Saturday, November 22, 2014
Tell the Democrats why you're pissed off at them
The Democrats are wondering what happened. How could they royally lose? You know the answers and now you can tell them why you didn't vote for them and what they can do to clean up their act. Tell them you are tired of them backing feminists at the expense of men. Does it piss you off like it does me? Then tell them. Let them have it. This is a way to make change happen. On the Men's Rights Blog we don't just read about it we act on it. We let them know that we men are fed up and we're going to let them know that we are fed up.
Standing up to feminists who want to squash men's balls
They’re not called the family jewels because they are ordinary. They’re not referred to as stones because they’re impervious to injury. No, they are both extraordinary and surprisingly fragile. So, sorry notsorry if we give them some breathing room when we sit, if we don’t smash them betwixt our legs on public transit. But as the horizon of “male privilege” is constantly expanding, giving the old wedding tackle ample space is now a crime against humanity.
The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) announced on Monday that a new campaign addressing courtesy on public transportation will come into effect by January. One of the targeted behaviors is ‘man-spreading’ — the act of spreading one’s legs so far apart that other passengers are forced to squish their own together.
Or, if you prefer a more nuanced description, one of the most infuriating and outright ridiculous display of male privilege and machismo in existence today. As Mic’s Derrick Clifton succinctly put it, ‘Hey, bro, you’re not that well-endowed.’
Maybe. You don’t know.
Granted, I don’t use public transit. I luxuriate in a nicely padded captain’s chair without panhandlers and formidable smells. If I lived in a dense urban area, I would likely take advantage of the added reading time that public transit offers. For now, though, I don’t have that option, so I crank the tunes and spread my legs far and wide. But as a member in good standing of the patriarchy, I have to stand up for my brethren who live in constant fear of oppression.
Even if my locale adds public transit, I’m not going to squash my yambag just to save a few inches. First, it’s science. Are you against science? I didn’t think so. Second, take it up with the transit authorities, who seem blissfully unaware that busses and trolleys are going the way of the dinosaurs. In a free market, there would be plenty of leg-spreading room. Get the feds involved and we unsurprisingly end up cramped and cloistered cluster of inefficiencies and dissatisfaction.
And third, just back off. Yes, I get your gripes about large bags, purses, junk sacks, backpacks, reusable bags (new euphemism opportunity?), and other large carriers of various accoutrements. Here’s the problem with those arguments: those comparisons are invalid unless said accoutrements are physically attached to the person sitting next to you. Granted, were I given the option, I would totally choose to have testicles. I’m on record as loving mine. Regardless, to treat physical comfort, backed by science, as a scourge on society is absolutely, completely, totally, wholly ridiculous. Large bags are neither backed by science nor comfort. Although perhaps useful, especially for urban dwellers who have a ton of shit to haul from here to there, they are not essential to life.
We Must Have Nothing Else to Deal With as a Society
But maybe life isn’t your bag (heh). You just want the trains to run on time. So stop worrying about how much male privilege is spread across the seat next to you, shut up, and enjoy the ride. (Double heh.) Because we’re likely just talking minor differences. Now, it’s true that when you spread minor differences across a large group the effect is multiplicative, but this is America dammit! We were a nation founded on freedom, on the right to pursue happiness, and that pursuit mentions nothing about ignoring our own comfort and smashing our coin purses to free up a modicum of seat space.
For every two comfortable men, each train loses a whole seat. To which I say, suck it!
But I’m not unreasonable, so let’s do some math. Since I’m of average height and weight, we’ll use me. If I measure from outside of one knee to the outside of other while holding my legs in a smashing position, I’m at roughly 12 inches. If I spread out to a more comfortable position, that distance grows by 50 percent and moves up to 18 inches. Hey, I didn’t proclaim the math would be favorable. But it’s immaterial. For every two comfortable men, each train loses a whole seat. To which I say, suck it! Why is a man’s ticket worth less than anyone else’s?
Besides, the real focus of this campaign is not commuter comfort, increased commuter volume, or any other tangible metric. No, the real focus is Social Justice Warriors doing their normal best to be horrible human beings. (Aside: When do we allow them to just secede, even with some one-time financial backing, as it would be cheaper to pay them to be done with them, and move on? Maybe it’s time for a national conversation.)
But let’s be real: The best part of this campaign is its active attempt to squash man-spreading (other acceptable terms include ‘lava balls‘ and ‘subway sprawl’). The behavior is a blight on any public transportation system, and if you don’t think so, you’re probably doing it yourself.
