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 - Mr. X

Main / Saw something encouraging in Vegas
Jan 09, 2006, 11:01 PM
I was in Vegas for CES and me and my pal went to the Star Trek ride at the Hilton. They make you stand in line and they show you a video of safety tips. They showed in the video several people including a young couple with a pregnant wife. The ride said pregnant women could not ride so they show the woman in the video frowning and walking off but the husband stays in line in the video. The tour girl makes a crack "...and he stays."

Now it was funny, I had to admit and I wasn't sure if they actually staged it that way in the video or not. But the encouraging thing was that a bunch of guys in our group immediatly replied back "... and he PAID!" several times. I was rather impressed by that. And it was at least three guys varying in age who replied back.
Ok I think I finally digested what the rad fems want when it comes to educating our boys but just to be sure let me list it out. Now these are ALL claims made by feminists OR realizations I have made based on feminist claims:

1. CLAIM: There is no innate sexual identity in humans. All humans have their sex defined for them by hormones, self realization about genitals and how society treats them and what society teaches them about being boys and girls. (Dr. Money and Mr. Ramier experiment). There is NO other difference between males and females. Take away hormones, genitals and society and men and women would be the same. There is no better math for boys, better vocal skills for girls. Sumner was wrong and both are clean slates.

2. CLAIM: Boys need to be "fixed" by teaching them to be more like girls to better society and to cure society's woes. "If women were in charge there would be no more war".

3. REALIZATION: The sex term "girl" cannot be defined by any innate characteristic in the female brain. So a girl can only be defined by hormones, genitals and social instruction as stated above. Remove hormones and genitals and ALL that defines the term "girl" is society.

4. CLAIM: We live in an oppressive society. Society is a patriarchy.

5. CLAIM: The patriarchy intentionally teaches girls to be second class.

6. REALIZATION: The only definition of girl that can be changed is society's teaching of gender. We cannot really change boy's genitals efficiently nor hormones. Would be unrealistic to do so. So we can only teach them to be girls using the only definition we have for girls; a definition created by the patriarchy.

7. REALIZATION: Since the noun "girl" can ONLY be defined by how society teaches children to be and society is a patriarchy, the ONLY template available that defines GIRL is a patriarchal definition. No other definition or template exists that I know of. In other words how does one define girl if the physical form of female is not used and there is no difference between the male and female brains beyond hormones? All that is left is how society views each child. But that view is patriarchal. So isn't the claim that boys need to be more like girls based on the definition of girl in a MALE society?

8. REALIZATION: Feminists want to fix boys by teaching them to be girls. The only definition of girl in their system is the current definition which is a patriarchal creation. The patriarchal definition of "girl"  is an oppressive one teaching girls to be subservient and second class.

9. CONCLUSION: Feminists wish to teach our boys to be second class citizens using the patriarchal definition of girl.

Basically, if there is NOTHING else that defines a boy or girl beyond hormones, genitals and society's treatment of the child then how can one teach a boy to be more like a girl? What IS a girl? Isn't a girl then simply a list of things put in the kid's head JUST LIKE the list of things put into a boy's head? If that's the case, what makes the girl's list any better? And if we use society's definition of girl to imprint on boys and that definition is created by a society that is a patriarchy that teaches girls to fail and be second class, aren't we, in essence, teaching boys to be second class and to fail?

How can one teach a boy to be more like a girl then denounce society as a patriarchy that teaches girls to be second class yet want boys to be more like girls?

So my question to Amp and others who support Dr. Money and the claim sex is only defined by genitals, hormones and society and no other brain differences exist....

what IS a GIRL?
Main / Kate O'Beirne on Hannity
Jan 04, 2006, 04:47 PM
Was listenning to Hannity today and Kate O'Beirne was on promoting her book, "Women Who Make the World Worse"

Has anyone got this book? Sounds like a good source for debunking feminist generalizations about men.

Nice article by McElroy. I wanted to post this here to show people who think social justice laws don't cause problems how dangerous laws based on gender or race or "balancing things out" actually can be.

