“Interview” with Michael Noer


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – “Interview” with Michael Noer

“Interview” with Michael Noer
ftesyektsi
Regular Contributor
ftesyektsi

Don’t let the link keep you from it.  It’s not bad.  And with any luck, he’ll read it.

http://www.luckytalentluckyfortune.com/blog/kristensblog/62/My+Interview+with+Michael+Noer%2A.html

Message Edited by ftesyektsi on 08-28-2006 08:01 AM

08-27-2006 12:26 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

Not a very thoughtful piece that debates the issues is it?

More like a one-sided patronizing smear job from a flippant post-feminist material girl who uses her sexuality when it suits her.

Pathetic.

08-27-2006 12:41 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
ftesyektsi
Regular Contributor
ftesyektsi

So…um…I guess you didn’t like it.  Or am I reading your bitter tirade wrong?

08-27-2006 12:45 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
So she doesn’t get it? What does that demonstrate other than her inability to understand?

Or is just that she doesn’t buy it? (which is what I say when accused by a woman of not getting it…)

Message Edited by MartianBachelor on 08-27-2006 11:27 AM

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

08-27-2006 12:54 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

You are correct in that I didn’t like it. I dont consider my previous post to be a “bitter tirade” but an acurate reflection of what I read. Here is an exerpt:

=========

ME:  First, you offer some words of wisdom to a certain audience.  You write, “Whatever you do, don’t marry a woman with a career.”  Now, this may seem like a silly question…(I smiled and twirled my hair)…but, who, specifically, is your audience? I mean, it’s not the general population.  You’re not saying, “Beware of marrying a person who has career goals.”  No, you’re talking specifically to boys.

NOER: Guys.

ME:  Guys!  Right.  Sorry.  I’ll underline that.  Guys, not boys.

=========

That seems rather condesending to me.

Or is she just being “empowered” and “sassy”?

08-27-2006 12:54 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
ftesyektsi
Regular Contributor
ftesyektsi

Oh, okay…I guess what I got from it was a heavy dose of sarcasm, and I took the reference to “boys” as something meant to draw attention to his use of the word “career girls” (something straight out of a fifties magazine).

I think you may be taking it too literally…?  I dunno.  To each her (or his) own.

08-27-2006 12:57 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

Well, your correct that the “interview” does indeed have a heavy dose of sarcasm in it. But a lot of the sarcasm has been added after the interview had taken place with no way for him to counter it. Hence the reason I called it a “one-sided smear job”.

08-27-2006 01:04 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
ftesyektsi
Regular Contributor
ftesyektsi

Kind of like his column?  He used sources, sure, but anyone can find sources to support just about anything.  But it’s pretty one-sided, and offers no opportunity for defense or rebuttal.  I guess that’s what the blog does – rebuts.  No?

08-27-2006 01:09 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
Termi0n
Regular Contributor
Termi0n

Edited. Dont want to give them any ideas.

Message Edited by Termi0n on 08-27-2006 02:19 PM

Women want fried ice. -Arab Proverb

08-27-2006 02:19 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

Kind of like his column?

His column was not entertainment and fiction.
This ‘Interview’ appears to be akmost entirely made up.

He used sources, sure, but anyone can find sources to support just about anything.

Ok, so let’s just go with total Moral Relativism and give up on making any policy or social initiatives based upon any facts, data, surveys or studies, peer reviewed or not, because all of them can be slanted to support just about anything.

-If that is the case then my point of view is, by your definition of support, equally valid as that of all the others who disagree, therefore both points of views should be represented in the public sphere, as neither can be supported because all sources and facts can be twisted to support both sides.  Therefore my pov should get equal time in society.  Currently it does not, so I am correct to argue for its inclusion.

-If no studies are valid, then my pov should get equal time in society.  Currently it does not, so I am correct to argue for its inclusion.

-The studies cited by Noer are valid and do support my thesis.  Therefore my pov should get equal time in society.  Currently it does not, so I am correct to argue for its inclusion.

-The studies cited by those who disagree with Noer are valid.  But no one has cited any such studies.  Thus there is a very weak counterargument.  Therefore my pov should get equal time in society.  Currently it does not, so I am correct to argue for its inclusion.

08-27-2006 03:13 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – “Interview” with Michael Noer

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

ftesyektsi wrote:
Kind of like his column?  He used sources, sure, but anyone can find sources to support just about anything.  But it’s pretty one-sided, and offers no opportunity for defense or rebuttal.  I guess that’s what the blog does – rebuts.  No?

