At Wilftonville we recognise the inferiority of women. Not many sites will admit to being so forward-thinking as we are, but this is because most sites have a history of fascism.
"Fascism: nobody on the internet seems to know what it means."
Whenever men and women get into a fight about which gender has it worst, the conversation inevitably turns to the idea of childbirth. Women have to go through with it for nine months (the pregnancy, not the birth itself) without any way of transferring the pain and general irritation over to the men-folk. Apparently giving birth is quite the painful experience, and women are not happy about the fact that they have to do it. And because they do, this means that they have some sort of monopoly on persecution complexes. We can’t stand for that!
Women may feel pain in childbirth, sure. There’s no way of knowing for certain. However, due to the screaming that women do on television whenever they do a birth scene, men will just have to assume that something painful is going on there. Let’s not fight about this. But the problem is that all women seem to be under the belief that childbirth is the most painful thing that could ever happen to a person, when in reality it barely scrapes into the top ten. Men have been far too chivalrous to tell women that their complaints are ill-justified, but a time has to come when every secret gets revealed to the World, and the time has come for this one to be told.
In childbirth, women push their legs apart and think of England (unless they are not English, in which case they think of something pagan) and a baby comes out a few hours later, if all goes to plan. Now that’s pretty nasty, but how often does a woman go through the process in her life? Maybe two or three times, generally speaking, although many others don’t have any children at all. Or have fourteen. But the women who have fourteen babies are obviously enjoying the whole process, and so can’t be counted into the equation. Most women give birth maybe two or three times. They are one-off moments which don’t come around very often. For men, there is something much worse that happens, and society has been too quiet about this for too long. It needs to be said.
Society wants men to set their faces on fire.
There, it’s been said. Society as a whole is aimed towards making sure that men burn themselves hideously around their face at least once in their lives. But where’s the evidence for this, you wonder? Well, let’s first take stock of what nature does to male faces. For no apparent reason, if you take a man out into the wild for more than a few days, he’ll come back with facial hair all over his lower face. Unless the man is still hilariously undeveloped, that is. But most men will return with a warm coat of hair all around their chin, cheeks, and nose. Is there any logical reason for why hair grows here? No! It’s a completely irrational - some would say ‘dick’ - move on nature’s part.
That’s nothing to do with society, though. What is part of society is the notion that if a man shaves, he should cover his face with aftershave... after... he shaves. Again, there is no reason provided for why men should have to do this. And yet: did you know that aftershave is flammable? It says on the bottle that if you put near a naked flame, the thing will explode! So what’s being said is that if a man doesn’t have a beard, he should instead have a face covered in flammable substances?
Why does society want men to set their faces on fire?
As a side-note: this week I’m writing all my articles one after another on the same night, and at the moment it’s gone well past three in the morning. This will provide amusing narcoleptic humour for all of you, if things go well. If things go badly, I may cause a diplomatic incident which will result in my quiet elimination at the hands of covert nerdy operatives of the Government. I welcome either outcome.