Okay, I seriously don’t understand how any polls still have Romney having a chance in this election.

     This is the guy who said he liked firing people and who basically said that it is his job not to care about the American worker.  Don’t get me wrong.  I know there are people who like to hear that sort of thing.  When he made that second comment, I’m sure he thought those were the only ones who were going to hear him.

     We’ve got a lot of people out of work right now.  And, while Obama is not doing wonders for our economy, at least we’ve gotten away from Bush’s active sabotage.  Romney promises to go back to sabotaging.  He talks about getting 50.01% of the vote.  He shouldn’t get 30% of the vote.


Some videos by GirlWritesWhat

     I happen to like the videos that I am going to link to.  (And if the green bar is any indication, so do a lot of other people.)  I am not going to embed her videos in my post because I don’t want to consume so much memory and I don’t want to bother with asking for permission to do so.  They are her property, not mine.  But they give some insight into the methodology of feminism — what she and some other people have had to deal with.

     I haven’t had to deal with these sorts of things personally because not a lot of people read my blog.  I’ve thought about the prospect of having very few readers for my blog.  And I think I know why it is.  I am incredibly BORING.  But I’m okay with that.  I’m surprised at some of the views I do get.




     This next one deals more with the attitudes of feminists past and present.



This is from a couple feminists — responding to a comment I made.


Pvblivs • 7 hours ago
It comes as no surprise to me that someone who perpetuates the lie of the “patriarchy” would have no tolerance for those who reveal the truth of universal feminist misandry. The fact is that, even today, most women are not feminists. The claim that ” When a person tells me that ‘all,’ ‘most,’ or hell even ‘many’ feminists hate men, what that person is telling me is that ze doesn’t give a **** about women” is a lie. It’s just that they are no longer content to throw men under the bus to appease feminists.

If the claims of feminism (e.g. the “patriarchy”) were true, feminism couldn’t even get a toe-hold. But they are not true. Feminism relies on the fact that men sacrifice themselves (and have for a long time) to protect women from even the hint of injustice. So, feminists made up stories and men did their bidding. But, now, some men have come to see feminism for what it really is — a man-hating, female supremacist organization. And feminists don’t like open eyes.

Neither you, nor your supporters would want to trade places with a typical man. That would involve working twelve-hour days at a horrid job only to see 90% of the paycheck taken away to pay the alimony from a no-fault divorce (the ex got bored with the marriage.) Oh, you may well want to trade places with one of the elite. But the common man? You’ve got it better than they do and you know it.
0 2 •Reply•Share ›

fannie MOD • 2 hours ago • parent
I’ll leave this comment up just so I can, in the future, point to this new guy who thinks he knows everything about me, my beliefs, my “supporters,” and what kind of feminism I “perpetuate” after skimming exactly one of my blog posts for like 10 seconds and yet who somehow, for some reason thinks he has lots to teach the laydeez here about feminism because of his personal experience with his ex-wife.

Dude’s obviously mistaken this blog for a place where men can just say [****] and have it automatically be taken as 100% correct just ‘cuz a man said it.

So on that note, let me just re-iterate a couple of points I made in my post:
When a person tells me that “all,” “most,” or [****] even “many” feminists hate men, what that person is telling me is that ze doesn’t give a [****] about women. And if someone doesn’t give a [****] about women, why on gawd’s green earth should we ever listen to what they have to say about how we can do feminism better?

1 •Reply•Share ›

Fede04 • 3 hours ago • parent −
‘My ex-wife was mean to me, and that proves feminism is wrong!!”
You’re right that I wouldn’t want to trade places with you, Pvblivs. True, I’d automatically be paid a helluva lot more for the same work, and I wouldn’t be a member of the sex class but instead considered fully human. But I couldn’t stand being as hopelessly idiotic.
1 •Reply•Share ›


You can find the original at http://fanniesroom.blogspot.com/2012/09/on-myth-of-universal-feminist-misandry.html

There are some things that I would like to point out. First: I am not going by personal experience with an ex-wife. I’ve never been married. I saw what marriage and divorce did to so many men that I decided that marriage was a bad plan. So I personally was not burned by a divorce. Second: While I fully expected her (the site master) to delete my truth as inconvenient to her goals, she still admits that she only kept dissent up because she thought she could successfully ridicule it. Third: I did not claim to know everything about her or her suppoters. In fact, I claimed very little about her and her supporters. I claim that they are able to see that (despite what they claim) they are better off than most men and that they are smart enough not to want to trade places with someone worse off than themselves. Fourth: I already know it is futile to try to convince die-hard feminists. But exposing their reactions to the undecided can be quite effective. Fannie has such contempt for all beings male that she can’t conceive of me being able to think like that.

Okay, on the marriage thing. I know that not all marriages end in divorce. I even know that not all divorces result in a vindictive (or cunning if it was pre-planned) ex-wife taking the husband to the cleaners. But I am not a good enough judge of individuals’ character to weed out the “bad apples” and I would probably wind up with one.

“When a person tells me that ‘all,’ ‘most,’ or [****] even ‘many’ feminists hate men, what that person is telling me is that ze doesn’t give a [****] about women. And if someone doesn’t give a [****] about women, why on gawd’s green earth should we ever listen to what they have to say about how we can do feminism better?”

To conclude that feminists hate men does not require that someone not care about women. If I believed Fannie really thought that, I’d consider her a moron. But I don’t. She’s spouting off a sound bite. Like most sound bites, it proves unsound when one examines it. But the aim is an emotional reaction, not a logical one. It also seeks to prevent people from listening to dissenting perspectives. I don’t think there is a way to “do feminism [aka female supremacy] better.” I want to expose it so that people don’t buy into it.

“Doing their homework”

     Well, it appears that Norman is claiming that “atheists do not do their homework.” I have to say that he is projecting again. The fact is that non-christians (Norman seems to think that anyone who isn’t a christian is an atheist) have “done their homework.” We are quite aware that you *claim* that there is more to your faith than obedience through fear. But when christians try to explain what that “more” is, they only manage to repackage the same old fear-based religion.
     Think about it. While they portray “the sacrifice of the christ” (that’s not a name, by the way) as some sort of grand gesture, it is ruined by the fact that their “god” demands the sacrifice in the first place. It’s just the same old fear in another packaging. The talk of “christian love” is just that, talk. There is no love involved. And I don’t think fundamentalists are even capable of love.

Fundamentalist christians are psychopaths.

     I refer to this post, by Dan, which is fairly typical of fundamentalists.  The common thread is that fundamentalists will say that “atheists” do not have a reason to believe that murder, rape, theft, etc. are wrong.  It’s not that “atheists” don’t have reasons.  They do.  But the foundation of those reasons is empathy and compassion.  And these traits are foreign to fundamentalists.  Fundamentalists, being psychopaths, can only understand self-interest.  They don’t care about anybody else.  To them, a reason must rely on an “authority” with a big club to enforce his will.