Yes he could add a comment to her blog but if I were him I wouldn’t lower myself. Plus you can never be certain that the author of the blog wont censor it.

08-27-2006 03:20 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
Argyle
Visitor
Argyle

I really enjoyed the faux interview… it was light, entertaining, and made a valid point through the use of poignant humor. In my opinion, the author’s intent was not to pass her interview off as “real,” but to make a much needed commentary on Mr. Noer’s article. His clearly one-sided opinion, no matter what facts he backed them up with, is sexist and implies, at least in part, that women are the cause of men’s downfalls.

Come on guys… a successful man should be able to be happily married to a successful woman and vice-versa. If divorce-rates ARE really higher in these scenarios they are the fault of those very men who simply can not handle an intelligent, succesful woman. The author of the interview gets her point across very well by having the interviewer appear girly and flirtatious: why else would a person like Mr. Noer listen to a woman? I guess he’s just scared of the smart ones.

08-27-2006 03:30 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
leeraconteur
Regular Contributor
leeraconteur

His clearly one-sided opinion, no matter what facts he backed them up with, is sexist and implies, at least in part, that women are the cause of men’s downfalls.

We can’t have facts supporting opinions, because that would be sexist.

Even if the opinions are true, accurate and real.

This is the definition of Political Correctness:

“Well, his opinion does appear to be backed up with facts.  But his opinion is offensive to some, so we can’t allow that to be spoken.”

We certainly can’t brook the notion that some women are predatory and are the cause of some men’s downfalls.  We also can’t tolerate the notion that some of women’s actions are not beneficial to the family and marriage unit.  After all, everything every woman does is always, by definition, in the best interest of the marriage, family and husband, right?  That would be sexist, even if it were true in some cases.

After all, all women are ‘Sugar and spice and everything nice…”, right?

08-27-2006 03:43 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
Argyle
Visitor
Argyle

This is just the “facts can back up anything depending on how it’s used argument.” Been there, done that.

And “some” women and men do this or that. “All” Men and women do not. Got it.

Now what was your point again?

08-27-2006 03:47 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
ftesyektsi
Regular Contributor
ftesyektsi

leeraconteur wrote:

We certainly can’t brook the notion that some women are predatory and are the cause of some men’s downfalls.  We also can’t tolerate the notion that some of women’s actions are not beneficial to the family and marriage unit.  After all, everything every woman does is always, by definition, in the best interest of the marriage, family and husband, right?  That would be sexist, even if it were true in some cases.

After all, all women are ‘Sugar and spice and everything nice…”, right?

How is it you’re so conveniently dismissing that Noer failed to highlight any of the problems associated with men working full time?  Or with men who – married to working women – still insist that the women be responsible for household duties?

There is a lot in his column – much of which is touched on in that fake interview – that makes subtle, sexist claims.  Sources, schmources…Noer’s biggest failing in this case was his inability to present an objective viewpoint.  He was biased, which makes his claims that much less credible.  Everything he wrote (minues the little allowances here and there for the few instances in which working women can find happiness in a marriage) contends the following:  men will be less happy – their very health and well-being will be threatened, even! – if they marry a career woman.

It would take an idiot not to see what he is really trying to convey.

Or a chauvanist.

Message Edited by ftesyektsi on 08-27-2006 03:55 PM

Message Edited by ftesyektsi on 08-27-2006 03:56 PM

08-27-2006 03:53 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
ftesyektsi
Regular Contributor
ftesyektsi

Doc_Savage wrote:

ftesyektsi wrote:
Kind of like his column?  He used sources, sure, but anyone can find sources to support just about anything.  But it’s pretty one-sided, and offers no opportunity for defense or rebuttal.  I guess that’s what the blog does – rebuts.  No?

Yes he could add a comment to her blog but if I were him I wouldn’t lower myself. Plus you can never be certain that the author of the blog wont censor it.

Oh, I don’t know.  Is it really “lowering” yourself to engage in honest discussion?

08-28-2006 03:45 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
Jet_Jaguar
Contributor
Jet_Jaguar

Lee, stop it!  You’re using that pesky logic again, that nasty androcentric construct.

Who was it up there that said that men “should” be able to have a relationship with a successful gal?  Wow, right out of the feminist handbook.  “The world should be the way I want it to be!”

