Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up

that is just an assumption that is the point, women can be aggressive as well

Is not only about physical abuse, often relations between man and woman in relationship are screwed, it is more complex than somebody beats somebody else up,

The qestion is what to do with that? Should the state intervene even if woman or a man in qestion do not makes complain, should it be probably investigated and a root cause of the problem discovered?

That all good questions and shoudl be addressed. However they are not because all is blamed on men and religion and patriarchal society. That was feminism is all about biased ideology who trove on dividing people not on finding solution to the problem

I love the internet, alpha males have to tell you they are alpha males, they are the best kind of alpha males cos they say so. Another thing about self proclaimed alpha males, they don't have arguments so post videos, the equivalent of pointing and grunting. The prime examples of our species expect you to argue with you tube!

In my opinion beating takes the cake- if we make sure things like that (both men and women) are not neglected and victims are helped we can move on to another, more subtle points. Thankfully in Poland if someone is hurt for more than 7 days (broken legs, arms and so on) the government starts investigation by itself.

And yeah, I will be crying because feminist showed women that it doesn't have to be that way. That if you are abused you can kick the abusers ass.

And one question- since feinists are so men hating how comes they are the one that invite singe fathers into their marches? I can't see other organisations fighting for their rights

In this thread, people are generalizing all feminists. There are good feminists and there are not so good feminists. Feminism is not monolithic!

LOL, the "whining about discrimination" is the tool feminists constantly use. When some men retort that quotas are unjust you accuse them of complaining. There can be no comparison about whining. The thousands of feminist books, articles, programs, etc have been an avalanche of whining compared to any comments men (and good women) have made about equality.


I can only roll my eyes; this is so basic. With all the whining feminists do about integration in business and government, can you give me any examples of women wanting the sexes to be fully integrated in; golf, bowling, tennis, volleyball, soccer, basketball, etc?? I look forward to your examples of feminists demanding that all women's sports be integrated by men.


I agree with you. Why don't feminists demand full integration in those areas? Can it be that even when strength isn't a requirement - men still dominate. Look at your suggestion about golf. There have been some women who tried to play on the men's circuit but they never made the preliminary cuts. Of course no men are allowed to qualify for the womens' golf tournaments. hmmm

As to chess, there are the open divisions (men and women play) and of course there is the mandatory women-only tournaments. Doesn't seem fair to me. Oh, only a couple of women vs dozens of men play in the open competition.....


Sorry, it's not even close. Of course when women play women it looks good. I've already told you that in an impromptu 'Battle of the Sexes' at the Australian Open Serena and Venus challenged Karsten Braasch who was rated above 200 in the mens circuit to a set apiece, and he badly beat them both. To quote Serena: "I didn't know it would be that hard. I hit shots that would have been winners on the women's tour and he got to them easily."

In the Battle of Champions, which was played at Caesars Palace in Paradise, Nevada, in September 1992 between Jimmy Connors and Martina Navratilova. (both in their prime) Connors was allowed only one serve per point, Navratilova was allowed two; and Navratilova was allowed to hit into half the doubles court, Connors could only hit into the singles area. Those rules made it a huge advantage for Navratilova. ] Connors won 7–5, 6–2.

They don't teach that in womens gender studies .....


She got that from her experience in the National Organization of Women (NOW). Like all clear thinking people she saw the immense hypocrisy in feminism. I still see her at social gatherings.


The fact that you have to reach so far back speaks volumes. It's 2013 now and todays women in the west are advantaged in culture and society


Again, you fail to see the complete picture. Feminists don't overview well and the above comment is typical of self-centered thinking. You want to see women competing in skiing in men's competition but you fail to ask yourself this; why shouldn't men compete in women's competion? Get it?


.......and don't forget synchronized swimming. LOL

@ Ironside, I accept that women can be aggressive too. But often men are economically and socially more able to get themselves out of abusive relationships, and also physically to defend themselves.

Also, domestic violence is just one small part of feminism. Consider how many amazing vaccines, medicines, medical procedures, consumer technologies, scientific discoveries, works of art and literature etc people have created, to improve the quality of human life. Until relatively recently half of our species was largely excluded from contributing to this store of shared wealth because few people saw the value in educating women, and even if they did, all too often men kept them barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.