Basically Colleen Nestler was able to get a temporary restraining order against David Letterman the TV talk show host because, she claims, he is sending coded messages to her in his broadcast compelling her to marry him.

Now that to me being a wacko is not a gender issue. This is a disturbed person who could easily be a man. What disturbs me is the court GAVE HER THE RESTRAINING ORDER and, most likely because she was a woman. Most restraining orders can be obtained VERY easily and based on just fear, not even an act of violence ie the person percieves fear and so gets a restraining order. Women's groups advocate this strongly with the core belief being "women don't lie" and, if a woman does lie (or is one beer short of a siz pack) its OK cause its a rare exception. This to me is a form of white man's law, the social assumption that one group is above reproach or question and that group's word is golden (similar to white men before 1950). If you ever read "To Kill a Mockingbird", Robinson the black man accused of rape was convicted because it was his word against a white man's.

So I post this to show that a good deal of male problems (and female) are not just feminists. The problems are from the government. The Letterman case is a very obvious abuse of this system but the problem isn't a head case who thinks they are being manipulated by rays coming out of their TV. The problem is the numnuts in gov. who think giving women a restraining order for any reason will buy them some angel wings.

AVOCA, Ark. -- Authorities say a 13-year-old Hometown boy was exposed to HIV when he was allegedly raped by a 42-year-old woman in his own home.

Deputies thought they were headed to a domestic disturbance call at the teen's home near Avoca at about 2 a.m. Monday, and they found two men arguing with a woman named Donna Sue Mars. However, during subsequent interviews, police said one of the men said Mars had sex with his 13-year-old son.

Officers confirmed that the boy said Mars forced him to have oral sex.

They later discovered she is infected with HIV, and it's a crime for somebody infected with the virus to expose someone else knowingly.

At this time, Mars' relationship to the boy is unknown nor is it known why she was at the boy's house. However, police said the age difference between her and the alleged victim is enough to charge her with rape.

"The woman was indicating that the juvenile was a consenting member, and the juvenile was indicating he was not -- that she somewhat forced herself on him," said Benton County deputy Doug Gay.

Police said the woman was charged with rape and with exposing another person to HIV, which is also a felony.

If convicted, she could face a life sentence.

Mars is out of jail on a $25,000 bond.

No comment here other than yet another woman having sex with a 13 year old. Sad thing is, if he got her pregnant, he'd have to pay child support. How can any court do that to a kid? What is the justification for this?

LONDON - Barbie, beware. The iconic plastic doll is often mutilated at the hands of young girls, according to research published Monday by British academics. "The girls we spoke to see Barbie torture as a legitimate play activity, and see the torture as a 'cool' activity," said Agnes Nairn, one of the University of Bath researchers. "The types of mutilation are varied and creative, and range from removing the hair to decapitation, burning, breaking and even microwaving."

Researchers from the university's marketing and psychology departments questioned 100 children about their attitudes to a range of products as part of a study on branding. They found Barbie provoked the strongest reaction, with youngsters reporting "rejection, hatred and violence," Nairn said.

"The meaning of 'Barbie' went beyond an expressed antipathy; actual physical violence and torture towards the doll was repeatedly reported, quite gleefully, across age, school and gender," she said.

While boys often expressed nostalgia and affection toward Action Man _ the British equivalent of GI Joe _ renouncing Barbie appeared to be a rite of passage for many girls, Nairn said.

"The most readily expressed reason for rejecting Barbie was that she was babyish, and girls saw her as representing their younger childhood out of which they felt they had now grown," she said.

Nairn said many girls saw Barbie as an inanimate object rather than a treasured toy.

"Whilst for an adult the delight the child felt in breaking, mutilating and torturing their dolls is deeply disturbing, from the child's point of view they were simply being imaginative in disposing of an excessive commodity in the same way as one might crush cans for recycling," she said.

Manufacturer Mattel, which sells 94 million Barbies a year worldwide, said the doll remained the "No. 1 fashion doll brand."

Mattel U.K. said that despite the findings of "this very small group of children, we know that there are millions of girls in the U.K. and across the world that love and enjoy playing with Barbie and will continue to do so in the future."

Reminds me of when we used to destroy Stretch Armstrong. But he was asking for it since the ads boasted he was indestructable. Its amazing what a 100 ton train can do to a Stretch Armstrong.

I didn't know that girls were mutilating their dolls like this. I did know girls who did weird things with their barbies that involved hair dying, shaving, drawing on etc but I didn't think it was wide spread.

ATLANTA -- A 37-year-old woman who is seven months pregnant by her 15-year-old groom says she prefers older men, but the teenager wooed her so aggressively that he finally won her over.

Lisa Clark, who faces child molestation charges in Hall County because of her sexual relationship with the boy, said in television interviews on Monday that she still hopes to make a life with him and their baby. She said the morality of their relationship was open to debate, noting that in the past it was not uncommon for 13-year-olds girls to be given in marriage.

"They're making a big deal out of a 15-year-old," she told WAGA-TV in Atlanta. "And I can assure you that he was no victim.

"It's not like they are making it out to be. Actually, I'd told him `no' several times because I prefer someone older, but he was just so nice and so sweet," she said.

Clark was arrested last month after her Nov. 8 wedding in neighboring Dawson County. She was released on bond Nov. 18 on child molestation charges. Since then, a grand jury has added charges of statutory rape and enticing a child for indecent purposes.

The boy, who has been on probation on an unrelated burglary charge, was ordered Monday to return to juvenile detention after relatives he was living with said they could not handle him. On Nov. 23, a Juvenile Court judge freed him from detention and said he could live with relatives other than his grandmother, who said she had complained to authorities for weeks about the sexual relationship the boy had with Clark.

Clark denied a contention that she had married the teen to try to avoid prosecution.

"No, because I knew that wasn't going to happen. I told the detective that I got married because I wanted the baby to have his name. I wanted to be married when the baby came," she said. "And I didn't want his grandmother to get the baby."

Clark said the baby is a boy and would have the middle name of her husband, who has not been identified by authorities because of his age.

Ok so she's not up for pedophile charges, greattttt.

Plus I love the line "He was no victim". You know this is exactly the same thing male pedophiles say about their female vicitms. "She was asking for it." "She was a tease" "That little girl knew what she was doing". Seriously, this is what male pedophiles say even about the girls they split in half and dump in a grave somewhere.

God, this double standard pisses me off to no end and I can't even imagine what effect this has on boys. And where are the women's groups screaming in outrage? Where are the so called morally superior beings? How can the very same people who rip men a part for merely saying the wrong thing at the drinking fountian at work say nothing here. Or when priests were caught molesting boys. Hey how come it was so wrong when priests did it but its so passable when female teachers do it.

I bet this poor kid has to pay child support. How fricken selfish can a woman be to seduce and have a child with a 13 year old then claim SHE is the victim. What a sick, diseased piece of crap this woman is. But what's worse is none of the righteous people who attack men are coming down on her.

HOW CAN A 30+ WOMAN BE EMOTIONALLY VICTIMIZED BY A 13 YR OLD BOY! Are women that fricken fragile!

ATLANTA -- Robert Clark always said he was innocent in the 1981 kidnapping and rape of an Atlanta woman, and now DNA evidence has proven his claim, showing that another man committed the attack, his lawyers say.

After spending nearly 25 years in prison for the crime -- enough time for his mother to die while he remained in prison and for his children to grow up and have families of their own -- Clark faces a hearing Thursday afternoon that could finally set him free.

25 years for a false rape charge. No mention of a sorry or reparations or anything. Can he even sue this woman?
Main / A man tax perhaps?
Dec 08, 2005, 01:26 PM

Italian Lawmakers to Consider Porn Tax

ROME - Italians would have to pay a 20 percent tax on pornography according to a budget amendment that cleared a first legislative hurdle, news reports said Thursday. The proposed tax was approved at committee level and is expected to go before the Chamber of Deputies, Italy's lower parliamentary house, early next week.

The tax is expected to raise about euro220 million (US$260 million) to help reduce the national deficit and to help fund government tax breaks to families.

"I believe the porn tax is important not for moralistic reasons, which don't concern me, but because I think that at a time of difficult economic conditions for families it is right to tax products that are not essential," lawmaker Daniela Santache was quoted as saying by the ANSA news agency.

Hmm, now since the claim is men use porn far more than women, isn't this, in essence, a tax on men? For example, if someone proposed a tax on tampons or rmance novels, would that not be a tax on women?
History and Politics / Global Warming Blues
Dec 02, 2005, 12:58 PM,2933,177380,00.html

The 11th annual meeting of global warming enthusiasts in Montreal isn't turning out to be a very happy event. Even though this is the first opportunity for the burgeoning global climate bureaucracy to celebrate the full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, the realities of science, economics and politics are raining on its parade.

First, a new study published this week in the journal Nature (Dec. 1) turns global warming alarm-ism on its head. British researchers reported that the ocean current responsible for the tropical winds that warm Europe's climate has decreased by an estimated 30 percent since 1957. The headline of the New Scientist report (Nov. 30) on the study nicely captured its import, "Failing ocean current raises fear of mini ice age."

The reason I bring up global warming is its very similar to feminism as far as the zealousness and intensiveness of blame for one particular group. Feminists have their beliefs that defy reality and insist on blaming men for the worlds woes. Global warming enthusiasts have their beliefs that fly in the face of reality and blame large corporations or people in general (specifically the US) for the world's woes.

Watching one group that practices the same forms of zealousness and ignoring of reality you can get a better idea of how another group who does the same thing really works. Common patterns are:

1. The sky is falling. Some type of calamity is going to happen and we must ALL act NOW to stop it at ANY cost. For GW people its global warming. For feminists its the oppression of women.
2. For the (fill in the blank). For GW people its FOR THE EARTH. For feminists its FOR WOMEN'S CHOICES. Both groups proclaim that their need out weighs the rights of everyone else.
3. There is always a bad guy and... ooops what a coincidence... they always have deep pockets. The target group that is at fault is always a deep pocket entity. For GW people its large corps. For feminists its men in general. Both groups set up reasons and needs to excuse what they do next... loot. Oh and what a coincidence, that's exactly what socialism does... loot.
4. No OTHER explanation can be considered. For GW people the fact the sun's activity has fluctuated over the past 100 years, the fact we have had several earthquakes and eruptions etc doesn't even enter the picture. It MUST be the fault of that one rich guy with his SUV. For feminists there is NO other reason other than men wanting to oppress women. If there aren't 50% female CEOs there must be some conspiracy by men to prevent women BUT if there are only 12% male school teachers "its the choice of men to not be school teachers".

It seems the goals are clear... to part people from their property with lame excuses.
Main / "You're too picky"
Nov 25, 2005, 08:00 PM
"You're too picky"

I've been hearing this phrase a lot lately. Mostly from women nosing in on my dating habits. For example, one conversation was about me joining and not being active about pursuing applicants. I usually get solicited by extremely overweight women if I get any at all (we're talking 270+) or women with 5 kids. Couple that with my lack of pursuing anyone myself and I end up saying no to invites. Now, right away, from my female friends, I get this "you're too picky" line. What bothers me about this are two things:

1. The line implies its somehow my fault cause I'm too picky. No looking at things from my point of view. If a diseased elephant sent me an on line wink and I refused to reply I'd get the same "you're too picky" line.

2. The very same people who say I'm too picky, will not date me and will only date men with flat tummies or guys who work out and are really fit. Not just fit. Really fit. UPS delivery guy fit.

So has anyone noticed this extremely odd double standard? That, when a guy turns any female down guys are automatically at fault and are being "too picky" yet females could turn Brad Pitt down and they'd feel they were justified?

This seems to be an occurance that extends into other areas as well. Namely, if there is an issue or conflict, the guy is blamed. If the female feels uncomfortable at work, the male coworkers are to blame. If a guy feels uncomfortable at work, he must be a wuss or weird. If guys complain about mistreatment from women its "well they are just spoiled, entitled men who are losing their power"

"You're too picky", "Suck it up", "Quit complaining", "you're not sensitive enough", "You need to get some tolerance endurance", "Oh you're just whining cause you didn't get what you want"... always its the guy's fault. When we have an issue its always turned around to be our fault without looking at our side of the issue.

Do women really think some name calling cognitive dissonance is going to get guys to go along with things? "Gee you have an issue or complaining about something but, instead of us sitting down and discussing the issue, we women are just going to chide and rub your ego the wrong way cause we all know calling a guy a wuss or complainer shuts them up" Yeah it'll shut us up.. like putting a bandaid on a leaking dam. Great, the leaks stopped for a bit but then it comes back stronger.

This post is nothing but a rant and take it as that but I'm just so sick and tired of this "its your fault" reversal that I have tossed up my arms and refuse to cooperate. How many men are ornery enough now not to care anymore women get breast cancer or are raped or are abused? And its just always our fault. We have NO legitimate complaints. Women are perfect and we are flawed. Then they wonder why I and other guys turn down invites on

Well I've given up on this waste of time. Its appears to be fruitless to complain to women. They simply aren't there for men like men have been there for them.

Teen girls shooting each other. Notice the headline says student and not girl.

I guess since this a crime of "girl on girl" we guys can safely ignore it.
Main / PWG of the month... again
Nov 14, 2005, 11:03 AM,2933,175458,00.html

So all sorts of girls disappear or have bad things happen to them in this country but does anyone notice a trend with the media? Give you a few hints; Nancy Halloway, Laci Peterson, Lori hacking, Chandra Levy, Elizabeth Smart, Jessica Lynch... notice a pattern?
Main / Yates gets ANOTHER trial
Nov 09, 2005, 11:10 AM,2933,175041,00.html

Oh come ON! And they want a plea bargain? How many fricken children does a woman get to kill BEFORE she gets the death penalty.

Its the same old stereotype.

Woman does something bad = there's something wrong with her and she needs help.

Man does something bad = Burn him in hell.
Main / cultural competency critics
Nov 04, 2005, 11:02 AM,2933,174209,00.html

FREE FOX News Video:ĽUniv. of Oregon Diversity Overkill?
EUGENE, Ore. -- In an effort to promote diversity at the University of Oregon (search), a plan has been developed that would hire, fire and promote professors not just on the quality of their teaching and research, but on their so-called "cultural competency."

Freshmen would take a class on the subject and faculty would be trained in it. The problem is that nowhere in the 22-page diversity draft plan is "cultural competency" (search) defined.

Well, I can guess what these classes will be about (blame the white man cough cough).

But seriously. Can anyone who supports this kind of "eductation" tell me how this is any different than a predominantly religious school forcing students and teachers to go to a morality class? A cultural competency class would, in a effect, be teaching right and wrong would ti not? So how is that different than a religious class teaching its brand of right and wrong. And what happens if you don't go or pass? Do the new, liberal Dean Wormers put you on double secret probation?

What is REALLY the difference between these extreme left of liberals and conservatives? Its the same wolf in sheeps clothing.
Ooops, sorry. this was in another thread.

NEWARK, N.J.  -- A woman who admitted hiding the body of a 7-year-old relative in a basement storage bin was sentenced Wednesday to 25 years in prison, and her son, who said he killed the child in a wrestling move, was sentenced to three.

Don't know what to say here other than what's that line about mothers being better parents....
I was chatting with someone on a horror movie web site. They mentioned they had rented Haunting of Hill House ( the old one from 1968) and watched it for halloween. They then rented the new one with Zeta Jones. Worlds of difference. The old one's main character was perfect for the part. Frail, willowy and fragile. The new movies character was Xena princess warrior.

So I got the idea that a good way to show some disbeliever how invasive feminist dogma is in our society is to compare original movies and remakes especially movies with big female roles. Another way is to use TV shows. Battle Star Galactica ( or Melrose Space as I call it) is a grand example. The new show ditched every single female character from the old show then made half the male characters women. All characters are emotional trainwrecks. No solid families. No characters with redeeming qualities. No supportive females. Huge "progressive" agenda oriented messages.