How many women here will admit they are a misandrist?

[Woggle]

Tell me how women have treated you like garbage Woggle?

 

Most of the time Ive felt bitter about women its because Ive wanted what I cant have, but I think you have some other experiences with your mother and an ex wife or something

 

Where do I start? I would be here all day but with the excpetion of my current wife I have gotten nothing but pain from them. The funny thing is that before my divorce I was as nice as could be to them and it was thrown back in my face everytime. I am thinking about going to my high school reunion just to tell that teacher who told me I would never be worth anything that I have my house paid off at age 31. She is just one example of a woman who has treated me like garbage.

[allina]

Most of it is bad experience. My take is that no man just wakes up one day and decides that he hates women. It is constantly being treated like garbage that embitters him. Every misogynist I know has a story that mad him that way.

 

It makes sense that one negative experience after another would leave a person with a negative outlook regarding the opposite sex/dating. But in many of these situations I find it hard to believe that this one woman or this one man was just abused and treated so horribly bu EVERYONE. I often feel like these people are people who keep making the same stupid mistakes and then blame an entire gender instead of taking any sort of responsibility.

 

It's not like I have never been hurt or disappointed by a man, but I understand that these things happen when you get romantically involved with people. I can look at my exs and see that while the relationship didn't work out between us, they are good people and I still value them.

 

To me, a person that is filled with hate and distrust because they've gone through a breakup or two is just petty (This isn't directed at you, as I know your story is more severe than a bad breakup, I'm speaking generally).

[lord alfred douglas]

I'm a misanthrope and hate most men and women equally. My hatred ratio varies between 75-90% and is dependent on how many jackasses mess with me in traffic on a given day and how many women I see driving badly while on cellphones.

 

I hate minorities less because all the funny ethnic jokes out there defuse some of the hatred.

 

I hate stupid people most of all, 90-100%, because they cost me real time, money and aggravation every day. The 10% of stupid people I like are the ones who realize they are stupid and defer to people like me who are smart. Those are truly wise beyond their IQs and I will let them live when I take over.

 

I hate unruly, undisciplined children. I want to feed them a whole box of poptarts and then put them in a straitjacket in a dark closet.

 

I hate old people because they are slow. If there were an accident, I know an old person wouldn't be able to get me out of the exploding car in time. They also take too much time at the salad bar picking out just the right crouton or bean sprout. Sometimes I lean over them and cough on their salad to hurry them up.

 

I hate cute animals, unless they are edible. Then I like them very much. Mmmmm, tasty cute animals.

 

I hate people with bad taste in music that think it's a good idea to play Justin Timberlake in a lounge club. I'd rather listen to a tape of death rattles and screams from snuff films than most of the music played in nightspots. I hate rap music especially. Nietzsche said popular music would inevitably degenerate into mindless rhythm over 100 years ago. He was right, but it didn't keep him from going mad with syphilis. I love Nietzsche.

 

I hate American Idol. I'm a bigger a**hole than Simon, a funnier alcoholic and druggie than Paula, and cooler than the black dude, whatever his name is.

I missed this at the beginning of the thread

 

It sounds like a good begininnig to a short story

[tami-chan]

No need to, we can just click on your posting history, she's right. You really have some nerve calling out others on their condescending remarks, at least others' remarks can be described as condescension, there is a certain degree of intelligence involved. Where as your remarks are just cheap lowly insults used solely for the intent of igniting fights and trolling. Your personal insults aren't even entertaining to read.

 

I insulted you because you are nasty? You do not think that all you have done is be nasty to me? I understand being condescending but to insult's somebody's profession to make a point is not even needed-why not just stick to the topic? BTW, have you reconciled your statements?

 

If I recall even in this thread when Grogster posted his comment about forums being a great example of Gresham's law your only contribution to the discussion was "good fight ,fight, should I go get my nails done or stick around for the fight, let's have a fight I can't wait!"

 

See, now you are LYING...not only are you being nasty, you are also being a nasty liar. This is what I said:

 

waiting for Grogster's response/rebuttal to meerkat's.............toot-to-do..la..la...la...looking at nails...thinking: need to go to the spa.

 

A far cry from what you quoted above. Get it together, you are losing it.

 

When I said that you were hook line and sinker earlier it was not a personal attack it was an honest observation, one which I am obviously not the only one who's concluded.

 

Oh is this what this is all about? Does that mean you have been stalking me? and following my exchanges with meerkat? This is very interesting. I do not ever think, that lowly me would be noticed....you need to get a life...seriously, stay away from me, you are creepy.

