Polish men what is the worst thing a girl can do upon first impression?

Of course, which is why i said "people lie" ... and i dont think i was trying to use that as an argument?


Good to know ;o)


I think this is because to begin with, without some sort demonstration or event, most people would carry on blindly unaware of the things going on around them, not understanding that a change is needed.

(I cannot help but think of the film 'Raspberry Reich' when i hear the word revolution - "The Revolution is my boyfriend!")


Well that i didn't notice, i hope that wont be attributed to my being a female ... oh ha ha.

You're right, but I guess I was looking for an argument.

;)


I think a public debate achieves more than protesting outside? They don't like organized and consistent pressure. I think most people do understand though, but maybe they lack the will, the means or even the courage to try?


Revolutions don't change much and very often go hand in hand with chaos and violence, and I don't think we want that, or even need that. Supporting a different influence within an already existing system usually does change things, because people are more willing to listen when they don't feel threatened. (Atleast that's my convinction.)


Well, I can't really tell if you're a blonde, can I?

;P

I never mentioned Oppenheimer. stop the straw-dog premises! Besides, we all know that intelligence is not one dimensional. When I talk with university professors, I find that many of them are intelligent in the conventional sense but lack a certain smartness and often common sense. Additionally, there is a form called 'street smarts'.


I may even agree with you on this but that isn't the issue. You once again totally missed the point. When feminists shriek "equality", they ignore what you just stated. They pick-and-choose careers in those area they want but ignore the tough jobs. Look at Denmark. Feminists (and socialists) demand that women should make up 40% of various boards, political appointments and upper management. That, of course is sheer stupidity, let alone sexism. Yet, these same feminists don't demand that women become 40% of oil rig workers (among dozens of other male dominated jobs). Men and women are different and this sort of nonsense has no place in civilized society.


They don't get paid less for the same job. They often get paid more for the same job. Did you not comprehend my previous post and link? You really are still living as if it was the 1950's.


You never did confirm or deny if you are female or a feminized male. Please do so. Reading the above makes me think you lied about your gender.


That's the clincher. You are female. Only women write like that.
Men like myself who are considered 'security objects' have no reason to marry because we have too much to lose. As I've often stated, no man should marry until the court systems become equitable to men.


My, but your envy is pronounced. You really are a very poor judge of people.


You just stated that you leave stuff out and ignore other facts. Perhaps it's your English so I won't be too harsh. Nor did you specifically refute the facts.

I presented more definitive info than you did and by a large margin. You merely capitulated.
The threads are here for all to read.
Oh, one more thing. I welcome any moderator of these forums to meet me in person and find out for themselves who I am.


Since you live in England and have been in a shelter, I am curious as to what you think about this article by Erin Pizzey who opened up the first womens shelter there.

fathersforlife.org/pizzey/planned_destruction_of_family.htm

Additional follow-up: ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0818rolph.html

In your case we can see its just that! In fact, you're invisible..where inteligence is concerned..

Is it possible for you to contribute something substantial to conversation? It's also noticeable that you are afraid to comment on what 'real people' write. Since you are an apologist for feminism, what do you think (not feel) about Erin Pizzey or is she too much truth for you?

ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0818rolph.html

From the link:

"At the same time as the Communists were plotting to take over the feminist movement, here in Great Britain, a diplomats daughter was about to open the worlds first domestic violence shelter. Her name is Erin Pizzey4 and she is one of the bravest and most intelligent modern women I have ever had the pleasure to talk to. Let Erin explain, in her article "THE PLANNED DESTRUCTION OF THE FAMILY"5 what happened next:

By now I was very firmly 'the enemy.' Men, at this point, took the whole movement as a joke but it was no joke, as many homeless men deprived of their children will tell you. Savaged by feminist lawyers and therapists, men have routinely been deprived of their homes, their children and their incomes.

Too many questions. Western nations seem very inquisitive to most Poles. On the other hand, who does not like attention? But seriously, I would limit personal questions.

