www.the-spearhead.com

Occigent #fundie the-spearhead.com

I’m old fashioned. I like my neighbors being able to have their government reflect their cultural values. Telling people they have no vested interest in how their community governs interpersonal relationships is telling people they have no vested interest in the most basic and important rituals of the human experience. This is absurd on its face. You wouldn’t tell an Amazon tribe what they were doing was wrong if they buried children in mud — traditional peoples are sacrosanct. But Joe Flyover must be a hater.

keyster #sexist the-spearhead.com

Math serves no biological purpose for women, so they’re typically not going to be good at it or interested in it. Their strengths are empathy, feelings and emotion – so they can relate better to young children. Math is logical and factual. It’s a problem looking for a solution. It serves as the building blocks for innovation and progress—an aspect of civilization that women have contributed to by about .1%.

Once Title IX begins in earnest for STEM, young men will go Galt in ever-increasing numbers and the marriage crisis will be fully realized. If they have to compete with young women (on a tilted playing field), they’ll opt out altogether, as Math will be dumbed down to general female levels of comprehension.

As long as women stop having babies and choose to compete with men instead – society will devolve. Until we can admit gender equality is a grand charade promoted by the mass media industrial complex and government, innovation and progress will decline. When can we stop pretending that feminism is not working?

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

[A commenter mentioned David Koresh's illegal firearm operations]

Actually, I don’t believe he did. All evidence points to the fact that he ran a tight ship with his gun dealership and kept it above board. I’m fairly certain they went after him primarily because of his religious beliefs, in shameless defiance of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

[Parental notification of abortion is being debated in Washington state]

Speaking with the Seattle Weekly, Keiser claims it is “not a gender issue.” Keiser is lying. Feminists operate under the assumption that the mother will know. In accordance with anti-patriarchy ideology, it’s the father who must be kept in the dark. Because, as we all know, fathers kill their daughters all the time for having sex before the age of 18. This is why thousands of girls are slaughtered at the hands of their fathers every day in the US—

It is indeed odd that fathers are legally held responsible for their children’s upkeep, yet they are consistently stripped of any authority and deliberately handicapped in regards to making choices about their children’s upbringing. It is almost as though a feminist social worker at Planned Parenthood is deemed better qualified to make informed parenting decisions than a girl’s own father.

If that is the case, I wonder, then why isn’t the feminist social worker subject to a child support order?

TFH #fundie the-spearhead.com

WFPrice,

"You’d think that would mean that its readers would be humanitarian and compassionate,"

Why would anyone still think this?

Virtually all genocides are derived by leftists. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. This is because leftism views economics as zero sum, hence the killing of unwanted people is a way to have more resources for those who are allowed to live (the favored group).

Modern leftism (global warming, feminism) is all about exterminating the groups that leftists don’t like. They claim to be ‘compassionate’ so as to mask their evil. Anyone who supports current laws like VAWA and child support is ‘compassionate’, and thus MRAs by definition are ‘evil’, under that standard.

And yes, Hitler was left-wing. Don’t buy into the leftist myth that he was right wing. The Nazi party was a socialist party, that nationalized many sectors of the economy.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

What this new American elite has in common with its ancient predecessors is that the common folk values that held the state together in its earlier form have come to be replaced with an emphasis on expedience and utility, all exercised for the benefit of the state — not necessarily the people. In order to justify this, states usually resort to promoting a universalist philosophy or religion. In fact, there is evidence that the first monotheistic cult was promoted by an Egyptian pharaoh who wanted to bring all his subjects under a unifying single god.

...

When you have a supreme spiritual mandate, in our case “equality,” it can be used to justify almost any action undertaken to promote it. From the Inquisition to the torture chambers of the Lubyanka, men operated under this principle of service to a higher cause. Old rules and customs, such as the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, mean little to those engaged in promoting the one true faith. It is, in effect, a license to exercise power unfettered, and as always this tends to draw in some unsavory characters.

This is why we see the growth of an arrogant state that violates our Constitution and engages in shows of force designed to cow and humiliate lowly citizens. It is why we now have elite military units firing automatic weapons from helicopters above our cities. I suspect these are preventative measure, to let the people know that they had better not get in the way of the plans of their superiors.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

I have started to think revolutions always occur some 40-60 years before we know it. That’s because that’s how long it takes for people to grow into positions of power. Hence Obama’s unprecedented leftism, which is a product of the radicalism in the 60s and 70s as he grew up and came of age. The new Democratic left is something that was fostered back around the time the people in office were children or young adults, so although it seems “young and hip” to old timers like Joe Biden who were living and breathing that ideology as youths, it comes off as dated to me, and probably really just incomprehensible to people in their 20s and below.

