Thread: Do you know what women are capable of doing on men?

maybe he still thinks women generally are all "sugar'n'spice'n'all things nice" in spite of what they do and say and think and act and behave.

No, Mercian, the maybe not would be more accurate. Many women behave apallingly these days. As for what many say, think and act-out, well, I think I have been clear enough about that many times. But that is because they don't behave like women any more. 'Sugar 'n' Spice' they may sometimes have been way back when, but I doubt it. There has always been an 'infuriation' factor -from both isides. Sexual tension. Sexual tolerance.

But there is a big difference between behaviour and the way one carries oneself. One is overt, the other a mattter of 'nature'. The 'beingness' of women is superb -when she is being a woman.

There is a danger in the MRM of painting all women with the same brush and so turn away good allies.

I go back to what I said - the reason for all our anger, the depth of it at least, is because we are denied our natures, denied the ability to love one another safely and with fun. It is because we love women that they hurt us so.

Maybe some here haven't experienced love yet.

No, no, no...old boy i couldn't understand you why you've said that maybe someone hasn't experienced love enough?...Wasn't that an arrogant statement?...

First off, we all come from the origins of believing in love but afterwards, i found it's not true after experiencing the fact that the very love one was actually the evil doers....

So i hope you can understand that everyone here has got their own backgrounds and you cannot hope everyone's experiences being the same as yours or as like thinking in your ways or, in your imagination of so-called love...And i think, love is as stupid and foolish without considering the evil, dark sides of the human nature...

Won't you agree?...

But, as i can see, you still wanted to communicate so, i'll continue to communicate with you or i'll turn the other way and you'd have no ways to see my posts to you again...

You see we all don't want to waste our time to communicate with someone that his mind/heart could not be with you...God bless us all....

And i think, love is as stupid and foolish without considering the evil, dark sides of the human nature...

Won't you agree?...

No, I cannot agree with a mendacity. I respect your experience as you have had it, latenight. But clearly you have not thought it through sufficiently, nor let it seep into your heart. I urge you to do so. Learn. Love is blind and people are stupid and foolish. We can, and do, love people who reject the gift. That is us being unwise.

Yes, people have dark sides. People can make a pig's ear from a silk purse.

As for me not considering the dark side, - did you think that? - I don't think you have read what I said.

Mature men love women for the very fact that they are women. Warts and all.

I think 'warts and all' covers more than just the dark side.

I have also eschewed the 'Sugar & Spice' arguement.

You seem to be putting words into my mouth - words I have not spoken - soley to argue with them. Not wise. Feminist even. Wasteful at the very least.

i couldn't understand you why you've said that maybe someone hasn't experienced love enough?...Wasn't that an arrogant statement?...

I did not intend to be arrogant ( I have plenty to be arrogant about if I chose to be) nor cannot see any arrogance in what I said, which was :

Maybe some here haven't experienced love yet.

(and)

Latenight, I hope that one day you experience the power of unconditional love, and I hope you have the strength to bear it.

It is likely some here haven't experienced love and I don't claim any superiority. Where is the arrogance? That first was a statement about all, not just you, As one never gets tired of the opportunity to say to feminists - "It ain't all about you".

The second was directly to you. I hoped for you - a gift offered kindly - that you someday experience a phenomenon which is considered by philosophers and theologians as a Grace. Unconditional love is never sought and is terrible to bear. It is given to you. Through you. It destroys ego. No arrogance can be derived from such an experience. Had you experienced it, you would know that.

Son, we may have vastly different life experiences but let us learn from one another as fellows.

Quote from Percy

No, Mercian, the maybe not would be more accurate. Many women behave apallingly these days. As for what many say, think and act-out, well, I think I have been clear enough about that many times. But that is because they don't behave like women any more. 'Sugar 'n' Spice' they may sometimes have been way back when, but I doubt it. There has always been an 'infuriation' factor -from both isides. Sexual tension. Sexual tolerance.

But there is a big difference between behaviour and the way one carries oneself. One is overt, the other a mattter of 'nature'. The 'beingness' of women is superb -when she is being a woman.

There is a danger in the MRM of painting all women with the same brush and so turn away good allies.

I go back to what I said - the reason for all our anger, the depth of it at least, is because we are denied our natures, denied the ability to love one another safely and with fun. It is because we love women that they hurt us so.

Maybe some here haven't experienced love yet.

It's easy to dismiss women as a class, and say they're all bitches etc. It's similar to racial generalizations. Not only is this an error of logic and lazy thinking, but as Percy says this risks alienating more men from the anti-feminist project, men who care about their wives, sisters, mothers, daughters etc. and who get turned off by misogynism.

Enlisting moderate men may make it easier to change the cultural marxist trend before it leads to total social collapse.

Percy shows us that a warrior can have a loving heart. Men are not the mechanical death machines portrayed in video games, nor are we the spineless yes-men of mainstream culture. Men (and women) are three-dimensional, complex beings.

Not all women are shite, just don't hold them to the standard that they are equal to men. If you do, you'll just keep on being disappointed. I'm a lot happier with my relationships with women now I don't expect much from them.

Quote from Feminist_Scum

Not all women are shite, just don't hold them to the standard that they are equal to men. If you do, you'll just keep on being disappointed. I'm a lot happier with my relationships with women now I don't expect much from them.

It's true that we must judge women as women and not as man-ettes if you see my point.

The great lie of the present is that man and woman are interchangeable when they are quite different.

just don't hold them to the standard that they are equal to men.

The standard that they are equal to men. Hmmm. What does that mean exactly?While this sounds attractive, it is a furphy, a false aim. Equality of women guaged against a 'standard' of men isn't the issue. It isn't even a 'standard' as far as I can tell.

Comparing women to men is always going to be a rod that beats our backs. That's why feminists introduced the idea. Don't run with it. Don't play the feminist-rule games. Comparisons have limited value and are easily manipulated.

We must hold all people to Standards that should be applied equally. The standards are not male, they are objective. Standards don't have a gender.

For example: The Equality at issue is equality before the Law. Both genders ought to be treated the same by the law and face the same consequences of breaking the law. The law should not have a gender preference. It isn't an issue of men being this or that and women being this or that, when it somes to a standard of equal treatment.

How people face Truth, as a standard, is an issue. The Truth does not have a gender. Do men have a Standard of Truth that women do not rise to? Or is there a Standard of Truth that both genders consistently fail to meet all the time? Either way, it isn't a case of a male standard or a female one.

Honesty is a standard that doesn't have a gender. It isn't owned by one sex or the other. You are either honest or not; sometimes honest and somtimes not very honest; sometimes successful at being honest, sometimes failing. It is not that there is a male honesty that women fail to reach or vice versa. It is feminists that would argue that there is a 'female honesty'.

Feminists invented this whole idea of Female this or that: female logic!; female mathematics; etc. and 'a woman's Truth' and 'my truth' even!

Total crap. It has done more to divide men from women that almost any other tactic.

And we can easily fall into the same trap.

Get the idea?

Standards are what we measure ourselves against. They are 'outside' of us, and have no gender.

I only meant don't hold them to the same standards in a personal way. As in, don't expect a woman not to fuck something up, she probably will. When it comes to breaking laws, they should definitely be held to the same standards.