Revolt Against Penis Envy: By Boyd Rice (repost)
tarquil_fortesq...@yahoo.co.uk
(Revolt Against Penis Envy)
Contributing Toward an Understanding of Male/Female Harmony
by BOYD RICE
+o+o+o+o+o+o+o+o+o+o+
In man and woman, two kinds of history are fighting for power. In the
masculine being, there is a certain contradiction; he is this man, yet
he is something else besides, which woman neither understands nor
admits, which she feels as robbery and violence upon that which to her
is holiest. This secret and fundamental war of the sexes has gone on
ever since there were sexes, and will continue-silent, bitter,
unforgiving, pitiless...
- Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West
In the sixties, talk of a "war between the sexes" was very popular. In
point of fact, what was being described was not a war at all, merely
the recognition of a change in the balance that had previously existed
between the two sexes. The grip of man's domination was loosening, and
women rushed forward to take advantage of the situation. The natural
relationship which had hitherto existed between man and woman was put
under increasing strain by the shift in balance and was rapidly
evolving into an ever-more-adversarial coalition.
But war?
War is the variety of violence which one traditionally resorts to when
all other means of asserting his dominance have been exhausted. There
was no war between the sexes in the sixties simply because man had
long since ceased to assert his dominance by any means. It is
precisely this male backsliding which gave rise to the tension which
was misconstrued as war, and which has grown steadily worse until
today. Perhaps a war will be necessary to bridge the abyss across
which the sexes stare mistrustingly at each other.
- Harry P. Ness
Woman is a temple... built over a sewer.
- Anonymous
+o+o+o+o+o+o+o+o+o+o+
At one time, all was right with the world. It was lorded over by men
who imposed their will by force. Women kept their mouths shut,
underlings knew their place, and those who opposed the prevailing
order had their heads cut off. So far, so good. In this bygone Golden
Age, sadistic values determined the quality of life. Sadistic values
are exclusively male values, values predicated not upon baseless
intellectual abstractions or wishful thinking, but upon hard
biological truths.
One such truth involves testosterone, the hormone responsible for
shaping the male character. It lies at the root of man's aggression
and domination and has consequently played the key role in shaping
mankind's history.
And the history of mankind is, quite simply, the history of man. It is
the story of his creativity and his daring. It is the story of his
strength, his courage, and his invention. Every great idea, great
empire, or great undertaking has been the byproduct of man and man
alone. History's great epochs are those in which male domination and
male force reigned supreme.
Just as testosterone ordained man's preeminent role as creator and
master of world history, woman's position was likewise decided by her
hormonal predisposition. Estrogen lies at the center of the feminine
character, and it is this hormone, says science, that is responsible
for woman's overabundance of emotion and apparent lack of logic. This
primary biological difference is the basis of what is commonly
referred to as sexual differentiation.
Woman is quick to embrace the concept of sexual/hormonal
differentiation when she can use it to her advantage - to explain, for
instance, why men are such brutes. But when the same criteria are
applied to explain her own shortcomings, she dismisses it as a cruel
construct invented by man to discredit her. She is far more
comfortable with feelings than with facts. Facts, in her opinion, are
made by man in the image of man, to be used against her, to keep her
down. When confronted by the cold reality of facts, woman's emotions
fly into a tizzy, and her emotions have no origin in the intellect, or
in instinct, or in any sort of observation or deductive reasoning.
They are instead a primordial amalgam of overblown hopes and fears,
childish fantasies carried to absurd extremes.
As reactions to external realities, her emotions make no apparent
sense. Only when recognized as the byproduct of an overwhelming
internal reality-that of estrogen-do her emotions and perceptions
finally begin to become comprehensible.
In a once - glorious past, woman was a creature without rights, a
second - class citizen. In some places, she wasn't considered a
citizen at all - she was property. She was part cook, part whore, part
servant, and all child. So what has changed to put woman on an equal
footing with man, deserving of the same rights and privileges? Has
woman herself changed? Decidedly not. Not in temperament, character,
or ability. She is the same creature she has always been, with the sad
addition of some rather unflattering conceits.
It is not woman's advancement in the realm of character which has
facilitated her upward mobility - rather, it is man's loss of
character. She has gained ground only because he has lost ground. And
why has he lost ground? Because the white male has been bamboozled. He
has been shamed into submission and made to feel guilty about his
aggression and his will-to-power. But are not aggression and the will-
to-power part and parcel of his character, stamped upon his soul by
nature itself? Are they not in fact the very things which once
ordained his greatness?
