wow, a cheesecake factory, yummy, xD. Megan keeps looking good as always man…

Megan looks a little distraught or confused maybe here.,like she’s thinking, I just got married to this guy, why does he seem so pissed, and why won’t even hold my hand??. ..
If he seriously keeps acting like a douche like that, Megan, keep your trademark last name,give back his ring, and find someone better, because you really deserve all the happiness in this world love. It seriously hurts me when I see her like this and not happy.

Megan looks great

@jenny
Um i think your over reading and overreacting

i think that receive more attention than she deserves.i mean she’s beautiful but there are a lot of people who are beautiful without lip fillers boobs augmentation,rhinoplastisy

It is sad but true. She was once really very pretty.
But through this whole Botox makes her beautiful face really broken.
On some photos, she can not overtake. But you can see quite clearly on these photos, she has again gebotoxt. And yes. I also find that often the two do not seem really happy. I think megan has only married him because he gives her safety.

Not because she really loves him
If the rumors actually agree they vn a baby he wants.
Then I can already tell she is alone with the child afterwards.

Te AMO MEGAN FOX

http://x17online.com/gallery/view_gallery.php?gallery=mfoxexc071710_X17

They changed the url
http://x17online.com/celebrities/megan_fox/newlyweds_megan_fox_and_brian_austin_green_sweat_it_out-07182010.php

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1295722/Megan-Fox-Brian-Austin-Green-head-mall-lunch-son-Kassius.html

@Deon
I agree she looks great as in beautiful BUT as in happy- it doesn’t really seem like it.
@aleks_the fox
I don’t think a lot of celebrities are age can pull off looking good without makeup. It doesn’t seems like she got plastic surgery. Fillers probably yes, but they it’s not drastic like plastic surgery.

lose that hat

Aff, Jenny and Melanie

Stop overeacting. Who said she’s not happy with Brian? Just because they’re not all over each other in every paparazzi pics they take of them? She’s cleary staring at the paparazzi, not thinking the words you said.

Stop being ridiculous. Do you know how Megan feels about Brian? Do you know how he feels about her? Do you know if they get all over each other alone at home?

Sorry but you can’t decide what the feelings of two people are based on paparazzis pics only because you don’t like Brian and doesn’t accept that they LOVE each other. Have you ever considered the fact that he’s running to the car to get her out of the sight of the papz?

And yes, she feels safe with him. Isn’t that one of the things you’re suppost to feel for your husband? But I doubt is only that. No one can manage to fake a relationship for 6 years, especially in Hollywood. They would have broken up for good if they didn’t love each other anymore.

And you two can’t judge their relationship and what they feel because he sometimes doesn’t hold her hand while running to the car.

@Andie
greatly said

damn she loooks amazing as always she just keeps getting better. Love you megan.

@ Andie

Yes. I can not say whether they love each other real or not.
But you will often ask.
Why do they have separated, for example? Because he had to have other views than them. Is something like old also different to that.
Why does she marry him at that time would not? She said. Because she felt too young.
It is still too young, in my opinion.
Furthermore, why does the marriage as such a surprise?
Because it may – not must. She married him because she has noticed to have no success with their film. But in the love already. Before he loses. She marries him.
As rumors say. He absolutely wanted to marry her. Maybe megan fear of losing him if she had not married him. And they did not take into buying and married him. In interviews she has said she sometimes leads the people out there with their interviews in the wrong order to protect themselves.
What if she says, although megan loves him. But it says just because they can not help it.
Why, for example, they are botoxt?
If I were you I would have banned the brian. He is apparently not care.
But he does not at all that makes them is broken and in particular
Rumors have also said that he does not like your success. Was often aggressive.

There are beautiful moment with them. No wonder.
But there are actors. And even if one is six years together, or was.
Does not necessarily mean the people you love more now.
But it can also be habit quite simply.
I wish the two all the best. Those who do not. But I do care about me megan.
Because they often look like photos not healthy. And you know yourself are the very promis very successful. To make oneself inwardly ready.

i think brian is pretty good for her

@melanie

WTF!?? …..thats all i have to say….

Again, Melanie. You’re looking for excuses to hate him.

Answering your questions:

*Why do they separated? Because they’re a couple, for God’s sake. It has nothing to do with him having different views or feeling old. There’s no such thing as things always wonderful every day, especially after 6 years of relationship. Fights, break-ups are NORMAL in a relationship. Just tell me one couple that hasn’t fight or separated during a long-term relationship. The thing is that, yes, they separated once, temporarely, solved their problems and got back together. Which shows they feel love for each other, exactly the opposite of what you’re saying.

*Sorry, but only people like you “often ask” wheter they love each each or not. And the most absurd thing is that you say that because Brian sometimes doesn’t get all over her in front of some papz.

*”Why does she marry him at that time would not? She said. Because she felt too young. It is still too young, in my opinion.”

You said that right. She’s still too young in YOUR opinion, clearly not in hers. Plus, she said she broke-up the first engagement when they were separated, so it was more of an excuse she gave to the media so she would get into details, not the real reason.

*”Furthermore, why does the marriage as such a surprise?
Because it may – not must. She married him because she has noticed to have no success with their film.”

Sorry, but I have to laugh at this. A couple that has been on an almost 6 year relationship suddenly gets married and that’s a surprise? No way. It was already expected. Everyone knew they would end up getting married sooner or later. They’re too attached to each other. It was just a matter of time.

Plus, you seem to believe a lot in media rumors and forget to thing. Do you seriously believe they got married because her movie wasn’t successful? What does one thing have to do with the other? What benefits a “fake” marriage with Brian would bring to her movies or her image? None. It would remain the same. They could change her image without a marriage. So they married because they love each other.

*”As rumors say. He absolutely wanted to marry her. Maybe megan fear of losing him if she had not married him. And they did not take into buying and married him.”

Exactly. Now you contradict yourself. And yes, he wanted to marry her for years. And same for her, but too many things got in the way and prevented them of getting married before. And if she was afraid of losing him for whatever reason, that shows again that they love each other. It’s not “fake” or a “marriage based on career interests” since a marriage wouldn’t help his/her career either. So, it was for love, safety, timing, etc.

*”In interviews she has said she sometimes leads the people out there with their interviews in the wrong order to protect themselves.
What if she says, although megan loves him. But it says just because they can not help it.”

She led people to believe some things that weren’t true like being bisexual or the stripper story just to protect their private life. That alone already indicates that she didn’t lie about her and Brian since she wanted to protect their relationship. It shows just the opposite again. Would you protect something that’s fake? Of course not.

*”Why, for example, they are botoxt?
If I were you I would have banned the brian. He is apparently not care.
But he does not at all that makes them is broken and in particular”

What does botox have to do with them loving each other or not? Are you insinuating that Brian doesn’t care about her because he doesn’t stop her when she gets botox? And have you ever considered the fact that he does talk to her about it and tries to stop her but SHE is the one who doesn’t want to? And he tries and gives up so it doesn’t end up in a big fight? Wake up.

*”Rumors have also said that he does not like your success. Was often aggressive.”

Yes, again, you believe in media too much. He doesn’t like her success? If that was the case, their relationship would have ended years ago. Megan is not dumb as some might thing. If she broke up with him because of normal couple issues, she would have broken up for good if he was jealous of her success. Plus, instead of judging what he feels for her, go search for HIS interviews and get to know more about him. He’s always the first one to support her career and you can tell he loves her too.

And he’s agressive with paparazzis, not with her. Or have you ever seen her with a punched face or a black eye? Again, she’s not stupid to be with a man that’s agressive to her. All the times he was agressive , was with the paparazzis. And why? Exactly to PROTECT HER FROM THEM because they were being abusive or they were insulting her. So he automatically shields her from them. That, AGAIN, also shows that he loves her and care for her.

In conclusion, you and some others are making too much effford on hating Brian because you don’t like him and you start inventing things about him that are not true based on media gossip and a few pics and you forget to analise their whole relationship out of the media circus.

They love each other, decided to marry because of it and to show she’s OK and period. Deal with it. Why is that so hard to believe especially coming from a couple who already have been together for most years than the average couples out there?

*”There are beautiful moment with them. No wonder.
But there are actors. And even if one is six years together, or was.
Does not necessarily mean the people you love more now.
But it can also be habit quite simply.
I wish the two all the best. Those who do not. But I do care about me megan.
Because they often look like photos not healthy. And you know yourself are the very promis very successful. To make oneself inwardly ready.”

blah, blah, blah.

They’re actors. So? You’re saying that just because they’re actors, their relationship is fake and that it’s impossible to love each other more now than before?

Sorry, but this is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Before they’re actors, they’re human beings with feelings. And love is not a habit. You love a person or you don’t, simple as that. When the love ends, people go separate ways, not get married.

And sorry, but you don’t care about Megan at all. If you do, you wouldn’t be talking bad things about the person she loves and chose to share her life with. Again, you put in your mind that she’s not happy with Brian because she’s staring at the papz in the pics and because he’s walking towards the car without holding her hand and because of that they often don’t look healthy in the pics. That’s absurd.

Plus, the reason why Megan is managinf to deal with Hollywood and not get crazy like most female artists her age (Lohan, Spears, for example) is the love, safety and quiet life out of the spotlight Brian gives her. Without it she would have gone crazy already.

@Andie
And I really do wish them happiness.I agree it could be unfair me to exactly judge whats going on in their lives because I don’t know.Remember, that’s why I used the adverb”Maybe”.
But, would you expect more happiness from them after getting married? Definitely yes.
And I don’t see that. And honestly, walking infront of her like that. I mean I’ve seen it probably about a good 75-80% of the time she’s been with him.And I would think that just after getting married, they would express a little more affection, honestly, and show some more signs of happiness. Whether paps being there or not. And I mean would it really hurt your image if you displaying some affection to your loved one in the public? There’s many celebrities who despise the constant attention of the paps, but honestly, the paps shouldn’t be a reason to aggrevate or dissemble a strong relationship.
Plus, do really alleviate the situation so much if you walk infront of her? I mean they are still going to photograph him and Megan. One person alone will not ward off a whole, wild crowd of paps.

I never said I do not like brian.
And I really am the last of which can be influenced by the media.
But the moment are in very many died promis.
And I’m afraid they will force themselves to love and at the end is not happy yet. Since then she has lost both. It must of course know everything yourself. As I said. I wish the two so much happiness. And hope all is well.
Here in Germany, unfortunately, we hear very little about megan.
Much is spoken by the media, unfortunately, bad. I’m always the job lunches they defended in the German forum.
I invent anything here. I feel just so. Because I’m very fond of megan.
I know it brian protects against the paparazzi. And I also know that it is good to her. But you can not always look good. I see just too bad in their eyes. And that hurts me.

@ Andie
And running to the car like he does doesn’t guarantee less attention from the paps on Megan.In fact, it probably garners even more attention on her, since there’s more solo attention focused on her for a while.Plus, most of the time, he’s NOT running, he’s WALKING infront of her.

“She’s cleary staring at the paparazzi, not thinking the words you said.”
Yes, she’s stating at the camera. But how do you know yourself EXACTLY what emotion she might be trying to convey? How do you know exactly that’s she might not be thinking that? You don’t know. So don’t be so adamant about your standpoint.

Stop being ridiculous. Do you know how Megan feels about Brian? Do you know how he feels about her?
The question should be this: Do YOU know exactly? NO. You can ONLY assume from their emotions what “could” be “possibly” going on, and what Logic/Common sense tells you.

@ Melanie
I agree with you. I adore her, and fight for her as much as I can on message boards against the ill-bred reputation she receives(probably from jealousy) from the media and from other people.
But, adoring her goes along with caring for her happiness. And I do sense some kind of confusion in their relationship, but I can’t exaclty put a finger on what could be possibly going on. I just wish them the best, but I’m not sensing it.

@ Jenny
I’m on your side.
Just as you feel. I feel too.
We will see how the two go on.
And especially how to deal with time megan.
Whether they can hold their own even after the baby,
brian fals they should leave.

@ Andie
Much can be said about this relationship.
And each has his own opinion to it.
Everyone sees it on a different basis.
Just the way I see it:
She now had no success with Jonah Hex, and that in the near future probably will not have more than actress. This is indeed suffer so. Funny. Jonah hex flopped. And shortly thereafter, she married.

Yes. It’s long been clear that they will marry. But she married him:
Because they are so long together and be lovers? Just as you say. Or because it is simply the last possibility to be even more happy to start a family?
If it is not acting with the works.
For me this is all part of a relationship.
Job, love, child. Why do you separate that?
She has problems in the job. And I think their fears were brian now to lose too. That is why she married him. Yes, it may be that she loves him.
And why has married him. But before one looks no different from now?
Brian is never anywhere to events with her.
Will that ever notice. It is quite rare. And I once heard from one woman to the post production was that he was very jealous of their success.
Whether he still is. I do not know. But something goes wrong there. And at some point this will come in the negative media. And then we will talk again about it.

Jenny,

You say that they could show a little more happiness now that they married. And I ask you: Who said they’re not happy with each other just because Brian is walking in front of her? That doesn’t indicate a lack of happiness, I’m sorry.

And I never said he runs to the car to get less atention to him and Megan. I said he runs to the car to get Megan out of the sight of the papz as fast as he can. And honestly, running to the car or walking FAST to the car, which is what he was doing is the same. The fact is that, again, he was trying to get them away from the sight of the papz.

And you’re wrong when you say that happens 75-80% they’re together. This year, it only happened 3 times so far. Last year, around the time of SNL. Most of times they’re walking holding hands or beside each other. And there’s even a video of last year, when they were leaving Zach’s Restaurant in Studio City that shows exactly what I’m talking about. He, walking fast/runnning towards the car in front of her to start the car and get them out of the sight of the papz.

“Yes, she’s stating at the camera. But how do you know yourself EXACTLY what emotion she might be trying to convey? How do you know exactly that’s she might not be thinking that? You don’t know. So don’t be so adamant about your standpoint.The question should be this: Do YOU know exactly? NO. You can ONLY assume from their emotions what “could” be “possibly” going on, and what Logic/Common sense tells you. ”

And do YOU know? Like your statement in your first post here in this thread: “like she’s thinking, I just got married to this guy, why does he seem so pissed, and why won’t even hold my hand??. ..”.

Do you really think she’s staring at the papz thinking about how Brian treats her, how is he pissed, etc? Sorry, but neither can you know exactly what she’s thinking about. But I highly doubt is something about Brian’s behaviour and you know it.

And yes, I assume but my logic/common sense makes more sense than your statement that Megan is worried and that she regrets the marriage just because Brian is not holding her hands all the time.

It happened before and she still married him, so she doesn’t seem to mind that at all, only you and Melanie who are making such a big deal out of it. So there you go.

“But, adoring her goes along with caring for her happiness. And I do sense some kind of confusion in their relationship, but I can’t exaclty put a finger on what could be possibly going on. I just wish them the best, but I’m not sensing it.”

Again, you’re sensing a confusion in their relationship based only on this fact, that he sometimes walks in front of her not holding her hand. Is that a proof of unhappiness? Nope.

Melanie,

Again, as I said there’s no such thing as a couple happy all the time. Fights, arguments are part of any healthy relationship. And why would they be forcing themselves to love each other? You say that based on what? On Brian walking in front of her, again?

I don’t see unhappiness in their eyes, on the contrary. I see just the opposite especially when they’re talking about each other. You can fake words but not what you show in your eyes. I see unhappiness when she talks about her career. Watch videos of her talking about Brian and movies and see the difference.

And I agree with you on this one: You can’t always look good. But IF she’s unhappy with something, who said it’s because of Brian? She can have a millions reasons to feel unhappy.

And I’m not separating job, love, security, child from a marriage, on the contrary. Read my posts carefully. I even said Brian helps her getting sane in Hollywood and is the first one to support her career. YOU are the one who insinuated that he felt jealous of her success, he didn’t care about her having tons of botox and that the marriage seems strange just because it happened after Jonah hex flopped. And I don’t see the benefit in it. And also for you to see that I’m not separating job,love, security and child from the marriage, I even said above that IF she’s feeling unhappy, it can be due to millions of reasons.

What if she’s not happy with her career? What if she’s trying to get pregnant but is not working? What if Brian is getting some career/family problems and she’s sad for him? What if she has an argument with one of her relatives or with her PR’s? Why it has to be because Brian doesn’t “treat her right”? Honestly, if he was so bad to her or if their relationship was somehow unhappy and strange, she wouldn’t have gotten married. It would be another engagement she would break.

Brian wouldn’t be her last chance to be happy and start a family with. She’s 24 years old. She chose him so she probably feels he loves her too and that she can be happy with him.

If she getting problems in her career, marriage would solve this? Of course not. And he’s not having problems in his career. He has no interest in becoming a big hollywood celebrity. He already said that he’s happy with his career.

Oh, do some reseach, please. Brian is not in many events with her exactly because people said in the beggining he was “taking advantage” of her success. So he stop attended to the events. Who said that? Himself. Another proof he’s not jealous ou interested in her success.

And you believe a so called woman from some post-production? Do you know that people that work in movies post-productions don’t get in contact with the actors? So she couldn’t know about it even if it was true.

And both you and Jenny say there’s something wrong in their relationship. I ask what exactly? What would be the “right thing” to happen to define their relationship as happy inside your minds?

Girls, calm down! We shouldn´t overreact and reinterpret those pics!
We only observe them – we don´t watch them 24/7.

I see it the same way as you do, Andie!!!

…aaaaaaaaaand *yummy* cheesecake!

It seems like Megan might be at the do something awards
http://twitter.com/JessicaRizo
Jessica Rizo an actress says she will

If anyone is free check out the live stream of the ‘red carpet’ and post a pic :D ill be checking it now and then

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/dosomething#utm_campaign=twitter.com&utm_source=4510673&utm_medium=social

lol I just em if Megan Fox will be there she said we have to tune in to find out

Seems Megan will be at the do something Awards, Jessica Rizo twitted it
Here is a live stream of the ‘red carpet’ if you have time watch it and post pics. Ill be watching it here and there
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/dosomething#utm_campaign=twitter.com&utm_source=4510673&utm_medium=social

@Jordi
i completely agree! These people are going on and on about how they think they know brian and megans relationship when they have absolutley no idea! how can you tell a couples relationship by just looking at pictures? No one knows their relationship but them. No need to have a battle over them its none of your businesses anyway.

