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.

Topics - LST

Main / Totally retarded
Jun 22, 2005, 04:39 AM


"As has happened on certain occasions during the past five years of Big Brother, housemates have been warned and penalised with respect to issues including violence, racism and sexism," Ten said.

Massaging a girl's shoulder = violence, racism and sexism.

This is so stupid that I don't even know what to say.
Males rely on the appearance of being "dangerous" and "exciting" in order to be attractive to women. They have to be shocking and unpredictable, a bit on the "wild side".

Politeness and civilization means that people have to act in predictable ways, their "wild side" should be minimized as much as possible, and the appearance of "dangerous" is anti-social and undesirable.

Females, on the other hand, just have to be female, and they can act in any way. If they are "wild" and "dangerous" they are attractive to males, and if they are demure and passive (which is compatible with a polite society) they still are. Not only that, but they also have much less strict norms for what is considered polite. Women can be sexist, they can make scenes, they can yell, all of this is considered to be acceptable.

Conclusion: Males have sexual power only in warlike societies or in criminal subcultures, otherwise it's curbed since it relies on modes of behavior that are looked down upon in civilized society.
Main / Sexism against females ?
Jun 18, 2005, 01:53 PM
Is it even strong enough to be considered a problem ?
I only see it as manifesting itself in some female-hostile speaking and attitudes that some men use. Like "fuck those bitches", sexual harrassing, etc. Most of those men are not so nice and polite in general, they behave in nasty ways towards men (that aren't from their own circle) as well, and their actions are not liked by the majority of people, so much that extrapolates even to normal behaviours being labeled as sexist. (Like a guy looking at a woman's (purposefully exposed) breasts.)

And then there are a few religious communities that advocate for women being "obedient" to their husbands, at the expense of their husbands working to support them... This is actually sexist against both sexes, and it's mostly closed off from mainstream society.

On the other hand, sexism against males is widely popular, so much that it has actually become the social norm, and it ends up hurting thousands of people every day. It's accepted even in the highest elite levels of society, in education, and it's very popular in mainstream media.
It's very widespread even among women (and some men) that are otherwise educated and appear to be wellmannered.

And there are also the "chivalrous" notions of one-sided male sacrifice for female comfort/safety, and the suffering and wellbeing of males being secondary to the suffering and wellbeing of females. These are also very sexist in their nature, and they are actually the underlying reason that makes the direct malehating type of sexism to not be seen as a "bad thing". And they end up creating even more hurt and suffering.

Maybe the female members here have a more keen insight into this ?
Is anti-female sexism a problem that bothers you a lot ?
You can see a lot of people here saying things like "I am not guilty of anything because I was born male/white/whatever", but I didn't see anyone taking the thought further.
The feminist/leftie view of society is that it is like a war between strictly defined "oppressor" and "oppressed" classes. You can see them focusing on this all the time.

So if women are an "oppressed class" it means that all women are automatically disempowered as compared to men, and any interaction between males and females should be viewed in terms of how females are being victimized.
If a man suffers some harm from a woman, it is justified on an emotional level (since he is an accomplice in oppression), and it matters much less than when a woman suffers from a similar thing, since he still has his "power" and "privilege" so he is hurt less.

I think that this is intentionally made to clash groups against each other. (even though you can see lefties (especially marxists) talking all the time about capitalists clashing groups to have power, how ironic)
It isn't necessary to assign a permanent "oppressed" or "oppressor" status to a category of people, it is still possible to speak about particular issues in their own context.

(This shouldn't be taken to extremities, like slave owners or something, this is a clearly visible oppression.)

That was a bit hazy I know, I might try to write it more clearly later. I hope it is still understandable ?
Read... observe the full satanic evilness.


Rejecting the university as inherently patriarchal (because men founded the institution), feminists seek fundamental changes in its nature. Feminists do not endeavor to become an appendage to the existing system, just joining its mainstream, achieving access, and providing the academic world with a different, feminine perspective. Feminist Charlotte Bruch asserts that "You can't just add women and stir."4 Feminist Elizabeth Minnich does "not believe that such work [simply adding women] is, by itself, adequate, because it remains within a system built on principles of exclusion and characterized by the conceptual errors those principles necessitate and perpetuate."5 Instead, the feminists' call for change extends not only to the structure of the university, but also to pedagogical reforms and, most fundamentally, to the concept of knowledge itself.