Modern woman would have us believe that she has been oppressed by
countless centuries of male domination. Can this be true? She would
have us believe that her standing was the outcome of some arbitrary
bit of whimsy, concocted spitefully by man and imposed maliciously
(unfairly!) upon woman.
Was woman forcibly held back by the superior strength and intellect of
man, or was she simply in an "inferior" position due to some lack of
those qualities within herself? Was it man who chose a second class
existence for woman, or was it, in fact, nature? Man sought only to
act in accordance with the reality dictated by nature's wisdom.
Woman, in her bitterness, blamed man for the position in which she
found herself. This was surely his doing. He had cruelly cheated her
out of all that was rightfully hers. The cad! Allowing her emotions to
run wild (as usual), woman blamed man for all the world's ills,
attacking male values at every opportunity. Ironically, it was the
collapse and disappearance of male values which permitted woman's rise
to begin with. The "domination" which she so fervently attacked had,
for all intents and purposes, long since vanished from public life.
The positive, aggressive male values behind every step of upward
evolution have been superseded by a soft and passive female ethic.
What can be done to subdue the sickly sway of feminine values? How can
we silence the interminable whining of feminism's sob sisters? In a
nutshell: Woman must be put back in her place. Man's great error was
to put woman on a pedestal, when she is far more at ease on her knees-
where she belongs. The only way to subdue feminine values is by
subduing the female herself. Woman must be reacquainted with truth and
force. She must be reacquainted with truth through force.
Since woman is above all an emotional creature, appeals to her
"intellect" are worthless. She must be shown in no uncertain terms the
absolute nature of the master/slave relationship endemic to the sexes.
What plainer way to demonstrate this relationship than the simple act
of rape? This primary act reveals beyond a reasonable doubt certain
irrefutable verities: Man is taller, woman is smaller. Man is strong,
woman is weak. Man is master, woman is not.
The ritual we now call marriage originated as abduction, rape, and
enslavement. In those happy-go-lucky days, one's rights were not mere
abstractions based on legislation, but rather the outcome of what
could be imposed by physical force alone. Force was recognized as
truth in action, and the outcome of force was acknowledged as justice.
Although this principle has been widely disavowed, it's truth is as
absolute now as it ever was.
And the only truth a woman is capable of understanding is that which
she can feel wholly within the depths of her childlike emotions. At
one time, those emotions could be swayed by the sweet notion of
romance, but her envy has long since destroyed that. These days, the
only way to restore balance between the sexes is by fear and pain.
Fear commands respect, and pain demands understanding (read:
compliance).
Rape is the act by which fear and pain are united in love. It is the
triumph of harmony through oppression.
Rape teaches balance, the natural balance of man=above/woman=below.
This balance is a lesson which woman must learn, and only man can
teach her.
The only way to teach subjugation is through hands on oppression. And
woman must learn subjugation. The only way to teach submission is
through active domination. And woman must learn submission. She must
be brought down to her natural kneeling position. She must be returned
to the bottom, where she's happiest. Only then may man be happy once
more.
If it takes war to reinstate this happiness, then let there be war.
Not a war between the sexes, but a war of the sexes, against the
pernicious doctrine of sexual equality. And if the chief weapon in
this war is rape, then let there be rape. Let there be triumphant male
force riding roughshod over woman and her values. Let there be brutal
male force instructing and enlightening woman in absolute terms. Each
rape is but a battle in a war. And each battle won is but a link in a
glorious chain - a chain which will one day be used to keep woman in
her naturally ordained place - beneath man.
But enough of talk. The time for words is over. The time for action
has come. Now is the time to rise up. Now is the time to go forth. Now
is the time to educate. Now is the time to subjugate. Now is the time
to dominate. Now is the time to rape. Now is the time to rape. Now is
the time to rape. Let the Revolt Against Penis Envy commence. Go
forth! Rise up! Rape! Rape! Rape!
Long live oppression!
Long live love!
Long live rape!
Hyerdahl
>
R.A.P.E.
> (Revolt Against Penis Envy)
> Contributing Toward an Understanding of Male/Female Harmony
> by BOYD RICE
>
> +o+o+o+o+o+o+o+o+o+o+
>
> In man and woman, two kinds of history are fighting for power. In the> masculine being, there is a certain contradiction; he is this man, yet
> he is something else besides, which woman neither understands nor
> admits, which she feels as robbery and violence upon that which to her
> is holiest. This secret and fundamental war of the sexes has gone on
> ever since there were sexes, and will continue-silent, bitter,
> unforgiving, pitiless...
