Saturday, March 26, 2011

The dilemma of the shopowner

If there have been numerous times to provide precedence of:

A small number of members of a subgroup* of the society start frequenting a mainstream bar/coffee.
This subgroup sits there for hours no end, and gets maybe one drink per man, during all that time.
The number enlarges.  This subgroup likes to hangout in big numbers, packs.

The hours get longer, the tables get filled with more of this subgroup, spending minimal amounts of money.
A few months passes, the mainstream customers leave the place.
Place either changes hands for a ridiculously small amount of money, or goes bankrupt.

*Subgroup: Any distinguishable group from 100% of the population, i.e.: women; male engineering students, gymgoers, etc...

Even the place I am sitting in now has that history.

Used to be the best place in town 7 days a week.
It was the place to be for two, three years. Packed to the hilt on the weekends.
Subgroup scouts arrived. Subgroup main force followed.

In six months, the place was empty even on saturdays.
When the mainstream customers went, so did the good views, and not much later, so did the subgroup;
But not before the place changed hands as it was loosing money like crazy.

Subgroup had their scouts scattered around town for some months, eventually the subgroup converged on this one year old popular coffee on the mainstreet.
The place did not survive the summer.

The place I am sitting in struggled for few years, and lately it has been getting better again, good music, good decor, good service and good customers. But it all hangs on a thin thread. Once the scouts arrive....

So why am I asking about the shopowner's dilemma?

When I was walking I noticed that another recently well populated coffee bar was now being populated by this subgroup.
Loud, arrogant, aggressive, and cheap; aggressive and not a pleasant view.
The mainstream customers which held to the place so tightly in the last year have apparently given up.

There always used to be a few regular customers sitting in the place, waiting for the train,
Now, nada.
Subgroup has taken over the place.

The dilemma is this:

When you know that a customer subgroup will not spend like the others, will buy one coffee and drink that one coffee for four hours,
When you know that a customer subgroup will bring all the pack to the place, with similar spending habits;

Leaving no place for regular customers who bring in the money
Repelling the regular customers who would actually squeeze in the one free small table, by being loud, obnoxious, and extensive unwelcoming/harassing eye contact,

Can you take action against that group of customers?

I do not mean kicking them out, (I would favor that, as history shows that survival is at stake)

But enforcing minimum one drink per hour rule or something?

Can't do that. Customer rights.

So the only thing left for a shopowner is to watch the customers closely.

When the scouts arrive, start looking for a buyer.

If the main force arrives, which is inevitable if your regular customer base includes a few good looking women,

If the main force arrives, sell. Do not wait.

If someone accuses the shopowner for being XXXist,
One has to ask those shitheads if they would pay for the shopowners loss, solely brought upon him because of this one group of customers.
One has to ask those shitheads if the shopowner should lose his livelyhood for the sake of XXXance, XXXity, etc...

Before one accuses me of being XXXist,
The shopowner is not running a charity. He/she is running a business.
Where I come from, a shopowner can come to a customer and say "If you are not drinking anything bro, I will ask you to leave", or just leaves the coffee bar's regular drink on the table and adds it to the bill..

If you cannot say that, or if you cannot do that,
The only thing you can do as a business owner is to sell the business at the first sight of destructive customers, if your regular customers have been repelled and these new customers are treating you as a charity house.

Well, ok, nobody is stopping the businessman from selling, but it just feels good to throw shit at the political correctness mercenaries, as being able to kick out these customers or exert extra costs on them would save the business.

Can't do it. Not correct politically.

Ruining a business? Effing capitalists anyway. 

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Smelly media: Dead men still can't dance

Defence Forces to be probed for equal opportunities

A first lieutenant of the Vekarajärvi garrison reportedly criticised Halonen on Monday. In the officer's view, being a woman, a “communist” and a defender of gay rights made her an unsuitable commander-in-chief.
Edit: After clarifying that "free speech" is not part of an army, and adding that an army that is preoccupied by equality loses that luxury of ultimate obedience, I continue with my original text:

Free speech?