Feminism is nothing more than the anger of frustrated children in adult women’s bodies taking out on men their anger over the fact that the entire world does not conform to their inner fantasies and never will. Since everything is a “social construct” this bit of self-referent thinking simply proves to them the correctness of their delusions.

All this exercise of multiple threads has proven an old axiom my uncle told me “A woman will deny and negate a man’s feelings and needs and tell him how he should be feeling and what he should need instead.”

Women talk endlessly about “communication” and “sharing problems,” but are remarkably uninterested in hearing about or sharing your problems, concerns, or fears.

This is particularly galling when juxtaposed with the mythology that women are the “relationship and intimacy experts.” The reality is that most women are absolutely incompetent when it comes to relationships. They are very adept at emotional manipulation and emotional terrorism to bully and intimidate men into giving them what they want, but a true relationship between equals based on respect is simply beyond the capabilities of most of them.

08-29-2006 02:21 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
ftesyektsi
Regular Contributor
ftesyektsi

Jet_Jaguar wrote:
Lee, stop it!  You’re using that pesky logic again, that nasty androcentric construct.

Who was it up there that said that men “should” be able to have a relationship with a successful gal?  Wow, right out of the feminist handbook.  “The world should be the way I want it to be!”

Feminism is nothing more than the anger of frustrated children in adult women’s bodies taking out on men their anger over the fact that the entire world does not conform to their inner fantasies and never will. Since everything is a “social construct” this bit of self-referent thinking simply proves to them the correctness of their delusions.

All this exercise of multiple threads has proven an old axiom my uncle told me “A woman will deny and negate a man’s feelings and needs and tell him how he should be feeling and what he should need instead.”

Women talk endlessly about “communication” and “sharing problems,” but are remarkably uninterested in hearing about or sharing your problems, concerns, or fears.

This is particularly galling when juxtaposed with the mythology that women are the “relationship and intimacy experts.” The reality is that most women are absolutely incompetent when it comes to relationships. They are very adept at emotional manipulation and emotional terrorism to bully and intimidate men into giving them what they want, but a true relationship between equals based on respect is simply beyond the capabilities of most of them.

There are some feminists who get out of hand, but the very idea of feminism is HARDLY as you describe it.  What is believing in equal pay and the right to vote, if not feminism?  And is that BAD, according to you?

People will take ANY fight too far, no matter the group.  That’s just the way humans are – you’ll always run across fanatics.

What’s too bad is when others with – clearly – little ability to think logically allow those fanatics to represent a larger group.  Ever hear the term “a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch”?  Luckily, the smarter ones know to toss the spoiled apples and sift through all the good stuff that’s left.

But, if you must sit back and fold your arms and declare that “women are” this and “women are” that, and that a feminist movement that is largely responsible for increasing the wages for people who do equal work, and for making it NOT legal for men to beat their wives, and for allowing women to vote, and for giving us innumerable other rights we didn’t haveyears ago, is a pesky nuisance for (white) men (who, by the way, have NEVER experienced oppression to the degree that minorities or women have), have at it.  Whatever gets ya goin’.

Message Edited by ftesyektsi on 08-29-2006 02:55 PM

08-29-2006 02:53 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
Jet_Jaguar
Contributor
Jet_Jaguar

BTW, I’m black, but don’t let your contempt for those white males who passed all of those female-friendly laws come out too much.  But I’m also male, and I have seen the detrimental effect of socialistic engineering/feminism and its accompanying destruction on the black family first hand.  The 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate is just one telling statistic.  And as much as I hear black women going on about how awful black men are, I need to remind them that THEY’RE the ones raising these men.  But taking responsibility for their screw-ups isn’t a very strong female trait since most of them still want to blame all those “triflin’, no-good” you-know-whats.  Because feminism was about destroying the family, no bones about it.

If you truly think feminism is about equality, you really are wearing blinders.  Equal pay and the right to vote?  The movement regarding women’s right to vote was called “suffrage” and it accomplished its goal, and then had no further reason to exist. You’re lumping it in with feminism.  I only refer to the movement which sprang up in the 60s based on victimhood. As far as I’m concerned, that term was never used to describe the push for voting rights.