[tami-chan]

... And he shouldn't need a little girl diving in to rescue him either.

 

I am little and very cute!...LOL.. but he definitely does not need rescuing form me. As you can tell, he can hold his own as you have not really responded to his counterpoints---point by point....but nice try to further insult him...although I am sure it does not affect him in anyway....this must be very amusing to him!!!!!!!

[tami-chan]

No you insulted me because you can't help it, that is the only way you seem to know how to communicate.

 

Projection.

 

Have you grasped the concept yet? Doubt it, so you won't be getting anymore explanations from me

Can't reconcile it, huh? LOL!!!!

 

It's not a far cry, that's exactly what you meant by that. You troll and pit people against each other instead of contributing meaningful interesting points to a discussion.

Caught in a lie....spin it, spin it....LOL:p

 

Wait.... I pitted people against each other?...damn, I didn't know I was that influential!!!!!!!!! Are you saying they couldn't/can't think for themselves?

 

Don't flatter yourself sweetie, if you call looking at the garishly loud comments you post on a open forum that the entire world can read and see and that also match your eye shadow "stalking" then you need to either look up the definition of "stalking" or you need to get out more.

Admit it..you have been following me, that's why you have "observations" of me. You are not the only one, sweetie, but you are starting to creep me out...stay away from me, please?

[meerkat stew]

There are posters here who use both sites, and who feel that their presence is required here in order to rescue less enlightened men who can be converted to The Way.

 

Is that really an honest answer to my polite and reasonable request to stick with -this- forum? Are you so intent on bogging this fun chat down in "procedure?" I call "forum non conveniens" and 8 kinds of hearsay if you keep hinging your points on the existence or content of other forums. If there just isn't enough "meerkat meat" in my posts for you to respond to, I apologize, but don't think that's the case.

 

You seem rather fond of them yourself, given the endless references.

 

Endless references? By me? where? I mentioned two of those by domain name. Haven't visited either of them in years, and when I did, it was for no more than ten minutes. I spend more time on fupenguin.com than on PUA sites.

 

 

I didn't say that men are sexually motivated in all their endeavours.

 

You stated that men whined about not getting laid. The "d*ck in hand" fallacy is a reasonable extrapolation from that. You have not denied it either, because you, and many women, obviously believe it to be true. How hard would it have been to say, "poor choice of words, I know it looks like I said that men are purely motivated by sex, I didn't mean that, and don't believe it." Those would have been the first words I typed in a similar situation.

 

 

So your position is that men are fine with feminism and that the grouching is about something else.

 

I'm saying that much of the grouching about "feminism," or "Sally won't date 5'7"," or "Sally says she wants a funny, honorable guy yet turned me down and proceeded to screw the 6' meth dealer in front of me" is, in addition to being a direct statement of their (our) feelings about a particular situation, is also a backlash reaction to the factors I have posted previously.

 

I rather think you've had your quota, but I'm indulging you here. You have my undivided attention sweetie...what was it you wanted to say? now?

 

You determine -my- quota, I see . I have made clear, reasoned points in my posts. You have replied, "well what's going on on these other forums is these guys are..." all I'm saying. There are plenty of radical feminist boards I could allude to out there, but would rather talk with you directly here as opposed to worrying about what they are saying there or trying to weave those dialogues into this one.

 

So it's a generalised rant. Quite a lengthy one, but you don't have time to get into specifics of what you mean by this obnoxious social behaviour.

 

The specific double standards have been discussed and posted about elsewhere, and are a topic unto themselves. This thread is about whether women hold a generally misandrist view, and by extension, what circumstances led, and lead men to conclude so.

 

 

What it seems to boil down to is that you feel women are financially and socially favoured in the current climate.

 

They are, factually and demonstrably. Where's my "male-owned business" grant? Why are flex time 30 hour a week female lawyers made partner while 80 hour a week men of identical skill and potential are passed over in favor of the woman? Can list dozens more, do you really want that? Aren't my posts bloated enough as it is? It's not all that controversial a statement to say that women are financially and socially favoured in the current climate. Most of us men can live with that piece of the equation actually, but it does cost us real dollars despite that we didn't benefit from the past in the least. (btw No, I didn't get passed over for partner personally).

 

Raising the issue of height selection by women resulting in rantings about misogyny: Are you sure that it's the issue itself that elicits these reactions, or is it the way in which it's raised? As a lawyer you should of course be examining the various possibilities rather than leaping to the assumption that women don't like to have their preferences questioned in any shape or form.