If a soldier who has vowed to die for his country, has taken an issue with the president saying that the

Women and children often suffer most in war and conflict

How can you blame him?

I know a soldier has no right to his life, and is to do what told; hundreds of thousands of soldiers ran into entrenched machineguns in the first world war, just on one front 600.000 dead in three days due to the incompetency of the generals;  but he still shall have the right to utter an opinion without causing a whole army investigation. 

Added to the insult:
He will die, but others will suffer? 

At least recognition could be given. Now that, should not have been too hard.

I wonder what the use is of training men into killing machines, and then training the killing machines to be sensitive to womyn's feelings.

Seriously, instead of investigating how all this eqwalitee and gay rights activism is affecting the army's effectiveness and the soldier's morale, an investigation is underway on how women feel in the army.

Are you training soldiers that will kill, or are you training sensitive men whose first line of duty is not to offend the strong and independent womyn.

I tell you, that makes one hell of a soldier.

Why not let all the womyn do the soldiering and getting blown up so they can have all the eqwalitee they want?

We man can cook.

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Smelly media: Eqwaliteee

Finland is the country where men and women are equal.

Equality is a cherished aspect of Finnish life.

The army even runs an equality investigation (without requiring women to be drafted of course)

Even if the following news report is to be celebrated as a step forward to real equality, it actually shows what kind of farce the celebrated conventional equality is.

New rights upcoming for biological fathers

The Ministry of Justice is looking at new legislation that would give biological fathers the right to be recognised as a child's parent, even if the mother objects, writes the daily Turun Sanomat.

In many discussions about father rights and obligations, I was told "He should have kept it in his pants", immediately followed by "She is the mother.".

So, when it comes to obligations, the man should have kept it in his pants,

But when it comes to rights, the woman is the mother owner of the child.

This though is a small step forward to men having the same reproductive rights as women, and women having the same obligations as men.

Markku Helin, a legislative counsellor at the ministry, told the paper that the new law may also extend to cases in which the mother is married, but the father is not her spouse.


The law possibly was in place (legislated at 1976), "For the good of the child"

The rights of the biological father? Who cares?

The rights of the husband who is raising someone else's dick vomit? Who cares.

"For the good of the child" went out the window when the woman decided to fuck around behind her husband.

See, we do not know if the man she impregnated herself from knew of the marriage, nor do we know if the husband knew of the man incubating her with his gene carrier,

We do know that she knew that she was married.

But, eqwaliteee dictates that the woman can do whatever she wants, and everyone else will suffer and pay for it.

"Back then, five percent of children were born outside of wedlock. Now, that figure is 40 percent," Helin pointed out.

Even if some of the out of wedlock children are living in two parent families, many are living in single parent households.

Eqwaliteee advocates will claim that a single parent family is as functional as a two parent family.

This is the idiocy that we are dealing with.

Fathers currently have few means to press for legal recognition if a child is born outside of wedlock and the mother refuses to allow a paternity test. As for a child born to a woman married to another man, the biological father, if he is not her spouse, has no rights whatsoever.

But he has to pay child support, even if it is only one or two hundred euros a month.

See, rights are the mothers', obligations are the fathers'.

The husband? Is the end of the line for his ancestors.

So, if it takes two to tango, if he should have kept it in his pants, why are we not giving the father the right to know? The husband the right to know?

Why are we not saying, "Hey woman, you should have kept your legs closed"

According to Statistics Finland, there are some 106,000 people in the country who have no legally registered father.

In a country of 5.000.000,

Add to this the estimated 10+% where the official father is unaware that he is not the biological father

106.000 children were denied their right to a father.

Where are the eqwaliteeeists shouting "For the good of the child!!!"???

They busy shouting that we should help single mothers to make their children equal to the married parents' children.

Eqwalitee means, some are more equal than others.

Women denying children their fathers,
Women denying fathers their children,
Women making men raise others' children,

Is fair in the name of eqwalitee.

