Love, etc
Just when I'd started to smile upon thoughts of the fall of the empire of feminism, I was absolutely horrified to see this article from The Times, It's labelled under the Love, etc category for women, and its content is utterley misandric. Read through my dear readers and contemplate yourself whether you'd want your daughter's/sisters/WIVES reading the likes of the following two paragraph's.
"Not that the divorce came as much of a surprise. One of the selling points of marriage to a woman used to be that it would provide security for her into her old age, teeth, lines and jowls notwithstanding. By contrast, approximately half of contemporary marriages will end in divorce — so she can strike security from her list marked pro.
Another selling point was protection: the wide-shouldered, steely-jawed, testosterone-fuelled barrier between a woman and harm’s way. Today, if we are to believe research from some women’s organisations, a quarter of wives will suffer at the hands of the protector himself. Whether this represents an increase in domestic violence or just in its reporting we cannot know; its prominence in public awareness, however, cannot but add to the notes of caution. "
You hear that folks, a quarter of wives will suffer at the hands of the protecter himself e.g YOU !
It does I suppose cunningly use the phrase 'If we are to believe', which implies the author most certainly DOES believe and therefore you should too. I don't believe it though do you, Unless you're a serious mangina, or women's studies professor you surely could not believe that out of your four married male friends, one of them is beating his partner, or to put it in her terms, is 'suffering at their hands'.
Articles like these really tick me off, and they should you too, because any decency our womanfolk MAY have left in them is being casually eroded away by hate-filled articles like these and though we all know that suffering is inevitable in this long hard battle of ours, for some striking reason within me, it still occasionaly pains me to know that the people we are fighting really could not give a toss about male - female gender relations at all. It is then of course, that my resolve becomes stronger, and I vow to remove these vermin off of our planet before they cause too much damage.
Tell you what though, there is one hell of gem at the end of this article, ready to laugh your collective arses off.
"At the other end of the financial scale, new indignities are piling up. In my own social circle we already have three instances of this: the woman married in the time-honoured way. Fuelled by that crazy little thing called love, houses were bought in joint names. Then, taking advantage of evolving career opportunities for women, the woman became the main breadwinner; he idled around, she did the day job as well as raising the children, until he not only buggered off with another but took with him half of the value of the home for which she had effectively paid everything, leaving her in significantly reduced circumstances. "
Well now, women never leave men 'in significantly reduced circumstances' do they ? And this guy took with him only half the value of the home, for a woman that would have been a loss, she would have at least expected the entire home, kids, car, and anything her eyes had lay upon. It's funny how this has only been mentioned because its a man hurting a woman, the usual male = perpetrator, female = victim stance which crops up everywhere. Whenever the above situation is reversed the papers normally still make it out to be the man's fault, i.e he drove her too it by being violent etc etc.
yawn.
I would encourage you all to leave comments............http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23789-2526429.html
"Not that the divorce came as much of a surprise. One of the selling points of marriage to a woman used to be that it would provide security for her into her old age, teeth, lines and jowls notwithstanding. By contrast, approximately half of contemporary marriages will end in divorce — so she can strike security from her list marked pro.
Another selling point was protection: the wide-shouldered, steely-jawed, testosterone-fuelled barrier between a woman and harm’s way. Today, if we are to believe research from some women’s organisations, a quarter of wives will suffer at the hands of the protector himself. Whether this represents an increase in domestic violence or just in its reporting we cannot know; its prominence in public awareness, however, cannot but add to the notes of caution. "
You hear that folks, a quarter of wives will suffer at the hands of the protecter himself e.g YOU !
It does I suppose cunningly use the phrase 'If we are to believe', which implies the author most certainly DOES believe and therefore you should too. I don't believe it though do you, Unless you're a serious mangina, or women's studies professor you surely could not believe that out of your four married male friends, one of them is beating his partner, or to put it in her terms, is 'suffering at their hands'.
Articles like these really tick me off, and they should you too, because any decency our womanfolk MAY have left in them is being casually eroded away by hate-filled articles like these and though we all know that suffering is inevitable in this long hard battle of ours, for some striking reason within me, it still occasionaly pains me to know that the people we are fighting really could not give a toss about male - female gender relations at all. It is then of course, that my resolve becomes stronger, and I vow to remove these vermin off of our planet before they cause too much damage.
Tell you what though, there is one hell of gem at the end of this article, ready to laugh your collective arses off.
"At the other end of the financial scale, new indignities are piling up. In my own social circle we already have three instances of this: the woman married in the time-honoured way. Fuelled by that crazy little thing called love, houses were bought in joint names. Then, taking advantage of evolving career opportunities for women, the woman became the main breadwinner; he idled around, she did the day job as well as raising the children, until he not only buggered off with another but took with him half of the value of the home for which she had effectively paid everything, leaving her in significantly reduced circumstances. "
Well now, women never leave men 'in significantly reduced circumstances' do they ? And this guy took with him only half the value of the home, for a woman that would have been a loss, she would have at least expected the entire home, kids, car, and anything her eyes had lay upon. It's funny how this has only been mentioned because its a man hurting a woman, the usual male = perpetrator, female = victim stance which crops up everywhere. Whenever the above situation is reversed the papers normally still make it out to be the man's fault, i.e he drove her too it by being violent etc etc.
yawn.
I would encourage you all to leave comments............http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23789-2526429.html
posted by Jay at 2:01 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home