Female Superiority..

They are bigger than mine, have to fix that....

As dearly as we love em!. One does have to wonder how they are capable of reaching the responses and reactions they do. Feminists are no different obviously, as they are predominately saturated by that very sex and that would actually explain how one can never really have a reasonable discussion with them veering off on another tangent without any provocation whatsoever..

It is probably the main reason men are so fascinated when they come across an intelligent female, whose responses are closer to our own rather than the standard examples we read about, talk to and see on a daily basis. Meeting one is like winning a lottery and out the window flies that special effort required to bite the tongue and whip out the brain cells for a readjustment to mindless maudlin in mediocrity, the effort required to deal with the situation..

It is also why I relish in the fact that when I see an article or post that actually considers a broader perspective or a considered meaningful viewpoint, instead of the usual standard level of discussion one is attuned to as well as come to expect, is obviously refreshing. I could name a few offhand, who consistently express reasonableness as well as a deep POV that stirs the senses. But it is not the norm, unfortunately. Normally the tangent evolves around actions and areas one really does not give a rats arse about, like shopping, dancing and partying, areas already sufficiently covered by those magazines, that can stay in written print without ever being repeated, as far as I am concerned but unfortunately it's not the case..

One does want to question feminists on their mind lock but it is an effort in futility as the response does actually encourage and present that cognitive dissonance one hopes to spend their life, avoiding..

And in the case of intelligence, there are actually grounds to infer that provided-for women who never have to do anything except shop shop shop, text text text and dance dance dance finish up actually losing their intellectual capabilities.

Spending one's life deciding what colour that item should be to an unrecognisable level of insignificance or that automatic response to answering the phone when it rings as if someone's life was in balance when in reality, it's just more gossip, the decision of what to wear for a specific occasion while already knowing precisely what outfits one has, discourages practical brain activity, demanding that to functions similar to watching television, already demonstrated that the brain functions stands at zero, ahh! thats better..

That claim made by feminists that women somehow hover in a higher sphere is soundly discounted by watching their behavioral patterns, reading their endless complaints and one wonders just how many more lies they can get away with..

January 27, 2012 codebuster Sociobiology, Women

Lessons from nature: Brain in a vat

In this somewhat tongue-in-cheek article we examine the difference in intelligence between men and women. The normal bell curve distribution is often addressed metaphorically to describe women’s distribution in parameters like intelligence as being taller and narrower, while that of men’s is flatter and wider. This essentially makes the point that men occupy a wider variation on parameters like intelligence; from incredibly dumb to incredibly smart, while women occupy a comfy medium. There is less variation in performance and abilities among women than there is among men. It turns out that, on average, the intelligence of men and women is the same.
This is all well and good, except that there is another dynamic playing out in gender differences. There is something called sexual dimorphism. [11] This is a term from the mainstream biological sciences where the male and female evolve to acquire different phenotypic traits. And in the case of intelligence, there are actually grounds to infer that provided-for women who never have to do anything except shop shop shop, text text text and dance dance dance finish up actually losing their intellectual capabilities. In their provided-for lives, without moral responsibility, their brains actually appear to rot. They do become dumber. In order to appreciate why this should be so, we need to dump the mainstream evolutionary psychology (EP) paradigm grounded in genocentrism. [5] If this offends genocentrists, then be warned. Muff your ears and cover your eyes. This article is not for you.

Habits of indulgence

Men and women value attractiveness in women. Especially within the Anglosphere, a woman’s entire worth is established almost exclusively on her physical appearance and how she packages it. The EP crowd have an explanation for the importance of female beauty. They will blather on about attractiveness as being an indicator of health, superior genes, etc. Meanwhile, the Game and PUA community worship beautiful women at the Altar of the Vag, and women who can package themselves to look attractive enjoy privileges and entitlements that are not extended to those women who either fail to pay attention to their packaging, or for whom no amount of packaging can salvage.
But there is one dimension of womanly existence that is never taken seriously, especially within our current zeitgeist, and that is a woman’s intelligence. Personality may rate to some extent…her readiness to laugh at men’s jokes, her social savvy, her ability to get drunk just like men do, her ability to establish belonging within a huge group of girls, etc. But these are aspects more related to group-think and conformity rather those deeper qualities that we associate with intelligence… such as curiosity, integrity, skill, commonsense, courage, etc. This raises a most important question. Can the disconnect between beauty and brains ever be reconciled? In terms of universal possibilities, I’m confident that it can; in terms of human life on Earth and our current trajectory, the answer is no, it cannot. Trying to reconcile the beauty-brains disconnect within the context of our zeitgeist and culture is a fool’s errand.