Smelly media: These boys will be drowning in poon / Cheapest way to get laid like Elvis

School boys fined for smoking

Five schoolboys in the south western Finnish municipality of Lieto have received fines for smoking in their school yard. Police intervened after the boys had ignored a ban on smoking in the school area given by teaching staff.

Rebel image due to smoking? Check
Rebel against rules? Check
Rebel against school authority? Check
Proof of being a bad ass? Check
Rebel against police? Check
Further proof of being a bad ass? Check

It is safe to presume they will be showered with poon until the end of high school.

Police say they may resort to issuing fines in the future if bans imposed by teaching staff are ignored. Fines imposed were around 50 euros.

And that is all it cost.

For a few years of unlimited free p¤%&y.

Clever kids, really.

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Smelly media: Human rights gone astray

Before I go on with the news, I want to clarify some things:

Rape is a crime.
A false accusation is a crime deserving equal punishment as the falsely accused would have gotten.

Underage sex is not acceptable, if the law say age limit is 16, it is 16.
If the guy is 17, the girl 15, to my knowledge, the laws here are accepting, it is two teenagers doing what teenagers do.
An older man having sex with a 12 year old is punishable, and I stand in agreement with punishment.

If, however, a 15 year old girl lies about her age, and tells a guy she is 19, that changes things.

Now to the news report, and the idiocy in protecting the criminal's human rights.

Child rapist gets six years

The Western Uusimaa District Court has sentenced a man to six years in prison for raping and sexually abusing children. The court also ordered him to pay 22,000 euros in damages to the victims.

The man sexually abused and raped several underage girls ranging in age from 12 to 16, sometimes drugging them.

6 years?

6 effing years?


He should have gotten six per child, not six years. No parole.

He will be out in three, and also may get weekends off from prison, with pocket money, if he behaves.

I do not believe in reeducating, or rehabilitation.

Do a crime, do the punishment, then we think about rehabilitation.

But if the sentence is a joke like this, one (not me) could argue the fathers have a right to retribution, if they see fit, and get the corresponding (reduced? again, not me) sentence.

The defendant’s rape of two young girls in a private home was photographed by two other men who threatened to post the images online. These men were ordered to pay fines of 3,000 and 5,000 euros.

Well just add to the injury.


Oh hey, if you drive 45 kmh in a 40 kmh zone, you will be fined more than 500 euros.

Seems the road has more rights/value than underage girls.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

A clarification on the sexual oppression of women

"Screw you! Women have been sexually oppressed by society for centuries"



So who were the men having sex with?

If women were sexually oppressed, who were the men having sex with?


The oppression of women who anyway have a lower sex drive* than women is the easiest way to oppress male sexuality, which is by nature oppressed and controlled by female sexuality/female choice anyway.

(*sex drive is different than "being sexy" drive)

It is a double effect.

First, female sexuality controls male sexuality under any circumstance;
Then you control female sexuality, making sex even scarcer for men.

Men, sexually frustrated, start putting effort into other venues, that will eventually get them a woman laid.

Civilization was built on the oppression of male sexuality and the promise of taking care of his family, once the oppression issue was handled through marriage.

"No" you will say, "men could go a find sex anytime with a prostitute"

Yea right.

First, that needs some disposable finances.

Second, a prostitute in the old days was not really what you would be putting any body part into, let alone touch with someone else's fingers.

In some places where the female sexuality is oh so oppressed, men are having their first experiences with donkeys, sheep, goats, and even chicken.

The lucky ones get to go to the bordello to be #57 for the prostitute for that day.


What a free sexuality.

Oppression of female sexuality was a reality.

It was necessary to control the men, to keep the men invested into society,and  to keep women's hypergamous instincts in check.

It was the main route to the successful oppression of the male sexuality.

As a side benefit, oppression of female sexuality, together with encouraged monogamy was the route to civilization.

To recap:

Women were sexually oppressed.


Men were already sexually oppressed by female sexual choice,
On top of that were indirectly sexually oppressed due to female sexual oppression,
On top of these, men were doing almost all the dying in the wars, and at work, on the sea, under the earth, chopping wood, carrying coal...

