Feminism on Trial!

[Ivan Drago]

Originally posted by Pook...

I have dated several feminists. I do not like them because their personal happiness is dependent on what happens in Washingotn.

Well perhaps the reason their personal happiness is dependent on what happens in Washington is because issues like the right to vote and the right to have an abortion are decided in Washinton.

Another question for you: Why is it that more and more women are anti-feminists? If you think I am bad on feminism, you should look up Wyldfire's posts.

Every movement has an opposition. The more women become feminist, the more women become anti-feminists. The same can be applied to the NRA/gun-control, religion/atheism, etc.

Here is the quote from your original article:

A feminist stands. (Note: she is fat and ugly with a poisonous personality as most feminists are.)

and your new one:

I have gone out with feminists. The reason why I did was because they were pretty and I was surprised to see this feminism in them.

First you claim feminism is responsible for fat chicks. Then you claim all the feminists you went out were pretty. So are the Feminists ugly or pretty?

A woman who just gives you her phone number, or asks you out, all without YOU doing anything is a sign of non-interest. The guy is likely to be abused in some way (example: she could be trying to get her ex jealous, etc.). (or she could be a feminist, which is reason enough not to date her)

A woman asking me out is a sign of disinterest? So if a woman asks me out, it is not because she likes me, it is because she doesn't like me? I've been asked out by a couple of women, and I have been having sex with one of them for over four months now. Is she still disinterested?

In fact, one time I was asked out was a feminist asking me out. But as I put her under the spell of Pook, she reverted straight back to her girlish ways. She was feminist because she was single. Once she lost the singleness, she lost the feminism.

The feminists you went out with are fakes. If she loses her feminism when she loses her singleness, she is a hypocrite, not a feminist.

All feminists are not different. Feminists are in denial about human nature. They believe human dynamics can be transformed through the legislative palace. They are wrong BIG TIME.

Which human dynamics are you talking about again? Men acting as women? That is the men's fault, not feminism's. Women acting as men? If you don't like the way a woman acts, leave her. As for me - asking me out, paying for herself, watching porn with me - all this is human dynamics I support.

Again, that one feminist I dated started paying her way but NATURE TAKES OVER. She started acting as she should, like a female. She paid for what she could, but she gladly let me 'date' her. Why? Because she felt feminine in doing this.

Another hypocrite. You are making your opinions and judgements based on women who are not feminists but fakes.

Feminism and a woman being independent are completely different. Independent women existed since the dawn of time. Feminism is just bad use of free-time.

Independent women don't have to be feminist, but feminists have to be independent. Perhaps those independent women which existed before the dawn of time decided to form a movement called feminism?

Usually, the women that watch porn enjoy doing so pretty much only with the guy sitting beside her. "Why is that, Pook?" For the same reason why girls will go to events with you that they don't even care about. They think it is cute seeing the reaction in you. When you are happy, they get happy. They enjoy that.

Again, the feminists that I dated BOUGHT their own porn. I asked to watch HER porn with her once I found out she had porn. Obviously, not all feminists think porn is out to degrade women. This is why I keep repeating that all feminists are different.

I said: "Feminism is not declaring war on masculinity but on femininity! Feminism is a political Tower of Babylon to escape the truth of Human Nature." I even put that in bold yet you missed it.

The feminism is declaring war on feminity? By letting women do whatever they want? Is that not the essence of freedom and democracy? Why shouldn't women have the freedom of doing whatever they want? Don't you desire the freedom to do what you want?

The flaw of feminism is thinking that femininity and dependency are one of the same. They are not. A woman can be feminine and independent. My own mother was so fierce that she got the attention of congressmen. Yet, she had more power in her femininity of her grace and motherliness.

Can you please give examples of the femininity you so desperately crave? I can't find any in your post and thefore not sure what you mean.

I blame feminism on nothing to do with men's problems. I blame feminism on warring on feminity. I am sick and tired of fat chicks. It only seems to be in America and Britain. Go to Spain or Japan and the chicks are not fat. The living standards are the same. The only difference it seems is that those two countries are much more feminist oriented.

Finally. The whole reason this article was written - fat chicks. I agree that America has way too many fat chicks. I haven't seen many in Britain, but I will take your word for it. Anyway I assume your theory is that feminism is a directly linked to fat chicks.

Do you honestly believe feminism causes women to be fat or encourages them to stay fat? It can't possibly be the fast food industry, popularity of television, genetics, eating disorders, childhood abuses and stress. And the majority of the obese are men. Are the fat dudes feminists too?