Hello
Someone can tell me if she dances the tango?
Sorry for the faults I’m french

Ok its confirmed Megan Fox introducing our first Do Something Award nominee!

first pics
http://c0013429.cdn1.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/x2_2030cc1

http://tweetphoto.com/33754305
my bad

Better pics
http://www.life.com/image/102986134

More pics
http://img240.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=88465__AL6_1_122_77lo.jpg
http://img13.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=88467__AL6_2_122_73lo.jpg
http://img203.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=88471__AL6_4_122_176lo.jpg
http://img182.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=88469__AL6_3_122_169lo.jpg
http://www.life.com/image/102986325

She was a surprise presenter, people on twitter are saying the crowd went wild :D

More pics
http://img240.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=88465__AL6_1_122_77lo.jpg
http://img13.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=88467__AL6_2_122_73lo.jpg

More pics

http://forums.superiorpics.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/2734867/Megan_Fox_2010_VH1_Do_Somethin

http://apimages.ap.org/Search.aspx?st=det&sort=date&ids=2010%20VH1%20Do%20Something%20Awards%20-%20Show&showact=events&prds=10002&intv=3d&sh=10&kwstyle=or&adte=1279590449&pagez=60&cfasstyle=AND&

She was a surprise presenter, people on twitter are saying the crowd went wild :D

http://forums.superiorpics.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/2734867/Megan_Fox_2010_VH1_Do_Somethin

Nicolas or Red if you see the above comments that are ‘awaiting moderation’ please delete them lol I think I link too many pics

@Andie
You said:“And both you and Jenny say there’s something wrong in their relationship.”
And what I said: And I do sense some kind of confusion in their relationship, but I can’t exaclty put a finger on what could be possibly going on. Notice what words I’m using here: SENSE, LIKE, POSSIBLY. All these words are showing assumption, not certainty.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I NEVER said “theres something wrong in their relationship.”

“Who said they’re not happy with each other just because Brian is walking in front of her? That doesn’t indicate a lack of happiness, I’m sorry.”

Look she’s not smiling most of the time she’s with him( despite the wedding/honeymoon pics) makes me think, is there something wrong here?If they’re a couple, shouldn’t they be more happy together ?

“I said he runs to the car to get Megan out of the sight of the papz as fast as he can.”

Look, he’s not going to save her so much time away from the paps. It’s just immature thinking on his part. There’s no way to escape from the paps or really think you can save her so much from the paps. Kicking the pap camera, telling them go away, running away from them( which he all did) just all creates drama, and they love it and it could give them even a larger reason to follow them.

“And you’re wrong when you say that happens 75-80% they’re together.”This year, it only happened 3 times so far.”

I’m using the estimate for the whole time they’ve been together. Actually most of the time, he’s in front of her, talking to her behind his back. Closely examine the pics on this site.This yr, they haven’t gone out a lot, so I don’t think it’s fair to say he only walked in front of her 3x this yr. from the pics. Look at the yrs before this one, and you’ll see it happening most of the time. You’re judging their love for each other from them being together for so long. But, how do you know Megan is not afraid of hurting his feelings and that’s why she married him? How do you know she’s afraid of looking for someone else, when people now might marry her for her fame? My point is neither of us know, so you can’t tell me that “I’m wrong”.

“I highly doubt is something about Brian’s behaviour and you know it.”

No, I don’t know it, that’s why I am expressing my disbelief and uncertainty about the situation here.

“And yes, I assume but my logic/common sense makes more sense than your statement that Megan is worried and that she regrets the marriage just because Brian is not holding her hands all the time.”

Again, I NEVER said the she ”regrets” the marriage. Logic tells me if you are in a relationship that is strong, you are happy and walk the same pace with your significant other. In fact, I’ve even read about studies in Cosmo, that you can tell a couple cares for each other and have a strong bond, when they walk the same pace.

“Oh, do some reseach, please. Brian is not in many events with her exactly because people said in the beggining he was “taking advantage” of her success. So he stop attended to the events.”

Did you hear about what happened in one of the MTV awards she attended? When asked why Brian wasn’t there to accompany her. She answered, something like, because he has an ego,he’s a man, and he’s working on his music. Why would you do that to her, ever?

Jenny,

“Some kind of confusion” is the same as “there’s something wrong” since you’re clearly saying that their relationship has something “not right”. What kind of confusion then?

She ‘s not smiling most of the time she’s with him? Are you with them all the time? Nope. You see pics and reactions they get in front of papz ONLY, so don’t judge. And you want to talk about years? I’ve seem pics of them since 2005, including many that are not here on this site, and I don’t see her feeling unhappy with him and concerned because he’s walking in front of her, which doesn’t show that there’s a confusion in their relationship. Again, not smiling doesn’t necessarily indicates that you’re not happy with your partner.

“But, how do you know Megan is not afraid of hurting his feelings and that’s why she married him? How do you know she’s afraid of looking for someone else, when people now might marry her for her fame?”

And why would she think/feel that? Come on, she has already broken up with him once, so she’s not afraid to hurt his feelings. Now you’re saying she married him for pity? And don’t give me the “don’t put things on my mouth” because that was exactly what you wrote above (…afraid of hurting his feelings and that’s why she married him?). And do you really think she would be married without feeling no love at all just to not “hurting his feelings”? Yeah, right. And she could look for someone else and doesn’t necessarely marry them so she could protect her fame and fortune. Brian wouldn’t accept her being with him under your two ideas above. Judging by what he’s showed so far, he would be the first to say no. He’s not a 20 something boy. He’s a mature man.

Now answer me this: how do you know she didn’t marry Brian for love? It’s written on her face. She always says how much she loves him/feels safe with him/feels at home with him/that he makes her happy and is the only one who understands her and knows who she really is,etc. If he was that bad, wouldn’t she break up with him again and end everything? She doesn’t need him to live unless she’s in love and feels that love back.

And you seriosuly believe in a “study” a women’s magazine made? That’s not logic telling you anything but an article a magazine threw at you. People are DIFFERENT, act different, especially couples. There are several body languages out there and each one has a different meaning in different couples. I personaly know several couples that don’t walk the same pace and yet they’re very happy and several others that are all over each other everywhere and in the next minute are fighting for no reason at all.

“In fact, I’ve even read about studies in Cosmo, that you can tell a couple cares for each other and have a strong bond, when they walk the same pace.”

yeah right. And couples who don’t follow your little Cosmo are miserable unhappy with each other, don’t care about each other and don’t have a strong bond, like Megan and Brian. Only to you.

Oh, and running towards the car won’t save her so much time? On the contrary, it might just prevent her from hearing some more ridiculous statements made by some papz. Less minutes hearing them, the better. If he tells them to go away and kick their cams, one more reason to see that he’s only trying to protect her.

“Did you hear about what happened in one of the MTV awards she attended? When asked why Brian wasn’t there to accompany her. She answered, something like, because he has an ego,he’s a man, and he’s working on his music. Why would you do that to her, ever?”

Once again, you judge him and you even put the WRONG information. Let me get it clear for you.

The event was the 2009 Golden Globes Awards. Not a MTV one. And the event happened around the time of their break up, so she was mad at him like any other girlfriend would be and she expressed that in the interview. Again, fights and arguments are normal in a relationship. You just forgot to mention that they solved this fight, he maybe even said he was sorry and they got back together.

And it was his ego because of what I said in my previous post. That he stopped attending her events because people said he was “taking advantage” of her success. And this is not my assumption. He said it himself and Megan has already confirmed it too.

And you haven’t answered my question: What would be the “right thing” to happen to define their relationship as happy inside your minds?

Because for you the “problem” is that you want to see him walking beside her and laughing all the time in front of papz like some couple from perfect little stories and movies. The real life isn’t like that. They both have been through a lot in their relationship and yet they keep it strong. So there’s love in it. Not pity of her marrying him because she doesn’t want to hurt his feelings (now you’re saying her love is over) or that she’s afraid of other men because of her success. No one who’s not in love put so much efford in a relationship.

“What would be the “right thing” to happen to define their relationship as happy inside your minds?”
Expressing your love for each other whether there are paps or not. Verbally and/or physically. Not being afraid to announce it publically ( even in front of the paps) Not to “run” and “hide” from public attention when you’re together all the time. Acting and making millions comes along with paying the price for being in the limelight of the pap’s and the public’s attention.
No, if I haven’t said something in YOUR words so you cannot give your words the same meaning as mine.
Look, using your line of logic, smiling and being happy most of the time in front of the public to show how much you care for each other, doesn’t translate to a normal relationship. Are you being 100% honest with your statements here or are you playing the devil’s advocate? Seriously?
I go to work, and I’m juggling serious school work now so I’m sorry if I don’t remember the exact awards show in which she said that. But, that’s a lame excuse on his part that he can’t accompany her to her award shows. If he wants people to have a different opinion of himself and to prove that misconception that people have of him, why can’t he just attend the award shows with her, and when he has the chance of being interviewed, why can’t he say something like, I’m here to show my support and love for her. That’s why I am here. I mean wouldn’t be the logical thing to do, if people are saying things like that about him behind his back and he wants to prove them wrong??
Megan seems very sensitive. I don’t think she would ever cheat on Brian. Obviously there was some problem if they broke of their engagement. Is breaking off an engagement a normal occurrence in 5+ yr relationships? I don’t think so. Sure, there is fighting, arguing, but breaking off an engagement? Uhm no.
You have to understand that Megan is a very sensitive person. She’s the kind of person that won’t even kick a horse to initiate it to move( as mentioned in one mag. interview), If she feels pity about hurting a horse, which is normal if you want initiate it to move, how do you know for sure she wouldn’t hurt Brian’s feelings if she left him? Look, my point is we don’t know their exact reasons for their relationship. We don’t know the reasons why the first engagement failed, and we might never know. I am just expressing my personal feelings on this subject, since I always had these thoughts bottled in my head throughout the yrs, but never said anything on this site, because I thought things would eventually change, and I didn’t want to unnecessarily stir something up. And it seems like they did, in the wedding pics. But I’m seeing the same things going on again, and these pics were just the last straw for me to express my personal concern.

@Jenny
I am quite of your opinion.
Let andie but talk.
I gave up.
It has no sense to talk constantly about whether she is unhappy or not.
We will see how this all developed yet.
We can change it before anything.

wow people SHUT THE F UP!!!! stop fighting over their f’ing relationship!

Ok, Jenny,

So in your mind there’s something wrong with their relationship for years just because they don’t get all over each other in public. That’s the only reason you put here.

THAT is a lame excuse, sorry. Again, people are different and act different. That doesn’t mean they’re not happy.

“Look, using your line of logic, smiling and being happy most of the time in front of the public to show how much you care for each other, doesn’t translate to a normal relationship. Are you being 100% honest with your statements here or are you playing the devil’s advocate? Seriously?”

That’s NOT what I said. I said that the fact that you’re not giving smiles in front of the papz doesn’t mean there’s something wrong in your relationship. And again, who said they’re not being happy in front of the public? To you, only smiles and PDAs can show it? And yes, I’m being 100% honest with my statements here because, as I posted before, I’ve seem several couples who act exactly like them and are happy and several others that act exactly like you want them to act and in the next minute are fighting. How do you explain that?

That way I learned that showing smiles and happiness in public doesn’t necessarely mean that you’re happy and not showing it doesn’t necessarely mean that you’re unhappy with your partner. I never said that showing smiles in public all the time doesn’t translate to a normal relationship. But not showing it doesn’t translate to a unhappy relationship either. if she was unhappy with him, she wouldn’t even be going out with him.

And you go to work? So? I also go to work, go to college and courses. And I still remember the event. I don’t see what the fuss is about. People won’t give Megan a chance. Will they give Brian? Of course not. They will keep talking about him and sorry but it gets on everybody’s nerves, no matter how much you love the person. Put yourself in his shoes for a moment. And you talk as if he missed every single event she’s been just because she was mad at him at the GG 2009. There’s been reports and some pics of him in the T1 LA premiere, Jennifer’s Body Toronto Premiere, Scream Awards 2009, VMAs 2009, so he’s not that negligent about her.

And of course Megan is very sensitive. Now comparing a horse feelings with Brian feelings is too much. A horse won’t be a part of her life, she won’t have to think about getting a life together with a horse, start a family with a horse, being taken care and if it will be good for her or not with a horse and think she will spend years like this with a horse. So it’s completely different. All those points matter when I person think of marriage. If she married just to not hurt Brian’s feelings, would she forget or don’t care about her own feelings? She would accept being married without feeling love or receive love because she doesn’t want to hurt his feelings? Sorry but no. Megan’s sensitive, not dumb. She wouldn’t forget about her own feelings living in a “fake” marriage.

And yes, breaking off a 5 year engagement is normal. People break off engagements/marriages of more years and manage to get back together. As you said, we don’t know the reason why she broke off, it must have been something serious. But YOU just can’t accept the fact that they got over this, solved the problem and got back together for a year now without any more reported big fights. Why is that so hard to believe?

To you Megan’s only with Brian because she’s afraid to hurt the feelings of a man but not her own (yeah right) only because they don’t get all over each other in public? Sorry, but that doesn’t make sense/logic at all. If Megan is sensitive, she would care about her own feelings too and her private life. Do you seriously think a sensitive person would accept being married without love and take it through almost 6 years? No way.

But anyway, keep having the wrong ideas about their feelings and how “bad”of a husband Brian is to her. If that was the case, she wouldn’t have accepted a marriage with him at all.

See ya. ;)

i think he is in love with her pretty much

para megan fox: tus ojos son como un mar de de amor tus lavios son como algodon suave tu hermoso rostro es como una pintura de davincii y tu cuerpo fue tallado por los angeles mas vellos del reyno de dios
i love yu megan fox

@Look Andie, I’m not going to repeat my main points here, since this this is going to turn into a circular argument.
I go to a top, nationally ranked uni. in the U.S, and I happen to be in exam mode atm, so excuse me for not taking the time in looking up the exact name of the show.
I would say a good portion of the time he’s not with her in her premiers/shows. Was he there with her in the jonah hex premier? I guess you can answer that one yourself.She was interviewed. Brian’s support/presence to dispel rumors about him: missing.
I mean I know relationships all take different turns, but common ground knowledge tells you that good relationships brings your spirits up. People accept marriages for different reasons.And that’s all I’m saying about that without repeating myself.
My last point: Pictures can speak a million words. Adios Andy.
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/popwrap/item_CkPZf8iDCzY1DHkHTF9yhP

@Jenny
That´s interesting ^^
a photo with brian and another woman
when is this photo shoot ?

13.july.2009

@ Melanie,
Yes, last year.
Megan fox also said this last year: “I have no problem with commitment–you can’t have a real relationship without it. I can flip on a switch in my brain, and even if the next Brad Pitt is standing next to me, I won’t look at him.”

Hahaahahahaha, Jenny, come on,

Do you REALLY think Megan hasn’t seem this pic already? The world has seen it before, including me. It’s soooo old news. And Megan don’t seem to have bothered with it. Only YOU.

Plus, the article says he’s cheating on her. Where? All I can see is the woman touching his hand and talking to him in the ear. I’m not seeing any sign of romantic/sexual feelings of him towards this woman. The media is saying he cheated the same way they say Megan’s a whore and a bitch. Will you believe them?

One pic can speak a millions words indeed but it depends of the person reading them too. When he appears kissing, grabbing, tearing up another woman’s clothes, then he will be cheating. And the woman is a co-worker of his. And read the article carefully. Even they put the “publicity stunt” on this story.

There are several pics of Megan getting equally cozy with Shia Labeouf (her co-worker too) through the course of the two Transformers movies. Does that mean she cheated on Brian too? yeah right.

And look at the date. July, 13th, 2009. He and Megan were already back together. So do you think sweet sensitive Megan would still be with him, not to mention married to him now and “worried about not hurting his feelings” if he had cheated on her?

Only in your mind. You just “called” Megan a dumb person after this statement of yours.

They’re married, happy and they love each other whether you like it or not. So deal with it, darling.

Nice try. Next time try to be more convincing and put a pic of Brian in bed with another woman so you can be sure that he’s cheating.

See ya. ;)

*seen

Oh, clearing the info about your pic:

http://www.wireimage.com/SearchResults.aspx?igi=368526&s=brian austin green&cbi=24316&sfld=C&vwmd=e

She’s a co-worker of one of his movies and the CORRECT date the pic was taken is APRIL 18th, 2009.

Meg and him got separated from march 2009 to june 2009. I still don’t see any cheating signs in the pic but IF he had some romantic involvement with this woman, it was during the period he and Megan were separated. So, he didn’t cheat on her.

Again, nice try, Jenny. You’re just making a fool of yourself each time you post. Especially without making a proper research first. Hahahahahaha!

See ya. ;)

*copy and paste the link above or click:

http://www.wireimage.com/SearchResults.aspx?igi=368526&s=brianaustin green&cbi=24316&sfld=C&vwmd=e

The media can call Megan a whore/ bitch, but do they don’t have the evidence to prove it. It’s the same with people saying she got plastic surgery. There’s just no proof.Now, if they had pic. to prove it she was a whore, and had plastic surgery, then I would believe them, otherwise I wouldn’t.
But, either way, Megan hasn’t locked her eyes with Shia while holding him close like that, while holding his hand. Yeah, she was close to Shia in her premiers, but you could still tell they kept their distance because they were both in relationships.I never said Megan was very smart, but I’m also not hinting that she is very dumb either.
I don’t know if it’s karma or what, but your point with the blank page links?I don’t know what’s is supposed to prove seriously,that the article has the wrong date? That’s not my fault because I never said anything about the content/date of the article. I ‘only’ made a brief reference to the pic. And the link’s purpose was to go to the pic., that’s all. I think someone might other than me might be over-reacing here now.
You can laugh at me, call me a fool, and try to do downplay my reason, but I’m not going to that level with you, it’s just plain immature.And also, seriously you need to chill out dude, you seriosusly seem like your wracking your brains here.I can just hope the best for them after the marriage, like I did before, and that’s all.

@Doesnt Matter

Chillax and easy going, aye :)

Where are you from?

@ Andie,Sorry, I was in a hurry, and only clicked your links.But, what’s strange is I never really seen Brian all over Megan before like he was over that woman. And on the same note, I haven’t seen Megan all over Brian like that like she was on the premiers with Shia.(Especially the Eagle Eye one, which happened to be Shia’s premier. Even though I wouldn’t say she was extremely,extremely close to him, but close enough) So what that says to me is that both of them aren’t afraid to be physical in public. So, why aren’t they more then? And that was my original point. I sense some kind of disengagement/disconnection between them.

the reason she is’nt smiling in the pics is because of the pap’s all the time…….thats enough 2 make u pissed off! im sure they r very happy with each other behind closed doors! xx

I know, but that’s the trade off for being famous and making millions in Hollywood.Take other celebrities for example, Zac Effron and Vanessa Hudgens.. they’ve been together 5yrs or so, and I’m not saying they’re arm in arm with each other all the time, but for the most part they seem close to each other and happy. Whether the paps are there or not. And for the most part they are there for each other and support each other for their movie premiers.What I’m saying is that the paps shouldn’t be the reason do disrupt a relationship, since realistically, that’s the price any person has to pay for being famous in Hollywood.

Funny that Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner, for example, have less candids pics together than Megan and Brian, and not always smiling, just like them. And they also rarely go to each others premieres and events.

And yet they’re happily married and with two daughters.

Some people here think just because you pay the price to be sorrounded by papz, it means that you own them or the public smiles when you’re on the street with your partner. And some dumb people aka Jenny even try to put media make up stories with the WRONG DATE, trying to destroy Brian’s image.

Pathetic. ;)

Brian and Megan love each other. If it wasn’t like that, if Brian was that awful like some here think, Megan wouldn’t be with him. She broke up with him before, so why not now if things were really bad? If she accepted him back and married him, it means he’s doing things right.