Feminism was a mass character assassination of men.  Numerous quotes from the LEADERS of that sick man-hating movement have already been posted here.  Most men would have been fine if it was all about equality, but it wasn’t.  There were a lot of male feminists then that stopped being male feminists because of all of the hatred of men being bandied about.  Not much talk about equality, but certainly a lot of talk of demonizing men, calling them oppressors and bringing down the “patriarchy”.  And then your remark about making it illegal to beat women.  As if that was some regular practice.  You’re a fem-bot all right.  I already know how you feel about men deep-down, it comes out every time you make one of those foolish statements.
In the past, men also fought the wars to PROTECT women and children, men were the ones to sink on the Titanic sacrificing their lives so women could live, men built the bridges, the roads, the railroads, the dams that supplied the power (some DIED building those dams), the buildings and homes (that sheltered their families), the appliances in your kitchen that freed women from doing long housework so they could enter the workforce, doing the most dangerous, deadly jobs, building the infrastructure of a burgeoning wealthy nation.  All this because of mostly MEN, YES, MEN.  Men sacrificing themselves for their families, their wives and their children.  And do you even touch upon that, HELL NO.  Because you’ve been indoctrinated with feminidiot revisionist herstory that paints everything men did in a bad light.  These men did a disproportionate amount of things that benefitted women just as much as it did them.  There was no equal contribution to it, but there was certainly equal enjoyment.  And did men complain about it?  No, we were happy to make our women feel comfortable and happy because they rewarded us with respect and admiration by doing their part which was just as important but in a different way.  Now we’re rewarded with denigration and a complete lack of appreciation for our sacrifices.  Which is why I always think the women who label men as negative when they speak out about women unfairly demonizing men (or simply seeing only the negative about men) are simply projecting.  No one is more negative than a woman that buys into the feminist line of bull-dung.

I’ll believe in equality when women have compulsory military combat front-line service like men; when women start trying to get “equal representation” as coal miners, ditch-diggers, garbagemen, construction workers, fry-cooks, mechanics, well-drillers, bridge-builders, fishermen, oil rig driller, etc.  with the same fervor they’ve been going after all the cushy jobs that pay well like doctor, lawyer or politician.  I’ll believe in equality when the physical standards for military, fire departments, and police departments are exactly the same and women have to do exactly the same amount of push-ups, sit-ups and other drills as men, not less like they have to do now (and they still get the same pay which really ISN’T EQUALITY).  I’ll believe in equality when men have the same reproductive choices as women and are able to opt-out of their responsibilities to a child the same as a woman.  I’ll believe in equality when women start asking out men and initiating relationships and sex at the same rate as men (which they’re definitely NOT doing now), or start paying for dates and not bitching about or calling a man “cheap”, or actually start dating men who make less money than them rather than simply showing them nose hair.  God, I could go on and on and on, but you should be getting the point by now.  No, if you don’t get it by now, you’ll NEVER GET IT.

Yeah, women wanted to have it all, all right.  All of the benefits of equality, with none of the costs.  All of the privileges and entitlements, but none of the risks.  All of the rights, with none of the accompanying responsibilities.  And so many want to keep all of the old traditions that benefitted them (like those sycophantic idiots praising that chivalrous dolt Muppet), but want to discard all of the traditions like cooking, cleaning, etc., really anything that involves “doing” something for men instead of “receiving” something from men like wedding rings.

And I want all of the women who have gone along with that sick hate movement in silent complicity to learn the harsh lesson of it as well.  I want them to live their lives just as so many men had to and will have to – chained to a desk for the rest of their lives without anyone to come in and “rescue” them.
When men lose the motivation and incentive to do women’s dirty work for them, then society will truly fall.  Women’s power has always been manipulating men into doing the tough work and heavy lifting for them.  Women don’t need men?  Hardly!  They’re simply replacing their husbands and fathers with government and yoking the rest of us with the responsibility of paying for it.  And further regulating men with more restrictive legal and extra-legal protections that keep the yoke around men’s necks.
Men’s biological imperative has always been to PROTECT and SERVE the female.  But this was somehow spun into OPPRESSION.  That is the truth that keeps getting buried.  Women don’t protect men, they protect children.  But by demonizing men, do you really think they’ll want to protect women as eagerly?  They’re the pigs on the animal farm.  You know, some animals are just MORE equal than others.

Ever hear the quote from Vlaidimir Lenin?  “Destroy the family and society will collapse.”
Well, it’s happening here, and if you look up some of those feminist leaders, you’ll see that many of them were either communists themselves or had serious communist influences (like Betty Friedan’s father).