 

Agree, these guys are tactless for the most part, and most of the posts just want a reaction. The fact remains, though, that I have never ever seen a woman in one of these height threads admit that the preference is strictly based on vanity, as it so obviously is. Even if she says, "yeah, I'm just vain, get over it," what a breath of fresh air that would be, not gonna see that, though are we? What I do say is perpetual rationalizing and blankly insulting dismissal. Exactly the way one would talk to a dog who can't find his biscuit. Misandry.

 

 

Would you like me to campaign for laws preventing women from specifying preferences? You're presenting this in some kind of "social ills that must be addressed" manner. I don't live in your country, so I can't comment on some of the specifics - eg women but not men getting small business grants. This would certainly not be permissible where I live as it would breach equality legislation. I would have thought the appropriate action would involve raising a test case on behalf of a man seeking a business grant.

 

There is a whole chain of preference/affirmative action based jurisprudence in the U.S., and whereas some of the more flagrant quota-ish abuses have finally been eliminated via test cases, the modern Supreme Court has not exactly been known to limit federal power, so you don't see the tests as much. "Takings" for example, is no more than a notion in the 5th amendment, no teeth at all. Only the barest limits on the commerce clause power exist. The Patriot Act (nothing to do with gender) demonstrates that the federal government can do anything it wants with little if any recourse. Preferences included.

 

As far as dating behaviour goes, it's not within the scope of lawyers and politicians to dictate this. It's for the individuals themselves to establish what is and isn't acceptable to them. You simply can't legislate against those preferences. It's also difficult for me to comment on the whole "men paying" thing, because where I live it's far more common for a first date to consist of going to the bar where both people take turns to buy drinks.

 

Straw man.

 

but usually in these discussions both the single mother and the absent fathers are criticised.

 

No they aren't.

 

If you're trying a calling out here, you're failing pretty badly. Where's all this "Internet male predators threatening the well-being of our children" coming from. Again, this has no bearing on my post.

 

You claimed to dismiss stereotypes out of hand as applied to women, that you just allow them to roll off your back, my retort was that men can't afford to do that or we lose money or our freedom. Government power-grabbing in the guise of protecting children from predators is an example of using male stereotypes to effect government control for reasons unrelated to the ostensible issue (internet predation), but rather due to the government's desire to tax commerce on the internet and control it genrally. It bears directly on one portion of your post.

 

 

You're very attached to this whole "men are all about sex" thing.

 

Yes I am, it lies at the foundation of politically institutionalized misandry.

 

This is a dating advice forum, of course men are seeking advice on how to date successfully and attract women. Claiming that this determines that the men asking for advice are merely seeking sex is disingenuous and misandrist. Several men I see here have quite a lot of sex, yet bemoan their situation with women for other reasons.

 

You're not really a lawyer, are you? This is absolute nonsense. Rambling, emotionally charged nonsense. You seem to have a variety of pet issues that you're using my post as a springboard for.

 

The "absolute nonsense" began when many states changed laws favoring the mother presumptively for sole custody. It has been ongoing and continues despite the blessed end of the two other planks of the "sexual abuse scare" of the early 90s involving ritual satanic abuse and repressed memories. These two very real nationwide past social phenomena, together with the increase in sexual abuse claims in divorce court that continues, are telling examples of how institutionalized misandry has cost men dearly. The women involved were/are never held accountable in any way. I can't vouch for the accuracy of anything in the paragraph below other than it demonstrates I'm not just making this up:

 

"Although there is a disagreement as to the frequency and nature of false claims, many believe that false accusations have become a serious problem in vindictive, angry custody and visitation battles. Consequently, false accusations in divorce have received extensive media and professional attention (see for example, Ash, 1985; Benedek & Schetky, 1985a, 1985b; Bishop & Johnson, 1987a, 1987b; Blush & Ross, 1987 & 1990; Brant & Sink, 1984; Bresee, Stearns, Bess, & Packer, 1986; Dwyer, 1986; Ekman, 1989; Everstine & Everstine, 1989; Ferguson, 1988; Gardner, unpublished, 1987a; Goldzband & Renshaw, unpublished; Gordon, 1985; Green, 1986; Green, & Schetky, 1988; Guyer & Ash, 1986; Hindmarch,1990; Jones & Seig, 1988; Levine, 1986; Levy, 1989; MacFarlane, 1986; Murphy, 1987; Ross & Blush, 1990; Schaefer & Guyer, 1988; Schuman, 1986; Sheridan, 1990; Sink, 1988b; Spiegel, 1986; Thoennes & Pearson, 1988a, 1988b; Thoennes & Tjaden, 1990; Underwager & Wakefield, 1990; Wakefield & Underwager, 1988, 1989, 1990; Yates & Musty, 1988)."