...

Unfortunately, access to fathers is often restricted to the upper classes these days, as working class and poor families are characterized by father absence, which should be considered a major national crisis. Intentionally separating fathers from children through policy is a crime in my book — one for which feminists should pay every bit as dearly as the deprived children and fathers. There may be grounds to bring it to the attention of the United Nations as a major human rights violation for which the US deserves sanction.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

In fact, it wasn’t only the Germanic women who exulted in the barbarian lifestyle, but some Roman women as well. Although the invaders may have laid waste to the greatest civilization the world had yet known, slaughtered tens of thousands, burned and destroyed centers of learning and thoroughly wrecked the economy, leaving millions destitute, they ushered in an era of women’s empowerment and equality. Amidst the smoking ruins of once-great cities and estates, Roman ladies cavorted and feasted with unkempt, tattooed Gothic warriors.

...

Indeed, this seems to indicate that women’s relative power is stronger in more primitive, anarchic and despotic environments, whether they are our contemporary urban ghettoes or early medieval barbarian kingdoms. Many other examples, such as 12th century Mongolia and early colonial era Iroquois tribes point to this phenomenon. In fact, as far as I know, in barbaric, warlike societies, as opposed to civilized or hunter gatherer societies, women have the most power and freedom of all. In example after example, one can see the relative status of women decline as societies become more orderly, literate and settled. Contrast Homeric Greece to Athenian civilization. Pre-imperial to Confucian China. Jahiliyyah to the Caliphate — the list goes on.

The question, then, is whether feminists, when presented with the opportunity, would deliberately create the conditions of barbarism. That feminists romanticize a golden past of female empowerment, even going so far as to suggest that ape society is superior to our own, seems to suggest that they will. Perhaps, then, it isn’t so much that feminists want to change civilization, but rather – consciously or not – they aim to dismantle it.

If so, that may be exactly where we’re headed.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

And speaking of gimmicks, how is it more of a gimmick for women to run around looking sexy than it is for them to play at a man’s game? I thought that’s what women did naturally when given the opportunity. Who’s more of a freak: a female beauty pageant contestant or a female boxer?

I wonder why these guys can’t accept the simple fact that there just aren’t enough lesbians out there to sustain this kind of thing.

Justinian #fundie the-spearhead.com

Women had better learn how to fight for “their” rights.

When I mean fight, I font mean protest marches and lawsuits.

They better be ready to do all the fighting, bleeding, and dying.

They have taken everything away from men.

Adding up the suicide-inducing misery of the 9/11 wars, the unwillingness of politicians to win despite an overwhelming firepower advantage, and the treatment of men as second class citizens; I don’t expect many men to volunteer in the future.

I still remember all the patriotic fervor following the 9/11 attacks of all the young, niave men willing to sacrifice themselves. That goodwill was spit on and squandered by the Washington elite.

I can’t ever imagine a repeat of that level self-sacrifice given what has happened in the intervening 11 years.

The most likely scenario of how this whole women in the military experiment will play out is that women will hog more and more of the resources and training during peacetime.

When there is another true national emergency, all of the women who received training, pay, education, and other benefits from being in the military will be excused from their obligation to go into the field and got shot at.

In their place, legions of men with no training at all will be conscripted to be cannon fodder and disposed of for “the greater good.”

Anon7 #fundie the-spearhead.com

The way I had always phrased that myself is that men test themselves on physical and practical intellectual matters, whereas women test themselves emotionally. But I think what you’re saying is closer. When a woman puts on a man’s job (the clothing, the attitude, the degree, the social status), they do it to test if they can still be true to their feminine self, like a woman who still looks sexy wearing a man’s shirt. I’ve had professional women say as much to me, that they feel like they are just pretending to be lawyers or engineers, just playing dress-up. Demanding that men take them seriously is part of the game.

Unfortunately, by allowing women to have half (or more) of the training resources for essential jobs in medicine, engineering, law, government, and so forth, we’ve cut our real capacity for excellence and innovation in half. The female half of the workforce is more interested in how they look doing it than getting it done right, and I really believe that this is one of the main problems holding our economy back.

CooterBee #fundie the-spearhead.com

[Someone suggests a rule/law to try and drive down the number of men doing murder/suicides on estranged wives. This is one response.]

