Ha! Is funny. Also:

Why do women have periods?
Because they deserve them.

Why do women wear make-up and perfume?
Because they're ugly and they smell.

*I think it wouldn't matter what role women had in society, they will never be happy with their lot, and will always be very vocal about it*

My business used to be audited by Govt inspectors twice a year.
They would search and search, until they found something, to
justify the 600$ cost. In the end I realised that it was easiest
to leave a couple of obvious mistakes for them to find, they could
then write their reports noting the simple mistakes and go home
happy.

Similarly I've noticed that one simply has to accept that many women
are happiest, if they have something to complain about, usually
about men :)

Vanilla, that reminds me of that joke

Why do most men die before their wives...
Because they want to.
Whitty, Thursday, 7 February 2008 9:28:50 AM

If I recall correctly another saying goes like this

"Married men live longer than single men, but married men are more willing to die for their country!"

Reading about "The order of the White Feather" (feminism) men found it more preferable to join the armed services, than to stay in civilian life during WW1.

Yabby, there was an interesting essay about what you said in the previous post in regards to the suffergettes and the right to vote.

I’ve come into this thread late and have just glanced over the general commentary. I have to say that I have never been more disgusted with an OLO commentary thread.

The author’s points are extremely valid. A 90 percent death toll for women in a disaster (even allowing for some statistical error) is a well-and-truly out of the ordinary statistic and definitely needs serious analysis by world health authorities and women’s rights organisations.

Yet this commentary thread is the most profoundly callous of all the OLO essays I’ve ever witnessed. I am truly appalled at the level of childish male-centrism here. We are talking here ‘90 per cent of the 140,000 victims of the 1991 Bangladesh cyclone disasters were women (PDF 92KB); more women than men died during the 2003 European heat wave; and the 2006 tsunami killed three to four women for each man.’

Yet the OLO stable of certifiably sexist (mostly) male supremacists here – who get oh so offended at being called ‘misogynist’, poor diddums – have reduced these truly horrifying, undeniably gender-loaded statistics to an unbelievably petty, puerile grab for misplaced male sympathy. And, I won't even bother to give all these sick jokes the dignity of a comment.

I suspect that if someone dangled a dripping, drowned Sri Lankan woman from the ceiling in front of one of these overgrown children, their only reaction would be: ‘That’s not fair!! Why wasn’t it a drowned Sri Lankan man? And I suppose all those man-hating feminists expect me to clean up my own floor.’

SJF,

You've missed the point.

Nobody is arguing the deaths are not bad, just that gender shouldn't matter, and isn't ever considered relevant except when women are at a disadvantage. Kind of like how men and women are constantly campaigning to 'raise awareness' of breast cancer, when prostate cancer kills many more PEOPLE. But breast cancer kills women so it must be worse and recieves more funding etc.

One could ask why you are so much more concerned with the deaths of women rather than the deaths of men. Misandrist!

The best quote comes from trade215..

'Funny how fat cat first worlders who have it all, have resorted to whining by transference and appropriating the hardships of poor people, who are in large part poor so that the first world fatties can keep consuming. Pathetic really.'

I suspect you are no more concerned for the actual individuals who have lost their lives than anyone who is posted here. You are merely interested in their usefullness in providing evidence to further your, and many other feminists', political agenda.

She didn't miss the point Whitty. She wanted to comment on the article. Go back and look through these posts. Not one engages with the topic, which does nothing more than what is done in police stations and by governments around the world daily - profile victims in order to best protect them. The men who have posted on this board have sought to make a different point, namely that they are victims of a PR war that women have won.

No one has missed that point - you've made it pretty repetitively. I no longer contribute to the threads about women on this board because, intellectually, the conversation is going nowhere. The threads themselves feature men arguing with other men. I was so upset when another poster suggested my grandfathers were "abusers and rapists", but I could also see that he honestly couldn't fathom that women's lives have many influences - he suggested a woman is either influenced by feminism OR her character. He thought, like HRS does, that feminists hate men. It's simply dull, easy, simplistic thinking, designed to protect the thinker from the ambiguities of life and truth. That people hold such views does not concern me - there are far worse injustices than this in the world - but I would prefer to align myself who are alive to the complexity of culture and gender. I have always been interested in the way feminism has affected men, but it is impossible to have an interesting, intelligent conversation about that on this board, without the men just banging on about what victims they are. I prefer to align myself with men I know IRL who are focussed on promoting and strengthening masculinity, rather than complaining.