She’s not innocent like some blind people here think. Like Paul said above: “they’re very happy with each other behind close doors”. They don’t need to prove their love to the world just because some people don’t understand why Brian walks in front of her, etc.

See ya;)

And pics of them showing some love too:

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/1715/64582417.jpg

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/5823/candids041207.jpg

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/8703/candids051109.jpg

http://img806.imageshack.us/img806/240/candids1402095.jpg

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/7021/candids14020911.jpg

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/5632/candids180506wow3.jpg

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/9581/candids180506wow6.jpg

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/8549/candids1905104.jpg

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/5703/candids19110916.jpg

http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/4562/candids2805103.jpg

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/6383/candids2805108.jpg

And so many more.

And Meg that close to Shia at the Eagle Eye premiere was nothing but publicity stunt, after all, they were shooting T2 around that time. Natural to show a super friendly close friendship. As for Brian, premiere of his movie as well.

And Meg that close to Shia at the Eagle Eye premiere was nothing but publicity stunt, after all, they were shooting T2 around that time. Natural to show a super friendly close friendship. As for Brian, premiere of his movie as well.

Before you call me dumb, pathetic etc again, which I’m not, because I know if I were, I would never be in the school I am now, which is a clear sign that I have a higher than average intelligence. The date doesn’t really doesn’t prove anything because there were still pictures of them being together during the time you considered them “separated”. Plus, the date only illustrates when the article was “written” not when the event “took place”.. Big difference..Look at the date you mentioned for the golden globe awards and how that date coincides with what Megan said about Brian at the Golden Globes when they were, according to you still “together”.The golden globes she attended were in Jan. 2009, which according to you, fell in a period when they were together. Hmm, guess that explains why Brian was seen “together” with her at the show.
Lol, the publicity stunt in the article is sarcastic, and it’s obvious by the following statement after it.
Look, some other guy on here was calling me dumb also, not realizing that he was onlymaking himself look like one. It just shows how some guys can go on huge power trips when a girl tries to prove them wrong.
Who said she’s innocent? I said she’s sensitive, just because you’re sensitive, doesn’t mean you’re innocent.
And just because you have a child and stay together, doesn’t mean you’re happily married. Brian had a child with his first wife with him when they were together, but obviously they weren’t happy together. I’m not very fond of Ben Affleck. I think he leaves Jenifer with most of the child caring duties, which doesn’t seem right. But, I went ahead at looked at the couple’s pictures when they are( very rarely) seen together. He doesn’t seem to be rushing out of the pap’s way, and it looks like he’s walking at a closer pace to Jenifer.
Oh, and btw, I think it’s a little bit funny when you make your “some people” references only to me, as if you were generalizing a whole group of people to one person. You really are quite a sharp, accurate guy. It also kinda scares me how much you’re defending Brian. What guy would spend so much time defending Megan Fox’ husband on a Megan Fox website! Most guys that love Megan would be jealous of him, not defensive about him.

@andy and jenny can you both just……STFU ? nobody cares about your stupid, pathetic, and never ending argument. I cant help but say something because this is incredibly immature and ridiculous! I’m sure everyone can agree with me because you both are talking about people who DONT EVEN KNOW!!!!!!! so please, both of you go away and SHUT THE F*** Up!. seriously please, we’re all sick of it.

I’m done with it. And I’m tired of people acting here like jacks.I made my points, and it’s over.

lol

Actually I’m not finished yet, Lol(sorry :( STFU whatever your name is) because I found the missing piece to the my puzzle that I was looking for alll along here, Andie. You were playing the devil’s advocate just like I thought you were…..
September 27th, 2009, quoting Andie: “And I do think she’s with Brian because she hates being single. And another love hasn’t showed up yet. Brian is everythinbg she has in LA now.”
October 2nd, 2009 at 18:41 | #31 quoting Andie ” A ring? Please God, no.”

Other people had almost the same EXACT feelings like me , BK September 27,2009, quoting “It’s just odd that they never walk side-by-side and stuff like that. The happiest I’ve seen her has been when she talks about or does geeky stuff (comics, guitar hero, sally’s spa), not when she’s walking three paces behind Brian.”

But yet Andie wasn’t saying anything to them, strange/funny, isn’t it??

nope not funny at all and that was so stupid and nobody FUCKING CARES! so go get a life now please. You took the time to fight about someone else you dont even know like i just sit here laughing at how ridiculous and pathetic u are. Im just commenting because i cant help but say how immature and fucking wierd u are.

o and I dont think andy cares anymore i think he found a life now…now why dont you do the same and we can end it right here! thanks

Funny that anonymous cant reveal his name. Probably it is Andie, but he doesn’t have an argument to prove me wrong, so he makes psuedo names to put the blame on me. Trying to prove that men always have to be right.Nice.I’m not making any more comments than a lot of people on this site are, so I’m not any more pathetic than they are. Plus, these comments take only seconds of my time. They’re not sucking my life away trust me. Strange how my comments only seem to bother 1 “anonymous” person.

k jenny have a nice day

Jenny said, “Trying to prove that men are always right.”

Why do men feel the need to be right about everything?

Well, I’m more interested in why women don’t! Could it have something to do with conscience and responsibility? Certainly a man’s need to be right about things because he has a conscience about being wrong, is tainted by an egotistical need to dominate, but this is surely preferable to the egotistical need to be passive with respect to the meaningfulness of what one is expressing. Women don’t like to be held accountable for anything, therefore they have no concern for being right about anything, for to claim rectitude is to place oneself squarely in a position of responsibility, possibly even blame. We perceive men as being arrogant in this respect and women as being reasonable and open-minded. The truth is far other than this, however. The need to feel that one is right about things is in fact an entirely noble feeling, so long as it is accompanied by a conscience and a willingness to concede error when it’s pointed out. Women avoid the whole dynamic entirely. They blissfully spew out opinions on everything and everyone, yet never feel the touch of the burden of conscience or responsibility, because, well, they never feel that they are necessarily right in their opinions. This is part of the reason that hardly any woman in history has achieved anything of worth in areas like philosophy and science. There must come, at some point, a willingness to say that one is right about something; a willingness to stand up and be counted and to be held to account. Only a woman would place a negative connotation on wanting to be right.

@ doesntmatter
It would be nice if you at least mentioned who you were
@paul
“Only a woman would place a negative connotation on wanting to be right.”
Women have been repressed for years and still even seen inferior to men, as seen as in the national wages, which are still lower than men.
I agree that not a lot of women haven’t achieved many prizes and honor in history, but you have to understand men are not willing to put women high in power. That is why women werent given a right to vote until the 1920′s.
Men also use their left side of the brain, which is associated with cognitive logic, and have a larger spatial part in that area, which is a biological inequality.However, even though men can have a larger brain in women, doesn’t necessarily mean they use it all the time.
As with men being more responsible and conscious, I don’t necessarily agree, especially when it comes to women, when they almost loss all their logic, inhibition, and responsibility.

Jenny. It’s not repressed. It’s OPPRESSED.

The notion that women were oppressed throughout much of recent western history is, in my view, nothing more than the usual feminist-inspired hokum that is designed to stir up hatred towards men.

This is not to suggest that people have not been oppressed in the west. They surely have been – in one way or another. But the idea that women have been oppressed more than men is just not supported by the evidence.

And the ubiquitous propaganda suggesting that ‘men oppress women’ is ludicrous.

Men tend to oppress men, not women.

Let’s start with how things were in the 1930′s in the UK, especially. Within communities in those days, there was a great deal of unemployment. Indeed, there was not much in the way of ‘industry’. Families were seen as economic units with responsibility for looking after themselves, and it simply wasn’t tenable for one family to have two wage earners in the house while the next door neighbours had none! Such a thing would have been a recipe for social envy, disaster and violence – and, of course, in those days, there was no particularly effective welfare system to balance the imbalances.

Neither was there much of a police force; which meant that social unrest or disharmony would very quickly lead to real problems. For example, the poorer would have been able to rob those who were seemingly wealthier with impunity.

And why not? – if their families had no wage earners and very little food, while the CHILDLESS couple NEXT DOOR had TWO wage earners, food and even luxuries?!

So, the convention was that, upon marriage, either the husband or the wife had to stop work. Since the wife was very likely to have children (and, in this case, she did – me and my sister!) custom and convention dictated that she was the one who should stop working.

The overwhelming majority of women did not see this as discrimination. They saw themselves as being lucky enough to have a system which allowed just about each of them to collar a man prepared to go out and earn a living in order to support her and her children.

Further, prepared to or not, like it or not, the man was EXPECTED to do this, by the monumental social pressures that societies typically exert through tradition and custom – and, in many cases, through the law.

Indeed, as an example, in the USA, it was around this time that a young Frank Sinatra was indicted for failing in his promise to marry a young woman whom he had, allegedly, ‘seduced’. He was only saved from prison when she withdrew her complaint.

Given that most women had MANY children fairly vicariously in those days, and would end up spending many years looking after them, it was also silly to invest a country’s, or a family’s, VERY LIMITED wealth in the education of women – because they were the very ones most likely NOT to take any value from it!

Further, it was clearly best for everyone that females, when children, spent much of their time being trained for motherhood rather than being prepared for something that was very unlikely to happen – like a having a full-time ‘career’, or a job, of whatever sort.

Also, looking after children in those days was somewhat more time consuming, more complex an affair, and far more laborious than it is today. There were no microwave ovens, washing machines, fridges, vacuum cleaners, telephones, televisions, automatic heating systems, cars, etc.. And there was little in the way of modern materials, medicines and chemicals that we now rely on so heavily.

Cooking, cleaning, clothing and child-rearing were, therefore, major domestic industries in themselves, and preparing young girls for dealing successfully with all of these things was crucial for their well-being and their survival in the rat race.

Moreover, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, societies that did not do this were not going to succeed in the face of competition from those that did! In terms of cultural ‘evolution’, therefore, societies whose women did not care properly for the children, while the men labored on their behalf, never made it!

Indeed, such societies would have disappeared very quickly – as more effective ones took over the land.

And you can see this sort of thing happening today!

For example, there are now many pockets in Britain today where women are, indeed, failing to bring up their children properly, and where the fathers are – thanks to feminism – ‘not required’.

And, as a result, across the entire country, there are vast areas where young delinquents terrify the inhabitants and where criminality is the norm. And the activities of these young anti-social individuals spill out to affect the rest of British society.

These pockets of deprivation, which they have now become, all have something in common. They are places where a significant proportion of the fathers are absent or ineffective. And it doesn’t take more than a handful of their dysfunctional offspring to terrorize and ruin entire neighborhoods.

Yet they survive – but only because the rest of the country keeps injecting millions and millions of dollars into them and because it is prepared to provide them with so many supportive services – police, health, education etc. Without this support, they would fail. Indeed, they would destroy themselves.

And this is exactly what would have happened in the past.

The best road to success in the past was for women to bring up the children – and to be trained to do so properly – while the men spent much of their time developing the environment and tapping its resources, giving just some of their time for helping out with the rearing of their own children – particularly the boys.

And it wasn’t only men who enforced these ‘decisions’ and norms, it was WOMEN!

Indeed, if the men had been given their way, many would have been more than happy to have their daughters and wives working out there – for money – in order to help to pay the bills. But, I repeat, it would have been a recipe for social disaster for one family to have both parents earning while their neighbours had no income at all.

Given that women were biologically chosen by nature to be the ones to bear children and nurture them, it is hardly surprising that, throughout all of History, in all other areas, they have been ‘held back’. They have simply had other things to do.

And for feminists to keep blaming men for what Nature gave to women is pointless, hysterical and malicious. Indeed, if anything, the men of the past should be recognized for having devoted most of their waking hours to working (or, rather, slaving) in order to support their loved ones.

While misandric feminists like to portray men as having oppressed women by ‘keeping them at home with the children’, it is clear that both genders benefited hugely from the deal. The WHOLE of society did. Further, what this deceitful and gullible group of women describes as ‘oppression’, was, in reality, men trooping out, day in, day out, to work, sometimes in the most awful jobs imaginable, in order for their families to survive as best as they could.

And if anyone thinks in any way that the jobs of men 50-200 years ago, were, in any way, comparable to the jobs of today, you are poorly educated indeed! They were awful – and, at the very best, utterly tedious. And the hours were long with very little in the way of good transport to convey them to work and back, and with certainly not much in the way of rights and pay.

Do feminists really believe that women would actually have preferred to do these jobs rather than stay at home with their children in the comfort of their surrounding friendly neighborhoods?

Here’s an extract from David Thomas’ book Not Guilty …

“The desire to free oneself from work was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930. During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75 percent to 10 percent. This was regarded as a huge step forward for womankind, an opinion shared by the women whose writings Dr Bourke researched. Freed from mills and factories, they created a new power base for themselves at home. This was, claims Dr Bourke, “a deliberate choice. . . and a choice that gave great pleasure.”

In other words, during that period, women did not like the jobs that were available, and so they opted out of them.

The men had to do them instead!

The belief that women have been oppressed throughout History is only true to the extent that EVERYONE was oppressed by somebody else. For example, for every miner who ‘oppressed’ his wife at home, there was another man, an employer or manager, who oppressed 100 miners in the pits. And the idea that women were the only oppressed ‘victims’ in all of this is ridiculous, and completely beyond belief.

One only has to look at the selfless way that men sacrificed their lives on the Titanic, where ‘women and children first’ was the order for escape and safety, to appreciate just how valuable the female gender was regarded by men in the recent past. This was the reality then, no matter what feminists will tell you about the ‘oppression’ and the ‘low status’ of women in those days.

Indeed, if women had been truly oppressed and seen to be of low status, then they would have been oppressed right back into their cabins while the men escaped into the lifeboats!

The idea that women, particularly western women, have not had power throughout recent History is, of course, a feminist-inspired falsehood, and it was created mostly by emotionally-deficient women to provide further fuel for their personal campaigns of hatred against men.

Indeed, it is almost impossible to envisage a successful society – a strong one – in which women do not have considerable power.

The fact that, in the past, the women brought up the children, and, hence, the very next generation, gave them untold powers. Not only did they influence the values, beliefs and behaviours of the next generation, they also benefited hugely from the fact that their children, both sons and daughters, bonded very tightly to them, emotionally speaking. This was a tremendous ‘investment’ for their own futures which benefited them throughout their entire lives, well into old age and death – not only financially and emotionally, but in almost every possible way. This empowered them hugely. And the further fact that the fathers were so much engaged elsewhere, away from their families, gave the mothers at home even greater relative influence, power and advantage over the future generation. In fact, the men were often reduced to little more than slaves and wallets when it came to ‘the family’.

Thus, when it comes to shaping the generations that follow, there can be no question of which gender has, and has always had, real power.

If women of the past were particularly oppressed in any way, then it was with the full complicity of the women themselves.

Indeed, there surely has never been a successful society in which women, as a whole, were treated badly.

Further, if any group had come up with something better than ‘marriage’ then it, whatever it was, would have been dominating our formal social arrangements by now.

Instead, the reality is that ALL other systems governing the relationships between males and females, particularly in connection with their reproductive roles – and there must have been some other systems that were tried out – have clearly failed abysmally.

They never got very far.

Not one of them turned into a strong successful society.

Not one!

Another example that is often cited as evidence for the oppression of women was the common ‘inheritance’ procedures, whereby the oldest son inherited the property – the land, the money, the title and the status.

But was this really oppression, given the circumstances and limitations of the recent past and beyond?

For example, what does one do when there is no enforceable, observable, common, sufficiently complex legal system to deal with matters of property – or title, such as ‘King’? Well, the best route is surely the simplest one. You hand the property down to just one member of the family – the oldest one. You don’t even have to choose, and so stir up hostility in the unchosen. No piece of paper is even needed to prove the deal (not that most ordinary people could have read it even if there was one). And there are no arguments over this and that. The first-born male is the solution throughout. Further, by keeping all the wealth in the hands of just one person, this ensures that the family’s power base is not divided into smaller units which eventually dissipate into relative insignificance.

You only have to look at the situation in Afghanistan to see what happens when there is no definable, undisputable ‘heir to the throne’. Different warloads rise up, all claiming their own legitimacy, and the country is torn apart by warring factions struggling for power.

AND THE WOMEN ARE COMPLETELY DISEMPOWERED IN THE PROCESS!

Buy why did the male rather than the female always have precedence?

The answer is that the female is weak and pathetic in comparison to the male – and this was especially so in more primitive times and places where muscles were almost as important as brains.

She also has the children to bear and to look after. Further, females will have spent much of their youth preparing for motherhood and all its ramifications. In other words, females had enough on their plates.

And what hope would there have been for any social groupings that gave the most power to those members least capable of using it effectively?

Well, they would have been rapidly outgunned by those that didn’t do this. And so they would have quickly disappeared.

And so it is that, on balance, both the men and the women benefited from the custom that gave the male control of the family’s wealth and power.

Indeed, even today, those groups that are still very much attached to ‘the family’ (such as found in many UK Asian communities) and the traditional roles contained therein, are doing exceedingly well in comparison to those where the ‘family’ is more loosely structured and where the men have, effectively, been disempowered. These latter groups (e.g. as found in many council estates) are failures, and they would disintegrate completely were it not for the fact that they are kept alive by tax burdens placed upon the rest of us.

In conclusion, it seems that if in any social groups from the past had handed more power to their women and less to their men, they would, quite simply, have rapidly disappeared.

And, indeed, this is exactly what seems to be happening now.

Feminist-dominated societies and cultures will soon be washed away and completely over-run by those wherein women prefer to stay at home and have children.

Very simple mathematics will demonstrate this.

And given that white western women currently make up only some 5% of the Earth’s population then, in 100 years time, they will barely exist at all.

Feminism is an ideology that promotes self-extinction.

It is a cultural and racial suicide pill.

It has no hope of succeeding.

It has no hope of surviving.

And it is going to cause huge problems to western societies as they slowly continue to decay and decline under its malign and destructive influences.

