Tuesday, 17 February 2015

Response to a semi-reasonable feminist

Today, a (more reasonable than typical) feminist in a comment thread on YouTube asked me what I think of this article. My response is simply too long to relegate to a comment thread, so I'm putting it here.

So without further ado, let's get stuck into it:


1) "Women's integration in the workforce after World War II translated into massive macroeconomic gains. Given that ladies make up approximately half of the workforce, their integration had huge positive ripple effects in all industries. And we shouldn't stop there: Incorporating even more women in the workforce can help keep our economy vibrant."

Post WWII, women's wages began to steadily rise relative to men's, while men's wages in adjusted dollars stagnated or fell relative to what they had previously been. Housing prices increased, inflation went through the roof, and worst of all, the tax burden on individuals and families has gone up year by year. Personal consumer debt has also steadily increased, and most of that increase has been debt owing on depreciable assets (furniture, cars and even groceries--not houses or business loans). 

I see that the study linked discusses these "gains" in terms of raw GDP, rather than adjusted GDP. The raw GDP does not take into account the economic health of individuals or families, but rather the overall productivity of economies. Progressives have made much of the increasing gap between the very rich and everyone else in the US and elsewhere, and the emergence of a new oligarchy (think The 1%). Yet none of them seem able to grasp what doubling the available labor pool might have done to drive up competition for jobs, drive wages downward, and simultaneously inflate people's reliance on consumer goods and services (such as day care and fast food) provided by the very corporations that are paying workers less in adjusted wages than ever. 

To these types of bean counters, the poisonous, rotten beans are worth as much as the healthy, nutritious ones. Considering that every car accident, every diagnosis of cancer, every divorce, every war and every prison built and staffed to house a growing number of criminals boosts the GDP, increasing numbers of economists are starting to realize that GDP in isolation cannot be used as an indicator of economic prosperity. Every woman on WIC boosts the GDP. Every new layer of bureaucracy constructed to separate working people from their money boosts the GDP. Heck, I'm sure the "GDP" of the average cotton plantation in the 1820s was pretty healthy, but that doesn't mean the majority of its "citizens" were in a good place, does it?

It's called the "broken window fallacy". Google it.

Women's increased participation in the workforce has brought economic "gains". But gains for whom? For families? Is the average, working class family better off now than in 1950? Do they have less debt? Do they enjoy more leisure time? 

So how, exactly, has this state of affairs economically affected individual men? Other than driving their wages down, while increasing their reliance on consumer goods and services, and their tax burden, that is? 

And no, I'm not arguing that women should not have every right to work. Nor am I advocating a return to the "good old days". But idiots using the raw GDP to paint a rosy picture about women and work that seems WAY too easily swallowed by the very same people who most object to the ever-growing gap between the rich and the poor... well, that beggars belief. And lets not forget about the legions of poor women, many of them women of color, many of them easily exploitable foreign workers, who often work for less than minimum wage looking after the houses and children of those luckier, educated women who have "benefitted" from feminism. 

More than this, polls have shown that about 2/3 of working women would rather work less than more, and a large number wouldn't work at all if they had a choice. But many don't have that choice. In fact, the ones least likely to have that choice are the ones furthest removed from the experience of the ivory tower academics who write these studies and influence public policy. The reason these women often feel that way is because they don't have careers. They have jobs. They went from making sandwiches at home for people they love to making sandwiches at Subway for chump change and never seeing their families because 99% of working class people now need two incomes just to get by.

Well done, feminism!


2) It's a well-known fact that women highly respect a guy who's willing to do his share around the house. Judging by the number of gawk-worthy "porn for women" slideshows, ladies are turned on when their partners reveal a little more of their domestic side. But what about men? What do they stand to gain? 

It's a well-known fact that women SAY they highly respect a guy who's willing to do his share around the house, and that they're turned on by men who do the dishes.

Unfortunately, research reveals otherwise. Research also reveals that economically egalitarian marriages, even in highly egalitarian societies, have a higher rate of divorce. About 2/3 of divorces across the board, from Sweden to Iran, are initiated by women. 

Whether feminist women are better in bed, well, it's entirely likely that they are. But a sample size of less than 600 isn't anything conclusive, and there's no indication in the Science Daily article regarding response rates or margins of error (or even effect size). 


They found that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women.  Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction. According to these results, feminism does not predict poor romantic relationships, in fact quite the opposite.
How much healthier and more stable? How much greater satisfaction? How much the opposite? 2%? 50%? 200%? What was the feminist status of each couple as a whole? Was it more likely that either both partners were feminist, or both not? Because that might have a lot to do with relationship stability, no? What other variables were controlled for? Unfortunately, if a person wants to find out any of that, they have to fork over some cash...

I have read some hideous reports in the mainstream media regarding the "findings" of feminist advocacy researchers. Here's a criticism of a recent one that was all over the news, reported by people who hadn't even read it as if it was the final word on the subject.


3) In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional to treat women and men differently under the law. The case, Craig v. Boren, was filled by a plaintiff in Oklahoma over its gender-specific drinking age policy, which prohibited men from drinking before age 21, but allowed women to drink when as young as 18. This implied that men are inherently more reckless and women are more responsible. After the law was struck down, the drinking age became 21 for all. According to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the ruling determined much more than just Oklahoma's drinking age. It determined that the "familiar stereotype: the active boy, aggressive and assertive; the passive girl, docile and submissive" was "not fit to be written into law." So the next time you're drinking, raise a glass in honor of RBG.

Did the law lower the drinking age for men? Nope. It raised it for women, as having a different drinking age for men and women violated equal treatment under the constitution. So no, this decision did nothing to counter the idea that men are inherently reckless. It could be argued that the decision might have enshrined in law that women are equally as reckless as men, but only a decision to lower the male drinking age to 18 would have been an assertion that men are not reckless.

More than this, it's altogether possible that at that time, in the context of a culture like that in Oklahoma, young women WERE more socially responsible, on average, than young men, at least regarding certain harmful or dangerous behaviors, in part due to the enculturation of gender roles. 

It might also interest you to know that the average age of onset of puberty has historically been measured in terms of average age of menarche in girls, and the average age of a notable spike in injuries in boys. While testosterone does not promote aggression (a once-commonly accepted correlation that has been quite thoroughly been debunked), it does correlate with a decreased aversion to risk. Given that testosterone spikes during puberty, and young men enter a phase of their lives when they hurt themselves plenty without adding in booze, and that boys both enter and finish this phase later than girls on average... well, it seems to me that different drinking ages (and driving ages) might make a certain sense. 