Think how much the lives of all of us can be enriched if we get better at harnessing the genius of women, which isat least the equal of men's.

Funny how all the women-bashers on this forum are identical. They all believe women should stay in the kitchen, produce kids by the dozens, go to church on a daily basis.They adhere to a party created by a guy who does not know how a woman looks like.

I know what that issue is; I run into it with feminists all the time. Feminists don't want to hear anything that contradicts their Pavlovian feminist beliefs. It's 'difficult' hearing and seeing something which contradicts them. Feminists don't give a hoot about male concerns. It's all about them so viewing something which more fully explains real circumstances is difficult.


Hmmm, none of America's "Founding Fathers" were women; must have been discrimination. As to a woman president, if it's Hillary Clinton then she would be worse than Bush. Look at how she mishandled Benghazi among many other events. If it's someone like Maggie Thatcher than she'd make a much better president than Bush.


Women in the U.S. make up almost 60 percent of college students today. Is that enough "opportunity"? Still, there are special women's programs which continue to elevate women in education. When men were the majority in higher education feminists called it discrimination.


Heh,heh,heh, a dictionary definition and the actual practices, many which have already been exposed are very different. Feminist like f2 prefer the theory and ignore the reality. Men should just 'shut up'.


Well then, perhaps these "poor men" need affirmative action and additional help, just like all those special programs that are for women only?

Perhaps Kondzior shouldn't expose the fact that, " women are far more likely to kill their children then men... " They don't teach that in feminist study courses either. They teach (in effect) that men are bad and women are good (and victims).


Of course not and I explained why in my first paragraph above. Feminists duck from criticism, they can only dish it out. Facts are troublesome things to feminists. They dare not look.......

It's hard not to be worse than Bush who was a liberal ******* who did a lot of damage to the Republican Party.

I also agree with Zimmy. Margaret Thatcher would make a much better president than Bush. May she rest in peace.

Yes, because the feminist movment did not exist back then. The suffragettes mainly wanted to be enfrnachuised (get the right to vote). They weren't into parity, gender studies, masturbation classes, changing the language (through their genderl-netural obsession, eg postperson, chairperson, humankind, fligh attendnat attendant, etc.) and other such feminist nonsense.

@ Polonius, t doesn't follow that the suffragettes were against all the other feminist campaigns that have followed the battle for votes. I guess they figured best to go for one bold goal first. But some of those early feminists were involved in other campaigns, including the one for women's access to university education here in the UK.

Just today, Lenka has posted a story about a Polish woman who has discovered a cure for leukaemia. Millions of people could have their lives extended and their quality of life transformed by the work of someone who, were it not for feminism, would have left school at an early age, been married off and made pregnant without the chance to use her gift to enrich humanity.

@Polonius: Pay attention and read post #285.

you missed my point again - my fault or you are busy.
I'm not talking about beatings, that already bad situation. I'm talking abut the fact that feminist biased and ideological outlook clouds the issue not helps to get to the root of pathological relation.


That is not true, until recently only fraction of population received education and women have not been excluded. If you are talking about 19th century educating males over female were of an economical nature which not longer applies.


What it has to do with anything, my point is that feminism do not help anyone and just creates new divisions. Society is not perfect but giving more and more power to the state is not an answer.


I haven't been saying anything against women. I like women, but in terms of rights they have everything. What we are or rather what feminist are talking about are privileges not rights, I don't thinks that women should be privileged and all problems between couples shoudl be dealt with from the point of view how to help relationships, married couples, families to deal with problems and how to solve them.

Not by creating laws and talking about equality but helping men and women to realise their differences and similarities and make a best of it living in harmony.

which laws?

And to you, Zimmy, you say words that mean nothing. Everything you spew can be used by the other side of an argument. Check this out:

Anti-feminists don't want to hear anything that contradicts their Pavlovian anti-feminist beliefs. It's 'difficult' hearing and seeing something which contradicts them. Anti- feminists don't give a hoot about female concerns. It's all about them so viewing something which more fully explains real circumstances is difficult.


AGAIN, it should be transparent you choose radical feminism to discredit legitimate efforts to allow women equal rights.

What's wrong with that? Chairman, chairwoman, sounds good to me.