Atrophy of the mind

It is well established now that PUAs, as performing seals begging for fish, routinely work themselves into a lather about what women think of them, and then construct elaborate strategies to demonstrate to their objet de l’amour that they don’t care what women think of them. The extent to which women’s opinions matter is proportional to where these women rate on the attractiveness scale. The unspoken rule is that the opinions of nines and tens are weighted more than the opinions of fives and sixes, while the opinions of ones and twos are weighted probably nothing at all. There is no rational reason for this instinctive association between attractiveness and credibility. It’s a subconscious reflex, a bias.
This manner of thinking comes about because of the EP paradigm and the genocentrism on which it is based. Women who are deemed to be attractive are valued more, and so game theory extends the fantasy by rationalizing that they must also be “better” at other things, such as intelligence. These “higher quality” women demonstrate their intelligence in their social savvy. This is naught but projection, receiving its inspiration from a culture obsessed with female beauty and then attributing to it various assumptions that are unfounded.
But let’s take a closer look…What if the reverse is actually true? What if intelligence is more likely to be inversely proportional to attractiveness? There is sound reason to expect precisely this to be the more likely truth. There are various theoretical frameworks available to suggest this; whether they are grounded in religion, customs, psychology, semiotics or science, for example, and within many of these frameworks is the idea that habits play a crucial role in character formation. [6][7][8][9]
Sometimes these habits might be described in terms of “units of imitation”, and this brings us to the field of memetics and the spread of memes. [10] Where do these habits, or memes, come from? The answer is…culture. The provided-for sex has permission to be, well, provided for. These days, a woman has permission to work (if she wants) or to do nothing (if the fancy takes her). Affirmative action grants her freebies and entitlements to which men have no comparable access. And of course the prettier that a woman is, the more privileges and entitlements she can wallow in. For all her practical utility, she might as well be a brain in a vat.
Traditionally, women’s stay-at-home option was a part of the marriage contract, a division of labour that came with responsibilities, from raising and schooling children to domestic and social duties. Implicit within this contract was moral conduct. Sharing the load with her husband, these environmental pressures and the attendant division of labour between the sexes constantly tested everyone at the boundaries between self, family and environment. So imagine how intelligent…not…today’s prettiest stay-at-home must be, given that she no longer bears the onus of these responsibilities. Today’s provided-for stay-at-home must be the ultimate hippopotamus wallowing in freebies for which she does not have to account. She is a parasite sucking the lifeblood from her clod provider and as useless as a brain in a vat. A brain in a vat is not sustainable – without stimulation from the environment, it is destined to turn to mush.
Now it is true that women often derive considerable stimulation from texting, gossiping, shopping and dancing. However, these forms of stimulation are not comparable to things like fixing a car, creating a computer, composing a work of art, or working out a business strategy. So what do we notice here in the differences in the ways in which men and women think? In women, it’s the absence of decision-making. There is no outcome to decide on in the process of texting, gossiping, shopping or dancing, beyond consolidating popularity with your girlfriends or more simply: pure indulgence for its own sake. And while housework and shopping for the family have an important part to play in domestic responsibilities, decision-making is rarely as consequential for women as it is for men.
There are limited risks in deciding on one brand of hairspray over another. For women, there are no consequences for mistakes that are comparable to getting sand in your engine, or misaligning the head of your engine, or messing up a masterpiece, or creating a short circuit on a circuit board, or your opponent getting wind of your strategy. Men have to make things work… often to the extent that it can become a matter of life and death. For women, texting, gossiping, shopping and dancing are not quite as dangerous or risky. Many things that women do can be done in their pyjamas, without even having to venture beyond the front door. Women’s activities may stimulate memory and white matter (glia), but they won’t stimulate the grey matter…the neurons. Maybe that’s why women age so much quicker than men…with the limited stimulation that texting, gossiping and dancing can provide, things must get old for them very quickly.
And here we come up against an essential property of all living things. Namely, a mind that is never tested is a mind that atrophies. Use it or lose it. And it does apply as much to men as it does to women, it’s just that men’s role as utility device limits their options for being an unproductive parasite. There is evidence that the “use it or lose it” principle is pervasive throughout the animal kingdom.

A Huge Group of Girls..

Estrogen Fuels Female Need For Power..

Estrogenitis (the bitch Hormone) Sufferers in action..

Psychological research I take with a pinch of dehydrated, non-carbonised, but undecided whether it should be kosher or halal, salt. So whenever I read a paper or study on that discipline I would have to compare it with fifteen other tests, studies and sworn statements and have the people who worked on the resulting paper, attached to a lie detector just to make sure that there was no feminist doctrinal insertions installed..

Anyway, I couldn't find that salt by the way so I did without it altogether..

Now I did jokingly refer to a room full estrogen addicts a few weeks back and was of the opinion that it did have more use than just making everyone miserable. So here it is and whenever those feminasties refer to a room full of testosterone, we can now counter it with the comparable suffering from a nasty dose of estrogenitis, the bitch hormone. I like it already, has a certain level of truth attached..

Any man who as ever lived in situ with any female would be well aware of the fact that during every month there are quite a few days when you should really be somewhere else, preferably in another state or if your lucky another country. But that is often not the case so all those who have suffered a severe case of estrogenitis, you have my sympathy. I can relate..

Estrogen Fuels Female Need For Power And Control

ScienceDaily (May 22, 2008) — New University of Michigan psychology research suggests that the sex hormone estrogen may be for women what testosterone is for men: The fuel of power.

Until recently, some researchers doubted whether women had a biologically anchored need for dominance.

"Women have long been overlooked in biological research on dominance," said psychology researcher Steven Stanton. "Using a male model, the small body of existing research has struggled to link testosterone to dominance motivation and behavior in women.

"However, estrogen is very behaviorally potent and is actually a close hormonal relative to testosterone. In female mammals, estrogen has been tied to dominance, but there has been scant research examining the behavioral roles of estrogen in women."

The study by Oliver Shultheiss, a psychology professor who directs the Human Motivation & Affective Neuroscience Lab, and Stanton, who is completing doctoral work at the lab, was recently detailed in the journal Hormones and Behavior.

Schultheiss and Stanton measured women's power needs and then assessed salivary estrogen levels both before and after they entered a one-on-one dominance contest.

The researchers found that even before women got involved in the contest, higher power motivation was associated with higher levels of estrogen.

Winners of the contest showed even further increases in estrogen after the contest, but only if they had a strong need for power. Notably, this increase could still be detected one day after the contest was over.

In contrast, power-motivated losers showed a post-contest decrease in estrogen. These effects were not observed among women who did not possess a strong need for power.

"Our findings perfectly parallel what we have observed for power motivation and testosterone in men," Schultheiss said. "In men, power motivation is associated with heightened levels of testosterone, particularly after a contest victory. In women, estrogen appears to be the critical hormone for power motivation."

The World Run by Women Would be What ?

We will cast this sexist, racist female in the "The World would be a better place if run by women" category and why not. What a dishonest, nasty piece of work this woman really is, but I suggest you make your own decision and then ask yourself the same question that feminists have been promoting for so long!

Stephen Hawking's Biggest Mystery..

It would appear that my Google setting could be biased at the moment and it discriminates against the rest of the population. Tragic..

This particular topic does apparently confuse a lot of the girls as I have seen many comments stating that they themselves are confused as to why anyone would regard them to be confusing. As unusual as this comment may be outside their own sex, one can imagine why it would be perplexing to think that there is some issue in regards to this topic..

It would be akin to Stephen saying that he does not understand why people cannot understand the String Theory or his interpretation on Black Holes. He would claim that his explanation is sufficient to understand and comprehend, so what is the problem, really..