>
> - Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West
>
[It is my observation that the king is wearing no clothing here.
After all, if you argue that men have something that is not tangible,
and not identifiable, which women envy then you have failed to prove
your point. It's a bit like saying god exists as a being who knows
everything, but constantly needs money. :-)]
> In the sixties, talk of a "war between the sexes" was very popular. In
> point of fact, what was being described was not a war at all, merely
> the recognition of a change in the balance that had previously existed
> between the two sexes. The grip of man's domination was loosening, and
> women rushed forward to take advantage of the situation. The natural
> relationship which had hitherto existed between man and woman was put
> under increasing strain by the shift in balance and was rapidly
> evolving into an ever-more-adversarial coalition.
[Women have simply taken their equal rights, and have asserted their
own desire to have dominion and control over their own work product.
Some men may be intimidated by that, but that is what has occured, and
I don't see it changing.]
>
> But war?
>
[A bit strong a term, perhaps, but certainly changes have occured
giving women the ultimate power over their own lives.]
> War is the variety of violence which one traditionally resorts to when
> all other means of asserting his dominance have been exhausted.
[I think this is similar to my way of expressing the notion that
violence is the last resort of the incompetent. However, men are not
able to assert dominence over women when women have equal rights, as
women do in the west, regardless of what insecure men want.]
There> was no war between the sexes in the sixties simply because man
had
> long since ceased to assert his dominance by any means. It is
> precisely this male backsliding which gave rise to the tension which
> was misconstrued as war, and which has grown steadily worse until
> today. Perhaps a war will be necessary to bridge the abyss across
> which the sexes stare mistrustingly at each other.
>
[Bring it on. Today women have law and guns and the fathers of
daughters who would fight to secure their part of democracy. Who's
afraid of the big bad sexist wolf? Not me, nor mine.]
Avenger
"Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175652174....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 3, 4:13 pm, tarquil_fortesque_smythe_the...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>>
>
> R.A.P.E.
>> (Revolt Against Penis Envy)
>> Contributing Toward an Understanding of Male/Female Harmony
>> by BOYD RICE
>>
>> +o+o+o+o+o+o+o+o+o+o+
>>
>> In man and woman, two kinds of history are fighting for power. In the>
>> masculine being, there is a certain contradiction; he is this man, yet
>> he is something else besides, which woman neither understands nor
>> admits, which she feels as robbery and violence upon that which to her
>> is holiest. This secret and fundamental war of the sexes has gone on
>> ever since there were sexes, and will continue-silent, bitter,
>> unforgiving, pitiless...
>>
>> - Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West
>>
>
> [It is my observation that the king is wearing no clothing here.
> After all, if you argue that men have something that is not tangible,
> and not identifiable, which women envy then you have failed to prove
> your point. It's a bit like saying god exists as a being who knows
> everything, but constantly needs money. :-)]
>
>
>
>> In the sixties, talk of a "war between the sexes" was very popular.
the 1560's? haha like in the Taming of The Shrew lol
In
>> point of fact, what was being described was not a war at all, merely
>> the recognition of a change in the balance that had previously existed
>> between the two sexes. The grip of man's domination was loosening,
but females as ever still had a grip on his balls
and
>> women rushed forward to take advantage of the situation. The natural
>> relationship which had hitherto existed between man and woman was put
>> under increasing strain by the shift in balance and was rapidly
>> evolving into an ever-more-adversarial coalition.
It always was due to the fact that men and females have nothing in common
except reproduction and that's only 5 minutes lol
>
> [Women have simply taken their equal rights, and have asserted their
> own desire to have dominion and control over their own work product.
Hey Ho's have always had that right. So with all this women's lib stuff all
they've achieved is to be equal to Ho's haha
> Some men may be intimidated by that, but that is what has occured, and
> I don't see it changing.]
Men are never intimidated by females. They just find them petty and
annoying.
>
>
>>
>> But war?
>>
> [A bit strong a term, perhaps, but certainly changes have occured
> giving women the ultimate power over their own lives.]
>
>
>> War is the variety of violence which one traditionally resorts to when
>> all other means of asserting his dominance have been exhausted.
>
>
> [I think this is similar to my way of expressing the notion that
> violence is the last resort of the incompetent.
