Why men won't marry you

[Arthur Brain]

Women get away with being a misery to the man, or taking their kids and house by taking advantage of the courts. Divorce is a prospect to women, that is why more and more men have chosen to stay away from marriage.

Oh, I'm sure you're just a joy to women then yeh?

Your answer to my question was as ridiculously male feminist as they come- completely unable to acknowledge the conflicts put on men but more than willing to attack the integrity of men and side with women.

No, just acknowledging the exaggerated one sided lunacy that you spew out in spades...

Therefore, Stockholm's Syndrome.

Therefore, you're a loon. I've seen both sides, I'm just not as ridiculously misogynistic as you is all

And look how much they run to you :chuckle:
You're valuable because your a male. You see, they need men with their own 'empowerment'. It's hilarious.

You aren't, and no woman on here needs my 'help'. You on the other hand could do with some...

 

[Crucible]

The reality ... is that women have as many rights as you do ... and that won't be changing.

Ho hum.

:rotfl:



They have more rights lain:
Which adds insult to injury that they still harp on about 'equality'.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, just anti-feminist.

It's a common symptom of a feminist to be blinded to real reality- the actual truth of these matters. Any knockback is 'misogyny'.

Let's face it Sum, with you it's 'feminist' to support women having a vote.

Put your elongated beard away and get with the times. You don't live in 1792 dude.

lain:

 

[Rusha]

no woman on here needs my 'help'. You on the other hand could do with some...

Oh that just isn't true at all. I need your help, New Bunny. Purdy please. With a carrot on top.

 

[Crucible]

Let's face it Sum, with you it's 'feminist' to support women having a vote.

Put your elongated beard away and get with the times. You don't live in 1792 dude.

lain:

It sounds so good when you put it that way, and completely dismiss REALITY.

The only reason it was ever necessary for women to vote was when they decided it was necessary to leave their husbands.

And work jobs which has caused women to be the majority on anti-depressants and anxiety medicine.

And the coveted 'miracle pill' (birth control)- the actually stated resolve from men!

But
You see how far that went. They still needed to abort them by the million.

And to this day, many of them have become a misery to men and have a 1001 privileges to boot, and a million Arthur Brains to support them.


Good job :wave:

 

[Arthur Brain]

It sounds so good when you put it that way, and completely dismiss REALITY.

It sounds that good because it is reality.

The only reason it was ever necessary for women to vote was when they decided it was necessary to leave their husbands.

Well, that's just bollocks obviously as you'd know if you had even a smattering of knowledge on the subject. Women didn't fight for the vote in order to simply have a right to divorce their husbands. If possible, stop making a carton of eggs look more intelligent than yourself.

And work jobs which has caused women to be the majority on anti-depressants and anxiety medicine.

Dumb claim (surprise) and without cite (another surprise).

And the coveted 'miracle pill' (birth control)- the actually stated resolve from men!

Oh get a grip...

But
You see how far that went. They still needed to abort them by the million.

And to this day, many of them have become a misery to men and have a 1001 privileges to boot, and a million Arthur Brains to support them.

Good job :wave:

You moron. If you think women are solely responsible for abortions then you're yet more of an idiot. Further, make darn sure that whenever you buy your groceries or any product you're not being served by a woman okay, for the sake of moronic consistency?

Berk.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Oh that just isn't true at all. I need your help, New Bunny. Purdy please. With a carrot on top.

Denied.

lain:

 

[Rusha]

Denied.

lain:

Plleeeeaaaaassssseeeee.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Plleeeeaaaaassssseeeee.

Oh...

:think:

No.

lain:

 

[Rusha]

Oh...

:think:

No.

lain:

Thanks! I knew I could count on you!

 

[Arthur Brain]

Thanks! I knew I could count on you!

What?

Eh?

What?!

:liberals:

 

[Rusha]

It sounds so good when you put it that way, and completely dismiss REALITY.

The only reason it was ever necessary for women to vote was when they decided it was necessary to leave their husbands.

And work jobs which has caused women to be the majority on anti-depressants and anxiety medicine.

And the coveted 'miracle pill' (birth control)- the actually stated resolve from men!

But
You see how far that went. They still needed to abort them by the million.

And to this day, many of them have become a misery to men and have a 1001 privileges to boot, and a million Arthur Brains to support them.

Good job :wave:

:kook:

 

[Crucible]

Well, that's just bollocks obviously as you'd know if you had even a smattering of knowledge on the subject. Women didn't fight for the vote in order to simply have a right to divorce their husbands. If possible, stop making a carton of eggs look more intelligent than yourself.

In the world of common sense, it only needs the head of household to vote. It was seen as rightful that the person who protected and provided be the one that vote, as the vote ultimately falls on them. Therefore, women voting was pointless.

So again
It only became necessary when they decided to abandon the household.

And what do they do now? They get bent out of shape that most in government office are men- even though they are 60% of the voting body. That is, they themselves, at large, do not want women in office :doh:
That is the dumbness of modern feminism.

You moron. If you think women are solely responsible for abortions then you're yet more of an idiot.

They are solely responsible for abortion.
Or do they all of a sudden not have autonomy over their own body? See, can't even take accountability there.
Zero accountability across the board. Must be nice

 

[Rusha]

In the world of common sense, it only needs the head of household to vote. It was seen as rightful that the person who protected and provided be the one that vote, as the vote ultimately falls on them. Therefore, women voting was pointless.

That's an interesting story. :yawn:

 

[patrick jane]

Your moot ... is moot.



Nah, you just don't like the FACT that women are no longer expected or required to shut up and put up with abuse just because of their gender. Get over it.



Seriously. Stop long enough to realize that the control and power you wish to have over women is non existent. For example, you keep shooting off your big mouth as though you have authority and it means something.


The only thing it "means" is that you have less sense than a puppet on steroids who is trying to break free from his strings.

Your anger hurts you now and in the future ... because with the exception of yelling, the only power you have is over yourself ... and that really does send you into a frenzy.

https://youtu.be/1H-Y7MAASkg

Reminds of a song - Get Over It by the Eagles. My favorite line is when he says - "I'd like to find you in a child and kick it's little . . ."

 

[Arthur Brain]

In the world of common sense, it only needs the head of household to vote. It was seen as rightful that the person who protected and provided be the one that vote, as the vote ultimately falls on them. Therefore, women voting was pointless.

So again
It only became necessary when they decided to abandon the household.

And what do they do now? They get bent out of shape that most in government office are men- even though they are 60% of the voting body. That is, they themselves, at large, do not want women in office :doh:
That is the dumbness of modern feminism.



They are solely responsible for abortion.
Or do they all of a sudden not have autonomy over their own body? See, can't even take accountability there.
Zero accountability across the board. Must be nice

In the world of common sense you don't count.

Go grow your beard a bit more and revel in the 1800's or something you pompous prat.

 

[Crucible]

Reminds of a song - Get Over It by the Eagles..

Yeah, throw it at women and it's 'misogyny'. Funny how that works, ain't it?

Women's problems = serious issue; cry about it or you're a misogynist

Men's problems = "Deal with it, wimp"

You few seriously don't understand that this is the going rate in ALL these discussions. Same turnout everytime- and I'M the one that has something wrong with me?
:chuckle:

 

[patrick jane]

Yeah, throw it at women and it's 'misogyny'. Funny how that works, ain't it?

Women's problems = serious issue; cry about it or you're a misogynist

Men's problems = "Deal with it, wimp"

You few seriously don't understand that this is the going rate in ALL these discussions. Same turnout everytime- and I'M the one that has something wrong with me?
:chuckle:

No, you're ok

 

[Rusha]

Men's problems = "Deal with it, wimp"

That's the spirit!

 

[Traditio]

:think: So much for *absolute morality*. There are no *certain cases* which would make beating a wife/child/husband okay.

In most cases, an spouse will get angry over something their partner says or does and hit her/him.

What you are effectively committing to saying, Rusha, is that there are absolutely no conceivable cases in which a wife, child or husband could be deserving of a beating.

For the sake of this discussion, I'll ignore the question of whether or not a child conceivably could deserve one; I'll focus on the husband and wife, who are mature rational agents who are responsible for their conduct.

Is there nothing that a married woman can do, regardless of how illegal or how immoral or how damaging either to herself, her family or the political society and the State, which could possibly merit beating as a due penalty?

If you say "no," then I'll ask: "What about any woman?"

If you say "no," then I'll ask: "What about any man?"

If at any point you say "yes," then I'll ask you what is so special about the preceding class(es) of people.

If you insist on saying "no," then I'll answer that corporal punishment has a longstanding history both in the East and in the West. It historically has been granted that at least some kinds of acts can merit physical torment (e.g., whipping, burning, etc.) as their due punishment.

You, of course, will want to insist that a husband should never beat his wife, nor the other way around.

Fine. I'll bracket the question.

What about the State? Does the State reserve the right to exact physical punishments on anyone? If you say "no," then I'll bring against you the historical practice of various nations. If you say "yes," and if indeed, you recognize, as I do, the State's right of violence (ius violentiae), its right of exacting vengeance (ius talionis), then I'll ask why the State cannot delegate its authority to punish to someone else. If you answer that the State indeed can do this, then I'll ask why the State cannot delegate to a man the authority to punish his wife for certain categories of action (e.g., adultery or culpably bringing disaster to the household).