Comments by "Tête Dur" (@tetedur377) on "Darius M"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
There was one woman who joined the Continental Army, dressed as a man, and who, by all accounts, gave a good accounting of herself.
There was another woman, Molly Pitcher (don't quote me), who took over loading field artillery for her fallen husband - it wasn't that uncommon in early wars for civilians of all sorts to be situated near the battle lines, and even the battle field itself - and gave a good account of herself, but other than the chick who rode to warn "the British are coming!" along with Paul Revere (separate routes), that's pretty much it, as far as I can recall.
But to f'nists, that absolutely, positively proves that all women are ready, willing, and able to perform such heroics...well, except on the modern battlefield, of course. Then, the most ardent f'nists suddenly get all trad-wife on us.
3
-
2
-
Groucho Marx (google it, kids), and others, are reputed to have said "I'd never belong to any club that would have me as a member." Words to that effect.
In that same vein, at 68, I'm still suspicious of any woman who shows any kind of interest in me.
When I was in my mid-20s - which is about the time I gave up on trying to date, by the way - I learned not to approach a woman I took an interest in while she's in a group of her friends.
Still, I'm much better equipped to deal with rejection - "Yes, I dance, but not with you" - than I would ever be if a woman approached and expressed interest in me. Not that it's ever happened, mind you, but this is a completely different world than the one I grew up in. One never knows.
My advice for all you young bucks out there, for whatever it's worth: if a woman shows interest in you, she's up to no good. Well, good for her, not for you. Like Manosphere guy says "protect yourself at all times."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Women have always been lazy. They wanted to work, wanted to work, wanted to work...until they got jobs and discovered that they actually had to work.
Women are THE #1 reason for temporary services like Kelly Industries, Manpower, inc., and all the rest. Even when they got jobs, they didn't want to work full time, and that demand drove the creation of the temporary services industry.
They want all the perks and benefits that men receive, including, and especially the pay, but they don't want to put in the hard work for it.
Even when they are on the job, they seldom have to do their jobs; there are plenty of simps who will bow and scrape and cater to their every whim.
2
-
2
-
2
-
You know, there were, have been institutes of higher learning that were started by women. All girls schools, typically. Mostly teacher education schools earlier, but the classic example is the so-called Seven Sisters. Those are colleges that include Bryn Mawr, Vassar, Smith, Radcliff, Mount Holyok, Wellesley and Barnard.
Some very famous women attended, and graduated from those institutions. Anthropologist Margaret Mead, Katherine Hepburn, Jackie Kennedy Onassis, Hilary Rodham Clinton, and the list is really quite extensive. And some really accomplished, successful women at that.
I have to ask if ANY of those so-called "Female Ivy Leagues," and others around the country, were founded AND funded by women all on their own.
If I had to guess, without doing any research, I'd say none, or close to none.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The vast majority of women, at least in the West, are conniving, lying, cheating, thieving, entitled, demanding, spoiled brats. Beyond that, they're too dumb to realize it, and can't figure out why men don't want anything to do with them.
The world is not like it used to be in the '50s and early '60s, and it never will be. We're never going back to that.
Men will adapt. We always have, and we always will.
It's women who cannot cope.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, women are almost completely useless. They're really only good for one thing, and that's making babies. Unfortunately, we do need them for that.
The problem is: they're not good at raising babies, particularly since they treat their boy children like defective girls (as do female teachers, and even female bosses).
Women are more likely to cheat on men than men are on women - not a new fact; just one that mental health professionals and others are finally willing to say out loud.
Modern women go into marriages with an exit plan, generally by the 7 - 10 year mark; that too is becoming widely acknowledged.
They are entitled, privileged, arrogant, demanding, and they all think they're 10s - because if you think you're a 10, that will manifest in your life, don't you know.
Oh, and about that raising babies thing? Women are 7 times more likely to hurt their children than men are. We should probably ask about how many boyfriends of these single moms hurt their girlfriends' children.
Are there exceptions? Sure, but the exceptions, contrary to popular f'nist opinion that one exception completely obliterates the rule, they do no such thing. Only in the delulu minds of women everywhere do the exceptions disprove the rules.
But any of these survivor shows actually prove that women, as the communicative, cooperative creatures they claim to be, cannot, in fact, survive without men. On the other hand, men do just fine without women.
Maybe the Rapture will come and G_d will only take women, and we men can finally have some peace in our lives. I feel bad for G_d, however.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That one chick that wanted the 6'3" dude and was asking "how toxic are we talking?" She slid right over the love part.
I'm becoming almost militant about this. Women are constitutionally incapable of love. They cannot give love because they don't have that gene, and they don't respect love, because they lack that gene.
See, love is happiness for men. We express love by doing for our women; for our families; for the people we care about. It makes us happy; it is literally love in action.
Women have this wild, tangled hairball of an unfathomable number of emotions; love is not one of them.
People say "oh, women love their children!" Do they? Do they love their children when 70 or more percent of harm to children are perpetrated by their mothers? And we haven't even talked about stepfathers or boyfriends; even the children's baby daddies.
Women no more love for their offspring than any other animal. That is to say, they'll bear them, nurture them, fight to protect them, but they don't love them. And in human female animals, they will neglect, discard, even harm their children if it gets between them and some dude.
Like the saying goes, "men are in it for love; women are in it for money."
1
-
1
-
Have you noticed that women almost never...let me say that again: ALMOST NEVER say "I want to find someone to love"?
The 37-year old: "I just want real love and a relationship." In other words: I want a man to DO something for me.
That's because women are incapable. of. love. Except themselves. They are hard-wired with a crap ton of emotions, all balled up like a giant hairball, but love is. not. one. of. those. emotions.
I'm beginning to believe that it's a survival mechanism. What purpose it serves, I don't know. When (if) I figure it out, I'll broadcast it from the mountaintops. I suspect I'm so close to that answer that I can't see it yet.
Men are in it for love; women are in it for money.
In other words, you don't have to be emotional to love, because it's an action word. It's a verb. We experience happiness in practicing love for the people we care for.
For women, it has always been transactional. And until f'inism came along, women, for the most part, were good with that. After f'inism, not so much.
Now, they feel entitled and demand all the things that men historically provided them as their part of that transaction. Unhistorically (made up word), women now feel that they are owed all the things, without fulfilling their part of the bargain.
And men are finally wising up, walking away, and saying "Oh, hell no!"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1