Insurance companies are fully aware that young men present the highest liability when it comes to insuring drivers (which is why they pay more than any other class of people). Some of this will be due to culture, and some to biology. It seems clear to me that Oklahoma wasn't willing to bet the farm on the idea that 18 year old boys with driver's licenses were responsible enough to drink alcohol, so no, it didn't really change society's view of men one iota. 

While I would call the decision fair and egalitarian, I can't argue that it benefitted males. And if a legal precedent that changed absolutely nothing for males, and that in the provided link doesn't even hint that said case was pursued by a feminist man or a feminist attorney, is the best this article can come up with as far as helping men in the legal sense, well...

A better example of an actual self-identified feminist, who actually headed the National Organization for Women at one time, who has actively pursued the equal rights of men under the law, would be Karen Decrow. She actually won a case of paternal responsibility on behalf of a defendant who claimed the woman intentionally went off birth control and got pregnant against his express wishes. She won her case on the argument that women making unilateral reproductive decisions should not expect men to finance those unilateral decisions. The decision was overturned on appeal, and the dude got stuck with child support.

I will take a single Karen Decrow, even though she ultimately failed, over 1000 Craig v. Borens any day. 


4) Over the course of their lengthy legal careers, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her husband joined forces only once, to advocate for single men. The case, Moritz v. Commissioner, challenged the fact that not all men could request dependent care deductions. Although tax deductions were given to women, widowers and divorced men, single males slipped through the cracks. Ending this discriminatory policy was one of Ginsburg's many victories using the 14th Amendment to end the enshrinement of gender discrimination into law.

Amazing. A law that was enshrined by feminists to protect women was actually exploited by a feminist to help men. It's like finding a unicorn. 

Although the following might have something to do with Ginsburg's decision to take on the case:


The taxpayer, Charles E. Moritz, appeals from a decision of the Tax Court holding that he was not entitled to a deduction for expenses in 1968 for the care of his dependent invalid mother. [emphasis mine]

Helping Moritz directly benefitted his dependent invalid mother. Helping this man helped a woman, and a particularly vulnerable one who was entirely dependent on him, at that...

I have challenged feminists in the past to show me a single advocacy effort on the part of feminists to not only advocate for the rights or liberties of men, but to do so within a context where such advocacy doesn't just not benefit women, but actually disadvantages them relative to their current status.

That is, don't show me a feminist who lobbies against male circumcision, because a world of intact men doesn't change one thing for women (other than making their sex lives better and causing Astroglide's quarterly profits to plummet). Show me a sincere effort toward fairness and equity that actually hits women right where it hurts--in their privilege.

Karen Decrow, who does not appear in your Mic article, would be one such feminist, who at least tried to advocate a concept of justice for men that didn't amount to, "well, okay, but only if it also benefits women, or at least doesn't actually harm them." 


5) Last time I checked, men enjoy sex, and many of them enjoy having sex with women. The sexual revolution affected women as well as men: It gave women the ability to pursue sexual activities much more freely, which naturally altered sexual dynamics in this country.

Of course it altered the sexual dynamics in the country. It essentially ended the association of marriage (you know, long term monogamy) and access to sex. What most feminists don't seem to realize is that this has indeed been a boon (at least in the short term) for women, and for the most attractive 20% or so of men, but for the average man, sex (at least outside of marriage) didn't become that much easier to come by than it was 70 years ago. 

Being a slut is still easy, and being a stud is still about as difficult as it ever was. 

On online dating sites, women still receive many more initial messages than men do, and women have some seriously high standards as to what kind of men they consider datable and fuckable. Unrealistically high standards, considering they deem 80% of men as "below average".

On the other hand, feminist lobbyists, organizations and groups have turned attempting to get sex into a veritable minefield for men. Groups like Hollaback have redefined "good morning" and "have a nice evening" as "street harassment" (at least when such sentiments are made by minority unattractive men). Campus feminists and powerful women such as Russlyn Ali and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand have helped eliminate due process and reverse burden of proof in sexual misconduct cases on campuses so booze-soaked that it's likely huge numbers of both women and men who engage in sex have little to no memory of what happened, and when research shows that across the board, women are twice as likely as men to describe their experiences of casual sex as negative. At some universities now, sexual misconduct policies regarding consent lie in direct conflict with policies on harassment--that is, men must obtain verbal consent for sex in order to avoid a misconduct charge, but even asking for consent can qualify as sexual harassment, based entirely on the woman's level of internal reciprocity. 

And further:


And birth control is not just about sex: It's also about reproductive control. Most men enjoy determining the spacing of each child.
Dash certainly does. "I've been able to make smarter, more thoughtful decisions about how to time my career, my being a parent and my other obligations because of the flexibility and freedom afforded to me by having easy access to birth control," he said. "It let me hold off on becoming a dad until I had gotten closer to being a man worthy of being one."
Birth control is exactly that. It's not birth prevention, it's birth control. And it is largely in women's hands. In fact, the sole non-permanent means of birth control at men's disposal is one that's been around since the 1800s. And, incidentally, one which feminists of the day actively attempted to keep OUT of the hands of men.

Dash is living at the mercy of his partner. It is not he who gets to choose how to space his children--that is entirely up to his partner and her many, many invisible options regarding contraception. Options that he not only cannot see with his own eyes to determine she's using them properly, but which he has no legal right to confirm through other means (such as asking her doctor) that she is using at all. A man cannot prevent himself from being fertile. He can prevent himself from impregnating a woman ONLY if he insists on using a condom and spermicide every single time he has sex (and even then, it's no guarantee, as condoms are one of the least effective forms of birth control of all).

Since women gained access to contraception and abortion, and men began to be held financially accountable for illegitimate children, the rate of "accidental" pregnancy and out of wedlock birth has only increased. Hmmm....

So, women have over 20 different ways to control their own fertility. Men have abstinence, condoms and trust. 

And if you're going to chastise me for suggesting women can't be trusted with this, I'll direct you here. Because women can't be trusted with this.


6) Although the burdens of pregnancy and childbirth biologically fall on women, men bear the consequences of children too. Because the expansion of reproductive rights affects their personal lives, they are a central part of the conversation. Anil Dash believes that liberating women ultimately gives men more freedom.
Really? Dash can insist his wife get an abortion, if she wants the baby and he doesn't? Dash can insist his wife bring the pregnancy to term, if he wants the baby and she doesn't?

