themrs. wrote:Just as a question, do you (the moderators or writers of this website) actually hate women, or are you just being comedic about the obvious differences between men and women?
supporting men does not equate to hating women. that is a common/cliched feminist fallacy.
About your "How to tell if you're a mangina" list :
For the most part I agree with you. I don't think that men should be hit, and I don't want a MAN to act like a woman. I don't believe that men should never compromise with a woman; however I don't define compromise to mean "bowing down to a woman's will".
a parent who "compromises" their authority to appease a child is not qualified to parent. compromising is a euphemism for forfeiting male governing authority to women. men who give authority to women end up emasculated and incompetent because they lack the very tool necessary to bring order to women's lives. this is all covered in our free ebook.
and you're confusing compromise with meeting a woman's needs. compromise doesn't lead to a better relationship. it actually undermines a relationship as evidenced by today's divorce statistics.
just because a man isn't willing to compromise his authority doesn't mean his woman will be worse off.
please provide a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of where a man should "compromise" with a woman in a relationship, so i can demonstrate the fallacy of your claim.
I believe that a woman should get the same pay as a man, IF she works the same amount of hours he does and is in a job with exactly the same demands and requirements.
that's EXACTLY why women DON'T get the same pay as men; they REFUSE to work the same hours, meet the same rigorous requirements, work in the same demanding/dangerous jobs as men. they don't DESERVE to get paid the same. even feminist, Warren Farrell, exposes this feminists scam:
Women and men are equally intelligent, but in different ways because of the inherent differences in the biology of men and women.
this statement alone proves that women are nowhere near as intelligent as men. this is usually the driving force (aka chick logic) behind the invention of the fraudulent notion of "emotional intelligence."
they don't cover this in women's studies classes because women hate hearing the truth when it undermines their self-interests or self-esteem. emotion is not a standard for intelligence. in fact, emotion undermines intelligent thought. emotion is fickle and subject to mood, whims, time of day, opinion, etc. it's the least dependable of things to rely on when searching for truth. yet women, because of their lack of intellectual capacity, have delusionally magnified its importance to protect their self-esteem.
this is not to say that emotion is worthless or something that you should be ashamed of. no, emotion is very necessary to life. but it does not belong in a disciplined reasoning process. emotion serves an entirely different purpose.
there no such thing as "different" intelligence. such a claim would contradict the very concept of communication, math, reason, science, or anything based upon a universal standard.
Women excel at communication; while men excel at problem solving, for example.
this is actually a common fallacy. women are VERY POOR communicators. the problem is feminists have hijacked the standard of competent communication.
for example, so-called communication experts praise the ability of women to grasp sarcasm, referring to it as a higher form of communication. but in reality, sarcasm is a DYSFUNCTIONAL form of communication; it conveys a double meaning. and since there is no accountability assigned to speech with multiple meanings, it's a very childish form of communication because it absolves its user of any responsibility for their intended meaning.
men on the other hand are very good communicators because they continually search for a universal application of meaning which allows the greatest number of people at any time to understand what is being said. the point of communication is to convey one person to another, not to hide your meaning in multiple layers of pretentious rhetoric.
you are confusing a refusal to communicate with the capacity to communicate. men have a much greater, more refined capacity for communication as evidenced by countless historical and contemporary writings. but they do not always choose to communicate themselves to you.
and on a side note, many people (both men & women) lack the necessary training to communicate themselves to others in an effective manner. our ebook is very helpful in this regard.
Overall, I found your list to be amusing and, in some parts, true.
thanks for your comments.