Your flippant dismissal that “some feminists get out of hand” is like saying “some Nazis got out of hand”.  (yeah, there I go comparing feminists to Nazis again – but it is a hate movement disguised as a movement for “equality”.  But that’s Hitler’s BIG LIE.)
A few bad apples?  A few bad apples are all you need to pass laws that give women more protections and entitlements (Violence Against Women Act anyone – yeah, that’s all about equality – not) and tighten that yoke around men.  Keep on protecting those women behind the curtain.

And if you think what women have gained outweighs what we ALL have lost, you’re a fool.  But you keep on living in that fantasy world.  I’m sure it helps you sleep at night to believe big lies.  Hitler was right, you’ve bought the big lies hook, line and sinker.  And your post is so full of falsities that have been debunked a hundred times already on this board, that it’s futile to continue teaching this pig to sing.

Marriage is dead, now go home.  Women don’t need men?  Great, now go away and don’t need us someplace else.

Good night.

Message Edited by Jet_Jaguar on 08-30-2006 03:57 AM

Message Edited by Jet_Jaguar on 08-30-2006 04:02 AM

Message Edited by Jet_Jaguar on 08-30-2006 04:02 AM

08-30-2006 03:47 AM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
Jet_Jaguar
Contributor
Jet_Jaguar

The sad thing YOU don’t realize is that many of us men are looking for true equality, not that faux-crap you’re pushing.  We’re just trying to hold women to the same standards of accountability that we would hold any man.  But I’m not seeing many takers…  As a matter of fact, I haven’t seen any yet.

So when you try to label me as being against equality, no, I’m not against real equality.  I would love to see women actually attempt to live up to it, but then they’d have to give up all those entitlements, traditions, legal and extra-legal protections and benefits they enjoy over men.

A movement for real equality cannot have a gendered name. All of the excesses of feminism come directly from the belief that the female view must be pushed in any and all circumstances and that everything is a battle between the male and female points of view.  “Feminism” never was about “equal rights.” The equal rights movement in the States for negroes/blacks/African-Americans was never called “black-ism”, it was called “civil rights.”  And if feminism were truly about equality, then it would have been called “egalitarianism”.  This fact is so obvious yet flies under the radar of so many women.

Certainly, a lot of people who got duped into supporting the feminists because they believed the lies. But the two legs on which feminism stands are Marxism and lesbianism. Friedan, Steinem, De Beauvior, and virtually all of the early movers and shakers of feminism were dedicated Marxists. De Beauvior explicitly stated that their intention was to drive women out of the home and into the workforce. They used a slightly more peaceful method than Lenin, or Mao Zedung, or Pol Pot, but the political objective was the same.

Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin built on the work of Kate Millet, the sickest man-hating lesbian that ever lived, and Susan Brownmiller.

The 2-pronged attack of criminalizing male desire for women through porn/rape etc, combined with Domestic Violence ala the Duluth Model, were the feminidiots’ version of D-Day. And they too accomplished that invasion and won that beachhead.
Feminists hate life and everything about it. They wish to destroy the human race, with the willing help of millions of women (and men) duped into supporting them with the lie of “equality.” NO ONE hates women more than feminists. No one takes a more persistent view that women are absolutely stupid – complete idiots. And, I have to say that for the past 40 years it has been difficult to come up with much evidence from the behavior of women which could refute that opinion.

08-30-2006 04:14 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.
Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – “Interview” with Michael Noer

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
ftesyektsi
Regular Contributor
ftesyektsi

If it makes you feel better to insist that all feminists are man-haters, go for it.  You clearly have a lot to say about the subject, and to be faced with an opposing viewpoint (such as that you’re complaining, in truth, about a MINORITY of women) might make you feel like you’re wasting your time.

So, um, okay.  (raises hand)  I hate men?  I think they’re to blame for everything?  Uh…can I collect my cookie now, and go?

(for the record, it’s really kind of silly to try to place blame for everything you see wrong in society on one group of people, and a person who fails to concede that their own side has done its own part in raising society to be the adolescent it is can’t be trusted for their point of view.  I have conceded, over and over, that there is a population of women who takes the feminist thing too far…way too far…but all I can to in response to a bunch of men who feel like the whole of women are out to get them and render them worthless–which elicits no pity, no sympathy, because it’s so ridiculously blown out of proportion–is roll my eyes and want to tell one of you bitsches to get me a beer.)

