Have Women Gone Too Far?

The OP should not fear.

As long as women put romance #1 center in their lives instead of their own self worth, men as a whole are quite safe.

Men who cannot act like gentlemen to women (you know, like Trump or Weinstein or Spacey, et al) deserve what they get.

You have no business lumping Trump with Hollywood scum like Weinstein and Spacey. It's not Trumps fault women will drop their panties for him.

Trump, like the two mentioned as well as others in the news, has a history of assaulting women.
 
The OP should not fear.

As long as women put romance #1 center in their lives instead of their own self worth, men as a whole are quite safe.

Men who cannot act like gentlemen to women (you know, like Trump or Weinstein or Spacey, et al) deserve what they get.



Trump, like the two mentioned as well as others in the news, has a history of assaulting women.

When was Trump convicted?
 
The OP should not fear.

As long as women put romance #1 center in their lives instead of their own self worth, men as a whole are quite safe.

What's wrong with wanting love/romance? Men desire that as well.

I think though that what you are saying is that some women set aside their own ambitions and goals in favor of finding a man. Is that correct?
 
I am not going to invest time reading the article, but false accusations or accusations of dubious merit - to the extent they exist - are obviously never acceptable.

There is also great strength in having a clear conscience, in knowing one is innocent of bogus and spurrious claims.

On the broader topic, I am pretty sure the vast majority of women are only interested in being treated equally - at having equality of opportunity in business, politics, science, and society.

I doubt there is some nefarious scheme to put a Kenyan-Marxist matriarchy in place.

Competence and excellence will always be rewarded, irrespective of gender. I don't see what there is to worry about if one is a dude of capability, competence, integrity, self-assuredness, and initiative.

You should read the article. There I a short video by the author at the end, too.

Pretty interesting.
 
Isn't that what your christinsanity religion is based on , male domination and control of women

Christ was one of the first to really push women's importance back then. Back then things were a lot more like the Islamic countries, and India today.
 
We have seen in the past decade, even longer if one really wants to look at the issue, where women are hell bent on acquiring more power as if they has none before. And, unfortunately, men are more then willing to give up what little power they have left. We see this in politics, in marriage/divorce, in entertainment (TV shows, movies, etc.), and in the world of sex. Question now is as they strive for a Matriarch society, have they gone too far?

The last paragraph in this article is quite telling:

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/01/the-humiliation-of-aziz-ansari/550541/

I thought it would take a little longer for the hit squad of privileged young white women to open fire on brown-skinned men. I had assumed that on the basis of intersectionality and all that, they’d stay laser focused on college-educated white men for another few months. But we’re at warp speed now, and the revolution—in many ways so good and so important—is starting to sweep up all sorts of people into its conflagration: the monstrous, the cruel, and the simply unlucky. Apparently there is a whole country full of young women who don’t know how to call a cab, and who have spent a lot of time picking out pretty outfits for dates they hoped would be nights to remember. They’re angry and temporarily powerful, and last night they destroyed a man who didn’t deserve it.

Poor poor white guys. Those BITCHES, how dare they ______fill in the blank______.
 
Paul wrote many of the books in the Bible.. as many as 13.. and he sure has a problem with women.

I don't think Paul had a problem with women as much as you, and others, have with accepting the Word of God, His commands, and His plans for His people.

Now, I wonder it any of you want to discuss the article since religion is not mentioned in it?
 
Poor poor white guys. Those BITCHES, how dare they ______fill in the blank______.

This happened to be a Brown guy who was accused of doing nothing save for not satisfying the whims of the woman, and his career is done because of that accusation. And still you girlie men bend over for the woman just as many bend over for Trump.
 
To some extent, yes. In olden days accusations of rape and sexual assault by women were mostly ignored unless it was so grievous as to cause loss to a potential bride's father in her marriageability. Then as now some guys just couldn't keep it in their pants. Now they're fearful of our "power" to report attacks, and the negative public and legal problems following that. Good. Gay men might understand this next bit, but for the most part straight men do not. For thousands of years, and even into *this* century, females have had to be wary and sometimes fearful when venturing out alone. In STL, for instance, I often hiked by myself in the parks on the metro outskirts, or went fishing by myself. There was *never* a time when I was not hyper-aware of my surroundings and who was around, nor was I ever without a weapon of some sort, plus a cell phone. So much for freedom, eh?

As for the rest of the OP, I go to school with young women plus I'm the mother of three of them. Very few young women want to disparage men of any race; we love you guys. The only men who should have anxiety right now are the ones who can't keep it in their pants.

