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 - rantmeister


Someone asked for an example of what skills women's studies courses teach students for real-world careers.  We'd have to admit that people who become marriage counselors, K-12 educators, psychologists, organizational consultants, certain types of lawyers, and medical professionals who work on sex-related medical problems or who work with many women do benefit from the focus in women's studies courses.

Bullshit.  Women's studies brainwashing has horrible impacts on people entering the psychological professions.  Claiming that half the population was oppressed by the other half will sorta give you a biased perspective don't ya think?  The last thing a therapist needs is a biased perspective.  They need to be able to see all sides.  Feminism only sees one side and worse yet, blames the other side for any troubles.  That is a huge and hurtful limitation.  This is like saying a course to teach people how to hate curly haired 4 year old kids is good for teachers of kindergartens.  Only straight haired kids are okay.  Get it?  You start off with a bias that prejudges a certain segment.  This is death to fairness.

Yes, Dr E. exactly. The point I would make is that it isn't wimmin's studies majors we need to worry about. They're hoping to get hired by the Girl Scouts. No, really, that's one of the career opportunities listed at universities for that major.

What everyone should worry about are wimmin's studies minors. Take a few easy classses, get indoctrinated about male oppression, and get a good grade. Then major in Law, Psychology, Journalism, Education, or Sociology, to name a few. The ideology seeps in everywhere and nothing is stopping it.


It used to be both genders.


When were women not able to blame their own sexual excesses on men? (I mean, post-500-AD.)

That is, females also used to be taught to be ashamed of their sexuality, now just males are taught that. Not only are we expected to be the initiators (read aggressors) but we are looked upon as sexual preditors if a woman is not open to our advances. In the post-Dworkin era, women may not be criticized or insulted in any way, whereas the criticism and ridicule (and loathing) of men is encouraged. Not only is our sex drive cast as pathological, but our masculinity as well.


Just last week I was watching a PBS show about the ocean and sharks in HD. The divers were able to film sharks mating, which is apparently not often witnessed. The male sharks ganged up on a female, one of them biting her on the gills to subdue her. Then with dramatic music we see the violent rape take place. No other fish came to her rescue, and she swam off injured and violated. No seafood dinner, aquatic romance, nothing. What a shocking lack of shark sensitivity. It was presented as a terrible tragedy.

In another segment, they strapped a camera onto a sea lion. At some point the male sea lion is shown poking its nose at a young female pup. Clearly this was a case of lea lion pedophilia. The male divers were shown hanging their heads in shame while viewing the video with female collegues. Guilt by gender association. The implication is that this is yet another illustration of the male hegemony that hurts females of all species.

Of course, when viewing something like a female praying mantis eating its lover's head after sex, I'm sure the comments from women would be "You go girl!" In fact, I've heard several women express delight in that. Again and again men are taught to be ashamed of our sexuality. It used to be both genders.

The commonly accepted libertarian stance is an all volunteer armed forces

Yes, I oppose this casual draft registration policy we have now. Also the draft during Vietnam and Korea since our country did not face a direct threat. Still, as long a the government reserves the right to force men into military service and utilize our bodies during times when the nation is at risk, I think women should have an equivalent responsibility. I am stating my opinion on what this responisbility should be.


These illegals had the benefit of free public schools growing up, because the alternative would be to have a class of uneducated alienated kids wandering the streets. But it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to start asking them for extra tuition for entrance into a university. Instead of complaining, they should accept it as "giving something back."

Our government has not had the political will to enforce immigration law in several decades, and it's not likely they will suddenly grow testes and begin rigorous enforcement now. We didn't even build a border fence with a Republican-controlled Congress and presidency, and I doubt we will be packing up the city of San Antonio and moving it to Mexico anytime soon.

I think the real issue is that a large segment of our society is producing very few children. The educated career girls either have no children, or maybe one - and they do it in their early to mid thirties. Mexican women are having 3 - 6 children starting at age 17. This is a huge imbalance, and it is inevitable that immigrants - legal or illegal - will arrive to fill the void.

And not only that, but at a time when the "fertility rate" in the West is very low, we continue to allow the use of abortion as birth control.

Personally, I'm libertarian, and I believe that the womb is part of a woman's body and that she should have ultimate say of what happens with her pregnancy. However, I also think society has the right to place restrictions and responsibilities upon women in the same way we do upon men. If society faces an external threat, we can require men to register and participate in the military. Our bodies become property of the government as long as the threat remains. The equivalent for women would not be to draft them into the military - since they would suck at that. No, the equivalent for women would be that in times where the fertility rate of the country drops below 2 births per woman, that society has the right to suspend abortions in all but extreme cases. During this time where society faces a different threat to its own existence, it would be a woman's responsibility to carry a pregnancy to term. If a woman does not want a child there are plenty of families willing to adopt.