No? So how does abortion make Dash more liberated? How does abortion give Dash more choices?

How about this. Can Dash, if he doesn't want the child and his wife does... can he say, "well, I didn't want or agree to have this baby, so I shouldn't be held financially responsible for it"?

No? Then how does the right of a woman to choose or not choose motherhood increase a man's rights or choices regarding the burdens of parenthood. Whatever her decision is, he is forced to, in the words of Nathaniel from Last of the Mohicans, "live by another's leave." Living by another's leave is not freedom.

I'm pro choice. But I'm pro choice for everyone, and like Karen Decrow, I do not believe men should be held financially responsible for decisions only women have any right to make.

Choice for women only "liberates" the men who would have made the same choice as the woman. 


7) Did you know that until recently, the FBI's definition of rape was as old-fashioned as the horse and buggy? That is, until feminist activists decided to change that. Thanks to the "Rape Is Rape" campaign launched by the Feminist Majority Foundation and Ms. magazine, more than 160,000 emails were sent to the FBI pressuring it to change its archaic definition of rape. The old definition, "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will," hadn't been changed since 1921. It meant that many types of sexual assaults, including the rape of men, weren't counted as part of the bureau's annual Uniform Crime Report.

The vast majority of feminists seem to believe rape is almost entirely male perpetrated, and that male victims outside of prison are few and far between. 

The old definition of rape pertained only to forcible penetration of a vagina with a penis. It did not apply to penetration with objects, or oral or anal penetration of women. I can very much see why the old definition is inadequate. But this does not mean that feminists pushing for these changes intended them to include the largest cohort of male victims outside of prison--male victims of female perpetrators. After all, most feminists don't seem to think such victims are remotely common. Look at their poster campaigns.

Very inclusive to male victims... of male perpetrators. No mention of the approximately 20% of college aged men who report they've been forced or coerced into unwanted sexual intercourse by a woman.

Huh. 

No depiction of the 15-40% of women who have self-reported having engaged in sexual aggression to get sex from an unwilling man.

Huh.

And don't even get me started on feminist Mary P Koss, who consulted on the definitions for the CDC's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, and who says this:


We acknowledge the inappropriateness of female verbal coercion and the legitimacy of male perceptions that they have had unwanted sex. Although men may sometimes sexually penetrate women when ambivalent about their own desires [emphasis mine], these acts fail to meet legal definitions of rape that are based on penetration of the body of the victim....
...We worked diligently to develop item wording that captured men’s sense of pressure to have sex and draw their responses into an appropriate category of coercion instead of to rape items. 

This feminist works for the CDC. She is responsible for helping to conceal millions of male victims of rape, and millions of female perpetrators, each year.

The wording of the new FBI definition is ambiguous enough that it is unclear from a straight reading whether male victims who were forced to penetrate female perpetrators are included. In fact, a colleague of mine wrote repeated emails for months asking for confirmation as to whether the definition did include such situations before finally receiving a response that yes it does, but perhaps, given the ambiguity, there needs to be some outreach to police organizations in order to make it clearer to them that yes, a man being "made to penetrate" counts as rape. My suspicion is that the question didn't really occur to them until it was asked, and that's why it took so long for them to answer it.

One thing the new definition DOES do, unambiguously, is classify a metric shit-ton of things that didn't used to be considered rape as rape. Picture two inexperienced teenagers getting hot and heavy, and the guy tries to round third base. The tip of his finger penetrates her vagina for just a moment, before she tells him she's not ready to go that far. Within nanoseconds, he backs off and apologizes, but it's too late. He's technically a rapist under the new FBI definition. 

Now you might think that feminists really were interested in including male victims of the most common form of rape outside of prison--men raped by women. But given Koss's assertions, and given the standard feminist claim that nearly all rapes are committed by men, and given the CDC's response as outlined here (which amounts to "but it's just different"), I highly doubt that the intentions of feminists were to help the majority of sexually assaulted men.

For clarification, this was their argument in large part:


To explain, in NISVS we define rape as “any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.”We defined sexual violence other than rape to include being made to penetrate someone else, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences.

Made to penetrate is defined as including “times when the victim was made to, or there was an attempt to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s consent because the victim was physically forced (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.”

The difference between “rape” and “being made to penetrate” is that in the definition of rape the victim is penetrated; “made to penetrate” by definition refers to cases where the victim penetrated someone else.

While there are multiple definitions of rape and sexual violence used in the field, CDC, with the help of experts in the field, has developed these specific definitions of rape and other forms of sexual violence (such as made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences). We use these definitions to help guide our analytical decisions.

In other words, people can't assert that men are raped by women nearly as frequently as women are raped by men because we decided to call someone forcing a woman into sexual intercourse rape and someone forcing a man into sexual intercourse something other than rape. See? It all makes perfect sense!

There are other issues with the math used to attempt to estimate the percentage of perpetrators that are female--the primary one being that the CDC declined to reveal the gender of the perpetrator for any of the previous-year stats. They claimed it is inappropriate to combine the previous year numbers of male victims with the lifetime data on perpetrator gender, and I agree. I agree because all available evidence on the psychology of male victims of sexual abuse indicates the percentage of female perpetrators reported would be much higher over the prior 12 months than over a lifetime.

I'll leave it up to others to see if they can't wrestle that particular bit of information out of the CDC.

Now I'm going to bring your attention to Murray Straus. He's the first researcher to ask the same questions of both men and women on a domestic violence survey in the US (and hence the first researcher to find gender symmetry in domestic violence). When asked why he performed that study, he claimed that at the time he was a feminist. He believed in the "patriarchal terrorism" or Duluth model of domestic violence--you know. The feminist model. When people raised questions about his previous research, that had asked women only about their victimization and men only about their perpetration, he took up the challenge. He says that at the time, he believed it would be a slam dunk for "patriarchal terrorism". He was fully confident his findings would remain the same. He believed wholeheartedly that he would find, as before, that men hit women and women only ever hit in self defence. 

Of course, what he discovered was something entirely different, and he has made it a mission to change attitudes toward domestic violence treatment and prevention based on those findings.

Feminists also have a model regarding rape culture and sexual violence. As evidenced by those poster campaigns, it is a model based on male sexual aggression. Every feminist I have spoken to has reacted with incredulity and extreme resistance to the idea that women are just as capable of sexual aggression and coercion as men, and at similar rates of prevalence. 

