surfcowgirl wrote:
> Rafer wrote:
> > 1. Men are restricted from controlling women through their natural
> > means - physical strength. This is said to be barbaric and brutal
and
> > is heavily penalized.
>
> It is. Real men don't beat on women in order to control them.


And, Who made that up?

A bunch of control freak women who were desperately trying to find
every vulnerable nerve on Men and boys that they could, while
simultaneously crying for divorce/alimony/child support rights on the
basis of "mental cruelty".  That's who.


BTW.  Yes, they do.


> Controlling others is a presumptious thing to do anyway.


So is not practicing what you preach, Cowgirl.


> > 2. Women are not restricted in any way from controlling men using
> their
> > means - emotional strength. Society IGNORES this specific kind of
> > violence that is inflicted on men by women - that men are by nature
> not
> > prepared to defend themselves against.
>
> That's bullshit. Maybe YOU aren't preparaed to deal with an
emotionally
> abusive woman - but that's just your problem. It's controlling if you
> allow it to be so. I'm certainly not in that boat.


You're one typically pathetic female.  You admit that she's the one
who's emotionally abusive, but blame him for it.  And, no doubt, if it
were the Man who was emotionally abusive it would still be his fault.


> > 3. FURTHERMORE, today it is MEN who are blamed for inflicting
> emotional
> > violence on women (e.g. screaming at someone - which is frequently
a
> > man's only defense against female manipulation given that he cannot
> use
> > his hands - is seen as violence committed by men against women) -
> which
> > is a gross mischaracterization of reality.
>
> A severe over generalization.


Just what I said:  A different reaction when the woman does the same
thing.


> > The solution: Either stay away from women; or, if you must be
around
> > them, (i) make sure that you have an alibi at all times while in
> their
> > presence; and(ii) do not take them seriously AT ALL. Thinking of
them
> > as children will help you retain an objective stance toward them.
>
> That is incredibly stupid advice. First it assumes that ALL women
> behave the way you describe, which is certainly not true.


It doesn't matter whether they're all guilty or not.  It's not worth
the risk.  Especially when - by far - more than enough women are, in
fact, guilty.


> Secondly, it
> ignores the fact that we can choose who we will associate with and
who
> we can avoid. All women are not childish, but your asserion that they
> are makes you sound very childish.


Whether he's "childish" or not doesn't matter, either.  What matters is
whether he's RIGHT.

YOUR little assertion simply makes you sound like a control freak, who
abuses your specially protected status.


> > DO NOT believe that you can fall in love with a woman today. You
are
> > gambling with your sanity, your freedom, and your dignity - and the
> > cards are heavily stacked against you.
>
> Oh bollocks! That is so stupid as to be ridiculous.


That's a faggy thing to say, ..."Cowboy"


> > Women have superior skills of manipulation, deception and
> interpersonal
> > communication. These skills developed to level the playing field
> > against superior male strength.
>
> Some do and some don't. Women are often just as easily manipulated by
> us.


Oh, bull-fucking-shit, you lying little bitch.  The Men are too dumbed
down to be clever enough, and the women are too much on the watch for
the Men to get away with so much as jacking off in the shower.

A woman has so many double standards working in her favor, with such a
large network of willing accomplices and collaborators to keep her
informed (right down to any kids they might have), that a Man is
virtually an open book.


> What strange alternative universe do you live in?


You must be hell-bent on demonstrating how manipulation works.


> > When men are no longer allowed to use their superior physical
> strength,
> > women have both an individual and a collective advantage. The
ability
> > of men to physically intimidate women in the past kept a lot of
those
> > women in check.
>
> Why do you need to hold anyone else in check?


He doesn't, actually.  He's just talking that way.  He's another Thomas
Smith.  A reliable rule of thumb to follow is that the more sexist they
pretend to be (in today's world, where they don't have to live up to
it), the more pussy-whipped they actually are.


> That's such a strange
> thing to say.


No, it isn't.  He made a perfect case for it.


The only strange thing about it is that it emanates from all of this
too-little, too-late "nice-guy" crap.  But the explanation for that is
that it was only a blurb.  It's only real purpose was commercial: to
promote a few phony websites.

Once the angry-tone of the come-ons do their job - of attracting a
personality cult for the webmaster - these things invariably turn into
female-partnered slush-fests of gender healing instead of gender
division.  So, you have nothing to worry about.


> Why not merely control yourself and leave others to do
> likewise?
> Nothing is more obnoxious than a control freak.


As you're proving here...


> > This is why one of the biggest feminist mantras is: "There is never
> an
> > excuse for violence against women."
>
> There isn't.


There is.


> The best way to deal with a crazy woman is to walk away
> from her.


Yeah, and be forced to leave a lot of YOUR money with her, as the
price.  Then, to be told that you have "control issues" about that,
too.  Obviously, you're one of the crazy women that we're talking
about, here.....




- - -

This has been another enlightening moment, with:

Turin


I have such sites to show you...
------------------------
http://members.fortunecity.com/turinturambar/
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Men_First/
------------------------

"He who changeth, altereth, misconstrueth, argueth with, deleteth, or
maketh a lie about these words or causeth them to not be known shall
burn in hell forever and ever...."

-----


> > some MEN's/anti-American women/skank sites:
>
> Ummm...no thanks. You need to change your reading habits.
>
> RS



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 4/3/05 9:00:37 PM ---