Oh, before I forgot, a man went to prison for his wife's crimes.

What a damn privileged life for men. Whoaa...

Smelly media: Men get undeserved attention

Lost the post due to a glitch in scribefire.

Will try to get it back

Saturday, March 12, 2011

Smelly media: Maternity leave for life

Study: Maternity Leave Sharply Impacts Income

Caring for young children at home adversely affects women's incomes for several years, according to a new study by the Social Insurance Institution (Kela).

No shit! Really? Fuck, that is enlightenment.

So caring for a child you brought to this world, a child that would require full time care,  should not affect you income? - unless you dump the kid to the daycare after nine months, which in some cases is necessary due to the difficulty of caring for a household on single income, in case the family is not on social benefits leeching off the productive part of the society.  (I suspect less than ten percent of the ones on benefit are on benefit due to absolute necessity)

I have no child. I do not have the finances to give a child the life I want to give, yet, so I dont make a kid.

See, it is a logical sequence: Have not enough money, make no baby.

Accidental babies are really not an counter argument to my case, 10-15% of conceived babies are aborted, and usually for more menial reasons than not having the finances. Looking at the demographics of abortion would give a clearer picture on this.

If you make a kid, I will not be fucking paying for it while you get payed when off work, to care for your kid.

Making a child is not a human right, it is a responsibility to the child once you decide to bring it to this world.

It is not my fucking responsibility to ensure that your brat will get a good life, when I decide not to have one of my own, due to owning up to this responsibility towards the child.

And then, ladies, there was a fucking reason men were the main breadwinners, before you decided you wanted to invade the workspace, screwing everybody on the way, including you.

A village can not raise a kid, A village raises village slave.

What's a daycare worker working for minimum wage going to teach your kid that you cannot teach better? How to be indocrinated in the government policy, how to be drones, that is what they can teach.

According to Senior Researcher Ulla Hämäläinen, Finland is one of the only countries in Europe where mothers' participation in the workplace has declined significantly in recent decades.

Booohooo... Why?

check the maternity leave statistics below.

And it is, paid maternity leave.

No wonder mothers do not participate in the workplace, instead, some choose to pop one after the other, in close succession, so as to get a continuous maternity leave.

The average parental leave taken by a woman after the birth of her first child is around 19 months.

Almost two years of getting paid. Not for doing work, mind you, but for raising your own brat(s).

Ulla HämäläinenUlla Hämäläinen ( YLE ) Roughly one third of mothers care for their first child at home for more than three years.

A mother caring for a child is the way to go.

But then complaining about the thing they wanted since they were little girls, now to that, I say shut the fuck up.

The system is also complaining. Why?

To have the socialist scam going on, you need everybody working as slaves, so as to provide all these free entitlements.

Entitlements like: a house in a good neighborhood if you are financially challenged (cant have ghettos forming now can we), a plasma tv, if depressed, getting sent on a "sun holiday" on the taxpayer's expense for two weeks (yes, it is true)...

Meanwhile, 90 percent of new fathers only take three weeks of paternity leave. Researchers point out that male-female income disparity discourages fathers from taking parental leave -- as in about 90 percent of cases, they are the main breadwinners.

Men earn more than women!!! Men only take three weeks paternity leave, the bastards. Men are having parties at work. Men are having so much time missing their kids' growing up... Missing the first steps, missing the first words.

Men are really enjoying to see their kids only for the few hours after work, before the kids go to sleep.

Men are really enjoying shouldering the extra burden of taking care of the home finances now that the woman is home, and the income has halved (if she stays home longer than the paid leave allowance)

I know my father, who worked his ass off, would give everything to have spent more time with his little kids.

He does not see the paternity non-leave he got as a positive thing.

90% of cases men are the main breadwinners...

99% of the time a woman's second question to me is "what do you do for work"...

And there definitely is no connection. No.

Kela provides for maternal leave (usually 105 days) and paternal leave (up to 18 days), as well as parental allowance of just over six months. This can be used by either parent or shared between the two of them. After this period, Kela also offers Child Home Care and Private Day Care Allowances.

