Woo-hoo! You go, Kelly!

Next edition is coming up within the next few hours of my writing this. This one is by Maus. Here's a sneak peak:

http://podcast.mgtow.net/02-Maus.mp3

KM I just blasted two dirty femmes who were trying to degrade you but I think I turned on them sister. Fuck with my friends will they haha.
John I heard the new pod cast Mause was exelent I can't wait for my turn now KM and Mause have got me all fired up.

WOOT! WOOT WOOT!

Thank you all so much for allowing me a platform to spout what you have force-fed and written for me. [/sarcasm]

I'm blushing.

I had a look around and followed a few links on that website and found this one:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...2102546AA8zb2M

Why does a vast majority of feminists claim men to be evil and/or dishonest?

E.g: The Wage Gap.
They claim women are being discriminated against in the form of lower pay for equal work by their employers.
I can already hear the comebacks: ''It's just male employers, not ALL men.''. Well, those ''male employers'' are still men who were once ''just men'', and according to this logic, if you were to give an ''average man'' the opportunity to be an employer, chances are, most likely he would do the same thing. If 95% of male employers discriminate against women, chances are, so do 95% of men.

Another example for the GWS regulars: male troll = male. female troll = male. They think this because according to them, no woman would proudly admit to hating men or say such hateful things, yet they think a man would say such hateful things as saying all women should be locked up in cages. So according to them, woman can't be hateful, but men can.

The question being: why does a vast majority of feminists claim men to be evil and/or dishonest?


PS: for those of you not up to date with the news, the wage gap has been proven a lie over & over again: http://www.freewebs.com/thenatimes/theon...

Femcunts on there trying to bad mouth Kelly. If I knew how to post on there, I'd tell them off myself.

Get a yahoo account, sign up to use answers, then post away

The one named Anise just tried to flame me by saying she didn't take credit for KM podcast so I showed her how she did. I think she wants a fight.

I got your back, Chev. Erm...I didn't see where you posted a response before I posted heh.

I heard Maus' podcast. WOOT! It was awesome. There is nothing timid about our Maus.

I edited my original just like Anise did.

I'm sure it won't take any brains for anyone here to figure out which poster is me ...even though the handle I use for Yahoo is unlike the one I use here.

I just wanted to add my thanks to all those who've gone to the thread and battered the phlegminists there with common sense

Although I'm sure it's obvious, mathewssh is my handle there... clicking my nick shows various other posts I've engaged in... nearly all on the same subject

Kelly, I especially liked your post saying how you earnt our respect. Totally true.

Good stuff as ever the feminists have no real answer the truth .


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3021919AAPB3Kz

See the above on the suffragettes-and white feathers Celtic Druid is the man for this one. He explained a lot that I was never taught in history about the suffragettes.

I just put an answer to that one, also.

My grandmother was born in 1898, and so lived through the suffragette times. In fact she married in 1920, the year women got the right to vote in the USA. And here are some of the things she told me, when I had to do a report on the time period she grew up (this was when I was in school):

Grandmom said that she always viewed the "bloomers" (suffragettes) with great distaste; Grandmom was a poor, immigrant woman who had to work three menial jobs to support the family, because my grandfather developed a disability stemming from his time in World War 1. He had been hit with phosgene and mustard gas, and he could not work for long periods. So she worked cleaning buses, homes, etc.

She used to ridicule the suffragettes because she said they were mostly rich, upper-middle or upper class women who were used to being pampered and supported by their husbands, and they wanted to "work" to "see how the other half lives". She used to say that they could have come and taken any of her jobs, if work was what they wanted so badly! (lol)

And she never voted, either...she said she didn't know anything about politics and she had no TIME to vote, because, you see, she HAD to do (three times over, plus raise a family) what the "silly bloomers" were fighting to be able to do.

Because of how hard life was for the early immigrants, by the time their children were born (my parents generation), it became a status symbol for a man's wife NOT to "have to" work...in fact it was the ultimate insult to my father's dignity when my mother went out and got a part-time job many years after they married. She did it because she enjoyed getting out, etc., but Dad saw it as an affront: it would tell people that he was not man enough to support his family, that he "made" his wife go out and work. I grew up with that mentality, and still view it that way (so does my husband).

Just to give you some perspective as to how past generations saw this issue!