Thread: What Do You Think About Women on Leashes?

I posted a comment on their site, we'll see if it gets published.

Amazing! Truly predictable.

When the BBC pushed out the programme "Bring your husband to heel", despite complaints they refused anything close to an apology to men, even though the men were TRICKED into participation with the programme and regardless that they were pyschologically abused during the shows.

And yet, here we have a couple of women who willing wear dog chains, and the programme is being considered for renewal due to 'negative feedback'.

And your article dares to suggest that it is women who are degraded 'again'.

This does not even remotely compare to the degrading and abusive manner in which many men were tricked and mentally abused on a BBC programme.

This demonstrates clearly the gender double standards within our society.

Yep, it's an auto-publish setup.
Let's see if it actually stays.. lol

Hearhear
Amazing .
Tho The BBC issued a weak "aplogy" they continued to show the rog . The scum Clayton has never evenhinted at regret .
I saud then ,and I say now . I sincerelly hope that clayton ,and every sick , evil , man-hating scum female that was involved in that satanic piece of trash gets very ill !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's hope it's long and painfull!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ps
Any chance of anyone posting this on the BBC POV board ? I can't ,I have been banned, for daring to criticise the feminist scum that runit !!!!:funny: :funny: :funny:
The BBC needs to be reminded that as far as MRA's are concerend ,it ain't over yet :lol: :lol:

Muhuwahahahaha!!! I posted a rebuttal to the rebuttal of your post, Karl. Take THAT, LAist!!

Woot!! If you click on my name, it links back to my blog. Should get some hate mail any old time now. *waiting, rocking back and forth on heels, and whistling tunelessly*

Got a reply to my post. Need help with the rebuttal

KARL'S POST
Amazing! Truly predictable.
When the BBC pushed out the programme "Bring your husband to heel", despite complaints they refused anything close to an apology to men, even though the men were TRICKED into participation with the programme and regardless that they were pyschologically abused during the shows.
And yet, here we have a couple of women who willing wear dog chains, and the programme is being considered for renewal due to 'negative feedback'.
And your article dares to suggest that it is women who are degraded 'again'.
This does not even remotely compare to the degrading and abusive manner in which many men were tricked and mentally abused on a BBC programme.
This demonstrates clearly the gender double standards within our society.

[2] Posted by: karl | August 13, 2006 8:03 AM

COUNTERTRAX THANKING BITCHES FOR SETTING US BACK

with all honesty, i have never seen the show - but although the women are willingly being leashed to Snoop it doesnt change what the image displays -male over female dominance. As if a rapstar's "pimp" image didnt need more of that, now women are pets to be contained on leashes?? At least when women were mere "hos" and "bitches" to be owned by their blinged out pimps they were PEOPLE, now they're not even that.
thumbs up to the two "women" on Snoops leashes for selling out what so many had spent a life time fighting for - equality.


[4] Posted by: countertrax | August 13, 2006 11:42 AM

TONY'S REPLY TO KARL

And your article dares to suggest that it is women who are degraded 'again'.
For some reason you put quotes around "again" when this post never uses that word, and you mention a BBC show that clearly no regular LAist reader would have ever heard of. Just because things are backwards and ****ed up across the pond doesn't mean that it's ok for things to be ****ed up here.

[5] Posted by: tony | August 13, 2006 12:03 PM

KELLYMAC'S REPLY TO TONY

Tony,
The quotes around "again" refer to the constant stream of complaints we hear of women being degraded. When in fact, women have the upper hand here in America. Think about it. How often have you seen a man slapped on tv? And a woman? What is the reaction to each? How funny does everyone think it is when a man gets kicked in the balls in a sitcom?
Karl may be from "across the pond", but the problem permeates all of Western society. We're fed it from our infancy.

[6] Posted by: KellyMac | August 13, 2006 1:39 PM

TONY'S REPLY TO KELLYMAC

Women have the upper hand in America?
Really?
I guess that explains the amount of female Presidents, CEOs, Senators, supreme court justices, priests, singers who don't have to dress like sluts, and actresses who don't have to look anorexic.
Since women have the upper hand in America I guess that explains why they never have to worry about Roe v Wade being overturned.
Since women have the upper hand in America I guess that explains why Viagra is covered in most health insurance policies but female contraception isn't.
Hopefully you're writing us from the future.

