical feminist views.
Who is rejecting femininity as a contemptible weakness?

retarded sentiments like this betray your 3rd grade reading comprehension skills. nowhere in our ebook is femininity ever referred to as a contemptible weakness. in fact, the irony here is that feminists like YOU are the ones who actually reject femininity. you view "housewives" as contemptible slaves worthy of mocking. if a woman doesn't have a career, you shower her with scorn. if a woman chooses a relationship over a competitive occupation, you label her as "weak" and "pathetic." you consider those who cook and clean for their boyfriends/husbands to be nothing more than despised traitors with "low self-esteem." feminists like you HATE AND LOATHE the very thought of such "contemptible" women because their happiness only magnifies your bitterness.

here's a feminist author's response to hearing a news report with statistics showing that the majority of women would rather find a rich man to marry than have a successful career:

"Seriously? This makes my skin crawl. Not that a woman would want to marry a successful and educated man, but just that they would want to instead of building a career of their own." clearly this shows that feminists hate the natural femininity of women just as much as they hate masculinity.

Manhood Academy, on the other hand, fully supports feminine women. their satisfaction with their relationships exposes your dissatisfaction with your 300 "life partners"/hostages.

Image
Where are you getting your "facts" from on these gender normatives that you equate?

just like the existence of gravity can be known indirectly through its effects on the planet, all other natural laws/principles can be known by studying their effects on social interaction..

for example we know you're a 'cunt'--a woman bent on usurping male authority--because of your aggressive, competitive approach to relationships.

Image

you want all of the authority to control men without any of the responsibility that goes along with it. thus, we know your husband is a mangina who fears your authority. these are FACTS based upon countless observations of this same phenomenon that occurs around the world.

and we could further substantiate these facts by interviewing other men and comparing their views to your emasculated husband's views. and we would begin to see a common pattern emerge. we could also predict certain side effects of emasculation like sexual dissatisfaction from the male, along with loss of attraction from the female.

and we know feminists like you LOVE to lie about the nature of your relationships, which is why we don't trust what you say but rather what actually results. i.e., we would expect you to lie about the fabulous nature of your relationship. most feminists do. but a divorce or infidelity would easily prove otherwise.

in the end, feminists can lie with their mouths but not with their actions.
You claim females' "natural" roles are "nurturing, supporting and comforting" and males' "natural" roles are "disciplining, planning and leading" -- I would argue that both genders have "natural roles" in all of the above. Unless you've never watched a housewife plan the grocery budget, discipline her children, or use natural leadership skills to commandeer a household

oh i've watched them attempt it. but as we said before, feminists can ONLY lie with their mouths. their actions say otherwise; when we look at single mother households, we notice a dangerous pattern of felons being produced vs. those households where an authoritative father is present. but if we were to ask single mothers about their opinion of their parenting skills, we'd hear, "Me? I'm parent of the year!"..

the irony of course is that as much as women love to complain about crime, the vast majority of felons that end up behind bars are the direct result of SINGLE MOTHER PARENTING.
-- and yeah, I'm being a little sarcastic by putting the female in what you seem to deem her "natural" setting as a housewife. Further, most every Dad I know out there is quite naturally nurturing, supporting, and comforting with his children...and even his spouse, when the situation calls for those traits. Both genders play all roles, depending on the setting.
spoken like a true delusional single mommy.

this is where the infamous Oprah Winfrey-esque phrase, "i may want a man, but i don't need a man," came from. now, tell the cunts who believe this to remove themselves from all male-driven, male-forged societies, and let's see how long they truly can last on their own.

"strong & independent" women are a myth invented by feminism. this delusion only works in your imagination, not in reality.
Pulling a woman out of the "homemaker model" - if you've never had a female boss who you've respected, then that is more than likely a personal flaw of yours than any character flaw of hers.

did everybody hear that?

this cunt actually believes that if you can't accept Sarah Palin as your next president, there's something inherently wrong with you. Sarah's idiocy is YOUR FAULT; if you don't respect the fact that she can't read a book, it's your personal flaw.


[if you don't want this woman carrying you out of a burning building or leading a fortune 500 company or handling a scalpel, something must be wrong with you.]
I've had shitty male AND female bosses...and I've had terrific male AND female bosses.
this is the politically correct fucktard feminist answer. OF FUCKING COURSE you're going to imply that working for a woman is no different that working for a man. and you're going to completely discounting all evidence to the contrary. these are givens.

the default feminist position is based on falsehood and deception. the only way this fraudulent system can exist is if all its critics are demonized as evil before they're even allowed share their views. because if feminists ever actually had to defend their own views under the harsh eye of public scrutiny, they'd be exposed as frauds and con artists. in fact, that's already happening more and more each day as we speak.

the only thing that feminists fear more than the truth is open, public debate.

