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 - Roy

Dr. Evil -- This did bring up an interesting question. What if this ship was sinking and they didn't have enough life boats? If it was filled with feminists (and no men) who would get in the lifeboats and who would be excluded? They wouldn't have men to be sacrificed so just how would they decide?

Well, I assume the bull dykes would get first privileges to waddle into the lifeboats, then the semi-submissive bi-sexuals, then the ambivalent just-wanna-find-a-real-man feminist gals....

The only ones "going down" would be too preoccupied to notice that the ship was sinking....

And for all the lucky ones who made it into the dingys... now you've got a major crisis about navigation.

Where's the "feminist Coast Guard?"

Shit, we can't be rescued by the Evil Patriarchal Navy!   :D
Sir Jesse,

Not to worry, should you decide to "take one for the team" and register for the cruise adventure of a lifetime!

Germaine G. only likes to look at little boys.

Andrea D. just likes to eat.... food. Lots of it.

So, it's unlikely you'd be the object ("objectified?") of their attentions, nor their affections.

I can't assure you that Eleanor Smeal is not a tart. Nor Gloria... at age 70 she's still such a tease!   :lol:
I would like to propose that all the esteemed SYG moderators should immediately place their reservations for THE EXCLUSIVE MS. MAGAZINE CRUISE EVENT ...

see complete details at -

All the feminist luminaries will be on board, and can you imagine their terror, once out at sea, to find they cannot escape co-mingling with the likes of Dr. Evil, stevea, LSBeene, Sir Jesse of Anti?

Of course, the cruise program offers some respite from unrelenting confrontation... for example (from their advertisement...) --

this exclusive Ms. Magazine cruise event includes:
   Special Ms. sessions and programming
   Dining with guest speakers
   Music, film, and entertainment
   Private receptions
   Feminist land excursions
   All-inclusive pricing  

WTF! They can get OFF the boat? For "feminist land excursions..."!!!
Have the islands' natives been warned? Have the anthropologists been notified?

Oh, sorry. Further reading clarifies this just means "shopping..."

(Again, from MS. Mag's ad, re: PORTS OF CALL -- )

" Tortola, BVI

Tortola is an island you'll want to explore in a bathing suit and a sarong. The beaches are numerous, but if you must choose only one, make it Cane Garden Bay, snow-white and lapped by azure seas. Be sure to snorkel at "the Baths" on Virgin Gorda--a collection of boulders that nest in white sand and create an underwater labyrinth.

St. Thomas, USVI

Arguably the island with the best shopping and the best beaches. Shop duty-free Charlotte Amalie 'til you drop. Or dive into the beach scene at beautiful Magens Bay, Coki Point, or Turtle Cove, nesting ground of the endangered hawksbill sea turtle.

Half Moon Cay, Bahamas

If you've ever dreamed of making the first footprints on the beach of a truly secluded tropical island, you'll have your chance on Half Moon Cay, Holland America's own private island in the Bahamas. Swim, snorkel and sail till the beat of a steel-drum band summons you to the beach party and buffet. Cast off your everyday cares on sunswept beaches as you play the day away. "

WOW! The wild hedonist side of radical feminists has really not been given its fair share of mass media coverage!

This is FEMS GONE WILD!!! (Bring your video cameras for this one!)

Apparently they all covet the same consumerist fantasies as the average Dick and Jane.... in between serious lectures about the Evil Patriarchy.

From this MS. Mag cruise promo, I have learned that rad fems like to -

- explore half-naked in sarongs (obligatory 3rd World solidarity garb --
this should be a boon for the Caribbean textile industry, as we're talking a lot of yards of fabric for this particular entourage... even 50% naked...)

- explore underwater labyrinths where they can get lost
(Swim up, young maid, swim UP ... toward the bright light!)

- shop 'till you drop and avoid paying those nasty US taxes
( Money they'll no doubt pay to their Jamaican maids back home...)

- intrude upon the mating habitats of endangered sea turtles
(They only lay eggs... it's not like we're killing baby turtles...)