Practically everything I've written on this forum has always focusing on YOURSELF and dealing with YOURSELF. The blame for the lack of manhood I've always said is the issue of males not wearing the crown of masculinity their sex is heir to.

But I write one article on feminism and you blow up. You complain that I have 'feminism' wrong, then you misrepresent what I said.

BTW, you didn't write a book called, "Refusing to be Man" did you? Just wondering...

I have enjoyed and agreed with all of your posts except 2, this and another one. I neither wrote the book "Refusing to be Man" nor am I a feminist. But I appreciate the sarcasm. In your original post, you blame feminism for the lack of manhood quite a few times:

"Feminism is essentially about DESEXUALIZATION. This is where Nice Guys, AFCs, come from.

Those who take feminism seriously will be condemned to bitterness, ugliness, and joylessness. Any males who listen will be condemned to loneliness, stuffed with Nice Guyius Patheticus.

If you believe in any of these things, even just a little, you have been affected by Modern Feminism. It is the virus that creates the effects known as Nice Guyius Patheticus!

Let us continue...

The reason why you agree with feminism is because it shares your politics. You live in a political bubble, looking at life in view of politics.

I was like that once. Then I grew up. Life does not revolve around Washington.

This is why I condemn feminism. I bet all your feminist pals will agree with Rousseau (which is why I quoted him). The idea that human nature can be changed through legislative fiat is the most destructive, murderous, and evil things ever to come into this world. I place the horrors of the twentieth century on this concept. I do not view Humans as Vausseven viewed his automaton. I do not view Humanity as some organic garden. Where a garderner has his knives, spikes, and clippers to reshape the garden, so too do these Rousseau followers (most politicians) have laws, taxations, and regulations to reshape Humanity.

I'm not as big on politics as you think and I don't have any feminist pals, I just dated feminists in the past. Never heard of Rousseau before either. All I ask is that you stop looking for a scape goat for AFCs or fat chicks, they are responible for their own actions.

The idea and its fruit are abhorrent. Feminism is not new or progressive, it is litereally ten centuries behind the times. It belongs in the Old World thought. Just as one thought Humanity would be remorphed by a King or grand dictator, so do these feminists believe it will be so by the legislative palace. There is nothing new in feminism.

For all you politically charged individuals: Realize that the most important aspect of being free and happy is not to let anything let you feel unfree or unhappy.

Pook, if you were free and happy you wouldn't be posting anti-feminists posts. It seems you are anti-feminist because of past actions of women you dated who claimed to be feminist. You seem just as bitter as the feminists you describe. I admire the rest of your posts but this one made very little sense to me. Perhaps because the feminists we went out with were different, the point I've been trying to make for some time now.

 

[ozymandias]

The members of this board who disagree with Pook’s post don’t understand the message behind his posts. Each one of them are only reading the words or glazing over the letters with a blank stare hoping to find one tiny inconsistency where they can sink their teeth into and through that single detail they hope to question Pook’s wisdom on the subject of this discussion board.

My message to the individuals who don’t understand what is going on here is this:

Take the time to create you own post instead of trying to discredit other people’s posts. Stop trying to use Pook’s celebrity status on this board and his ideas as a platform for your nonsense.

My message to Pook:

Do not let the James Taggart’s of this board force you to go on strike. If you do Shrug and say that these poor souls are not worth the effort and decide to venture to Atlantis, I will be the first to join you in that journey.

Your insight and knowledge about Man and his sexuality the reason I visit this board. This is my first post and it is done in support of your efforts to educate us on the subject of being a MAN.

Many thanks Pook, You are the MAN.

Ozymandias
---------------

I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another to live for mine.

John Galt

 

[Dominus]

You know, to anyone who's arguing with Pook, I have just on thing to say. You might as well argue the benifits of an Absolute Monarchy to John Locke or
Thomas Paine. You ain't gonna win, and all you do is provide your opponent with another opportunity to prove himself even more right, and the opposing view wrong. I'm not saying you shouldn't try, just that you ain't gonna win.

 

[PrinceCharming]

Originally posted by Ivan Drago

I have enjoyed and agreed with all of your posts except 2, this and another one. I neither wrote the book "Refusing to be Man" nor am I a feminist. But I appreciate the sarcasm. In your original post, you blame feminism for the lack of manhood quite a few times:
[/B]

No wonder I was under the impression that Pook's original idea was blaming feminism for softening up males and making them hate masculinity.

Now Pook tells us:

I said: "Feminism is not declaring war on masculinity but on femininity! Feminism is a political Tower of Babylon to escape the truth of Human Nature." I even put that in bold yet you missed it.