Or the first resort of the efficient who don't want to be worn down by the
hen pecking of females.When a fly is pestering you you kill it, you don't
try to rehabilitate it lol
However, men are not
> able to assert dominence over women when women have equal rights, as
> women do in the west, regardless of what insecure men want.]
The LORD(euphemism for men) giveth and the LORD can take it away. So watch
your p's and q's girls because the end cometh and right swift!
>
> There> was no war between the sexes in the sixties simply because man
> had
>> long since ceased to assert his dominance by any means. It is
>> precisely this male backsliding which gave rise to the tension which
>> was misconstrued as war, and which has grown steadily worse until
>> today. Perhaps a war will be necessary to bridge the abyss across
>> which the sexes stare mistrustingly at each other.
Speak for yourself Poofy and your AIDS infected poofter butt buddies.
>>
> [Bring it on. Today women have law and guns
you know how many females blow their tits off shooting guns? more than tit
cancer. Females weren't meant to hold or shoot guns, they were designed for
a man.
and the fathers of
> daughters who would fight to secure their part of democracy.
I wouldn't fight for anything except what will increase my profit margins
lol Even then I'd get some dopey young prole to do the fighting lol Rights
for females mean nothing to me or to other men. Frankly we don't give a
rat's arse about anything that will benefit females, they already have too
many rights and not enough responsibilities.So if you get your head blown
off in the army, I don't care. If some cop cracks your head open while
you're protesting abortion rights, I don't care. If you get tit cancer, tie
a yellow ribbon around them lol If you get cunt cancer, stuff a rag in and
stop bleeding all over the place.
conn...@hotmail.com
> On Apr 3, 4:13 pm, tarquil_fortesque_smythe_the...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>
> [It is my observation that the king is wearing no clothing here.
> After all, if you argue that men have something that is not tangible,
> and not identifiable, which women envy then you have failed to prove
> your point. It's a bit like saying god exists as a being who knows
> everything, but constantly needs money. :-)]
Men still dominate hyerdahl since unlike men, women had their rights
given to them on a silver platter but as we all know that doesnt
garantee equality of outcome.
The long, hard phallic penis of patriarchy continues to dominate the
non risk taking vaginal cesspit that is matriarchy hyerdahl, despite
the billions spent on pussy only perk programs.
Maybe we shouldnt prod women with the stick, just give them the
fucking carrot, huh?
> [Women have simply taken their equal rights, and have asserted their
> own desire to have dominion and control over their own work product.
> Some men may be intimidated by that, but that is what has occured, and
> I don't see it changing.]
Womens rights were delivered to women by men on a silver platter
hyerdahl. And women throughout the world have always had D&C over
their own WP's.
Even the hardest of patriarchal cocks forced women to pull at least
10% of their weight. ;-)
>
> [A bit strong a term, perhaps, but certainly changes have occured
> giving women the ultimate power over their own lives.]
>
Yet men still risk all for women from mere dating to fighting nature +
nurture.
> [I think this is similar to my way of expressing the notion that
> violence is the last resort of the incompetent. However, men are not
> able to assert dominence over women when women have equal rights, as
> women do in the west, regardless of what insecure men want.]
Men are the risk takers of humanity hyerdahl, that certainly spells
doom for equality of outcome for women even if women had sole rights,
men would still dominate.
> [Bring it on. Today women have law and guns and the fathers of
> daughters who would fight to secure their part of democracy. Who's
> afraid of the big bad sexist wolf? Not me, nor mine.]
Hyerdahl merely escaped with its life intact while generations of men
ended up in the meat grinder on hyerdahls behalf.
The wolf awaits hyerdahl, the wolf awaits.
Society
<conn...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175657559.3...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Carol Ann, the hyerdoggie, closed her eyes and barked...
>>
>> tarquil_fortesque quoted Boyd Rice...
>> >
>> > Just as testosterone ordained man's preeminent role
>> > as creator and master of world history, woman's
>> > position was likewise decided by her hormonal
>> > predisposition. Estrogen lies at the center of the
>> > feminine character, and it is this hormone, says
>> > abundance of emotion and apparent lack of logic.
>> > This primary biological difference is the basis
>> > of what is commonly referred to as sexual
>> > differentiation.
>> >
>> > Woman is quick to embrace the concept of sexual/
>> > advantage - to explain, for instance, why men are
>> > such brutes. But when the same criteria are applied
>> > to explain her own shortcomings, she dismisses it
>> > as a cruel construct invented by man to discredit her.