[7] Posted by: tony | August 13, 2006 2:01 PM

I want to rebut - here's what I'm thinking:

Tony,

1. There are some women in the fields you mention; they are the ones with ambition and talent. The fact it, most women don't care enough to sacrifice their families for personal power. Singers dressing like sluts and anorexic actresses are a direct result of feminism. Think about it. Would your average man want a woman who respects herself enough not to act slutty and has some grabbable, luscious curves, or the town pump he's afraid to hold too tight because she may break?

2. Since when have they tried to overturn Roe v. Wade? I do know about the recent case when a man asked to have equal reproductive rights as a woman - after all, without his sperm, the child could not grow. That case was thrown out of court. So much for equal rights.

3. That is interesting about the insurance coverages you mentioned. Do you have any sources? I do know that abortions were covered way before birth control or viagra. And as long as I've had health insurance (15 years), my birth control was covered. So was my husband's vasectomy.

Do you have any more myths to perpetuate?

KellyMac

Input, please???

I wrote:

The fact that women have a 'Roe v Wade' to be worried about proves that women DO have the upper hand. Men's closest to 'Roe v Wade' is 'C $ A'.
Viagra is not a contraceptive, btw. And on the subject of health, women have 4x financing piled into breast cancer research than prostate cancer research despite both cancers killing similar numbers of their respective sex. WHO (World Health Org) offers little to men:
search on "women's health" = 5,800 pages
seach on "men's health" = 673 pages
Let's look at VAMA (violence against men act) or VAPA (violence against people act)... Oh shoot, there exists no such an act. But we DO have VAWA! Imagine that!!!
Yes, once again men are given more priority than women
Doesn't matter where you go with regards western culture, women receive preferential treatment time after time.

I wrote this up before reading you request for help with a rebuttal though, kellymac... but hope it helps some anyway.

<i>Health research and practice has always been centered around men.</i>
actually, there is no office or department of men's health, nor of children's health - yet there is for women. Governments have ministers for women, yet still, none for men. The fact that political figures may be male, does not mean they work specifically for men... as is blatantly obvious by the anti-male attitudes in todays' culture.
However, I would like to draw your attention, with respect to the above quote, that feminists misled government officials by issuing a report on how much government money was being spent on female-specific medical research.
Due to the misinformation, governments began piling money into women's departments and setting up women specific research groups & bodies.
The interesting part that feminists 'forgot' to mention, was that male-specific medical research was actually less than 2/3rds of what was being spent on female-specific medical research.
So, because of misinformation, the sex which already received superior government grants had yet more research in their favour. Meanwhile, men are still receiving similar monetary support as they were back in the day... no 'upgrades' for men.
The point I was trying to address regards viagra not being a contraceptive, is that men & women alike have to pay for contraceptives (at least to my knowledge) in America. However, in England, both sexes receive contraceptives free on the NHS. Men & women both receive condoms: outside the 'snip', condoms being a man's only reliable contraception. Women, however and as per usual, have many - MANY - more options open to them; options that do not necessarily dull the sensation of sex, unlike a condom. Sex and sexuality is considered a major part of a person's life, hence it is somewhat understandable that viagra (which generally benefits both the man & the woman) is covered... Tell me, do you know if breast cancer vs prostate cancer is covered by these insurances you mention? I'm willing to bet I know the answer already.
Perhaps one day, men too will be shown similar respect as women currently receive in society. But while feminists & female supremacists continue to whine about every ditty dot they can scramble, this will never come to be.

I couldn't contain myself. I wrote this in response to some of the other comments available.

Health research and practice has always been centered around men.

Yeah right.:roll:

karl you should be ashamed of yourself.



Posted by: tony

Translation=You won

Awwwww

I posted this today:

Wow, talk about uneducated...

Tony, what should I be ashamed of? That I stand up for men and suggest we be treated equally to women? That men should receive equal healthcare as women? etc?