Is that contradictory or does he embrace both ideas at once. First that feminism has created more stupid, ugly chicks, and second that it has robbed males of masculinity?

I agree that feminism has robbed males of what nature gives them, all the hormones and all that good manly stuff. I agree that it hsa used manipulative techniques like guilt to make us believe that males are degrading females.

Then the other claw of feminism is the one that makes it okay for fat chicks to be fat. I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad here, but some people have been fat all their lives and it is basically all a psychological problem.

I remember once a friend telling me this story. He was taking a computer science class and they were reading a book called "The Mythical Man-Month" which talks about software programming in general. Man-month is a measure of how long and how much effort a particular software project will take to be completed. There was this woman in the class who complained to the professor about the title. It is not fair to women, she argued, to call it man-month when there are clearly many women in CS too.

Then again, I believe that this particular woman must have been bitter about men somehow and she was rationalizing it through that comment. Therefore we see the real issue here. A philosophy that is embraced out of a psychological need that cannot be ignored until it is dealt with. Once it IS dealt with, she'll love men again and won't make any of those worthless comments.

 

[Cesare Cardinali]

I hate Fat Chicks

Pook,

I hate fat chicks too. Dude, I especialy can't stand cottage cheese a$s and thighs. It's unhealthy, its ugly, and it wears out the living room rug. Furthermore, if you marry a chick who is "kind of fat" (i.e. "Cesare, do these jeans make me look fat?...No dear" ), she'll end up looking like an elephant after she gives birth.

I've dated a couple of feminists and what I noticed is that they are bitter and angry at the world and have a victim complex. Their is nothing feminine or sexual about them. They dress in a very plane manner, usually blue jeans and a T-shirt all the time, they have very plain hairstyles, and they do not consistently shave their legs. Who cares if they pay for their share of the restaurant check? Hell, they eat too much anyway!

And why is it that they are so against putting on some f*cking make up?

Anyone who disagrees with me should take a look at Anita Roddik and Oprah Winfrey and tell me with all honesty that they'd love to bang those two.


Cesare Cardinali

 

[SexPDX]

Originally posted by Pook
Why is it that the best posts came BEFORE the DJ Bible? Because after the DJ Bible, everyone started to post in order to 'get in'.

Yep.

-PDX

 

[Pook]

This is so damn pointless.

Every movement has an opposition. The more women become feminist, the more women become anti-feminists. The same can be applied to the NRA/gun-control, religion/atheism, etc.

Hardly any women will classify themselves as feminist. Feminism just isn't popular among women.

If we put your idea to use, there should be a Masculinity Movement to counteract the Feminist Movement. But there is none. I don't see any cultural swing towards a pro-manhood.

If I ever wrote a dystopia novel, it would be males watching movies, video games, pulp novels of swashbuckling heroes in high stakes, i.e. of men. That seems to be the only place that manhood is allowed is entertainment. This dystopia is our world today.

Men have always been made fun of. Every sitcom laughs at the father. To those that have worked in retail stores, you know that father's day is always slow (mother's day brings in more business). Young males on this forum literally have learned to stop being ashamed of their nature, of their desires.

Now if someone makes fun of feminism (which ought to be made fun of), they are very well attacked (as you are demonstrating). No, feminists are not all ugly until they open their mouths. Then, verbal excretement falls out.

There is emphasis on this site of Don Juans SMILING and all. It's true, being happy does make you more attractive. But I don't see happy feminists (joyful feminism is an oxymoron). They might as well all be ugly with how unhappy they are

A woman asking me out is a sign of disinterest? /b]

For most women, if they initiate, they are not truly interested. Nice Guys make the tragic mistake of thinking they are interested (she asked for my number! Hot dog! She is into me!). The vanity blinds them.

With most androgenous people, they must supersaturate themselves with sex (because how else can they now feel male/female?) A friend of mine was paid $300 each time to sex this woman (who worked all the time, had no time to find someone, but needed to feel like a woman). Heh, when his wife found out, she said, "Can you keep on doing it? We need the money!" haha

The feminists you went out with are fakes. If she loses her feminism when she loses her singleness, she is a hypocrite, not a feminist.

What about that major feminist who swore she would never marry (because marriage, as we are told, is an evil male plot against women)? I forget her name. But the point is that nature takes over. If a guy stays single long enough, he finds nature tormenting him. A woman usually wants to be a woman. Far from being hypocrites, they are learning (as many here have) to embrace their sexuality. There is no shame in being feminine.