The 90 day rule proposed rests on at least two flawed assumptions:

murder/suicide is a bad thing and
that anyone (in this case the courts) can interfere with a man’s private affairs for any reason.

Before I proceed with my points, I acknowledge of such the intent of such a rule is to reduce human suffering. Laudable but ineffectual. Trading murder/suicide for a two-step process to drive a man to suicide only helps the woman. Also, imposing such a rule implies that some men should follow it because it is a rule. Nobody — no cop, no judge, no president — should be afforded any legitimacy in interfering with a man’s family affairs. Conceding that to any degree is tantamount to self-imposed slavery.

At this point, loving fathers and devoted husbands are suited up and in the starting lineup of Team Vagina. In essence, a murder/suicide is a BOGO for our side. Why would we want to stop it?

W. F. Price #conspiracy the-spearhead.com

The direct association between Marxism and feminism seems to have developed in the 1960s, possibly under the influence of the CIA, which is known to have funded feminist Marxist organizations. This raises the question of what exactly the point was in associating feminism with Marxism. Although I never thought of this before, it may be that the CIA wanted to present Marxism as something disadvantageous to the average American/Western working man, and feminism, which has always been hostile to working men, was quite capable of doing just that.

Towgunner #fundie the-spearhead.com

Do we hate women—um they hate us and call us inferior, WTF are we suppose to do? Gandhi said an eye for an eye and the whole world is blind, and women had their chance to mend ties with men and blew it, they went for revenge instead. Was it oppressive for women in the past? Yes, but it was oppressive for many other kinds of people too. Nothing compares to the level of blatant and open systemic/institutionalized discrimination, stereotyping and hatred that women project onto men today—nothing!

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

One of the rules that he [St. Paul] promulgated concerned women and their role in the church. He recognized that if given free rein, women would begin to place themselves in positions of authority, where they would inevitably cause trouble for the early Christians. Therefore, he made himself very clear about their role, taking special care to prevent them from teaching and preaching to men.

...

This may not be a pleasant or comfortable passage for the modern Western woman, but there it is.

Unfortunately, a number of women calling themselves “Christian” have taken it on themselves to teach and preach to men. It is quite common these days, having become almost normative, and the results should have been predictable.

Take Katherine Jefferts Schori for example. Currently the head of the Episcopalian Church in the US, she has all but run that institution into the ground. Some may argue that this is because she is liberal, but I’m not sure that’s the case. St. Paul made no distinctions based on politics, but rather sex.

Certain conservative women have also taken it upon themselves to ignore Paul and start preaching in all but name themselves. They certainly don’t shy away from presuming to teach men when it comes to spiritual matters, which is also clearly proscribed by Paul.

...

With little to do, these women go around gossiping and provoking people, and taking on inappropriate roles. They might pit men against each other for some little thrill, or simply as a consequence of getting involved in what rightly ought to be worked out amongst men. When the inevitable spat develops, men’s instinct to come to the defense of women is triggered, and next thing you know guys are raising their voices and balling up their fists. This is almost guaranteed to happen, and it proves Paul’s wisdom in his epistle to Timothy.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

Yep. That’s exactly it. Here in the US they de-emphasized exams in the mid-late 80s. College admissions were previously 2/3rds exams and 1/3rd grades, and then it was reversed in one fell swoop.

The proportion of girls admitted surpassed boys almost overnight.

The female preponderance in higher ed admissions was entirely engineered.

But it’s OK, because now credentials have been significantly devalued, and professors barely make middle-class pay (serves them right).

W. F. Price #sexist the-spearhead.com

And, of course, women’s “equality” cannot meaningfully exist in an egalitarian society, because the real differences between men and women are too stark. In fact, it takes a great deal of authoritarian coercion to bring women up to the level we find them occupying in the US. From federal agencies to local police forces and courts, hundreds of thousands of people are employed in the business of “equalizing” men and women. One could fairly call it a domestic army.

JHJ #fundie the-spearhead.com

Most “independent women” are welfare parasites. They “don’t need men”, to be sure, but do they ever need all the welfare handouts the state collects from men and sends them to provide for their “independence”. And they’re the most vocal and shrill in their demands – demands! – that the money they feel entitled to should keep flowing and coming their way.

To be honest, even women who don’t do welfare, child support, alimony or any other such little female independence booster are an iffy proposition as respectable: if she supports herself with a job she got as a result of affirmative action policies then she, too, is a parasite, only slightly less obviously so.

W. F. Price #sexist the-spearhead.com

In a stunning surprise, the American womyn won gold in Olympic soccer (er, football), making team Japan their little bitches.

The entire United States is frantically celebrating this awesome display of grrrlpower, which lesbians are marking by having carnal relations at least once this month with their spouses/domestic partners.

American men are putting on aprons, baking cakes, and knitting soccer leggings for their female betters. Fathers across the land are getting misty-eyed thinking of how wonderful it would be if their daughters could grow up to be deep-voiced, fuzzy-faced ball-kickers — just like the American womyn’s soccer team.

I am so proud to be an American today. It really chokes me up—

But I have this nagging feeling that we still haven’t quite yet achieved the greatness of the 1983 East German “women’s” track and field squad.

Dale #fundie the-spearhead.com

As another poster, I would go furthur and say the divorced woman or single, promiscuous woman should get nothing. Her life as a single mother should be hard. So hard, that other people see her as an object lesson for why children without a father is foolish and very undesirable. Every time we subsidize a single parent, we show other people that single parent-hood isn’t all that bad, what with all the help you will get. Yes, the reality may be that even with government assistance, it is difficult. But other people have their perception of reality, not reality itself.
I think it is better to do what will prevent 10 new children being created for life in a deficient home than help the 1 child already there. I agree that is hard, but I do not have limitless resources.

Widows and orphans are a different case; in those cases there was a father, and he was removed by death, not selfishness.

[...]

“Simple fact is never trust a woman. — It’s a simple strategy that every man should adopt.”

Very distrustful view— and I regret to say it, but one that seems partly true, at least financially. It is interesting to me that when God set up the economic system in Israel (about 1500 B.C.), women were not permitted to inherit the family land/farm, except in the case where there were 0 sons. ALL property of the father went to his sons. If he has 1 son and 10 daughters, the 1 son gets everything. And no, the farm was not divided if his marriage ended. Farm goes to sons, ex-wife gets— well, as far as I can tell, zilch. Which brings the point that, in order to continue to receive the benefits of marriage (home, food, clothing), the female had to remain a wife. Thus, a man did not have to trust his wife to not divorce him — she had the financial, daily motivation to remain with him.

But don’t expect agreement if you ask a church woman today to agree to a pre-nup, even when it is stated that this is to strengthen the marriage bond and conform to the Bible she claims to follow.

TFH #fundie the-spearhead.com

"Having kids at those times would have destroyed my life."

Heh— Very few professions destroy a woman’s attractiveness to men more than becoming a lawyer.

Seriously. By choosing to become a lawyer, a woman is effectively reducing her husband prospects by 80% or more—

1) Men have good reason to be afraid of marrying (or even dating) a female lawyer.
2) Being a lawyer engenders women with personality traits that men find repulsive (even though a male lawyer clearly does become attractive to women).
3) Being a lawyer uses up a woman’s 20s, so her peak years are gone before she knows it.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

For feminism to exist as a valid movement, there must be violent conflict, so many of the efforts of feminists have sought to provoke just that. For example, in teaching that women must “take back the night” from men, women were encouraged to be militant against all males, which can only have unfortunate results, given the hands-down male superiority in combat. Women have further been encouraged to fight men in all areas of society rather than cooperate with them, which is guaranteed to create some violently anti-female men. Unsurprisingly, more mentally unstable and out-of-luck men are lashing out violently against women, just as feminists have always hoped for.

You see, for a feminist to justify her job there must be some degree of brutality against women. Gender war is essential to feminism. So, if you are a feminist, the hapless women murdered or assaulted by the damaged men feminists have created are necessary sacrifices for advancing the feminist agenda. It’s a pretty simple concept. Too bad for the girls who ended up on the wrong end of these men’s rage, but hey, if you’re a female senator or staffer it’s good business for your cause. And we all know that feminism has never been about the typical woman who lives a humble life, but rather the ambitious elite who want to have access to the big boys and big money on Capitol Hill and Wall Street.

...

Women’s best bet for security is not in denouncing and fighting men, as feminists would have it, but in cooperating with them and taking on their proper role. Feminists would willingly sacrifice women for their own power, but ordinary men will sacrifice themselves for the women in their families.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

I’ll come right out and say what nobody in the mainstream media wants to admit: feminists have to be purged from positions where they can harm men and boys. Feminism is female supremacism, nothing else. A woman (or man) spouting feminist rhetoric in a university should receive exactly the treatment one would expect a professor calling for the return of black slavery might receive. Companies should fire troublemaking feminists. Politicians who support feminist laws should be exposed and thrown out of office as soon as feasible. Feminist judges should be removed from the bench. After WWII, the allies carried out a program of “de-Nazification” in Germany. I think that is an appropriate model to follow in dealing with feminists. There can be no common ground with supremacists, and there is no sense in dealing with them until they have been properly rehabilitated.