Well, we have humanity already ;)

You are unaware that in the U.S. the domestic violence establishment run by feminists receives almost one billion dollars annually from government and from various foundations. That's big business and keeping domestic violence figures inflated is part of their marketing to continue to receive such funding. Year after year the DV industry states that violence against women is increasing. By now every woman in the U.S. must have been beaten a dozen times by a dozen different men if we were to calculate their marketing figures over the years.


Many shelters have refused men who have tried. Additionally, when funding was sought for men guess who opposed it on the basis that it would hurt womens shelters?

Wendy McElroy is an objective woman who doesn't try to spin reality because the 'sisterhood' is at stake.
ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2001/0529.html


Please quote where anyone in these forums said that. The last time something like that was said in seriousness was probably around 1955. Once again, some here feel that we're living in some past age instead of 2013 where it is easily demonstrable that women are allowed privileges and programs denied to men.


Not to you because you are incapable of hearing honest criticism and the frequent facts presented. Indeed, it's noticeable that none of the many bits of specific information presented is commented on. You and some others merely generalize that posters are hateful; yet you ignore the hateful quotes by women that I presented. I'm specific, you're rhetorical.


You cannot remotely compare the feminist avalanche of male-bashing to the occasional snow ball thrown back.


Feminism was hijacked by radicals until it has become the norm.

Erin Pizzey opened the first women's shelter in England. She's experienced the reality of feminism, not the vanilla dictionary definition of it. Here is what she has to say on video.

manwomanmyth.com/feminism/erin-pizzey-on-feminism

In case you are puzzled, your specific bits are not worth commenting on, since you are the one incapable of hearing honest criticism.

Somebody already mentioned this... When a Polish male discovers or invents something the headline says 'Polish scientist...bla-bla.' When it's a female the headline goes 'Polish woman...bla-bla'. That is yet another of numrous examples of anti-male discrimination. The worst of it is that feminists don't even regard this as discrimination

So I repeat once again: Do you want full equality or only then when it's convenient, expedient and serves your one-sided causes?
If there are, as you claim, more wife-beaters than husband-beaters, then instead of whinging and whining head for the work-out gym, sign up for a fitness programme, learn judo and karate and give the old man a run for his money!

That video is outright garbage and to use it as anything reliable is to implicate that you are trying to encompass more than just the feminist /femi-nazis in your complaints.

That you are even hinting to claim that DV is somehow entirely fault of crazy feminists? WTF? 0_O Dude you are not talking even apples & oranges.. you are talking apples & flounders

You CAN"T be serious!

A skewed study proves very little for the point (and varies from original subject f thread some)... what exactly is your point anymore? Domestic violence has nothing to do with feminism except that control freak patriarchal fuktards who don't want to be caught and punished, have such a stick up their dick about nasty ass femi-nazis they meet breaking their balls; that they take it out twice as hard on the poor specially selected weaker prey unlucky enough to be in their path and blame it on feminism. Um ..not gonna buy it. Don't see the arseholes duking it out with some scary parade marcher in Seattle.

Women are emotional in general, and yes we can be the worst nags in world during arguments because normally non-physical pressure is all we can bring to bear if push comes to shove, even if she is the one temperamental enough to wanna throw a punch at his head.

Women do not resort to physical violence to make their point in even a iota as close to the same percentage as men. Even in our own defense are less likely to respond with physical violence. It is not in our hardwiring and very rarely taught to us as girls.

You don't know WAT THE FOK you are talking about! You have never lived it, obviously never knew anyone close who did never had it in your family or your tune would be modified. I have a ex that drowned me (I was under 15 min-took 4 hours for full revival) and lived, That knocked two of my teeth out ,,, still breathing. No religious position on divorce was keeping me there.. I was simply terrified of him. I laugh when I hear that rhetoric in a feminists or anti-establishment speakers mouth. Never thought to fight for years. He stalked me 3 years and I married him just before I could jet to family in Brasil, as he had a gun in his pocket to "kill himself" if I didn't (2 years before first stalker law in Cali).

Was not the person I am today who would just as soon shoot someone as not.