The reason more women 'take responsibility' in contraceptive terms, is because they have the more options. And yes, there is some research - 40+ years after it was available to women - to get men an oral contraceptive.

A valid point, J. Yes, the contraceptives do help both the man & woman. However, the fact that contraceptives are a mostly female dominated science (made by men, but for women's benefit) gives women the power over men and does nothing to equalize us. For example: "Oops, I 'accidently forgot' to take my pill and now - gee - I'm pregnant... just like i've wanted to be for the last six-months. I know you didn't want a child yet, hunny, but - oh well..."
Having viagra offers no 'power' for men to abuse, in fact, it can save many marriages where the woman feels she is to blame for his sexual dysfunction. Viagra helps in much ways than just getting it up for him.

Ahhh the old myth that men are more violent. Erin Pizzy opened the first womens shelter in London, England. She herself stated that 60% of the women were abusive. Government statistics repeatedly show that men account for about 55% and women for 45% of spousal abuse. However, once again, feminists do not share this information, and instead perpetuate lies such as 95%.
Here's some information to educate yourself with:
Victims in Dating Violence
women murder 55% of family children
violence against women survey: Biased
The list goes on...
Women are NOT the oh-so-hard-done-by as the media paints, according to feminist indoctrination. Media (people such as Tony) repeat feminist untruths, and good decent men suffer for it on a daily basis in the form of false allegations, unjust repecussions of minor incidents and so forth. I do, however, fully accept that men can hurt women easier than vice-versa. Let us not ignore though, that women use other men, weapons and catching the man off-gaurd (i.e. when he is asleep etc.) to initiate their violence. I bet people disagreeing with me still chuckle or snigger to themselves (or outloud) when they see men being sexually assualted (comedic groin attacks). Equally, when they see a man 'touching' (i.e. not kicking or hitting) a woman against her will, they also boo & hiss (perhaps only metaphorically) at the 'evil man'. Let's not even discuss what goes through a person's mind when they see a woman being hit or kicked, especially sexually! There actually is no reason to have VAWA, none at all. The funniest part though, is feminists will deny that VAWA excludes men. They obviously cannot read the title.
The lie that women only make $0.75 for a man's $1.00 is just that, a lie.
If you worked an extra hour a day in an identical job to a woman, would you expect to be paid extra for that hours work? If you had 10yrs more experience in the job, would you expect your extra 10yrs experience to be reflected in your pay? If you took less time off than your female counterpart, would you expect to lose a portion of your wage because she took time-off to visit the Doctors office?
And that, good readers, is why men earn more! It is not, as portrayed by feminists, that men literally earn more cash for the same work. It is, however, because men gain more expierence, or take off less time, or work longer hours, or work in more hazardous jobs, etc. etc.
The list of reasons goes on & on & on. But ignorant people do not research, they simply hear feminists whining, and then perpetuate those lies by repeating them as gospel - when gospel is far from what it is.
Agreed that only recently did women started to volunteer (i.e. if men forced them to 'volunteer', we'd be oppressive, right?) for research. However, let's not ignore that the men who did volunteer, while women declined to, made the world a better place for all. The point being, there is no department for children's health within the government. We are lumped as one. Feminists consider women to be oh-so superior that they are deserving of 4x the research funds that are available to men & children alike. And the reason they get 4x, is because of: LIES.

And poor, poor Tony (the guy who seems to own the site/feedback area) has employed a filter to moderate new posts..
The word 'coward' springs to mind

I also added this:

Aww tony has to hide behind a moderation filter, just so he can be all big n tuff!
Here, Tony, seeing as you're hiding, why not join in here - I promise NOT to moderate your opinions... I'm an open fella, and I can debate without having to enforce quashing techniques just so i can win an argument..

http://antimisandry.com/vbdr/forum/s...=6366#post6366

Let's see just how much Tony really knows... if he has a clue, he'll drop by and be prepared to put his side forward. Somehow though, I suspect he's just a mangina with no clue of facts outside what feminists have taught him.

Karl, good job! Today's good deed done!

And he can't even back those facts up, because they have no sources. Another case of "they" said.

Thank you Thank you
(where's the 'bowing' emoticon when ya need it?)