W. F. Price #fundie the-spearhead.com

Under such a setup, a man cannot have any meaningful authority over a woman, and in many – if not most – cases a wife will come to feel a great deal of contempt and resentment. How can such a humble, lowly man possibly provide her the comfort and security she craves? He is barely better than a child, and doesn’t even begin to compare to a superior at work.

Therefore, many working women will instinctively feel more attraction for their superiors at work, and it is not uncommon for affairs to ensue. In the United States, it is only strict sexual harassment laws and corporate (and military) non-fraternization policies that prevent this from becoming an outright epidemic.

For most men there is little that can be done about this, and the ordinary man can only hope that his wife has enough common sense and decency to overlook his degraded position as husband — a feeble consolation at best. However, for some it is possible to restore some authority, but only by merging the office of husband with that of employer; in short, one must hire one’s wife in order to establish something approaching the natural definition of marriage. Although this may seem like an odd solution to contemporary ears, some of the best marriages I have ever known of employ exactly this method, and it is far closer to the old definition of marriage than what is currently seen as a “normal” marriage.

tom47 #fundie the-spearhead.com

The only thing preventing Heather from having two daddies today is the FDA and it’s British equivilent which has a ban on the use of “manufactured” eggs. The whole we don’t need men argument will blow up in their faces and we’re not talking decades but more like the end of this decade. I would say sooner for the two daddies senerio and by the end of the decade for a full blown machine pregnancy and “The End of Women”.

TLM #fundie the-spearhead.com

Some jaded asshole takes a cruise to the Galapagos Islands, makes some observations, and Christians should suddenly abandon what the Scriptures say about creation in Genesis, Job, etc. What a bunch of nancies. If social pressure from some retarded atheists can force a retreat or pseud0-compromise with the walking dead, how will you ever take a stand for Christ’s death & resurrection. Grow a pair. In school they taught me that babies had gills, medical imaging technology proved what a bunch of nonsense that was. And I’m curious as to why people who believe in Biblical Creation are automatically assumed to be young earth types? That’s ridiculous. We have no way of knowing (Jewish Calender theories aside) and why should we even care? It’s of little to no relevance to our need for Christ’s atonement. The whole Evolution thing is just another excuse, in a long line of them, that people use to justify themselves and their sins. And Bill Nye’s show sucked anyway.

David Collard #fundie the-spearhead.com

Most people do indeed think of God as He. Even feminists. It often surprises me to hear otherwise agnostic, liberal, and even feminist-minded people refer reflexively to God as “He”.

I sometimes wonder if a lot of liberal and feminist rage is directed at men because of this male image of God. Most of what liberals and feminists say seems to be motivated by a misplaced misotheism. They hate God for being God, for being Father, and they displace their hatred onto the nearest male. A lot of liberal slogans and goals seem designed to provoke the male principle. “Watch me leave my husband, abort my child, change this child’s sex, sleep with this other woman, campaign for single sex marriage, demand that Daddy pay for my contraception, demand that Daddy pay for my lifestyle — and now, call God a girl.” It is rebellion against the Natural Order, like the Sin of Eve, the first feminist.

Do you think there were no feminists in the crowd crying out “Crucify Him!”?

woggy #fundie the-spearhead.com

Feminism IS a goddess cult, and ritual prostitution is overseen by the pimps in the seat of government.
It’s not that Joe Biden, for instance, really wants ascend the marble steps of Temple Vajayjay on bloodied hands and knees – no, he just makes use of the temple whores to subvert and distract the masses of men who’ve been led to believe that a relatively brief stay within the sacred chamber comes at the price of gyno-worship and self loathing.

In a sense (a very real and practical sense) worship of the Goddess has been with us for a generation or two.
It’s obviously in mainstream culture, but it’s also present – no, PREVALENT in Christendom as well.
Porn re-inforces the object of worship while making proscelytes of the very young.
The unwashed gents who cannot, in any way, shape or form render due sacrifice at the temple gates are treated to slutwalks – with even the most hideous mudbound “goddess” demanding that these men cast downward their eyes when in the presence of the least worshipworthy bearers of the goddess chamber.

