Why Do (some) Men Hate Women?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I'm just about to leave for London (to see Pokemon and then on to Oxford), so I'll leave you all with a BIG question, prompted by a friend of mine who's being an arse at the moment. Go on, discuss.

― DG, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I really like woman but then i do not fuck them. I blame it on sexual tension.

― anthony, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

There have to be so many reasons. Upbringing, peer pressure, feeling threatened. What is odd is that I seem to get along better with women than with men. Not sure why, although some people claim I'm so effeminate I practically *am* a woman. Hmmmmm.

I used to know alot of people who went to an all-male public school, and they didn't like women just because they'd never really been around them. Women were very alien to them, if you like.

It's funny, I don't like misogyny or misandry, but I can be something of a misanthrope. Go figure.

― Paul Strange, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

No. of people I 'hate' is very low. No. of people who I don't like and who irritate me is higher and split evenly between genders but for some reason it's I think more noticeable when somebody dislikes somebody else of the opposite sex.

A lot of men are nervous around women or baffled by them in an uh relationship context. The problem comes when such men blame the women for this not themselves. Exactly the same thing happens in the other direction.

I objectify women loads and loads but that's not really the same thing, well I don't think so. I also probably say and think lots of unconsciously prejudiced stuff and I'm happy to have that pointed out to me, less so to have it assumed that it's part of systematised woman-hatred.

This is all in private-sphere relationships though. In a lot of public-sphere relationships some men do genuinely seem to dislike and fear women as an extension essentially of disliking and fearing power- sharing: bad enough to have to divide the cake up between your fellow men without doubling the size of the competition.

― Tom, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I don't wish to be an apologist for any 'backlash', but the truth is, males of a certain age have received media saturation from a very young age basically telling them that they're garbage, and obsolete garbage at that. (I realise that it's probably minor compared to the identity-twisting media barrage that females are subjected to, but then, I'm talking about people in their impressionable years. And also, I don't think women are subjected to a daily dose of "Why do females exist? Are they worthless or what? Why don't we just kill them? Etc" from every available media outlet - then again, maybe they do and I just don't perceive it for obvious reasons.)Sins of the fathers etc.
Then again, for those who weren't interested in any 'traditional' male roles in the first place, it doesn't seem to affect them (me? us?) too much, but for people who know or prefer no different, it must be incredibly frustrating. Feel free to flame, I'm interested in gathering knowledge.

― tarden, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

The answer that always sprongs to mind is that many men equate women or femininity with being weak, physically or mentally. There is also projection on the part of males equates being around women with *feeling* weak, through attraction or sexuality. The last thing men want to be equated with is weakness. So they assert their mysogenist tendencies in an attempt to feel stronger in the face of either their own weakness, or the perceived "weakness" of the woman.

I don't know. Despite the fact that I have quite a lot of masculine tendencies and characteristics, I often find mens behaviour perplexing in this regard. (Maybe I just find human behaviour perplexing... I often feel like an anthrolopogist on Mars when I am forced to spend vast amounts of time around very stereotypically feminine females.)

― masonic boom, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

This is only a small part of the answer, but I often put public declarations of misogyny down to some kind of juvenile "Ooh - look at me, I'm being controversial and non-PC" motive.

― Nick, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

But Nick, things aren't 'controversial' unless they strike some sort of chord, are they?

― tarden, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

The thing about what tarden said is it goes to a REALLY obvious fact: MEN HAVE FEELINGS TOO — which was totally culturally suppressed — or sort of deflected into abstract passions — for the longest time, and in some ways still is. Roland Huntford's book on Scott at the pole (Scott died in 1911) came up somewhere: well, read THAT (or the original surviving diaries) for a glance at a culture where men were being glorified for not having a clue even what the name of of what they just felt was called. Boys in the trenches in the First World War were SHOT for being FRIGHTENED! Denial is too weedy a word for this.

Rock Culture and Feminism and Queer Culture have given all this a massive nudge, but thyere'sd an awful lot still swirling round unexmained.

― mark s, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Did anyone hear On The Ropes (Radio 4) with the bloke who wrote an anti-feminist book at the end of the Eighties and had his life literally ruined by the response to it? It was a misguided book but the strength of feeling in the reponse was shocking - as if he'd denied the holocaust or something. He was sacked from his journalism job, had numerous articles calling for him to be hounded, academics telling their students to shoot him and his marriage and homelife fell apart when no-one stopped his wife kidnapping their child.

― chris, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Reassuring to know that everyone here is so enlightened, including me. Yeah right. Let's get controv. I'll start with saying that sublimating feelings into 'abstract passions' is actually a good thing sometimes, and that the stereotypical 'feminine' ethos translates into a wallowing in self-absorption and triviality that men feel they couldn't get away with even if they wanted to.
F'rinstance the old chestnut, "When women tell you they have a problem, they're not looking for a real solution, just sympathy." Well fuck off then. 'Sympathy is in the dictionary between 'shit' and 'syphilis'" and all that. There you go, now start flaming!

― tarden, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Whatever.

I think the reason why you see this - and I'm going to just discuss it on the Internet because I know no men like this in real life - is because certain men are very inept with women, have been rejected by women, "can't get laid" to put it in coarse terms, and thus are angry and blame the women. Someone else said this up thread, so there you go. It works both ways, I know loads of women who hate men, and they all make comments along the lines of "Men only date skinny bimbo bitch women" and that sort of thing, ie men aren't dating me therefore it's their fault and I hate them.

It's all a matter of getting laid, basically. Get these people a good fuck and they'll shut up.

― Ally, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

If only life were so simple, Ally...

So why is it that the worst mysogenists I know are the ones that get laid ALL THE TIME and continue to treat women like dirt and pieces of tissue and show no respect at all?

And the worst man-haters I know, similarly, are often the biggest sluts?

Sexuality can be an expression of hatred just as easily as it can be a cause of it.

― masonic boom, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Yeah Tarden but the difference is recognising and complaining about fuckheaded self-indulgent behaviour on an individual basis, which people should do if they don't want to be a doormat, and then saying ah ok but the person is doing this b/c they are a man/woman. It's adding that generalising layer that doesn't for me make much sense. I can't think of a single screwed-up train of thought or deed that a friend's been guilty of that I've not come across perpetrated by another other-gender friend (or by me).

― Tom, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Exactly Tom! Goes without saying. Which brings us to the next chestnut to deconstruct - "Women want it both ways, they want to be taken seriously like men, but have their weaknesses excused because it's a socio-biological thing and men wouldn't understand anyway." Get to work on that one...

― tarden, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

"It's all about getting laid": no, it's all about worrying whether you are GETTING LAID IN THE SOCIALLY APPROVED WAY/DEGREE (where those whose approval is sought varies from person to person). Competitiveness is often just over-compensation for something you are *pressured* to consider a requirement in yr life, but wish wasn't. Current orthodoxy = guys are LESS romantic, MORE irresponsibly horny, MORE scared of commitment. I think none of these aree actually true: that there's an awful lot of young menfolk feeling pushed TOWARDS being the above so as not to be pussywhipped wusses. Who then use the generalisation "men are this awful thing" as an excuse — inc,. an excuse TO THEMSELVES — dfor behaving in a way even THEY don't actually enjoy.

The guy who ruined his life by writing a book (Neil something, I think): No, he had ALREADY ruined his life by being a complete jerk unable to take responsibility for his own jerkiness towards eg his wife, and most of the the disasters Chris noted happened before the book (and indeed, were most of the contents of it). (Assuming we're talking abt the same fellow: the account he gave of himself on TV was a pitiful whiny disaster... )

― mark s, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Getting 'laid in the socially approved manner' - I think it's more. Not having the latest trainers = social faux pas, not getting laid = whispering suspicion of "Congratulations, you're on the evolutionary scrapheap. Sorry, your DNAs not good enough!" Assuming you're a 'breeder' of course

― tarden, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

So, what, is there NO FUCKING MIDDLE GROUND between getting laid NONSTOP and getting laid NEVER? People want to accuse me of seeing the world in "easy terms"...I'm the absolute last person who needs to have "explained" to me that having a lot sex is/can be an expression of hatred, anger or control.

I still hold fast that get the people I specifically referenced a date (i.e. misogynistic internet saddos), and they'd knock it off significantly. There is a great big huge gray area between virgins and whores.

― Ally, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Tarden, of course women want their weaknesses excused. So do men. And on the same physiological grounds e.g. men claiming it is natural and hormone-driven to want to sow their seed far and wide and using that as an excuse for infidelity. I would say that infidelity is a worse crime than maybe staying home from work occasionally because you are having labour-style period cramps.

― Emma, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

If Ally's theory were true, no woman would only ever mate with an inept woman-hater. The most virulent misogynists I know are nearly all married.

― Patrick, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I think I agree with what Tom E said in his opening post above. Possibly I know some men who hate some women, some men who hate some men, and vice versa, and on and on. (But 'hate' is a strong word, like Tom E said.) But like Tom E, I don't think I know anyone who hates all women, or even all men. I think we should, possibly, avoid focusing on what (in sex / gender terms) divides us. I could be wrong about that, though, and even if I'm not wrong I could probably get misinterpreted.

― the pinefox, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

"...no woman would ever"... that "only" has no business there.

― Patrick, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

The problem with generalisations isnt their truth-value which might be high but their use-value which is nil, i.e. in "the trenches" it is not an ur-Man talking to an ur-Woman but eg Paul talking to Kate. So whether a generalisation about 'men' might be right it can't make a situation any better (and can easily make it worse). So Mark above counters the idea that men are unromantic committmentphobes w/ the idea that they aren't and people are getting pushed into behaving otherwise. But if they 'aren't' then what about the ones who actually *are* (eg me in some ways).

― Tom, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

CAN I POINT OUT THAT THE ONLY MYSOGYNISTS I KNOW ARE INTERNET SADDOS ONCE AGAIN?

I can start naming names, if you like, in an ILM stylee, but that would be rude and inappropriate. The thing is, every single one I knew immediately became less negative once they actually went out and got some play. We aren't talking wife-beaters here or something, because it's something I know very little about, having been too young to witness a family member go thru it, and running out of the situation myself ASAP. I'm certain there are plenty of men who have loads and loads of sex who do it because they want to control women. But that's not my experience, and I have a hard time believing that I'm the only person who sees the big huge area between not having sex -> having a lot of sex with many people.

― Ally, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

That's of course the problem with topics like this, Tom. You try to take your experience and then generalize, but then you have to be careful to point out that it's a generalization, and then someone skips over that disclaimer and gets bitchy, yadda yadda yadda.

Quite frankly, I think all men are on some level misogynists, and I think all women are on some level men haters. Discuss.

― Ally, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

No, I think IT'S ALL GOOD.

― Nick, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Actually I didn't particular mean to stress "lots" vs "none": what I meant was "type one is getting" vs "type one fears the world assumes everyone *ought* to be getting, for its and their welfare..." (or something).

― mark s, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Ally - my apologies. I had seen your disclaimer and thought it meant something else entirely (i.e. "I'll say this online because in person men just can't take it".).

― Patrick, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I don't agree Ally. I'm male, and on no level a misgynist. I know plenty of women who don't despise all men in any way, too.

― Paul Strange, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I tend to be somewhat wary of men. I don't know if this makes me a self-hating gender traitor or just sensible. I mean most men are awful. So are a lot of women, but they're not quite so intimidating and/or boring, on the whole. I haven't done very careful stats on this. I ought to check my facts before I settle into this prejudice too deeply.

― Nick, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Reductive view from a social-phobic misanthrope - men are alternately boring and threatening, while women are alternately stupid and devious

― tarden, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Agreeing with Nick, by the way, not 'mocking'

― tarden, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I find men far more interesting than *most* women. But maybe that's cause I hang out with girly-men like Paul and his ilk. I do still hate men, so I can't prove Ally wrong, but I just hate them less than most women.

(Please bear in mind, I said *most* women. Two or three of my bestest friends in the world are women, albeit sensible, non-girly women, not lipstick-wearing, handbag-oogling, shrieking Bridget Jones types...)

― masonic boom, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Kate, I take umbrage at this. I consider myself to be girlie (in some ways), I wear lipstick and have been known to become enthusiastic about handbags on occasion. However I am not a shrieking 'Bridget Jones type'. Most of my friends are blokes and I have best friends who ar both male and female. The male friends accuse me of being a geezer bird (yuck yuck yuck) which they consider to be a compliment and I try to take as such. The point, if there is one, being that most people have masculine/feminine aspects to them so to hate either gender is fairly self defeating.

― Emma, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Many reasons men dislike women. It depends on the case and there not much grounds for generalisation I feel. Diferent combinations of events to influence attitude. I know its a BORING answer but I feel its the best . Let my now provide entertainment to make up for the dull answer PEANUT BUTTER FIREY SEX MONKEY THONG ARR!!!

― Mike Hanle y, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Emma, I'm an equal opportunity misanthrope. I hate *all* people equally, regardless of gender.

I have no patience for people who bang on about lipstick or handbags. I'm sure you would have no patience for me if I started banging on about varying brands of Russian effects pedals, or vaccuume tube based amplification. It's a question of commonality of interests. If you take umbrage at being called a BJ type because you like lippie and handbags, then I apologise for calling you such.

But I still hate *most* women. No, scratch that. I'm a misanthrope, I hate *all* women, and all men, too.

― masonic boom, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Hope you don't hate me... Maybe I'm neither male nor female, but neuter...

― Paul Girly-Boy, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Even me? And what about she-he s?

― Mike Hanle y, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I think if a)men stopped pretending they were interested in 'fatherhood', and b)women stopped trying to MAKE them interested, everything would be a lot better

― tarden, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

The thing is, Kate, I wear lippie and have a handbag but do not (outside this board) 'bang on' about either, I mean I don't sit in the pub pouting at people and saying 'does this lippie suit me? does it make me look fat?' or whatever. I think the preoccupation with weight which is evident mostly among women - you and me included - on other boards is far more 'Bridget Jonesy'. Don't you think?

― Emma, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

OK, maybe "Briget Jonesy" is a hard term for me to defend the use of, considering I read the book once, about 4 years ago, and got so cross at it that I threw it across the room when I was done with it.

I don't like girly girls. I am not going to defend that statement. I just *never* seem to get along with them, no matter how much we have in common otherwise, they just irritate me.

Preoccupation with weight and the cult of the girly-girl... if it occupies your mind and soul to the point where you cannot even enjoy some of the basic pleasures of life, like Bouze and Chocolate, then screw it, yes, that means girly-girl. To not worry about it is almost impossible in this day and age and culture of thin-worship (yes, I'm aware of the irony of that statement, given my opinions on the skinny guy thread). Do I think about it more than about once a day, when I'm trying to get my jeans on over my hips? Nah, or I wouldn't be fat in the first place.

Girly girls are... I don't even know how to make a categorisation, because there's an exception to every rule. Generally, obessed with their appearance (often to the exclusion of very basic fun... "I can't eat cause I'm on a diet... I can't run cause I'm wearing stupid shoes"). Obsessed with boys, more with *catching* a boy, because she feels incomplete without one, as opposed to objectification of boys according to appearance or anything else. Obsessed with uber-feminine topics... babies, flowers, interior decorating.

All these things are generalisations, yes, but they're just examples of the sort of people that I do *NOT* get along with. I don't know if I'd get along with you, Emma, I haven't met you. From your online personna, I'd *guess* that you're not terrifically girly-girl according to the preconceptions and prejudices described above.

And for the record, I'm not insulting anyone, or having a go at anyone (see the whole "office people" misunderstanding, which was patently stupid, considering I was *working* in an office at the time) I am just stating MY PERSONAL BIAS about people I do and don't get along with.

End Of Rant.

My god, if this keeps up, I might just make it to the bottom of the stats cock by the end of the week!

― Kate the Saint, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Kate saying she's fat and ugly = a) bull, b) Bridget Jonesism.

― Patrick, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I take your points Kate and I am not really personally offended, specially as you are as you say a general misanthrope! I think you are right in saying there are exceptions to every rule and having preconceptions means you don't get to know the exceptions.

I am scared of Saturday now in case I am wearing difficult-to-run-in shoes and you decide to beat me up.......

― Emma, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

No, it's not A) because it is a statement of fact. Currently up to a size 36 in jeans, which is 2 sizes larger than the proper size for my height. And it's not B) because if it was, it would be something I obsess about constantly, writing my weight in my diary every day (when I don't even own a scale) and doing something about, instead of merely shrugging and reaching for another slice of pizza.

― Kate the Saint, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Tarden, I'm *very* interested in fatherhood. It's my most URGENT and KEY ambition. I think you're way off the mark there.

― Nick, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Knee jerk bitterness from either gender is utterly useless. One particular thing simply I don't understand tho, is how any man can feel valid to complain about how his feelings are 'repressed' in this society when it's evolved as such because it's a *patriarchy*. Other men have enforced that particular standard - so why be bitter about the fact that it doesn't apply to women or 'effeminate' men? So much resentment gets misdirected, when often it's our OWN gender that's doing the most damage - it's as if we're in total denial. Women do it too, of course. Like the trophy wife that engineered herself into the position on purpose because that's where she saw herself as most valuable. Fuck her, and you can bet I'm going to blame her for 'selling out' probably more than I'm going to bitch about some shallow bastard thinking he should be able to buy a nice peice of T&A to put on permanent display (or at least until she hits 35 - more proof of her stupidity). More men ought to be doing the same thing re: other men acting like Neandertals.

― Kim, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

OK, then, Emma. In case I decide to beat you up, I'll give you a good head start to account for my being in trainers. ;-)

Besides, I think I'll be far too busy watching the DG/Mark S deathmatch to worry about beating anyone else up!

― Kate the Saint, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Kim - I think the 'bitterness' comes from the perception that there used to be some Golden Age where at least the men got some COMPENSATION for being repressed, i.e. 'getting' to treat everybody else like chattel.

― tarden, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Yeah Kim. get with it.

― Mike Hanle y, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Kate - Well, my definition of "fat" may be a little more let-it-all- hang-out then yours, but I'm still vetoing the "ugly" :-p

― Patrick, Thursday, 19 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Skipping 323 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

"And what saddle soever he rideth upon that hath the issue shall be unclean."

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 28 September 2007 18:22 (sixteen years ago) link

Glad you guys know, yay! That joke goes over FLAT IRL.

― Abbott, Friday, 28 September 2007 18:34 (sixteen years ago) link

It's almost like there are too many indoctrinated childhoods for one board....

― Laurel, Friday, 28 September 2007 18:38 (sixteen years ago) link

It took me a second... at first I was like, "Is that the one with the 'no homo' clause?... No wait, it's worse than that."

― kenan, Friday, 28 September 2007 18:39 (sixteen years ago) link

Ned, you're just a bad little Episcopalian boy, aren't you?

― Abbott, Friday, 28 September 2007 19:43 (sixteen years ago) link

You know me and Anglican guilt.

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 28 September 2007 19:44 (sixteen years ago) link

I thought the Anglicans spelled that 'gilt' or am I confusing them with another sect?

― Michael White, Friday, 28 September 2007 19:49 (sixteen years ago) link

That's an instant laugh catchphrase between my brother and I: "I'm just a baaaaaaaaaad widdle Episcopawian boy."

― Abbott, Friday, 28 September 2007 19:50 (sixteen years ago) link

Is Ned covered in GOLD? He never gave up on his soul? Is he indestructible?

― Abbott, Friday, 28 September 2007 19:50 (sixteen years ago) link

What's the old joke about the guy being shown around hell? In one lake of fire are the Catholics who ate meat on Fridays. In another are the Baptists who danced. In the last, the Episcopalians who used the wrong fork at luncheon.

― Michael White, Friday, 28 September 2007 19:53 (sixteen years ago) link

Sounds about right!

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 28 September 2007 19:55 (sixteen years ago) link

I thought Episcopal was totally the party church, how did I get this idea and is it wrong?

― Abbott, Friday, 28 September 2007 19:56 (sixteen years ago) link

They certainly have the gin thing down imo, Abbott.

― Michael White, Friday, 28 September 2007 19:59 (sixteen years ago) link

Is there a really non-ecumenical/non-non-denominational church that's totally the party church? I want to check this out. (I at one point thought it might be the Unitarian Church but recent events lead me to think they are group therapy in a church.)

― Abbott, Friday, 28 September 2007 20:04 (sixteen years ago) link

My very sensible friend who is raising her sons sans religion but herself has an excellent sense of the interconnectedness/cosmos/Stuff That Matters was raised a Unitarian Universalist, I think, and is v happy with it.

― Laurel, Friday, 28 September 2007 20:09 (sixteen years ago) link

Yes, it sounds very nice and appealing, a spirituality that sounds fairly tailored to my needs. BUT is it a party church?

― Abbott, Friday, 28 September 2007 20:11 (sixteen years ago) link

I get the impression it's pretty much whatever you need it to be...?

― Laurel, Friday, 28 September 2007 20:16 (sixteen years ago) link

As religion should be!

― kenan, Friday, 28 September 2007 20:16 (sixteen years ago) link

"I'm looking for a church that encourages various acts of sodomy."

― Michael White, Friday, 28 September 2007 20:33 (sixteen years ago) link

I think actually the closest to party churches would be huge megachurches with social groups for every age and interest, but then you might have to be willing to accept pretty fundamentalist theology. (I go for the Episcopalian mellowness instead.)

― Maria, Friday, 28 September 2007 20:59 (sixteen years ago) link

I believe many religions encourage sexual deviance, they just don't condone it.

― kenan, Friday, 28 September 2007 21:10 (sixteen years ago) link

the kenanical interpretation

― latebloomer, Friday, 28 September 2007 21:16 (sixteen years ago) link

Fundamentalism makes you freaky, proven by science

― kenan, Friday, 28 September 2007 21:18 (sixteen years ago) link

My mom is involved in a church where they all choose silly hats from a box before the service, and sing selections from musicals instead of hymns. I'm afraid to ask her what its called.

― Jaq, Friday, 28 September 2007 21:20 (sixteen years ago) link

high school theater

― ghost rider, Friday, 28 September 2007 21:29 (sixteen years ago) link

quite possibly.

― Jaq, Friday, 28 September 2007 21:35 (sixteen years ago) link

Some women hate men because they have been physically and mentally abused; same thing with men. Case solved.

― Jeb, Friday, 28 September 2007 22:12 (sixteen years ago) link

Some men think they hate women, when they really hate themselves.

― libcrypt, Saturday, 29 September 2007 05:32 (sixteen years ago) link

why do some women hate

― darraghmac, Saturday, 29 September 2007 13:07 (sixteen years ago) link

Some men think they hate women, when they really hate themselves.

either way, it's really charming.

― kenan, Saturday, 29 September 2007 13:23 (sixteen years ago) link

What religion has the most scope for parties?

― ogmor, Saturday, 29 September 2007 18:11 (sixteen years ago) link

mormons have some barn burners I hear

― El Tomboto, Saturday, 29 September 2007 18:14 (sixteen years ago) link

Really I just want a piece of this
http://www.badmovieplanet.com/inferno/archives/infernocam/wick8.JPG

― ogmor, Saturday, 29 September 2007 20:47 (sixteen years ago) link

I think men and women get a raw deal sometime, but men are less able to speak out.

― mei, Monday, 1 October 2007 16:12 (sixteen years ago) link

oh bull

― kenan, Monday, 1 October 2007 16:14 (sixteen years ago) link

i don't hate women. the girl who cheated on me a few years ago is one exception, though.

― omar little, Monday, 1 October 2007 17:30 (sixteen years ago) link

kabbalists clearly win partying category

http://joshuasjukebox.com/blog1/images/Britney-Madonna-MTV-VideoAwards-2003.jpg

― sunny successor, Monday, 1 October 2007 17:47 (sixteen years ago) link

I think men and women get a raw deal sometime, but men are less able to speak out.
-- mei, Monday, 1 October 2007 16:12 (1 hour ago) Link

oh bull
-- kenan, Monday, 1 October 2007 16:14 (1 hour ago) Link

Recursive LOL.
As a man I speak out about what I percieve to be men's situation and get stomped.

― mei, Monday, 1 October 2007 18:01 (sixteen years ago) link

That is such amazing irony that I'm sure it was planned.

― HI DERE, Monday, 1 October 2007 18:08 (sixteen years ago) link

He was a h8r boi
She said 'see ya l8r boi'

― Abbott, Monday, 1 October 2007 18:54 (sixteen years ago) link

i just read "various" in m. white's post as "vicious"

― gff, Monday, 1 October 2007 19:00 (sixteen years ago) link

http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

― mayhaps, Monday, 1 October 2007 19:36 (sixteen years ago) link

six months pass...

http://blingkits.com/DVD%20DVD/Menstruation/Menstration6.jpg

― Dom Passantino, Tuesday, 15 April 2008 15:57 (sixteen years ago) link

eight years pass...

Surely, surely, surely we got this sorted?

― poor fiddy-less albion (darraghmac), Thursday, 25 August 2016 00:29 (seven years ago) link

in binders, iirc

― brimstead, Thursday, 25 August 2016 00:30 (seven years ago) link

Hiyoo

― poor fiddy-less albion (darraghmac), Thursday, 25 August 2016 00:41 (seven years ago) link

Why Do (some) People Ask Overly-Broad Questions on Message Boards?

I mean, really now.

― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Thursday, 25 August 2016 00:42 (seven years ago) link

It draws the crowd, eventually they get around to the pitch (which almost always disappoints)

― poor fiddy-less albion (darraghmac), Thursday, 25 August 2016 00:43 (seven years ago) link

They see in women a constant, painful reminder of their own incipient boobage.

― Two Kisses and Three Wet Mouths (Old Lunch), Thursday, 25 August 2016 04:13 (seven years ago) link

(not all) Men

― socka flocka-jones (man alive), Thursday, 25 August 2016 04:14 (seven years ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.