Domestic Violence and Football Stars

[ibsh...@gmail.com]

Recently Australian football stars expressed embarrassment about standing up against domestic violence.

They should not be embarrassed about it. They should be proud to be taking that stance.

Now there are many arguments against domestic violence; but one argument that these people can make, that not everyone can make, is that real men don't beat women. Being a real man requires self-control. And a man who beats up women is not practicing self-control; he is being a bully and a coward.

A lot of feminism-affiliated men are regarded by wife beater types as sissies and commies. When someone who is strong and is not affiliated with Marxism speaks out against domestic violence, he has much more credibility. These men would not take it from feminists, and they would not take it from me. But they just might take it from a football star.

The claim that these men make - that real men control women - is a transparent lie. I've known any number of strong, successful men who were good to women, and any number of weak men who weren't. Men should be taught to look up to these strong, successful men who are good to women and stop looking up to barbarians like Eminem.

At the root of this is something very important to society: Defining manhood. Right now, manhood is associated in many people's minds with misogyny, which results in terrible wrongs being done to women and girls. A case needs to be made on a large enough scale that real men don't beat women.

And for that, the football stars are a perfect messenger.

[The BORG]

Why do you not make an altar to "woman" and do your Devil worship in
private?
Women are supposed to be obedient, that is why Men are violent to
them.
It was their disobedience that started the ugliness and suffering.
And it is their disobedience that causes the misery and suffering and
ugliness and disease on Earth today. The worse the women are, then
the worse it gets.
If they were obedient as they are supposed to be, then Men would not
have to be violent to them.
There is no penalty with God if Men are violent to women.
However women are punished by God if they are disobedient.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 12:39:07 PM UTC+11, The BORG wrote:
> Why do you not make an altar to "woman" and do your Devil worship in
> private?
> Women are supposed to be obedient,

Who told you that, Borgy?

that is why Men are violent to
> them.

Then such men explain the cause of feminism.

It takes a REAL MAN to get the best out of women, and enjoy the joy and support of same as a consequence. ISIS-type chaps, like you, Borgy, don't have a clue.

Grow up. Read good literature, see the world, learn from its ways. Follow the good; avoid the bad.

Star Trek is fine but only a little from it is about the Borg. Not that they aren't influential; everyone seems wired up to a smartphone these days. But more women are Borg this way, as opposed to men who are not that wired up.

And anyway Star Trek does not promote misogyny. The Ferengi are misogynists, but they are despised.

Cheers, Borgy. Grow up.

Arindam (Q) Banerjee

[God]

Men are allowed to use any violence necessary to keep women in their
place and to force them to be obi dent.

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 18:15:36 -0800 (PST), ibsh...@gmail.com wrote:

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 1:04:36 PM UTC+11, God wrote:
> Men are allowed to use any violence necessary to keep women in their
> place and to force them to be obi dent.
>

Who told you that?

[tooly]

Just to play devil's advocate here [to the secularist mind anyway, ha]...I've wondered about male and female 'functional roles' have developed over time. Clearly, the male human evolved to be protector of the nest and the prime provider [as far hunting went]. Females, being the center of that nest, developed the key trait of nurture [both genders carrying some aspects of either of course, but as a matter of focus, this seems plausible anyway; a common sense approach].

Protecting the nest probably meant developed oversight of the territory at large, ie to be able to spot predators off into the distance...and then to be able to INSTRUCT the nest whether to batten down [for a fight ensued], or to pack up [to run for the hills].

As we became more complex and social, territory expanded to mean...well, greater territory to incorporate not just one nest, but the entire clan, and the males vied for leadership roles to the tribes at hand...etc etc.

Point here, the female's submissiveness probably started out as a practicality adjoined to her mates 'functional role' of protecting her and that nest, and surviving might have promoted a succinctness to her 'obedience' to that COMMAND to fight or flee as it were.

Of course, that COMMAND probably expanded as our social complexity expanded. But as a character trait...well...maybe the BORG has a point about women 'supposedly' being obedient. It's not a character flaw of either gender [that relates to our general masculinity complementing femininity and visa versa, that these character traits were, in essence, designed by higher powers than LIBERALS per se [ie NATURE Herself]. Nature is a woman...right? LOL...

Anyway, don't buy everything that's being thrown out there these days as the politically correct is usually based in La La land thinking [has nothing to do with the real world, but only fantasies dreamed up by new world intellectuals...well, so called intellectuals anyway; usually just inflated egos].

[ibsh...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 11:39:07 AM UTC+10, The BORG wrote:
> Why do you not make an altar to "woman" and do your Devil worship in
> private?

I do no Devil worship. I love whom I love. And yes, most of the people I love are women.

> Women are supposed to be obedient

According to whom?

> that is why Men are violent to them.

Not real men.

> It was their disobedience that started the ugliness and suffering.

Oh yeah. Cancer, cholera and genocide were all started by women. Idiot.

> And it is their disobedience that causes the misery and suffering and
> ugliness and disease on Earth today.

Then why is it that suffering is worst in places such as Afghanistan - where women are obedient to men - and least in places such as Sweden, where they aren't?

> The worse the women are, then the worse it gets.

Same with men.

> If they were obedient as they are supposed to be, then Men would not
> have to be violent to them.

They are not supposed to be obedient. No volitional being is supposed to be obedient to anyone else. They are supposed to be the best that they can be. As for the Western civilization, it owed greatly to a number of women, from Mary of Medici and Queen Elizabeth I to Marie Curie and Susan Anthony.

> There is no penalty with God if Men are violent to women.
> However women are punished by God if they are disobedient.

That's not a God I worship, nor a God that is worthy of being worshipped.

[ibsh...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 12:04:36 PM UTC+10, God wrote:
> Men are allowed to use any violence necessary to keep women in their
> place and to force them to be obi dent.

For as long as there are men who believe that, there will be feminism. And I hope that they win.