In the meantime, the workplace also offers paid leave. Besides that what is offered by social services.

So in the end,

The single man gets fucked over. (the single woman can pop a kid at any time)... No paternity leave, no party leave, no paid extra holidays to work on making babies in the southeast...

No. He works, the ladies take a leave. And  the working single man is still blamed for the apparent reduction in the life standards of people who make very important decisions without thinking about them. You know, "He has it too good"... Eff you...

If it is such a horrible thing to raise a kid, ladies, do not make babies.

There was the story in my town where a mid level manager in a multinational corporation popped three kids in a row, so took paid and unpaid leave for three years straight.

When she returned to work three years later she demanded her position be raised to the level of her other colleagues who were present at the office for the same three years.

She got the raise. The payraise. The jobgrade raise. And she got the kids. And the three year holiday.

Women are oppressed in the workplace!

Friday, March 11, 2011

Cougars. No thank you.

Buddy, trying to have some fun, trying to show off, and trying to show his goodwill to me in the wrongest way possible, showed me to this drunk late thirties gal, and went dancing with some girls he knew.

She comes over:
Her: "Hi"
Me: "Hey. I am waiting for my friend. Thank you" and turn away. (edit : me using the most common lines women use, mistake, should have behaved more like a man, not a woman, note to self.)
Her: "????"
Her "If you want me to leave, tell me"
Me:"I want you to leave"
Her: "Fuck you"
Me: "...."

Hey, I tried to be gentle.


Some guy I met that night send over this one 35+ broad in very good shape. Reason was he wanted to talk with her friend, who apparently has been making the rounds.

Tits like bazookas, no belly and an ass that fits the package. Nice smile. Gorgeous smile.

But, her lack of brain cells and her having no lack of alcohol makes it necessary for me to put effort into the interaction. This was clear in three seconds.

This is what I managed to muster:

"Where do you know my friend from?", I inquired
"Where do you know my friend from?"
"..." blank stare
"..." me, blank stare, showing her friend and my new acquaintance
"Yes, yes, my friend" she says,

I can't take it. Better to be alone,
I turn my attention to the dancefloor, she leaves.


Guy introducing me to an older gal,  whom I immediately ask about her kids. Yes she has some. I talk about her boys and turn my attention somewhere else.

Guy trying to hook me up with this heavily made up 40ish girl, me saying "Hi, I need to piss"

These are just my observations and my bad behavior.

Many examples like that. Of course there are exceptions, also in my life, when I had very stimulating conversations with women around my age.

But then, when I meet a younger gal, mid twenties, you can bet that the conversation flows like a charm, unless I know she's been riding lotsa cocka, or for some reason I feel insecure and babble some crap.

Btw, shit happens to me too.

Few weeks back:
"How old are you?"
"Older than you"
"How old?"
"5 years older than you"
"I am 23"
"Ok, 10 years older"
"Sorry I don't date guys who are over 30"
Could not recover that one. Blame it on the gin.

Same thing happened this weekend.
I will not blame the girl, nor will I feel angry at the girl.
It is a criteria. And it is a way better one than "I do not date anyone who is intelligent", the motto of most girls out there when having fun making the rounds around the block(s).
Girl 22.
Learns my age, and immediate loss of interest.
Interest was then only recovered when I teased her girlfriend, made fun of the girlfriend feeling insulted by me the week before, and then praised the same girlfriend for being a "nice girl", and there not being many of them around.
The friend's sparks in the eyes sparked the 22's eyes, but the day's battle was lost; yet a successful retreat was achieved.

This is life.

What is bad is that the women past 35 thinking they still got the pull they had when they were 20.
Uhhhhm... Somebody should tell these women:

"The guys were not after your brains when you were 20"

Nobody ever accused men of being zombies... I heard pig, dog, asshole, after pussy.... Never heard, "all men are zombies."
Men don't run around "Braiiinnnsss... braiiiinnnssss"

What the men were after when you were 20, is not as strong of an attractant as it used to be. (In gentle words)

Sex and the City was a lie that women believed.

