Mansogeny

I have recently started listening to Tom Lykes. It’s a very misogynistic show and does a lot for my own healthy sense of mansogyny. I've been listening for two days and have heard the term "fat lazy bitch" way too often.

Even his attempts at accurate advice are ill formed. Take for example, don’t spend any money on impressing girls on a date and don’t go out with a girl for more than three dates without getting some. Reasoning: Women know within 30 seconds of meeting you whether or not you’re fuckable so don't waste the money or effort. This is very true. But just because some one is fuckable, doesn’t mean you’ll immediately fuck them. I for example, try to make it a habit not to fuck anyone I don’t know. You CANNOT get to know someone in three average dates. You can barely get to know some one in a year, but this is why I use the word try. I could pretend to be a virgin but it wouldn’t work.

Wooh! Have to remember there's good ones out there.

Ok, so what really pisses me off about this show is the IQ of women that call in to argue with the unattractive, babbling fool that is TOM. I have a suspicion that the screeners screen out the intelligent women that could possibly hold a flame to his loud, obnoxious and ignorant fart which I wish would light a huge fire and burn his fucking face. Those that do get through cannot formulate a coherent, philosophical argument to save their coochies.

Example? Topic Yesterday: Tom is fed up that women get all kind of breaks in the work place on account of their children like getting flex time, day care provided and “running around all morning while the rest of the chumps sit at their desks working hard” blah, blah, blah…….Do not invest in family friendly corporations and women have it way too easy.

Women phoning in say: “Well don’t you, ummm…. Think that corporations have a social responsibility …..tooo uhhhhh…do that stuff?”

WHY WOMAN? YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE A REASON FOR THAT? WTF?

Tom's response: Corporations have a responsibility to make a profit which they give back to their shareholders. They owe women nothing.

Result: Women look dumb and Tom gets to sit on his king shit of turd mountain throne.

How about, corporations benefit by not paying men enough to support a family on a single income thereby promoting the woman having to go to work and should therefore reciprocate by making this more attainable to couples with children?

How about supporting an educated nation from which they would have a pool of employable workers? Assuming that the formula for determinant of birth rates as discovered in various studies is

Birth Rate = f(population density; education level; per capita income; extent of poverty; unemployment rate; racial composition; family stability)

…it would be safe to assume that the less educated and those who are less likely to have money for an education for their children are more likely to procreate. And then assume (another safe one I think) that those born to this situation are less likely to be educated in the future. With divorce rates climbing in all sections of society, it is a sociological fact that many women will end up single mothers, and without “family friendly” places to work will end up on the poor end of society with children who do not have a good education in store for them, thereby decreasing the total pool of employable workers in the analytical sector of employment. Thus encouraging corporations to support the needs of single women to ensure that the population remains employable.

There’s a fucking coherent argument….and FUCK YOU TOM!