>>
<giggle>
Carol Ann chooses not to observe what is before her.
Like mainstream feminists who have gone before her,
she chooses her fevered imagination's hallucinations
over reality. Her betters may recall founding feminist
Betty Friedan's "observation" that a stay-at-home wife
living in a suburban home with a housekeeper in her
employ (as Ms. Friedan had) is trapped in a horrible
"concentration camp" (Ms. Friedan's own words, you
can look it up in her overpraised text _The Feminine
Mystique_).
>>that the king is wearing no clothing here.
There she goes again, indulging in her fantasies -- this
time, she's imagining a naked man. Ha ha.
>>After all, if you argue that men have something that is
>>not tangible, and not identifiable, which women envy
Tsk, tsk. Once again Carol Ann is hyerdahling about
something that is not so. Testosterone is tangible and
identifiable. Any woman who whines "women can do
everything men do, plus gestate" is giving away her
envy of men's ability to do more than women do, plus
NOT gestate. Carol Ann fits the profile of the woman
envious of what men have. Perhaps her illogic and
hallucinations are fueled by her estrogen intoxication.
<snicker>
>>then you have failed to prove your point.
What frosts Carol Ann's facial hair is that she, not
Boyd Rice, who has "failed to prove (the) point."
Her attempt to ignore what Boyd Rice actually wrote
and substitute for his words what she _wishes_ were so
has been soooooo easily exposed as the feminist fraud
that it is.
> Men still dominate hyerdahl since unlike men, women
> had their rights given to them on a silver platter but as
> we all know that doesn't guarantee equality of outcome.
Good point, connor_a. Perhaps even Carol Ann's substitute
for a brain can figure out that real rights (in contrast to
what she calls "rights") _cannot_ be obtained gratis from
someone else. Dependency can, however, be obtained
this way and her recognition that she _chooses_ to be
dependent on -- eek! -- men <giggle> is a source of her
sore feelings toward men who are her benefactors.
> The long, hard phallic penis of patriarchy continues
> to dominate the non-risk taking vaginal cesspit that is
> matriarchy hyerdahl, despite the billions spent on
> pussy only perk programs.
All of Carol Ann's blather about being oppressed by men is
nothing other than her projection onto men of her self-loathing
that grows out of her awareness that she chose the easy path
of being dependent on men and refuses to be honest about
it with herself. Tsk, tsk.
> Maybe we shouldn't prod women with the stick,
> just give them the fucking carrot, huh?
Heh heh. A clever double entendre that, connor_a.
>>Women have simply taken their equal rights
...from the silver platter held by men. All the rest of
Carol Ann's prattle that came after that bit was no more
than bluster, a smoke-screen of feminist cant intended
to obscure a reality that puts the lie to her hallucinations.
> Womens rights were delivered to women by men
> on a silver platter hyerdahl. And women throughout
> the world have always had D&C over their own WP's.
Men seem incapable of realizing that women
entirely lack ambition, desire for knowledge,
and need to prove themselves, all things which,
to him, are a matter of course. They allow men
to live in a world apart because they do not
want to join them. Why should they? The sort
of independence men have means nothing to women,
because women don't feel dependent. They are not
even embarassed by the intellectual superiority
of men because they have no ambition in that
direction.
There is one great advantage which women have
over men: _they have a choice_ -- a choice
between the life of a man and the life of a
dimwitted, parasitic luxury item. There are
too few women who would not select the latter.
Men do not have this choice.
Esther Vilar, "What is Woman?"
in _The Manipulated Man_ (original title,
_Der dressierte Mann_, English translation
by Eva Borneman and Ursula Bender)
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, publishers (1972)
page 19.
Carol Ann's hyerdahling and conniption fit throwing
is due to her awareness that she is just another of the
many women who chose the "life of a dimwitted,
parasitic luxury item" because she was too afraid of
the pains that being self-responsible and emotionally
strong require one to suffer through and get beyond.
> Even the hardest of patriarchal cocks forced women
> to pull at least 10% of their weight. ;-)
True. But Carol Ann was and is too weak to accept
"the hardest of patriarchal cocks" as her protector and
partner. And she resents herself for being so weak.