Paul,
Back to your first question,
“Why do men feel the need to be right about everything?
Well, I’m more interested in why women don’t! ”
I hope your new post will help clarify the reason why. I’ll give you a few examples of the names I’ve been called by MALES on this site: ” dumb”,”pathetic”,”fool”, “phaggot”.And now by you, I fell in the category of being ” poorly educated” and “pathethic”.
Do you sense the pattern here? All in the name of what? I’m not poorly educated. As I have been constantly repeating here, I attend a college that is has been highly ranked even in the world. And yet, some males on THIS site, have been repetitively throwing the same derisive slurs on me. Which, for a common female, would be enough to have her “repressed”. To go as far as saying “opressed”, yes I know,men have been repressed also. Now, if I said something completely unreasonable here, it would make send to call me those words. But, look, I’ve proven a male on this page was contradicting himself..I found the evidence to prove it, while all along this male was making me seem as if I was the biggest idiot he came across to on this site. Another guy here also was wrong with what he said, while all along he was calling me a “phaggot”. And yet, I received no apology from them from any of them. And at the same time, I did NOT use one insulting,condescending name towards them.
I’m not a feminist,( although I support some of their beliefs) and I don’t hate men ( if you were implying that I do). And honestly, I dont think feminists vehemently hate men, as much as they hate inequality( remember, they have also fought for racial equality, which proves all their hate was not directed towards men). You said feminism promotes self extinction. If it wasn’t for feminists, who pushed contraceptives, this world would be a ticking time bomb doomed for extinction from over-population.
Which leads me to the point of two disparities. Mental and physiological. In terms of physiological barriers, yes men have a large advantage. In terms of mental, well, males brains are only 10% larger than women. I don’t know what the men are like in England, but right now in America, there are many women who are more educated and less lazy than some men who sit in front of tv the whole day or play video games. And there were probably some more educated women back in the day, who dedicated themselves to other didactic matters( who didnt have or couldnt have children” yet, they weren’t given a say in politics, because they were considered idiots. There are even women in Africa who do the same work as men, yet they are not paid at all, and the men are. So, there is some type of unfair disparity occurring in that respect.
To go so bold and say, “Only a woman would place a negative connotation on wanting to be right” to me is insulting. Proven the arguments I have had here, and the fact that this is a wide over-generalization. And to use that statement on someone like Marie Curie, who was a great science pioneer even in the time where women’s main responsibility was in the house, is extremely offensive and degrading.
Also, you said,”Women don’t like to be held accountable for anything, therefore they have no concern for being right about anything, for to claim rectitude is to place oneself squarely in a position of responsibility, possibly even blame.”
You know, it took a while for the colonists of third world countries to realize how irresponsible and destructive they were, sometimes even a 100 yrs. Now, if it took colonists, which were mainly(all?) men to realize how they can recklessly destroy a third world’s country’s natural reserves, could you be so bold and say colonization is a suicide pill, with little help of surviving ( without foregin aid, missionary help) to third world countries and that men not always are responsible,right, and moral? Also, the holocaust, where greed and irresponsible behavior, led to the death of millions of people, all in the name of some men believing they are “right”.

Plus,if the same rules that were applied in Nazi germany have applied now in the U.S, Brian( which is i believe Jewish) who have never been able to marry Megan( who isnt jewish,Aryan) then their marriage would have been completely nulled. Does that make a lot of sense? What I’m saying is that men have created lots of unresonable,destructive decisions themselves, so I don’t think it’s fair to say that women can only put a negative connotation on wanting to be right because history has proven that men are capable of putting the negative aspect in wanting to be right also.

Again, I’m more interested in why more women don’t feel the need to be right as often as possible. In my first post, I’ve said my reasons as to why men feel that way.

Feminists DO hate men, just as much as “inequality.” In the final paragraph of your first response right after my last post, I would love to know how FEMALES would’ve made things better if they were put in charge when it comes to manging how the world is operated.

You want to talk about what feminism has achieved? Okay, let’s do that. You want to fly high, Jenny? That’s cool because I’m a pilot, too.

Feminism has achieved “this” for women. Feminism has achieved “that” for women.

But this is just not true.

Feminism has achieved very little for women. If anything, it has retarded the progress of women. And, furthermore, it is likely to push back the ‘progress’ of women in the near future.

Women enjoy greater freedoms today because of progress in the areas of science, medicine and technology, NOT because of feminism.

Those who have doubts about this should try to imagine how feminist policies or attitudes could possibly have succeeded 100 years ago – or in impoverished places in the world today.

Ask a poor woman in Afghanistan why she still wants to wear the burka when she walks about in the street. Ask her why she would still much prefer to be married to a man who has some real concern for her welfare.

Women – feminists or otherwise – have probably always got what they aimed for throughout History. They were biologically designed to manipulate and to use men for their own purposes. This is why they survive in so many circumstances in which men do not.

The less harsh is the world outside, and the less vulnerable that women are to it, the more do they venture out into it.

When human beings were living in caves the women said to the men, “You go out first.”

And they did.

And this is the way that it has been ever since.

But in most societies ‘going out first’ was not a sign of liberation.

And only fools and feminists would think so.

It is science, medicine, technology and MEN that have today ‘liberated’ western women to an unparalleled degree, not feminism.

Relatively safe contraceptive devices and abortion methods have saved them from being burdened by unwanted pregnancies and unwanted offspring. Computerised well-funded welfare systems and incredible economic developments have enabled them to survive without the need for men solely dedicated to their well-being. Going out into the world of work is enormously more pleasant, safe and comfortable than it ever was. Communications, transport and security systems are more widespread, more effective and more powerful by a long way than they were, say, even fifty years ago.

These are the sorts of things that have truly ‘liberated’ women – and, indeed, men.

Feminism has been of virtually no significance at all in comparison.

It is also often argued that women in western societies were unfairly discriminated against in the past with regard to various ‘important’ jobs and roles that were more or less denied to them. The truth, however, is that they were discriminated against on very good grounds indeed!

For example, the vast majority of women were going to end up having children. This is what they wanted to do.

And it is still what most of them want to do!

And it was wasteful for society – and for individual families and organisations – to expend huge resources in training women over many years for jobs that they were extremely unlikely to end up doing.

Even fifty years ago, what would have been the point in training women to become, say, doctors or lawyers – thereby denying men such training – when the vast majority of such women would have dropped out pretty quickly to create their own families?

And what makes anyone think that younger women in those days actually wanted to undergo the serious long-term training that was required in order to do such jobs when they knew full well that they were extremely unlikely to want to do them?

Even today, the UK’s National Health Service is suffering from significant inefficiencies and failures because women doctors are dropping out of work for years on end in order to have children – with some never to return.

In other areas of work where physical fitness and strength were important – such as in the police force or in the army – where was the value to society in employing women to do such work when men were not only available to do it but were also able to do it far more effectively? Even fifty years ago, such jobs were far tougher than they are now.

Can you imagine women police officers patrolling the streets alone fifty years ago, on foot or on their bicycles? – with a whistle being their only communication method when trying to rally some help in times of trouble.

Just look at the construction industry today. You will not find many women wanting to lay bricks or to climb scaffolding. But, of course, if ever there comes a time in the future where such work can be done merely by pushing one or two buttons while chatting to her friends and co-workers, then women will want to do it!

And, no doubt, the feminists of the future will then perpetuate the lie that today’s women were discriminated against in the construction industry and that they were mostly desperate to lay bricks and climb scaffolding!

Furthermore, in the past, where paying jobs outside the home were not very plentiful, and where there were no significant welfare systems to protect the unemployed, it would have been absolutely disastrous for communities if many families had no bread-winners at all, while others had two, or even more. And it was clearly in the interests of everyone that jobs were distributed among families as best as possible.

You only have to look at impoverished communities today to see what happens when the men – particularly the young ones – are unemployed.

And these are the reasons why, in the past, women often had to give up their jobs if they got married. The idea was to make their jobs available to men who had to support families, and the assumption was that married women would be supported by their husbands – which they WERE.

And for similar reasons, women were sometimes paid less than men for the very same jobs.

And, believe it or not, even most women in those days would have thought it unfair had they got paid the same as the men! They were not as selfish as the women of today, and they recognised that men had a financial responsibility to look after their wives and their children.

For example, In 1936, a Gallup poll asked a national sample, “Should a married woman earn money if she has a husband capable of supporting her?” By overwhelming majorities, both men and women said that she should not. ( http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/2work9.htm )

But thanks to science, medicine, technology and men, – and, of course, the growth in the economy that they have brought about – women nowadays have GREATER access to the world of work, should they so desire it.

And feminism had VERY LITTLE to do with this.

Younger women also often claim that they are glad to be alive today rather than in earlier times not long gone. And they seem to believe that the feminists of the 70s are largely responsible for the better circumstances that now exist for them.

BULLSHIT!

There is no denying that life is decidedly better in MANY ways nowadays than it was in the past – for both men and women – but what, EXACTLY, did feminism achieve?

It is often argued, for example, that feminists were at the forefront in loosening the shackles of traditional gender roles which made men masculine and women feminine.

But was it?

Surely, if any particular group is to be especially credited with leading the way in this area it was the GAY movement not the women’s movement.

Even the entrapment of people into fixed gender roles brought about by the huge influence of religion was loosened far more by the developments taking place in science (discovery of DNA 1953) and the very rapid growth of a ‘youth culture’ with its defiant pop music (during the 1950′s) than it was by the later influences of feminism.

It is also often claimed that men and women now stand far more on an equal footing than they did some decades ago.

Oh, really?

In what areas, exactly?

Women can nowadays kick their husbands out of their homes, deny them access to their own children, and, in many western countries, even make them continue paying for children who are NOT EVEN THEIRS! There are now some 20 times as many men in western prison cells as women. Men currently die, on average, some 5 years earlier than women. And so on.

This is greater equality?

Indeed, it would be interesting to know on what basis there is greater equality today than there was in the past. And how does one measure it?

For example, does the fact that women were once not entitled to vote (AS IT WAS TRUE FOR MOST MEN) not somehow balance the fact that men alone could be conscripted into the army?

Does the fact that – even only 50 years ago – the vast majority of men had to do really awful jobs for very long hours in order to cater for themselves and their families not somehow balance the fact that the women were mostly stuck at home with the kids?

So what, exactly, is more gender equitable about today’s western world?

The feminist trick that infects the ether is to hold up examples of what appears to be unfairness toward women in the past, but to hide the unfairness that was being heaped upon men.

The suffering of women is highlighted and exaggerated and the suffering of men is denied and hidden. For example, look at the way that the domestic-violence industry still caters only for women and denies the existence of such violence against men.

And the modern-day history books have been cleansed by the left wing and the politically-corrected in the educational establishments and in the media in order to hide the suffering and the achievements of men and to elevate unduly into the public consciousness those of women.

And the extent to which these lies are continually perpetrated is absolutely astonishing.

As just one example, a few years ago, TV viewers were subjected persistently to images of the Taleban police in Afghanistan whacking away with their sticks at the women (mostly at their heavy clothing) as they ‘got out of line’ in the long queues for food. Over and over again the same images were presented to us to drum into our heads how badly women were being treated by the extremely religious Taleban. But in one scene on the BBC – which was shown once, and never shown again – a TV reporter asked one of the policemen why they were not whacking the men! He chuckled and said that they did not need to do this because the men were so terrified of them that they always did what they were told!

And, sure enough, the men could be seen standing in an orderly line without the pushing and shoving that was taking place among the women.

And so what these images really showed was that the women were completely unafraid of the policemen wielding their sticks while the men dared not put a foot out of line.

The truth of the matter was the complete opposite of what the media were persistently trying to portray.

Even a lot of men seem to think that feminism has benefited women in some major way. For example, in his truly excellent piece Fundamental Feminism even Richard Davis says,

“In contrast to progressive feminists, fundamental feminists do not seek gender equity. Their goal is gender superiority and authority. There is no question that women and men now live in a more gender equitable world than the one this author was born into. As a father of three daughters and two sons this author expects and demands equity of behavior and equal opportunity for all five of his children. Most of the credit for this contemporary view of gender equity must be given to progressive feminism.”

Pardon?

“Most of the credit for this contemporary view of gender equity must be given to progressive feminism.”

Where is the evidence for this?

And what on Earth is ‘progressive feminism’?

I have never even heard of it!

How can it possibly be that this ‘progressive feminism’ can be given the ‘credit’ for our current view of ‘gender equity’?

Where? How? When?

WHO?

What the Hell is it?

And what about the ‘independent’ feminists, the ‘equity’ feminists and goodness knows what other types of feminists who are also often alleged to have brought about this current view of gender equity?

Do they count at all?

And have the gays not contributed most significantly to the current view of gender equity?

And what about black people?

Yes. Even the black racial activists witter on about gender equity.

And even many raging white male anti-feminists, if not most of them, are pretty sold on the idea of ‘gender equity’.

And so the idea that feminists – of any kind – have some superior claim when it comes to the successful promotion of ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’ toward women is just nonsense. They are but a small fraction of the hundreds of other groups that have sought goodwill, justice, fairness and peace on Earth etc.

And the worthwhile achievements of feminists are almost non-existent.

Richard talks about wanting the same opportunities and the same fair treatment for his sons and his daughters.

And quite right too!

But if you travel back fifty years in time and beyond, what meaning could this possibly have had?

There was just no way that normal young males and females could have been treated the same way and the results be equal.

For example, how could it have been ‘equal’ to insist that your son and your daughter both train hard for several years and to imbue them both with high professional expectations when the daughter would most likely want a completely different life for herself as an adult? – i.e. marriage to a suitable young man.

Do loving parents who believe in ‘equal’ treatment fill their children’s heads with grandiose ideas and expectations knowing full well that they are extremely unlikely to achieve them, or when they do not even want to achieve them?

And what, for example, if one lived in a mining community?

Would it have been ‘equitable’ to treat the boys and girls in the same way, and expect them both to work down the mines for 12 hours a day as a future career?

Similarly, allowing your 15 year old daughter to stay out until midnight and not requiring her to have an escort home would have been the height of madness fifty years ago. Even today, most responsible parents will have somewhat different rules for their boys and their girls when it comes to how they view their socialising habits.

And, of course, girls who got pregnant fifty years ago would have found themselves in all sorts of trouble.

It makes no sense at all to believe that society could have treated men and women the same way fifty years ago. And if it had done so, the results would certainly not have been ‘equitable’.

Indeed, if feminism had been of major influence in those days our societies would have collapsed completely.

You only have to look at the effects that feminism has had on our poorer communities to see what a disaster it has been for so many people.

Indeed, if western economies were to deteriorate significantly in the future, and if millions of jobs were lost on a permanent basis, there is no way that feminist policies could be implemented or enforced.

For example, people might demand that jobs were distributed on the basis of one income-earner per household. And if, for some unimaginable reason, the only jobs available were onerous ones, or the world outside became a particularly dangerous place to be – as it used to be – women would willingly rush back into being housewives again.

And just imagine what would happen if, for some strange reason, abortions became unsafe and the contraceptive pill disappeared!

When you look back even fifty years ago, it is quite clear that women were not being oppressed by the ‘patriarchy’. The patriarchy was serving them very well indeed, given the circumstances in which people lived.

In summary, feminism has achieved very little indeed.

It is science, medicine, technology and men that have today ‘liberated’ western women – and men – to an unparalleled degree, not feminism.

Goodness me. The two MEN who came up with Google will do far more to ‘liberate’ women – and many others – than feminism could EVER do.

Feminism has damaged our society. It has damaged all of us.

And it continues to do so.

Not only is it a hugely destructive force but any society that is largely influenced by it is actually doomed to disappear.

The birth rates in feminist-dominated societies have plummeted to well below their population replacement rates, and the children who are being born are increasingly the offspring of those with lower levels of ability.

Well, with any luck, science, medicine, technology and men will, once again, manage to deal with the problems that will arise from such things.

But, firstly, this will not be easy. And, secondly, feminism has got to go.

It seems like I have to make some points on the pay gap that exist between the two sexes. And the part where you talked about boys not doing well as women in the educational department, you do bring a valid point there. I will explain why that is. But for now, after writing that long passage, I need to rest for a little bit. And when I return, class will be in session.

Paul, I’m not a feminist, nor am I adamant about feminist ideology, nor do I really care about it, because higher destruction to the world has occurred in wars, colonization, and human/resource destruction in the name of unjust ideologies. You started to go on what feminism has achieved, but honestly I don’t care about feminism, and no, I don’t want to talk about it. I do not agree with Richard Davis, nor did I even say anything of his words. There is a over-population problem occurring now in third world countries as well as over-exploitation, which can bring destruction to the whole world, because realistically developed countries rely on so many imported goods for their own economy. We also use their land for own “wastes”. Of course men have brought a lot of advancement to women through technology. But has technology given women a right to vote? How? The U.S wasn’t very technologically advanced in the 1920′s. I agree women have achieved a lot because of men’s inventions, and I’m not doubting or arguing against that fact. My main argument is some men can go on power trips here without being right and when they are proven wrong by a female. I don’t know really how this has turned to discussing feminism, since I haven’t mentioned anything about it, nor am I supporting feminism 100%. And when I was said that men dont like to put women high in power,( as in the gov.) they don’t. There has never been a U.S female president( even though I’m not doubting that some women are capable of accumulating such high [mental]power as men through knowledge).

Right. You never said that you were a feminist. Well, at first I thought you were from saying that men always try to be right (as if there’s something wrong with trying to be right) and with that comment you said about men’s brains being bigger even though it doesn’t really mean it’s better (or something along those lines). However, those comments are the exact same ones you regularly hear feminists bemoan about, and it seems that a lot of people have gotten hoodwinked into what they spew.

You also made mention to the pay gap. Haven’t feminists complained about that for years? The fact that you brought that into the conversation also shows that you buy into their lies.

As for the usual complaint of women that men “denied women the vote” any intelligent person will see that the struggle for ‘the vote’ was simply a case of ordinary people becoming more powerful as time went by, which enabled them to force their governments to extend the franchise, bit by bit. And western men only won the vote earlier than women because their governments needed them to work in the mines, the factories, the military etc etc, and the men were simply becoming more and more troublesome over their poor work situations – and becoming unionised. And so the governments extended their rights in order to dampen down the likelihood of revolution and to gain their co-operation. As such, ‘men’ did not spend decades denying the vote to women. ‘Men’ did not actually have the power to give it to them.

Indeed, in 1916, while the suffragettes were moaning about the lack of ‘the vote’ for women, 20,000 men were killed on the very first day of the Battle of the Somme, and a further 125,000 men (at least) were killed in this single battle of WWI during the next five months.

What about the pay gap that you brought up a few times? The answer is that women EARN less. And the reason that they earn less is because, statistically speaking, they CHOOSE to do easier jobs, they CHOOSE educational courses which lead to less well-paid jobs, they CHOOSE to take more time off work for family purposes and they CHOOSE to be less committed to their careers. It is also the case that older men are far more qualified than are older women. Many men are also wealthy because of their personal successes in fields such as sports, arts and entertainment, where it is the public, not employers, who choose to pay for their services. Furthermore, what is not counted in the statistics surrounding ‘pay’ is the huge amount of money that women receive directly from their men and, in many cases, from the taxpayer. And I could go on and on and on with regards to the pay gap. So if you want to go there, Jenny, then let’s go.

But first, I want to talk contraceptives. I was going to get to the education topic, but I want to touch on this topic first before I forget about it. You said, “If it wasn’t for feminists, who pushed contraceptives, this world would be a ticking time bomb doomed for extinction from over-population.” REALLY?

If you listen to feminists droning on about the contraceptive pill and explaining how it was that women quickly ‘liberated’ themselves sexually when they were able to get their hands on it, thus reducing their ultimate dependence on men, you might be forgiven for thinking that feminists had actually invented the thing. So for that, I’ll give you a pass.

But guess what, Jenny, they hadn’t. Feminists had NOTHING to do with it.

It was manufactured by a MAN – a medical scientist. And his work was mostly based upon the work of the other MALE scientists who went before him.

You would also be led to believe by feminist disinformation that men, in their desperate desire to keep women on the leash, were totally opposed to the pill. And feminists would further like to persuade YOU that they, themselves, wrestled politically, and successfully, with the male gender, in order to force men into accepting the pill as a valid means of contraception; a means which gave women the ‘upper hand’.

