Angry Woman Syndrome


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Angry Woman Syndrome

Angry Woman Syndrome
ZammoTheWeird
Contributor
ZammoTheWeird

So many angry women out there.

The younger ones are angry that Prince Charming isn’t knocking on their doors and that all the young guys are simply playing them for sex. (Of course, Prince Charming is gay, everyone knows that) It’s all the fault of men, of course.

The child-bearing ones are angry that they have to compromise their independence and career in order to fulfill their biological needs as mothers. It’s all the fault of men, of course.

The older ones (divorced) are angry that they can’t find men to marry up. Hell, they can’t find men to marry down. It’s all the fault of men, of course.

I propose we coin a new term – “Angry Woman Syndrome” It’s the condition where the consequences of a woman’s poor life decisions return as intense internal emotional conflict that is then manifested in irrational anger towards men.

The treatment for Angry Woman Syndrome is the cathartic and humbling epiphany where the woman realizes that she made some very bad life decisions and that men are actually not to blame, rather, feminism is to blame.

The complete cure for Angry Woman Syndrome is for the woman to realize that compromise, trust, generousity, acceptance, and pleasant behavior is actually the route to a rich and fulfilling life, regardless of whether she decides to be a career woman or a mother or even both.

Notice that the acronym for Angry Woman Syndrome is AWS… also an acronym for American Women Suck. Coincidence? I think not.

09-19-2006 03:20 PM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

I’d like to extend the concept of “cure” for the Angry Woman Syndrome to include undoing of the legal mess that perpetuates the problem. That’s going to take a lot more political work, and a lot more time than I have left, to accomplish. Good luck, Y’ all.

09-19-2006 03:30 PM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

Women are horrible at pleasing the men they have!!! Why get any new ones.

Our fathers tried to give women what they wanted, they almost lost their minds. I say, “Who cares what women want.” What women want will never be enough, they want to be gods. Even then they wouldn’t be happy for long.

There needs to be an over correcting of this nations women. They should have been happy with the rights they had gotten, time to turn back the clock. I say, solve the problem by taking away woman’s right to vote!!!!

Think about it, our taxes would go down, as women are the ones voting for all these social services.

If unchecked women will gain tax funded abortion, tax funded child care, and tax funded health care. At that point, why work? As usual the men will be paying the majority of their $$$ to social programs that destroy American. Creating more Independent women in bed with the government, to further destroy are already damaged nation! Stop the madness!!!!

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

09-19-2006 04:15 PM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
ACatInSD
Regular Contributor
ACatInSD

How about “angry men syndrome” definition here?

09-19-2006 05:42 PM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
OneSmartChick
Regular Contributor
OneSmartChick

I suppose all the wars and issues that were caused by men pre-feminism just don’t count????  GOTCHA!

09-19-2006 06:07 PM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

and the wars men fought and died for to protect your freedoms must not count.  gotcha

09-19-2006 06:13 PM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
ACatInSD
Regular Contributor
ACatInSD

So you think the war to Iraq has protect our freedom?
Why you smart men start this bloody fight with so much money based on fake reasons and info? Do you blame women for this?

09-19-2006 06:16 PM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

nah.. i personally wouldn’t fight for your freedom at all whether it is iraq, world war 1, world war 2 or any other war.

i wouldn’t spill one drop of my blood for you.  i would to protect myself or my family and freedoms.

but no.. not for you.  not for you to worry there

09-19-2006 06:19 PM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
OneSmartChick
Regular Contributor
OneSmartChick

Hallady – Dumbass – so getting involved in the Civil War was for the purpose of protecting woman’s freedom – **bleep** for brains…women were not thought of as that important in that day and age – women were property – below the man’s cow.   What about all the religious wars?  Hitler was a man!  Come on now ….and I hardly think there were any women save Condi Rice – involved in that recent decision to invade a country (Iraq) under the disguise of protecting our freedom.  Saddam  was contained…. What it has done is made the United States very vulnerable because the real threats like Iran, and North Korea are a threat because of our limted military.  And of course, the war in Iraq is because of feminism – somehow – you will blame the women’s movement for it.  ha ha ha ha