Basically, what I'm saying is, what is the purpose of the feminist push to change the definition? As far as I can tell, it was to further protect women and, to a lesser degree, men who are victims of male perpetrators by expanding the definition of what is considered rape. They have never really been capable of acknowledging the vast numbers of men victimized by women (and who will be on the hook for child support even if they were raped at age 14 by an adult woman!), or the significant portion of the female population who admit not to thinking they might just maybe do it if the situation presented itself and no one would know (like that bogus 1 in 3 study), but to having actually engaged in the behavior.

In other words, I'm guessing that, like Straus, it never occurred to them that what they were doing might result in helping male victims of female perpetrators, because, like Straus did, they don't really believe male victims of female perpetrators exist. 

Anyway, I'll probably get to the next 7 or 8 items in a week or so. This post is long enough already.

61 comments:

  1. Karen gets caught telling lies again: Karen Straughan Vs Manhood Academy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVu41pg9sF0

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't make sense of that video.

      Delete
    2. To be honest, I haven't watched it myself. If it's anything like his normal behavior, there's really no point.

      Delete
    3. girlwriteswhat: "To be honest, I haven't watched it myself. If it's anything like his normal behavior, there's really no point."

      Yep, this proves that Karen is NO DIFFERENT than a feminist. Demonize the messenger so you aren't held accountable to the message.

      No wonder Karen is a cowardly piece of shit who ducks live debates and tries to EXTORT $500 from her critics that challenge her to debate. Only proves that MRAs are nothing more than COWARDS and CON ARTISTS.

      Delete
    4. Dead lord Karen, stop extorting people.

      https://imgflip.com/i/hvapy

      Delete
    5. Hello everyone, My name is Courtney Bieneman and i am talking as the happiest person in the whole wide world today and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will tell the name to the whole wild world and i am so happy to say that my family is back for good because i was in need of $186,000.00 USD loan to start my life all over as i am a single mum with 3 kids and the whole world seemed like it was hanging on me until i met this GOD sent loan lender that changed my life and that of my family, a GOD fearing lender, Mr Mason Diego, he was the Savior GOD sent to rescue my family and at first i thought it was not going to be possible until i received my loan of $186,000.00 USD on the 26th/Feb/2015 and i will advise anyone who is in genuine need of a loan to contact Mr. Mason Diego via email at: diegoloancompany@yahoo.com because he is the most understanding and kind hearten lender. thanks..

      Delete
    6. Karen has trouble keeping track of all her BULLSHIT. Here's proof: https://vimeo.com/129043893

      Delete
  2. Hi Karen, just wondering why you did not list vasectomies among the birth control methods available to men?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same reason I don't consider tubal ligation to be in the same category as things like IUDs or birth control pills.

      Surgical sterilization is expensive and permanent. Don't let anyone tell you differently. After a vasectomy reversal (also expensive), there is less than a 50% success rate for siring a child, and the rate decreases the longer the vasectomy remained in place. Similarly, reversing a tubal ligation (also expensive) is not only no guarantee of getting your fertility back, but the risk potentially deadly complications like ectopic pregnancy goes WAY up.

      When you get a tubal or a vasectomy, you should be 100% confident that you do not want children in the future.

      I think if the only reliable method of contraception at women's disposal was tubal ligation, they wouldn't really consider it a reasonable option for preventing pregnancy pre-children, would they?

      Delete
    2. As for the procedures being expensive, I guess it depends where you live. I believe that in Ontario, tubal ligations and vasectomies are covered by OHIP.

      I understand what you're saying though, in the context of men who actually do want to have children some day, but want to be able to control WHEN they have them.

      Delete
    3. Reversals are not covered by most provincial health plans, though.

      I've looked into it. My boyfriend had a vasectomy at age 18 (don't ask, long story). I had a tubal after my third child, thinking I'd never want another one. By the time he and I got together and started thinking we might want a child together, well...

      We were looking at IVF, at over $10k per try (and superfecundity runs in my family, so I was faced with the "do I implant 1 embryo and risk wasting all that money, or 5 embryos and risk them all taking?"), or about $10k for reversals and no guarantee he'd even have a sperm count, in addition to the higher risks re pregnancy.

      There is a promising new temporary male BC method being tested on humans here in the west (Vasalgel, known as Risug in India, where it's already in use). Should be available within a few years, and is pretty cool. They inject a polymer into the vas deferens that shreds the sperm passing through it almost like a cheese grater. It lasts up to 10 years, and can be reversed by injecting a baking soda and water solution into the site.

      This is one thing that might get past some men's discomfort with using a birth control method based on altering hormones.

      One of the most interesting things about this new possibility is that many women, some of them feminists, have said they're uncomfortable with the idea of a male pill, because "I couldn't trust that he'd be honest or responsible about using it".

      1) isn't having to trust the other person to be honest and responsible the very position men are in now?

      2) you wouldn't have to even be in that position of having to trust a guy, as you have many forms of birth control at YOUR disposal.

      Such protestations always make me think it's not the "women would have to trust men" thing, but the, "but then men would not have to trust women" thing. That is, if men had control over their fertility, the women in the survey on lying--the 43% who would lie about birth control in order to get pregnant, regardless of their partner's wishes, wouldn't have that option anymore.

      It stinks of projection: "Well, I can't be trusted not to trick a partner into a pregnancy, so obviously men can't be trusted not to do that!"

      Delete
    4. Amanda: It's a discrete method, but not an easily reversible one similar to women being able to just "Stop taking the pill."

      Also, men's fecundity starts decreasing after age 24. By the time he hits 40, it's dropped by almost 50%. Those years incapacitated by a vasectomy will cost you, even if reversal is a possibility.

      Karen: Thanks for the stats on reversing vasectomies, that's one I'll keep under my hat the next time a Feminist tries to use that!

      Delete
    5. Hello everyone, My name is Courtney Bieneman and i am talking as the happiest person in the whole wide world today and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will tell the name to the whole wild world and i am so happy to say that my family is back for good because i was in need of $186,000.00 USD loan to start my life all over as i am a single mum with 3 kids and the whole world seemed like it was hanging on me until i met this GOD sent loan lender that changed my life and that of my family, a GOD fearing lender, Mr Mason Diego, he was the Savior GOD sent to rescue my family and at first i thought it was not going to be possible until i received my loan of $186,000.00 USD on the 26th/Feb/2015 and i will advise anyone who is in genuine need of a loan to contact Mr. Mason Diego via email at: diegoloancompany@yahoo.com because he is the most understanding and kind hearten lender. thanks..