Because she can't face herself and is too emotionally
weak to admit to herself that she alone is responsible
for the life choices she has made, Carol Ann tries to
escape responsibility by projecting the blame for
the mess she's made of her life onto men. To dress up
her projection with false plausibility, she pretends that
she struggles to overcome an oppressive Other. It is
this Other that she endows with tremendous power
and desire to control her and force her into being a
loser. Thus, in her mind Carol Ann transfers the blame
for being the loser she is onto the all-powerful Other: men.
The claims that wimminists make for the power THEIR
male god, Patriarchy, even exceed the claims made by
Judeo-Christians and Muslims. [Jehovah and Allah] at
least give their followers enough free will to screw
up and fail the entrance requirement to heaven.
"Patriarchy" moves everyone like puppets.
"Gender War, Sexuality, and love : Radical Notions"
by Zed the Zen Priest
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/3951/radicalnotions1.html
>>[C]ertainly changes have occured giving women
>>the ultimate power over their own lives.
>
> Yet men still risk all for women from mere dating
> to fighting nature + nurture.
Wasn't it cute of Carol Ann to avert her eyes from that
silver platter offered by men from which she plucks her
unearned "rights" by the rhetorical dodge of employing
the passive voice? "Changes have occurred" -- Ha!
She can't admit that they "occurred" because of the
generosity of men, a foolish generosity on the part of
men perhaps but none the less this "power" came as
a gift of men. And because its source is men, this
"power" that Carol Ann is so smug about has is from
men, it is men who have "the ultimate power", not
emotionally weak women like Carol Ann.
Bwah ha ha ha hahahahahahaaa!!!
> Men are the risk takers of humanity hyerdahl, that certainly
> spells doom for equality of outcome for women
> even if women had sole rights, men would still dominate.
And women like Carol Ann wouldn't have it any other way.
Weaklings like her can't endure being responsible for their
own situation, they have to have someone else to blame
even if they have to invent an imaginary "oppressor".
Much of feminism is a slimy, self-deceptive trail of lies
intended to excuse weak women who hypnotize themselves
into believing they aren't at fault for their own moral
weaknesses and lousy choices but rather that these weak
women are somehow under the spell of men's overpowering
will -- the "patriarchy"!
<laugh>
>>Bring it on. Today women have law
...which are a gift from men...
>>and guns
...which are provided by men (women didn't invent 'em!)...
>>and the fathers of daughters who would fight to secure
>>their part of democracy.
Who are MEN.
Poor Carol Ann. The more she twists on the hook of her lies,
the more deeply impaled on reality she becomes!
<giggle>
>>Who's afraid of the big bad sexist wolf? Not me, nor mine.
Bluster alone won't hide that big rod of REALITY that
pierces her lies through and through.
> Hyerdahl merely escaped with its life intact while
> generations of men ended up in the meat grinder
> on hyerdahl's behalf.
Yup. She'd be psychologically a whole lot healthier
(and stronger) if she'd just admit that men have been
far more generous toward her than she ever deserved
and show a decent amount of gratitude to her benefactors.
Instead, Carol Ann chooses to wrap herself in bluster
and cower among her insecurities (another of her own
weakling behaviors she projects onto others, btw).
> The wolf awaits hyerdahl, the wolf awaits.
Uh huh. Carol Ann has cried wolf again and again.
Each time she's been lying. Already only the newbies
to this happy little news group take her cries seriously,
her more experienced betters ignore or mock her as
she deserves. One day the wolf will see no man answer
Carol Ann's cries and that's when the wolf will make
her move and no more Carol Ann!
--
[T]here is a certain subgroup of women
who WANT to hate us [men] and who
LOVE hating us more than they love
anything else. If they cannot find
anything despicable about us to hate,
if we manage to resist being categorized
as homogeneous rapists, seducers,
abandoners, molesters, incompetents,
and so on ad nauseum, then they will
find a way to hate us for the very
qualities we value most in ourselves
and in others: such as generosity
and self-sacrifice.
Zed the Zen Priest, "Man Hating and Man Bashing"
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/3951/bash.html
tarquil_fortesq...@yahoo.co.uk
> [Bring it on. Today women have law and guns and the fathers of
> daughters who would fight to secure their part of democracy. Who's
> afraid of the big bad sexist wolf? Not me, nor mine.]
What if the Democrats get their way with gun control?
http://www.gunowners.org/a032207.htm
Ha ha!
Sharon B
wrote in <WiEQh.4415$i93.894@trnddc05>:
[...]