On this topic, a blogger whose writings are necessary reading for men 16-36 has had an excellent reply to women thinking that men will be all over them well into their past the prime years. Single in the Suburbs explains what I tried to exemplify here.

On the topics of men wanting women for their brains:

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Lotsa cocka, me not flirt a lotta

She was brought to me because she was asking about me:
"Who's that?"

While she was introduced, to my ear was whispered:
"She's a likes basketballers" translated: basketballer groupie


She was eagerly jumping to suck lotsa cocka.

A groupie; not a woman getting sexed by men she found attractive, but a woman standing in line to get team tagged. A delicate detail for the ones who are able to recognize it.

She wants to know who I am, I already know I would not be banging this chick unless she comes over, grabs my crotch and says lets go. Then I would double wrap and could do the deed. But flirting? Eh... Got better suited women for that.

Sad tho, cause the girl is effing gorgeous.

But a groupie.

I tried to make some conversation with her, for the sake of my buddy who does not mind running after a groupie, but I could not bring two braincells to work. That was just too much energy invested. Suddenly my brain was a black hole. The last braincell I had remaining was hiding in the corner. 

In the meantime,
Said some stupid shit, I bombed badly, at least I think so.
Thinking to myself, damn, girl, gorgeous, but I just.... Don't effing care.

I just do not.

I already had turned away, so I did not see the expression on her face, in response to my verbal vomit.  

Nor did it matter,

All I could see in her face was a girl jumping up to catch lotsa cocka. And tall dudes (I am tall myself) highfiving eachother when she manages to jump high enough to catch some more cocka. 

P.s.: For anyone interested, now she is looking for someone that she can connect with also outside of the bedroom. The basketballers are supposed to be good in bed, but she wants someone now who is good out of bed. She wants someone to stimulate her other senses.

Yup now her body has been stimulated like a deep oil well, she now wanst someone who has the intention and the ability to connect with her on a higher level...

Open letter to the dude who will take on the task: It's a long way from the bottom of the oil well to the surface. You would need to purge the deep bottom of the well before you stimulate her higher levels, lest you drown in crude oil. 

In the end, damn, I bombed my chances. Oh oh... I am gonna be such a bitter lonely old man.

Epilogue: Apparently I have not bombed, and somehow her interest remains.

Wednesday, March 09, 2011

My answer to Anonymous

Anonymous left a comment to my post about the Army's equality investigation

It is a lengthy comment, touching on many topics, so I will answer it here.

This whole blog is based by how women are not equal with men.

This whole blog is based on my experience in Finland that deivates from the cliche "It's clean. It's white. The winter is cold long and dark. The summer is beautiful and short. The women are gorgeous angels. The men are drunks"

Women and men should be equal in front of the law, but other than that?

Are they equal in the socio-sexual arena?


There are better blogs for this topic, which I will make a blogroll for, soon.

And now the army-card? In my opinion, nowadays Finnish army is a joke.

It may be a joke now. Especially after the investigation, it will turn into a joke. But it was not a joke, and even today, the training is not to be taken lightly.

A small number of eligible men for soldiering means that every soldier is valuable.

In these days, men (or boys) can´t stand army, it´s too much for them.

May be, but women shouting around "feminism", "equality", "we were oppressed", do not have to stand the army.

And the women who want to get to the army, have lowered physical standards to conform to.

The only place I know where the standards are same for both sexes is the firefighters. And there was only one woman firefighter in Finland some six years ago.

In this blog you have been critizised the whole time finnish women (girls around 18-22) beeing sexually equal with men and the whole time showed that girls are nothing but bang-bang-stuff.

A woman is not sexually equal with men.

For a man to have the sexual power over the other sex that any 21 year old attractive girl has, he has to rise to the achievement levels of Gene Simmons, Brad Pitt, Magic Johnson, etc.

A gatekeeper to heaven  can not be equal with the locksmith trying to get in. They can be complementary. But not same, not equal.

For a man to get laid, he needs the  skill,
For a woman to get laid, she needs to say yes, and not no.

In this blog the ages range from 18 to 40+, and the good women I have met, be it in my personal life, be it as friend's loved ones, I have not written about in here, and will not write about in here.

As a side factor,  a 50% divorce rate, and 25% of women being single should give an idea how well a given percentage of women is suited for long term.

And about the bang bang stuff,
I am merely respecting a woman's choices and treating her according to what she has decided her choice to be.

With her actions. Not her words, not her demands. Not her foot stomping, By her choices.

A playette is an oxymoron. It is like the butcher being proud that he managed to make the stray dog eat the big juicy slice of argentinian beef that he gave to the stray dog.

Well, you might be right about it.

More right than wrong. At least am being realistic.

There is Good woman and there is Entertainment.

Mistake is for a man to mix those two.
Take Entertainment into your life as Good Woman, say goodbye to your soul.
Take Good Woman into your life as Entertainment, be responsible for a lost soul.

The lines are not black and white, I took the two extreme cases, for the above phrase. Most women are in the gray area, but even they tend to lean to one side or the other. If you know how to spot the red flags and the green flags.

Always follow the lowest denominator policy.

 But you see, this society doesen´t help children (15-27 years old) to grow up and be adults.

I agree to that. When the village raises the kids, the kids do not rise.

I understood that you are about 32 years old. If you go out, and pick up girls who are around 20, you just can´t get any adult behavior. If you go and seek for kids, you get kids. This whole blog´s idea is based for that.

For me the best ages are somwehre around 24 to 28. Still young but has seen life. Something to talk about and some intimacy to be shared.

20 is good for some unattached fun, but that age is not good for settling with. At least here, where every woman is strong and independent.

And about that army-question, I don´t think that girls or women are suitable for army. They just don´t.

They are not. They only cause problems in the institution that is there for killing the enemy.
Childcare in the army? You must be s¤%tting me.

 I can´t deside if it´s more funny than pathetic to think that women are just as strong and fast that men are. In war, women just slow things down. I believe that Lotta-system should be womens army.

It is evil. Stupid. Self Genocidal.

If women want to go to the army, then draft for both sexes. Equal standards, equal requirements.

If women think the army is stupid, abolish the army, and let the next invading hordes into the country, with open arms legs.

If women cannot appreciate the men who died for society, then they have no right to live in the society.

If women can demand men to go to the army, then men can demand women produce 2.1 babies in average and stay with the father of their kids; same father for all kids.

And so on.

You see, women want this, women want that,
But wanting comes with a price. Right now men are paying all the price to get what, exactly?

Tuesday, March 08, 2011

Smelly media: (S)he's (still not) in the army now

Defence Forces To Be Probed For Equal Opportunities

The Chief of the Finnish Defence Forces, General Ari Puheloinen has given orders to determine how well the principle of equality is practised in the Finnish military.

Humble suggestion:

If equality is the first duty of an institution that is in place to train killing machines,

Finnish Defence Forces needs to put women under the mandatory army service.

Young men now have to do that for 6-12 months, and the escape means a light prison sentence.

Mandatory army service for women and men.

That would be equality.

Of course it would piss off the equal rights activists... for women to be really equal.

Equal = "Equal when I want it, privileged when can't be bothered with being equal."

Disclaimer: As it must be clear from my previous posts, I have uttermost respect for the Finnish Defence Forces.