      Delete
  3. Hi Karen. I wanted to comment on the OKCupid "Women rate 80% of men as below average" study. I find one major flaw in this study, and I don't see anyone pointing it out, so maybe the flaw is in my reasoning... But what the study doesn't seem to take into account is that these women are rating 80% of male *OKCupid users* as below average, but this doesn't mean they're necessarily rating them as below average for OKCupid readers (which would certainly show a flaw in their standards). They could be rating these men as below average looking as far as all men go, both online and offline. In other words, they might just find that the average OKCupid guy is less attractive than the average "offline" guy.

    I don't think this is very likely, but I think this is a great study to quote when arguing about gender perceptions, but I don't want to quote something that I think could be easily rebutted. What do you think?

    BTW I wrote another comment here about this a minute ago, but it didn't seem to get posted, so I apologize if this is a double post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course I considered that. However, given that men's ratings of female *okcupid users* looked like a typical bell curve, it's not that convincing to me.

      Delete
  4. No, those are my thoughts, since, if that were the case, the men's ratings of women would likely be skewed as well, I would think.
    I've personally found that on average, people online were slightly less attractive than people in "real life". This probably makes me shallow and maybe even a terrible person, but it makes some sense. Online dating, at least as far as OKCupid goes, can be a bit more cerebral and personal than going out to a loud bar to meet people and taking someone home that night, since you not only put up pictures, but write about yourself, and have time to interact with messages, usually several, before meeting. This is as opposed to seeing someone at a bar, finding them attractive immediately, and going from there. Of course, this is very generalized, and these two polarized options are the only two available, but you get my point.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ugh, I typed a few paragraphs of text and pressed the preview option that then seemed to swallow it ... so in case there is a double post somehow I apologise....now let me try and remember what I wrote....

    Hey girlwriteswhat, I stumbled onto one of your videos and while watching the excellent Norwegian documentary called Hjernevask (Brainwash).

    Having now consumed some of your work, I must say you have given me a new perspective. I was getting more and more frustrated, angry and unreasonable due to the extremist feminist movement, and you seemed to have calmed me down!

    I hope that I can ask some general questions here that do not necessarily relate directly to this specific blog entry.I am a heterosexual male b.t.w. I only say this as it seems pertinent to the gender debate and my questions

    1.You mentioned in a video before that when men gained the vote they had to pay a cost to do so, but woman did not have to pay a cost, could you clarify?

    2. What do some feminist mean by "The Patriarchy" when those same feminist say that they do not mean men in general? Are they just confused about the meaning of the word Patriarch? In general it seems feminist want a Patriarchy i.e. government to protect them...

    3. What can a male do, practically to protect himself from the courts? Should I draw up legal papers that are signed before sex by each party to imply consenting sex? (Who am I kidding, they would just say it was done under duress) Perhaps a legal document before marriage to state that neither consents to having a child unless another legal document is signed.

    I feel ridiculous even asking that last one....

    Lastly I would just like to say, keep up the good work. Your thought are interesting and informative.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. Conscription.

      2. "Patriarchy" can be defined as 1) a system where men unilaterally oppress women, 2) a system of traditional restrictive gender roles, or 3) property and heritage being passed through the male line. Feminists usually conflate definitions 1 and 3, and switch between 1 and 2, where 1 is the bailey, and 2 is the easily-defensible motte.

      A lot of feminists see 'patriarchy' as not meaning all men, but rather a select group of men at the top, that control primarily women but also other men as well (hence "when patriarchy is dismantled men will be free too"). And to them, under a 'patriarchal' society, men are trained to be aggressive by these top men ("toxic masculinity"), and thus they feel justified in assuming all men are bad and aggressive, because men are supposedly trained to be, not because they inherently are.

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "He can prevent himself from impregnating a woman ONLY if he insists on using a condom and spermicide every single time he has sex (and even then, it's no guarantee, as condoms are one of the least effective forms of birth control of all)."

    But aren't condoms 98 percent effective?

    ReplyDelete
  8. As for part one and women in the workforce...


    Two events of note. In 1961 John F. Kennedy signed the Presidential Commission on the Status of Women, legitimizing feminism as official U.S. policy. The second is the death of the gold standard, going back to the 1930s. It used to be paper money was just an easier way to carry around gold or silver. If you look at older currency, the bills had written on them, “WILL PAY TO BEARER ON DEMAND.” The “PAY” was gold. Banks had to keep a percentage of gold or silver on hand in accordance with the amount of paper currency in circulation, as any paper currency could be redeemed for its true gold value at any time.

    The problem with this system was every time the central banks wished to expand the money supply, they had to find more gold to represent it. Removing the gold standard removed all limitations to the money supply (hello inflation). The more money that’s created and loaned out, the richer the banking cartels become. It’s not a coincidence that less than a generation after the demise of the gold standard, Western women entered the work force en masse. Women’s Lib really wasn’t about sexual liberation, it was about the liberated money laws being used to claim a stake to her labours as well as a man's.

    A stay-at-home mom's energy and efforts aren't taxed. There's no way for governments/banks to get a "cut" of her life. If she trades a blueberry pie with a neighbour for a dozen eggs, that's barter... there's no "income" to her existence. But let her get a job making pies so she has the money to buy some eggs... the system now gets a cut of her time and efforts.

    Kennedy’s commission (the official state sponsored women’s movement) was set-up to take advantage of the opened money supply. What better way to convince women to grind out a tax-skimming forty hour work week than tell her she’s been oppressed and held back. A few stainless steel appliances and her own convertible were all it took to get her on board. There’s nothing like a bribe to go along with the carrot. You’ve come a long way baby.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yo Karen, I just put your text in this post through IBM Watson's newly released personality analysis engine.

    Results:
    ---
    Summary *
    You are unconventional and shrewd.

    You are carefree: you do what you want, disregarding rules and obligations. You are unstructured: you do not make a lot of time for organization in your daily life. And you are compromising: you are comfortable using every trick in the book to get what you want.

    You are relatively unconcerned with both taking pleasure in life and tradition. You prefer activities with a purpose greater than just personal enjoyment. And you care more about making your own path than following what others have done.