The Tumblr accounts ‘Move the Fuck Over, Bro,’ ‘Men Taking Up Too Much Space on the Train‘ and ‘Saving Room for Cats‘ hilariously illustrate the ridiculousness of man-spreading with photos of dudes showing off their man-spreading behavior like a badge of honor. Opposition to it has picked up steam recently, so it’s reassuring to see that officials are taking notice.
Yes, it is reassuring that officials are taking notice of lava balls, subway sprawl, and saving room for cats. (How is saving room for cats applied to men and not angry spinsters? We’ll sit on that one, comfortably, and discuss at a later date.)
Apparently, Sitting Comfortably Is a Privilege
Man-spreading is a menace that must be stamped with a boot forever. Men must be made to stop sitting as though their biological endowments are a badge of honor. (Maybe they are. You don’t know.) Officials must be brought in to stanch the entire act of being a biological male with the concomitant hardware and needed space and breathing requirements.
Once upon a time, male privilege was relegated to working long hours, never seeing our families, and dying younger. Now we’ve expanded our privilege into areas like sitting comfortably.
Once upon a time, male privilege was relegated to working long hours, never seeing our families, and dying younger. Now we’ve expanded our privilege into areas like sitting comfortably. Good job, men. If we are to accomplish anything, we must continue to push forth, break new ceilings, claim new territory. It’s what we excel at.
So, to those who suffer under those would-be tyrants, those fascist control-freaks who lay all their problems at the comfortably stretched legs of a men simply trying to get from point A to point B, might I direct your attention to Frank T.J. Mackie. Yes, he is an extreme caricature, one meant to mock your enemies. But as you have done your best to become real-life versions of the caricatures against which Mackie was battling, he’s really the only option as reality passed you by a few trains ago.
Source
How bad is this? It's very bad. I'm glad this was brought up. Why just look at the selfish gender that has no consideration for anyone else.
The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) announced on Monday that a new campaign addressing courtesy on public transportation will come into effect by January. One of the targeted behaviors is ‘man-spreading’ — the act of spreading one’s legs so far apart that other passengers are forced to squish their own together.
Or, if you prefer a more nuanced description, one of the most infuriating and outright ridiculous display of male privilege and machismo in existence today. As Mic’s Derrick Clifton succinctly put it, ‘Hey, bro, you’re not that well-endowed.’
Maybe. You don’t know.
Granted, I don’t use public transit. I luxuriate in a nicely padded captain’s chair without panhandlers and formidable smells. If I lived in a dense urban area, I would likely take advantage of the added reading time that public transit offers. For now, though, I don’t have that option, so I crank the tunes and spread my legs far and wide. But as a member in good standing of the patriarchy, I have to stand up for my brethren who live in constant fear of oppression.
Even if my locale adds public transit, I’m not going to squash my yambag just to save a few inches. First, it’s science. Are you against science? I didn’t think so. Second, take it up with the transit authorities, who seem blissfully unaware that busses and trolleys are going the way of the dinosaurs. In a free market, there would be plenty of leg-spreading room. Get the feds involved and we unsurprisingly end up cramped and cloistered cluster of inefficiencies and dissatisfaction.
And third, just back off. Yes, I get your gripes about large bags, purses, junk sacks, backpacks, reusable bags (new euphemism opportunity?), and other large carriers of various accoutrements. Here’s the problem with those arguments: those comparisons are invalid unless said accoutrements are physically attached to the person sitting next to you. Granted, were I given the option, I would totally choose to have testicles. I’m on record as loving mine. Regardless, to treat physical comfort, backed by science, as a scourge on society is absolutely, completely, totally, wholly ridiculous. Large bags are neither backed by science nor comfort. Although perhaps useful, especially for urban dwellers who have a ton of shit to haul from here to there, they are not essential to life.
We Must Have Nothing Else to Deal With as a Society
But maybe life isn’t your bag (heh). You just want the trains to run on time. So stop worrying about how much male privilege is spread across the seat next to you, shut up, and enjoy the ride. (Double heh.) Because we’re likely just talking minor differences. Now, it’s true that when you spread minor differences across a large group the effect is multiplicative, but this is America dammit! We were a nation founded on freedom, on the right to pursue happiness, and that pursuit mentions nothing about ignoring our own comfort and smashing our coin purses to free up a modicum of seat space.
For every two comfortable men, each train loses a whole seat. To which I say, suck it!
But I’m not unreasonable, so let’s do some math. Since I’m of average height and weight, we’ll use me. If I measure from outside of one knee to the outside of other while holding my legs in a smashing position, I’m at roughly 12 inches. If I spread out to a more comfortable position, that distance grows by 50 percent and moves up to 18 inches. Hey, I didn’t proclaim the math would be favorable. But it’s immaterial. For every two comfortable men, each train loses a whole seat. To which I say, suck it! Why is a man’s ticket worth less than anyone else’s?
Besides, the real focus of this campaign is not commuter comfort, increased commuter volume, or any other tangible metric. No, the real focus is Social Justice Warriors doing their normal best to be horrible human beings. (Aside: When do we allow them to just secede, even with some one-time financial backing, as it would be cheaper to pay them to be done with them, and move on? Maybe it’s time for a national conversation.)
But let’s be real: The best part of this campaign is its active attempt to squash man-spreading (other acceptable terms include ‘lava balls‘ and ‘subway sprawl’). The behavior is a blight on any public transportation system, and if you don’t think so, you’re probably doing it yourself.
The Tumblr accounts ‘Move the Fuck Over, Bro,’ ‘Men Taking Up Too Much Space on the Train‘ and ‘Saving Room for Cats‘ hilariously illustrate the ridiculousness of man-spreading with photos of dudes showing off their man-spreading behavior like a badge of honor. Opposition to it has picked up steam recently, so it’s reassuring to see that officials are taking notice.
Yes, it is reassuring that officials are taking notice of lava balls, subway sprawl, and saving room for cats. (How is saving room for cats applied to men and not angry spinsters? We’ll sit on that one, comfortably, and discuss at a later date.)
Apparently, Sitting Comfortably Is a Privilege
Man-spreading is a menace that must be stamped with a boot forever. Men must be made to stop sitting as though their biological endowments are a badge of honor. (Maybe they are. You don’t know.) Officials must be brought in to stanch the entire act of being a biological male with the concomitant hardware and needed space and breathing requirements.
Once upon a time, male privilege was relegated to working long hours, never seeing our families, and dying younger. Now we’ve expanded our privilege into areas like sitting comfortably.
Once upon a time, male privilege was relegated to working long hours, never seeing our families, and dying younger. Now we’ve expanded our privilege into areas like sitting comfortably. Good job, men. If we are to accomplish anything, we must continue to push forth, break new ceilings, claim new territory. It’s what we excel at.
So, to those who suffer under those would-be tyrants, those fascist control-freaks who lay all their problems at the comfortably stretched legs of a men simply trying to get from point A to point B, might I direct your attention to Frank T.J. Mackie. Yes, he is an extreme caricature, one meant to mock your enemies. But as you have done your best to become real-life versions of the caricatures against which Mackie was battling, he’s really the only option as reality passed you by a few trains ago.
Source
How bad is this? It's very bad. I'm glad this was brought up. Why just look at the selfish gender that has no consideration for anyone else.
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Tell Taylor Swift to ease up on the misandry
From SAVE Services:
Taylor Swift is not just a celebrity, but one who actively takes on the responsibility of role model for young adults.
Which is why it's shocking that in her latest music video, she's shown handling a breakup by punching her boyfriend and destroying his property. See the 'Blank Space' video. While teenagers are going to have breakups, we don't want them thinking that this is anything close to acceptable behavior.
Taylor Swift shouldn't abuse her spotlight by showcasing abuse. Her video is a sharp departure from her usual positive messages, which actually why, out of all celebrities, it is the most damaging to our efforts to see someone like Swift condone it. Domestic violence is real, and in some respects worse for males when they often have difficulty being taken seriously by the criminal justice system.
Please join us with calling on Taylor Swift to remove the "Blank Space" music video and donate the profits made to an organization that stops domestic violence for all victims.
Tell Big Machine Records, Swift's record company, to pull the video: mail@bigmachine.us.
Additionally, please take a second to sign our Change.org petition, which is already at over 300 signatures.
Don't let Taylor Swift shake off her endorsement of domestic violence.
Truly yours,
Gina Lauterio, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
PS. Please help us grow our efforts. And share this e-lert with a friend.