What happened to being nice and civil and males and females being much more similar than different ?
This is what a feminist will normally tell you when confronted.
Feminists will go to any lengths to disguise themselves.
Having a discussion with a feminist is like peeling through layers of lies and dismantling each of them. Then when the feminist gets tired/worried he/she will use personal insults and underhanded tactics.
A feminist is a disgusting slimy beast, motivated by demonic hatred.

If they believe that females are so different from males that even their concepts of knowledge are different, then how can you ever live with one in the same house ?
How can things like love, and trust, and honesty exist ?

It is a lie too of course, knowledge doesn't have a different nature depending on the sex of the observer, they just want to take over as many social institutions as possible, especially institutions that influence thinking of the intellectual circles, so that they can use this power to create more hate and suffering.

Disgusting, disgusting, disgusting, vile, putrid monsters, with no resemblance to a human being.
Main / An exchange with a feminist
Jun 03, 2005, 06:34 AM
Some exchange that happened at a crappy forum...
Stuff in square brackets is my comments.

A few years after my firstborn daughter was born, I mentioned to my wife [Hmm... I am not sure if it's really a guy or not, but who cares. Male feminists are just as bad.] that I would like to raise her to feel she had the option to be a "femme fatale", should she lean that way, regardless of what my LDS (Mormon) religion taught to the contrary. She did not end up becoming one, but a well-rounded, if assertive, woman, who wanted, and essentially got, a husband who, in her words, "worships the ground I walk upon". They are very much in love, have 2-1/2 daughters of their own, and share responsibilities at home.

I also taught her how to shoot, paid for 4 years of Kung Fu training, as well as 6 years of piano (at HER request). And she has a keen interest in "fine blades". She grew up with a feeling of self-worth, at least in part because she knew her parents valued her as a person, regardless of her gender.

2: antifeminist [this is me]
Quote from: "azraelle"

A few years after my firstborn daughter was born, I mentioned to my wife that I would like to raise her to feel she had the option to be a "femme fatale", should she lean that way, regardless of what my LDS (Mormon) religion taught to the contrary.

I understand "femme fatale" as an emotionally abusive, manipulative woman.
You taught your daughter that this is an acceptable behaviour ?


She did not end up becoming one [yes she did], but a well-rounded, if assertive, woman, who wanted, and essentially got, a husband who, in her words, "worships the ground I walk upon". [<--- see ?]

You are horribly sexist.
If a man said "I want my wife to worship the ground I walk upon", he would be seen as abusive and selfish.
I don't want my future wife to "worship" me, I just want her to be kind and loyal. It's what a normal person wants in their partner.
But your daughter wants total obedience and reverance.
She sounds like an awful, bossy, abusive, arrogant person. I wouldn't like to meet her.


My point is if you raise daughters to feel that they truly have a femminist option [so he/she is admitting that "femminist option" equals emotional abuse ? ok...], and you will still love them as much, they will probably make balanced choices.

How about you raise them to be decent human beings instead of female sexists.

Your post, my friend, demonstrates very clearly what is wrong with feminism today.
It's not about "equality" anymore, it's about sexism, hostility, and justifying emotional abuse.

Why is it okay for a woman to be unloving and emotionally abusive towards her partner ?

What happened to things like


I don't want to date or marry a sexist monster, I want to be with a kind woman that loves me and stays on my side. You and your daughter are terrible. I feel sorry for her husband.

3: azraelle
Quote from: "antifeminist"

I don't want to date or marry a sexist monster, I want to be with a kind woman that loves me and stays on my side. You and your daughter are terrible. I feel sorry for her husband.

What you want, "my friend", is a Stepford Wife. I feel sorry for the poor girl that winds up with you. Reminds me of a song by the Dixie Chicks: "...Wanda looked all around this town
and all she found was Earl...".