I sincerely hope that the Priestesses are busily carving their stone (or is it plastic) idol right now, preparing to present the one, truly worshipped goddess of our time, for all to see, during Passover and Christian Holy Week.
Let the subversive tactics, having long been the tactic they thought they needed to employ, be damned.

That could be our only hope- in a manner of speaking.

Millions of men are too dull witted – too obsessed with satisfying their glandular urges while laying claim to gutted piety- to let the truth sink in and cease being the Goddess’ minions.

TFH #fundie the-spearhead.com

I have often said that Al-Qaeda foolishly choose indiscriminate terrorism.

Instead, if they packaged their message into a slick media campaign that explains why Western feminism is destructive, while keeping violence to a minimum, they could have gotten a lot more traction in the West.

walking in hell2 #fundie the-spearhead.com

["Saudis Building Women-Only City"]

This is overly generous of the Muslim men, and most likely destabilizing. By being recklessly chivalrous, Saudi men are introducing a cancer to Saudi society.

If I were the governing forces in Saudi Arabia, I would export Saudi women who wanted to work to other countries; for example, flush the trouble makers into America or Britain and let them slave away.

I would then replace the unhappy exports with new imports who were happy with Saudi life.

I think the Saudi man’s inexperience with feminism has caused them to make a decision which will eventually destroy the Saudi family and bring misery to the entire country. This is a big mistake.

Darryl X #fundie the-spearhead.com

I strongly promote expulsion from churches of women who divorce. Since our marriage contracts are worthless in the eyes of the law, then at least they can be promoted in the church. Churches need to condemn “silly” women and punish their crimes. Fundamentals of Christianity must be reintroduced to our churches and our religious leaders need to stop pandering to women. That’s the same thing as evil men who manipulate “silly” women and “silly” women who allow themselves to be manipulated by evil men. A husband must submit (again) to God and his wife must submit to her husband and to God. There are important and practical reasons these rules were created. Mostly to prevent a woman’s malignant narcissism from corrupting her family and then society.

The 'History Scholar' Award

evilwhitemalempire #sexist the-spearhead.com

"Feminism grew powerful in the late 60s early 70s because they jumped on the civil rights bandwagon and became an 'oppressed minority"
***************

yes, when the communists were passing out ‘official victim of white man’ cards to blacks, indians, etc. the females cut in line, batted their eyelashes and got as many cards as they wanted

and i think it happened that way because the majority of bleeding heart liberal types (folks that can very easily and readily feel for people of different color skin, ethnicity, etc.) are men (ever find a female that could actually feel for people that weren’t at least 98% similar to herself?)

if even a fourth of those people passing out the cards were female it might have gone down a bit different

Joe #fundie the-spearhead.com

I’m not an expert on his matter.
My experience: I was 16 when abortion was legalized in 1973. I didn’t know any adult women, or girls in high school, who were happy about it. The women, and the girls , all seemed dazed and confused by it.
Some of the older adult women cried when abortion was legalized. My mother did. Others, as well.
I grew up in a working-class, middle-class suburb of NYC, mix of Catholics and Protestant Christians for the most part. That was the milieu. That was my little world.
To be brutally honest, the only ones who were celebrating abortion in this milieu, in this world I knew, were men. Men were celebrating abortion in 1973, not women. At least in the world I grew up in.
Alot of t adult men I knew gave me the elbow nudge to the ribs and a blink of the eye. I was “lucky” because I was “off the hook “and I could fuck all I want without the possibility of a shotgun wedding. They didn’t have that “luxury”. They were envious.
That was the thinking of the overwhelming number of adult men, and fellow boys in high school that I knew.
If there were any men around who didn’t like the legalization of abortion, they were real quiet about it.
From my personal experience, I have come to the conclusion that abortion is at the crux of female craziness today.
To speak in general, the women I knew were dazed and confused when abortion was legalized, then soon after, women went off the deep end. I think they went off the deep end in the pain and confusion that the legalization of abortion caused in their hearts and in their minds, deeply affecting the feminine spirit, so to speak. I think that’s the crux of the matter.
Just a theory. Just from my own experience.

Rmaxd #fundie#sexist the-spearhead.com

An Apt Quote By Kris over at PMAFT

“It doesn’t matter if all women are or are not like that, what matters is that society enables all women to be like that!”

As long as one woman can get away with rape because of her gender, all women are rapists; as long as one woman can get away with domestic abuse because of her gender, all women are abusers; as long as one woman can get away with child molestation because of her gender, all women are pedophiles; as long as one woman can get away with murder because of her gender, all women are murderers.