DV is about control , not just "being mad". The person with greater credibility, physical prowess, or financial control (all normally a males prerogative) is usually the more successful aggressor. Men... males: with control issues or outright psychotic temper are still the main perpetrators.

Wanna talk all the biology? Well then, don't forget, men have the higher adrenaline and testosterone to allow more extreme and irrational response to unpleasing situations and higher flight or fight response wishing to attack aggressively.... and they are the "do-ers". Which is why you have some weighty numbers climbing in Gay/Lesbian couples as they get a support system that is friendly to them enough to report violence. It is gays higher than lesbians that are reporting the abuse patterns... oh because the equation has .? MEN.

Domestic violence is not something simply reported more, though it has always been in our populations, but it is more prevalent in modern society with it's anonymity.

I don't support "equalization' I do support equal opportunity. Especially when you talk sports. Fact is the genders have physical differences. If a woman wants to compete in a traditional male sport like collegiate wrestling , she has to shut up if her crotch is grabbed (and women need to wear cup in rough sorts too BTW) or she can't met certain requirements because boobage/weakness. I competed in discus and shotput because my unusual upper body strength. When I was racing I competed against men half my age and beat their arses with exception of the top 5-10. But that doenst make me some kind of militant "feminist". > : ( As atheletic as I was, I still enjoyed cooking, entertaining, going to Balls, wearing nice things that enhance my cleavage instead of sport apparel that binds it. If I am not working a hard schedule, I enjoy giving my guy rub downs, massaging his feet to erase tension and fatigue (and raise libido >_<), feed him things that will make him live longer.

I firkin HATED the whiners in the army that didn't wanna carry their own **** and slowed down the rest of us. In the field, women already gave to be accomodated to extra hygiene privledges. I was shamed in Kuwait when so many got pregnant on purpose to get out of their obligation. I myself shamefully used the gender card to avoid taking that ****** untested drug for possible bio protection and the veterinarian grade anthrax shots.

I am not a supporter of feminist agendas or its movement. I do not connect them with any true equality or true suffrage. They want to be more equal and also force ALL women to take their style. Hell no thanks. But to even suggest that DV is somehow caused by femi-nazis and would just disappear if a sudden shift to traditional roles was established overnight? this is a terrible disservice for every victim that begged for help and ended up dead later.

Despite the Monster X, I like men, I am a traditionalist. I like pampering my guy, keeping things running smooth, looking attractive within my natural resources. I don't mind being the" shadow behind the throne". But I fully expect that in exchange for that very traditional treatment of him... same goes for me. He wants that doting partner a la 1950, he has to give me the 1950 housewife perks. If I am breadwinner or splitting the work... he can make his own damn sammich when I come home tired after grave shift! and if he wants to stay at home I better have that sammich waiting on my plate, the house in good condition, kids fed, errands done. So that we can have our good time both well rested .

It's obvious that if you could comment in specific manner then you would. You can't so you don't. I'll ask again, what precise points in this video do you disagree with and why?

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VOu_BszChIE
Please be specific. If your silence continues then that speaks for itself, and in ways you probably don't comprehend. It means you are incapable of debating the facts stated.

One more question. Ms Erin Pizzey opened the first womens shelter in England and it's obvious that she cares about women and domestic violence. Because she began to see that men needed services as well, she was boycotted, called names and even had her life threatened by British feminists. She had to flee England for 15 years before returning. This was in the early days of the feminist movement in Britain supposedly by women who wanted "equality". What do you think about that?

Just for laughs; future dating is ruled by "equality"

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=F_PTxpIjGXE

The function of men is to provide the environment and the means by which women can nurture the race. In order to do this efficiently women need to be kept out of the way because they have a tendency to mess things up. That's all there is to it. The irony is that everything men do is meant to benefit women. Civilization itself is product of the masculine instinct to provide for females. Thus, keeping females out of the activities of males was actually to the benefit of women more then it was to men, who carried all the responsibilities, and did all of the work. Feminism just twisted the whole thing around and actually convinced women they were being "oppressed" and kept out of "fulfilling" corporate careers and dangerous military ventures just out of spite, because men are just evil like that. Riiiiiight...

I 'm not hinting that at all. You are doing what others do, that is you insert how you 'feel' instead of what is factually stated. I'm obviously accusing feminists of distorting the statistical facts for their own agenda. How you could come up with what you just stated is baffling.