I read only part of the article as I knew where it would head and because it was written terribly. But I did take some time to analyse and dig into your sources and here is what I found and why I think I can dismiss your sources as not being credible.

***
From the same site:



And there are plenty of those on the fathersforlife site. Needless to say we can tell from which side the wind is blowing and also needless to say that feminism would never get a fair chance on reactionairy sites like this. But lemme continue:

They actually state that in the case of Domestic Violence, the women are more violent than men. While I not deny that there are male victims of Domestic Violence, the vast majority of victims is of course women. Let's see what the official website domesticviolence.org says about percentages:

- 1 in 3 American women have been physically or sexually abused by her husband or bf at some point in their lives.
- 30 per cent of all female murders were committed by husband or bf
- 40 to 60 per cent of the men who abuse women, also abuse kids.

domesticviolence.org/common-myths/

Who are the victims according to domesticviolence.org? Let's see:


domesticviolence.org/who-are-the-victims/

Let's see what fathersforlife.org thinks they have to say about the topic:

For example, about the US Violence Against Women Act:


fathersforlife.org/fv/family_violence_main_page.htm - (Link 2-a)

Well then, what is so remarkable about the article? Well, this:


dadsnow.org/vawa/vawa2.htm

Hey, that is weird. The official site says that 1 in 3 women have been abused at some point in their life and that 40 to 60 per cent of the perpetrators are men. Hm, this overlaps the 65 per cent dadsnow.org mentions...So, what happens in those overlapping families? Both mom and dad beat eachother's heads in and after that take on their kids together? Does that make sense? Hm, don't think so.

So, now that we've established in what source Erin Pizzey's piece has been used we can now start to understand why it has been used and why it was pulled out of context. Yet again only one dissenting opinion is being presented as proof that the entire feminist-movement is one shambles. And remarkably this is presented to us by the same group that states that women are more than twice as violent as men, call gay ppl evil with a hidden agenda to take over the US and ignores the official figures when it comes to domestic violence.

But besides all that, Erin Pizzey's is too assuming and too self fulfilling prophecy. Pizzey states in her book "Prone for Violence" that most female victims basically are to blame themselves for what happens to them, they are looking for the violence a monster of a guy can provide them. With this remark Pizzey is way off line and she misses the point completely in this case. While indeed some women will subconsciously look for violent partners, the act of violence in itself directed at them is not a favourable one and the fact that she may have no backbone in that respect does NOT justify any violence against either her or her children. Let's ask the official website again:


Hey! They too admit that there are female abusers. But of course the biggest number is, again, men.
domesticviolence.org/who-are-the-abusers - (Link 4)

Whereas fathersforlife.org only states and emphasizes that it's the women who are the abusive ones and men have to suffer from this terrible myth, the official website admits that there are also femal abusers, however, the vast majority is men.

Let's go back to Erin:

In Prone to Violence she writes, according to Wiki:


So far so good. Although this is only fractionally true, let's continue:


Aha! So it's them darn hormones and neurochemicals again in combi with dad who couldn't keep his hands to himself! So that's already two violent men in this type of woman's life. But let's see what else is there:


Of course shelters are ineffective when all these victims of domestic violence are basically nutters who liked to either have sex with dad and be beaten up by him and now that dad is gone, they have grown so fond of it, they just go on a search for the next psycho who will fcuk and beat the crap out of her...Hm. With an extra bonus this time: the children! Who gives a shyte about them? These little boggers should never think they can come between the holy fighting bond she has with her violent psycho guy!

But let's continue as now the part comes in which Erin betrays herself and we can put her laughingly into the trashbin as far as her judgement about Women's movements and feminism is concerned:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey

This could come right out of fathersforlife.org! And of course it's in there as it suits their needs. However, for the evaluation of the feminist movement and feminism in general it has no value at all. Erin is dismissed.