I would also imagine that Stephen Hawking would not have any argument or disagreement from the male population on that part. Women are as confusing as anything can get and we witness that every day and in every way. Logic does not come into that argument at all. I suppose that is what makes them interesting as one never knows what they will say next, do next or how they will behave..

It would be a boring planet without them..

Greatest mystery known to man: Quantum physicist Stephen Hawking says he still can't work out women

By EMMA REYNOLDS

5th January 2012

He is one of the world's greatest living scientists, who uncovered the secrets of the universe in his book, A Brief History of Time.

But the great Stephen Hawking says he still struggles with one tricky subject.

When asked what occupied his thoughts for most of his waking hours, he answered: 'Women. They are a complete mystery.'

In an interview with New Scientist to mark his 70th birthday this weekend, the quantum physicist revealed a softer side behind his brilliant brain.

He even hinted at regrets in his personal life after being asked about his biggest mistake.

He said that thinking information was destroyed black holes was his biggest blunder - 'or at least my biggest blunder in science.'

Professor Hawking, who was diagnosed with motor neurone disease at 21, conducted the interview as he communicates - using a voice machine that picks up the twitching of his cheek.

His conversation with the magazine came ahead of an international conference held in his honour that starts today at Cambridge University, where he used to be the Lucasian professor of mathematics.

Why Attack Feminism: it's All about Equality..

I have always found it interesting that regardless of how long and hard one has tried to discourage the "feminist hate fest" message, on most occasions it appears to fall on deaf ears. One has to wonder why there is such a level of ignorance and resistance about the feminist movement or do we just attract the clones who promote that religion like an obedient follower akin to a follower of Jihad or it's equivalence..

Over the years, and it does not matter how many times one has to explain in infinitude; about the abuses and hate that feminism introduces, it is just either ignored or they just sidetrack the topic in the hope of not having to face reality or answer uncomfortable and inconvenient questions. To suggest, in this day and age, with an existing plethora of information demonstrating the exact opposite, we still have feminist enablers proudly claiming that feminism is about equality. That comment and it's conception is just too ludicrous to even bother with but here they are still clinging to it like it's some life-raft instead it being a convenient anchor..

It does explain the need for women to generally grow up and begin inhaling the obvious vitriol and misandry that their own sex has generated and promoted while not having to justify it's affect or argue it's inevitable negative outcomes. Someone has to pay, just as someone has to own up to the bias and misinformation that has been rampant for decades, justifying their vindictive actions against an entire sex whose only crime would be in ensuring and pursuing a better existence for all, a better lifestyle and an improved living standard. And for this we are pilloried and exposed for imaginary wrongs at the behest of an ignorant group of women, who do know better..

But very few have the ability or honesty or determination to start speaking out against it and by this lack of endorsement, it can be viewed as they not given a damn, their silence being a conformation, sharing an affinity as being in cahoots with a movement that is so evil in intent, one must ask whether any sanity actually exists in that sex at all..

stockfresh_478979_candel-flame_sizeS (1)

January 2, 2012 John the Other Feminism, Feminist Lies

Feminists: demented, stunned or cultists

Why Do MRAs Keep Attacking Feminism?
Feminism is a label used to identify two major sets of viewpoints and ideologies. Because they apparently oppose one another, I’ve argued in the past that re-branding would ameliorate much of the confusion of conflicting ideologies with the same name. Two different points of view, which, to outsiders appear to oppose one another, yet continue to both call themselves feminism, albeit with different prefixes. Liberal feminism and radical feminism, might seem like different ideologies to a feminist, but prog-rock and hard rock don’t appear much apart to a follower of baroque chamber music.
When I made the suggestion of re-branding, the small number of liberal feminists I was in routine contact with experienced a collective melt down, insisting that their own version was the “true feminism” and that all others were corruptions. I was roundly excoriated for my suggestion. However, since that minor controversy, my own viewpoint has changed based on an increased understanding of the ideology in it’s different versions, but still operating under that label.
For purpose of discussion, two main camps are identifiable, one which we can call liberal feminism, and the other, radical feminism. Liberal Feminism is the ideology most people are familiar with, and is, on it’s face, similar to a philosophy of humanism. This is the ideology’s great disguise. Superficial examination of liberal feminism reveals a drive toward equality of legal rights between men and women, a libertarian view of bodily autonomy, sexual self determination, and equal access to opportunity. These are all goals a humanist or a small-L libertarian would support, and which are represented in feminist literature written for a non-feminist general public. What differentiates liberal feminism from true humanism is that all these goals are taken in the context of patriarchy theory. That is the name of a specific dogma of the ideology of feminism.
According to wikipedia, Patriarchy is a social system in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination. In short, men rule society. The lack of veracity of this claim will be addressed shortly.
Patriarchy theory is not a theory in the scientific sense. It could be used to make testable predictions, such as a prediction that men receive favourable treatment by the criminal or the family courts, or that they die on the job at lower rates than women, or commit suicide a lower rates then women. However, if “patriarchy theory” were examined with any degree of intellectual rigour, it would be immediately discredited and forcibly discarded. The persistence of the idea as a foundation of feminism, and the aversion of feminist adherents to critical evaluation of this dogma suggests it is part of an ideology rather than a philosophy.
The difference between ideology and philosophy being a matter of rigidity and adaptability to conflicting data. In contrast with a philosophy, an Ideology starts from a fixed idea, deemed “the truth” and discards or suppresses nonconforming evidence. In spite of the untenability of the core doctrine of “patriarchy theory,” liberal feminism is the friendly face of the ideology, which when challenged uses the humanist goals of equal legal rights, bodily autonomy and other humanist ideas to diffuse suggestions that it is a supremacist hate movement.
By contrast, radical feminism is liberal feminism’s ugly, violent and politically potent big sister. The core views of this brand of feminist ideology are reflected in the writings of a number of feminist authors. Valerie Solanas’s SCUM Manifesto Susan Brownmiller’s Against Our Will being examples.
Radical feminism is unambiguously an ideology of violence, female supremacy and class hatred. Brownmiller wrote in 1971

Man discovered that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to prehistoric times, along with the use of fire and the first crude stone axe. From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.

In this execrable passage, Brownmiller indicts every man on Earth for participation in a conspiracy to consciously brutalize and terrorize every woman. The author, who regularly writes for sites such as Huffington Post, still touts her authorship of this hate literature, with no apparent remorse or contrition. In comparison, Valerie Solanas’ manifesto is characterized by the opening declaration:

The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.

However, as obviously hateful and reality-challenged as such views are, the ideology embracing and developing these doctrines is not at the fringe of the feminist movement. This radical version of feminism has built steadily on its foundation of relatively simple-minded hate, into a murderous, antihuman ideology of hatred and genocidal ambition. It is radical feminists, the ideological inheritors of Solanas, Brownmiller and Dworkin who now occupy tenured positions in major universities, who write white papers for the United Nations and who rewrite law and craft domestic policy. Radical feminism is the politically potent, mainstream and established flavor of the ideology.
Following the exposure of the contents of a clandestine radical feminist online message board, it has become evident that rather than marginal, politically impotent, low influence shut-ins, the individuals advocating sex-selective infanticide, mass murder and eugenics are published authors, advisors to government, and senior, tenured academicians. Indeed, the political and academic elite of western nations have been poisoned by an ideology of irrational, violent hatred toward half the population. While individual radical feminists refer derisively to moderate feminists as “fun feminists” – they absolutely depend on the humanist cover provided by these moderates who are in reality, a politically impotent minority.
This is the mask which must be stripped away if an agenda of apartheid and mass murder is to be avoided.
In Australia, a radical feminist conference named after Solanas’s manifesto for genocide was held between September 23-25th, 2011. Two members of the Radfem Hub and Radfem forum, Danielle Elina Pynnonen (Allecto) and her partner, Kat “Kitten Pinder (Amazon Mancrusher) organized and hosted the three day event in Perth, which they called the ‘SCUM Conference’. They billed it as:

THRILL SEEKING FEMALES UNITE! Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore, this THREE DAY RADICAL FEMINIST CONFERENCE is for civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females who want to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.

For reference, Danielle Elina Pynnonen is the child-care worker who labeled a 9 year old boy in her care as “Mr Rape Threat,” and discussed the open desire to harm him and other male children in her care.
Quoting her comments on the rad-fem-hub site:

I honestly have been reassessing the fact that I am giving care to these little future rapists, and what that says about me and my separatism. I know it is kinda going against my principles to support and care for these little fuckers.

Kat Pinder is a former contestant on the TV show Big Brother, who was booted from the show for disruptive behavior and property damage. Evaluating the account provided by the online blog for the show, Pinder appears to be an individual afflicted by High Conflict Personality Disorder. Whether this is due to upbringing or malfunctioning brain chemistry is a matter of academic interest only. Surely a self entitled, personality disordered rich white girl is the one to tell the rest of the world how oppressed she is due to being daddy’s little princess.
However, although examination of these individuals reveals them as low integrity, personality damaged violent sociopaths, they align with ideological contemporaries who have conned their way into positions of public trust and authority all over the world.
This is reflected in a male-hostile environment in higher education[1], while female-favouring affirmative action admission policies and university-endorsed anti male hate-rallies combine to push male students out of school. To clarify, affirmative action is a pleasant-sounding name for a policy of discriminatory treatment of one demographic over another. It is a synonym for apartheid.
The success of the hate fuelled ideology of radical feminism is further evident in mainstream commentary excoriating and condemning masculinity as the source of all social pathology. This is so universally common the contained class hatred passes unnoticed without tedious and explicit explanation in each case. The UNICEF public literature on domestic violence identifies women and children as victims, and excludes men from any category besides perpetrators.
This reflects a picture in opposition to that provided by the majority of peer reviewed literature[3], which shows men and women coequally committing domestic abuse. For an institution as well funded and organized as UNICEF, this cannot be attributed to error or omission. Around North America, law enforcement policies and domestic policy are shaped by an ideologically driven, methodologically flawed “theory” of domestic violence which starts from the unexamined assumption that men are innately evil. This is called the duluth model[4], and despite it’s well known departure from credible research and statistical analysis of domestic violence, it’s application continues. The model focuses solely on the men’s use of violence in abusive relationships, rather than on the behavior of all parties concerned, as would be necessary for any model to be effective in violence reduction.
“Programs based on the Duluth Model may ignore research linking domestic violence to substance abuse and psychological problems, such as attachment disorders, traced to childhood abuse or neglect, or the absence of a history of adequate socialization and training.[5][6]
Donald Dutton is a psychology professor at the University of British Columbia who has studied abusive personalities. According to Dutton:

The Duluth Model was developed by people who didn’t understand anything about therapy.

An exhaustive list of examples would change the focus of this discussion, however, what is obvious from even the few listed is that the ongoing narrative of men as villains and perpetrators and women as eternal, permanent victims is a doctrine immune to contrary evidence, peer reviewed study or even common experience of men and women living in the real world. Whether argued from the camp of radical, kill-all-men feminism, or it’s politically correct cover version posing as humanism, the doctrine endorsing patriarchy has all the tenacity, the immunity from reason, the immunity from data and logic that characterize religious cults.
Radical or moderate adherents to this ideology are, it is increasingly obvious; followers of a religion. Here, of course, I am likely offending individuals who follow any of the primitive mythologies of the desert dwelling goat herders of the iron age mid-east. Taken as an example, Christianity is a death cult which worships the murdered human scapegoat of the rest of humanity’s transgressions. It’s mostly treated as normal by conformists in the continental United States. However, this relatively old cult is based on a scripture which makes as much objective sense as the Norse creation myth from the bones of the ice giant Ymir, the ancient greek, or the creation myths of native North American stone age humans.
The religion of feminism, whether radical or liberal, by adhering to “patriarchy theory” counter-indicated by male death rates on the job, suicide rates, lifespan, income disposal disposable etc; is similar to other fundamentalist cults by it’s persistence and the reality-denial of it’s adherents.
However, after recognition of what appears to be emotional attachment to dogma, another model besides religious conviction emerges. The established behavior in proponents of both the radical and liberal female-centrism of refuting male-rights argument with accusation, obfuscation, censure and goalpost mobility is explainable by emotional arrest.
An Insight to Motivation:
One of the ongoing campaigns of radical feminism, of reclassifying the physical expression of love and affection between adults as a violent crime has always been impenetrably confusing to this author. To exploit the human need for physical intimacy in men and women as a weapon for vilifying one half of the human race appears on surface examination; a deeply evil tactic. To re-label something beautiful as the ugliest of crimes seems a most depraved and vicious tool of political and legal leverage.
As an optimistic person, it was always difficult coming to terms with the idea that a large subset of the female population was possessed by such amoral malice and conscious will to do harm. The radical feminist view; that male sexual agency is inherently malicious, was very hard to explain without viewing it’s proponents as thoroughly vile. Alternative explanations such as prevalent dementia or intellectual failure, while more palatable than an explanation of evil, seemed far less probable.
However, in recent discussions posted at AVfM, I have on several occasions suggested the hypothesis that Western society provides scant, or no motivation for women to develop emotionally beyond a childish and selfish mode of pure self interest. Certainly, an emotionally immature mind is far easier to deceive and influence, which is why corporations like McDonalds, Coca-Cola, and RJ Reynolds Tobacco bend so much effort to market their products to children. Emotionally immature individuals are more malleable and easier to sell to.
This is why for at least several generations, a major fraction of adult females have operated with the singular self-interest and disregard for others of overgrown children. We provide no incentive, indeed substantial disincentive for women to grow up. Controlling a customer base through flattery, greed, envy and guilt is far easier than appealing to critical thinking or rational analysis. Similarly, love, affection and empathy take on substantially different characters in a mature adult’s mind than in an immature child.
An adult understanding of love and affection beyond the simple desire for self gratification means that expressed love through physical intimacy is perceived merely as satiation of appetite from an immature point of view. Seen through this lens, the feminist narrative that male/female sexual congress is oppressive and exploitive is suddenly comprehensible.
In addition, the radical feminist doctrine denying female adult agency and volition is also compatible with a model of emotionally arrested development.

A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, even if she does not feel forced. – Judith Levine
In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent. Catharine MacKinnon
When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression. Sheila Jeffrys

By the tenant of radical feminist doctrine, female agency and volition does not exist, and the illusion of the ability of a woman to make a self determined choice is an illusion used by “the patriarchy” to further oppress each woman.
This is not a new doctrine of radical feminism, but a persistent one. To an outsider to that ideology, it seems flatly absurd until and unless it is examined from the viewpoint that adult women may be emotionally infantile, and like children, controlled by a the parental influence of men. Men; who being responsible (for all evil) are mature and accountable adults. If this idea is tenable, then while men must shoulder all accountability for ill, they must also carry responsibility for good in the world. Indeed, in addition to human damage through history, almost all modern medicine, philosophy, science, art, literature, music, innovation, and the improvement over time of human living standards can be blamed squarely on men.
Taken to a logical conclusion, if radical feminists are correct, and females lack personal agency, then revocation of the rights of enfranchised adulthood must be immediately effected. Only a self determined and accountable adult can vote, own property, testify in a courtroom, hold public office, or be taken seriously in expression. Radical feminists must, if they are correct, immediately declare females the wholly owned chattels of the only responsible human beings, namely men.
As a humanist, a small L libertarian and a men’s rights advocate, I strongly disagree with this absence of individual agency in women. My relatively new understanding of culturally induced infantilism does provide a explanation of what previously appeared deeply malicious behavior. I also hope for and encourage women, self identifying feminists or not, to grow up.
Addendum: I will not be holding my breath in anticipation of this outcome.
[1] http://www.ccl-cca.ca/ccl/Reports/OtherReports/201104GenderReport.html
[2] http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-10-19-male-college-cover_x.htm
[3] http://csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
[4] http://www.theduluthmodel.org/about/index.html
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model
[6] http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-abusers-02-jan02,0,1147422.story?page=2
[7] http://www.themensproject.ca/files/uploads/stfnetw_tmp2-files/menandhealingfinal.pdf

Written by John the Other

Equality Hurts Women the Most..

Hang on, I haven't finished laughing yet....................

I did read a couple of years back when someone made the comment that "in order to get rid of alimony payments, all you to do is to make women pay it". Never a truer word spoken. Watch now, as they howl and scream about the unfairness of a system that actually demands (gulp) women pay their way. I know, it's a first, but they had better get use to it.
The fact that men get stripped of their assets on a daily basis and reamed by a "female friendly" family court is apparently totally irrelevant again. We are apparently not following the "women are more equal" rule and changes will have to be made to readjust everyone's "misogynistic" misogyny, as well as attitude..

Everyone already knows that a woman's money is her own and that a man's money is a women's money because if a man's money was already the woman's money then there would be no issue at all, so there is no confusion at all. See, logical..

The rise of manimony: Meet the women making huge sacrifices to pay thousands in alimony to their former husbands.

Wait, let me get the tissues first - The ever reliable, consistently lying feminists come to the party once again with their usual hypocritical commentary as they ramp up the "women are such victims" hysteria once again. I thought the "Gravity Affects Women the Most" was funnier, but stay with me here..

When novelist Milly Johnson divorced her husband it was an apparently straightforward split. She kept the family home, got custody of their young sons and her maintenance payments came to about £1,000 a month.A fairly modest sum, you might think, when you factor in the expense of clothing, feeding and raising two boys.Except this was not money Milly received from her husband, but financial support she was paying to him. The 47-year-old mother of two found herself in the unexpected, but increasingly common, position of having to pay alimony — or ‘manimony’ as it has been dubbed — to her cash-strapped ex-husband after their marriage broke down.

I won't bore you with the rest as I will leave it up to you to check it out further if you like. But the surprising response here is that I actually could not give a damn about the entire issue, to be perfectly honest. I am so sick to death about "women having it hard" that my "don't give a stuff" meter is buzzing and amazingly enough, I would think that society in general has had a gut-full of it as well. Well the more intelligent one's that is. Those magazines are filled with this type of rubbish and they will still be purchased, sold and read..

All they need to do now is to "Woman Up"..

I rest my case..

A Few Good Women..

One does not have to look too far to witness the total lack of female empathy when applied to the Men's Movement. Sadly, it almost appears that the movement is on it's own and fighting for decency and equity is not one of the topics that women are generally interested in. It can only be put down to the off chance that, going against feminism and their male-hating vitriol, is either way to hard, too difficult or it would displace their hierarchal sisterhood status, the sisterhood principles are more important then the general good that we fight for. It is a well known fact that females bully each other endlessly, more so then males. The male situation is mostly about sorting out the problem, if you have a problem with someone, stand up to it and take it from there. No festering or denial, confront the issue, if there is a reason and deal with it and that is the way men deal with it. For females there is, as usual, a lot more to consider as I have, while running this blog over the past (almost) seven years, witnessed how totally ruthless and maniacal females can be when reeking revenge..

Nastier than men as far as I can tell. I have many articles where women have abused each other to such a degree that I had to readjust my own thinking towards the opposite sex. The worst example would be an article where a female surgically removed a foetus from a pregnant "mother to be" and took the child home claiming it was hers because she could not have her own. Affective but hardly sane. I have photographs of young girls who have been attacked by their peers and the end result has both physically and mentally scarred them for life. Women are not overly brave when it comes to any possibility of being physically traumatised or physically abused. Normally they call in some white knight or pussy whipped partner to do their dirty work just so they can claim the ethical high road by claiming that it was not their fault or blame for instigating the melee, over some imaginary and ill conceived hubris..

Apart from al that, we do see and witness quite a few females on side. These ladies can and do witness the sexist, discriminatory male hating efforts that feminists continually promote and proclaim. Those same females, in some cases are even more forward and state their opinions in a more direct way than some men do. They are not shy about coming forward and telling it precisely the way it is, what the issues are and what needs to be fixed regardless of the abuse and personal harm they may have to carry in speaking out..

There would not be too many men on this planet who are not attached or have not been involved with a loving and caring female in their lives, generalisations aside. I have to make that confession myself, as it's undeniable. Those females do have a major impact on our attitudes and thinking, more so than we care to admit or confess.
That is the problem I have with the opposite sex. They can see the issues we face, the misandry, the promotion of a male hating society and all that comes with that and yet there are very few female voices involved in trying to clean that mess up. Maybe it is time that women sat down and made some decisions regarding their own future as our efforts requires the input from both sexes to make it acceptable as well as tenable. we need more women onside to soften the overall impact that feminists are trained to inflict and the sooner they come onside, the sooner they voice their dislike about where all things are heading, the sooner we can fix the problem..

The title name and this blog in general, may appear to be somewhat of an enigma but to my way of thinking, it's totally justifiable and self explanatory. The feminist penchant of promoting all women as being something they are not, eg. blameless, incapable of dishonesty or breaking the law was and is way too incomprehensible. So this blog is here to refute those false and fake claim, argue the men's purview, hence the title..

Feminists and feminism is the main problem, they need to be neutralised for their obvious actions, shut down so society can return to sanity and equity instead of heading towards an inevitable conflict where no one will win and we all loose..
Demonstrate as well to all and sundry that ethics and honour does still ride within the female spyche instead of the endless negative representations we have from male hating feminists that only compounds the "anti-woman" attitude..
You are going to have to make that decision sooner or later as there is no longer a middle road to follow as it's at the stage of "either for or against", better still, promote your altruism..
How else could you possibly restore respect for your own sex..

You Want Respect, Earn it..

Feminists have always made the claim that women possess and tread a higher ethical and conscious level..

That claim may have worked had it not been the fact that we started having a really good look at the ~~enemy~~ feminist movement, it did not take too long to discover that the impugned level assigned to all females was indeed grossly over estimated and overstated as usual, at that time it was convenient to install the "all women are victims" mantra they have promoted since. Even at the commencement of that hate movement there were bomb attacks and murder threats (ask Erin Pizzey for details). Anyone who dared to counter the male hater's goals were automatically sentenced to life in purgatory or some other similar level of hell..

Over the past week, females, in particular, feminists have enhanced their abusive and cold blooded anarchistic leanings by displaying precisely what they claim to have hated men for. Their actions once again clearly demonstrates their endless hypocrisy in denigrating and generating anti-male attitudes, while at the same time claiming that their sex is not shown any respect. Strange that, it's that cognitive dissonance roundabout kicking in again. Comprehension of their own hypocrisy and doublethink relies on your current level of addiction..

So one must wonder how that same sex can utter these words like it's some type of revelation..

Women: If You Want Respect from Men then Act Like You Deserve It

You think..

It's time girls started taking half of the responsibility for some men being "jerks". That's right. I said it. I can hear the guys cheering and the gals hissing and preparing to claw my eyes out. Before you start sending me nasty hate mail, take the time to read on.

Now, I've been called a feminist by many. I am all about empowering women and seeing them do great things, but with great power comes great responsibility. Maybe the comic book fan in me is showing , but I'm serious. There's more to a girl demanding respect for herself than just screaming at guys when they act like....well, guys.
I can't express how tired I am of hearing girls whine about how they were wronged by a guy when in fact they slept with him almost immediately, after he made it clear he didn't want a relationship, or even waited until the guy was drunk to make their move. It's different if the guy has been leading you on for a while, dating you, or acting interested and only after sex disappears or tells you he doesn't want to be involved. In those cases, he deserves every name you can throw at him.
Some girls just don't get it. No matter what the "agreement" is, or how many times a guy has told them they don't want a relationship, some girls seem to have this notion that their stuff is golden and the minute they give it up, the guy will automatically be starstruck into wanting or loving them, and that he will turn into prince charming. These girls seem to think that if they have sex, it automatically means the guy has to repay them by committing. When they don't get their way, they want to throw a fit and blame the guy. I guess that's easier than admitting you did something stupid.

In order for me to address all the points made in this article, that would take way too long, apart from the fact that this journo lays some claim to being a feminist, which does not appear to being the case as she states that she is accused of it and a quick check did not expose her to be one. So there is hope as the majority are not feminists, and it's unusual to see Yahoo not cowtowing (sic) to the feminist mantra and doctrine as they normally do..

I, like the author, still waiting for women to do great things as this week alone can go down in history as not only being an eye opener on their disgusting behaviour, but also suffer a severe drop in popularity, it's not too often we have women raging about genocide, mass murder and child abuse against all men and boys, maybe it was just practise..

I am still trying to get over the "girls" and "accountability" comment in the same sentence. Look for the next oxymoron..
Link..

Why Keep Hiding Violence By Women?..

Ignorance is a wonderful thing especially if you are a feminist, also helps if you suffer from delusions. The delusional part being that women are just helpless victims of all and sundry and would not raise a finger to murder, rape, molest, abuse or maim children or their partners. The delusional mind goes even deeper into that level when they are of the opinion that women are the epitome, the sole centre of love and cuddles and that could be the case if they were not so bloody violent. Women display this ability even more when they are in a relationship together. Demonstrating to all and sundry that they are the winners when it comes to murdering, maiming and abusing one of their own..

Not convinced ?

I find it fascinating that we never ever hear about lesbian domestic violence or barely touch on violence by women in general although the proof is way past the denial stage and yet they continue to sweep it under the carpet and pretend it does not exist. It is the exact same situation about female violence and we have not got started on female sex abusers which is an entire topic of it's own..

Violent betrayal: Partner abuse in lesbian relationships.
Renzetti, Claire M.
Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. (1992). 202 pp.
Based on a nationwide study of violence in lesbian relationships, this comprehensive, accessible volume derives from a common theme expressed by the subjects: the sense of having been betrayed, first by their lovers, and subsequently by a lesbian community which tends to deny the problem when victims seek help. Renzetti skillfully addresses several central issues: consequences for victims, batterers and the community as a whole; and what we can learn about domestic violence in general by studying violence in lesbian relationships. The research offers a fresh look at domestic violence by examining the phenomenon of women as perpetrators of intimate violence against women,

Partner violence in lesbian relationships

By Janice Ristock, Ph.D., Associate Vice-President Research and Professor, Women’s and Gender Studies, University of Manitoba

Research examining woman-to-woman intimate partner violence lags behind research on heterosexual domestic violence. As a result, many assumptions and stereotypes continue to exist, which can minimize and/or misrecognize violence between women. Anti-violence interventions based on heterosexual domestic violence research are often inappropriately applied to lesbian women.

What does current research tell us?

Several studies have confirmed a pattern where abuse is more likely to occur in a woman’s first intimate relationship with another woman. This suggests that abuse often happens in a particular context of vulnerability and isolation.

Current research continues to document the barriers that remain for lesbians trying to seek services for partner abuse. Having access to formal supports often depends on where you live (geographic area, urban or rural locations). Research has found that lesbians are more likely to turn to friends than professionals for support.

Finally, in addition to findings on partner abuse, research has established that lesbians experience higher rates of public violence (for example, assault, harassment and/or robbery) compared to heterosexual women.

Family Violence Prevention E-Bulletin: July 2011

Violence by Women and Girls

Feature Articles

Women, Girls and Violent Offences

Women and girls have more commonly been involved in the criminal justice system as victims rather than offenders. While females make up half of violent crime victims, they represent a minority of offenders. Most data on offenders in Canada are based on incidents reported to police, yet we know that a number of crimes go unreported.

Based on Statistics Canada reports, we know that:

Females made up 28% of youth (under 18 years of age) and 22% of adults accused of an offence by police.
Female youth crime rates were generally three times higher than those of adult women.
Girls were half as likely to self-report violent delinquent behaviour, compared to boys (15% vs. 30%, respectively).
Adult females were most commonly accused of: theft under $5,000; administration of justice offences (e.g. failure to appear in court); and assault level 1 (least severe form).
The overall rate at which women have been charged by police for Criminal Code offences has fallen since 1992, but rates of women charged with violent offences have increased over the past 30 years.
1. These rates almost tripled between 1979 and 1997 and continued to rise until 2001. Since then, rates have remained relatively stable.
2. The higher rates were largely due to a rise in charge rates for assault level 1.
Adult women were more likely to be violent toward an intimate partner, whereas young women were more often violent toward friends or acquaintances.
Females account for 10% of those accused of homicide, with victims most commonly being spouses and children. For roughly 75% of women who killed their spouse, there were previous incidents of violence between the couple.

References:

Kong, Rebecca and Kathy Au Coin. (2008). “Female Offenders in Canada ” Juristat. Vol. 28, no.1. Statistics Canada Catalogue no.85-002-XIE. Ottawa.

Hotton Mahony, Tina. (2011). Women in Canada: A Gender-based Statistical Report: Women and the Criminal Justice System . Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89-503-X. Ottawa.

Savoie, Josee. (2006). “Youth Self-Reported Delinquency, Toronto, 2006 ” Juristat. Vol. 27, no. 6. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-XIE. Ottawa.

Women have Betrayed Feminism. Finally..

I find it totally incomprehensible that feminists can criticise women for being traitors when in actual fact feminists have crafted and created that same female right from the start. Not only have they encouraged women to originally "burn the bra", which apparently never really happened but was more inferred but have of late encouraged, enforced slut behaviour for all women around the world. Where do these hypocritical feminists get off ?
They have never ever recommended or suggested alternative behaviour, they have never recommended anything besides spending money and doing your own thing. They have indeed encouraged women to pursue a life of narcism and greed by demanding they be paid more than men which they do in most capitol cities. They have encouraged women to not want a man (like a fish needs a bicycle) plus instituted an unrelenting hate program against the only sex on this planet who can and will put up with their shit but the signs are showing that to be coming to an end. So really, what have women got to look forward to. To want to be a stay at home mother is history as far as the feminists are concerned, to be in a relationship with a member of the opposite sex on a permanent basis and not shagging oneself silly is frowned upon..

Lesbianism is promoted as being the right alternative and working 24/7 should be the aim of every woman and behaving like one, well, that's just not on. They hate feminine women with a passion..

I have yet to see ONE single feminist come out and say "this type of behaviour is bad for your health" or "you should not be screwing yourself silly because it will affect your health" or "abortions can psychologically affect you for the rest of your life" or " be a caring, loving human being and share your life with someone who cares about you and make it work otherwise you will be on your own when you get older"..

No positive advice or feedback is forthcoming from any feminist as they have demonstrated already how much they truly hate their own sex. No alternative lifestyle choices are offered because that would mean it to include them men, whom they loathe even more. But care, they do not, as long as their outcomes are reached, they will sacrifice their own with about as much feeling a farmer has when he crops his harvest..

Want a life of misery and hopelessness, become a feminist. It's their best advertisement yet..

Girls in the gutter and a betrayal of feminismBy AMANDA PLATELL
Last updated at 10:34 AM on 1st October 2011

No one blinked an eye at newspaper pictures of semi-clad young women in the gutter this week — women who were bragging they’d ‘got wasted’ on £1 in Warrington.We have become inured to the sight of girls with their breasts tumbling out, their skirts so short they leave nothing to the imagination, and so drunk they can’t stand. In this case, they’d been taking advantage of a ‘Two-Bob Tuesday’ event at a pub, where shots of vodka could be bought for 10p. Even the scenes of them being pawed by strangers in the street seemed par for the course.Yet when you actually encounter this kind of behaviour, it is horribly shocking. Last Saturday night, I was in Liverpool — the 2008 European Capital of Culture — for the Labour Party conference. In the shadows of the Liver Building, I saw a group of expensively — but barely — dressed young women standing in a circle on the city’s famous promenade.
‘What’s going on?’ I asked. ‘It’s a p*** ring,’ one replied. She stepped away from the circle to show me what she meant. One of her friends had her skirt around her ears and was urinating in the street. It was 8pm.Later that night, I returned to the Hilton, the city’s poshest hotel, and another group of girls was sitting outside at the hotel’s alfresco tables, smoking and drinking.As I passed, one of them started shrieking that she needed the loo. She could have walked to one just yards away inside the hotel’s foyer — yet she decided instead to straddle the flowerpot beside the table, lift her skirt and go in full view of passers-by. She didn’t need to drop her underwear as she wasn’t wearing any.
All week inside the Labour Party conference hall, Harriet Harman had been championing women’s rights in the workplace, and Ed Miliband had been thinking of reshuffling his shadow cabinet so he could have more women on the frontline.Yet what is the point of giving young women like this more rights if they behave in such a way?

Two Philosophers Explain being a "Woman"

Two reasonably bright lads explaining the puculiarities of the opposite sex. Their efforts demonstrate to us all those funny little quirks that are so foreign to us as to make us wince and wonder.. Many issues will become clear once you read these comments..

Nietzshe is hated by feminists so he must be good. His philosophy is more about behaviour and responses while Schopenhauer gets down to the basics, the nitty gritty on how women function and what makes them tick and tock....

Arthur Schopenhauer

Women are directly adapted to act as the nurses and educators of our early childhood, for the simple reason that they themselves are childish, foolish, and short-sighted—in a word, are big children all their lives, something intermediate between the child and the man, who is a man in the strict sense of the word. Consider how a young girl will toy day after day with a child, dance with it and sing to it; and then consider what a man, with the very best intentions in the world, could do in her place.

With girls, Nature has had in view what is called in a dramatic sense a “striking effect,” for she endows them for a few years with a richness of beauty and a, fulness of charm at the expense of the rest of their lives; so that they may during these years ensnare the fantasy of a man to such a degree as to make him rush into taking the honourable care of them, in some kind of form, for a lifetime—a step which would not seem sufficiently justified if he only considered the matter.

Accordingly, Nature has furnished woman, as she has the rest of her creatures, with the weapons and implements necessary for the protection of her existence and for just the length of time that they will be of service to her; so that Nature has proceeded here with her usual economy. Just as the female ant after coition loses her wings, which then become superfluous, nay, dangerous for breeding purposes, so for the most part does a woman lose her beauty after giving birth to one or two children; and probably for the same reasons.
The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important. It is by virtue of man’s reasoning powers that he does not live in the present only, like the brute, but observes and ponders over the past and future; and from this spring discretion, care, and that anxiety which we so frequently notice in people.

The advantages, as well as the disadvantages, that this entails, make woman, in consequence of her weaker reasoning powers, less of a partaker in them. Moreover, she is intellectually short-sighted, for although her intuitive understanding quickly perceives what is near to her, on the other hand her circle of vision is limited and does not embrace anything that is remote; hence everything that is absent or past, or in the future, affects women in a less degree than men. This is why they have greater inclination for extravagance, which sometimes borders on madness. Women in their hearts think that men are intended to earn money so that they may spend it, if possible during their husband’s lifetime, but at any rate after his death.

It is because women’s reasoning powers are weaker that they show more sympathy for the unfortunate than men, and consequently take a kindlier interest in them. On the other hand, women are inferior to men in matters of justice, honesty, and conscientiousness. Again, because their reasoning faculty is weak, things clearly visible and real, and belonging to the present, exercise a power over them which is rarely counteracted by abstract thoughts, fixed maxims, or firm resolutions, in general, by regard for the past and future or by consideration for what is absent and remote. Accordingly they have the first and principal qualities of virtue, but they lack the secondary qualities which are often a necessary instrument in developing it.

Women may be compared in this respect to an organism that has a liver but no gall-bladder.⁹ So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice.” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights.

Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all. From time to time there are repeated cases everywhere of ladies, who want for nothing, secretly pocketing and taking away things from shop counters. - Arthur Schopenhauer

Friedrich Nietzsche

"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."— Friedrich Nietzsche
"I know of no better life purpose than to perish in attempting the great and the impossible."— Friedrich Nietzsche
"Love is a state in which a man sees things most decidedly as they are not."— Friedrich Nietzsche
"Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen."— Friedrich Nietzsche
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed."— Friedrich Nietzsche
"Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent."— Friedrich Nietzsche
"The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything."— Friedrich Nietzsche
"Today as always, men fall into two groups: slaves and free men. Whoever does not have two-thirds of his day for himself, is a slave, whatever he may be: a statesman, a businessman, an official, or a scholar."— Friedrich Nietzsche

The Reality Blog