Thursday, March 03, 2011

Smelly media: Dead soldiers party in the grave

One year ago:
Halonen at Seminar: Women Suffer Most From War and Conflict
President Tarja Halonen says that women and girls often suffer most from military conflicts. Speaking at the “Women for a Better World” meeting in Valencia, Spain, Halonen said on Saturday that the human rights of women and girls are often the most endangered during wartime, when many become victims of rape and brutal violence.
Yup. You read that right. 
Women and girls are the ones who suffer most during wartime. 
Not the men who are dead. 
Not the men who have no arms. 
Not the men who have no legs, no eyes, no fingers, 
Not the men who died with their bowels in their hands,
Not the men who carried their lifeless buddies' bodies back to the camp,
Not the men who promised their buddies they will deliver the letter to the dying man's parents,
Not the men who watched their friend's die.
Not the men who watched their friends take a bullet through the eye. 
Not the men who never recovered from the brutality of war. 
Women and girls, for whose safety these men were dying, getting holed, getting blown up, getting knifed, bayonetted, and in case of cowardness, getting executed by their own. The women and girls were the actual victims. 

Women and girls are the most to suffer in wartime. 
Not the boys aged fifteen who took up arms to protect motherland.
Not the boys aged twelve who were used as cannon fodder, machete sharpener.
Women and girls who are back home, for whom these young boys were dying, were the actual victims. 

Makes you think if there currently is a party going on in the graves of the millions of dead men who died in the wars of the last century. Free booze, live music, lotsa women.

I am refraining from talking about my own grandmother and grandfather, and I am refraining from using a picture of one of the mass graves of the Sorbonne line in comparison of an advertisement for nylon stockings from the same date. 

War is bad. War is a brutality. 
But the ones who suffer most are the ones who died, the ones who got maimed. The ones who were in the forefront of the butchery, 
Not the ones for whom the dying was done for. 

Talking about rape. 
Rape is bad. Rape is brutal. In peace and war, it is a crime. But is rape worse than losing an arm, or losing a leg?
Talking about brutal violence.
What more brutal violence is there than losing your life?
Talking about human rights.
The dead have all their rights taken from them. 

Those words of the president are very unfortunate. 

Let's look at the most recent war that Finland has fought. 
25.904 dead or missing
43.557 wounded
1000 captured
957 civilian casualties from air raids
126.875 dead or missing
188.671 wounded
5.572 captured
Except the civilians, it is safe to assume the dead and wounded are men, maybe a number of female support and health staff could be among the mentioned. 

Yet there is more, got to give credit:
Lotta Svärd organisation was founded already in 1920 but its role and activities were at a premium during Winter War. Women served both at the front and at their own localities – they made the home front stronger. Due to their work, national defence touched the whole society. It has been estimated that the work of the Lotta freed as many as 100 000 men to join the Finnish Army. During Winter War, the Lotta Svärd organisation activated 84 000 women. Most of them worked in provisioning, some were at the front. During the Winter War, 64 Lottas lost their lives.
Women have served a role in wars. No denying or belittling that; I do respect the work women have done for supplying the men at the front. 
But compared to a total of 25.000 dead or missing men (plus 128.000on the enemy side), 64 dead women should make it clear who actually bears the burden of war. With their lives.
So the women and girls are the main victims of war. 
Boys? Who cares? They will die in the next one anyway.

Now some will say, "She was not talking about the European wars, she is talking about the conflicts in Africa and other parts of the world"
Africa: Child soldiers (boys) are getting butchered to pieces with machetes. The boys too young to fight, if not killed,  are getting their hands cut, or their eyes plucked with spoons so they will not be a threat when they grow up. 
But as we know by now, boys do not matter. Dead or alive, boys will be boys. Don't you know?

Who is the victim of war then?
It is the women and girls who are raped, in way less numbers than men are getting killed, - in many instances the rapists are punished or executed, the killers given a medal. P.s: Men apparently never get raped. (???)
It is the women and  girls who are brutally attacked, again in way less numbers than the men who got maimed. 
Who cares. 
Dead ones are partying in their graves. 
Very very unfortunate words of the president. 

Men, throughout history have been doing the dying in order to protect the women, and it is too much even to acknowledge their suffering, their spilled blood, and their right to life taken away from them. 
Because women and girls suffer most. 
Dead men don't count. 

The phrase "It is an honor to die for your country" must be if not the biggest,  one of the biggest lies told to men. 
You will die for country and flag.
And unfortunate words will not even bother recognizing your death as a miniscule kind of suffering.