Well, I could go on about Georgie Roph and his pseudo-scientific approach (which of cours has only one outcome as it can only have one outcome, if you know what I mean), but I will suffice with just one quote from his work quoted in his "Letter to America" as provided by Zimmy in his second link. Georgie writes:


If the answer to the second question is so simple, well, what would the answer be to the first question? Of course: the women's movements to protect the victims:


dvmen.org/dv-23.htm

I for one don't believe in the proof of individuals like Georgie, who rap about the abuse-industry and set the tone for what the outcome will be; I'd rather rely on state- and government figures as they tend to be as correct as pssbl as the govt doesn't have an agenda to uphold on these numbers. Georgie's, Erin's and fatherforlife's agenda is obvious: trying to divert as much of the attention away fromt he real perpetrators. Anyway, this should take care of the sources, and how to look at the articles given.

Once you come up with truly neutral and accurate sources on this topic I will have a look at them again.

>^..^<

M-G (haec hactenus)

It's painfully noticeable that you regurgitate all the false feminist figures and rhetoric that's been around since the 1970's. They've done a good job with their self-serving propaganda. People like yourselfpreferto believe them.

Spend 1/2 hour looking at the bottom line of the statistics in this link which is objective because none of the 542 studies are related to each other. They were all done independently, That should bring you up to date, that is, to 2010.


Are you not aware that most child abuse is committed by women? Are you shocked because that fact doesn't fit in with your feminist bullcrap? I'm almost embarrassed for you because you buy the feminist line hook, line and sinker. Most up-to-date people just shake their heads when they hear or read the kind of bunk you spout. That's because they are tired of the same old fem-lies.


Ms Pizzey's life experiences speak for themselves. She started out trying to help women but soon realized what a wicked cabal the feminists were. Feminists like yourself are terrified of her because she's been there and done that; and she speaks from her experience.


Wrong! The feminists have shown that they want one-sided laws and advantages for themselves and there is absolutely no empathy for males. It shows in too many ways for me to address here but I'll quickly mention one; feminists oppose shelters for men and have often appeared at hearings demanding that only women be provided for. Their history in this is a sordid one.


The government does indeed have an agenda because by its very nature it wants to be a nanny state. The more dependence on government, the more it grows and that is the nature of the beast. Also, figures given to government agencies are often skewed because for instance, men don't report women's abuse as frequently as women do. Women are encouraged to report it, men are told, "take it like a man" or are laughed at if they do. In short, there are cultural and sociological reasons which do not tell the whole story. Of course, independent numerous studies like the "Feibert" ones gather all objective information available which includes non-reported violence. If you had the courage to go through these studies than you would have noticed that even the women themselves admit to being violent even though their male victims never reported it.

I'm off to the beach before it rains........

Oh, I almost forgot, child abuse info: faq.acf.hhs.gov/cgi-bin/acfrightnow.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=70

From the link: "According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System's most current report, Child Maltreatment 2008, of the approximately 772,000 child abuse and neglect victims in 2008, the largest percentage of perpetrators, nearly 80 percent (80.1) were parents of the victim, including birth parents, adoptive parents, and stepparents. Of the parents who were perpetrators, more than 90 percent (90.9) were biological parents, about 4 percent (4.4) were stepparents, and about 1 percent (0.7) were adoptive parents. Other relatives accounted for an additional 6.5 percent, and an unmarried partner of a parent accounted for 4.4 percent of perpetrators."

In 2008, approximately 56 percent (56.2%) of child abuse and neglect perpetrators were women and 42 percent (42.6%) were men. For the most part, female perpetrators were younger than male perpetrators; of the women who were perpetrators, about 40 percent (45.3) of women were younger than 30 years of age as compared with one-third (35.2%) of the men. These proportions have remained consistent over the past few years.

Lake Michigan awaits.........as does volleyball

Of course Zimmy, of course. I have proven that your sources are conservative male sources and that the outcom of ANY "research" could only lead to one conclusion. Funnily enough this conclusion always seems to fit perfectly with what was assumed beforehand. In right wing conservative researches there are never surprises that prove their assumptions wrong to begin with. What does this say? 1. We never hear the outcome of researches that reveal the error in their upfront assumption. 2. Research material is only sought in one end of the spectrum, usually the side on which the researcher is on, in this case right wing conservative. So it's not surprising that feminism comes off very badly.