A good example of a letter to send is on the Change website. It is well written and if can't come up with something on your own it is a good letter to use instead.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
The American caste system
We live in a society that treats men who may have committed simple things such as fondling a woman's bottom or bosom the same as murder. Or perhaps we put this into a category worse than murder because we accept male-on-male violence in our films and society. We certainly put up with female-on-male violence. This blog will confirm that. We live in a society that puts fondling a woman in a more grave category, lower down on the wrung, lower in status than a man who savagely, sadistically slashes another man to death. I've read about how men who are falsely accused of sex crimes tell about how they had to be segregated from the general public for their own safety. That because it is a sexually based offense they were in danger of losing life and limb, jailhouse vigilante style. While this method is understandable in dealing with guilty as sin child molesters it is a little extreme in dealing with "he said/she said" cases. If someone who is falsely accused is in general population and an individual or group that has a problem with falsely accused person can use this to their advantage, which could lead to extortion. However this same individual were accused of car theft, shoplifting, commercial burglary, drug dealing, murder and arson no one would care. You can tell these same individuals that as a car thief he is taking from a family their only means of transportation and that is not okay. Tell them as a shoplifter he is taking food out of the mouths of the owners and employees a mom and pop store. Tell them that his commercial burglaries are making companies pay higher insurance premiums. See if anyone cares. But if it is something sexual then it's clank clank goes the shining armor. The American puritanical society.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Lena Dunham persecutes conservative group over book that Dunham wrote
From Truth Revolt:
Liberal Hollywood actress and darling of Planned Parenthood, Lena Dunham, is gunning for the Freedom Center and Truth Revolt --- and now I urgently need your help to build up our legal defense fund.
You might have read about it on the Drudge Report or seen it in The Hollywood Reporter, The Daily Mail, the Los Angeles Times, or People Magazine or any other mainstream media outlet...
Leftwing Hollywood feminist Lena Dunham is threatening to sue Truth Revolt and the David Horowitz Freedom Center, because we wrote an article in which we quoted her book, Not That Kind of Girl!
Who is Lena Dunham, you may wonder? She is the New Hot Thing-a leftist actress who is the darling of the liberal media; who has been one of Obama's most rabid backers; who has been in America's face as a supporter of what she calls "reproductive rights" and "female sexuality"; and who teams up with groups such as Emily's List and Planned Parenthood to try to tilt the playing field in favor of leftwing causes.
She's also a best selling author whose new book causes the flesh to crawl because, among other things, of the way it describes her relationship with her younger sister. This part of Not That Kind of Girl caught our eye, which is why we described it, using Dunham's own words, in Truth Revolt.
Without going into detail, I'll just say that it's very disturbing, especially coming from someone who has presented herself as so very progressive and such a critic of sexual abuse --- and in particular, a spokesperson against the right's fictitious War on Women.
Whether you want to call what Dunham wrote an admission of sexual abuse or just a very progressive view of sibling relations is up to you. What is not up for debate is that she wrote some bizarre and graphic passages that Truth Revolt quoted -- and the next thing we knew, we had a letter from her attorney, threatening suit for defamation.
In his "cease-and-desist" letter, Dunham's lawyer stated "Our client intends to vigorously pursue all possible legal remedies available to her . . . Remedies available to my client include, without limitation, actual damages to her personal and professional reputation which likely would be calculated in the millions of dollars [plus] punitive damages." The letter demanded that the story be immediately removed.
The letter also stated: "Demand is further made that you immediately print a prominent public apology and retraction at all media whereat you published the Story, stating that the Story is false, that you regret having published it, and that you apologize to Ms. Dunham and her family for having published it."
We refused to comply with these demands. In response to the attorney's threat, we stated: "We refuse. We refuse to withdraw our story or apologize for running it, because quoting a woman's book does not constitute a "false" story, even if she is a prominent actress and leftwing activist. Lena Dunham may not like our interpretation of her book, but unfortunately for her and her attorneys, she wrote that book - and the First Amendment covers a good deal of material she may not like."
Our lawyer advises us that we have a strong legal defense, based on the First Amendment, and we fully expect to prevail. But the costs of defending a case are high, and now we could be facing $250,000 in legal defense costs-a negligible sum for someone like Dunham, but a serious expense for us.
So can we count on your emergency, tax-deductible donation of $25, $50, $100 or more to start building or legal defense fund right now?
Lena Dunham is a very public figure that stars and directs the HBO show "Girls." She has made a career out of shocking her audiences and exploiting her celebrity to push hard-left causes. Her book is certainly fair game, as are questions about her sickening conduct with regard to her sister. That is what the First Amendment is for and what it protects.
Truth Revolt criticized Dunham. Dunham fired back on Twitter, and her sycophants in the media covered for her. But she didn't stop there. She decided, as leftists often do, that to silence critics is more appealing than simply utilizing her own freedom of speech under the First Amendment. People like Dunham want to be as "provocative" and "edgy" as they choose. But when anyone calls them on their conduct they want to unplug the microphone.