That's exactly my point about feminist studies.


Ah yes, there it is. You too have been indoctrinated into using the "patriarchal" generalization for womens complaints. Anything about 'matriarchal fuktards'? I didn't think so.


You're proving that here with your post. But shhhhh, don't let the feminists hear you say that. They still 'feel' that the sexes are merely "social constructs" and that we're all the same except when women are superior.


The Feibert Studies prove you wrong. csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm Can you tell me how "286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses," with an aggregate sample size exceeding 371,600.can be wrong? The professionals come from disparate places meaning that there is no single agenda. Even Erin Pizzey who has worked her whole life in the domestic violence arena says you are wrong, but as I've often noted, women base their decisions on their personal experiences which are not necessarily the total facts.


Amazing how much you 'feel' you know about me, Do tell me more about myself. Not only are you judging emotionally, but you 'assume' so much without evidence. (feelings are not evidence)


I'm truly sorry to hear that. It obviously skewers your judgment about this. I'm tempted to give you some examples but I won't because individual experiences are just that. They are anecdotal.


Repeating that doesn't make it true. Really, look at the last couple of lines in the Feibert Studies. Pick any 2 dozen and go through it. I won't go into the psychological control women have in their relationships because you are seemingly blind to that.





Thanks for sharing.......


Please find any quote from anyone in these threads that suggests that. You are guilty of wrongly over thinking something which isn't there. That is more typical of feminist apologists here so I'm surprised at you.


Shhhhh, again. Don't you know that feminists claim women don't take such advantages? If I gave that as an example then I'd be called a mysogynist.


I knew you had it in you. You've seen a bit of the world.


I enjoy happy endings.

And men do things right? All the crap that has happened to this world is the result of men's 'rightness'.
So what's your point? Men go back to mines while women stay home raising kids?

Read all my comments on this thread. If you can't find my position there, then you are lost. And stop pushing your idiotic video, and agenda.

Rysavy, don't bother. He waits for months for somebody to take the bait and try talking to him about feminists. His entire point is to provoke women..

This one really applies to him:
"Most of the men these anti-women websites are catering to are the guys that cannot accept that men and women should have an equal say in a relationship, or (God forbid!) that the women can make more money than they do.

Because they cannot get past their ingrained stereotypes, their relationships suffer, and in order not to feel emasculated, they conjure and image of a woman as butch or obnoxiously feminist. And internet offers much validation in that direction, if one is looking for it.

But, if a man truly believes that women are more likely to initiate violence than men, then there might be some personal experience that led him to this point.

Even though all the statistics and logistics, such as social roles, upbringing, reproductive physiology, physical strength comparisons etc. lean in favor of woman being a victim, no one is saying that men cannot be victims too. I'm sure it must be comforting for an abused man to learn that he is not alone.

Maybe we should be more compassionate.
Zimmy, for example, is quick to point out his great successes with women, but the websites he's stuck on suggest otherwise."

All that crap includes the computer you are using right now, ; the building you are in, the automobile you drive, the phones you use, the airplanes you fly in, the musical instruments you listen to, film, video, washing machines, the ( you fill in the blanks as the 'civilization list is too long to post here)...........The bottom line is that those educated under feminism hate men reflexively, and will put a negative spin on any male action or attitude no matter what. All you have to do is listen to them "I hate men...." and read what they write; "all men are rapists...." etc. I've previously provided evidence for such comments and I have a library full of them. The norm in feminism is male hate.


Um, many men still work in mines. You oppose women raising kids?


Yes ma'am. I'm going to my room right now.


False premise. Please, no straw man arguments (pun intended).


There can be. In my case there isn't.


Your brain must be protected by some stubborn gene. Do you need to have information repeated frequently before it sinks in? As previously noted, the Feibert Studies incorporated "286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, with an aggregate sample size exceeding 371,600..." So much for your misperception that "all the statistics.......lean in favor ow woman being a victim". But then feminists like you only look at the data you prefer instead of overviewing the totality of information. I've already explained how the DV industry does its business and profitably I might add.


