Men's rights activists

[Sexy English Teacher]

High Class Smut

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

Patriarchal society doesnt exist.

yeah dude, im sure the social developments of thousands of years of patriarchs ruling most societies on earth can be rewritten just because women got suffrage in the us in the 20s

King and queen are alone in a room and someone tries to kill the queen.
What happens?
King takes the hit.
King goes on a conquest, what happens?
Queen rules the lands.
Queen has a man standing in front of her that is not the king, what happens?
He bows.

Brush up on your monarchies man.
Kings and queens arent a good source for all women and men.
Men are glorified bodyguards expected to worship and praise and nurture the other gender while women are taught to test and distrust and make us work harder.

Ya real oppression.

Yeah look at all the female rulers

[Smvt]

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

Patriarchal society doesnt exist.

yeah dude, im sure the social developments of thousands of years of patriarchs ruling most societies on earth can be rewritten just because women got suffrage in the us in the 20s

King and queen are alone in a room and someone tries to kill the queen.
What happens?
King takes the hit.
King goes on a conquest, what happens?
Queen rules the lands.
Queen has a man standing in front of her that is not the king, what happens?
He bows.

Brush up on your monarchies man.
Kings and queens arent a good source for all women and men.
Men are glorified bodyguards expected to worship and praise and nurture the other gender while women are taught to test and distrust and make us work harder.

Ya real oppression.

Yeah look at all the female rulers

Stand alone queens were frowned upon for two reasons, bloodlines and religion.
The church expects a man and a wife and the country needs a sword. Another man to stand guard.
Keep it going though, Wikipedia is a super credible totally not editable source. Whats next, feminists pages saying that even though men are expected to die trying to save their woman, we put that in place to oppress women?

[Sexy English Teacher]

High Class Smut

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

Patriarchal society doesnt exist.

yeah dude, im sure the social developments of thousands of years of patriarchs ruling most societies on earth can be rewritten just because women got suffrage in the us in the 20s

King and queen are alone in a room and someone tries to kill the queen.
What happens?
King takes the hit.
King goes on a conquest, what happens?
Queen rules the lands.
Queen has a man standing in front of her that is not the king, what happens?
He bows.

Brush up on your monarchies man.
Kings and queens arent a good source for all women and men.
Men are glorified bodyguards expected to worship and praise and nurture the other gender while women are taught to test and distrust and make us work harder.

Ya real oppression.

Yeah look at all the female rulers

Stand alone queens were frowned upon for two reasons, bloodlines and religion.
The church expects a man and a wife and the country needs a sword. Another man to stand guard.
Keep it going though, Wikipedia is a super credible totally not editable source. Whats next, feminists pages saying that even though men are expected to die trying to save their woman, we put that in place to oppress women?

Wikipedia is apparently well known for creating large numbers of fake european kings just to lie about the marginalization of women throughout history.

[Smvt]

cuttlebone

yeah, in the instances where men *are* oppressed, 99.99999% of the time it's other men doing the oppressing
or if not directly, it's through paradigms that were created and supported by men
but guesssss which gender MRAs blame and hate?????

Well considering that more women vote than men and that in this instance there are two groups of men... the only way it wouldnt pass is if women voted against it.

[Smvt]

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

Patriarchal society doesnt exist.

yeah dude, im sure the social developments of thousands of years of patriarchs ruling most societies on earth can be rewritten just because women got suffrage in the us in the 20s

King and queen are alone in a room and someone tries to kill the queen.
What happens?
King takes the hit.
King goes on a conquest, what happens?
Queen rules the lands.
Queen has a man standing in front of her that is not the king, what happens?
He bows.

Brush up on your monarchies man.
Kings and queens arent a good source for all women and men.
Men are glorified bodyguards expected to worship and praise and nurture the other gender while women are taught to test and distrust and make us work harder.

Ya real oppression.

Yeah look at all the female rulers

Stand alone queens were frowned upon for two reasons, bloodlines and religion.
The church expects a man and a wife and the country needs a sword. Another man to stand guard.
Keep it going though, Wikipedia is a super credible totally not editable source. Whats next, feminists pages saying that even though men are expected to die trying to save their woman, we put that in place to oppress women?

Wikipedia is apparently well known for creating large numbers of fake european kings just to lie about the marginalization of women throughout history.

So you are using rules from over 2000 years ago that in my country arent even relevant to tell me that right now its a problem?
Women werent allowed to go into combat. Is that oppression?
Women were expected by the CHURCH to marry a king so that he would have a replacement when he got himself killed.

Its not hard... its like youre ignoring facts simply to blanket the whole thing.

[Sexy English Teacher]

High Class Smut

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

King and queen are alone in a room and someone tries to kill the queen.
What happens?
King takes the hit.
King goes on a conquest, what happens?
Queen rules the lands.
Queen has a man standing in front of her that is not the king, what happens?
He bows.

Brush up on your monarchies man.
Kings and queens arent a good source for all women and men.
Men are glorified bodyguards expected to worship and praise and nurture the other gender while women are taught to test and distrust and make us work harder.

Ya real oppression.

Yeah look at all the female rulers

Stand alone queens were frowned upon for two reasons, bloodlines and religion.
The church expects a man and a wife and the country needs a sword. Another man to stand guard.
Keep it going though, Wikipedia is a super credible totally not editable source. Whats next, feminists pages saying that even though men are expected to die trying to save their woman, we put that in place to oppress women?

Wikipedia is apparently well known for creating large numbers of fake european kings just to lie about the marginalization of women throughout history.

So you are using rules from over 2000 years ago that in my country arent even relevant to tell me that right now its a problem?
Women werent allowed to go into combat. Is that oppression?
Women were expected by the CHURCH to marry a king so that he would have a replacement when he got himself killed.

Its not hard... its like youre ignoring facts simply to blanket the whole thing.

How do you know they're not relevant? What makes your particular society immune from certain barbarisms that have persisted for thousands of years?

Yes, that is oppression. In fact, in societies where women were allowed in combat (women were once charioteers in celtic armies) women tended to be less marginalized and had more personal agency. Also, in a lot of places around the world, the US included, women still can't serve combat roles.

Uh, I don't think you're looking at the same european history I'm looking at. From where I'm looking, young boys were often favored as rulers over women, it was actually pretty common. They even got control of their own armies sometimes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_the_Child

Also you actually haven't stated any facts, friend, what you are currently doing is called conjecture.

[cuttlebone]

High Class Smut

cuttlebone

yeah, in the instances where men *are* oppressed, 99.99999% of the time it's other men doing the oppressing
or if not directly, it's through paradigms that were created and supported by men
but guesssss which gender MRAs blame and hate?????

Well considering that more women vote than men and that in this instance there are two groups of men... the only way it wouldnt pass is if women voted against it.

dude
that makes 0 sense, is only relevant to one very specific scenario/type of oppression, draws on no actual evidence, and doesn't even disprove anything i've said

laws are rarely passed by the major populace anyway, they're passed by parliaments/congresses and leaders and men occupy the majority of parliamentary/congressional seats and leadership positions worldwide and nationally

[Tiberius von Randoslayer]

Yea but at least some of them are doing things about it.

[Smvt]

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

King and queen are alone in a room and someone tries to kill the queen.
What happens?
King takes the hit.
King goes on a conquest, what happens?
Queen rules the lands.
Queen has a man standing in front of her that is not the king, what happens?
He bows.

Brush up on your monarchies man.
Kings and queens arent a good source for all women and men.
Men are glorified bodyguards expected to worship and praise and nurture the other gender while women are taught to test and distrust and make us work harder.

Ya real oppression.

Yeah look at all the female rulers

Stand alone queens were frowned upon for two reasons, bloodlines and religion.
The church expects a man and a wife and the country needs a sword. Another man to stand guard.
Keep it going though, Wikipedia is a super credible totally not editable source. Whats next, feminists pages saying that even though men are expected to die trying to save their woman, we put that in place to oppress women?

Wikipedia is apparently well known for creating large numbers of fake european kings just to lie about the marginalization of women throughout history.

So you are using rules from over 2000 years ago that in my country arent even relevant to tell me that right now its a problem?
Women werent allowed to go into combat. Is that oppression?
Women were expected by the CHURCH to marry a king so that he would have a replacement when he got himself killed.

Its not hard... its like youre ignoring facts simply to blanket the whole thing.

How do you know they're not relevant? What makes your particular society immune from certain barbarisms that have persisted for thousands of years?

Yes, that is oppression. In fact, in societies where women were allowed in combat (women were once charioteers in celtic armies) women tended to be less marginalized and had more personal agency. Also, in a lot of places around the world, the US included, women still can't serve combat roles.

Uh, I don't think you're looking at the same european history I'm looking at. From where I'm looking, young boys were often favored as rulers over women, it was actually pretty common. They even got control of their own armies sometimes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_the_Child

Also you actually haven't stated any facts, friend, what you are currently doing is called conjecture.

No there was already a law passed that gave women the right to choose combat roles in my country.
CHOOSE. Feminists forgot that men dont get to choose I guess.

So now we are onto child kings vs queens hm? Alright so son signs the papers after being "advised" what to do by queen and court. So youre upset they allowed the boy a pen?

Generals command armies.
Geez what do you think these people do all day?

[Smvt]

cuttlebone

High Class Smut

cuttlebone

yeah, in the instances where men *are* oppressed, 99.99999% of the time it's other men doing the oppressing
or if not directly, it's through paradigms that were created and supported by men
but guesssss which gender MRAs blame and hate?????

Well considering that more women vote than men and that in this instance there are two groups of men... the only way it wouldnt pass is if women voted against it.

dude
that makes 0 sense, is only relevant to one very specific scenario/type of oppression, draws on no actual evidence, and doesn't even disprove anything i've said

laws are rarely passed by the major populace anyway, they're passed by parliaments/congresses and leaders and men occupy the majority of parliamentary/congressional seats and leadership positions worldwide and nationally

Alright, so a small group of men are now oppressing both genders?
Who voted for them?
All men vs all women, women would win.

[Sexy English Teacher]

High Class Smut

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

Stand alone queens were frowned upon for two reasons, bloodlines and religion.
The church expects a man and a wife and the country needs a sword. Another man to stand guard.
Keep it going though, Wikipedia is a super credible totally not editable source. Whats next, feminists pages saying that even though men are expected to die trying to save their woman, we put that in place to oppress women?

Wikipedia is apparently well known for creating large numbers of fake european kings just to lie about the marginalization of women throughout history.

So you are using rules from over 2000 years ago that in my country arent even relevant to tell me that right now its a problem?
Women werent allowed to go into combat. Is that oppression?
Women were expected by the CHURCH to marry a king so that he would have a replacement when he got himself killed.

Its not hard... its like youre ignoring facts simply to blanket the whole thing.

How do you know they're not relevant? What makes your particular society immune from certain barbarisms that have persisted for thousands of years?

Yes, that is oppression. In fact, in societies where women were allowed in combat (women were once charioteers in celtic armies) women tended to be less marginalized and had more personal agency. Also, in a lot of places around the world, the US included, women still can't serve combat roles.

Uh, I don't think you're looking at the same european history I'm looking at. From where I'm looking, young boys were often favored as rulers over women, it was actually pretty common. They even got control of their own armies sometimes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_the_Child

Also you actually haven't stated any facts, friend, what you are currently doing is called conjecture.

No there was already a law passed that gave women the right to choose combat roles in my country.
CHOOSE. Feminists forgot that men dont get to choose I guess.

So now we are onto child kings vs queens hm? Alright so son signs the papers after being "advised" what to do by queen and court. So youre upset they allowed the boy a pen?

Generals command armies.
Geez what do you think these people do all day?

I'm not upset, history is a reality. The reality is that since time immemorial, men have ruled over patriarchies. You can sit here and imagine that all throughout history it was harlot queens whispering oppressive misandrist policies into their husbands' and sons' ears in order to oppress and kill men by making them the primary members of the warrior class, you're free to have your own hypothesis on why things are how they are.

But god damn is that a flimsy ******** hypothesis when more than 9 out of 10 ruling monarchs throughout history in every society have been men.

[Smvt]

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

Stand alone queens were frowned upon for two reasons, bloodlines and religion.
The church expects a man and a wife and the country needs a sword. Another man to stand guard.
Keep it going though, Wikipedia is a super credible totally not editable source. Whats next, feminists pages saying that even though men are expected to die trying to save their woman, we put that in place to oppress women?

Wikipedia is apparently well known for creating large numbers of fake european kings just to lie about the marginalization of women throughout history.

So you are using rules from over 2000 years ago that in my country arent even relevant to tell me that right now its a problem?
Women werent allowed to go into combat. Is that oppression?
Women were expected by the CHURCH to marry a king so that he would have a replacement when he got himself killed.

Its not hard... its like youre ignoring facts simply to blanket the whole thing.

How do you know they're not relevant? What makes your particular society immune from certain barbarisms that have persisted for thousands of years?

Yes, that is oppression. In fact, in societies where women were allowed in combat (women were once charioteers in celtic armies) women tended to be less marginalized and had more personal agency. Also, in a lot of places around the world, the US included, women still can't serve combat roles.

Uh, I don't think you're looking at the same european history I'm looking at. From where I'm looking, young boys were often favored as rulers over women, it was actually pretty common. They even got control of their own armies sometimes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_the_Child

Also you actually haven't stated any facts, friend, what you are currently doing is called conjecture.

No there was already a law passed that gave women the right to choose combat roles in my country.
CHOOSE. Feminists forgot that men dont get to choose I guess.

So now we are onto child kings vs queens hm? Alright so son signs the papers after being "advised" what to do by queen and court. So youre upset they allowed the boy a pen?

Generals command armies.
Geez what do you think these people do all day?

I'm not upset, history is a reality. The reality is that since time immemorial, men have ruled over patriarchies. You can sit here and imagine that all throughout history it was harlot queens whispering oppressive misandrist policies into their husbands' and sons' ears in order to oppress and kill men by making them the primary members of the warrior class, you're free to have your own hypothesis on why things are how they are.

But god damn is that a flimsy ******** hypothesis when more than 9 out of 10 ruling monarchs throughout history in every society have been men.

So you think that millions of men bowing to a queen is oppression?
You think a king expected to die for his queen oppression?
You think it being polite for the king and queen to bow to each other oppression?
You think a queen ruling over a country for decades while the king is gone getting stabbed, shot, and trampled oppression?

Hard life.

[Sexy English Teacher]

High Class Smut

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

So you are using rules from over 2000 years ago that in my country arent even relevant to tell me that right now its a problem?
Women werent allowed to go into combat. Is that oppression?
Women were expected by the CHURCH to marry a king so that he would have a replacement when he got himself killed.

Its not hard... its like youre ignoring facts simply to blanket the whole thing.

How do you know they're not relevant? What makes your particular society immune from certain barbarisms that have persisted for thousands of years?

Yes, that is oppression. In fact, in societies where women were allowed in combat (women were once charioteers in celtic armies) women tended to be less marginalized and had more personal agency. Also, in a lot of places around the world, the US included, women still can't serve combat roles.

Uh, I don't think you're looking at the same european history I'm looking at. From where I'm looking, young boys were often favored as rulers over women, it was actually pretty common. They even got control of their own armies sometimes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_the_Child

Also you actually haven't stated any facts, friend, what you are currently doing is called conjecture.

No there was already a law passed that gave women the right to choose combat roles in my country.
CHOOSE. Feminists forgot that men dont get to choose I guess.

So now we are onto child kings vs queens hm? Alright so son signs the papers after being "advised" what to do by queen and court. So youre upset they allowed the boy a pen?

Generals command armies.
Geez what do you think these people do all day?

I'm not upset, history is a reality. The reality is that since time immemorial, men have ruled over patriarchies. You can sit here and imagine that all throughout history it was harlot queens whispering oppressive misandrist policies into their husbands' and sons' ears in order to oppress and kill men by making them the primary members of the warrior class, you're free to have your own hypothesis on why things are how they are.

But god damn is that a flimsy ******** hypothesis when more than 9 out of 10 ruling monarchs throughout history in every society have been men.

So you think that millions of men bowing to a queen is oppression?
You think a king expected to die for his queen oppression?
You think it being polite for the king and queen to bow to each other oppression?
You think a queen ruling over a country for decades while the king is gone getting stabbed, shot, and trampled oppression?

Hard life.

I really just can't take your positions seriously if you insist on arguing from the point of an idealized view of medieval aristocracy brought about by television and movies.

[Smvt]

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

Sexy English Teacher

High Class Smut

So you are using rules from over 2000 years ago that in my country arent even relevant to tell me that right now its a problem?
Women werent allowed to go into combat. Is that oppression?
Women were expected by the CHURCH to marry a king so that he would have a replacement when he got himself killed.

Its not hard... its like youre ignoring facts simply to blanket the whole thing.

How do you know they're not relevant? What makes your particular society immune from certain barbarisms that have persisted for thousands of years?

Yes, that is oppression. In fact, in societies where women were allowed in combat (women were once charioteers in celtic armies) women tended to be less marginalized and had more personal agency. Also, in a lot of places around the world, the US included, women still can't serve combat roles.

Uh, I don't think you're looking at the same european history I'm looking at. From where I'm looking, young boys were often favored as rulers over women, it was actually pretty common. They even got control of their own armies sometimes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_the_Child

Also you actually haven't stated any facts, friend, what you are currently doing is called conjecture.

No there was already a law passed that gave women the right to choose combat roles in my country.
CHOOSE. Feminists forgot that men dont get to choose I guess.

So now we are onto child kings vs queens hm? Alright so son signs the papers after being "advised" what to do by queen and court. So youre upset they allowed the boy a pen?

Generals command armies.
Geez what do you think these people do all day?

I'm not upset, history is a reality. The reality is that since time immemorial, men have ruled over patriarchies. You can sit here and imagine that all throughout history it was harlot queens whispering oppressive misandrist policies into their husbands' and sons' ears in order to oppress and kill men by making them the primary members of the warrior class, you're free to have your own hypothesis on why things are how they are.

But god damn is that a flimsy ******** hypothesis when more than 9 out of 10 ruling monarchs throughout history in every society have been men.

So you think that millions of men bowing to a queen is oppression?
You think a king expected to die for his queen oppression?
You think it being polite for the king and queen to bow to each other oppression?
You think a queen ruling over a country for decades while the king is gone getting stabbed, shot, and trampled oppression?

Hard life.

I really just can't take your positions seriously if you insist on arguing from the point of an idealized view of medieval aristocracy brought about by television and movies.

What part?
People expected to bow to queens?
Kings expected to conquest?
Generals leading armies?
Queens ruling while kings are gone?

I dont know what blog youre reading but I assure you that its false.

Off the top of my head I remember Christopher Columbus being funded and sent on his quest to India by both King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, but a consensus decision between a ruling party isn't allowed in your book. Obviously it was the king deciding and the woman dancing nude in the moonlight like all silly women do right?

Edit:
Strongest piece on a chessboard.

[D-cult Mystik]

Sexy English Teacher

dippamus yo

there are too many specific issues for a united organization, this is why they are separate

women don't have to deal with the issue of people thinking you're a ***** for being a male teacher or taking your kid to a playground

My dad is a middle school teacher, for like 20 years, so that seems like an unfounded claim.

What you have described are also primarily social problems, stemming from expectations and projection of masculinity on potential situations. It is not oppression by women.

thought mens rights was about social problems stemming from gender role expectations, i never said it was women who had that perception

though i can tell you that i'm a massage therapist and my appointment book will be significantly less full or even empty like today despite numerous people looking for massage who won't book with me simply because i'm male

is it their fault? no, for some reason they have it in their head that because i have a p***s im going to whip it out and do something with it at my place of work which is completely unfounded