This is bullshit.

Talk to any man who is old enough to remember when ‘the pill’ came on to the market, and I can assure you without reservation that it was men who couldn’t wait to get their hands on the thing – or, more accurately, who couldn’t wait to get their women to swallow it.

But, as is usual, the feminists have LIED and DECEIVED over this issue – and, as is customary, they mostly distort our History in such a way as to portray the men of the past as the most wicked OPPRESSORS of women.

Thus, they would also claim, for example, that only when feminists themselves arrived on the scene to protect women from the tyrannical abuse of male power were women truly ‘liberated’ from the oppression of men.

Let’s take you back to a time where the arrival of histrionic groups of hostile, irrational women calling themselves ‘feminists’ in the very late 1960′s and the early 1970′s came onto the scene.

They seemed to appear from nowhere.

‘Normal’ feminists had been around for some time, and people were accustomed to them. They articulated a female point of view. They were cuddly, loving, very feminine, and they danced around with bare feet, snogging the boys and leading them astray in the grass.

Make love, not war!

These ‘new’ feminists, however, seemed more like a snarling lesbian military. They barked. They screeched. They growled. And they seemed to do little but taunt and deride men in the most appallingly, derogatory manner.

Almost anything to do with men was denounced as unwholesome, and their sole purpose really seemed to be nothing more than to inject male hatred into our culture and to manufacture, from thin air, spurious and unjustified accusations in order, so it seemed, to excuse an openly aggressive attitude toward men.

The nation mostly looked upon these women with disdain, and hoped that they would go away.

Regretfully, they didn’t.

They stayed.

By the very late 60′s women were indeed being ‘liberated’ from the kitchen, partly thanks to the advent of the pill, but mostly due to the arrival of many other technologies for the average home (such as the car! – and the washing machine) – just about all of which were created by MEN.

But men were also being liberated by virtue of the fact that the pill allowed them far greater freedom with regard to their own sexual activities.

When his girlfriend was on the pill, the man stood far less chance of being responsible for a pregnancy which, in those days, virtually forced him into marriage.

Indeed, the young men of the 60s, and those who went before them, seemed to be permanently pestered by their girlfriends into discussing an early marriage whenever they opened their legs wider than nine degrees.

However, it is fair to say that, for most girls, in those days, marriage was actually the best way of escaping from their homes and liberating themselves from the restrictions of their parents. Marriage was considered by young women to be the best route to their own freedoms – not (as feminists would tell you) to one of lifelong oppression (there goes that word again) by the men whom they wished to marry.

And so, I’ll give you sex if you give me marriage, summed up much of the gender bargaining prior to the advent of the pill.

(The same sort of thing is true today. But, whereas, in those days, living together ‘in sin’ (i.e. unmarried) was not considered appropriate by almost anyone, today, not only is such a thing acceptable, it is almost mandatory.)

If you listen to feminists, however, you’ll be given the impression that young men could hardly wait to entrap prospective females into marriage, for their own domineering purposes, and that getting a wife was a priority that was always on their minds.

This is a preposterous notion. And anyone who knows anything about young men knows full well that their carnal desires have very little to do with establishing permanent, long-term, monogamous relationships.

Indeed, it was the female gender that almost always equated sex with marriage, not the men. This is the TRUTH of the matter.

Women wanted marriage after sex – and often before it – whereas men, most usually, did not.

Marriage was a high priority for women. And so if feminists are right about marriage being a means whereby men oppress women, then it is clearly the case that the women were actually begging to be oppressed! (Am I good, or am I good?)

Also, and most importantly for the lustful young man, the pill dispensed with the need to wear desensitising condoms and/or from having to withdraw his dixk just at the point when he really wanted it there.

The pill was an absolute godsend to the actively sexual male.

And to say that women quickly saw the pill as some sort of ‘liberating’ medical technology is to distort the truth COMPLETELY. If anything, they saw the pill as giving their male partners license to fool around with other females without having to risk any consequences – particularly the one of being found out!

Ask any man who was sexually active at the time which gender was more keen to use the pill, and you will soon discover that it was men, rather than women, who were MUCH more enthusiastic for the pill to be used.

In most cases, women had to be pressurised by their men into going on the pill. It was not something that women were eager to do. Indeed, for many of the earlier years, finding a young woman who was actually on the pill was tantamount to winning the lottery.

And, “Is she on the pill? Is she on the pill?” was just about the very first question that young men would want to know about your new girlfriend.

Most women, however, were simply too ‘ashamed’ to use the pill. They saw its use as a ‘sign of promiscuity’ – and so did many others. They were likely to be called ‘sluts’ by their very own mothers and their girlfriends if they were discovered to be ‘on the pill’, and men often, therefore, had a hard time convincing their female partners that the pill was, in fact, a ‘good idea’.

And those women who eventually grew brave enough to use the pill often hid the fact that they did.

Another reason that ordinary women remained reluctant to use the pill was because it was being so heavily advocated by feminists!

The last thing that most women in the early 70s wanted to do was to associate themselves in any way with a group of hostile unfeminine, unattractive women who squawked and shrieked and poured nothing but venom upon their menfolk.

It certainly wasn’t women or feminists who succeeded in encouraging women to use the pill to liberate themselves sexually. It was MEN who eventually persuaded their women to use the pill for the sake of their own sexual freedom.

Of course it was.

It has always been the case that men make up the gender wanting lots more sex, and it is women who tend to restrain it.

As the years went by, the pill became more and more acceptable to women.

It was also true that those women who were known to be on the pill were a lot more sought after by men. This is not surprising, for the same is true today. Women, therefore, began to go on the pill in order to make themselves more ‘available’ and, hence, more attractive.

I find it astonishing that feminists have, for so long, been able to get away with the lie that, somehow, they were the ones who led the way forward when it came to liberating women sexually. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, feminists actually retarded the sexual liberation of women because most women simply did not want to be seen to be like them.

Feminists repelled them.

And the vast majority of women, like the men, saw the ‘new’ feminists as unattractive, cold, hostile, and emotionally ‘genderless’.

Younger women today have been indoctrinated with the untruths that they were sexually liberated by feminists. Women like YOU, Jenny. The truth is that MEN sexually liberated themselves when they created and manufactured the pill, and, in doing so, they liberated those very women with whom they wanted to have sex.

And exactly the same happens today. It is young men who ‘persuade’ and cajole young women into liberating themselves sexually. It is young men who tempt and harass young women into performing.

Indeed, so forceful are some of these young men in their endeavours, that they end up in a whole lot of trouble!

And some even end up in prison.

It is absurd to believe that misandric feminists who can’t get along with men AT ALL actually encouraged women to become more sexually involved with them.

Think about it, Jenny. If feminists had truly had their way, young women would have isolated themselves in women-only covens shouting abuse at the men who passed by.

It’s pretty much what they do today.

And it is ludicrous to believe that the young men sat by, twiddling their knobs, waiting patiently for feminists to get women to ‘open up’.

When the pill came on to the market, it was the men who went in there, literally, like a shot.

They were desperately encouraging their women to take the pill – emotionally blackmailing them into doing so, pleading with them, at least, ‘to try it’, promising them a possible future marriage if they would, or threatening to leave them if they wouldn’t.

And, among themselves – whisper, whisper – was the ubiquitous question, “Is she on the pill? Is she on the pill?”. If not, her attractiveness plummeted, and their attentions were turned toward other girls on the dance floor who might be on the pill.

It was MEN who truly sexually liberated women because they were desperately sexually liberating themselves.

And, at the time, they had quite a hard time convincing women that sex without marriage was a positive thing for BOTH genders and, further, that women would not actually rot in Hell if they used sex as a means of enjoying themselves.

The pill allowed men and women to cuddle, stroke, suck and fuck each other, without the previously high likelihood of pregnancies, which almost invariably led to both parties having to commit themselves to each other – for life!

The pill liberated both the sexes in this respect.

But, as is usually case, it was men who did the liberating – and the women mostly followed their lead.

The feminist movement at the time did little but retard this progress by demonising men and poisoning the even closer relationships that were then developing between the genders.

And while the ‘Flower Power’ movements of the 60s with their ‘Make Love Not War’ slogans and demonstrations were impacting upon the authoritarianism of the government and of those in power in general, the ‘new’ feminists were busying themselves with stirring up a hatred between the ‘loving’ youths because, I imagine, they were simply too personally unattractive to be a part of it all.

And their growing vindictiveness toward the male gender quickly killed a movement that was bent on fostering “love and peace”, and it replaced it with one that promulgated an ideology based mostly on generating a hatred of men.

I hope you learned something valuable tonight, Jenny.

What happened, Jenny? I waited about 48 hours for you to respond to me last post, but you’re still a no-show. Not so tough now, are you?

That’s what I thought.

Instead of coming forth and giving me the credit for out-debating you, you retreat to having nothing to say. You love how you felt for the “win” you had over Andie (by the way, I agreed with what Andie said in your exchange with him), but hate how it feels when you get a taste of your own medicine, right? How does it feel to have your lunch handed to you?

Now you know how the feminists and their ideologies have mislead your for all your life. It feels great that you had opening your eyes to the truth. I bet the look on your face as you were reading my last post was priceless.

@Paul
Theres a whole lot of copying and pasting in your posts ( I didnt read em)

Paul, I was going to respond, please make no assumptions about me despite the time lag( I have different personal events going on in my life, it’s a little after 48hrs and I am here. No need to trip out.)
I appreciate the time you took to respond, however, I really have no interest in discussing feminism ( and yet you wrote a volume on it).My remark on men having to be right fell ONLY in the context of this page.I’m not over- generalizing about ALL men. I have nothing against men who are respectful and logical,and in reality, I mostly end up taking the man’s side over the woman’s. And the fact I mentioned about men’s brains being bigger than women’s was a fact I MYSELF looked up,out of self-interest because I have usually found myself one of the few( or only females) in my advanced math classes,and I was interested what could be the reason for it, not because some feminist brainwashed me with this fact.
Why have you said you ” out-debated” me, as if you’re trying to set an argument here, which you yourself started about a topic which doesn’t even apply to the arguments on this page?The only problem I had here was with the insults I received here that were all made against me for no good reason at all) Like I said, I proved Andie was contradicting himself. ( Yet you completely ignored this as if it was completely irrelevant, yet it was the main reason for me stating why I think “some” men ” on this site” always feel they have to be right )Yet, you turned this statement around and gave it a new meaning with implying that I am indoctrinated by some feminist ideology.
Out of consideration for your long post and to not completely dismiss your points( even though I have no interest in arguing feminism, since I do not consider myself a feminist, nor do I believe I said anything really to point out that I’m a “vehement” supporter of feminism)according to an article on-line, the census bureau reports that women make 75cents less than men for every dollar earned doing the “same” job:
http://debates.juggle.com/do-you-think-wage-disparity-between-men-and-women-still-exists
On a last note, sometimes people have faith in future technology to solve all problems.Like you said, men will end up solving the world’s problems. However, even though all problems appear they can be”fixed” ,nature can strike down any human being with its force and render any man completely powerless. Climate change, overpopulation are problems that developed countries face now and in the future. If over-population is not controlled and not more widely supported nature can annihilate everything left on this earth. Failure to enact policies about this problem can harm us more than this ” ludicrous” feminism ideology which you place so much emphasis on.

Jenny,

Why would you say that “some” men “on this site” feel the need to be right all the time? I mean, I read your reasons, but no matter how anyone slices it, that still interprets to the saying that you feel that all men feel the need to be right. Women for generations on end have said the same thing. I seriously doubt you would say (or complain) that WOMEN feel the need to be right all the time. Right? That’s true even if you got into a disagreement argument with another female here.

That quote was what prompted me to jump into this thread because I wasn’t going to let that comment sit there uncontested. If I show that quote to anyone (male or female) that person will think that you’re saying that all men feel the need to be right (as if it were a bad thing). It was YOU (remember) who started with the whole “women being ‘repressed’ (you meant to say oppressed)” and how women were “denied the right to vote until 1920″ stuff. That’s how all of that got to this point.

You don’t believe in feminist ideas? Awesome, Jenny! That’s cool! You have said at least three times that you are not a feminist. At least that much is clear. But yet you bring up the pay gap issue, the voting issue, and the contraceptive pill issue, all of which are synonymous as things that feminists rage about. All of which are distortions that they hoodwinked you into believing.

You probably don’t want to talk about feminists because if I did, I could say something that could shatter yet another MYTH that you believed in since you were a little girl. The things you say are linked to what feminists believe in and things that they continually say, so I have to bring them into the conversation.

And, yes, I agree with your last sentence of your last post. But, again, I bring up the feminists because of the things you say which are identical to the garbage THEY talk about.

This pay gap that “discriminates” against women does not exist. But there are many people that will tell you it does. Harriet Harmon, the UK’s Minister for Women regularly talks about this. She would say something like, “Men who work full time, still earn 40% more per hour than women who work part time.” In the 2004 US Presidential Debate, John Kerry also lied to everyone when he said, “Women work for 76 cents on the dollar for the same work that men do. That’s not right in America.”

Women are not paid less for doing the SAME work that men do. They are paid for doing DIFFERENT work.

I think this will be a problem for the rest of time because, apart from anything else, women mostly have to work part-time. I mean, let’s be realistic here and talk about what women can actually put into the workforce. Women who want to have children, or at least be at home with them some of the time, will NEVER be able to earn (or have the same earning capacities) as a man does. When you look at single women and married men, they do get paid equally. But it’s the women who are having children who are the ones having the trouble earning the same.

The reason John Kerry lied, is the same reason that Harmon lies. It’s for the female vote. If you tell women that they get paid less for doing the same work, and they’ll vote for you. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. The female vote tends to be the moving vote. If you go back to previous elections, you will see that men tend to stay fairly static. But it’s the female vote that shifts more dramatically then men’s. So if they can shift that female vote into their camp by telling females what they want to hear, they are in good shape of winning it. That’s how politics work.

What the pay gap actually describes, is the difference in choices that men and women make. And it also talks about their different abilities. Women earn less because they choose to do the easier jobs. And that’s what it boils down to. Should a man who can carry twenty bricks in his wheel barrow earn the same as a woman who can only carry ten? What’s the answer to that? If the man can carry twenty bricks, then throughout the course of the day he would’ve done twice as much as the female did. Therefore, the man might argue that he should earn twice as much as the woman. The woman will say that that isn’t fair because she isn’t physically able to carry as much load as the man does, therefore she’s done the same amount of work. The point is, is that if the man were to be paid twice as much as the woman, the woman would object. However, if they were paid the same amount, the woman would be happy, but they guy is going to argue that that’s not fair because he’s doing twice the amount of work. My point is, there is no solution. There is no amount of money where people will say, “That’s not fair.” So this is a question of balance. But there’s nowhere to put the balance, there’s nowhere to draw the line which will be agreed on by both sexes.

What aggravates me is that a man who wears a suit, or who does a more difficult job, will get paid more money than a woman who does an easier, more flexible job. In other words, the problem arises when the woman starts complaining (or women then start complaining) that because they chose the easier jobs, and that they’re getting paid less, that this a call for discrimination. For example, I think 89 or 90 percent of degrees in engineering go to men, whereas women tend to choose the more liberal studies.

Men Choose:

Chemistry
Physics
Math
Computing
Engineering

Women Choose:

Psychology
Sociology
Women’s Studies
Dance
Geography

The consequence is that men end up with more high-paying jobs because they are doing jobs that are in greater demand and these jobs have to pay more. Women can also do those jobs, but they CHOOSE not to do so. And yet, they are forever complaining that they get paid less then men. It is their CHOICES that are resulting in these outcomes.

An illustration of the choices people make is when Canada tried to introduce “comparable worth” into all government jobs in the 1990s. Feminists were complaining that male construction workers were being paid a lot more than female office cleaners. So Canada set a policy for all goverment contracts. In other words, the cleaners should be paid the same as construction workers.

What happened?

Men saw that they could get the same money cleaning an office as opposed to breaking their backs in the streets in all weathers. Men applied to become cleaners. By the bunches. Women, on the other hand, didn’t become construction workers because they didn’t want to, and they couldn’t do the work even if they tried. If women don’t want to work waist-deep in mud or having their nails broken by bricks and things like that, then why should they go into the construction business?

As a result, there was sudden huge shortage of construction workers, and a huge surplus of office cleaners. Therefore, due to basic market forces, the salaries of construction workers went up, and the salaries for cleaners went down. And so men went back to construction. The plan to tackle the pay gap proved to be a failure by Canada.

Men tend to earn more than women for various reasons. The reasons are painfully obvious when you stop to think about it. In construction, as a great example, workers put in twelve hour shifts for two weeks straight (they take several days off at a time before going back for another two weeks. That’s how it generally is with them). Women don’t want to do those sort of jobs. They want nice jobs, easy jobs, pleasant jobs. Every job in the construction industry holds hidden dangers. Women don’t want that. In construction, crushed hands, broken bones. Women don’t want jobs where they will have to take those risks. Construction can even lead to death. Women don’t want any part of that.

You often hear in the news about lawsuits being filed against these big corporations that claims that they pay women by as much as 50% less than their male collegues for doing the same work.

The SAME work?

Men will typically work more intensively, work more hours, do more overtime and make more of a sacrifice for their jobs. In other words, if you produce more, you get paid more. Men are typically the ones who are producing more. Men are always going to choose the jobs that pay more. These jobs are generally harder, more dangerous, and more unpleasant. But men will do them for the payment. Once again, with construction (ESPECIALLY if they work on skyscrapers), the risks are high, but so is the money. That can pay you about $100,000 for six months work.

You see, women don’t have that pressure to earn as much because to this day, society does not expect them to support a family. To the extent that women are looking for a high-status male, you would expect men to be higly motivated to compete against one another for status. You don’t expect that kind of motivation from women, however, because men are not choosing women on that basis. In order to attract a high-value mate, men have to compete against other men for status and this translates directly into men contesting each other for positions in organizations. There is no parallel for women.

Of the minority of women who do have an interest in climbing oranizations, their motivation to do so is not to compete for the status that organizational position provide men, but merely to be close to and in the path of high status men.

Women PREFER to have men who have more status than they do.

There was one time where it was thought that the reason women go for men with money is because women don’t have money of their own (in other words, not as much money as men do). With that, women were (in essence) forced to get with guys like that. As it turns out, even if women were financially dependent, they were STILL looking for men who have more money than they do. The man who loses this competition might end up with nothing or dead, whereas women who loses the competition ends up with the Beta male. So you expect men to be more competitive, more aggressive, more risk taking in pursuit of the grand prize.

That’s why women get to choose easier work with less pay because there’s generally a man supporting her who’s doing harder work with higer pay.

She is not oppressed. HE is.

Jenny, I really hope you understand what I’m trying to say here.