Nope, I'm actually more embarrassed that you are a man too like I am. But I chewed you up, to use your words, by proving your sources are not reliable and the only thing you can put against this is that I'm buying this feminist crap. Why do right wing conservative nonsense ppl always think they're so smart and so clever and so up to date and so realistic? In fact I usually feel sorry for them as they are such scared ppl who don't even dare to go forward. You cannot rebuke me and that pysses you off. It's ok, Zimmy, I've done that quite a few times now and I am getting used to it :) But it's also boring, because it's so easy to rebuke you, prove your sources are not credible at all. Must be very painfull for you to be humiliated time after time by somebody with only half of the IQ you have.

I'm not a feminist at all. I just hate nonsense like the conservative males usually spout. I don't care about Erin Pizzey; I have proven that she is not a reliable source and so be it. If the conservatives want to keep using her (funnily she is the ONLY one they can use, which they do to great extend), be my guest. I will rebuke you just the same next time you come up with her.

Can you actually point out where I state that women never abuse men? Thanks. But I'd still rather trust govt figures than figures presented to me by a conservative organisation for the rights of men - or more precise: a conservative anti-women organisation.

Anyhow, I had a quick look at Feibert and look what I found:


Now, that was cool eh, Zimmy? In 2005 the number of women murdered by their husband was more than three times the number of husbands killed by their wife. Wow, quite a difference :)

Enter Martin Fiebert:


So far, so good. But now it gets interesting:


/wiki/Domestic_violence

Aha again!
So, what does this say? Fiebert uses basically a slap on the butt or back or wherever as examples of domestic violence. Gee, I must've been abused about a million times then. So this is not really relevant. The violence we're talking about is beating a woman into the hospital or worse. Beating her black and blue and you very seldom see a woman who is strong enough to truly and deeply beat up a guy of average statue. It's simply physically not pssbl.

And besides, I think you didn't even look at the links I provided. Next time you should do so.

>^..^<

M-G (haec hactenus)

Pick at her feet.

Define primitive!
As such thinking won over the world !
Hardly primitive then?!

I don't freaking believe this! You want me to chew your food as well before you can eat it yourself? I think this example says enough.

Such thinking did not take over the world, clever thinking took over the world, primitive thinking only causes wars.
You can do better than this. This is plain stupid.

>^..^<

M-G (Jesus Christ!)

No, you are wrong here!
There is clear that patriarchate, private property, competitiveness between members of the same tribe, gathering of wealth and power, chief is all one packed - base of our civilization.

The mentality is the same!
First agriculture was achievement of women and it seems that first cultures of farmers were matriarchal.
In Europe and Asia those cultures were taken over by warlike culture of keepers and herders of livestock - our culture immediate ancestors (pastoralism).
Privet property found the organization of the society around profit and wealth as the highest achievement in life.
Such culture and mentality in their more matured form went over the ocean to the New World and conquered those cultures, which seemed to be build more around different values, hence inability of Indians to grasp the conception of individual land ownership.

I-S (stupid eh? )

Then tell me, if we are all so civilized and all, why do ppl still fight?


Why are ppl still fighting then? If we are in a more matured civilization, why then are ppl still fighting on a Saturday night? Why are there still wars? Why do ppl genocide other ppl? If we are so matured and so intelligent? Or: if we are so intelligent and civilized, why do we allow a genocide like the one in Ruanda or Yugoslavia to happen? We have the technology, but we did nothing. Now tell me, are we really that civilized?

Edit: if we are all that super civilized, there would not be any killing anymore over shyte reasons, we would've banned crime, we would stop any massacre from happening, because we are so civilized. Fact is that we deep down inside are still primitive cavemen, no matter what decoration we lay upon ourselves.


You really want me to respond to that?

