Home > Brian Austin Green, Candid, Megan Fox, News, Pictures > Megan Fox and Brian Austin Green cheesecake date

Megan Fox and Brian Austin Green cheesecake date

Megan Fox and Brian Austin Green were spotted leaving The Cheesecake Factory in Hollywood yesterday (July 17th). The couple made their way over to the Grove shopping center, as they popped into the Cheesecake Factory to grab a bite to eat.

Enjoy the pictures =)

CLICK HERE FOR FULL GALLERY

  • annoyed

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

  • Andie

    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. ;)

  • aleks_the fox

    i think he is in love with her pretty much

  • juan carlos cortes

    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

  • jenny

    @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

  • melanie

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

  • melanie

    13.july.2009

  • jenny

    @ 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.”

  • Andie

    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. ;)

  • Andie

    *seen

  • Andie

    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. ;)

  • Andie

    *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

  • jenny

    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.

  • Jordi

    @Doesnt Matter

    Chillax and easy going, aye :)

    Where are you from?

  • jenny

    @ 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.

  • paul

    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

  • jenny

    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.

  • Andie

    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;)

  • Andie
  • Andie

    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.

  • jenny

    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.

  • F*ck U!

    @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.

  • jenny

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

  • aleks_the fox

    lol

  • jenny

    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??

  • Doesnt Matter

    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.

  • Doesnt Matter

    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

  • jenny

    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.

  • Doesnt Matter

    k jenny have a nice day

  • Paul

    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.

  • jenny

    @ 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.

  • Paul

    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.

  • jenny

    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”.

  • jenny

    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.

  • Paul

    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.

  • Paul

    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.

  • jenny

    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).

  • Paul

    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.

  • Paul

    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.

  • Deon

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

  • jenny

    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.

  • Paul

    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.

  • jenny

    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.

  • paul

    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.

  • Doesnt Matter

    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!!!

  • jenny

    @( 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?

  • paul

    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 [email protected] 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.

  • paul

    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.

  • jenny

    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.

  • paul

    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!