At the Sydney Morning Herald. Naturally, they won’t publish Brother Boxer’s civil comment. I wonder why?
Credit to Spike, over at Dalrock, for finding this latest example of feminist halfwittery.
At the Sydney Morning Herald. Naturally, they won’t publish Brother Boxer’s civil comment. I wonder why?
Credit to Spike, over at Dalrock, for finding this latest example of feminist halfwittery.
It just occurred to me: why is the word “still” included in the title of that article? I have yet to encounter a modern western woman who can distinguish an iron from a concrete cinderblock. If they’re going to whine about being “oppressed” by their husbands, they should at least whine about something halfway plausible, such as “why are we still spreading our legs for our husbands [oh, wait … we’re not]?”
Anyway, I’ll see if I can get a comment past the censors over there.
Oh, and I notice that the majority of the comments, from both sexes, are telling “Kasey Edwards” that she’s full of shit and needs to get a grip. Good to see!
All chicks are feminists. All of them. There are no exceptions. The only time they don’t go for power personally is when they need a man to achieve something they can’t. Then they let their obedient dog-man lead them by the hand. The rest of the time, it’s feminine control in the relationship as much as she can cheat her way into it. The man himself? Doomed.
*smiles slowly* Unless you’ve got balls of brass and don’t give a shit.
P.S. I’ve got a new article coming up very soon on my site, and I think you’ll like it.