Edit: and this is exactly why she called the LAPD to report us for "hate speech." if feminists can't debate you, their next best option is to INCARCERATE you. fortunately, you gave the LAPD a good laugh.


Image

none of you intellectual cowards would DARE set foot in our PUBLIC chatroom and challenge us to an open discussion/debate.
What you're suggesting is that male and female brains are "hardwired" differently, when in fact, every bit of current neuroscientific evidence points to the exact opposite.

that's actually a lie. and your penchant for dispensing fraudulent information is the exact reason why we don't listen to what you say; we listen to the ACTUAL RESULTS of what you do.

here's some men, just fucking around and inventing CIVILIZATION.

and here's some chicks conquering the mysteries of cookie dough and alphabet blocks.

today, feminists love wave their "formal education" and higher degrees in the faces of men: "look we have more college diplomas! we are smarter than men! weeeee!"

BUT

whenever anyone tries to compare male intelligence to female intelligence via REAL WORLD RESULTS (aka inventions), feminists love to make the stupid argument that women back then didn't have access to a proper education like the men of their time did.. but of course they conveniently fail to point out that the greatest minds of all time belonged to MEN who possessed little to no formal education.

Leonardo Da Vinci, with little formal education, demonstrated his brilliance by mastering diverse subjects and fusing them together through observation, insight and inspiration.

Srinivasa Ramanujan, with almost no formal training in pure mathematics, made substantial contributions to mathematical analysis, number theory, infinite series and continued fractions. Ramanujan's talent was said, by the prominent English mathematician G.H. Hardy, to be in the same league as legendary mathematicians such as Euler, Gauss, Newton and Archimedes.

Even one of the greatest geniuses of all time, Albert Einstein, clashed with authority and resented the school regimen, believing that the spirit of learning and creative thought were lost in such endeavors as strict rote learning.

seems feminists failed the grasp the point behind Mark Twain's famous quote: "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education" (the irony being Mark Twain was a feminist).

so much for your silly gender theories.
You speak of the media based upon certain stereotypes - and that appears to me, as a casual observer, likely more related to the genre of whatever it is you watch in movies or on television. Because if you've ever paid attention to the mixed messages women receive from the media, and I mean with more than the mind of a male adolescent staring at boobs bouncing in bikinis,

there is nothing more cliched than the "little boys" insult beloved by feminists everywhere.
then you'd be appalled by the psychotic nature of what women endure from the media.

men have to deal with condescending cunts like you in real life and in the media. . these same "little boys" are responsible for the civilization you're busy taking advantage of today.

delusional cunts like you and your man-hating message are daily forced down the throats of unsuspecting young boys growing up. they're spoon-fed the idea that women are smarter, stronger, faster and worth more. nothing could be further from the truth.

an example of typical feminist bullshit in the media:


and like a typical self-absorbed, professional victim, you completely ignore what happens to males subjected to these misandrist messages..



But that thought has probably never crossed your mind...not even once...while feeling sorry for yourself and your lost John Wayne ideals.

yep. right on schedule. another typical feminist shaming tactic.

the irony here is that a dumb cunt like you can't even begin to grasp the hypocrisy of your own statement. here you are complaining about your own delusional, self-serving ideals while feeling sorry for yourself and trying to get men to sympathize with your position.

you're an insulting cunt, and yet you have the nerve to lecture us about behavior and manners. your blind hypocrisy can only function in a world where no one is allowed to scrutinize feminism out in the open. your fanatical views can only exist in a man-hating culture that seeks to demonize and criminalize the male perspective. if you can't bully us into submission, you'll run to the court system in an attempt to throw us in jail for expressing our views.
Edit: she did just as predicted. after losing the debate, she actually called the LAPD to try and get this site shut down for "hate speech".

this is a common feminist tactic; to mischaracterize everything a man says and turn it into "hate speech," thus making it subject to legal prosecution.

in your delusional feminist mind, if men don't agree with you, they must hate women.

if men don't buy into the fraudulent nature of the wage-gap argument, they must hate women.

if men don't find women as qualified to join the fire dept., they must hate women.

if men don't want to pay to get in clubs where women get in free simply because of their gender, they must hate women.

if men dare to acknowledge obesity in women, they must hate women.

if men don't want to risk all their assets by getting married under the feminist State's current marriage laws favoring women, they must hate women.

if men refuse to play the role of "gentlemen" because women refuse to play the role of "ladies" under feminism's new "independence" mantra, they must hate women.

if men refuse to pay the bills for women who claim to be "strong and independent," they must hate women.

if men acknowledge their superior intelligence (as verified by HISTORY), they must hate women.

if men want the women in their relationships to cook, clean and take care of their children, they must hate women.

if men dare to defy irrational feminists demands by saying, "NO," they must hate women.

essentially, according to feminist cunts like you, any disagreement with feminism's dysfunctional gender ideology equates to hatred of women. and men who hate women must automatically be vilified as "dangerous abusers" who will murder women if given the chance.

this all-too-convenient mischaracterization of both message and motive gives you the self-righteous moral incentive to press for the suppression of all male views and incarceration of all dissidents.

your absurd jumps in logic would be comical if they weren't so transparently vindictive and self-serving in nature.

like most short-sighted feminists, you figure that if you can simply make men out to be monsters right from the start, that will alleviate the need for you to actually form a coherent argument to defend your ridiculously hypocritical, self-serving views.
You speak of what women believe as though you have any iota of an idea what a woman might think in the first place.
hey delusional cunt, we know more about what women think than you ever will because, unlike you, we believe in TESTING everything.

whereas your mindless feminist theories only work in the vacuum of your own imagination, our perspective is DAILY verified by the men who benefit from our instruction.. if what we say didn't actually work in real life, they'd have reported it by now. but as you've so obviously ignored, the men and women here, along with their experiences worldwide, have been speaking VOLUMES about our work.
You say "women believe they hold all the cards when it comes to dating"...in what universe?

this entire paragraph is indicative of your childish mentality and general inability to grasp concepts that aren't spelled out in either crayon or macaroni art. like most fucktards, you fail to read anything IN CONTEXT. this statement is already explained in the ebook. but you've isolated it and taken it out of context, so now it merely read like a self-pitying complaint.

in context, this statement simply introduces the SPECIFIC WAYS in which feminism has granted women dating privileges denied to men. for example, men are expected to pay to get in clubs/bars while women get in for free, just because of their gender. this is a LEGAL sexist policy SUPPORTED BY FEMINISTS (so much for that ridiculous feminist claim about desiring 'equality').
You're in CA. You live in Plastic Land Central (and yeah, dude, I was born there...am familiar with the mindset).
and like a typical feminist, you allow yourself to make these sweeping generalizations, yet you fault men for doing the same. carry on.
Your perspective probably has more to do with which women you're trying to land than it does to anything with what "most" women believe about anything.
another poorly educated assumption, easily disproven by experience.
The vast majority of women I know do not read Cosmo.
i'm pretty sure your 5-person sample size doesn't matter to the millions of women who DO read it. but like most irrational feminists, you readily assume that your limited experience automatically extrapolates to global experience.

btw, since you're obviously too fucking dumb to realize this, we'll let you in on a little secret; we cull our female views straight from the horse's mouth:



not only that, we comb over a mountain of female blogs and female-driven online publications as well as female-centric news organizations like CNN. i.e., when you're faulting "our" view of women, you're really faulting what your own mirror is reflecting.

Image

Or any of the other glam glossy magazines telling them "what men want in bed" or "how to lose 15 lbs in 5 minutes after having a baby"...are you high?
who do you think is writing these online magazines?

WOMEN.

the authors we quote are WOMEN, YOU FUCKTARD.
Were you fed too many mushrooms as a kid? Or ... wait... ARE you still a kid?!

so either we're high on drugs for telling the truth, or we're back to your pedophile fantasy of little boys running around in their tighty whiteys. and those are our only 2 options?

.......... ok. we'll go with high on drugs.
What is it you think are women's dating standards, that they're ridiculous?
did you.. you know..... READ THE FUCKING EBOOK?

since, you're obviously too dumb to accomplish that, you could just visit any female-oriented publication and find the same basic info...but since we both know you're too lazy to do your own homework, here's just a cursory search of a popular female publication:

If you’re set on being a modern man who prefers to go dutch, so be it—
we
most of us are cool with that—but divide it straight down the middle. Those who itemize based on who ate what—especially if that means they owe less—should be deeply ashamed. And also castrated.