09-19-2006 06:28 PM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

did i mention civil war ?  maybe if you would read more closely, you would find that i didn’t mention it.  it’s called first grade reading.  go back to it.

in some wars , the united states was attacked.  pearl harbor ?  read about that ?  maybe not.  it’s taught in high school .  go back to it .

or the cold war with soviet missles pointed at us and our allies.  appreciate our stance there ?  maybe not.

but then again.. it’s not surprising

09-19-2006 06:32 PM

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

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Angry Woman Syndrome

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
ACatInSD
Regular Contributor
ACatInSD

Hey dumb Halladay, you did say you won’t take part in “any of the wars” in your post. You should go back to school, not the chick

09-19-2006 06:39 PM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

that’s right.. i wouldn’t fight for you in any war.   maybe you should learn how to defend yourself and not require guys to do it for you

09-19-2006 06:44 PM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
ACatInSD
Regular Contributor
ACatInSD

Then you need to take back your false accuse to the smartchick and appologize to her.

And ask our smart president to take back our troops from Iraq because you don’t want them to fight for us.

09-19-2006 06:47 PM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

And ask our smart president to take back our troops from Iraq because you don’t want them to fight for us. ……..

no..i want my freedoms and freedoms of my family to be protected.  not necessarily yours.  it isn’t all about you

09-19-2006 06:51 PM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
ACatInSD
Regular Contributor
ACatInSD

They are safe and you can get out of here now.

09-19-2006 06:56 PM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
OneDumbChick is just exhibiting AWS since what she’s getting round these parts is the overwhelming sense that her power to shame men into fighting for her is diminishing…

Dr. Helen Caldecott Spits on My Grandfather,
by Glenn Sacks (March 27, 2003)

I have my grandfather’s war medals in a small wooden chest, along with two pictures–one of him as a young man in military uniform, and another of him as a grandfather. Also in the box is a poem about the war which he wrote to the woman who would become my grandmother. The poem is simple and about as good as one can expect from an immigrant with an elementary school education and a future as a milkman.

When the United States entered World War I my grandfather lied about his age so he could join the army, wanting to show his gratitude to the country which had allowed him to escape foreign tyranny. Wounded in the decisive Battle of the Argonne Forest in 1918, he was awarded the Purple Heart and the French Croix de Guerre.

Last week Dr. Helen Caldecott, renowned feminist and antiwar activist, spat on him.

In a speech released under the title “Men: Natural Born Killers” Caldecott told feminist antiwar demonstrators that the male of the human species has unbridled bloodlust, explaining that “young men rushed off to battle in the first World War. So eager were they to participate in the noble act of killing that they lied about their age.”

In other words, grandpa didn’t enlist out of duty, loyalty or honor, but instead because he wanted the chance to kill.

Welcome to the world of modern feminism, where everything men do is either privilege or pathology and all events and actions are seen through a sharply focused, anti-male lens. Caldecott also told the audience that the “killing reflex” came to be “located in the human (male’s) brain” back when the “world was hostile” and “full of saber-tooth tigers, mammoth elephants and roaring tribes. While women sat in caves breastfeeding and nurturing their young, the males quickly learned to protect their genes by aggression and killing.”

“Protect their genes,” Ms. Caldecott? No, they were protecting the women and children they loved. They risked their lives and sacrificed themselves to protect them, as men have done to varying degrees in all human societies from the beginning of time right up to the present.

Caldecott told a story of an upscale social gathering where she described the tremendous destructive capabilities of modern weapons in gruesome detail. The crowd quickly divided along gender lines, she says, and the men (who Caldecott asserts are “almost clinically and psychologically dead” listened intently to her descriptions. The women “sat on the periphery watching my interrogation and silently agreeing with me” but “had no courage to publicly take on their men for fear of later rejection and retribution.” Retribution? I suppose Caldecott thinks that on the drive home the husbands of wives who expressed disagreement over the war would take them off to the side of the road for a beating. This would fit perfectly with men’s nature, of course.

According to Caldecott, societies dominated by “male values” approve of violence and killing, and she criticizes women for being “absolute wimps” who “condone [male] psychotic behavior by their silence.” She ignores the fact that, rightly or wrongly, American women support this country’s wars as much or nearly as much as men do. According to a Washington Post/ABC poll conducted on Sunday, March 23, 78 percent of men and 66 percent of women support the current war. When the United States went to war against Iraq in 1991, 87 percent of men and 78 percent of women approved.

Caldecott also ignores the fact that women have always played a crucial role in ensuring that men serve in wars. As men’s issues author Warren Farrell notes, during the Civil War Southern women “hissed and groaned” at male civilians. According to historian Ken Burns, few Southern men tried to hire substitutes to fight for them because the Southern women “wouldn’t permit it.” During World War I women in the capitals of the warring cities of Europe would hand civilian men flowers to show that they viewed them as cowards for not enlisting.

An excellent illustration of women’s power to shame men into fighting can be seen in the Australian movie Gallipoli. The movie is the story of how two young men from the Australian outback come to enlist in the army and fight in one of history’s bloodiest battles, the Battle of Gallipoli.

Of the two main characters, one is determined to enlist, believing it is his patriotic duty. The other, played by Mel Gibson, has no desire to fight and says the war is “an English war” which has nothing to do with Australia or its interests.

However, while at a small dinner party where both Gibson and his friend interact with an attractive young woman, Gibson is shamed for his lack of martial spirit. Shortly afterwards, he tells his friend that he does not want to be treated like this the rest of his life and enlists.

Similarly, several years ago an Israeli political analyst pointed to this phenomenon to support his assertion that support for militarism and hardline policies had declined precipitously in Israel. His evidence? For the first time in his country’s history a draft dodger could get a girlfriend, he explained.

Like many feminists, Caldecott actually has some good ideas once you get past her prejudice against men. Whether one agrees with the current war or not, certainly her concern for civilian casualties is legitimate, as is her belief that the general public understands little about the nuts and bolts and destructive capability of modern warfare. And proper respect for the men who have sacrificed their lives in the service of their country and for what they believed was right does not mean that one must endorse all wars or any wars, including the present one.

When my grandfather returned from World War I he started a family. Seventy years later my mother can still remember her tender father staying up half the night stroking the fevered brow of his sickly youngest daughter before going to work at three in the morning. As a boy I loved and revered my grandfather and I can still remember the pain I felt almost three decades ago when my mother came into my room sobbing and told me that grandpa was dead.

This magnificent man (and the millions like him) is not your punching bag, Ms. Caldecott. He’s not a bloodthirsty warmonger, or an oppressor, or a patriarch, or an abuser, or any other of the dozens of repulsive canards which feminists have used to vilify men over the past three decades. He was instead a kind and decent human being whose masculinity was in no way inferior to the femininity whose virtues you extol.

– Glenn Sacks

______________________________________________
“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

09-19-2006 07:37 PM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

OneDumbChick is just exhibiting AWS since what she’s getting round these parts is the overwhelming sense that her power to shame men into fighting for her is diminishing……

yea i love being dumb enough not to defend her rather that being smart enough to be her lock step poodle that sees victimhood in about everything.

at least this dumbass will survive

09-19-2006 08:09 PM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
Diogetrix
Regular Contributor
Diogetrix

I’ve been listening to Helen Caldicot’s speeches and lectures and interviews on alternative media (like Pacifica Radio) for about thirty years – maybe more – and I’ve read some of her books and articles. At first I thought she was great, because even I once believed that the feminist nightmare was of secondary importance to the truly omni-destructive world issues. Now, I realize that feminism is the means by which the most evil power seekers are taking control of the world. I started to suspect Caldicot’s mental capability at about the time I heard her use her pet phrase ‘missile envy’ (also one of her book titles) and when she slipped out of a question about women’s superior moral character by saying that Margaret Thatcher was not an example of bad female political leadership because Thatcher “is not a woman.” I’m always alert for rhetorical manipulation and (especially) the motives that generate it. The time frame also corresponds to that stage of female psychological development when ‘something clicks,’ and they become unreceptive to new information that conflicts with egotistical values. As the years have gone by Caldicot and her ilk have replaced the men who speak more clearly, more fairly, and with greater expertise about peace and freedom issues, just as men have been replaced generally in the political debate over our fate as a species and planet. Now, the men are rarely seen or heard unless they speak for the fascist corporate machine, or if they oppose it from a ‘feminist’ perspective. The peaceful warrior men have gone away – not as beaten warriors, but as shunned and irrelevant social outcasts. That is a winning strategy for defeating the men who are passionate and honest, and only the women could have done it. Too bad the women don’t realize who and what they are serving.

09-19-2006 11:05 PM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

I’ve noticed a string of ad hominem tu quoque responses from women on this board to the issues here.

Responding with “well you do this that’s like it” is not a logical, nor a helpful response. It’s entirely fallacious reasoning. The argument for Angry Women Syndrome being epidemic is still valid, vindicated I’d say.

The root of the cause appears to be that women just seem to have great difficulty accepting responsibility for their actions.

I mean, they’re simply faced with guys going against billion year old evolutionary urges to tell them “get lost we won’t marry you”, and they have not once offered to take responsibility for that!! It’s been all “well you do this, you do that”. Things are ALREADY so sh*t for us that we are heading for the hills. It’s sending us into the hills even faster and in greater numbers.

They’re like lemmings. Lemmings that need you to survive, but that you’d jump off a cliff to get away from.

Ha ha here’s the definition of tu quoque from wikipedia:

Tu quoque (Latin for “You, too” or “You, also”) is a line of one’s defensive argument based on the concept that the adversary party also engages (or has engaged in the past) in the act for which one is accused by that party. This argumentative move works by showing that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It can be considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the opposite party itself, rather than its positions.

An example of its use in court was in the Nuremberg Trials, where the defendants attempted to introduce a tu quoque argument, in claiming that the Allies too had committed crimes similar to those of which the Nazi regime was accused. (This line of defense was eventually not allowed by the court’s judges.)

Look at that, another Nazi reference for their behaviour. “You committed genocide against the Jews”, “Yeah but you killed Germans trying to stop us, hypocrite.”

LOL.

Message Edited by Happy_Bullet on 09-19-2006 11:31 PM

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-19-2006 11:24 PM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“I’ve noticed a string of ad hominem tu quoque responses from women on this board to the issues here.”  ……

like ACatin Sink Drain perhaps ?

09-20-2006 12:43 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.
Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Angry Woman Syndrome

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
ACatInSD
Regular Contributor
ACatInSD

If you are not smart enough to follow this thread, don’t just use personal attack. Do something better than that.

Maybe you are “pussified” as well?

09-20-2006 01:19 AM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

ACatin Sink Drain

yea……….. follow this

http://www.funny-games.biz/pictures/147-dirty-cat.html

09-20-2006 01:24 AM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
ACatInSD
Regular Contributor
ACatInSD

You are getting vulgar now, why not just pretend to be cool and smart to save yourself some face?

I am not wasting any time with you anymore. Stay being stupid and retarded and irritated. You and people like you are big shame to this contry.

09-20-2006 01:31 AM

Re: Angry Woman Syndrome
Halladay
Regular Contributor
Halladay

“I am not wasting any time with you anymore”  …

well go right ahead.. do something you say you will do for a change

09-20-2006 01:49 AM

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

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: