Mikey

That's not the point. SIIIIGH It was the way those filth bag feminists conducted theirselves before it all ended. Feminists, lead by that sex, and racer pandering prick Mike Nifong, all went on to a witch hunt to convict these guys even though nothing was proven, and they were eventually found innocent. After all of this happened, those lovely egalitarian feminists, on sites like pandagon and feministing, all went very quiet. No it hasn't been demonstrated time and time again, it's a total lie. You also need to take in to account work experience, and years at the same job. IF WHAT YOU SAID IS THE CASE, IT WOULD MAKE NO SENSE TO HIRE MEN. You're so full of shit. Keep defending the man haters, I'm sure they really appreciate a white, straight male defending them.

You said it yourself. Of course theres a pay gap, FUCKING JESUS! An average woman, who leaves her career to go have a kid, then wants to return will struggle to. Because of child care issues therefore may only want to work part time / flexible hours. The work they get after having a child will most likely be alot lower payed and a job that requires alot lower skill than they are able to perform at. They have the choice to be as dedicated to work as men, and they CHOOSE not to. There's nothing for them to be complaining about, yet they bitch, moan and screech. Not only that, they claim it's discrimination!!!! Like I said, half truths and lies. You've bought in to it hook, line and sinker. Men do better than women at work because men are more dedicated. It's that simple. It would make no sense to hire men for more, when they could hire women for less, if they both did an equally good jobs. It's common freaking sense. Yet you, and those damn feminists, just love to play the victim card. Btw, women out number men are colleges. You don't see those feminist rats complain about that. You won't hear me complaining about it either, because it's most likely down to choice on behalf of the man.

Until the verdict is read out, then surely both the accuser and the accused deserve the same treatment? I'm sure you agree with that. Well feminists won't have that though, they oppose it. Don't go by the definition of the word, actions speak louder than words. Lets just say the people in charge of the dictionary changed the definiton of Nazi to "egalitarianism". Would you then call your self a Nazi? I wouldn't. The Fish can go out and say it's only a minority of feminists who act like I've described, but it blatantly isn't. You go on to a mainstream feminist blog like Pandagon, and read about the duke lacrosse rape case, and all you'll see is guilty until proven innocent, and a load of comments which slam the accused because they were middle class, white, straight, and male, and the accuser was a black woman. If feminists who were they claimed they were, I'd let them get on with it, and probably even support them, but they're not. The KKK claim not to hate black people, and they are just pro white. They claim not to advocate violence, yet they assault black people. I don't buy any of it, just like I don't buy any of that feminist horse shit. Women are always going to accuse men vastly more than the other way around. They know this. It's clearly biased. The PAY GAP IS A LIE, ITS BEEN PROVEN A LIE. Yes, men get paid more by women, but for good reasons. I've been through this with you before, and you refuse to accept it. Head in sand. By the way, the guy in that video, Warren Farrel, is a former president of NOW. (Former feminist, he seen the error of his ways)

Then why do feminists oppose for both the name of both the man and woman's name to be either both named or for it to be kept anon in a rape case? Don't even get me started on the pay gap myth which has been debunked over and over, yet continue to use on their assault on men. Yeah, equality. Google duke lacrosse rape case. You'll see what main stream feminists are all about. Bunch of white, straight, male hating ass holes.

You think a woman being able to accuse any man of rape and for her identity not to be revealed, while his name is, is equal rights? I don't think so. Feminists actively work against groups which help men. Erin Pizzey is a hero of mine, and she opened up the first woman's battered shelter in the UK. She dared to say that woman assault men too, and domestic violence isn't gender based. What happened? Feminists sent her death threats and killed her dog. She had to be escorted around the country by police for fear of her life. Eventually, feminists worked their way in to domestic violence shelters, and threw Pizzey out. Ever since, DV shelters have been breeding ground for man hating bitch feminists, who won't let boys 13 or over, in to their shelters. Vermin. Groups for men have tried to get funding for male victims of violence, and feminists almost always turn up with their lies and myths to stop it from happening. It's sickening.

I don't care who you know. Feminists are scum, and I don't care if any one you know is one. Are you going to bring out the dictionary so you can quote what a feminist is from there. I don't give a shit though. Actions speak louder than any dictionary definition, and the feminists I've come across are vile scum. You're like a black man defending the KKK, seriously. No real feminist would ever defend you if you were screwed over by a woman. Well, maybe an ifeminist, but they're a tiny minority, and main stream feminists hate them. You're really out of your depth here. I've read in to their filthy hate movement indepth, and I know what they're all about. Lies, myths, lesbians and man hating. 40% of NOW is lesbian if I'm not mistaken. I'm not bothered by lesbians, I'm just bothered by man hating butch lesbian feminists who hate men because all of the best pussy in the world isn't available to them. "Come here, Martha, I'll take you away from that evil, patriarchal male rapist". Think you're late for your womyn's studies class aren't you?

Because their talent is in demand, and brings in big money. Yep. Agreed.

Indoctrination by the state or by family? If it's by family, the state needs to mind its own business.

I probably know more about those filth bag feminists than you do. So I can determine from your post, you are an idiot. You obviously don't even know the meaning of those words you spew either, so your accusations are meaningless to me. Don't come running to the likes of me if you ever get falsely accused of rape, and the slut who accused you gets full anonymity, while your name is all over the media and you're tarred for life. Because that's the sort of horse shit those feminists have fought for. Fine then. Not all KKK members are bad people. Not all Nazis are like that. We can both play that whole, "they're not all like that" game. Yes, it's fine to generalize when it comes to members of hate groups. Feminism is a hate group against men. You've gotta be fucking blind not to see it. By the way, not only men hate feminists like I do. Plenty of women hate the fuckers too. Do I sound pissed off about them? Damn right I do. Men defending a hate group against them. Like black people defending the KKK as far as I'm concerned.

It was clear you meant a Scouse accent. I barely have one. Feminists are not for equality, they're a bunch of liars.

Do I? Funny, because I have almost no accent. Feminists are still filth.

I don't care who I insulted. Feminists are lying filth.

I know what feminism is, and it isn't what it claims to be. Bunch of lying filth bags. The KKK claim not to hate black people, yet you wouldn't buy that in a second. Prostitution is prostitution regardless. Porn actors are basically prostitutes. The reason why prostituion is illegal in this country, is because the state wouldn't be able to tax it effectively.

The point is, there's a risk in everything people do. As for the sex trafficking boom, well that sounds like a load of feminist horse shit. (The same dirty feminists who claimed women would be trafficked in their thousands during the 2006 world cup, although only 2 recorded cases appeared) Prostitution is legal in parts of the USA, and nothing of the sort has happened.

You're twisting things. Not every one can home school well enough, or has the time to. The only alternative is public schooling, maybe private schooling if you have the money. Either way, they have no right to be teaching kids about ideology in tax funded schools. The government coming in and deciding who can have the kids is a joke. They almost always go for the woman regardless, and then the father has to beg for the right to see his own kids on the state's terms. If things were left to both parents, then whoever is the caring, driven, smartest and most dominant would take control of the children more often than not. The state has no idea what goes on behind a family's front door, and can't possibly give a well informed decision on the matter. Also, again, it's none of their business. Yes, prostitution should be legalized. It's sex between 2 consenting adults for god sake. There's a risk in everything you do, and who the hell are the state to tell women whether or not they can or not take the risk? Also, the men fucking the sluts are also taking the risk of getting STDs. As long as they know the risk involved before going in to it, they should be left to it. I find it ridiculous saying it'd make it easier to kill or rape them. The thug police couldn't possibly stop it happening either way. All the thug police can do is try to catch the criminal after the crime has been committed. Everytime a woman walks down the street she risks something happening to her. As do men. Any man at any time could be accused of rape by a woman, yet are we going to tell men to stop interacting with women? Of course not.

Communist, man hating Hitlery? Yeah, nice one.

Most people would die for their children as it is. Children are now state property, and take them away as they see fit just on the advice of scum bag social workers. It should be up to the mother and father to decide what's right for their own kids, no one else. These days the unfairly state rips fathers away from their kids, and to a much lesser extent their mothers. The only time the state should even get involved, is if someone is seriously abusing their children. When it comes to things liek who should get custody, the state shouldn't even get any sort of a say unless one parent is blatantly abusive. Prostitution is no one else's business other than the seller and buyer. The state has no business telling women they can't sell their bodies, and the state has no business telling men they can't pay for it. Tyrants. They can't stop it anyway, all they can do is intimidate people to go along with what ever they decide. I watched a TV show the other night, and some guy and a paid whore were on the show. Some thug police officer came poking his nose in where it wasn't welcome. They said if he wanted to keep his liberty, he shouldn't visit any more sluts. I almost choked with laughter.

No, libertarian ideology wouldn't be forced on anyone, it is freedom from forced ideology. It's minimal government, giving people as much freedom as reasonably possible. That's the entire point. Liberalism and other ideologies are forced on people by the state, regardless of whther we agree or not. Liberarians don't want to stop people from being liberal or conservative if they want, they just leave it up to personal choice. As for pure libertarianism, well I'm not for that anyway. Most liberarians just want the state to mind their own business when it comes to choices we make at home. Like I've said before, the state is a needed evil. As for the charities, well it would be up to people if they fund them or not. That's the point, it's choice. If you look at charities today which aren't government funded, they do well without being funded by the state. So there's no reason why welfare and such can't be privatized. As for the death penalty, I am against it in ALL cases, even for the likes of Hitler. Yes, I'm not a massive fan of the right either. Neither the left or right wing should have the right to force their ideology on people with the bully state. Found these funny pics of Hitlery Clinton.

You're so full of shit. I've already said the state is a needed evil, it should just be limited in its influence. Much better having something like the state limited, and giving people choices, than having a big government like we have now ruling over the country giving people no choice at all. Liberals are so full of shit. Who in the fuck are the state to tell me when I can and can't see my own children? Who in the hell are the state to tell me how I can and can't support my family? Who in the hell do the state think they are making paying for sex illegal? These are all personal affairs which they have no business in. Need to mind their own fucking business. I wouldn't bring communism in to this. Liberalism and communism are both totalitarian. At least with the libertarian way, ideology wouldn't be forced on people.

Whatever, little man. If you want the state to decide everything for you, go ahead, I don't though, and I refuse to support a state which restricts my natural freedoms.

Horse shit. Libertarians generally believe that a people's rights end where another person's starts. The state are the tyrants. Protect my body, and my possessions, after that, the state needs to go and get fucked.

Not too sure on the NHS. Part of me think it'd be better to scrap it, and have every one to pay for it theirselves. People who couldn't afford it could then be helped by private charities. Another part of me thinks it should be free on demand, because no one asks to be sick, so why should they have to pay to get better? I'd definitely rid of ideology being taught in schools. When I was in school, I was taught that racism and such is bad. There's nothing really wrong with that message, but it shouldn't be taught in school. If I was a parent who was a racist, or homophobic, I wouldn't want the state to go against me by teaching my child the opposite. Unfortunately you are pretty much forced to make your child to go school, or you're put in prison and your child is taken away from you. So the bully state has you either way. I'd most definitely get rid of government funded battered women's shelters. They're a breeding ground for lying feminists and their ideology being funded by the tax payer. In their place I'd have privately funded shelters for battered people who genuinely need them. I'd most definitely rid of alimony and other horse shit like child custody. Marriage is none of anyone's business apart from the 2 people who entered the union. The state should not be able to come in and steal your money away and give it to some bitch who can easily run off, with your child, your money and your house. Most men want to do the decent thing and support their children, the state shouldn't be having any sort of a say in what capacity. I'd let people who have their own business be able to discriminate against anyone they like. If a business owner doesn't want to hire gays, women, black people or some other designated victim status group, then it should be their right to do so. It's their business, no one elses, and after they pay their tax, they should be able to run their business anyway they want (within reason). Fortunately, discriminating isn't good for business, and businesses that would do it would lose money. Prostitution should be legal for sure. Anything that happens between two consenting people which nature has deemed ready to make babies is none of anyone elses business. The state needs to keep its nose out of people's sex lives.

Lefties love using the state to bully people to go along with their ideology. This is why I can't stand them. As for my views. Well they're irrelevant. I don't want to use those state thugs to enforce my opinions like liberals do. Feminism is a disease in my opinion, yet the state enforces its shite on this country. Yet me, as a massive anti feminist, wouldn't want the state to make it illegal. Leave it as a choice, then whether or not it's right or wrong doesn't matter. Liberals won't have that though, they just love to use the state to force people to go along with it.

Unfortunately, the state is a needed evil. But people who love free will must try to keep it as small as possible. The state should only be there to serve and protect people, when it comes to anything else, it needs to keep its mouth shut. The state can't possibly be impartial, because the people in charge always have their own shitty agenda. So what's the next best thing? Limited government, and people having more freedom to sort out their personal affairs.