 

You don't hear about it. Wonder why that is? But your personal insult to me is a typical response. Women just don't want to hear about issues that have a very real impact on the lives of men, why is this? Does this attitude, in and of itself, represent an underlying attitude of misandry?

 

 

Oh for Christ's sake. I think I made it clear that I couldn't care less about stereotypical media portrayals. Only an idiot feels oppressed by a few stereotypes in a sitcom.

 

You brought it in and opened the door, not me. Of course you don't care, it's beneath you because it doesn't affect you. I understand. Try enjoying entertainment as 90% of media portrayals of your sex, race and geography are extremely negative over your entire adult life and get back to me. Just watched all of the Prison Break series on DVD, refreshingly there -were- some female villains. Who was the slimy, thoroughly despicable murdering pervert though? The white Southern guy. I'm used to it, just another brick in the wall. But you -did- bring it up, and it is another symptom of institutionalized misandry.

 

 

That with your posts you have brought enormous embarrassment onto the legal profession. I can't imagine what your colleagues must make of this kind of thing....but perhaps it's normal in the South. I've got a friend practising there. I must ask him.

 

Ad hominem in a most offensive manner, counselor. Used to this too. Shout down, rather than discuss. Blindly insult rather than listen. Do you really think that some anonymous lawyer on a forum called "Loveshack" on the internet is capable of bringing "enormous embarrassment" onto the legal profession? We of the Bar have such a noble, untarnished heritage to protect . Am some disappointed, as you started civilly and well. Not entirely surprised at how you turned out though. Your attitude, in this paragraph especially, is QED of what Woggle is saying in this thread.

[meerkat stew]

He lacks objectivity and his debating skills are poor.

 

Sour grapes are sour.

 

I wouldn't comment, were it not for the fact that he's made such a song and dance on this forum about being a lawyer. If he is a lawyer, he should be able to argue in a more measured, less emotional way. And he shouldn't need a little girl diving in to rescue him either.

 

Where's this song and dance? Can only recall alluding to my profession a few times out of many many posts in a short time here (I am a verbose mofo), and specifically stating what I do fewer than 3-5 times here. Tami, whom I have conversed with frequently here, didn't even know my job. As far as she knows, I'm an ant farmer.

 

Re: being measured versus emotional, sorry for calling your posts "an enormous embarrassment to the legal profession," erm... wait. :lmao: Is that how one goes about debating in a measured, unemotional way? Actually thinking of changing my sig, but just got this one and not tired of it yet. May change to your masterpiece in a few days/weeks, or TBFs claim that I have a crush on her.

 

Did you really see a hyper-emotional tone in my posts? Or rather just didn't like what was being said?

 

It's ok, I knew where we'd end up.

 

@ Tami-chan, Thanks for the rescue "little girl!" :lmao: Take it as a compliment when you get carded buying beer... or when delivering your next patient's baby!

[meerkat stew]

If I recall even in this thread when Grogster posted his comment about forums being a great example of Gresham's law your only contribution to the discussion was "good fight ,fight, should I go get my nails done or stick around for the fight, let's have a fight I can't wait!"

 

You are being really nasty and unfair here, and tami-chan can stick up for herself, but any reasonable reader of her post in context would agree that her intent was purely playful.

[meerkat stew]

I missed this at the beginning of the thread

 

It sounds like a good begininnig to a short story

 

Funny you bring that up. I was thinking about a parody illustrated children's series in the mode of the great Shel Silverstein (Book of ABZs). It would start with "The Good Child's Book of Misanthropy," the second and third volumes would be "The Good Child's Book of Misogyny" and the "The Good Child's Book of Misandry." Have seen some "Dangerous Boy's" books in passing in bookstores, so it may have already been done.

[tami-chan]

Poker Face;

 

You are trying to explain you actions too much....LOL!!!! chill...it's not that serious......just stay away from me, you are really creepy.

[meerkat stew]

I've never spoken to you beyond my words to you in this thread, which I may add were completely uncalled for since I was merely trying to involve myself in the discussion at the time but I was told not to "cock block" you by meerkat stew. To which I responded to him "don't try so hard, you have her hook line and sinker" and this is what made you go off the deep-end.