>^..^<

M-G (haec hactenus)

Ironically, that technology is also centered around destruction and killing.

because its our culture, to be somebody to achieve, at last to be better than somebody else at fist fighting, its all there ....don't you see.

In the core of our culture and reality is war, who is more powerful ....who will rule?


I think that you are adding some meaning to the word "civilization" - which I do not.
For me it means the world culture or western culture if you get my drift ?


Yeah! What stopping you?

I-S (people?!)

And you wouldn't call that primitive? I would. I'm well educated and I don't feel the need to compete with sb else as it's no use. One has to go only by his own strength, competing with others in the means of fighting is just a form of insecurity. Like animals do when defending their territory. And we're not animals, as I have heard some say here on this thread.


I see you basically agree with me. What's the fuss then?


You wouldn't want me to respond to that :)

>^..^<

M-G (love thy neighbour)

Well, you make money, aren't you proud that you are better at it than some?
You compete even on this very forum - but being educated and more refine - you compete with wit.

Our culture is various and all the shadows and mutation can find its niche but I can see clearly - our culture is warlike and always were like it!Primitivism has nothing to do with it!

I-S (read again posts I think you don't get what I'm saying, anybody does?)

sighs with exasperation

I am proud of what I've achieved after many years of hard work, yes. But that doesn't mean that I am jealous of sb else...I believe that everybody should take their chances in life and if you cannot make it, then I wouldn't despise you or sth.


You know that I'm always right, do you? :)
I don't compete with them. I just hate racism, anti semitism (which in my book is a form of racism), sexism, prejudices and ignorance. These are painful forms of human thinking. I don't mind if ppl don't know specific stuff as long as they don't put other ppl down over it. Compare my trashing of Zimmy in this thread. He's a male chauvinist pig and who am I to not correct him on that? :) If sb like Jarnowa starts to spill his racist vile, I will trash him. And I will keep on doing so until he stops. I believe in freedom of speech, as long as this freedom doesn't limit the freedom of others. And sometimes I use bad words, yes, but I always use them in perspective, if you catch my drift. If sb uses foul language against me, I won't hesitate to use same language in return. I'm a civilized person and you probably would like me if you'd know me in real life as I hear from ppl that I'm a very agreeable person, but I won't tolerate any intolerance anymore. I've tolerated that for many years and when I found out that it didn't work, I've stopped doing that.


You contradict yourself in this sentence, you do realise that, do you? War = primitive, so a culture which is warlike is per definition primitive. But I know you mean well, so that's ok.


Guess I lift you up to unknown heights :))

>^..^<

M-G (nearly off to bed)

Violence is, without a doubt, the worst primitive trait we have left over from our jungle days. The strongest guy winning is primitive and uncivilized. We should teach our kids that violence has no place in civilized world. History buffs like yourself glamorize and make excuses for it, hence are guilty of helping to perpetuate it.

Just say that I'm right :) I've written long posts in you girl's defence, the least thing you could do now is say that I'm right :)))

>^..^<

M-G (shadarobah)

you guys complain that women want only money from you and they date you only when you have lots of it... in this case, why don't you all quit your jobs and stay at home... and the girls will date you for all the right reasons....

guys who meet such girls are actually to blame for joining such social circles and guys who are in such social circles are in them of their own will and to their own liking... I really can't get such bleeting, through all my studying, numerous student and dorm parties haven't seen any gold diggers, on the other hand I've seen many empty shallow barbie girls when I've visited a techno club once... different worlds different needs ; o

so our civilization or culture is primitive

I-S (good night, I will answer to your points some other time as I'm very sleepy)

You hear me complaining about that? :)

Edit: well, I do think (and in NL it's kinda normal, but not only in NL!) that if you have been dating for a month or two or three and the girl earns just as much as you yourself do, it's not too much to ask to split the bill on occasions when you go out for a dinner, especially if she is the one who wants to go for dinner. Or am I now being unreasonable?