- despoil previously untrampeled virgin beaches
(Sounds like gender-colonialism in-the-making!!!)

It's distressing that the only veiled reference to males (other than the sea-turtle dads watching their spawn being snuffed out by feminist snorkelers) is in the quote about the "beat of the steel-drum band.... summoning..." But I'm sure the gals at N.O.W. all grasp the nuances.

Anyhow, this event has the makings for a once-in-a-millenium collision of the best and brightest at opposite polarities of the gender wars!

I also encourage veteran members like Galt, nebulousome, Bilbo, Dan Lynch, Gonzokid, and (oh, this would be choice...) Amber ...

to book reservations soon!

Can you imagine what would happen if Lecture # 3 turned out to be Dr. Evil speaking on the contradictions of women's and men's experiences in this enlightened age of post-feminism?

Lifeboats away! Women overboard! Save the men!   :wink:
Main / Why won't he propose?
Sep 11, 2004, 06:02 PM
Women stalking their selected "prey" most commonly seek to isolate him from his pre-marriage network with his "boys."

This devious strategy to cut the prospective husband off from his male network typically starts during the dating phase...

Comments are typically like -- "He makes me uncomfortable..." or even the more insidious "He's coming on to me..." or the less obvious "Let's just spend tonight together... without the crowd..."

Understand that all women are control freaks.

When she's indirectly "suggesting" that you might want to do something, that translates into an order-to-comply-or-else....

Or else what?

In the prevailing legal system.... refusing "or else" costs you 50% of your net worth, loss of daily contact with your kids, your house, and most of anything you've ever valued in your life.

Let's all now bow to the fiction of romance!   :oops:
Main / Why won't he propose?
Sep 10, 2004, 05:29 PM
Dr. E.,

My "sample" is based on just the principle of the "One...."

The tragic nature of the feminine species.

If I'm wrong, at least I have my freedom.

If I'm right... ?   :lol:
Main / Why won't he propose?
Sep 07, 2004, 05:27 PM
Dr. E. -- There is no question that my wife has the legal advantage if things turn sour

So you are admitting that you are a captive to her emotions?

That you are legal chattel?

That in fact you have no real power?

Or, perhaps, that all your personal identity derives from her approval?

I'm stuck Dr. E.

I want to see some future in your vision...

I'm blind just now...   :cry:
Main / Why won't he propose?
Sep 07, 2004, 02:54 PM
Dr. E. wrote -- What I have seen in successful marriages is the man and woman working as a team and splitting up the shit work evenly and enjoying each others company. Each one benefits. Not just one or the other.

With respect, this is an illusion in the current feminazi legal system.

A true "partnership" means neither party enjoys the recourse to a discriminatory, misandrist, anti-male (redundant) state-sanctioned apparatus that GUARANTEES the dominance on only one gender.

A "team" cannot abide treachery by any member.

Marriage as a "team" is dead and gone.

Dr. E., whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, your wife holds all the legal cards....

I appreciate that you feel she's a true and equal partner.

The minute she decides to be your adversary, you sir, are a cooked goose.

Depend upon her intergrity as you choose. At your (possible) peril.

But please do not recommend this to men in general, who do not enjoy your apparently exceptional relationship with a woman who may in fact possess character and integrity.

In other words, do not make the strategic error of using your mate as a template for what men have available to them...

If you are graced by such a woman, count your blessings.

Do not generalize her exceptionality to the situations that all men now confront in this gender war.
Main / A Scholarly Article On Men And Divorce
Aug 31, 2004, 06:40 PM
"Generous visitation rights" are typically every other week-end and an every-other major holiday schedule, plus maybe dad's birthday.

I am appaled that any thinking man could propose that the Family Courts are not radically sexist and anti-male, discriminatory against fathers, dedicated to destruction of family and marriage, and totally in thrall to the feminazi bureacracy.

Dr. Baskerville's research is precise, extensively backed up with citations, and frankly, without peer in this field.

Let's be candid.

Who passed any law, including a constitutional amendment to repeal due process for men, to exile them from their children, on the most unsubstantiated often false allegations by females seeking to profit from family and marriage dissolution?

As other posters have ably remarked, this is all about a SYSTEM of tryanny, and it's name is Feminism.

Any divorced dad knows that "women's equality" in the legal sense amount merely to socially-sanctioned rape of the male species!
Perhaps the best recent critique of feminist DV "theory and practice" is this worthwhile article, "Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse," by Linda Kelly.

She very systematically exposes why feminism cannot withstand an objective scrutiny of actual DV statistics, or acknowledge the obvious parity in gender violence, or admit to the rampant biases in the legal system against men.

It's a ten-minute read in its entriety, but well worth your time.

Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse: How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State Linda Kelly, Ph.D.

A couple pertinent excerpts ---

How is it that our general legal understanding of domestic violence
as defined by the male abuse of women is so squarely contradicted
by the empirical reality? Honestly answering this question requires
tracing the history of both the theory and practice of domestic
violence law. Undertaking such an exploration, one quickly finds that
the "discovery" of domestic violence is rooted in the essential feminist
tenet that society is controlled by an all-encompassing patriarchal
structure.8 This fundamental feminist understanding of domestic
violence has far-reaching implications. By dismissing the possibility
of female violence, the framework of legal programs and social norms
is narrowly shaped to respond only to the male abuse of women. Female
batterers cannot be recognized. Male victims cannot be treated.
If we are to truly address the phenomenon of domestic violence, the
legal response to domestic violence and the biases which underlie it
must be challenged.


The consequences for domestic violence theory, however, are only
a small part of a much larger threat. Domestic violence represents
the prized gemstone of feminist theory's fundamental message that
our legal, social, and cultural norms are fashioned in a manner which
permit men to engage in a constant and pervasive effort to oppress
women by any and every available means.
A successful challenge to
the patriarchal definition of domestic violence may thus undermine
feminism itself. To remain true to feminist theory, no aspect of male-female relations can be considered without first accepting the male
as all powerful and the female as powerless.119 The gender hierarchy
is omnipresent.
Main / "TeatGate?"
Feb 04, 2004, 05:14 PM
Anybody notice how Michael "Double-Cream Oreo" Powell (FCC Chair"man") immediately jumped all over the need for an FCC investigation of the insidous conspiracy behind exposing a 39 year-old boob with partial nipple...


During the last several months he actively supressed public commentary against the century's biggest media conglomerate's merger/consolidation, which he greased through in violation of longstanding FCC practices?

Somehow I think Mr. Powell Jr. is confident that he knows where the real boobs are...
Main / Journalistic misandry as usual
Jan 04, 2004, 06:55 PM
Dr. Evil, it's revealing that following either of your scenarios -- "woman as victim" or "woman as perpetrator," ultimately we end up logically with only "woman = victim."

The trained (indoctrinated) journalistic mindset of the local reporter was to instinctively ask "How, oh how -- could a woman commit such a violent act?"

The unspoken assumptions are many and obvious...

As a woman, she must have been "driven" to such an abhorrent act! (Assumption -- because women are never voluntarily violent.)

She must have been compelled by tragic circumstances and distress to take his life. (Assumption -- because women do not control the choices they make.)

She must have been "abused" in the relationship and subjected to a lengthy and degrading ordeal of humiliation and rebuke. (Assumption -- because women are relationship nurturers and would never be at fault for "things going wrong...")

If the perpetrator had been the man, no such elaborate journalistic inquiry would have been necessary. (Assumption -- he's a man. Males are inherently violent and murderous. What's to explain?)

The mere fact that the reporter earnestly (and probably unconsciously) sought an "explanation" (ne. "alibi") for a female commiting homicide confirms your thesis.

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but it's just another sad artifact of the insidious and lingering presence of an out-moded dysfuntional idea called "chivalry."