 

Poker Face, I'm sorry for any misunderstanding, but my comment to you to "go away and let me stroke my Epeen in peace" was, what I thought, an obvious joke referring to the Gresham's Law debate (as silly as it was), not my ongoing banter with Tami, or any C*ck blocking (I don't even know how that would translate to the net). Some of the later comments that did not make sense before, such as the "hook line sinker" joke make sense now. I hope this misunderstanding has not caused all this flaming between you two.

[tami-chan]

.... any C*ck blocking (I don't even know how that would translate to the net)

 

LOL!!!!! too funny...!

[tami-chan]

Oh no it was her disgusting immature attitude that caused it!

Cool, I appreciate the explanation MKS and I do realize there was some kind of communication breakdown.

This misunderstanding only escalated because of Tami-chan's incessant insults directed at me including her repeated reminders that that discussion at that point in time was solely between you and her. To which I remind her to take it off line if you want an uninterrupted discussion with a specific member on a public forum. She's clearly obsessive, no wonder she throws the term "stalker" around so freely.

 

LOL... "incessant"...damn the lies don't stop...once a liar always a liar...

[meerkat stew]

PF, you are over the top with this. I just don't see what has caused you to get so angry and accusing. I think you stepped into one of our normal silly banters and a misunderstanding snowballed out of control. We are all abrasive, hell it's what the internet is for. Why don't you two call it a day on the flaming, else this thread will get locked and no one will see my thoroughly brilliant analysis and insights. :lmao:

[tami-chan]

Why don't you two call it a day on the flaming, else this thread will get locked and no one will see my thoroughly brilliant analysis and insights. :lmao:

 

a day!

 

you are right...and I so want to see your brilliant analysis and insights, stew!

[meerkat stew]

Look, I'm not starting up with you, PF. Please learn the difference between an emphatic, well-structured argument and angry accusations. If anything, I've been the target of more than my fair share of angry accusations in this thread.

[lord alfred douglas]

Look, I'm not starting up with you, PF. Please learn the difference between an emphatic, well-structured argument and angry accusations. If anything, I've been the target of more than my fair share of angry accusations in this thread.

You dont think the hostility comes from the romantic sphere being more favorable to women than to men?

 

As opposed to misandry?

 

I mean a woman has less stringent physical and financial burdens put on her to be deemed attractive

 

A guy is dismissed as a loser for all sorts of arbitrary reasons

 

It used to be as a woman gor older she lost value, but thats even been turned around so that now shes a sexy cougar while an aging guy is just considered creepy

 

I think these are the things that trigger the resentments, but men have created them in the first place by giving women all the same rights as men and then driving so hard to the hoop....women became a priveleged class

[meerkat stew]

You dont think the hostility comes from the romantic sphere being more favorable to women than to men?

 

As opposed to misandry?

 

Sure, there's plenty of that kind of plain ole can't get a date bitterness.

 

I mean a woman has less stringent physical and financial burdens put on her to be deemed attractive

 

A guy is dismissed as a loser for all sorts of arbitrary reasons

 

Sure, these are some of the double standards. I think there are lots of men out there who resent the fact that they compete with women in school and jobs, and a working man doesn't measure women by income, never has. But once women succeed and make their own high incomes, do they stop measuring men by income? No, it even intensifies! Lots of middle income men out there are considered undateable by women who make more, and I think this is a crappy attitude in the women who hold it. I can understand a high income person wanting someone with ambition and passion for their work, but can't understand women who won't date a man unless he makes at least as much as she does for that reason alone, and in my experience, that attitude is pervasive. Some of my male friends are incredible, quality people, but are completely hobbled in dating by their middling income, despite that they work hard, have no problem dating a woman who makes more and aren't intimidated in the least. Hopefully this will fade out over the next couple of generations.

 

It used to be as a woman gor older she lost value, but thats even been turned around so that now shes a sexy cougar while an aging guy is just considered creepy

 

I dunno about that. Personally, my post 40 years have been the first time I felt "balance" in the dating world, have had a great 40s so far as far as women are concerned, and feel the tables have turned some. These days, at 45, I feel on equal footing socially and in the dating world with 35-50 y.o. women. Much different than I felt at 25. And remembering those feelings at 25 is one thing that makes me keep banging a drum for these young guys who are malcontented, I know, and remember -exactly- where they are coming from.