One of the many problems with your tale of woes is that after 20, or 30, years where is he proof of any of the allegations? Even in the Cosby trial it was solely a "he said, she said" showcase trial to satisfy a bunch of women. In the case of the Bible you speak of there had to be evidence that such an act occurred. A bloody blanket, bloody clothing, eye witnesses, some form of evidence. Unlike now, the women back they were not as promiscuous as they are now, and there were whores for men to go to. Back then women kept their panties on instead of like this woman going out to "hook up" with someone wealthy, and popular. She was quite content to allow him to perform oral sex on her rotten cunt, just got her feelings hurt when he asked for some, and did not want to "cuddle" with her.

And if a woman is scared of where she is at then more likely she should not be there. Same is true of many men in here, not just "gay guys", who are so paranoid they feel they need a gun with them at all times..

But you see, in your limited world view the only men that need to be "afraid" are those who can't keep it in their pants. Hate to tell you this sweetie, but men have never in all of history been able to "keep it is their pants". The biggest change has occurred when these women cannot keep their panties up. Ask any homosexual guy why they have so much sex. Two men together with their hormones driving them? So, the only change is the sexual freedom driven by the feminist movement, and now they are using the same excuses you are presenting today as they did back in the 50's, and 60's, about how women are "slaves" to their husbands, their bosses, why, they give up heir careers to have children. And as soon as they can drag their sorry asses out of the house they are back to the career. To hell with the home, the children. And now we have children living on the streets because they don't want to live at home.

Want to talk about divorce court? And, like Trump, no feminist will ever accept responsibility for the woe they have caused.
 
One of the many problems with your tale of woes is that after 20, or 30, years where is he proof of any of the allegations? Even in the Cosby trial it was solely a "he said, she said" showcase trial to satisfy a bunch of women. In the case of the Bible you speak of there had to be evidence that such an act occurred. A bloody blanket, bloody clothing, eye witnesses, some form of evidence. Unlike now, the women back they were not as promiscuous as they are now, and there were whores for men to go to. Back then women kept their panties on instead of like this woman going out to "hook up" with someone wealthy, and popular. She was quite content to allow him to perform oral sex on her rotten cunt, just got her feelings hurt when he asked for some, and did not want to "cuddle" with her.

And if a woman is scared of where she is at then more likely she should not be there. Same is true of many men in here, not just "gay guys", who are so paranoid they feel they need a gun with them at all times..

But you see, in your limited world view the only men that need to be "afraid" are those who can't keep it in their pants. Hate to tell you this sweetie, but men have never in all of history been able to "keep it is their pants". The biggest change has occurred when these women cannot keep their panties up. Ask any homosexual guy why they have so much sex. Two men together with their hormones driving them? So, the only change is the sexual freedom driven by the feminist movement, and now they are using the same excuses you are presenting today as they did back in the 50's, and 60's, about how women are "slaves" to their husbands, their bosses, why, they give up heir careers to have children. And as soon as they can drag their sorry asses out of the house they are back to the career. To hell with the home, the children. And now we have children living on the streets because they don't want to live at home.

Want to talk about divorce court? And, like Trump, no feminist will ever accept responsibility for the woe they have caused.

Wow, couldn't have said it better myself.
 
I don't think Paul had a problem with women as much as you, and others, have with accepting the Word of God, His commands, and His plans for His people.

Now, I wonder it any of you want to discuss the article since religion is not mentioned in it?


Bashing and stereotyping women doesn't interest me much... As for Paul.. He had an "affliction"... and clearly had issues with women.. Do you really think Paul was speaking for God?
 
Bashing and stereotyping women doesn't interest me much... As for Paul.. He had an "affliction"... and clearly had issues with women.. Do you really think Paul was speaking for God?

This is the disgusting excuse for a woman that chose to rubbish Amnesty International rather than criticise the Saudis for their treatment of a poor Shia woman. Please also note that not one woman has even attempted to address the issue of Israa al-Ghomgham.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/saudis-campaign-woman-risk-beheading-israa-ghomgham-426201683
 
This is the disgusting excuse for a woman that chose to rubbish Amnesty International rather than criticise the Saudis for their treatment of a poor Shia woman. Please also note that not one woman has even attempted to address the issue of Israa al-Ghomgham.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/saudis-campaign-woman-risk-beheading-israa-ghomgham-426201683

First I have heard of her ... Is this your justification for your nasty attack on me?

ME Eye is highly prejudiced.. Perhaps another source.
 
Last edited:
Those who have always had the power fear not only losing it but losing it to those they have oppressed and abused because they fear being treated the way they have treated others.

White men fear losing power to minorities because they absolutely know what they have historically done to minorities.They fear a little tit for tat no doubt.
 
Those who have always had the power fear not only losing it but losing it to those they have oppressed and abused because they fear being treated the way they have treated others.

White men fear losing power to minorities because they absolutely know what they have historically done to minorities.They fear a little tit for tat no doubt.

I don't know about your tits but you're certainly tat!!
 
Back
Top