Message Edited by ftesyektsi on 08-30-2006 07:17 AM

08-30-2006 07:15 AM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
Jet_Jaguar
Contributor
Jet_Jaguar

Putting words in my mouth and using selective hearing.  I didn’t blame all women, if you actually read some of that, you’d see I blamed a lot of male politicians for kissing up to female voters by passing laws that pander to them.  They’re just as guilty.  If you didn’t notice, I’m not a fan of Big Government as well, but women seem to love it since it makes a nice replacement for the protections of male family members or husbands.

And if there’s a “small minority” of feminists, there’s a much larger majority of women riding their coattails employing many of their same tactics.  But I guess by denying one is a feminist, that somehow absolves the usual arrogant, anti-male crap she spews.

Many women are allowing all of this anti-male culture to go by completely unchecked.  So yes, if you’re not criticizing it, then you’re just as complicit.
“Blown out of proportion”?  Keep on living in that deluded fantasy world.

08-30-2006 01:36 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
ftesyektsi
Regular Contributor
ftesyektsi

Jet_Jaguar wrote:
Putting words in my mouth and using selective hearing.  I didn’t blame all women, if you actually read some of that, you’d see I blamed a lot of male politicians for kissing up to female voters by passing laws that pander to them.  They’re just as guilty.  If you didn’t notice, I’m not a fan of Big Government as well, but women seem to love it since it makes a nice replacement for the protections of male family members or husbands.

And if there’s a “small minority” of feminists, there’s a much larger majority of women riding their coattails employing many of their same tactics.  But I guess by denying one is a feminist, that somehow absolves the usual arrogant, anti-male crap she spews.

Many women are allowing all of this anti-male culture to go by completely unchecked.  So yes, if you’re not criticizing it, then you’re just as complicit.
“Blown out of proportion”?  Keep on living in that deluded fantasy world.

Well, why not be helpful?  Aside from the divorce issues (custody and alimony and whatnot), how is the culture being anti-male?  I’m genuinely interested.

Message Edited by ftesyektsi on 08-30-2006 01:55 PM

08-30-2006 01:55 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
Jet_Jaguar
Contributor
Jet_Jaguar

———————————————-
Well, why not be helpful?  Aside from the divorce issues (custody and alimony and whatnot), how is the culture being anti-male?  I’m genuinely interested.
————————————————

*banging head against wall*  *grabbing rope, making noose*

I’m guessing you’ve been here a while.  The case has been made by so many men here – you can go through a lot of the older threads.  But somehow, I don’t believe you’re genuinely interested, so I’m reluctant to waste my time re-posting what has been repeated multiple times.  Many men here have been helpful.
Just read through the past threads.  Pay close attention to the government issues, media, academia…

And don’t be so quick to flippantly brush off divorce issues like it’s some non-issue.  Having a wife and family is something that is (well, WAS) extremely important for a lot of men.  Knowing that the incredible amount of risk outweighs any rewards of having something that has been the benchmark of human existence (rewards aren’t even guaranteed and can be destroyed very easily) and a guarantee of having he and his wife’s genes making it to the future, many men are justifiably not very happy about that.

One of those things you likely don’t often hear, many men want to have a family just as much as many women.  Unfortunately, marriage and family dooms men to be nothing but 4th class slaves to the Feminist nanny-state.  All risk and no reward.

08-30-2006 02:08 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
ftesyektsi
Regular Contributor
ftesyektsi

Jet_Jaguar wrote:
———————————————-
Well, why not be helpful?  Aside from the divorce issues (custody and alimony and whatnot), how is the culture being anti-male?  I’m genuinely interested.
————————————————

*banging head against wall*  *grabbing rope, making noose*    Don’t hurt yourself.

I’m guessing you’ve been here a while.  Not really – I’m just a fast poster.  All I’ve seen, aside from custody/divorce, is the blaming of men for a majority of abuse, serial killings, rape, etc…but, I mean…well, that’s who’s doing it.  Doesn’t mean all men are pedophiles (obviously; women are catching up, unfortunately), or abusers, but they have, historically and recently, been the ones to commit most of the violent crimes.  That can’t be argued. The case has been made by so many men here – you can go through a lot of the older threads.  But somehow, I don’t believe you’re genuinely interested, so I’m reluctant to waste my time re-posting what has been repeated multiple times.  Many men here have been helpful.
Just read through the past threads.  Pay close attention to the government issues, media, academia…

And don’t be so quick to flippantly brush off divorce issues like it’s some non-issue.  Having a wife and family is something that is (well, WAS) extremely important for a lot of men.  Knowing that the incredible amount of risk outweighs any rewards of having something that has been the benchmark of human existence (rewards aren’t even guaranteed and can be destroyed very easily) and a guarantee of having he and his wife’s genes making it to the future, many men are justifiably not very happy about that.

One of those things you likely don’t often hear, many men want to have a family just as much as many women.  Oh, I know it. Unfortunately, marriage and family dooms men to be nothing but 4th class slaves to the Feminist nanny-state.  That’s funny, because I’ve always thought being a mother would reduce me to nothing but a baby-feeder and housecleaner.  All risk and no reward.  Ditto.

08-30-2006 02:14 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
Jet_Jaguar
Contributor
Jet_Jaguar

You would be “reduced” to a baby-feeder?  What the hell do you think those lumps on your chest are for?  Are they social constructs?

The saddest part of feminism is just how much it has disconnected humans from their true natures.

You see motherhood as some sort of punishment.  You have been well brainwashed.

Oh, and your tired, old BS post about men being the primary committers of violent crime, so what?  What the hell did that have to do with anything I said?  Just another red herring to derail the debate because you can’t muster up a coherent thought.  BTW, women commit the majority of child abuse, that’s a fact too – irrelevant to the discussion though it may be, but I figure if you’re going to post irrelevant crap, I will too.  Should I view women as potential abusers of children?  And take that to heart, if I really wanted to be like a feminazi, knowing women commit most of the child abuse, I would draw the conclusion that women are bullies that prey on those weaker than them making them just as low a form of scum as they see men.  You see how easy it is to play that stupid game?

Message Edited by Jet_Jaguar on 09-02-2006 05:54 AM

09-02-2006 05:47 AM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
ftesyektsi
Regular Contributor
ftesyektsi

Jet_Jaguar wrote:
You would be “reduced” to a baby-feeder?  Oh, I see – you’re entitled to your parent fears, but women aren’t?  I know breasts feed babies – but I, myself, as a person, would like to be more than just that. What the hell do you think those lumps on your chest are for?  Are they social constructs?

The saddest part of feminism is just how much it has disconnected humans from their true natures.   Sorry – it’s not in everyone’s nature to have babies.
You see motherhood as some sort of punishment.  You have been well brainwashed. No one brainwashed me…I actually made my very own decision.

Oh, and your tired, old BS post about men being the primary committers of violent crime, so what?  What do you mean, so what?  Put it back in context.  I was simply explaining why it might come up here and there, but I certainly wasn’t advocating the assumption that all men are violent criminals. What the hell did that have to do with anything I said?  Just another red herring to derail the debate because you can’t muster up a coherent thought.  Sigh.  So many of you try that tactic, and it’s really getting old. BTW, women commit the majority of child abuse, that’s a fact too – See, the reason it’s irrelevant here is because it’s not a direct response to something.  However, I’m sure you’re right – because woman are the ones more likely to be with the kids all day.  No argument here. irrelevant to the discussion though it may be, but I figure if you’re going to post irrelevant crap, I will too.  Should I view women as potential abusers of children?  Do whatever you want.  However, I DON’T view men as potential abusers/killers of women.  Unless I meet a strange one in a dark alley, that is – so, in a sense, maybe I have been brainwashed. And take that to heart, if I really wanted to be like a feminazi, knowing women commit most of the child abuse, I would draw the conclusion that women are bullies that prey on those weaker than them making them just as low a form of scum as they see men.  Okay…(where are you getting that women see men as scum?  do you really feel that worthless when you’re around women?  It may not be our fault) You see how easy it is to play that stupid game? Well, I think I’d have a hard time at it, but you’re doing pretty well.

Message Edited by Jet_Jaguar on 09-02-2006 05:54 AM

Message Edited by ftesyektsi on 09-02-2006 07:25 AM

09-02-2006 07:22 AM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
Jet_Jaguar
Contributor
Jet_Jaguar

Wow!  I bet you’re a lot of fun at parties.

09-02-2006 10:30 PM

Re: “Interview” with Michael Noer
ftesyektsi
Regular Contributor
ftesyektsi

Jet_Jaguar wrote:
Wow!  I bet you’re a lot of fun at parties.

I am!

09-03-2006 07:46 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements

1 comment so far

  1. […] one hates women more than feminists In some recent research, I came across a comment hidden away on a blog page that reads so well and sums up so much of what we fight against that I think it worth repeating […]


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: