Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - angryharry

I just couldn't resist! ...


It seems to me that if, for example, two gay people who happen to live together can avail themselves of various legal advantages (e.g. via the tax system etc) then why cannot two friends who are not gay have such advantages? This difference in treatment cannot be right - especially for old people.

And, surely, the notion that the intimate sexual activities of couples should have any significant bearing on their legal status in this particular situation is ridiculous - and grossly unfair. Further, it will clearly lead in the future to people pretending to be gay simply in order to recoup the rewards - which will, of course, then lead to government snoopers checking out some very personal details.

And then there is the issue of single people - and people who simply live alone. Surely, life for them is much tougher. For example, it is much more expensive to live alone than to share living expenses with a partner. As such, why should single people not also receive the various privileges that gay couples seek for themselves? Single people are surely more in need of these privileges than are couples?

And, once again, this is especially true for old people.

And I simply cannot believe that the vast majority of people are going to sit back and continue to accept that heterosexuals who live together and, thence, those who are single, should be disadvantaged compared to gay couples.

Furthermore, the special status and privileges that were traditionally accorded to heterosexual couples who were married were designed to help them with the maintenance of family bonds (inheritance laws etc) and with the extra financial burdens incurred when bringing up children. And the introduction of 'marriage' for gay couples is, clearly, just one more step in the direction of destroying this particularly special situation - i.e. it is part and parcel of the treacherous pathway designed to break down traditional families.

And if, eventually, as a result of political pressure - which I am sure will come - we all end up being entitled to receive various special privileges for our situations vis-a-vis our partners - or lack thereof - then there is no real advantage to be gained for anyone - except, of course, for the government - which gets to exert even finer control over people's intimate relationships - e.g. through the tax system.

In other words, 'gay marriage' is a step in the wrong direction on many fronts. And it can only lead to increasing resentment - much of which will be justified, in my view.

And this is bound to be especially true from the point of view of many men who are MRAs - for obvious reasons; the most important of which, I suppose, is the breaking down of traditional families and, hence, the breaking down of men's positions and, hence, their security within those families.

In other words, 'gay marriage' is yet another blow to what many heterosexual men hold close to their hearts.

And, of course, as we move forward toward the situation wherein special status is given to all couples - which I am sure will happen eventually, unless we go back to supporting traditional marriage alone - then this will be yet another area wherein women - who live longer than men - will manage to suck yet more significant resources away from men simply by living together in their old age. 

And we can't have that! They are already taking far too big a portion of the pie!


Best wishes everyone.

Main / Sex-Ploytation
Dec 01, 2006, 12:01 PM
Hello Dan

Does he want his name reveald?
Main / Why so few men join men's movement?
Nov 06, 2006, 12:50 AM
Hello Trailer Park

there are 5 threads on the website i help moderate dedicated to calling me gay or implying i hate women. ... ...

Just tell them that they are extremely selfish people who care only about themselves.


Because the men there would be crying like babies if they were falsely accused of something, or if they were to lose their homes and their children for no good reason.

Ask them this. Would you not be concerned if your best friend, your son, your father or you was falsely accused?

Would you not be concerned if your best friend, your son, your father or you was divorced against your wishes and you were simply kicked out of the home?

To which they MUST answer, "Yes, of course we would be concerned."

Then, you've got them!

Because their poor attitude towards the horrible experiences of other men therefore demonstrates that they are, in fact, only concerned for THEMSELVES.

They would only care about such things if it happened to THEM or to their loved ones.

In other words, they are simply selfish. And, as such, you can discount their various pronouncements on most matters.
Main / Women - beasts of burden
Nov 06, 2006, 12:42 AM
Hello Bluegrass

Well, first off I'd have to say that the reason men didn't domesticate and breed women into docility is the simple fact that one can't so simply separate men from women.

Why should men have needed to keep them docile by genetic means?

Their **collective** muscle power alone could have achieved this.
Main / Women - beasts of burden
Oct 29, 2006, 05:36 PM
Thank you Maus - I'm glowing with pride.

As for the rest of you, keep thinking; because that question is dynamite - for those who know how to ignite the fuse.

Galt; I have read some history books recently and what is *obvious* is that men have been treated worse than women ********THROUGHOUT********** history.
Main / Women - beasts of burden
Oct 29, 2006, 03:35 PM
Women - beasts of burden.

Why did the men of the past not collude together and both breed and 'domesticate' women in much the same way that they did with cows and horses?

Why is it that women were not penned up in stables and treated like beasts of burden?

It would not be that hard to do, surely?

So, what stopped men from doing this?

This might sound like a silly question, but, on the contrary, no feminist can answer this question without fundamentally contradicting the ESSENTIAL basis of feminism; viz, that men have always oppressed women.

Try to answer the question yourself and see where it leads you.

Better still, ask a feminist - and watch her squirm.
Main / If you could hurt a misandrist?
Oct 20, 2006, 04:53 PM
Hello Sir Jessy

I told the missus that if that was my daughter and wife, my scope would not hesitate and that bullet would kill the general AND his daughter. Possibly just the daughter, so that the general could live in great fear.

And, if I was that guy, in that movie, well; my enemies would know that about me.

Yep; I'm afraid that sometimes you have to go over the top yourself in order to protect what you care about.

And, in my view, if the law treats people horribly, then the upholders of that law are **responsible** for that mistreatment.

Now, we all know that laws sometimes do mistreat people, usually for the 'greater good', but the anti male laws that we are mostly concerned about differ from most of these in a number of respects.

1. They are purposely sex-discriminatory.

2. The injustices they inflict are often not trivial. They are often very long-term and very serious indeed.

3. Many of these laws actually **encourage** further injustices to take place.

4. Where injustices occur as a result of the law, there is usually some attempt to ameliorate them in some way. But when it comes to laws that hurt men, the politicians often do the very opposite. They willfully set out to make the situation worse. In the case of paternity fraud, for example, the injustice to a man that follows from being cheated through paternity fraud is actually buttressed, magnified and perpetuated by a law that requires him to pay, long term, for someone else's children!

And, as per 3. above, paternity fraud is actively encouraged by such a law.

5. Anti-male laws have definitely got nothing to do with the 'greater good'.

I think that most of us are prepared to put up with laws that 'oppress' us in some relatively minor way so that others might be protected, but the laws that relate to gender issues have gone way beyond this point. They are not there to protect women and children but to allow women and others to pulverise men - and only men - at their convenience.
Main / If you could hurt a misandrist?
Oct 20, 2006, 04:36 PM
Well said Stally, ...

That black abyss is kicking our asses and making life hell for men. I spose we should all play nice and let them make our lives hell off another 30 to 40 years. And If I am a great person, then I will have that to keep me warm during the months I dont see my daughter.
Main / If you could hurt a misandrist?
Oct 20, 2006, 04:33 PM
Hello Gwallan

View the government as a weapons guidance system.
It is a tool used by the evil few(in this case feminsts) to target their victims of choice.

You slipped up.

I shall rephrase your second sentence for you.

It is a tool used by MANY (e.g. the feminists, the abuse industry, the politicians, hordes of government officials, the legal profession, much of the media, many academics, and, of course, many women!) to target their victims of choice.

More homework needed!
Main / If you could hurt a misandrist?
Oct 19, 2006, 12:47 PM
Hold your breath everybody. Jakety has a revelation for you.

Your government does not take anything from you. The people who run the government take it from you.

So, please do not, henceforth, use the term 'government', as we shall all be horribly misled by it.

Also, please take note that government ...

... is not a living, breathing entity so it cannot in any way, shape or form actually do anything to you.
Main / If you could hurt a misandrist?
Oct 19, 2006, 12:38 PM
Hello Somebody Else

Yes, I agree.

And it often peeves me that when men do try to communicate they are often ridiculed for it; especially if, for example, they are trying to communicate their hurt.

However, I think that the internet is going to change forever this state of affiars. Indeed, I reckon that a mega-tsuanami of male thinking is going to wash over the general consciousness out there; the views of 'men' having been suppressed for so long.
Main / If you could hurt a misandrist?
Oct 19, 2006, 12:16 PM
Hello Somebody Else

My apologies to you.

I can now see that I failed to follow the thread properly.

I agree completely with your view that lies and misinformation are not something that we should ever engage in.

Main / If you could hurt a misandrist?
Oct 19, 2006, 11:56 AM
Hello Jaketk

I have rarely read such wooly nonsense on this forum.

As just one example, ...

If a person in the men's movement is behaving in a way that is opposite of our goals, then we should not just accept it. We should deal with it before it gives feminists and misandrists ammunition to use against us.

Give me one example of a 'person in the men's movement' who needs to be dealt with 'before it gives feminists and misandrists ammunition to use against us'.

Just one example please.

And then tell me how you are 'dealing' with it.
Main / If you could hurt a misandrist?
Oct 19, 2006, 11:09 AM
Hello Somebody Else

Just defining the boundaries of the problem as a prelude to the solution.

For how many years do you think that MRAs should spend defining the problem as a prelude to the solution?

Another 40 years perhaps?

I refuse to stoop to the level feminists have sunk to.

What, exactly, is in Commader Riker's post that are you refusing to do?
Main / My Linda would never be like that
Oct 18, 2006, 10:11 PM
The point is to RUN if you see signs that she is going to be a problem. By doing this you can give yourself a better chance to have a successful relationship. Married or not. Hx of family trouble, family hx of divorce, trouble with the law, past felonies, lack of college education, drug addiction, inability to listen, bad credit, violence, any of these are telltale signs that one should detect and heed by leaving the relationship. If you choose not to then you get the results of your choice.

Amen, Dr Evil.

I've got a quote somewhere on my website which goes something like this. "Don't look at her arse while she's walking, look at her face while she's talking."


It took me an awful long time to learn to follow that kind of advice. And I'm not even sure that I have got the hang of it now. I know that my brain continues to be swayed by a woman's good looks but, thankfully, far less so than when I was younger - when, I think, it virtually ruled my head - especially when it came to romantic matters.

And I am clearly not alone.

Some research recently demonstrated quite convincingly that when men saw the news read by a good-looking female presenter, their recall of the material was pretty low when compared to it being presented by a man.

Of course, my Angry Harry argument is that men have simply learned not to bother to listen to what women are saying - i.e. they switch off - LOL! - but in my heart I suspect that there was at least some kind of sexual distraction going on.

Nevertheless, I do not think that I can stress too much the wisdom of persuading the younger men round here to do their best to maximise as much as possible the attention that they give to what their prospective partners are actually saying and doing - and to give some thought as to **WHY** they are saying and doing whatever they are saying and doing - and to reduce the weighting that they give to their sexual attractiveness.

You learn a hell of a lot more about women that way.

Unfortunately, however, men seem to have been selected by evolution to be easily seduced by women; i.e. we poor sods have mostly descended from those very men who were the easiest to seduce!