4: antifeminist
Why is that.
Unlike your daughter, I wouldn't demand her to "worship the ground I am walking on", I would treat her fairly.
But anyway, you are just using projection on me. Projecting your and your daughter's personality faults on me.
You are the abusive self-centered person here, not me.

Looks like I am not good enough because I want my girlfriend/wife to love me, instead of being emotionally abusive.
What an asshole I am, not willing to worship the ground on which she walks.

Fairness, honesty and compromise in a relationship?
What a wild concept this must be for azraelle.
Nope. It should be all about worshipping someone, and fulfilling their every whim and constantly having to walk on eggshells, afraid of their criticism of everything that you do.

5: antifeminist
Quote from: "azraelle"

Quote from: "antifeminist"

I don't want to date or marry a sexist monster, I want to be with a kind woman that loves me and stays on my side. You and your daughter are terrible. I feel sorry for her husband.

What you want, "my friend", is a Stepford Wife. I feel sorry for the poor girl that winds up with you. Reminds me of a song by the Dixie Chicks: "...Wanda looked all around this town
and all she found was Earl...".

I want what I wrote, a woman that loves me and stays on my side.
Only an emotionally abusive person like you would say that wanting to be loved and treated with loyalty by one's own girlfriend/wife is "asking too much".
It isn't too much and it isn't too little. It's normal.
Main / The feminine appearance
Jun 03, 2005, 05:30 AM
A friendly/cute looking face, large breasts, smooth rounded body, etc.
What do you believe is the purpose of this ?
How has it evolved ?

Would you agree it is generally helpful in serving these functions:
1) Being sexually appealing
2) Appearing harmless and childlike, needing protection
3) Appearing warm and inviting, maternal

Read and enjoy...
Ah, of course... they blame men for it, complete with sexist language such as

What better way than to cause someone to have such low self-esteem that she becomes dependent on her abuser?

But do you recognize anything ? Read it carefully. All those traits are so obvious... so familiar...
Maybe we should ask "how many women do you know that don't have them" ?

What do you think is the real reason that PA disorder is being so carefully hidden in women, made to look as if it is mostly a male disorder ?
If they are really decent human beings that want to help victims of abusive partners, why are they hiding the emotional abuse by women ? Why ? Why ? Why ????
(I think I know why)
Main / Paternal instincts
Jun 01, 2005, 10:21 PM
[Continuing from the discussion about paternal instincts in this topic]

Please people, don't do this overexaggerated crap to me, that's what feminists do, jump from one extremity to another, ignoring the true point, in order to stall debate.

I never said that fathers can't/don't love their children, or that paternal instincts don't exist, or whatever.

I said that men typically don't have the same drive to have children. (which is different from loving existing children)
It is possible for some man to want children for some reason (maybe he is lonely and believes a child would be a nice companion to have ?), but it is also very possible that this is a pedophile, since there is quite a lot of them out there, so I would be suspicious.

And I don't know how to go from there, flatly denying any single man to adopt children seems too extreme, but how do you check if someone is a pedophile ?
Maybe if there were some studies on the issue it would help. (Not that I care about them now, but I would if I was in charge of an adoption agency.)
Something like a questionaire among single men:
Do you want children ?
How important is for you to have children ?
Why do you want them ?
Would you only want to have children if you were married, or are children more important than marriage ?

Then if there is significantly more such men than the estimate for pedophiles, it would make sense.

[Maybe the evil doctor could split the relevant posts from the original topic and put them in this topic, that would be nice]
Main / Ladies and gentlemen
May 28, 2005, 05:11 PM
An observation...

A boy becomes a "decent man" by acting in socially appropriate ways.
In order for him to be considered good, he must behave in a "good" way.

A girl becomes a "lady" simply by being female.
Being female is already enough to be considered "good", and she will need to do lots and lots of negative behaviour to be considered "bad".

Women are assumed to be "good" by default, and it has to be proven that they aren't.
Men are assumed to be "neutral" by default, and it has to be proven that they are "good".