If you’re more traditional and opt to pay the full bill, do not expect your generosity to buy you any sexual favors. Seriously, not even a kiss. Besides, kisses/blowjobs/sex feel so much better when they’re given with natural enthusiasm, not because $50 was forked over for a mediocre piece of salmon and some stupidly named cocktails.


i know, i know. in your delusional cat-herder mind, castrating men for NOT PAYING YOUR BILLS is perfecting legitimate dating advice. but in the real world, men take issue when self-entitled cunts like you claim to be "strong and independent" WHILE DEMANDING men foot your bills.

it's clear from advice like this that women just expect men to gamble and hand over their money on the off chance that they might get some sex. in other words, today's self-entitled women are no different than malfunctioning hookers--you still have to pay, but there's a good chance you'll get NOTHING in return.

Don’t be too available
Guys like challenges and they’re most intrigued by women who have active lives, so keep things interesting by only accepting half his invites to hang out. Tell him you have other plans, but be vague about what they are. At this point, vague is sexy, vague is challenging, vague is something he wants to figure out.

here again, we see that women delusionally believe employing DECEPTION is the best way to create a loving relationship.

now let's hear from an emasculated mangina purporting to represent the 'male' opinion, on this very same site:

News flash for the ladies: dating is really expensive. If the guy is a class act, he’s going to take you to a decent place where you will have at least two drinks each and some food. This comes out to close to $100 each date, at least. Be mindful of this and, while you certainly don’t need to pay for the major stuff, definitely make a serious effort to pay for the smaller items—cabs, a beer here, a movie there. And don’t just pretend to try to pay—actually do it. It’s not so much about the money as it is the gesture, and he will appreciate it.


so we can see here that emasculated males only serve to reinforce the sexist views of feminists. taking his cues from their own common shaming tactics, he also tries to imply that you can't have "class" unless you're volunteering to pay for some woman you just started dating, who may or may not meet your needs. you'd have to be a naive, emasculated male to fall for that kind of con game.
Have you ever asked any woman?



that's where we got the information from in the first place.

Image

Have you ever put out a scholastic survey to women to find out?

1. only a person with more than 2 brain cells could figure out that so-called scholarly surveys are worthless when studying social interaction. there are way too many variables out of your control that negate the objectivity of the findings. this is why feminists love surveys and statistics-- manipulating numbers to support a delusional self-serving philosophy never felt so good.

2. we don't need to; feminists post literally thousands of the exact same hypocritical dating standards online for all to see.

3. but just because you asked:


Have you read this in a professional journal somewhere?

in women's studies classes, they fail to teach you any common sense; women are so fucking gullible. any good used car salesman will always try to sell to a wife over a husband because he knows women are more prone to make emotional buying decisions instead of rational ones like men.

in this same vein, women choose to believe information that makes them feel good about themselves rather than what's actually true. women care more about protecting their self-esteem than dealing fairly with others. this is why men often lie to get into their panties. they realize that women are not interested in hearing the truth as they claim. and experience validates this every time.

if i told you that a "professional journal" said the earth was flat, you'd be fucking dumb enough to believe it because unlike men, you're not bright enough to examine the existence of an authoritative fallacy. you swallow whatever fish tale makes you feel good about yourself.

Image

Or...are you assuming?


Image

You talk of "having [her] cake & eating it too"...you know what that reminds me of? My DAD. But do you know what he was pissed off about? The advent of the *birth control pill*...he believes the BCP gave carte blanche to women to be JUST AS promiscuous as men have always been. My response? Sounds like he was pissed that the BCP had leveled the playing field. Your snit there rings of the same brand of hollow grapes that men of my dad's generation felt in the mid-60s when suddenly women could do what men have ALWAYS done with impunity.

watching you attempt to construct a coherent point is extremely painful.

Image

cakes... impunity... dad... hollow grapes... promiscuity...

is written this in chinese?

[go take a potty break; believe it or not, this is only like 1/16th of what this delusional cunt has written]
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.
User avatar
Professor
Dean of Beatdowns
 
Posts: 8947
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:34 am

Re: smug, poorly educated feminist wants to debate us

Postby Professor » Sun Jan 02, 2011 11:33 am

Awesome, you've got a trackback and found a couple of my webpages. I'm SO impressed. More impressed that you posted my image (from my sites) without my express permission - and though I'll grant those sites ARE public, the images themselves are copyrighted. Or are you unfamiliar with terms of use in Internet posting? I also note, interestingly, the images you chose. But that is neither here nor there, honestly. In giving you free publicity, so have you given me some...so thanks. I will ask kindly that you remove the picture with my son in it. As he is a minor (a newborn in the picture) AND that you are guilty of copyrights violations, it's bad enough that you posted images that you have no ownership rights to...it's quite another that you posted one of a minor without the express, written permission of the parent.


basically this crazy cunt is complaining about PICTURES, SHE PUBLICLY POSTED to gain attention for herself. never mind the fact that this hypocritical cunt is POSTING IMAGES FROM OUR SITE WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION. so she feels she can break the law with impunity because feminism told her that all legal consequences fall on the shoulders of MEN--just as we stated in our ebook. this is a perfect textbook example of that.



