Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Make me a sandwitch!

Holy crap, Anonymous, you found a goldmine!

Megyn Kelly takes issue with the idea that womens' place is the home. Freepers take issue with Megyn Kelley and stridently defend the ideals of the Victorian Era.

LS knows there are lots of uncited studies that working women are unnatural:
There is a lot of scientific evidence that married males out produce (”work effort”) married women, single women, and even single men). Especially among low-income people, the likelihood of divorce is much higher if the woman earns as much, or more, than the man. This isn’t “male ego”-—it’s nature.
Viennacon also cites science, though not actual scientific work.
It’s amazing, we’re always accused of being anti-science, yet biology makes our case! Nature intended it to be a certain way, and we continue to fight it, only ending in disaster.
Venturer's happy marriage to a homemaker is the only possible way to go!
The man should be the Bread winner ,not because he should be dominant, but because it is the male role.

I have never struggled to be dominant with my wife, she pretty much does things as she wishes to do them.

She worked for two years after we were married, the kids came along and she became a housewife. I worked one regular job and two part time jobs while she worked at home to keep the house and tend the two kids. She ruled the two kids with the wooden spoon and good morals, she never waited until I got home to punish them. We have great kids and have been married for 50 years this June.

Women today who want to be dominant don’t stay married long.
Not to any real man. Megyn looks good, but attitude is what sustains a marriage.
LibLieSlayer seems frustrated.
Fox News sluts for satan... going to try to get my keyboard taken away girls??? FU liberal concubines!
Viennacon again, explaining that you can choose not to have kids, but then you suck.
The differences between men and women are obvious, and necessary for us to function as a species. We need to stop running from our own nature. If a woman does not wish to devote her time and energy to a family, then she should not have one. Women are perfectly free not to have families. This isn’t India, where you get sold off to be Sanjay’s wife when you’re twelve.

I am happy for Kelly and Van Susteren, who have both achieved a lot in their lives, but the greatest achievement for any woman should be raising great kids. And I think to do that, you have to be around.
BobL is feeling a bit of a fatwa coming on...
When you see women acting this way, it starts getting easier to understand why Muslim men treat them like crap, almost to the point of slavery.
servantboy777 knows Satan created working women!
This nation was God ordained. It is abundantly clear when one begins researching the writings of our founding fathers.

I believe in my heart of hearts, the reason the divorce rates skyrocketed was because of, or in part due to the perversion of the traditional family unit.

You cannot have two driving the ship. The woman in the marriage is to be cherished, lifted up, honored for her role and virtue.

The man should be strong, respected, allowed to defend the family be a man. Progressives have so effiminated our young men. Supported the notion that it's ok to be in touch with your feminine side....poppy cock.

These are all lies from the father of lies. It is designed to tear the fabric of society and pervert our perception of what God's will is for our lives, our families.

God forgive this nation.
hinckley buzzard would be trolling on any other site...
Sad. Maybe Kelly was pms-ing. Anger ill-befits a woman (or man) trying to appear rational.
wardaddy psychonalyzes Kelley:
That stern haircut...hear me roar

I guess daddy never noticed her enough or she hated mommy being dependent on him

Something got in her head


  1. "The man should be strong, respected, allowed to defend the family be a man. Progressives have so effiminated our young men. Supported the notion that it's ok to be in touch with your feminine side....poppy cock. "

    I feel some sympathy with this paragraph, since I get where he's coming from. We just have a different view on what a man is.

    A man looks out for his own, accepts responsibility and admits his mistakes - which he will make, he's still human. That's about it.

    1. "A man looks out for his own, accepts responsibility and admits his mistakes - which he will make, he's still human. That's about it."

      Thing is - so does a woman.

      I'll allow that some virtues are kinda gendered (authority, nurturing), but most are not.

    2. I think the only things gendered - apart from the obvious giving birth thing - is the ability to withstand pain (women win that, hands down) and communication skills (men tend to be quieter and more attuned to slight movements, women tend to be more verbose.)

      All else is learned. Authority? Toughest CO I ever had were a woman. Sort of person that could chew horseshoes and spit out nails. She got total respect from everyone - not because she demanded it, but because she earned it.
      Nurturing? Well - that is also a cross gender thing. We'd gather followers. Kids. One of the nicest things of an evening would be to sit and talk to them.

      Time before last, in Syria, I had a young girl (about 8) who would sleep under my bunk. She felt safe there. Wake up in the morning and try to work out how to slip out of the blanket without waking the kids that had huddled up while I were asleep. Most of the men had the same problem! And it is a huge problem when you wake up needing a pee!

      Anecdote - I know. But something to consider?

    3. Haha, those are great stories.

      I didn't mean to imply that men could only have certain attributes, or even that men tended to have certain attributes, only that society still attributes gender to certain attributes, though it is going down.

      Freeper gender politics is one of my favorite things to observe.
      Generally, they see almost every good traits as manly, including nurturing.
      So Freepers' favorite women have balls - Thatcher, Palin, etc.
      And men they disagree with are probably gay, and certainly acting like women.
      So far, nothing more than 1950s-era separate spheres sexism. But! Here is where it gets good. Acting out of gender is also bad, which goes along with the effeminate liberal thing, but means that they say liberal women look and act like men, which is good, but now is bad.
      So manly woman good, masculine woman bad. You know the difference when you see it.

      And then there's adding sex and marriage into the mix...

    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    5. Wow.

      I can't pretend to have time to read the whole thing, but those letters are both lyrical and noble. If you can never get permission, you would probably get them published and do pretty well for 'em.

      I'd love to see you on book tour when people assume your humanitarian acts and humanistic empathy for the people you met mean you must be a liberal!

    6. It is what is is, right?

    7. Though - yes. They will be going in to a book. Alternating letters - from those you read and a man in 1942. It's a rather sweet book.

  2. I would have enjoyed elkfersupper's take on this. Sadly, he was zotted awhile back in a thread about atheism and conservatism.

    1. Not seen elk for ages. He joined GOPBR after getting the zot, but hasn't really been active. Pity. I rather like him.

  3. Are you effing kidding me? How can BobL not be a troll? Are you telling me he is admiring from afar the Muslims who hate our way of life? The way of life that let's you know, women out of the freaking house??

  4. I have often wondered if the reason why Freepers profess so much hatred for Muslims is because they want to be just like them and can't get away with it! They rail against Sharia law but drool over the thought of a Theocracy with a Christian in charge.

    1. On balance, I think Freepers would really be more comfortable with a customised version of Judaism. The New Testament is full of subversive nonsense about turning the other cheek, forgiving hookers, treating people with medical conditions for free etc. All seriously unfreeperish. That sort of thinking lead to the Amish. They do a solid job on the "lock up your daughters" front but they would be useless on a feral hunt. The wrath, vengance, genocide, jealously, cursed to the fourth generation, cursed in perpetuity (Cain, Ham = Africans, Ferals) narrative of the Old Testament is a far better fit with Freeper theology.

    2. Personally - I enjoy hookers :P Hey, you go on a 2 year tour of duty! Your hand gets boring.

      As far as "feral hunts" go - seriously - give me the guys who prefer to sleep than party. There are maybe a dozen Freepers I would trust at my side in one of those situations. Probably being generous with the numbers there.

    3. You are a brave man. Personally I wouldn't trust anyone deranged enough to 'like' guns anywhere near me with one.

      I say that after a career at a NATO Proof & Experimental Establishment where we test fired virtually every small arm in existence, both civilian and military.

      Nasty, noisy destructive things. The people I trust with them regard them like pneumatic road drills. Essential tools for certain jobs, but no-one sane actively likes (much less fetishizes) the things or would want to keep one as a personal possession on the off chance that a particularly nasty lump of concrete might spring from the shadows at any moment.

    4. You nailed it - no pun intended.

      They are tools. Not terribly pleasant in either use or results and a pain in the ass to keep clean and functional.

      The ones that make them into fetishes are the ones that haven't had to use them. Mostly, at least.

  5. Megyn Kelly was the "it girl" among freepers until this incident.

    One thing freepers (and most conservatives) love more than anything is political cannibalism.