Look at the words used with clothing and some other situations.
"Ladies t-shirts"
"Talking to the ladies"
"An old lady"
"Lady" is a word that automatically implies "goodness". And it's often used to refer to women. It became a synonym for "woman".
When was the last time you saw an expression like
"Gentlemen's t-shirts"
A woman saying, "I am talking to the gentlemen"
Or, "I saw an old gentleman" ?
It never happens, the word gentleman almost completely fell out of use in every day speech except the expression "ladies and gentlemen".
Main / Is parenthood really such a hard job
May 26, 2005, 12:27 PM
When I was a kid, here is what I did:
I came home, ate the food that my parents left for me, then they came home and watched TV and other every day boring crap, like making supper, washing dishes, etc.
I would spend the time doing homework, sitting in front of my computer, and going outside.
They weren't constantly catering for some needs of mine, they spent most of the time resting from work.

The same was when I was a teenager. (And I wasn't like one of those dumbass teenagers that argue with their parents all the time and start up stupid shit.)

It's probably hard when your child is little and even harder when it is a baby. But at this stages, most fathers do help mothers, no ?
So what is up with feminazis and their "overworked mother" crap.
Is this true ?
Maybe Dr. Evil would have some valuable insight. (if his wife works)
Main / Honest sociology ?
May 25, 2005, 01:19 PM
Isn't sociology supposed to be a science that studies how societies function ?
So why aren't there any sociologists that are genuinely interested in unbiased studying ?

If a honest sociologist occupied themselves with the question of sex differences and their effect on social interactions, they would find out that there is no "patriarchy" in western societies.

"Patriarchy" means a family structure where the husband is directly in control of the family. He has the power to make decision, and he controls the finances.

This is impossible in the modern world, because the foundations on which the patriarchal family structure were resting are gone.

A honest sociologist also could measure things like
- frequency of hateful remarks against the opposite sex in conversations by males and females
- actions done to control one's relationship partner's behaviour
- the degree of sympathetic reactions to males and females suffering among the public, and among males and females separately

An interesting experiment would be to give people pages with a picture of a criminal and a description of their crime, and then ask them to give them a "sentence".
The people will be told that the purpose of the experiment is to study attitudes to different types of crimes or something.
But then the actual purpose would be to compare how harsh the participators were towards male and female criminals, how much this varied by the criminal's attractiveness, and how much this varied by the participant's gender.

Curiously, the "hateful remarks against the opposite sex" is known to be a trait that is characteristic of people that are likely to be controlling or abusive towards their partner. Of course they only study it in males and ignore it in females.
Besides all of its aspects that we all here know and hate, feminism is also a source of memes that do these things:
1) Weaken chivalrous attitudes (which they are trying to replace with guilt)
2) Make women more "active" individuals instead of being dependant on someone

By the logic of things, a woman that actually is used to stand for herself also shouldn't have as many of the characteristics that are attributive of manipulative dependant women. (Not counting feminists themselves, which hate men.)
And she should also be more inclined to see "gender nationalism" as stupid and useless.

The traditional notions of european chivalry are based on a simple single concept that men are "strong" (in various senses) and durable and women are "weak" (in various senses) and fragile.
This is the same thing that makes feminist idiocy go unnoticed, and lets them say all this ridiculous crap like "women are taught by society to do this and this and to only think about pleasing men".
This rests on the notion of women being "weak" and dependent.
But if this notion gradually loses its foundation in reality, is it not reasonable to expect that the falacious arguments on which it is based will be believed less ?

And if day after day people see women doing all kinds of things, good and bad, shouldn't they be less inclined to believe in the notion of female angelhood ? Maybe even up to the point of actually expecting some responsibility from them ?
Main / "No fault divorce"
May 08, 2005, 11:52 PM
I see people here complaining about "no fault divorce" all the time.
The alternative to no fault divorce would be "fault divorce", when to divorce your spouse against their will you need to give some reason, like cheating or something, and prove it.
Is this what you really want ?
Or maybe I am not understanding things correctly ?