I prefer to state it differently. Women are sometimes successful with me. You often seem concerned about my love life. You refer to it now and then even going back a few years . I never refer to yours'. because it isn't part of the argument.

Of course I know where you stand on these issues. You cling to the victim card, the higher moral card, and the 'women should not ever be corrected or criticized card'. otherwise you automatically throw out the misogynist card. End of argument, no need for fuller facts and speaking of that, you once again failed to dissect the video with specific points that refute it. You should also attempt to dispute the Feibert Studies in logical manner.Explain them away okay?

Oh, one more thing, since feminists demand equality and integration into many upscale venues, why aren't they consistent and demand full integration of men and women in sports as well? Is it just 'pick-and-choose' feminism? I'll await your concise responses but I bet my dog a T-bone steak that you won't do it. Instead you continue to generalize. Don't try to join a debate team.

So some useless rhetoric? Um I thought they were already covered under the blanket of feminazis? Who also profess charming "deserve whats coming to them" attitudes, but have yet to affect the number of men coming in the morgue by a woman's hand ever even doubling the opposite. What a beautiful world it would be if we could throw in a inescapable crevasse, all the feminazis and the sick bastards that love that single researcher who "proves" women are just as fault as men as if that excuses or justifies the fact that men kill women 3-1. yeah , that's right.

On average, more than three women and one man are murdered by their intimate partners in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. Intimate partner homicides accounted for 30% of the murders of women and 5% percent of the murders of men.

(Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intimate Partner Violence in the U.S. 1993-2004, 2006.)


ME wrong? Um hooray for Dr Fiebert and Male abusers of partners everywhere? because I almost had that law requiring castration go through...! Whew!

Seriously I don't know what importance of me that requires proof against that Feibert provides. DV I lived it, I learned it, and I vote it ever since. But I was pulling my paraphrased casual statements form data that is collected simply for the statistics raw.

And dude, I know nothing about you but what you present. I suspect by your love for that crappy quack, that you are divorced at least once...but women stay with worse. It is presumptive assessment that you are approving of selective pieces of his data and the association he represents. But maybe IRL you just argue devils' advocate and are a normal stand up guy on the conservative side. and that you think the reversed negative hatemongers society for men is as bad as feminazi associations. If you have first hand, if your mother, daughter, wife by former , cousin or sister has been abused by their spouse and they deserved what they got... well please feel free to share. I will go by what you present until then.

Seriously; my having a very personal bias in the subject of DV in no way invalidates my opinion that DV is nothing to do with feminism and can't change the actual crime data that men are aggressors more often than not. Who cares what women group research does or doesn't with bias.

I guess some can be happy with the clever one-of -a kind (which is why he is only major source that can be found that heavily substantiates the claim of "men's" groups looking to downplay DV as it has barely gotten action) junk science report based mostly on self reporting (yet no legal reports data entered into the correlations) and in the specific agenda of men from first data collected. with the focus for lobbying ESPECIALLY for the National Coalition for MEN (formerly National Coalition for FREE Men..backlash from the 60 started in late 70s. aka: ANTI feminist *given most credence by "father's rights activists" -you add that A word and its bound to be a bad thing no matter agenda or gender) ).. yeah real Unbiased ..NOT

Like I would give credence to some draft dodging acid dropper from liberal NY that moved to even more liberal CA studying psychology for the WHOLE war period (how convenient) with "downtrodden men" as his focus since he was with a chip on his shoulder since the 60s about how women don't have to stand for the draft. Um ..in his time period women were not making any foking laws so he needed to direct his ire elsewhere! I would lay money that some unshaved militant took his virginity and spurned him in college to make him so bitter, LOL (cant you guys find anyone less biased... with more factual data ? not likely and still support the theory of women being the major perps or instigators of DV. Sure, bad women are out there... and I do think DV shelters need to relocate and protect men who are abused by their partner of any gender too.)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_the_United_States

Even the scum hero Fiebert shows numbers not that flattering. 38% of the percent that are extreme. So 62% of the 'seriously injured" are WOMEN

Not that those who wish to sit in some sort of bubble of "she asked for it" care for any info.