>^..^<

M-G (does not complain at the moment)

you are right!!
I'm surprised that you didn't try to explain to Zimmy the abused kids statistic (if it's even true) by comparing it to the percentages of kids raised with women vs. men.

You have done no such thing. Your attempts at 'spin' are pathetic.


Let's focus on one thing here otherwise you'll continue to spin the liberal bullcrap I've heard so often. How are "271 scholarly investigations: 211 empirical studies and 60 reviews and/or analyses", almost all not connected to each other "not reliable" as you put it? Some of these came from university studies which tend to be liberal. All came from professionals with no ax to grind. Given this, you only seem to prove things to yourself which is a far cry from reality. Seems like you are the kind of person who can look at the color red and say that its black.


You only prove things to yourself. Ms Pizzey was a feminist who started the first womens shelter in England. She learned the hard way what feminism was about when they threatened her, fire bombed her, and slammed her every-which-way because she did not confirm to their male hatred. She is the face you fear because she does not confirm to your jaundiced liberal beliefs. Women like her are a threat to your agenda. Instead of understanding her experience and her truth, you slam her.


You have it exactly backwards again. Feminist organizations claim that any overt physical or even oral action against a woman is considered "abusive" or even "battering". Men who get punched in the arm don't complain about it. Women who get punched in the arm are considered "battered". As you know, men complain far fewer times than women do and our culture is largely responsible for that.

Its noticeable that you seem to convince yourself of your own arguments. You frequently state things like, "compare my thrashing of zimmy" or "my rebuke...." etc. Your method of communication is so self-serving but I forget the name for this condition. Essentially, it is an attempt to prove to yourself that you are right. It's a kind of defensiveness that I've found to be prevalent in liberal circles. It should embarass the writer (or speaker). You do this so often that it makes one wonder how insecure you really are.


Women inherently mate with men who are their equals or better. Wealthy men not infrequently marry a waitress, secretary, etc. It seems to be the way of nature. That's because men cater to beauty or attractivenss and women cater to money and/or social strata.

If men did "quit {their} jobs", than the whole infrastructure of western civilization would collapse. No repairs on bridges, roads, buildings, no electricity, air line pilots, no plumbers,

auto mechanics, oil rig workers, long-haul truckers, etc, etc, etc. The same effect would not occur if all women quit their jobs.


I dont disagree. Indeed, there are too many single parent families (only 10% headed by men) in our society and I could trace much of this breakdown to the government which attempts to nanny-state women. But the point is still valid. It's one of those that feminists whistle past because it doesn't confirm to their agenda that "women are victims" and "men are oppressors". I would think that women would be tired of that old drum beat by now.

I just quit my job. Now hurry up before I'm homeless!

xD

I suppose that the "if it's even true" comment is typical because people have been fed all the feminist nonsense about women being "victims" only and men of course being the perpetrators. Also, the blame game has been big; "deadbeat dads" etc, is constantly fed via articles and even promotions. I blame the media which is generally liberal for perpetuating this myth. I do suggest that people use cognitive dissonance more often so that what they believe to be true is questioned even if it doesn't fit their beliefs or agenda.

Fact is, women abuse their children more often than men if all categories except one. That one is sexual abuse. Even here, people are unaware of the facts. Lots of interesting articles here:

canadiancrc.com/Female_Sex_Offenders-Female_Sexual_Predators_awareness.aspx

Yes I did. I did it even multiple times. Tough to admit this, isn't it?


If Fiebert consideres a slap on the butt or on the shoulder or on the face as violence, then he has a very low treshold where violence is concerned. It's typical how you ignore the statement that with domestic violence is meant beating the partner into the hospital.


You've said that many times. I still don't care.


Confirming things to yourself again, are you?


Well, it's pretty obvious which side she chooses when she says that all men are angels and all women are devils, repeatedly. But I will trash you again later, Zimmy. For now my time is limited and I cannot go into it too deep. But I will, later on.

>^..^<

M-G (and I will because it's so darn easy and entertaining)