Yes,I understand Paul what you are trying to say.I appreciate all your information.
However, I just wanted to point out that I did not start the feminism ideology debate. My remarks about contraceptives,voting, and the pay gap issue were mostly responsive remarks to your question and explanations so I can prove that there were some women speaking up in trying to be right on issues.Remember your beginning question was,:Why do women never feel like they have to be right about anything?
Well, at least the feminists( even though they were two-faced) put an effort in trying to do so.
However, regarding the past, there were probably other females( who weren’t feminists) who were most likely repressed from speaking up because they were viewed as idiots ( I wouldnt go so far to say that they were idiots, but yes, as you said, they were mentally inferior to men as their job was in the home and they did choose to do the less mentally demanding jobs)
And honestly, no, I would complain if women felt they had the need to be right about everything on this site and if they were unreasonable about it. But, as you can see on this page and other pages, no female here was arguing with me in a rude manner nor were they calling me vulgar words, like the males here were.
I wouldn’t go so far as to saying that feminism was really destructive has the potential to destroy society, because what has feminism really accomplished that has allowed it to do so? To you, it has politically swayed sides favoring women. Is that really a bad thing? It has also imprinted arguments like the pay gap,contraceptives,and voting into female minds. However, how is that really going to damage the world? I still agree that men have advanced more than women and will continually to do so. If I don’t see a pay-gap inequality in my workplace between a male and female scientist, I’m not going to make one up and complain about it. Women comprise mostly the planned parenthood organizations that give out contraceptives, yet I still am grateful for the men who probably invented the modern pill. I will still be grateful for the men who structured this country politically and made everything run. I will never hate all men, and I will probably be forever grateful for them for the good they have done, so if it was a feminist’s mission to for me to hate them, they failed. However, that is not going to prevent me from pointing out * some* of men’s mistakes, especially when it is done in a condescending and unreasonable way to a female.

You would complain if women felt that they had the need to be right (even if they were unreasonable about it)? I’m not buying that. You singled out men with that statement you made. Had you said, “Why do YOU (meaning Andie, since the two of you were going back and forth) feel to be right all the time?” Do you see the world of difference that would’ve made? Inadvertently (or purposefully), you told him how you feel about men in general.

Your remarks on contraceptives, voting, and pay gap were wrong on many fronts, and I had the need to correct you on how those issues really operate.

You said, ” I wouldn’t go so far as to saying that feminism was really destructive has the potential to destroy society, because what has feminism really accomplished that has allowed it to do so? To you, it has politically swayed sides favoring women. Is that really a bad thing? It has also imprinted arguments like the pay gap, contraceptives, and voting into female minds. However, how is that really going to damage the world?”

Jenny, I have given you blueprints on how these women lied to you and to all of their gullable followers for years on end. Yet, you still come back and talking their type on nonesense. For a second there I thought this conversation was going to come to an end, but it appears that you still need a little more work.

Jenny, there is strong evidence that shows that feminism is a significant casual factor when it comes to serious violence, assault, domestic violence, sexual assault, robbery, child abuse, drug abuse, teenage pregnancies, poverty, poor educational standards, prostitution, pedophilia, harassment, bad manners, traffic congestion, pollution, terrorism, vandalism, burglary, murder, teenage delinquency, road rage, alcoholism, other addictions, hooliganism, depression, gender conflict, hysteria, stress, serious health problems such as heart disease and cancer, greater disablement among children – both psychological and physical – with millions killed while in the womb, AIDS, the judicial punishment of innocent individuals, the poor educational achievements of boys, the growing prison population, family breakdown, the increasing alienation of men, the corruption of the justice system and the democratic process, the corrosion of academic integrity, the degradation of the social sciences and the law, poor public services, the impoverishment of pensioners and the looming pension crisis, excessive immigration, long hospital waiting lists, hostile rap music, high taxation rates, the terrible shock now being experienced by thousands of women who are discovering that they are too old to have children, and, almost unbelievably, global warming.

Feminism and political correctness have been the two most influential ideologies in the west for almost 40 years. What else, therefore, would you suggest has had the most influence with regard to the serious societal problems mentioned in the list above? – the problems that almost everyone claims to be so concerned about.

What would you suggest has had the most influence on these things?

Huh?

A recent mutation in everybody’s chromosomes?

Get real!

There are no other hugely influential ideological forces in western societies that could be responsible for the serious problems mentioned above.

There are STRONG connections between feminism and all of the above very serious ills.

ALL OF THEM!

And it does not take much in the way of intelligence to see these connections.

Furthermore, not only is feminism hugely destructive to any societies that follow it, but in the end, such societies will be washed away and completely over-run by those wherein women prefer to stay at home and have children.

In short, feminism is an ideology that promotes SELF-EXTINCTION.

It is a cultural and RACIAL suicide pill.

It has no hope of succeeding.

It has no hope of surviving.

And it is going to cause huge problems to western societies as they slowly continue to decay and decline under its malign and destructive influences.

Finally, women are forever being INDOCTRINATED with the view that feminism has brought them great benefits.

It has done NO such thing. Zero such things. That’s captiol Z, captiol E, capital R, capital O. ZERO.

It has done NONE of the things you brought up, Jenny.

NONE.

Feminism has retarded the progress of both men and women in very many important areas of their lives.

It is science, technology and medicine that have brought western women the freedoms that they currently enjoy. NOT FEMINISM. I mean, didn’t we go through that part aleady? (Go back to post #80 of this thread to re-learn it in you didn’t.)

And even in these most important of areas – so absolutely crucial to our well-being – feminism has had hugely detrimental impacts – the massive educational under-achievements of boys being just one of these.

Do women really think that they can ever benefit from such things?

I could go on and on and on and on to make my point clearer, but I’m going to stop right here for now.

I love this conversation we’re having Jenny. I can see that we’re trying to come to a truce here, but this is going to be so hard to acheive if we continue to not see eye to eye on how disgusting and how vile feminism really is.

Wow. I came back here just to see if you guys finally grew up and moved on with your lifes and stopped arguing but of course you still are. Like you guys are pathetic talking about the stupidest shit ON A MEGAN FOX SITE. wow you two are pathetic!!!

@( doesntmatter)
Calling people pathetic while you yourself hide behind a moniker doesn’t make you look any better.

@Paul, there are many sites I go on, in which I defend Megan Fox, where numerous jealous, illogical females spew all kind of garbage on her like, she had botox, rhinoplasty,she’s a whore etc etc. They always believe they are right, until I ask them one simple question : do you have any proof? In which they don’t and therefore lack any evidence to support their claims.So, yes, I actually do argue a lot with females who act like they know everything when they don’t.Which proves I’m not sexist, I don’t hate men, and I *do* have problems when women feeling like they have to be right about something when they are unreasonable about it.
And no, I don’t believe I only singled out men because I made that remark after Andie and Mc15 something called me some offensive names and were being rude to me.
Also, remember what you said about women:” Only a woman could put a negative connotation on being right”. What sounds more sexist to you? This remark or mine?
I don’t think I was really wrong with what I said about the three feminist issues. I mean it’s true that women didn’t have a right to vote until the 1920′s in the U.S.Yes,I didn’t give the reasons why like you did, but I don’t believe every woman out there before the 1920′s was uneducated and had children,yet they were still denied the right to vote. There were many political decisions that were made in this country really that made no sense whatsoever, just like segregation.
Regarding contraceptives..the founder of planned parenthood was a woman. The inventor of the modern pill could have been a man, but the clinics today are run solely by women. So, women,(seem like it) spread contraceptives more than men( even though men are so enthusiastic about them)
And regarding the pay gap issue..I tried searching the census bureau under statistical data and couldn’t find the numbers to prove that women make the same as men in regards to having the same job.So, I guess that issue is questionable, unless if you can find the numbers to prove it.
I wanted to ask you a brief question, how exactly is feminism contributing to global warming?? The petermann glacier( one of Greenland’s second largest glacier) just broke off yesterday and you would argue that this is because of feminism??
Worldwide population is increasing by the year. It’s supposed to cap at about 9.5billion soon. As far as I know, worldwide population increase( which shows an upward trend) causes global warming ( which translates into women having more children, using more fossil fuels.. which would defeat the feminist “destructive” ideology of birth control. So, really, how are feminists responsible for global warming?? ( i know in some countries, population is decreasing, but as a worldwide whole, it is increasing)
Also, I almost never come across modern feminists right now,why’s that if they are so destructive and socially permeable?

Hi, Jenny.

Nice to see you respond and it’s nice getting the chance to talk to you again.

First, since I’m writing another long piece, I don’t think I’ll have the time or patience to get to the pay gap issue today. I will address your concerns on pay gap next time in great detail. Second, even though it’s a long piece, I used up the time to talk about the global warming issue, the voting rights (which I really, REALLY want you to pay attention to because I get quite poetic there) and…

Megan Fox.

Before I get to her, let’s get to the quote that has made me famous. In your last post, you said, “Also, remember what you said about women:” Only a woman could put a negative connotation on being right”. What sounds more sexist to you? This remark or mine?”

Yes, I did make that comment. But remember, that was after you said that men feel the need to be right all the time. That doesn’t sound sexist to you? Well, it does to anyone else reading that. And also, I did go on to say, “The need to feel that one is right about things is in fact an entirely noble feeling, **so long as it is accompanied by a conscience and a willingness to concede error when it’s pointed out.**” Now, I know I said that, but I don’t know if you ever read that part.

Now about Megan. You want people to show some proof that she never had botox or rhinoplasty or whatever else. I can easily turn this around and answer that question with a question. What proof do you have that she DIDN’T have breast enlargments and what have you? Why, because she never admitted to it? How many actresses deny ever having had something done to them that unnaturally enhanced their beauties? A lot, I would suppose. Yes, Jenny, I, too, think that most of those comments come from jealous bithces who secretly want to trade bodies with her. That’s not what I’m arguing. What I’m saying is that perhaps if these stupid interviewers start GRILLING her with questions about her having any of those things done, it’ll be very interesting to see how she reacts. At her premiere of Jonah Hex, you can clearly see that she did something to her face. All she had to do was wait for the swelling to do down.

On to something else now.

You know that there’s an unprecedented amount of attention given to the issue of global warming. Scientists, politicians and the media have been positively deluging us with information about the matter.

In short, there is a huge wave of concern being spread across the nation about global warning and about the need for people to cut down on their energy consumption. And all manner of things are being suggested to achieve this aim. Cutting down car use, fitting energy-saving bulbs, insulating the roof, buying local produce to save transporting goods. On and on it goes.

And we are also told that about 50% of the greenhouse gases that we produce come not from businesses and factories, but from our own households and our cars.

And also, for example, we are told that the UK is going to have to build 5 million more new houses over the next decade in order to accommodate people’s housing needs, with some 60% of this 5 million being accounted for by the fact that more people are living alone.

And yet, NOT ONCE, have I heard a politician of ANY country, or a scientist, or a media journalist even suggest that encouraging people to live together rather than apart might be a good idea.

Not once.

Now, I want you to think VERY carefully about this.

1. According to much current opinion hitting the airwaves, global warming is the biggest challenge of the new century, and it presents serious dangers to the entire planet. And it is not just the politicians and the media saying this. There are thousands of scientists saying the very same thing.

2. One of the most effective ways of reducing the greenhouses gases in our own countries is, clearly, to encourage people to share their living space with someone else rather than living alone; e.g. by getting married.

3. No one mentions this.

Tell me. What enormous forces could possibly be silencing so many people on such an important issue?

Well, you already know the answer. It is simply not permissible to oppose feminist ideology. To do so is to invite obscurity and intimidation of some sort.

I can already hear the usual type of wailing from various women’s groups. “To encourage people to live together will mean that women will feel obliged to remain with their violent partners,” they will cry. “Do you not care for these abused women and children!?” they will charge.

Etc etc etc etc etc etc.

Furthermore, feminism is about breaking up people’s close relationships, not endorsing them. And so feminists will oppose anything that will likely achieve the opposite to this. It is a very powerful force. And this is why one of the most obvious strategies to reduce greenhouse gases does not even get discussed.

Indeed, the entire planet can go to hell as far as feminists are concerned. There is only one common denominator that underpins the various policies and pronouncements endorsed by feminists, and this is a HATRED of men. This hatred overrides EVERYTHING else. NOTHING else explains the patterns of what they have said and done over the years.

Indeed, when you understand that a hatred of men is the very HEART of feminism – the very CORE – the driving FORCE – just about everything that feminists say and do falls into place. Everything that they say and do makes sense.

And nothing must be permitted to stand in the way of this hatred. The costs to everyone else – financial, social, psychological, medical, meteorological etc, simply do not matter. And these costs are truly astronomical – e.g. as per my comments the last time I posted here.

And this is why there is silence on the matter of encouraging more people to live together in order to decrease our greenhouse gases. Nothing, not even the prospect of worldwide catastrophe, must stall the feminist agenda.

You, of course, might think that I am crazy. If so, then perhaps you can come up with some more credible explanations for the silence.

Of course, part of this silence will be caused by the fact that feminists and wailing women’s groups have, over the years, successfully hypnotised most of the population into a mindless acceptance of their perverse and bankrupt points of view, and so it never actually dawns on most people that feminism and global warming are, in fact, linked.

But, surely, there are thousands of scientists and clever people out there who are so concerned about this issue that they do, indeed, recognize this link.

But why do we not hear them saying so?

Well, the answer is feminism – and, of course, political correctness. This combination of thoroughly destructive ideologies exerts the most monumental of forces. And these forces block out what feminists do not want people to hear – and, hence, think.

So, to you Jenny, please watch all the experts and the pundits on global warming, and monitor whether or not they ever mention that the strategy of encouraging people to live together could reduce energy consumption significanty.

I’ll stop right here for now on this issue.

Now, on to the voting issue.

You, and feminists alike, keep saying, “Hey, women at one time weren’t allowed to vote. That’s oppression!”

Well, Jenny, no it is NOT. And you have to look of how history went in America to prove it.

You see, in the beginning almost no one could vote. It was a right reserved for a **FEW** older **WHITE** men who owned land, which left almost ALL MEN, and a lot of other people, out of the picutre. This doesn’t say anything particulary special about women. So if this constituted oppresssion, then it meant that nearly EVERYONE was oppressed. Maybe the early Americans didn’t catch onto that one because they were too busy celebrating their newfound freedom.

Anyway, as time passed, because men of good value wrote an amazing constitution, voting rights were expanded to other groups. First to men who didn’t own land, and, later, to other ethnic groups, then still later to women. Then we go further down to where the voting age was lowered, bringing another large group of people into the fold. And today, we’re even debating the voting rights of illegal aliens. Formely opporessed hamsters may be next. And we should consider (though feminists don’t want us to) that there was something of a tradeoff for women regarding the vote. Such as exclusion from combat and men being compelled to turn over the fruit of their labors, and be willing to die for women at the drop of a hat. Perhaps it wasn’t a fair tradeoff, especially for the men. But proof of women’s oppresion? Please! Comedians pay for mateiral that isn’t NEARLY this funny!

The same was true for owning land. Plenty of women weren’t allowed to, for a while anyway. It probably had something to do with the fact that men had to have land in order to build women’s homes. And perhaps they figured that men, who were EXPECTED to face bullets in order to protect that land, might be better, even more deserving keepers of it. Who knows what insanties plagued us before feminism restored us to reason?

Whatever the reasons, those rules weren’t long-lived. Besides, not owning land was pretty much soften by that fact that women can choose men to provide it for them through an oppressive institution of marriage, and the fatal-centric, lineared thinking, alleged tyrants that they married.

I know the older rules for men. Such as: work hard and take care of your woman, be prepared to lay down your life for her, watch your mouth in the precense of a lady, offer her your seat (even if she’s a stranger), the same applies for opening doors and lighting smoke, disrespect her and risk being beaten, touch her in the wrong way and you’re a dead man. This isn’t the way oppressed people are treated. Right? But we do have another word for those fortunate enough to benifit from these kinds of standards: Roaylty.

We didn’t coin the term “princess” for women without a good reason. With a few trivial exceptions, this has always been the Gold Standard for the treatment of women. The fact that this is beginning to change, that men are starting to put on the breaks about doing a lot of things out of the cause of chivalry, is just another example of feminism shooting women in the foot.

Accidents happen, especially self-inflicted wounds to people that play with guns when they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.

Still, I have to hand it to feminists and their capacity to spin a wild yarn. Taking a privileged class of people and convincing the world that they were picked on was a masterful piece of skuldurrery. But it was only successful because the mandate for men in western culture has always been to give women whatever they want without much question. Otherwise, the plethora of feminist ideas would’ve buckled under the REALLY oppressive weight of unchecked dishonesty.

Nonetheless, our unhealthy enabling of them set the stage for women to pass up men in EVERY aspect of life. Women are now getting more educated then men, and they also have most of the jobs. Nothing suggest that this is going to do anything but favor women even MORE in the future.

All of this from idealology that resigned in a house of cards that only remains standing because the wind itself has been scared out of blowing it down.

I would offer the feminists my kudos for shrewd work in a job well done. But winning a race is always easy when you have one foot already across the finish line and everyone else pretends not to notice.

I have one question for you. If you like, if you want to respond to what I said, perhaps you can email me at paul_to_jesse@yahoo.com and we can continue our debate that way. If you have no desire to communicate with me that way, then I’ll wait for you to respond here and we can continue talking this way.

Once again, nice debating you.

Let me make a correction on a small mistake. Towards the end I said, “Taking a privileged class of people and convincing the world that they were picked on was a masterful piece of skuldurrery.”

I meant to say skulduggery.

I think we are coming here to a closing truce Paul… And yes, I do agree with the majority of your points in your last post. I leaned a lot from this debate, and thank you for the time you spend here writing back and backing up your points.
Regarding Megan, however, I would have to argue if she really did went under the knife she would be locked in the house for a month due to swelling,redness, and overall sensitivity to the sun. But, you are right about the Jonah Hex premier photos..I did suspect some type of cosmetic procedure there. However, I don’t believe it was plastic surgery for the above reasons, rather it looks like she received cheek and lip fillers and microdermabrasion.. I agree though the interviewers should start asking what she does gets done, and I’m very surprised they haven’t grilled her on it yet.
Ok, so I see the correlation you are making between feminism and it’s link to global warming. Yes, it is true, I haven’t yet heard politicians proposing the idea of living together more as a solution to global warming. And I do see that the divorce rate is climbing higher, however, what I don’t understand is, why is it that women haven’t completely abandoned men if feminists indoctrinated them to hate them so much? Rather, statistics point out to a huge population increase.
Perhaps, the only reason, for the silencing on the issue of marriage and cohabiting is because the right of being divorced and not being tied down to only 1 person in a relationship or/marriage is undergoing social expansion similarly to the social expansion of rights regarding voting, minorities, gays..? Perhaps society is growing a social tolerance for it more, as much as it is accepting the liberation of other social ideas.
Also, although feminism can be blamed for global warming in the way you pointed out, I think it is important for politicians to focus on sustainability codes and stabilizing atmospheric concentrations. I think it is important if couples move in together, however, for the most part they will be living independent lifestyles(unless if they are retired). However, as seen in the Kyoto Protocol, a lot of developed nations refused to adopt the required atmospheric concentration cuts.. For example, the Department of Energy here in the U.S even stated that countries could achieve most of their Kyoto cut requirements at no Net costs, however, that would required removing market barriers to energy efficient technologies, which they stubbornly refuse to do.