That would do more than a fence to slow down the displacement of our population.
Main / Re: Bad ratings = sexism?
Jun 26, 2007, 01:47 AM

It will be the same thing applied politically if Hillary gets elected. Every time her approval rating hits a new low, it will be because of sexism. Kouric, Hillary, and so many others think it's their job simply to occupy a position while possessing a vagina, and that will magically induce major social change, and end "male oppression."  Results? Oh, was that part of the job?

Main / Re: Feminest LIE machine gearing up
Jun 25, 2007, 09:58 PM

I knew I'd heard this "murder is the leading cause of death of pregnant women" myth before. I remember that it was based on a limited and cherry-picked sample in Maryland.  What the "researchers" did (let me guess, women's studies majors?) was take the region where there were the most murders of pregnant women they could find, then project that figure onto the entire nation, creating an artificially high number. The result is another "March of Dimes" or "Super Bowl Sunday" myth, which the MSM can't wait to spew at us without any fact-checking.

In any case, I notice Glenn Sacks is all over it in a new article:

Main / More PC extremism
Jun 20, 2007, 10:51 AM

File this under "feminism gone wild". Yes, boys and girls need even more protection from each other.


VIENNA, Virginia (AP) -- A show of affection almost landed a teenage boy in detention.

Hugging was 13-year-old Hal Beaulieu's crime when he sat next to his girlfriend at lunch a few months ago and put his arm around her shoulder. He was let off with a warning, but the cost of a repeat offense could be detention.

A rule against physical contact at Kilmer Middle School, about 10 miles west of Washington, is so strict that students can be sent to the principal's office for hugging, holding hands or even high-fiving.

"I think hugging is a good thing," said Hal, a seventh-grader. "I put my arm around her. It was like for 15 seconds. I didn't think it would be a big deal."

Unlike some schools, which ban fighting or inappropriate touching, Kilmer Middle School bans all touching.

But that doesn't seem necessary to Hal and his parents. They've sent a letter asking the county school board to review the rule.

But at a school of 1,100 students that was meant to accommodate 850, school officials think touching can turn into a big deal. They've seen pokes lead to fights, gang signs in the form of handshakes and girls who are uncomfortable being hugged but embarrassed to say anything.

"You get into shades of gray," Kilmer Principal Deborah Hernandez said. "The kids say, 'If he can high-five, then I can do this.' "

Hernandez said the no-touching rule is meant to ensure that students are comfortable and that crowded hallways and lunchrooms stay safe. She said school officials are allowed to use their judgment in enforcing the rule. Typically, only repeat offenders are reprimanded.

... and let me guess... the rule is only applied when males instigate the touching, cause you know, that's one step from sexual harassment, which is the prelude to rape, and only males are rapists. Studies prove it. We need to raise more hysteria, uh, I mean "awareness."


My letter to Time:

I'm disappointed to see Time magazine engage in the anti-father and anti-male rhetoric that has become so politically fashionable in the last decades - especially at a time when fathers are supposed to be honored. Would Time magazine make blatant anti-mother statements for Mother's Day? I seriously doubt it.

I know plenty of divorced fathers fighting ex-wives and the court system to maintain access to their own children. Some of them have legal visitation rights, but because these are rarely enforced, ex-wives can deny access to children with impunity. They know a mere allegation of abuse can give her the upper hand. There are many injustices facing fathers, so my question would be, why didn't Time magazine choose to address these issues instead?

Apparently, Time magazine thinks the upcoming holiday is "Anti-Father's Day."

I used the link Glenn put in his newsletter posted by damnbiker above...
Main / John Daly latest victim of DV
Jun 12, 2007, 11:29 PM

I don't like making assumptions based on gender, but when someone is wearing the scars of an attack, you have to take that seriously.

Looks to me like he's still in the mindset that he has to "take it like a man." He really needs to wake up, just like the real female victims of DV who make excuses and embrace denial over the situation. This bitch is out to totally dick him over and he needs to get a grip on reality. She is no longer the person he met a long time ago. Men need support groups and non-feminist indoctrinated counselors to guide them through dangerous situations like this.,28136,1631992,00.html

John Daly has angrily rejected a claim by his wife that he assaulted her then scratched his face to cover up the incident. Sherrie Daly made the accusation in court papers filed Monday, three days after her husband called deputies to their Memphis home alleging that his wife had tried to stab him with a steak knife. On Friday Daly appeared for the second round of the Stanford St. Jude Championship near his home with visible scratch marks to his face.

"I just want my fans to know one thing -- I am the victim in this," Daly said in a voicemail message left with's Seth Davis. "I was stabbed Thursday night of last week in my right cheek and clawed in my left cheek. She's saying it didn't happen. I want my fans to know it happened. I was the only one sober at this time. I just want the fans to know that I love them very much and my wife is a liar, a liar. I'm tired of being a victim of all this crap. She beats me up when I go to sleep. Every time I go to sleep she throws her fists on me. I just married the wrong woman."

Sherrie Daly declined comment when reached by Tuesday and informed of Daly's remarks.

Later, during a telephone conversation Tuesday afternoon, Daly told Davis that he and his wife had agreed to drop all charges against each other. The two of them were meeting with their lawyers in Memphis on Tuesday. "I want this to end," Daly said. "I still love this woman, as crazy as this is. We both still love each other. We don't know where it's going to go from there, but I am going to drop my charges against her. I don't feel that I can do that to her."

Daly's attorney, Stevan Black, said that the couple would likely decide in the next few weeks whether to proceed with a divorce filing that had been made several months ago. "There is not currently a reconciliation taking place. There is a recent interim agreement in the interest of John's son and stepson," Black said. "[John and Sherrie] are getting together now to restore some peace for the best interests of the children. The children have been negatively impacted by all this publicity."

When deputies arrived at Daly's home, his wife and children were not present and they did not find the knife Daly claims his wife used. No criminal charges were filed but the two-time major champion sought a protective order against his wife. In her court filing, Sherrie Daly alleges her husband had been drinking heavily and "spun out of control" before sexually assaulting her. She says that she called 911 before fleeing to a neighbor's home with their son and another son by a previous relationship.

According to court papers, Sherrie Daly is seeking a restraining order against her husband, possession of their home, custody of the children and continued financial support. She says Daly gives her a monthly cash allowance ranging from $15,000 to $30,000, a claim that provoked laughter from the popular 41-year-old star. "No, no," he told Davis. "It's a lot less. All she wants is money. That's all she wanted from the start. That's just the way it is."

Main / Re: R.E.A.L. women of Canada
Jun 01, 2007, 07:26 PM

I'm betting that the real women of canada still think that it's women who shoud bear the moral standard for society. Just like feminists.

The only difference is a superficial disagreement over what constitutes morality, or, more accurately stated, what constitutes the best way to control men's behavior.

Hi typhonblue. From what I've read, the R.E.A.L. women look good to me. What have they done or said that gives you this negative impression?


Looks like Seligmann will be playing lacrosse at Brown:

Of course, there will be idiots there to greet him as well as supporters:

Recent Brown graduate Heather Peterson, of Weston, Mass., said she had mixed feelings about Seligmann becoming a Brown student.

"To accept someone who's had such a scandal in connection to their name, who's basically probably coming for athletics, seems sort of strange to me," she said, despite believing he deserves no punishment because he was cleared of any wrongdoing.

Her sister, Brown staff member Gretchen Peterson, said she was proud Seligmann picked Brown.

"I hope that that is reflective of our openness to accept people based on fact and not based on conjecture or how things get spun in the media," she said.

FYI, here's a link to coach Pressler's book coming out in 2 weeks:


"I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

Translation: "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans - except men. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for no one except women."

Hillary leaves no doubt she is a feminist:

Clinton Receives Endorsement From NOW

The Associated Press
Wednesday, March 28, 2007; 7:46 PM

WASHINGTON -- Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton declared Wednesday that if you look up the word "feminist" in a dictionary, you'll find her.

"If you look in the dictionary, the word feminist means someone who believes in equal rights for women in society, in the economy, the political process _ generally believes in the equality of women. And I certainly believe in the equality of women," she said.

Of course, she doesn't bother to clarify that. What might be the rights of men that need to be addressed? In her world, there are none.

What is her plan to correct the decline of male enrollment in US universities? Does she intend to make all young women register for the draft? What are her thoughts on enforcement of visitation rights? Hey, where'd she go??

Main / Re: Volvo campaign feedback
May 17, 2007, 06:12 PM
Personally, I believe the whole insurance commercial theme of "so easy a caveman can do it" is a statement of defiance by the advertising industry. It's a thinly veiled reference to all men - who are primitive cavemen after all - and how they will not be taken seriously if they complain about being demeaned in commercials.

Ridiculing men is the bread and butter of advertising firms, and there really is no one left if white males become off limits. They are NOT giving that up. The "caveman" commercials illustrate how men who dare to confront them will be treated. Ask Glenn Sacks about that.


The feminization of the police has been going on for a while. Twenty years ago I was in school and sharing a rent house with a bunch of guys I didn't know. Two of them got into a huge fight after weeks of build-up. One threatened the other with a hammer, and he responded by throwing and breaking stuff in the house. I warned them to cool it or I'd call the cops. They continued to shout and make death threats - really out of control. I called the cops.

When they showed up, it was two very short, very overweight, and very butch police dykes with earrings and makeup. I explained that one guy was breaking things in the house, and asked that they write a report or give the guy an official warning, in case someone got hurt in the future. They responded that they couldn't do anything since they didn't see it happen. Then they advised us that we should all "live together in peace." It was like that comedy series that spoofs the Cops show. We couldn't believe they were for real.

When they left we all started laughing so hard that it actually lightened the situation and the guys got along after that. It became a running joke - watch out, or I'll call the cops again!!