Image

Next up...I'm ignoring the vast majority of your "retort"


Image

OF FUCKING COURSE you're ignoring it. you don't have the mental capacity to debate us. no feminist does.

and if you can't silence us through intellectual debate, the next best thing is to CRIMINALIZE US for daring to speak out publicly against the hypocritical gender policies of feminism.


Lastly, I will be in contact with your website's ISP for violations of copyright laws where I and my children are concerned. I don't rightly care that you "gentlemen" are misogynistic jerks with no self-awareness -- the blind leading the stupid, quite frankly. You all are free to believe whatever you choose. However, where you step beyond that right of personal conviction into infringing onto the rights of another? That is where the line is drawn.


yes, you've POSTED YOUR PICTURES ON A PUBLIC FORUM, ALONG WITH THIS INFANT WHO YOU CLAIM TO CARE ABOUT PROTECTING THE IDENTITY OF--LOL--and suddenly you're becoming self-righteous about people seeing you? typical feminist hypocrisy. meanwhile you have NO PROBLEMS violating copyright claims when it concerns OUR WEBSITE.

[also note that the BACK OF THE INFANT'S head was posted, not the child's actual FACE. meanwhile, on PUBLIC FUCKING FORUMS, this crazy cunt has posted countless pictures of her children's FACES for the entire world to see. that is the epitome of hypocrisy, not to mention irresponsible--if not dangerous--parenting.

the image we removed had NO DISTINGUISHING FEATURES whatsoever--it was the BACK OF A FUCKING HEAD. you would never in a million years be able to identify her child from the back of his/her head. meanwhile, we could just as easily have posted a link to the public forum where all her children's FACES are in plain public view. but we're not as irresponsible as her. we would never jeopardize her children's lives even though she obviously has no problem endangering them herself by plastering their FACES all over the internet. the smug hypocrisy of feminists is disgusting.]

make sure you IMMEDIATELY remove any content you posted from this site. you don't have our permission to use it, you crazy cunt.

Update: Letter has been sent - both to the ISP and to the LAPD. In reviewing the content more closely and upon consulting with some professionals in areas of law and criminal behavior


her legal team:

Image

I learned that what is transpiring in that website is actually against the law.


Image

in her delusional feminist imagination, she would LOVE nothing more than to criminalize the male perspective. fortunately the First Amendment rights in this country quickly slap this lunatic out of the building.
:slapface:

Edit: fortunately, the LAPD didn't know whether to laugh or cry after hearing her complaints about "hate speech"
Image

Usage of my images is minor, comparatively. So...the letter has been duly sent - and I'm posting this publicly so that nobody can claim "entrapment" or "surprise" by my notifying not only the ISP, but the legal authorities regarding what amounts to a HATE GROUP.

Cheers

just as we've always told you men--YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS are being threatened by crazy feminist cunts just like this.

we warned you: feminists will always try to CRIMINALIZE FREE SPEECH. it's the only way they can silence the opposition. in a feminists's delusional mind, your MALE perspective amounts to "HATE SPEECH." anything you say that contradicts the entitlement mentality of feminism WILL BE CRIMINALIZED. in a feminist's delusional mind, you are no different than Hitler, the KKK, islamic terrorists, etc.

ImageImageImage

dear feminist cunt,

you are NO LONGER ALLOWED TO POST ON THIS SITE. if you continue to stalk us and post "hateful" content (refer to your own hypocritical definition of "hate speech"), we will consider it CRIMINAL HARASSMENT and be contacting your ISP and local authorities regarding your "HATE SPEECH."




as we've always stated, feminists love to have their cake and eat it too; they want the protection of the law when it suits their self-interests, yet they have no problem violating laws that inconvenience their hypocrisy. feminists self-righteously excuse themselves from the burden of maintaining the standards they hold men accountable to.



welcome to the dangerous world of feminism.
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.
User avatar
Professor
Dean of Beatdowns
 
Posts: 8947
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:34 am

Next

Return to Confronting Critics & Interviewing Hos over webcam

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests