Roseanne Barr Roasted on Comedy Central: Are Roasts Funny or Mean?

...Actually, I deduced that you were anti-man because of this line here: "because men love to make fun of women and expect us to laugh" and not because you made a dig at a guy's erection. You, in fact, just proved my point that you ARE anti-male, rather than pro-female. You obviously don't seem to see the world as it really is. You insult men whole-heartedly and belittle them, yet say that they do the same to you, when I see no such evidence in the world. Sure, there are some men who do this, we call them chauvinists, but even they don't have the mentality to sterilize the female population that you have about men. Chauvinism is not a rampant plague upon society, as you may believe. So I will point out where your view of the world differs from reality:

Killing out of spite is not something that is limited to the male population. Women do it as well. Read some history books. Go look up some lovely women like Bloody Mary and Agrippina the Younger.

No one ever said that men were Holy Saints for making period jokes. Just as no one ever said you were a man-hater for making a penis joke. You read too much into every little thing that happens or that someone says and find reasons to hate men even more.

As I'm sure you call yourself a feminist, I just have one thing to say on that, that I'd like you to really think about and not read it as spiteful, because it isn't. Why, as a feminist, do you focus your life on men so much that you make each conversation and comment into a rant on why men are horrible, rather than working to uplift women? If you don't like men, that's fine, but why center your whole life on them?

See, I'm just not understanding why you're asserting your apparent position on not hating men when you've:

a) Vowed to castrate all men until all wars end (weird goal, but whatever)
b) Accused someone who disagrees with you with worshiping men and acting like a whore
c) Consider testosterone poison
d) Assume that men only see women as sex objects

This is a classic routine of a feminazi. If you knew psychology, you would also know that not everyone is the same way. Other things factor into a person's psyche, like how they grew up, their environment, events that happened in their lives, etc. Simply because the "norm" react a certain way does not mean that every member of a population will. You call me pro-slavery because I like the idea of a hierarchy? Those don't have anything to do with one another. Are you a slave to your boss? No, you're not. A slave is a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another. I am not property just as you are not. In a workplace, there is a hierarchy. It's not slavery, though.

Oh, and by the way, the women's suffrage movement was about the women's right to vote, not being a man's property, because they weren't. In fact, in the US, there were no laws stating that a woman was a man's property, although there were common laws and traditions about women owning property and their legal status. But those things were changing in the 19th century. So, here's a picture of some women marching in a united front against their enemy, working together to accomplish something for women.



"Men report your psyche in text book psychology as a neurosis..." What??? Here's where I point out your usage of "men" rather than saying "psychiatrists," "psychologists," or any other kind of position of knowledge on the subject. Why specifically say men? (Other than the insult following, of course) There are many female professionals in the world of psychiatry and psychology. Here's where I also question your knowledge of the subject itself. Do you even know what a neurosis is? It's not when you think that I'm treating you like a child. Which I'm not. I'm not trying to mother you. We are having a debate.

The term battle axe has described a weapon long before it described anything else. The fact that the first recorded slang usage of "battle axe" was in 1896 leads me to believe that your story about the woman killing all the Vikings is inaccurate, let alone the fact that I could find no such story. I could go on about how the term "Viking" is inaccurate, but that is moot.

Furthermore, stop blaming others for your actions. Whether or not someone teaches us something, provokes us, or takes any other action against us, it is our decision what to do about it. You cannot blame someone else for how you choose to react to something. I'm not saying that if someone hits you or abuses you that you do nothing about it, only that it is your choice and your responsibility for the consequences of your actions, just as theirs are.

You also assume, for some reason, that learning aggression or being aggressive means that you would know how to fight. This is not true. In fact, aggression that is not properly channeled in a fight leads to being sloppy and usually ineffective. I know this because I'm a member of a group that practices 16th century weapons training, including swords, axes, and polearms. While we're not trying to kill each other out there, we've seen plenty of people that cannot focus their aggression, and they always lose the match. But that is neither here nor there.

The point is: No matter where you learned to be aggressive, it is ultimately your choice what to do with it. You have no one else to blame for your success or failure.