Perhaps it isn't no fault divorce that is the problem, but the fucked up way family courts handle them ?
Main / Choice of words
Mar 06, 2005, 11:01 AM
Why do you guys use so much feminist-sounding words.
"men's rights"
"abused husbands"
"female entitlement"

"Men's rights" is obviously a copy of "women's rights" which is itself a copy of various citizen rights movements.
"Women's rights" sounds stupid and aggressively-pitiful. It's like "i am angry at you but you should also feel sorry for me". But at least it's consistent with western notions of femaleness.
"Men's rights" is just repulsive. Anyone that hears the name is going to be automatically retracted from it.
Main / Crazy liberals are sorry
Nov 10, 2004, 01:37 PM
Main / Lots of father-friendly comments here
Nov 03, 2004, 06:28 AM
Wow ! Look at the amount of letters. And at the poll. Join in guys and write some comments too. 8--)
Main / Men initiating divorce
Sep 06, 2004, 04:39 PM
Ok, i have seen statisticss like "80% of women initiate divorce" and "70% of women initiate divorce". Well what about the men that initiate divorce. Are they unaware of the biased laws ? Are these rich men that don't mind paying child support just to get away from the wife ? It would be nice if someone could show some info. :--)
Main / Aligning with other resistance groups
Sep 01, 2004, 09:10 AM
(in another topic...)
Quote from: "Sir Jessy of Anti"
Verbiage like that just serves to increase the very weak case that feminists have when they insist that the men's movement is predominantly white heterosexual men.

Well i do believe that the men's movement is predominantly white heterosexual men... that is because white heterosexual men are the majority of men ! ...And also i don't think that too many homosexuals are concerned with men's rights. Last time i checked they were supporting feminists and lesbians. The enemies of "whiteness" and "maleness" are very similar !: political correctness, affirmative action/quotas, "discrimination" lawsuits, devaluing propaganda in the media... the people that suffer from these things are the same people, it's white men ! Therefore it makes sense for the men's movement to communicate with white resistance movements and maybe align with them. There should also be an "international friendship" branch too that is concerned only with the gender problem, but i think that the bulk of it should focus on both fronts ! White men are oppressed because of their gender (primary) and their race (secondary). Why focus only on one problem (even though it is more important), and completely ignore the other (which is still pretty important !) ? Who is the biggest scum in the modern western world ? White heterosexual males ! So we make a white heterosexual male resistance movement !
Of course this idea has downsides too, for example, if racial/ethnic resistance ignores gender then it can employ women, if gender resistance ignores race then it can employ "racial/ethnic minorities", etc. So then we have more power combatting the same oppression machine.
Well what do you think about this. Which approach is better ? :--(
Yes well i do know that some of these things are posted in the introductions board and there could have been a topic like this already but i can't read all the 61 pages ! :--<
It would be nice to see what has caused the people here to realize the horrible condition of men in the modern society and the evil nature of feminism and how important is the resistance, and to become MRAs or just concerned about men's rights. If all these things will be collected and discussed in a single topic than perhaps we could understand better how to bring other men to this understanding !
I myself don't have any special event, i am just a guy with some common sense which is apparently pretty rare these days. :--< As time passed i saw more and more feminazi bullshit spewed out of the tv and newspapers/websites and this made me angry because i always pointed out all the stupid injustices, even when i was 13 or so. An important things was looking at the SCUM Manifesto and the saying "all heterosexual sex is rape" by the lunatic fat bloodsucking hag Andrea Dworkin. However i do realize that this type of things just cause most people to think "haha that's just some crazy feminazis spitting foam" and not think of anything larger. Such as "why are they not rightfully labeled as lunatics for these things but actually considered prominent and intelligent figures and respected", for example ! Another thing was that when i was 13-14 i believed that girls are supposed to like me and dream of having sex with me because i am a boy but as time passed i found out that most of them actually have a pretty low opinion of me exactly because of that ! Instead of liking me for being male they dislike me for it, and also they believe that when they have sex with a guy they are doing him a favour ! >8--(
Also when i was a little boy (7-8) i have read some book and it had some people (men and women) that were stranded in the desert and then when they were running out of water the leader guy decided that the women should get 2 gulps of water and men should get 1 gulp. It made me very angry because why should the women get more water just for being women and why did he make his decision in favor of women even though he is a man !
What is your story ?