Which human dynamics are you talking about again? Men acting as women? That is the men's fault, not feminism's.

I do agree that it is the men's fault. Women CRAVE men. When one appears, they go nuts over him.

Women acting as men? If you don't like the way a woman acts, leave her. As for me - asking me out, paying for herself, watching porn with me - all this is human dynamics I support.

You really aren't getting it. In our vanity, we live on our little philosophies. But Nature pulls the rug from under us. This is why Shakespeare always made fun of lawyers, of the law itself, of politicians, and lashed against the 'ideal' of the time, an Alexander the Great.

Like I said, there are women who will even pay you to be a male prostitute. It may seem like a 'male dream' but its really not. These 'new relationships' that seem to mock Nature will be mocked in the end.

Another hypocrite. You are making your opinions and judgement based on women who are not feminists but fakes.

But she WAS a feminist. She acted like a feminist until a man came along. Indeed, I think we'll be plagued with feminism until real men enter the world again.

Independent women don't have to be feminist, but feminists have to be independent. Perhaps those independent women which existed before the dawn of time decided to form a movement called feminism?

This is doubtful since humanity kept starving to death until a couple of centuries ago. No one makes movements on empty stomachs, as all our ancestors had.

Again, the feminists that I dated BOUGHT their own porn. I asked to watch HER porn with her once I found out she had porn. Obviously, not all feminists think porn is out to degrade women. This is why I keep repeating that all feminists are different.

Feminists may differ; their feminism is all the same.

The feminism is declaring war on feminity? By letting women do whatever they want? Is that not the essence of freedom and democracy?

I knew this would come out: feminism and freedom are one of the same. You probably think that supporting feminism is like continuing the arch of 'discovery of freedom' throughout history.

But there is nothing new under the sun. Feminism has existed in different forms in previous times. It failed for the same reasons feminism fails today: feminism goes against human nature.

Woman are the dominant sex. Men are very naive about sexuality and all. Women dominate the emotional realm. It is easy to see women literally controlling men. As a marriage goes on, the woman finds herself more and more in control (is it male or female fault? Doesn't matter, its a course of nature).

It wasn't the greeks' embracement of democracy that gave them rise, it was their emracement of sexuality. They had their Apollo and Dionysius. It's well known that great art and sexuality are one of the same.

Feminism does not like sexuality. It does not like women being women or men being men. This is why I oppose it. I think some guys have gotten some of it in their heads and is part of the reason why they won't embrace their own sexuality. I don't think Nice Guys would be as prevalent as they are if it wasn't for feminism. It is a male failure, but feminism is the cheerleader for it all.

Answer me this: if feminism was a political movement, why is there still a 'movement' even though all their political goals have been achieved?

Why shouldn't women have the freedom of doing whatever they want? Don't you desire the freedom to do what you want?

Because you are NOT free. Nature has divided us into a gender, one of NOT of our choosing. You cannot free yourself of Nature or of Time. You will ripe, and ripe, and rot, and rot.

With a Laetes voice, I say to you: "You are poisoned wiith Time. No philosophy in the world can do you any good."

I bet you in 100 years or 10,000 years, the sexes will still be the same.

Can you please give examples of the femininity you so desperately crave? I can't find any in your post and thefore not sure what you mean.

Modesty.

Anyway I assume your theory is that feminism is a directly linked to fat chicks.

No. There will always be fat chicks. Feminism just provides another excuse for fat chicks to remain fat.

It can't possibly be the fast food industry, popularity of television, genetics, eating disorders, childhood abuses and stress. And the majority of the obese are men. Are the fat dudes feminists too?

The reason why most women are fat is not because of any of the things you mentioned. It is because of themselves.

Many fat dudes don't embrace their sexuality either. That is why they don't see their androgenous state. They only see it as a health issue.

I neither wrote the book "Refusing to be Man" nor am I a feminist. But I appreciate the sarcasm.

You ought to read it. It is all about the glories of feminism. You'd love it!

I'm not as big on politics as you think

Listen to yourself! You link feminism with freedom! You see the advancement of feminism as a political enlargement of 'rights', of freedom itself!

I get so annoyed that people define their lifeviews and opinions without hardly ever reading. Thomas Paine starts off his common sense with: "Some people have so confused government and society as to think they are but one of the same. But they are different and have different origins." I would update it to say that people have so confused law and society to think the two are the same, that some people (i.e. feminists) think they will change society by changing law. But a history of law shows the reverse, that society forces and alters the law than the other way around.

Start reading the feminist stuff and say what you have been saying.