>It always was due to the fact that men and females have nothing in common
>except reproduction and that's only 5 minutes lol
Auto Flame Grade: A++
Aratzio
transparently proposed:
Offishul Soc.froot *joke*
Q: Why does it take longer for women to reach orgasm than men?
A: Who cares.
--
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Aratzio - Usenet ruiner #2
Hyerdahl
> On 4 Apr, 03:02, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > [Bring it on. Today women have law and guns and the fathers of> daughters who would fight to secure their part of democracy. Who's> afraid of the big bad sexist wolf? Not me, nor mine.]
>
> What if the Democrats get their way with gun control?
>
Tarq....they want to get guns out of the hands of criminals. That's
the diff.
tarquil_fortesq...@yahoo.co.uk
You snipped the link I gave.
http://www.gunowners.org/a032207.htm
Quotes:
"Since the U.S. Department of Justice has already documented that the
previous "assault weapons" ban did absolutely nothing to stop violent
crime, it is clear that HR 1022 is simply a direct attack on the 2nd
Amendment rights of gun owners."
"This bill is designed to cripple the firearms industry while
infringing on the rights of all gun owners. It is proof positive that
the rabid, anti-gun members of Congress really don't care about
stopping crime or saving lives -- they just want to take our guns
away."
Now please explain how targeting the 'right to bear arms' of law
abiding citizens will stop criminals who buy guns illegally?
Hyerdahl
> On 4 Apr, 15:49, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 4, 2:39 am, tarquil_fortesque_smythe_the...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:> On 4 Apr, 03:02, "Hyerdahl" <Hyerda...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > [Bring it on. Today women have law and guns and the fathers of> daughters who would fight to secure their part of democracy. Who's> afraid of the big bad sexist wolf? Not me, nor mine.]
>
> > > What if the Democrats get their way with gun control?
>
> > The Dems don't want to take away the rights of the people,> Tarq....they want to get guns out of the hands of criminals. That's> the diff.
>
> You snipped the link I gave.
Sorry.
>
> http://www.gunowners.org/a032207.htm
>
> Quotes:
>
> "Since the U.S. Department of Justice has already documented that the previous "assault weapons" ban did absolutely nothing to stop violent> crime, it is clear that HR 1022 is simply a direct attack on the 2nd
> Amendment rights of gun owners."
>
So what. The gun I use to protect myself isn't on the list of banned
guns...at least not the gun I'm talking about. :-)
> "This bill is designed to cripple the firearms industry while infringing on the rights of all gun owners. It is proof positive that the rabid, anti-gun members of Congress really don't care about> stopping crime or saving lives -- they just want to take our guns
> away."
Well, they can't have mine, and guns are still for sale, eh? Looks
like you're picking on the dems for something you fear rather
something that is.
>
> Now please explain how targeting the 'right to bear arms' of law> abiding citizens will stop criminals who buy guns illegally?
There is no fundamental right to bear arms, which is why the states
can regulate gun ownership to some limited degree. No state has
banned gun ownership. You're very confused.
Masculist
> (Revolt Against Penis Envy)
> Contributing Toward an Understanding of Male/Female Harmony
> by BOYD RICE
What a hoot. Who's Boyd Rice and when was the "repost" first posted
on soc.men?
Smitty
> the time to ...
>
> read more »
Masculist
> <conno...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1175657559.3...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Carol Ann, the hyerdoggie, closed her eyes and barked...
>
> >> tarquil_fortesque quoted Boyd Rice...
Great response Society to HyerHo. There's lots of gems in here, but
the big question remains...How does one get women to accept their
particular lot in life and what is that "lot"? They refuse to define
their lot other than in male terms while still keeping all their
female privileges. They then refuse to accept the consequences, or
even allow discussion, that there are consequences to these lies and
deceits. A bigger problem seems to be that men are doing the same.
Boyd says RAPE (Revolt Against Penis Envy) is the answer, but we all
here well know that men seem to love women's selfish and greedy little
deceits no matter who it hurts, and they always assume it will not
hurt them but the weaker among them who don't count anyway.
Carol Ann isn't the problem, she's just acting out her biological
destiny. What's our excuse? Is it our biological destiny to be run
into the ground by corporations and their whores at the end of history
thinking we as individuals will prevail while other men go under?
Maybe we should start dealing with our role in all this and forget
silly little Carol Ann who represents the majority of her sex.
Smitty
It's not funny. Her selfish and greedy nonsense rules our asses and
is bringing us all down.
> ...
>
> read more »