But those who wonder... there are more studies, most confirm that men are the assailants more often with less provocation, some sre biased -some not. But stats from 3 entities collecting realtime data versus one biased one

If legal protection from domestic violence was truly inseparable from marching with man bashing gorillas in dresses, then let me stand in line for my pitchfork and torch please. Thank God, Bob, the devil and dykes that the exceptions in men that buy into that mealy knuckle dragger societies, like Zim seems to want to do, are not the rule.

I am quite content with the protection skewed to women. When the serious hospitalization and death rate (can't say with those stats that wonderful Mr Fiebert avoids, is hiding behind shame of the reporting person! faking death during autopsy is pretty tough!) by partner assault reaches 50/50....then I'll be first to vote for adjustments in DV law. this is the second sickest conversation subject I've seen on PF

::And if that makes me a feminist then so be it::

Up until very recently, western civilization was a healthy, flourishing society. Sure, there were some rough edges, but we definitely had a good ride.

This seems to be no longer the case. I personally blame it on a cultural decline which might eventually result to our very demise. Many civilizations have fallen before, there is no reason to believe the west as we know it's going to last forever. The anti-patriarchal tendencies of today are just the tip of the iceberg.

The rationale behind this assumption is my personal belief a society can only flourish when there is a balance between both patriarchal and matriarchal values. Yes, this means i believe western society has always been partially matriarchal and which is why i'm so adamant in rejecting this notion of this alleged 'extreme' oppression of women.

A completely patriarchal society is not an healthy society and i don't believe progress is possible in such a civilization (once again, think of Islam).


What we need of course is some of the things us sexists always yammer about: a patriarchal family structure with a good emphasis on values and morals (you know, those things lefists cannot understand because of their inability to think conceptually. See, lefists actually believe those things aren't real, it's just the stuff of dreams or worst yet empty conservative rhetoric). Alan Keyes makes the same point in many of his speeches, but his voice remains unheard, the same as all of us.

Oh Zimmy, Zimmy, Zimmy... No, no, no, the crap doesn't include all this. I'm very happy I'm using my comp, driving my car, and listening to some hell good music.

But that's not the point, and you know it (I dare hope). I was answering Kondzi who said that women have a bad tendency of messing things up.

You can't blame 'people' for being -supposedly- man-haters, and then defend this point of view.


I oppose the archaic view of the man working hard while the woman stays home, with kids, cleaning and cooking.


Rough edges indeed. Some were quite rough. Today's society really is not perfect, but if we could fix a few things, it wouldn't be that bad, on the whole. And that is not sending wifeys back to their kitchens, even if I do enjoy some nice food sometimes ;)

Anyway, whether you're right or wrong doesn't matter much now. We've got to a point where you can't go back. We better think of what is doable to make our lives better with what is today's reality, rather than looking back in the mirror.


Values and moral, I've heard that a few times already. And again, I'll answer saying that there is no 'fixed' values and morals. Some people will agree with you on the concept, but disagree on what is valuable, and what is morality.

But really, our society is so much more evolved now. Political correctness, relativism, popular culture, the feminization of schools (nothing like trying to turn boys into girls and then still tell them to go kill people when we invade other countries), the effeminization of our society, and the complete and utter degeneration of our values, the loss of shame, the perversion of love, communal insanity, corporal greed, social delusions, the destruction of family unity, the inability to discipline our children, the constant degradation of education, selfish individualism, lack of civil conduct, the dumping down of our arts, and so on and so forth ad nauseum. And why? So we can live with this illusion of fairness, and i say illusion because let's face it, men still rape women, racism still runs rampant, and discrimination is all over the map. Where's the improvement?

I don't want to back-pedal, i don't want women to stay home, i just want acceptance that many of the values inherent in a patriarchy are fundamental to a healthy society and that as long as we engage in demasculization has a form of rejection for some imagined tyrannical and willful oppression of women we are going to spiral towards social deconstruction.


Are you pulling my chain? If you have new arguments and want to discuss futher the obiective existence of values and morality, let's revive that old thread. I dont want to copy its contens here.

What i dont understand is why feminists discriminate their sex by saying that housework is bad and it is better to work in tesco 10 hrs a day with a nappy bcayse if ull take a break to the rest room then the boss will shout at u.

Housework is much better than going to work!!!

You watch some of what korwin mikke says.. Some of the stuff he says actually make a lot of sense!