“It doesn’t matter if all women are or are not like that, what matters is that society enables all women to be like that!”

Gen Y guy’s have been systematically abused and discriminated against. Our futures intentionally sabotaged for the benefit of women.

So as long as one woman benefits from our pain and suffering ALL WOMEN ARE FEMINISTS AND ALL FEMINISTS ARE MALE HATING, MISANDTRIST, FEMALE SUPREMACIST BIGOTS!

By denying the sheer level of misandry, sexism and blatant discrimination we have had to endure, all your doing is pouring sulfuric acid onto a gaping, infected wound, and proving what narcissistic, overly entitled bigots a womans gender is.

Joe #fundie the-spearhead.com

Women are capable of love but there’s a reason St. Paul tells wives to “fear” their husbands. Because women are just much more like children in their moral reasoning and in their emotional “resilience” (or capacity for cruelty). So for a woman to love a husband is much like a child’s love for his parents. It is a love that is requires her to be in a dependent position. This is why marriage in a feminist society of independent and irreligious (I don’t mean women without superstition, but women without fear of moral judgment) women, cannot work.

Bryan #sexist the-spearhead.com

Taking a belt to his daughter’s rear isn’t criminal, it isn’t anti-biblical, and it shouldn’t be condemned. If the wife stepped out of line he should be free to have her bend over and take a few whacks on the ass as well. A lot of times women get out of line and even the so-called “adult” women are often just children in adult bodies, they sometimes need discipline. For the most part they seem to crave it, they act in a fashion that they know SHOULD provoke a physical response from a healthy/sane male and then when that response doesn’t occur they get upset and begin pushing more and more to see what they can get away with.

If your wife spends more money than you told her she was allowed to spend, she is basically testing you, she is begging you to get tough with her, lay down the law, and be a man. Women won’t, don’t, and probably cannot respect a pushover man, they want a take charge man. Steinem once remarked, “we are becoming the men we wanted to marry” maybe so, but men are becoming the women of old and that doesn’t appeal to women, modern women or women at any other time. If your wife steps out of line and spends more than you told her she could spend, you have her bend over the table and take her belting/paddling like a big girl. Maybe for a lot of women it wouldn’t even be a negative thing.

What does modern society expect us to do, roll over and apologize that the woman was acting unruly and out of line? I say you paddle her ass and see where things go from there (more likely than not she’ll beg you to mount her right then and there).

Peter #sexist the-spearhead.com

These verses [1 Corinthians 7] show clearly that there is an obligation to have sex, never a right to not have sex. This is where the old term, the “marriage debt” comes from. It is a debt owed by both parties to the other. And withholding of sex is defrauding the partner. This is not regarded by the Church traditionally as a small matter, or unimportant. Rather if a wife defrauds her husband by not submitting and giving him sex when he desires it, she has committed a mortal sin.

For those not familiar with the term, a mortal sin is a grave offense not only against the marriage partner, but against God Himself. And, without confessing the sin, doing penance, and agreeing that it will not happen again, the woman will lose her soul and be consigned to hell.

So, we see how serious the sex obligation is for both husband and wife. These are debts and obligations agreed to and taken upon each other by the vows of marriage. The idea of marital rape is asinine and ridiculous. It only shows how far we have gotten from a real conception of marriage.

The woman has not power over her body, but her husband. Where is the wiggle room for marital rape here? There is none whatsoever. The very development of this anti-Christian concept shows that we must remove the State from marriage and restore true marriage with its vows and obligations – otherwise there is no marriage at all, only a farce masquerading under the false name of “marriage” to deceive men into its clutches.

Lyn87 #sexist the-spearhead.com

I recently took a long trip for work and spent a lot of hours in the air. One of my fellow passengers really stood out in my mind: a 20-something lass a few rows ahead of me. She is a natural-born beauty in that “launch a thousand ships” kind of way – slim, near-perfect symmetrical features, piercing blue eyes, and a shapely body. She is, simply, stunning. But there’s more to this story than a retired soldier admiring an exquisite example of female flesh young enough to be my daughter.

It was actually her tattoo that first caught my attention.

She was wearing a low-slung top that revealed a HUGE eagle inked across her chest and extending down under the front of her shirt. And then I noticed her hair – what little there was of it. I’ve always kept my hair short, even by military standards, and her hair was shorter than mine. Few things de-feminize a woman more than buzzing off her hair, which is why it is considered to be shameful in many societies. She was wearing ratty, ripped jeans and far too much costume jewelry. And then I noticed the piercings. As I stood six inches behind her for several minutes waiting to de-plane I counted seven, and that was just what was visible. I wondered what else she had done to herself. A tramp-stamp is a given, but who knows what other “body art” was hidden out of my view[...]

I asked myself what would cause the stunningly-beautiful young woman on my flight – at the height of her Sexual Market Value – to do that to herself? Women dress for us, so what does she intend for us to infer? I’m easy? I’m rebellious? I can drink you under the table?

I can think of no message that her chosen facade would convey that would be in her long-term interest. In a few years after her looks fade she is likely to be just another tatted-up skank wondering where the good men are.

It didn’t have to be this way. In a different social environment a woman like her would have learned to be (gasp!) feminine. She would have observed the older women in her surroundings and absorbed benevolent patriarchy in the air she grew up breathing. With her beauty she could have married above her economic station and lived a comfortable life. We can’t know if she would have been happy, but she almost certainly would have had stability, security and comfort. But she doesn’t live in that society; she lives in a “Slut Walk” society, thanks to feminism. When she chose the “Suicide Girl” look nobody stopped her. Now she has mutilated herself with enough ink and metal trinkets to repel the kind of man most likely to give her the life she wants, because no matter what she does to the outside of her body, she will eventually want what women have always wanted on the inside – stability, security and comfort.

The fruits of feminism: what a waste.

doclove #fundie the-spearhead.com

Look at reality. Our American Republic has been under durress since the Seneca Falls meeting in 1848. They managed to change the divorce laws for the American Civil War Veterans 1861-64. Before this, if there was a divorce, the man got the house and the children unless something was seriously wrong with him. Divorce rates were only a measley one percent and a spouse still had to prove fault and it wasn’t easy to get a divorce and not everyone could get one. Divorce rates rose to 10% by the end of the First World War, and why shouldn’t they as women usually got the house and kids even under a fault system. Then just in time for the Vietnam War, the divorce laws were changed to no fault and the wife still got the house and kids like it was after the American Civil War unless something was seriously wrong with her. After the Vietnam War, marriage was a man’s fool game tp play and to be honest after the American Civil War it was starting to get a little bad too.

As most of you know, I’m a 43 year old White man and a Christian and a Catholic as well as an U.S. Army Veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m also a bit of an amatuer historian. The Roman Republic rose for two imporatant reasons although they weren’t the only ones but I believe they were crucial. Enforced monogamy even if the husband but not the wife was allowed in practice if not theory to commit adultry. Pater Potentas, Father’s power, was the other reason. A man had a right to harm or kill his wife, children even unmarried adult female children, adult male children even if theoretically elected to the highest office of the Republic, Consul. He also had the right to harm or kill his grandchildren and great grandchildren. He had the right to harm or kill his descendants wives, slaves, his descendants slaves, his descendants wives slaves or any freed slave by him or them. He had a right to do this without being questioned. Not even the Taliban would allow such a thing as a man needs sufficient reason to do so. When these rights were lost by the Roman Empire among other reasons as well, Rome started to eventually lose. The same process is happening in the USA and we had a much more pleasant patriarchy for the Females even before 1860 than the Roman Republic ever did. As I said above even the Taliban was more pleasant to females than the Roman Republic which our founding fathers based much of our American Republic on. Although it emotionally and in a moral Christian Catholic sense offends even me, in order to halt and reverse our decline we may need to reinstitute some Ancient Roman Republican laws. There’s a reason the Roman Republic crushed all before it, even after suffering fearsome losses in battle and horrific defeats. I see no other logical way. By the way I’m of Polish and Irish descent and not of Italian descent. For as painful as it is for me to admit this, I logically can see no other way to prevent the coming collapse. If someone disagrees with me, please logically prove me wrong as emotionally and morally I would accept and love it. I mean this.

Rocco #sexist the-spearhead.com

@ Craig

You might want to reconsider your position in light of this fact, if you want children you don’t need a woman in your life at all, just some money.

Hire a surrogate and be happy.

Why don’t you do it? I believe men have a romantic notion of wife and family.

That has been a very nasty bit of fraud perpetrated on men for over a century.

You do not need a wife, a wife today is a major liabilty, like having cancer (and this is a serious analogy, think about it, a growth of cells that consumes, does not contribute, then, if your lucky is painfully removed leaving you injured for life).

Next page