Jenny,

I’m glad to learn that you have enjoyed this debate as much as I have. As much as we were at each other’s throat throughout the entire thing, I know that you have grown into giving me a lot of respect for really challenging you and pushing you to the limit by giving your side of the argument a run for its money. It turned into some sort of drug addiction for you to shut me up, only to find that I kept coming back, pushing you some more to bring out the best in you.

First on Megan. The closest anyone has come to questioning her on what she might’ve had done, was on the issue of W(?) magazine. The same issue in which she graced the front cover. She was asked what advice she has for young women who are thinking about getting plastic surgery. She said something along the lines of advising the girls to consult with the doctor to see if it’s the right move to make. Again, I’m paraphrasing her. That issue came out a few months ago.

I have two sets of pictures to show you (in the same link). The first set of pictures are of Megan at the 2007 MTV Movie Awards. The other is from a photoshoot that she as a part of in 2008. Examine closely at her tits. You’ll see that the 2007 pics show her tits that are sagging, almost flat chested, I suppose. In the photoshoot, you can tell that there’s a change in her cup size.

http://www.imagebam.com/gallery/dcvkx99quivshl6xqt7balvh2k3j9rxn/

Just look at the first picture from the photoshoot, compare it to picture to its left, as an example. If Megan Fox on the left picture can push up her tits in a way as to seduce a man, there’s NO WAY it’s going to look as firm and round as you see in the picture of the right. I don’t want to hear anyone say that her breasts grew naturally. If your breasts are like the ones from the award show, it’s going to stay that way unless you have a doctor to fix that problem for you.

I’m going to give credit to a member of this forum who showed these pictures as comparisons to someone else during a little argument he has with a female as to whether she (Megan) had breast implants. He didn’t show as many pictures as I did, but they were from the same settings.

Even if Megan from 2007 had a push-up bra on, they still won’t look as round and nice as you see them in the photoshoot.

So tell me, Jennifer, I’m curious as to what these pictures tell you?

You asked a good question regarding why females haven’t completely abandoned men if feminists poison the female mind to hate men. I think it’s because a lot of people just want to get married because it’s the “right” thing to do. If you plan on going skydiving, and an expert tells you that in the history of skydiving, only half of the parachutes have been known to not open, you say, “Fuck that shit, I’m not doing it!” The divorce rate is right around the 50% point. But, there’s something about marriage that makes people want to do it.

Despite what feminists say, women love men, and they love hot sex from men, right Jenny? But for many couples, things can go wrong and the couple splits up.

On the issue of global warming, you said, “Perhaps, the only reason, for the silencing on the issue of marriage and cohabiting is because the right of being divorced and not being tied down to only 1 person in a relationship or/marriage is undergoing social expansion similarly to the social expansion of rights regarding voting, minorities, gays..?”

Great points to make. They are ideas that are not far fetched, not beyond the realms of reason. But what tops those reason is one word: feminism. Here’s something that I want to make as simple as possible.

1. We are told that global warming is the most important issue of our times. The entire well-being of the planet is dependent upon how much effort we put into reducing our carbon emissions. This global warming is, allegedly, so important that billions of dollars and a huge amount of human energy must now be expended every year in order to counter it.

2. One of the very best ways to reduce our carbon emissions is to live together rather than to live apart. By living together people can save on heating, transport, wastage and living space. Traffic congestion and pollution would be reduced enormously and time spent travelling would be cut. And so on.

Like I said in my last post, 1.5 million new houses need to be built in the UK just because of the tendency for people to live alone these days.

3. So why is it that whenever the global warming issue is discussed in the mainstream you never hear the politicians talking about policies that would encourage people to live together? We hear talk about just about everything else to do with cutting our carbon emissions, but not about policies designed to encourage people to get married or to live together.

If global warming is the most important issue of our times, then why, in connection with this issue, are the mainstream media and the government not promoting polices that would encourage marriage?

It doesn’t make sense – until, that is, you realize that there is a very powerful group of dysfunctional people – feminists – whose main aim is to encourage family breakdown. No way are they going to allow politicians to encourage marriage; specifically heterosexual marriage.

I know that it sounds crazy, but it is true.

For example, the feminists will say, “Oh no, you must not encourage marriage – because “marriage oppresses women” – and what about those poor vulnerable women who are forever being abused? We must not do anything that reduces their chances of escaping.”

And the politicians and the media know this feminist tactic very well. And if they upset the media feminists by suggesting that marriage should be encouraged, they will be hit very hard by them via the media.

The politicians are terrified of these selfish dysfunctional man-hating women, because they have learned over the years just how nasty they can be.

If you look at the following speech by Gordon Brown on global warming, you will see him talking about introducing a whole raft of measures to try to reduce it – all the way from plastic bags, to windfarms, loft insulation, efficient biofuels; in fact, loads and loads of complicated things and numerous laws to encourage people and businesses to be greener.

But he says absolutely nothing when it comes to encouraging people to get married or to live together.

Nothing.

Here’s the link: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page13791

(I don’t expect you to read the whole thing tonight, or if you ever read the entire thing at all. But if you do get a chance, you’ll see that he never made such a mention.)

How can it possible be that one of the best ways to reduce carbon emissions is not even mentioned?

After all, our whole planet is at stake!

Allegedly, at least.

Keep asking yourself why a policy that could help very significantly with such an allegedly important problem does not even get a mention by Gordon Brown.

Well, the main aims of feminists are to stir up hatred towards men and to break apart as much as possible people’s close relationships.

And they will allow nothing to get in the way of these main aims.

Indeed, the huge negative effects of family breakdown and fatherlessness on our societies and our children is also well-documented and very visible. But feminists will still fight viciously against anything that increases the chances of close heterosexual relationships forming and/or succeeding.

And, of course, pwople like Gordon Brown just love to promote as much crime and societal disharmony as possible, so no way are they going to recommend policies that might reduce such things.

In other words, as far as they are concerned, our children and our planet can go to Hell. Their Number One priority remains at the very top of the agenda; to encourage relationships to break down.

And now I have a question for you.

Do you really think that Gordon Brown and his communist friends in power cannot see the connections between carbon emissions, wastage, pollution, traffic congestion etc etc and the tendency for people to live apart?

Do you really think that they do not realize that family breakdown and fatherlessness cause a multitude of very serious problems to millions of people? – with so many of these damaging problems being lifelong for them.

Do you really think that they remain unaware of the hundreds of billions of dollars and of the huge resources that the country has had to expend over the years in order to try to counter all these problems?

Of course they can see these things.

So why do they say and do nothing about them?

And the answer is this.

They benefit from all these problems.

And this is why they are also forever promoting policies that both cause and exacerbate these problems.

Gordon Brown and his cronies are no different from all those financiers and bankers who have caused a worldwide economic crisis. They are just as greedy and just as morally corrupt. They are of the same ilk. They do not care two hoots how much harm they cause to others so long as they, themselves, benefit.

And this is why Gordon Brown will say that global warming is the most important issue of our times but, yet, he will not introduce certain policies that could address this issue very significantly.

What he will do, however, is to use the issue of global warming to increase the power of the state – i.e. his own power and that of his cronies.

Look at his speech.

The US feels that the Kyoto Protocol isn’t necessary, or that it demands to much or that it does very little. They must feel that way since it’s the only country in the world to not ratify the deal (I *think* the other developed nations have signed in). I don’t think President Bush did much of anything to have the country lend a supporting hand into this protocol. I think the effects of the lack of support while George was in power is still being carried over into the current administration.

Switching topics real quick, I must promise myself to address the pay gap issue with you again in the very near future. I don’t have the time right now. You talked about it recently, and I feel that I must answer your comments on them.

In all, I can see us coming to a truce. It has been a heated and highly contested debate. I wanted to give you the other side of the story as a way to get you thinking and to get your juices flowing. I wanted to provoke you, and get under your skin a little bit.

Jenny, in the comments I made, I made you do something that not a lot of kids do when someone tells them a story. I made you question it. I told you things that, at first, you did not want to take at face value. Because these went against the things you believed in, and the things that have been reminded to you over and over throughout the course of your life. When feminism told you that you of how men were oppressing women, you bought into it WITHOUT questioning it because what they said seemed to make a whole lot of sense. But getting a better understanding of how THEY are the onces deceiving the female gender, made you question and challenge me. I love that. And you provoked me by doing so. But it was all in the name of respecting coming to a better understanding of each other.

You keep questioning, you get answers. And that’s exactly what happened between the two of us.

I’ll get to the pay gap issue in a few days, as I will be busy doing other things. You should hear from me by Sunday. Until then, it was such a wonderful exercise challenging and pushing each other. I know you love a good challenge. And you are a better person for having met your match.

Enjoy your weekend!

Paul,I wanted to mention that I think we demonstrated that arguments can be passive and insightful without the need to be condescending, rude, and violent.
Yes, Megan has mentioned that statement in Allure.
I wanted to show you a website I made, however, to compare the issue of breast augmentation: (under gallery)
http://mfoxpictures.webs.com/

Being a female, I know how bustiers can alter the change of your breasts dramatically. The picture of her in the pink dress lacks any bustier backing from underneath the breast line, therefore I don’t know if it’s fair to compare her breast size over the years to a picture that was taken in 2007. I’ve included pictures of Lady Gaga that demonstrate the same point. The first pic. shows Lady Gaga (sorry if it’s disturbing!) of Lady Gaga’s sagging boobs without any bustier( this is a picture taken a few days ago) and then the latter picture shows Lady Gaga’s boobs with a bustier( taken about a month ago) and notice the difference in breast size.
I’ve read the whole article you’ve linked to, and yes, it is possible that Brown might be hiding beneath his speech. The article though has reminded me of other countries like China and I believe Japan, which have discussed various bills concerning Climate Change, yet failed to live up to their vigourous carbon cut stances.
What I meant by developing nations failing to adopt the cuts was that after the U.S backing out of the Kyoto Protocol, developed nations only voluntary aimed to cutting carbon emissions.
Ok, Paul, I will be waiting for you to discuss the pay gap issue. Please take your time! :)

Hi, Jenny.

Yes, in our arguments, we have fed off of each other with the goal of coming to a better understanding of what’s going on in the world. That’s the nature of things when two opposing sides are competitive. It’s quite addicting, actually. It’s a little high you get when you post your arguments, thinking that the other person cannot possibly out-do what you just said. I also get a high when I have you up against a wall with something I said. The stronger high kicks in when you come back with a counter argument and I feel as if I have to put your back up against the wall again and make sure that you’re constrained there. All in the name of playful banter. It’s fun to see you try to fight out of the grip and free yourself from the wall.

Now, it’s time for me to make some fantastic points in regard to the pay gap issue. It’s now time for another episode of the Biggest Secrets FINALLY Revealed.

Before I get to the pay gap thing, let’s talk Megan for a minute. Jenny, I will go as far as to say that I’m just about 100% convinced that she had her breasts tampered with. Jenny, the pictures I showed were taken a year apart. Those pictures in the photoshoot were taken in 2008. To me, there’s a noticeable difference in size. The reason people are in denial about this is because Megan didn’t go from a size A to a size H after one appointment with the doctor. She had a little upgrade. And you know, Jenny, they say that the smallest things can make a huge difference. I say that because if you look at those 2007 pics where she was at the MTV Movie Awards, her breasts are sagging. If she stayed with that look, there’s NO WAY that FHM would’ve named her the Sexiest Woman in the World. No guy will look at those pictures and think she’s the hottest thing going, or at least someone who has the potential of topping that list.

Hollywood is competition. Some actresses will have to get under the knife to keep young and/or to upgrade their looks. Trust me, Jenny, Megan had something done to her face at least twice before the Jonah Hex premiere, her lips are made to look more dick suckable. Nobody can sit there and tell me with a straight face that Megan never had anything done to any part of her body. The people who say this are like the referees in professional wrestling who argue that if they didn’t see it, then it never happened. In essence, this is what’s happening here. Just because Megan never admitted to it doesn’t mean that she never did it. And let’s remember, Megan has yet to deny any rumors that she’s had breast implants.

In my last post, I also took the fact that she didn’t have a bra in that 2007 event into consideration. Jenny, you must look at the pictures I posted in my last post when I compared Megan in those two settings. In the photoshoot, if Megan took that top off, her tits will not sag to the floor in the way you see in the 2007 pictures. Remember, these pictures were taken a year apart from each other. There’s no way that any girl is going to go from point A to point B in a year’s time all naturally. When breasts look like Megan’s in the 2007 pics, they’re going to stay sagging forever, unless you go under the knife.

The smallest things can make a world of difference because had it not been for that procedure, she would not have been named Sexiest Woman in the World. No woman who has breasts like the ones you see in those 2007 pics can be named the world’s sexiest. No way, Jenny. If Megan undressed in front of me and her tits sag at her age of 24 (if that’s how old she is), I will be disgusted! No girl with tits like that can be named the sexiest woman on the planet. Also, had she not gone under the knife, she would easily be looked over for parts in movies. The directors will replace her with someone who has firmer breasts.

I checked your site, Jenny. The two pictures you have of Megan ( http://mfoxpictures.webs.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=95155946 ). These comparisons further make my point that she had something done. In the top picture, if Megan took her top off, there is no way on Earth that they will sag like the way you see it in the bottom pic. If Megan at the bottom picture had put on a top, it will never look as good as you see it in the top pic. Megan’s tits are round, firm, and gravity defying. Not that I have a problem with that. What I have a problem is the people who are in denial about this.

Her career depends on how hot she looks. There’s no way that she would survive or be as popular as she is today had it not been for that doctor’s appointment.

It was a small increase, but it made a world of difference.

Now onto the pay gap. Get ready to get your panties dripping wet because I’m about to blow the lid off this thing.

Jenny, when it comes to this issue, you have been deliberately deceived and made angry for your vote.

All the fighting is predicated on the notion that women earn less than men do for the same work. Depending on who you listen to, the actual numbers vary. Back in the 70′s, feminists wore “59 Cents” pins to protest the fact that women earn 59 cents for every dollar earned by a man. They also protested the glass ceiling, claiming that women were shut off from the highest rungs of the professional ladder. The stats are ALMOST right. Men do earn more than women. But that surface reality is clarified when you take a deeper look into the pond. The numbers are based on a raw average of men’s and women’s income. Thus, a female receptionist who works 40 hours a week has her income averaged in with the male CEO of the company she works for, who works 70 hours a week.

Different? Yes.

Sex-based discrimination? Hardly.

But that is the implication people are given when the faulty methodology that the wage studies use to reach faulty conclusions is intentionally hidden. That is what happened in the 60′s and 70′s. And that is what is happening now.

In April 2007, the feminists’ American Association of University Women released a study with the following conclusion: “One year out of college, women working full time earned 80 percent as much as their male colleagues earned. Ten years after graduation, women fall further behind, earning 69 percent as much as men earned.” So according the AAUW, women have gone from a 59 percent wage gap to a 69 percent wage gap. But there remains one fundamental problem: the methodology hasn’t changed.

Please note the very next line from the executive summary: “Controlling for hours, education, parenthood, and other factors normally associated with pay, college-educated women STILL earn less than their male peers.” Note that they did not say that controlling for hours and other factors that women earned 69 cents, but that they earn LESS. In other words, they presented their conclusion so that unsubstantiated statistics will be remembered and passed on to others. It was a clear act of deception, a distortion, fabricated and marketed in order to pursure an invalid political agenda.

It is deception, and a set of bogus figures that are repeated in legislators in most first world countries by Harriet Harmon in the UK, and Jullian Gillard in Australia, for instance. And Nacny Pelosi in the United States. These are POWERFUL political feminist women who have NEVER experienced the glass ceiling in their fucking lives, and are paid FAR MORE than 99 percent of men. They are on the higest rungs that they claim women are prevented from reaching.

Lies seem to fly easly from their lips into the other women’s ears for deceptively-garnered votes. They have dirty hands, but not from hard work.

Naturally, the question arises that if feminist studies are distorting the facts, then what is the truth? June O’Neill, former director of the United States Congressional Budget Office, conducted a study of the wage gap allegations. She found that after controlling for experience, education, and number of hours, and years on the job, that women earn NINETY-EIGHT percent for every dollar that their male counterparts earned. That is a wage gap of 98 cents on the dollar, or what most of statisticians would say is statistically INSIGNIFICANT or within a suitable margin of error to call equal. This is what the feminst University Women SHOULD’VE concluded, and would have, if they were in the slightest interest in disseminating accurate information. But the truth of the wage gap myth undermines the feminst agenda: to paint women as victims to the male-dominated workplace.

Understand that the AAUW, and other similar feminst organizations, use these results to raise funds and put themselves in the media limelight.

IF there is no problem (and there isn’t), then there is no reason to give them money, or even to pay attention to them.

While feminist maintain that feminism is about empowering women, we are to see that way too often that their agenda depends on making VICTIMS of them, even if those victims need to be fabricated.

We can (and should) dig into this some more. It is important to understand much more about WHY studies indicate wage gaps before the statistics are clairified by considering the variables that affect the outcome. Dr. Warren Farrell Ph.D, the only man ever elected to the National Organization for Women’s National Board of Directors three times, was one of the early feminsits incensed at the alleged pay gap. Dr. Farrel dedicated a great deal of his life to challenging the culture to address this injustice. (Here’s the link to his profile on wikipedia in case curisority gets the best of you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell) Then one day he asked himself questions that would change the course of his life, which eventually convinced him to leave that oranization, reportedly to the relief of his feminist peers. He thought, “Wait a minute. If women actually earned 59 cents for every dollar earned by a man for the same work, why wouldn’t companies only hire women? Wouldn’t they be able to produce products much cheaper than companies that only employed men, and put the competition out of business?” He spent the next several years in painstaking reasearch of the subject, and came to the conclusion that has been verified many times as it has been ignored: Women make less money because of their choices. Not because of discrimination. When given more money or a better quality of life, women are much more likely than men to choose quality of life. Women work fewer hours per week (on average) than men, take more time off, and frequently choose to put family and personal life ahead of their jobs. “This speaks to women’s intelligence, empathy and nurture,” he said, “much more to their alleged status as victims.” Men not only work longer and harder, they are more likely to choose work that puts them in physical danger. Those jobs exposes them to the elements, shortens their life span, and increses the levels of job-related stress. These jobs, as a rule, pay better. The increased wages comes with risk and hardship. And the fact that more men than women choose to do these jobs, is not a matter of discrimination, except to the extent that we still socialize men as much more than women to put themselves on a chopping block for a paycheck. And this illustrates the concept of Farrell’s arguments when comes to matters of pay, inequity and glass ceilings: the glass cellar. At the very bottom of the employment ladder are the death work such as policemen, firefighters, construction, truck driving, commercial fishing, manual labor, and other jobs that form the backbone of our civilization. They are also the most dangerous and life-diminishing professions imaginable. These jobs point to something that many would not want to hear: pay equity for women is found not in boardrooms and corner offices, but behind the wheels of a semi, driving 40 tons of steel through icy weather in winter. Inclusion in parity is in the blistering hands that hold shovels and hammers while digging through mines. In oceans and sea, laboring like dogs in unthinkably cold weather and 50-foot swells to bring the fish home to the table. In chasing down sociopaths with knives in the dark and back alleys in our bad and decaying cities.

These realities call upon us to examine the truth that many don’t want to utter into today’s politically correct culture. But it is the truth nonetheless. If you want to get paid like a man, then you have to work like one.

That’s all I have to say for now. In case you don’t want to take my word for it, there here’s a link to a site that backs me up 100%.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HSP/is_1_4/ai_66678566/?tag=content;col1

Okay, Jenny. Now I have you up against a wall, looking into your eyes, daring you to do something about it. The question I have for you is this: Are you going to surrender?

Once again, Jenny, a pleasure talking to you. I’ll be waiting for your response.

One more thing on the Megan issue. Look at those 2007 pictures where she’s at the MTV Movie Awards. Now compare those pictures to these: http://www.imagebam.com/gallery/6t0huellzf0p9m266lbf46s9qujqdlqk/

Megan’s breasts are not being supported by bras, yet look at how much better they look compared to those 2007 pictures. The difference in size could not have happened naturally. Like I said, they are gravity defying.

It has been a good debate Paul.
I wouldn’t like to surrender, since I don’t really like the semi power yielding connotation ring it has, but let’s say, I’m getting and agreeing with the picture you are trying to paint here, and your points make a lot of sense to me…and I do agree with the majority of them.
However, I do have some tiny rebuttals to some of things you mentioned.
First off, I agree with you yes, the Jennifer Body’s lake pictures are evidence that Megan most likely tampered her breast shape.She most likely got a Mastopexy.This procedure I can agree on, but when people argue that she got a breast augmentation, or adding silicons or implants to increase her breast size, I would have to disagree, because her breasts do not look significantly bigger any more now then they did in 2007. I don’t know though if she went so far to have went under the knife for her face though.
Second, the glass ceiling argument. Here is one example of a rebuttal:
http://www.aolnews.com/story/fire-kills-construction-worker-bianca/722737
Third, as much as statistics account for the pay-gap issue in developing countries such as the U.S, there is almost little to none evidence suggesting any pay-gap issues and roles in developing countries, such as Africa and Asia (Where many overly pampered, prim women that care more about their hair and nails are non-existent)
For example, as quoting “Why Gender Matters”, from State of the World 2003,
” According to the FAO(Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations), women constitute 51 percent of the world’s agricultural labor force. In Southeast Asia, they provide up to 90 percent of the labor force for rice cultivation, while in Africa 90 percent of the food and water gathering is done by women. In Africa and Asia, women work on average more hours per week than men, and in many regions women spend up to 5 hours a day collecting fuel wood and water and up to 4 hours preparing food. This work is unpaid and does not appear in any national accounts of productive labor. Too often, however, governments and development agencies still see women solely as “housewives,” with men defined as “workers” (income earners)–categories that reinforce false distinctions.

You can take a look at the article here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=OmQzSs5raugC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=state+of+the+world+linking+population,+women,+biodiversity&source=bl&ots=jvwFU0-s5s&sig=D2Tl4-Jve2H6aOYqo0-9SJx7xMo&hl=en&ei=5TVrTPOCLYTksQOt2I1I&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=state%20of%20the%20world%20linking%20population%2C%20women%2C%20biodiversity&f=false

On the last point, I wanted to ask you what you think of the wife starving law in Afghanistan:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8204207.stm

I just wanted to provide a page number for you, Paul,for the quote i linked to from Why Gender Matters, State of the World. The part of the article I linked to starts on page 48, and I am quoting from page 49.

Jenny, you are quite a fighting spirit. I love that.

I have shown you links to back up my stories (or if I didn’t provide a link, I still made a ton of sense), yet you alwasys find a counter argument. You also get a high in fighting back and you are addicted to the challenge.

I must take a deep breath and try to figure out a way to reconfigure my words so that you can understand this better. That glass ceiling rebuttal you had really struck a chord with me (which I’m pretty sure that’s the type of reaction you were hoping from me). And so I must come back with a rebuttal to that in order to get my “high” again. I love to pin you up against the wall, and I need my fix to do that again.

First off, Megan Fox. I had to laugh a little bit because I don’t think mastopexy was the solution to her problem. Correct me if I’m wrong: if a woman (say, Megan Fox) elects to have mastopexy done, wouldn’t her breasts start to sag as she grows older. Aren’t mastopexies temporary? I don’t think Megan will have that problem as she gets older. I think they’ll stay that way forever. Not all women who go for breast augmentation go from a size A to a size H, for example. I think it was just a small increase. In other words, not big enough so that it is obvious to everyone that she had something done.

That’s all I have to say about that.

Secondly, that article you posted about the female construction worker. My first question to you is somewhat unrelated to the story, but I noticed that that story happened in New York City. Just out of curiosity, do you live in NYC?

Now, back to the story. Are you trying to say that glass celings don’t exist because one female was a construction worker? This is the type of job where finding a female worker is like literally trying to find a needle in the haystack. Women who work in that industry are dykes (if that word offended you, then oh well). In her case, though, he had daughters. That meant that she liked men. Hetrosexual women wouldn’t want to do jobs like that, and you know that. They would much rather prefer that a man do it (as well as he should). She is the extreme rare exception to the rule and norm.

I do think her house was intentionally set on fire. If it wasn’t intentionally set, then JP Morgan REALLY lucked themselves out of that one.

Now for more on the glass ceiling.

So listen carefully, Jenny. And listen good.

There is, apparently, an invisible barrier in the workplace that prevents women from rising to the higher echelons of their workplace. They say this barrier is bult, maintained, and jealously gaurded by men who don’t want women in top jobs because they feel threatened by women and want to keep women down.

All the glass ceilings and all the professions where there are hardly any women involved, and vast numbers of the most senior professions where there are very few women (law, politics, industry, economics, diplomacy, all those leading industries), women are very far and few in those professions. Therefore, you can say it is a male-dominated society.

We live in a society in where males are dominating. But of course if you look around, men have all the best jobs. They are the presidents of countries and CEOs of big-time companies. When people talk about male-female equality, what they’re really talking about is that women should be equal with those men at the top. So, yes, men are at the top, but they’re also at the bottom. They tend to die earlier, they have all the shittiest jobs. Ninety-five percent of all workplace fatalities are male (in other words, fatal injuries to women are too small to reliably compute a rate), men also have have the riskiest, most unpleasant jobs such as the loggers, the contruction workers. So there are a lot of men at the bottom, too. So you have men at the bottom, men at the top, and women in the middle. So when people talk about male domination, people tend to forget that the winners (the male winners) are not only “dominating” the women, but they’re also dominating the other males, too.

Here’s a quote from Sarah Palin referring to the 18 million votes Hilary Clinton received in the primaries: “Hilary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass celing in America. But it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.”

So why did John McCain pick a woman as his running mate in 2008? Was she really the best candidate? No. He put her on his ticket not because they shared the same views, but because they don’t share the same gender. There was no need for people to take the moral high ground on McCain’s choice because they should’ve known how the game was played.

Glass Celings and Old Boys’ Networks, undoubtly, do exist. And they affect many people for many reasons, certainly not just women (for example, a person might be affected because he/she is African American). Some glass ceilings are there due to ability (or lack of it) in an individual. Sometimes, it can be due to social class or ethnic backround. Sometimes, the glass ceiling is there for religous and political beliefs. Sometimes, it’s even something as minor as an accent.

Here are some examples of what I’m talking about:
http://www.livescience.com/culture/090711-taller-money.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265300/Tall-womens-salaries-leave-short-girls-shade.html
http://www.lovemoney.com/news/make-your-money-go-further/your-job/beautiful-people-earn-more-money-4498.aspx

Slim women, as a group, have better wages than overweight women.

In fact, there are so many reasons (valid or otherwise) that some people rise in an organization while others don’t. It becomes ludicrous to single out women as a special case. (Other reasons why people are prevented from going up the ladder can be dur to bad teeth, too short, bad breath, too young, kinda funny looking.) Chris Rock even joked about John McCain’s age at the time he was running against Obama, saying that he’s too old to be the leader of the country at 72 years old, and, in fact, how he was too old to run for president 10 years ago, if he had the chance to do it.

But one thing is generally true: people who rise to the top of the business, are those who are generally better served for that business. Businesses want to make money. And if you are the best person to do that, then you’ll rise.

But it is a fact that women don’t make it to the board room of companies. But why is this happening?

The answer: Compare two workers with the same educational backround. Why would a woman not acheive the same level of promotion as a man? The only differences in their careers is the six-month maternity leave she took for her first child, and another six months she took for her second child, and the weekly time off she takes on Thursdays when she can’t find a babysitter. This woman cannot spend time away from the workplace becaue of the children, and continues to work shorter days for the same reason. However, she can’t understand why HE’S been promoted ahead of her (**rolling my eyes**), and has to file a complaint with the Equal Opportunities Commision.

This story, with myriad variations, is repeated with all kinds of jobs in the U.S. and U.K. The plain and simple fact that women and government seem hell bent on avoiding is that women have babies. And because women have babies, there always comes a choice in a woman’s career where she has to make a choice between children at home and her advancements at work. And at that same point, companies must make a decision between a man who’s at work and a woman who isn’t. While some women have babies, others (meaning women) get promotions.

While women think that they can do it all and have it all, having children and having a career is an “either/or” situation. If she does both, then both jobs suffer. The woman, the children, and the company all lose.

The glass CLIFF is a different situation in where women are promoted to the top jobs, and then proceed to run the company into the ground, and then claim that they were deliberately promoted into risky jobs in order for them to fail.

We can see the pattern here: If women are sacked, it’s because they’re female. Not because they’re rubbish. If they’re not promoted, it’s because they’re female. Not because they’re not qualified. Now with the glass cliff, if they are promoted and do badly, suddenly it’s NOT because they’re female. It’s a cunning plan by men. So however you slice it, Jenny, it seems like a recipe for trouble everyone involved.

In my last post, I talked about Warren Farrell. He’s famous for talking about the glass cellar. This referrs to the huge number of jobs in which you’ll (almost) never see women working. There are no expense accounts, personal assistance, or air conditioning. These jobs include sewage workers, refuge collectors, construction workers. And it includes all jobs that have the highest rates of work place injuries and deaths. Women never seem to mention these jobs when complaining about equality at work. And neither did you, Jenny. Women seem to be concerned about the top jobs. It seems that women only want equality when it suits them. I’ll believe that women want equality NOT when I see the first female president, but when I see enough women who are refuge collectors. In fact, in all my life, I have yet to see one woman who collects garbage for a living.

Twently-four of twenty-five of the worse jobs are male dominated. Almost 100% of work place injuries happen to men. Almost 100% of work place fatalities are male. In 2001, two men were burned to death in an industrial bread oven while they were trying to repair it. You can read about it here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1443939.stm

What would we say about women treated in our times if it were two FEMALES who were sent into such danger and baked alive?

Women are protected from doing these kinds of jobs, and they’re veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerry quiet about it. You certainly won’t find women protesting about why more female are not sewage workers, or more females are not losing more fingers and hands in industrial accidents. But they will protest about why there aren’t more women MP’s, or more women company directors.

You don’t often see women protesters saying “Equal Workplace Fatalities for Women.”

If male-dominated professions are signs that women are oppressed, then women should seek parity in all these jobs (sewage worker, window cleaner, roofer, farmer labor, etc.) and not just the nice ones. The BBC has a lot to say about the glass ceiling, and the glass cliff on its news website. But despite the incredible scarcity of women in dangerous jobs, they choose not to mention the glass cellar.

(Go see for BBC’s news website and see for yourself if you don’t believe me.)

Onto a different topic. As far as the article concerning the thrid-world countries, it sucks that the women have to go through all of that for almost no pay at all. The big reality that people need to take from that is that nothing is going to change for those people. They have been with everyone else since the human species evolved, and at this present day, they are still way behind the developed countries in industrialized advancements. Otherwise, these things wouldn’t be happening. I guess they’re trying to balance out the fact that even though men work these much tougher jobs, that they need the rest, whereas women who work the easier jobs should not get as many breaks because they are not expected to get hurt or die in the male jobs. 100 years from now, they will still face the same problems.

Now for the Afgahn wife starving. Again, it goes to show how people living in these under-developed countries are looking for ways to invent rules and traditions that’ll help them (men) get by. Even way back when in the history of America, rules were never that extreme for women. Some women think that there was a time in the U.S. or U.K. where the husband had a right to beat or rape his wife and not have any authority figure do anything about it. Let me tell you right now that that’s complete rubbish. Such rules never existed. However, someone did try to implement that right for men, but that was quickly abolished by all the other men who though that was ridiculous. So even in our histories, Jenny, rules like that were never the norm. In a world where men are trained to kill people and blow stuff up at the ages younger than 18 (like in the Middle East), in a world where those boys are not finishing schools because they have to be the sole providers and protectors and be trained to kill without a heart in their bodies, rules like the starving one we’re talking about are practices in which they see nothing wrong with it. These people are convinced that 72 virgins will be awaiting them as soon as they die, weather it be by natural causes or if they kill others in the name of Allah. If they are that delusional to think that 72 women are waiting for them from the skies above, and if they believe that America is the evil of all the world, then starving your wife if she doesn’t comply to the guy’s sexual needs is part of their everyday routine of sorts.

Reading that article was the first time I’ve come across such a case, Jenny. So I extend my apologies to you if my thoughts on this subject is not what you were hoping for. I will say, though, that as long as they train men and boys to become suicide bombers, then things don’t promising for anyone involved. And this is also another point about how men are the ones who have to live through more extreme conditions than women do. The boys are the ones doing the more dangerous, life-threatening things to themselves and other men. Although women have it tough there, I don’t think it’s worse than what the men are going through with regards to war, blowing themselves up, and everything else.

Jenny, it’s time for me to go. Our conversations and arguments goes to show that opposites do attract.

I enjoyed this debate Paul. It was interesting hearing your side of the story.I think I have conciliated with you and have learned a lot about the stances of women in a different perspective and thank you for challenging me and taking time to explain your position. It seems like you gathered much expertise knowledge in this area thought the years and maybe perhaps dealt with or had some personal encounters with some feminists yourself.
Back to Megan, to be completely honest, i don’t know what procedure she had.I only mentioned mastoplexy because I’ve heard it’s a procedure to correct breast shape and breast augmentation I know is used to correct breast size. I don’t know if breast augmentation specifically achieves the same purpose, but then again, I don’t know for sure.
You are right, the construction worker article was just to offer an example of a rebuttal. I don’t believe most women would dare to go into construction, especially in America.I think her house was set on fire purposely also, but, again she was suing unreasonably here.
I have to share a story though that there are women out there, speaking from personal experience who were denied jobs because they were female and weren’t seen as not physically capable of holding that position, not even more moderately demanding jobs. I remember for looking for jobs though a few years ago, and I applied to a dish washing position. I remember calling the restaurant up and asking if the position was still available, and the man on the other line told me this was specifically a male job and thought I wouldn’t be able to cope with the heavy lifting. I remember telling him, oh, I believe I can, it’s only dish washing, well, he purposely told me no, this is not for female without thinking twice. Perhaps, this idea somehow came about through American society, were jobs that are known to break pedicured nails were not acceptable.Who knows. But, unlike a lot of women my age, I never think no job is too good for me. But then again, maybe I’m a different in this regard.. And in case you were wondering, no I’m not a dyke, lesbian, gay-loving woman. And, I forgot to mention, I’m not from NYC, i’m from the other city across the country, LA.
Regarding wars, yes, you are right, men take those riskier chances of being brutalized. However, American troops can also be considered suicide troopers looking from the numbers of killing in the Iraq war. I believe only 500 Iraqi’s were behind Hussein in the beginning of his attack on Iran. Yet,we have made to believe that this was the mother of all wars to Iran and this gave us every right to “fix” their country. Well, I cannot brag about what we have achieved there in terms of great progress, but I cannot deny that many soul less American men have killed million of their country’s citizens,many who were not terrorists. But, I don’t want to get too off topic here.
Paul, I have no rebuttals against left, and I have learned a lot from you. I want to thank you for being persistent and battling my knowledge.And if I do ever come across a feminism issue, I will likely e-mail you. This was a long issue, but it has taught a lesson, and I know that you were aiming for. Once again, thanks for the challenge:)

Jenny,

This was a fun and greatly contested debate. You are one tough contestant. I wanted to get your juices flowing and I wanted to get you thinking. I know that you would love a challenge in where I had an answer to just about everything you threw at me. Answers that were new to you, answers that’ll make you think even more. I wanted to show you the lies and corrupt nature of these femma fascists that has corroded the minds of so many people.

I loved it when you made me a little angry with some of the things you said throughout the debate, and I think there was a secret part of you that loved the competitive nature of me when I said some things that set you off as well. Throughout the course of the days in which we had our debate, our conversation would rest somewhere in my mind, thinking about how you would respond to me, and at the very same time I had to think about how I was going to respond to that. I had to think two steps ahead of time with you.

And because we were on different ends on the debate, I had the feeling that we would rather hang out with each other even though we did could not stand each other. It was a love-hate thing that had us drawn to each other. We would always come here, with our hearts pumping more rapidly than it should when we saw that there was a response. It was an addicting experience, Jenny.

Out of curiosity, how old are you? I’m 29.

I asked if you lived in NYC because of the article you showed and because I was born and raised in NYC, but moved to London. I’m going back to NY next month, and this time I’m going to stay there.

I read your personal experience when applying for that job. Dish washing, huh? Was this your first step into becoming a manager of a restaurant one day, or was it something that would’ve made you some money before looking for work elsewhere? I’m going to ask you a question that just popped into me head, so forgive me if it sounds offensive. When the guy on the other end of the phone declined you because you were very attractive? Perhaps he didn’t want you there because it lowers his chances of being sued for sexual harassment. That must’ve been a minor concern of his. Add that to the fact that he was blunt with you and felt that you couldn’t lift a load of heavy dishes. Other than that, I’m left to guess why he didn’t give you the chance.

Are you working now? If so, what kind of job is it? And another question. If you applied for the job, then I wonder why it wasn’t brought to your attention that that was a male-only job? That would’ve saved you a lot of time. Instead, you wound up wasting time in hoping that you would land that spot.

No, never did it cross my mind that you were carpet muncher, that you prefer women over men as sexual partners. (Did I ever ask you if you were a lesbian?) I always knew that you preferred men to fill your sexual desires in ways that a woman can’t do for you.

It was nice talking to you, Jenny. I enjoyed every minute of it, even though some of it was stressful. Who knew that a conversation that started about Megan Fox and Brian eating cheesecake would end up turning into a issue that involved feminists?

This was such an intense battle. And after a bout of angry sex between us, we can now go to sleep happy.

I’ll end it right here, and I’ll see you around.

There was some good information exchanged Paul. I am in my 20′s.
Regarding the job, yes, i was trying to find any job, right now i’m working for my school. Thanks for exchange of ideas,see you around.