 

I think these are the things that trigger the resentments, but men have created them in the first place by giving women all the same rights as men and then driving so hard to the hoop....women became a priveleged class

 

Most of them know better, they pretend not to, and will never admit it. They are perfectly capable of rational, logical competence at work, yet revert to the "princess pose" when favoritism towards them is questioned in the social sphere. I don't blame them, enjoy it while history shines on you, as you never know when it will end! Doesn't mean I have to sit quietly by though. We are in crisis mode in gender relations, and it's going to worsen before it improves.

[Sam Spade]

Women ain't all dat .

[Taramere]

Ad hominem in a most offensive manner, counselor. Used to this too. Shout down, rather than discuss. Blindly insult rather than listen. Do you really think that some anonymous lawyer on a forum called "Loveshack" on the internet is capable of bringing "enormous embarrassment" onto the legal profession? We of the Bar have such a noble, untarnished heritage to protect . Am some disappointed, as you started civilly and well. Not entirely surprised at how you turned out though. Your attitude, in this paragraph especially, is QED of what Woggle is saying in this thread.

 

You need to learn the difference between ad hominem attacks and fair comment on poor debating style. Your comprehension skills aren't apparent in this discussion. I can't trawl through yet another of these florid posts picking out the many examples of your misunderstandings. Possibly they're deliberate misunderstandings in a misguided effort to twist the argument. It's hard to tell.

 

I am well aware my posts to you are condescending and sarcastic. Nobody gets chucked out of a debate for being somewhat condescending and sarcastic, however. If you can't stomach other people's sarcasm and condescension then you would be well advised to cut down on your own.

 

When I say you've had your quota, by the way, I mean you've had your quota of my close attention to these ranting posts that parade themselves as meaningful debate. If you want people who enjoy debating to debate with you, cut out the attempts to patronise others with lengthy, flowery prose and off tangent rants, and get to the point. If you can do that, then I can assure you that I will be perfectly civil and free of condescension in my responses.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Taramere

[meerkat stew]

You need to learn the difference between ad hominem attacks and fair comment on poor debating style. Your comprehension skills aren't apparent in this discussion. I can't trawl through yet another of these florid posts picking out the many examples of your misunderstandings. Possibly they're deliberate misunderstandings in a misguided effort to twist the argument. It's hard to tell.

 

I am well aware my posts to you are condescending and sarcastic. Nobody gets chucked out of a debate for being somewhat condescending and sarcastic, however. If you can't stomach other people's sarcasm and condescension then you would be well advised to cut down on your own.

 

When I say you've had your quota, by the way, I mean you've had your quota of my close attention to these ranting posts that parade themselves as meaningful debate. If you want people who enjoy debating to debate with you, cut out the attempts to patronise others with lengthy, flowery prose and off tangent rants, and get to the point. If you can do that, then I can assure you that I will be perfectly civil and free of condescension in my responses.

 

From someone rather well versed in the "art of the tantrum," free advice; if you are going to pitch one, whether in court, a negotiation, at home, or on the internet, you must at least create the -illusion- of some substance somewhere in the rant, or you come off rather transparently as a child who has run off home after losing all her marbles.

 

Thanks for playing though!

[Taramere]

From someone rather well versed in the "art of the tantrum," free advice; if you are going to pitch one, whether in court, a negotiation, at home, or on the internet, you must at least create the -illusion- of some substance somewhere in the rant, or you come off rather transparently as a child who has run off home after losing all her marbles.

 

Thanks for playing though!

 

Interesting advice, but I'm interested in substance - not an illusion of it.

[torranceshipman]

I can spot a misandrist from a mile away yet most of them will deny it all day. They usually give the response that they love men or adore men which to me is like when racists say they have black friends. They claim not to hate men but when push comes to shove they show their true colors. What women here have the guts to be honest enough and tell us how they really feel?

 

How I really feel? I feel that you've just written a post that says that all women are misandrists, and if we say different we're lying. So there's not much else one can answer, is there?

 

Perhaps all the women you meet arent actually misandrists but Woggle-andrists - i.e. perhaps you are mistaking 'man hating' for 'woggle hating', a phenomenon that probably regularly occurs after they've sat through some of your long speeches about how all women are disgusting, etc. So they spout some man abuse then go about their daily business being nice to all the other men that they meet.

[torranceshipman]

Interesting advice, but I'm interested in substance - not an illusion of it.

 

Anything said or written by an individual is really just a report of perceptions of that person, thereby rendering it (potentially) as much an illusion as anything else, depending on how you conceptualize these things. Substance is the same, depends how you conceptualize it. Sorry, off topic, just thought I'd add my thoughts there