Never heard of Rousseau before either.

Good lord! He hasn't heard of Rousseau!

All I ask is that you stop looking for a scape goat for AFCs or fat chicks, they are responible for their own actions.

I am not using any of them as a scapegoat. Because you are so offended by casual making fun of feminism, I will now make fun of feminism in every post.

Pook, if you were free and happy you wouldn't be posting anti-feminists posts.

I posted anti-feminist post because I was asked to and because I found it entertaining (the entire thing reads like a bad script!)

Anti-feminism has been rampant on this board for ages. Where have you been?

It seems you are anti-feminist because of past actions of women you dated who claimed to be feminist.

No, I am anti-feminist because feminism is stupid. And dangerous when taken seriously.

You seem just as bitter as the feminists you describe.

No, I am bitter because I have to spend my time responding to this rather than posting more tips.

 

[SexPDX]

Originally posted by Pook

No, I am bitter because I have to spend my time responding to this rather than posting more tips.

Pook, don't feel like you HAVE to respond to anything. Believe me, I understand as much as anyone that once you post something it cultivates some feelings of responsiblity to defend it but watch out for wanting to continue discussing things once you decide it's pointless to do so. I trip over that tendency myself sometimes.

-PDX

 

[Ivan Drago]

Originally posted by Pook
Because you are so offended by casual making fun of feminism, I will now make fun of feminism in every post.
[/B]

Now I never expected you to act this immature, but I guess there is a first time for everything. I do agree with you that any more of this arguing is pointless.

Just to sum what I was saying, my main peeve is the people who complain that feminists are all ugly fat nazis. I say that unless you dated a feminist, you shouldn't be bashing them. So these same people claim they dated feminists. And I ask, were they the same ugly fat nazis you claim them to be?

I dated a couple and was pretty impressed. They were more assertive and intelligent than your average woman. However, I realize that not every feminist is the same and was hoping to get the point across to everyone else.

While I don' t agree with all aspects of feminism, I believe the pluses greatly outweight the minuses. And linking feminism to obesity is just absurd. As far as Oprah, who I hate myself, there are plenty of other feminists who are worth mentioning, namely Jodie Foster & Melissa Etheridge.

 

[Sting]

I hate to step in the middle of a flame war, but Pook has raised a very valid point. Some of the most vocal feminists, those who give feminism its "public face," are not the most attractive. Concomitantly, feminism lures many unattractive "rank and file" women who blame men for their inability to get ahead on their looks -- in other words, they accuse men of "looks discrimination."

In an earlier post, I quoted a website that explained a key goal of feminism is the realign nature through the law and social policy implementation. Yet it is nature, indeed "Mother Nature" who feminism should blame for their problems, not men. Absent natural programming, a man would not prefer a more attractive woman over a less attractive woman. Similarly, a woman would not prefer a more muscular man over a man who is skinny or fat. If attractive feminists believe the playing field should be even, then they should disregard their natural desire to have an attractive mate. Of course, to insist that feminists do so would infringe their freedom to choose, thereby being further evidence of their oppression by men.

I could go on and on, but Fred Reed, of Fredoneverything.net put it this way:

I'm gonna smack'em, I tell you. Radical feminists, I mean. I'm gonna take a ball bat to'em.

No. Wait. Better idea. I mean, this country invented the wood-chipper. And there's always a market for cat food.

What astonishes me is how feminists have managed to poison relations between men and women. Somehow they have created a nightmare world that doesn't exist, an atmosphere of weird paranoid hostility, and made women, or a few women, believe they live in it.

The other day I saw some mutant frump on television. I think it was Patricia Ireland, but it could have been Shamu gone bad. Anyway, she looked like a fireplug with leprosy, and she was hollering about how men were always battering women. (Ever notice that these gals are all either butt-ugly or gay as Easter bonnets? Suppose there's a reason?)

Feminists are always hollering about how women are battered, beaten, raped, underpaid, bruised, scorned--how women crawl in gutters, pleading for help, struggling piteously, while men--men--stand over them in hobnailed boots, grinning and saying, "Har har har."

Don't the men you know do that?

These fantasies rely on battered-women studies, usually written by academic feminists. (Incidentally, friends whom I trust implicitly tell me that Ph.D. doesn't really stand for Purple-Haired Dike. I don't know why not.) They typically say that four out of five women are battered three times every five nanoseconds. Or seven of eight, or nine of ten. It doesn't matter.

Actually, I can hardly get any work done, being so busy battering my daughters and girlfriends. It's a burden. I hardly have time to molest my children. (Six out of every four men molest their children.)

It's nonsense, as a cursory examination of the evidence easily shows. But who examines evidence?

Then there are the feminist rape fantasies, much in vogue with co-eds seeking an outlet for hysterical tendencies. The average feminist couldn't get raped on a troopship with a gallon of bourbon, but never mind.

I recently read a study claiming that one in two women will be a victim of rape.

Sure. And I'm Lady Jane Grey.

Think about it. Does this mean that one in two men is a rapist? Or are there a few really busy guys out there?

None of this stuff is true, which doesn't matter at all.

Do women believe it? The other night I was in a bar with a buddy who has wearied of this stuff. He turned to three pretty women playing pool and asked, "Hey, have you been raped?" They looked surprised. (Maybe it's not a standard pick-up line.) He explained about the studies. They didn't see much sense in it. "That's nuts," said one correctly. Another's comment was a sardonic "Raped?. . . Not that I remember."

Oh, lord--I can see the headline: "Study reveals that nine of ten women don't remember being raped."

The truth, plain as zits on a prom queen, is that feminists are a hate group, like the KKK or the Baader-Meinhof Gang, only probably loonier. (Feminutsies?) (Sorry. It's late.) They are liars, and verge on crazy. And they're chronically furious. They don't want to be women, and can't be men, and so compromise on being disagreeable.

Above all else they hate the thought of women having sex with men. At the University of Michigan, maybe it is, there's a bilious woman named Catharine MacKinnon. Kitty Mac is a nice-looking babe when she keeps her mouth shut, which isn't often, and has a certain patrician charm that I associate with jock itch. I find by her this, appalling for its sheer prissiness:

"Compare victims' reports of rape with women's reports of sex. They look a lot alike. . . In this light, the major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it."

I guess Kitty Mac and I date different classes of women.

To a feminist, everything sounds like rape. Peanut butter sounds like rape. Wallpaper sounds like rape. The dew on the flowers of morn sounds like rape. I note in passing that Kitty Mac speaks of sex with men as an alien concept, as if she knew of it by dispatches from a distant front.

I think feminists hate the idea of normal sex because they regard men as poachers.

The feminists have persuaded us that even an office is a dark and dangerous place. Yep. Here we encounter Sexual Harassment, which amounts to absurdity as a rationale for Stalinism. Don't you love it? Rape lurks by the water cooler. Bob the comptroller, with the love-handles and wry sense of humor, harbors the lusts of Jack the Ripper. Jimbo tells blonde jokes. Clearly he hates women. He probably melts Barbie Dolls for a hobby. Peril is everywhere. We must be vigilant or the boogeyman will leap from the supply closet.

Unfortunately this stuff is serious. If a man tells a dirty joke, or if a woman who doesn't like him says he did, he can lose his job. We have sensitivity training about impure ideas. It's because women don't know about sex. Nor do they have dirty thoughts.

A woman I know said recently that when she entered a room full of guys at work, laughing and talking, they fell silent. She was puzzled and hurt. I wasn't puzzled. So many women have chips on their shoulders, and the penalties for offending them are so great, that silence is the wise course. Is this what we want?

You might be surprised at how many men--including to my knowledge, admirals, generals, the editor of a major newspaper--won't let women into their offices without having a witness present. Bureaucrats in Washington live in an atmosphere of (I apologize in advance) fear and loafing, afraid to discipline female subordinates who don't do their jobs. My buddy the scuba-instructor won't help female students put on their gear. I doubt that on woman in 50, or one in a hundred, would charge that he groped her, but all it takes is one neurotic.

Trouble is, nobody has the moxie to tell these scrofulous tarantulas to bugger off. Which is well for feminists: If people started laughing at them, the whole shebang would collapse in ten minutes.

And they probably wouldn't even make good cat food.

 

[hitop]

Let's give feminists a hand now

........................./´¯/)
......................,/¯..//
...................../..../ /
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´(..´......,~/'...')
.........\.................\/..../
..........'\'...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\

 

[Wolf in sheep's clothing]

So do feminist become fat ugly chicks? Or is it the other way around, that fat ugly chicks become feminists?

Not all feminists are fat ugly chicks, nor are all fat ugly chicks feminists, but I am more inclined to believe that a lot of feminists are born thru women with low self-esteem or self-image towards their own femininity lashing out at a society that is constantly being bombarded with images of beautiful and attractive women. They feel so removed from that image of feminine perfection that they foster a hatred towards anything that supports it - this being men and feminine women (or the not fat ugly chicks).

Feminists use the goal of 'sexual equality' as a smokescreen to hide their true intentions - they dont want their self-assessed fat ugly image compared to attractive women. They would prefer to break the mirror rather than change themselves (because they feel they can not).

Anyway, so what is the big deal about feminists? Feminists have won the battle, but lost the war. Women are more equal in our society than ever before, but feminine sexuality is on display everywhere. Ordinary women are happy with what they've gained, but in the end are still happy to express their sexuality - in fact even more so. True feminism is dead and the so-called feminist that are around today are the poor self-esteem variety.

So again I ask, so whats the big deal? The wave of touchy-feeling sensitive men we have today is not because of feminism, but because of capitalism - marketing and media cashing in on the new generations of women who are finding themselves freer to express themselves and explore life than their mothers and grandmothers.

Nice-guyism is an approach that some guys follow to get what every other guy on the planet wants - a good root. Nice guys are of the belief that by catering to what women think they want they will get sex/girlfriends/wives etc. And their main source of information is all the touchy-feely crap the media is throwing at them. Once nice guys realise its not what women want that is important but what women need, they seek other sources of wizdom - like this site - to gain what they want.

Just my view of the world, nothing more

 

[Player69]

I will make this short since it's late. I agree with Pooks posts, and I believe that he has a very good understanding of human nature and sociaty. He has the balls to state the truth, and back it up, even if it may sound contriversial, and others don't agree upon them.

 

[SexPDX]

Originally posted by Wolf in sheep's clothing
So do feminist become fat ugly chicks? Or is it the other way around, that fat ugly chicks become feminists?

Not all feminists are fat ugly chicks, nor are all fat ugly chicks feminists, but I am more inclined to believe that a lot of feminists are born thru women with low self-esteem or self-image towards their own femininity lashing out at a society that is constantly being bombarded with images of beautiful and attractive women. They feel so removed from that image of feminine perfection that they foster a hatred towards anything that supports it - this being men and feminine women (or the not fat ugly chicks).

Feminists use the goal of 'sexual equality' as a smokescreen to hide their true intentions - they dont want their self-assessed fat ugly image compared to attractive women. They would prefer to break the mirror rather than change themselves (because they feel they can not)

The Wolf has spoken.

MOST (not all feminists) are fat and ugly women. And Wolf does a great job of explaining why. End of story. End of this debate. Anyone who can't observe this to be the truth in the real world is wrapped in fog. I don't know why Pook or anyone else is so intent on calling attention to that which is obvious.

End of story.

-PDX

 

[TwoDollahs]

no really pook, you have the reputation as god on this site or at the very worst the a very successful don juan, well if this is true... honestly... where do you get all your time from to come up with and bother to write such long posts? i mean the average is about the equivelent of 8 pages, some are much more.. i dont get it?

Probably does drugs

 

[SlyDonJuan]

Pook, this quote is really nonsense!

Originally posted by Pook



For most women, if they initiate, they are not truly interested. Nice Guys make the tragic mistake of thinking they are interested (she asked for my number! Hot dog! She is into me!). The vanity blinds them.

What kind of nonsense is this? The most recent post which came from Doc Love "When do you not wait a week to call?" tells us that a girl is interested in you when she does the asking out and etc. It is a very odd case and it is a sign of high interest level. So now, I know what you're going to say.! Doc Love is a nice guy??

 

[Raoul]

Re: Pook, this quote is really nonsense!

Originally posted by SlyDonJuan
What kind of nonsense is this? The most recent post which came from Doc Love "When do you not wait a week to call?" tells us that a girl is interested in you when she does the asking out and etc. It is a very odd case and it is a sign of high interest level. So now, I know what you're going to say.! Doc Love is a nice guy??

Actually, a lot of us can tell you from experience, the girls who initiate do not have the highest interest. Check the Archive, I think there are a few posts that explain this concept by Anti-Dump and a few others.

Also regarding Doc Love - remember, nobody is always 100% right so you can't always follow their advice to the letter. Take everything you read with a grain of salt. Read all the different opinions, have your own experiences, then make your own opinion/ideas based on that.

- Raoul

 

[Steele]

Pook thank you for your original post, it was most inspiring. As for the lively debate which ensued: this was a fantastic way to crystallize my views on the link between feminism and the ‘nice guy’ problem. Thanks all, and Pook: your theory is good, very good.

 

[Pook]

Stop Private Messaging me on what I do for a living! It's not what you'd think.

I work a number of odd blue collar jobs currently. I go from one to another. So when you see that guy fixing the powerline, or the truckdriver, or the fireman, think "that's Pook". At the moment, I'm working in a slaughterhouse.

If you guys ever had a sister, you'll know what I mean that by growing up around her, I watched some strange stuff. I swear she watched Grease everyday. She was also a big fan of 90210. I remember glancing at the TV one day when it was on, and Luke Perry was driving along in his convertible. Another male character (Brandon?) says, "What's this?" and takes out a book from the glove department which was Byron's Complete Works. "English poetry!?" he exclaims to him.

I'm that type of guy, who would just pull out a works of shakespeare from the car to everyone's surprise.

Originally posted by photo 1
no really pook, you have the reputation as god on this site or at the very worst the a very successful don juan, well if this is true... honestly... where do you get all your time from to come up with and bother to write such long posts? i mean the average is about the equivelent of 8 pages, some are much more.. i dont get it?

LONG ANSWER: Because, foolio, I do not write everything at once. When I come in late, I am still wired so I write till I fall asleep. After a while, these writings add up on my harddrive. I either post them, delete some (some are REALLY strange!), or even combine them (those make the 'really' long posts. Toward's Manhood was like 5 posts. This one was like 4 posts.) And its all done way before. The Secret of the Jerk was written mostly in the summer. 60% of it is quotes from other people. No way would I sit here and type all that out. But it just adds up in a file and I just slap in on here.

Right now, I'll be posting everyday. How can I do it? Because all the posts are already written for the most part. I just cut and paste them in and even combine posts (this is why sometimes the syntax will change within the post!). Right now, I'm cleaning out my harddrive so there will be more posts.

SHORT ANSWER: Because I'm good.

 

[manofmen]

oh yeah

for a while i've come to the forums and have always enjoyed your posts...as you mentioned when it comes to these forums they are just knowledge and useless if you don't use them.i am one who took action and i got one of the few women that men dream of.now there are things i took in consideration when i first met her---
1.drama queen or rare great women(to fake or not to fake)the deal on the table.-when first encountering her,instead of me always saying all the things i liked and her agreeing like most girls do,i asked her what she liked instead and to my surprise we had alot in common.(i also said things i liked when i really hated them and she said she hated them.she wasn't fake).usually when you tell a girl your likes and dislikes and they really want to get with you,they will say all the same stuff you like and hate the same and then only months later not like anything you said that night.it makes you wonder what happened to the girl you fell for.you get suckered.me and her had common ground so i pursued.
2.could i rule out though if she was a drama queen.it was very hard.so i took a look at her past relationships.her last relationship was 2 years.he was a classic jerk and an alcoholic and not good looking.well it started looking like she liked jerks.but i observed her behavior and to me she looked like she just liked to please people(her parents).and not many guy's asked her out so i think she was scared of being single and the routine of being with someone is hard to get away from.in the end he dumped her.i had to think about that one.maybe he left her because she was i *****.but he was a drama king and he liked mean girls.so that was that.
3.the ugly duckling syndrome-take a pretty girl growing up men will give them anything and put them on the pedastal and the ones they choose are the guys that treat them like dirt.the nice guys don't get action from the hot ones.it's the guy's that aren't intimidated by the girls hot looks and therefor act himself and queenie falls for him.they don't get on bended knee.it's a paradox.now take my girlfriend-the ugly duckling.when she was growing up guys treated her mean.they called her fat and teased her to the point where she didn't want to attend elementry school or jr.high.after been mean to by the mean boys.over the years i think she truly yearned for a nice guy.then came her transformation.she became beautiful,while dating her last boyfriend.she didn't think she could do better till she finally met me.i'm a goodguy.she was looking for a nice guy.she matured faster then the hot babes because she got a taste of a$$holes in her younger years and now seeked the good guy later.
3.i learned the secret(i call it the promise.)-when most boyfriends say there going to do something they never do it.and girls stop giving them credit and lose faith in their men.when it comes to me i make promises and i never break them.when i say were doing something.i promise we do it.she's learned that my promises are gold.thats where nlp kinda plays a part."time distortion".i promised her the greatest life possible with me.i explained in detail the life were going to live and i promised that.i believe in myself that it can happen.and i'm confident about it and she can see it.and that is love...

so pook how does this look...is she a closet drama queen or am i lucky.

my girlfriend is a dream-she drinks beer,likes video games,SEX,and is very funny...i think i finally lucked out.i look at alot of the posts in the forums now and think geez...i still like to come back and read them from time to time and your posts always are very intriging so thats what keeps me coming back..when your posts cease then the forum will be a bore...thank you pook for the confidence and knowledge over the years