    *Compared to most people who participated in our surveys.
    ---

    Awesomely accurate, nein?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hello everyone, My name is Courtney Bieneman and i am talking as the happiest person in the whole wide world today and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will tell the name to the whole wild world and i am so happy to say that my family is back for good because i was in need of $186,000.00 USD loan to start my life all over as i am a single mum with 3 kids and the whole world seemed like it was hanging on me until i met this GOD sent loan lender that changed my life and that of my family, a GOD fearing lender, Mr Mason Diego, he was the Savior GOD sent to rescue my family and at first i thought it was not going to be possible until i received my loan of $186,000.00 USD on the 26th/Feb/2015 and i will advise anyone who is in genuine need of a loan to contact Mr. Mason Diego via email at: diegoloancompany@yahoo.com because he is the most understanding and kind hearten lender. thanks..

    ReplyDelete
  11. Karen, you have mentioned in your videos that men who rape are likely to have been abused by women as children. Can you point me to the studies that show that? Google tends to throw up a whole lot of other stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If a feminist suffers gender opression in a forest and there is nobody there to see it does she really suffer gender opression?

    No but she makes noise

    ReplyDelete
  13. Your excellent rhetoric be marred by McDonald's ad.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiWqcIHeekc

    ReplyDelete
  14. Karen I am disappointed in you. How you turned on RBK is quite slimey to be honest.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I was looking for an excuse to donate for quite some time, but only saw this post now, so thank you.

    Just remember TL;DR also applies to audio/video :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Karen, about the whole "GDP" and "pushing down wages" thing, what you say is partially true. GDP is not the full picture of prosperity. If gains in GDP are offset by increased reliance on consumer goods, they don't really count.

    But people work to produce goods and services. More workers means more goods and services which means everything is cheaper. So while wages decrease, there's more that money can buy.

    You talk like its the fat cat one percenter big wigs who pay the money that goes into a workers pocket, when in reality its the consumer. And we are ALL consumers.

    I mean, at the end of the day, what you are saying here is literally that its a better world if there's less stuff do go around because it means producers would have consumers by the balls. Doesn't that sound a bit...depraved?

    Also, saying working class families aren't better off than they were in the 1950s is flat out wrong. EVERY objective measure of wealth has improved in America since the 1950s, from the average square footage of living space per person, to life expectancy, to ownership of appliances. This is not due to feminism necessarily, because this has been the trend for at least 100 years if not since the beginning of mankind. But I'm really disappointed you of all people would apply meaningless and decadent Western terms like "getting by." What constitutes "getting by" in 1950, when the average life expectancy was 65 and refrigerator ownership was a luxury, is simply not what passes for "getting by" today.

    This kind of stuff is really disappointing to hear from a self-professed libertarian such as yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its ironic because your economic outlook feels so much like the Kensseyian "broken window economics" you mock.

      You are saying we should reduce the number of goods and services in the world so those goods and services are worth more. It's the same kind of zero-sum, prosperity through destruction idea that gave birth to broken window economics in the first place.

      If we were to destroy half of everything in the world: burn half of all the crops, destroy half of all the computers, melt half of all the ice cream, would the world be a better place, because all of the sudden farmers would be able to negotiate steeper prices for their crops? Of course not!

      Delete
    2. "EVERY objective measure of wealth has improved in America since the 1950s, from the average square footage of living space per person, to life expectancy, to ownership of appliances."

      You are a myopic fucking idiot. There are fifty million people on food stamps in the United States and you're saying things are "improving"?

      Fuck off.

      Delete
    3. "Its ironic because your economic outlook feels so much like the Kensseyian "broken window economics" you mock."

      Your comment is irrelevant twofold.

      Fistly, Karen was not deriding Keynesianism, though being a Libertarian I suspect that she disagrees with it, but that is neither here nor there. She was deriding the idiotic feminist who was too preoccupied with seeing the "benefits" of having women enter the workforce that she didn't see the other factors at play, and was therefore committing the broken window fallacy.

      Secondly and finally, the broken window fallacy is utterly irrelevant to Keynesian economics. Of course, if you actually understood the fallacy, or Keynesian economics for that matter you'd know this. The point that the creator of the fallacy, Frédéric Bastiat, was trying to make when he wrote the essay "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen" in 1850 was that the destruction of capital has a negative impact on society even though it stimulates economic activity because those resources spent on replacing the capital in question could have have been redirected to some other more productive purpose. Keynesian economics doesn't destroy capital, it puts idle resources to use to boost production.

      Delete
    4. You spoiled, worthless, decadent, arrogant willfully blind piece of shit. 50 million Americans weren’t on foodstamps in the 1950s because we weren’t handing out government aid like candy on Halloween.
      50 percent of ALL CHILDREN in Asia and Africa under 5 suffer from stunted growth due to malnutrition. Compared to 2.5% of American children living under the poverty line. Yet I bet there’s a higher percentage of American children on foodstamps than Asian or African children. Does that mean the Asian and African children are better off, moron?

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. And I don't think the biggest medical issue among the poor was "obesity" in the 1950s, idiot, like it is today.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. And the broken window, Karen's on women entering the labor force, and Keynesian economics all have the same core principle: that you can help people economically by increasing demand.

      Broken window: Increase demand for window repairmen by destroying a window.

      Karen's logic: Increase demand for labor by keeping people out of the work force.

      Keynesian logic: Increase demand by sponsoring pointless government projects.

      Demand is just another word for "want" or "need." You can make the human race better off my increasing their needs.

      (Now why the hell are all my comments posting twice?)

      Delete
    9. From Karen's own words:

      "But I wasn't writing an argument that, for instance, feminism is to blame for wage deflation--only that the arguments presented that feminism has been of benefit to men, as presented in the article, are dubious at best."

      Delete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. But it is pretty sick for that article to consider abortion rights for women a good thing for men.

    I mean, if the government decided to grant MEN the unilateral right to terminate his wife pregnancy, would this be a step forward for women because she sometimes might agree with the procedure. That's the depravity of their logic.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Please make an expose on womens role in passing on true moral values to the nezt generation. Todays women in general, when meeting for the first time, ask "What do you do for a living?". This implies yhat Money is the most important thing to consider as a provider, and that moral has very Little to do with it. Since moneymaking is basicly a selfserving action, to get more out than you put in ie. making a profit, there is a tendency to select men with psycopathic traits to fill the role as the good provider.
    This is one of the most important things to discuss as womens role in making desicsions concerning the next generation is huge.
    The resposibility is in the hands of women to a great extent. To pass on values to accomodate a healthy future is the most important legacy, but today this valuesystem is replaced by the dollar. From school and even earlier Children are taught that getting a good education and a good job and income is priority no 1. There need to be a discussion about the role of fostering the next generation in a healthy way.

    Listen to podcast 184, 185, 186 for more in depth.

    http://www.whatonearthishappening.com/podcast

    ReplyDelete
  21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sAomeiTOKI
    Those privileged blue bundles of joy

    If women have all the Power over "their body", why do "society" prefer boys? Is this not a reflection of womens choices?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  22. The educational system, with special reference to its blighting effects on the female gender; and the Miseducation, is the most apt and descriptive word available.

    The most imperative and crucial element in the concept of mis-education hinges on the education system's failure to present authentic Female History in schools and the bitter knowledge that there is a scarcity of literature available for such a purpose, because most history books gave little or no space to the female's presence in the world.

    Some of them contained casual references to females but these generally depicted them in menial, subordinate roles, more or less sub-human.

    Such books stressed how the female should be extremely grateful to the male for his protection and be in awe of him .
    Often in these books the description of the female, that was given was less than flattering, in fact most were outright derogatory relating to her as being inferior to that of the male, not only in physical strength but they also surmised the female was intellectually the males inferior as well and there was very little denoting the skills, abilities, contributions or potential in this image of the female men offered to their audience.

    We therefore have the tragedy that has doomed the female to a brain-washed acceptance of the inferior role assigned to her by the dominant gender, and absorbed by her through her schooling.

    Moreover, the neglect of the females history and distortion of the facts concerning females in most history books, has deprived the female child and her whole gender a heritage, and relegated her to nothingness and nobodyness.

    99% of all written history is actually written by the male gender and is 99% their opinir and they intentionally excluded the female and with malice a forethought verbally annihilated the female gender and they gave the female no chance of redress, no opportunity to defend themselves and eventually through a propaganda that was allowed to go on unchallenged, men came to believe the female was subhuman, a lesser human being than themselves.

    And once the image of the female was demolished to such a degree, few protested when they were mercilessly enslaved & murdered, in cultures that became unashamedly anti female.

    Women's opinions are not valued by male supremacysts unless they agree with their own and boys are encouraged by their peers to dismiss the opinions of women and regard them irrelevant, obviously this is just a continuation of the demolishing the image of the female as before in previous centuries.
    Men are to blame for the way women are perceived and regarded in their culture and they have thought to undermine women for far to long.

    Tell Straughan women have potential just the same as men and they are just as entitled as men to realise their ambitions, the days of expecting women to step aside so men can take their pride of place because men imagine they should be placed first are over.

    Millions of females are currently being exterminated in cultures that despise the female as worthless whilst highly valuing the male and this has been going on for centuries all over the world and it is due to the proliferation of such ideology.
    The disposable gender is female and in demolishing the image of the female the male supremacysts believes he achieves a victory for himself and men.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction."

    Actually, this is not what the study found. Ignoring for a moment that their measure of 'feminism' makes a pretty subjective and shaky selection tool, they had to resort to correlation mining to reach significance on (some) effects of feminism on relationship quality, except that women seemed to appreciate what they reported as 'feminism' in their partner. For men, feminism did not have any significant effects on relationship quality or stability (in the first experiment, "partner's feminism" showed a negative correlation on relationship equality for men.

    What appeared clearly was that relationship stability, relationship equality and relationship quality were strongly correlated, as well as (own feminism) and (partner's feminism). A plausible interpretation is that it helps relationships to have stability and shared values, and that feminism is fundamentally gynocentric.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I am a person who has spent years of her life in war zones and even lived on the very frontline for over a year. I can say with the absolute authority that if there is a disposable gender, it is definitely male. Moreover females are ferociously violent and aggressive. You can read more here if you like:
    http://sachalamont.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/symposion-female-violence.html

    and I can not understand the level of misandry posing as women's rights activism. If you really need to start the war of the sexes, I am afraid the most natural enemy for a woman is other women, dear #mylampstand.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On your first point, the MRM doesn't just advocate for "cisgender heterosexual men", but rather all men. Many of these issues do end up helping minority men as well - advocacy about male suicides in general helps gay and trans men, who have a disproportionately high rate of suicides. I've also seen MRAs bring up issues of homophobia that is targeted towards gay men and not lesbians.

      While MRAs generally do support LGBT issues, the MRM is for men, regardless of whether they're straight or gay, cis or trans, and I find it a lot more respectful approach instead of feminists' constantly co-opting everything they can twist into being a woman's issue, so white western cisgender middle/upper-class women can claim they're affected by the same 'misogyny' that is the root of homophobia against gay men, or something.

      Delete
    2. Hi Joel. Just wanted to talk about your 4th point, since I only have a moment, here. I can only speak for myself, here, but I'm quite sure those around me aren't too afraid to speak up if they disagree :)

      There is certainly a benefit of having a nuanced discussion about prescribed gender roles and gender stereotypes, etc. So you could technically say that this is a "benefit" of feminism. But I don't believe that it can only be discussed within a feminist framework, which is exactly what would happen. There have been many statements by feminists, usually trying to shut down talks about men's issues, that they have no problem with men's issues being discussed, but it has to be within a feminist framework. So of course MRA's are not interested in only being allowed to have "open" discussions with these stipulations.

      I don't consider myself an MRA or a MGTOW. I feel that the most important thing that needs to come out of all this is exactly what you stated: an unbiased and in-depth discussion of gender roles, perceptions and equality. But there's no way that I'm only interested in having that discussion under the feminist axiom that women are systematically oppressed by men. That's a skew that I'm just not willing to have put on the discussion.

      Delete
  26. I once did a thought experiment on Reddit on a page dedicated to gender issues, female specific. I offered the readers an opportunity to build a matriarchal society from scratch to see if their society would emerge any differently than the current one. There were two constraints I gave. They had to begin their society before modern humans left the plains of Africa to ensure all parts of patriarchy could be mitigated, and they also had to conform to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. One reader stated that in her society that she wouldn't erect building upward because they were phallic symbols. Rather, she would make womb-like structures by digging into the ground. Another reader quickly told her that would utilize too much energy and also such structures would take up too much geography. And the thought experiment proceeded as such, with a feminist idea being trumped by reason and the need to survive. After they constructed their utopia, I asked them one question. What do you do when another society surrounds your society to attack you? After inserting violence it didn't take long before their societies turned into what emerged in the real world; it ended up being a place where gender roles were rather fixed and specialized. They quickly drafted the men when I asked them who would fight if they were surrounded by an army of men with swords, shields, and armor. They quickly threw out their motherly ways when asked what would they do if some men opted not to fight. Their answer was to indoctrinate the boys at a young age with idealizations of being a hero, a warrior. It only takes a river overflowing its banks once before one realizes that building below the ground is as dumb as it sounds. It takes one man on the side of the enemy killing four of your tribe's women before one realizes that maybe they should only send men to fight. This was a simple thought experiment and some sort of reason emerged. You have study after study, and you still get challenges despite the fact that these matters can be verified and aren't strictly anecdotal. Either they are correct or they are not. I write all of this to ask you these questions. Why do you think people react with emotions rather than seeking to at least see if what you're saying is valid? Your interview on TYT and on David Pakman;s show come to mind. Why does it take men being personally affected and women having men they care about being affected before they begin to consider these issues as plausible? Do these facts matter when people are committed to their emotional states rather than wisdom?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know I'm likely years late for this, but I would be very interested in seeing that thread, if you would be good enough to share the link, or at least enough information for some minor leg-work to dig it up. Thanks.

      Delete
  27. Hello everyone my name is Nick and am out here to do just one thing which is to tell the world about a man called Dr Zadson. A man of great virtue and abilities. Its been 1 year and 3 months since my husband left home to live with another woman at first i didn't feel bothered but on a second thought i couldn't just stay back and sleep lonely all nights while another enjoyed the company of my husband. Then i resulted online for solution then i saw so many comments of how this Dr Zadson help restores marriages/relationships just in a space of 48 hours. I took a leap of faith to email him and he replied back and gave me his word that in 48 hours he will be back to me. Verily verily i was so amazed and shocked to truly see my husband at my work place asking me to take him back and its been 4 months now and we are still together better and stronger by the day. I said to myself that there are people out there who need this type of liberation and help and i will write down his email contact Dr Zadson via email on eduduzadsontemple@yahoo.com and feel a new dawn of happiness.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Good day Friends. I am Mrs Anita a single mom, from canada, I love to share this great testimony that took place in my life for you to know and be partaker of it that is why I always place it on answer, I want to thank (Mr robert) for his kindness upon my family. Just a few months Back, I was in search of a loan of $65,000.00 as I was running out of money for my business and i could not pay my children's fees anymore. I was recently scammed of $8,500 by an online lender and I decided not to get involve in such risk again I never knew that a real lender like (Mr.robert) still exist on internet and on earth here. until a Friend of mine introduced me to {Mr Robert} At first I told her I was not interested in any loan deal anymore then she assured me that (Mr.robert) is a genuine lender, though i never believed her, I made a trial and I am glad i did, I was given a loan amount of $65,000.00, by this so i am advising you today If you are interested in a loan, or any financial assistance and you can be reliable, trusted and capable of paying back at the due time of the funds I will advice you to contact:(robertfinancial_loancompany@yahoo.com) and you be free from scams in the internet. All thanks to Mr.robert for restoring happiness unto my business.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hello everyone am here to testify how i got my loan from Mr Akisu. after i applied several times from various loan lenders who claimed to also testify right in this forum,i thought the testimonies where real and i applied but they never gave me loan. I was in need of an urgent loan to start a business and i applied from various loan lenders who promised to help but they never gave me the loan.Until a friend of mine introduce me to Mr Akisu. who promised to help me and indeed he did as he promised without any form of delay.I never thought there are still reliable loan lenders until i met Mr.Akisu,who are indeed helped with the loan and changed my belief.I don't know if you are in any way in need of a genuine and urgent loan,free feel to contact Mr.Akisu via his email{Akisuloancompany@gmail.com} Thank you may God bless you

    ReplyDelete
  30. Do you need Personal Loan?
    Business Cash Loan?
    Unsecured Loan
    Fast and Simple Loan?
    Quick Application Process?
    Approvals within 24-72 Hours?
    No Hidden Fees Loan?
    Funding in less than 1 Week?
    Get unsecured working capital?
    Contact Us At :majidvijahlending@gmail.com


    LOAN SERVICES AVAILABLE INCLUDE:
    ================================
    *Commercial Loans.
    *Personal Loans.
    *Business Loans.
    *Investments Loans.
    *Development Loans.
    *Acquisition Loans .
    *Construction loans.
    *Business Loans And many More:

    LOAN APPLICATION FORM:
    =================
    Full Name:................
    Loan Amount Needed:.
    Purpose of loan:.......
    Loan Duration:..
    Gender:.............
    Marital status:....
    Location:..........
    Home Address:..
    City:............
    Country:......
    Phone:..........
    Mobile / Cell:....
    Occupation:......
    Monthly Income:....

    Contact Us At :majidvijahlending@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

  32. I am Nancy Leonard , from Ohio USA, i want to use this great medium to announce this lender Hammers who is really a God sent to my family. few months back i was in search of a loan form the internet where i was scammed of $6250.00, i never thought i will ever apply for a loan on the internet again before i met a post about this lender made by one Maury who also got a loan from them, then i took a try again, after loan processing i was ask to provide my banking details which i did and to my greatest surprise i was granted a loan of $45,000.00 at first i thought it was a joke until i got to the bank to confirm and it was true, i was overwhelmed with joy. so i want you all who desire a loan and are capable of paying back the funds at the due time to contact: carlosinvestment@hotmail.com and be a partaker of my testimony

    ReplyDelete
  33. I was looking for an excuse to donate for quite some time, but only saw this post now, so thank you.
    golden slot mobile
    gclub

    ReplyDelete
  34. We are private lending firm,We offer Loans at low interest rate of to any Interested Individual personal. We are governmental Registered authorized financial helper. for more information on how to obtain our Loans contact us today via email: (mrhamdnloanoffer@gmail.com)

    ReplyDelete

Commenting policy:

All comments are welcome here. I refuse to censor points of view that differ from my own.

I recognize that I may be challenging the deep-seated beliefs of some people, and perhaps stirring up emotions in others. However, I would ask:

- if you care to respond to anything that I have said, please do not simply link to or quote some statistic. Do not simply regurgitate things you have been told are true. Think about what I am saying. Respond with an argument. Offer something from your personal observations, and explain to me how you feel your statistic is connected to your experience.

- If you wish to be part of a discussion, try not to dismiss what I or a another commenter says out of hand. Yes, that means that some lines of thought or ideologies may not stand up to scrutiny (perhaps even my own).

- Remember, ad hominem attacks diminish everyone involved. If you want to criticize anything, do so passionately and directly - but debate is about attacking ideas, not people.

Have at you!