So, she ordered her attorney to issue this letter threatening suit. If she does sue, the Freedom Center and Truth Revolt are prepared to go to the wall in defense of free speech. Lawsuits can be incredibly expensive, especially when the other side is a major entertainer with millions in the bank and fellow Hollywood leftists urging her to silence a fearless conservative publication like Truth Revolt. But we will do what needs to be done to protect the First Amendment.
And we need you to help us.
We have to raise $250,000 immediately to fund our legal defense fund. We have to be able to tell Dunham and all the other leftists who try to shut Truth Revolt down to bring it on. We're not backing down, we stand by the truth, and we'll see them in court.
That's why we're asking you to stand with us today as we begin building our legal defense fund by making an emergency donation of $25, $50, $100 or more.
Thank you for standing with the Freedom Center, Truth Revolt and the freedom of speech.
Liberal Hollywood actress and darling of Planned Parenthood, Lena Dunham, is gunning for the Freedom Center and Truth Revolt --- and now I urgently need your help to build up our legal defense fund.
You might have read about it on the Drudge Report or seen it in The Hollywood Reporter, The Daily Mail, the Los Angeles Times, or People Magazine or any other mainstream media outlet...
Leftwing Hollywood feminist Lena Dunham is threatening to sue Truth Revolt and the David Horowitz Freedom Center, because we wrote an article in which we quoted her book, Not That Kind of Girl!
Who is Lena Dunham, you may wonder? She is the New Hot Thing-a leftist actress who is the darling of the liberal media; who has been one of Obama's most rabid backers; who has been in America's face as a supporter of what she calls "reproductive rights" and "female sexuality"; and who teams up with groups such as Emily's List and Planned Parenthood to try to tilt the playing field in favor of leftwing causes.
She's also a best selling author whose new book causes the flesh to crawl because, among other things, of the way it describes her relationship with her younger sister. This part of Not That Kind of Girl caught our eye, which is why we described it, using Dunham's own words, in Truth Revolt.
Without going into detail, I'll just say that it's very disturbing, especially coming from someone who has presented herself as so very progressive and such a critic of sexual abuse --- and in particular, a spokesperson against the right's fictitious War on Women.
Whether you want to call what Dunham wrote an admission of sexual abuse or just a very progressive view of sibling relations is up to you. What is not up for debate is that she wrote some bizarre and graphic passages that Truth Revolt quoted -- and the next thing we knew, we had a letter from her attorney, threatening suit for defamation.
In his "cease-and-desist" letter, Dunham's lawyer stated "Our client intends to vigorously pursue all possible legal remedies available to her . . . Remedies available to my client include, without limitation, actual damages to her personal and professional reputation which likely would be calculated in the millions of dollars [plus] punitive damages." The letter demanded that the story be immediately removed.
The letter also stated: "Demand is further made that you immediately print a prominent public apology and retraction at all media whereat you published the Story, stating that the Story is false, that you regret having published it, and that you apologize to Ms. Dunham and her family for having published it."
We refused to comply with these demands. In response to the attorney's threat, we stated: "We refuse. We refuse to withdraw our story or apologize for running it, because quoting a woman's book does not constitute a "false" story, even if she is a prominent actress and leftwing activist. Lena Dunham may not like our interpretation of her book, but unfortunately for her and her attorneys, she wrote that book - and the First Amendment covers a good deal of material she may not like."
Our lawyer advises us that we have a strong legal defense, based on the First Amendment, and we fully expect to prevail. But the costs of defending a case are high, and now we could be facing $250,000 in legal defense costs-a negligible sum for someone like Dunham, but a serious expense for us.
So can we count on your emergency, tax-deductible donation of $25, $50, $100 or more to start building or legal defense fund right now?
Lena Dunham is a very public figure that stars and directs the HBO show "Girls." She has made a career out of shocking her audiences and exploiting her celebrity to push hard-left causes. Her book is certainly fair game, as are questions about her sickening conduct with regard to her sister. That is what the First Amendment is for and what it protects.
Truth Revolt criticized Dunham. Dunham fired back on Twitter, and her sycophants in the media covered for her. But she didn't stop there. She decided, as leftists often do, that to silence critics is more appealing than simply utilizing her own freedom of speech under the First Amendment. People like Dunham want to be as "provocative" and "edgy" as they choose. But when anyone calls them on their conduct they want to unplug the microphone.
So, she ordered her attorney to issue this letter threatening suit. If she does sue, the Freedom Center and Truth Revolt are prepared to go to the wall in defense of free speech. Lawsuits can be incredibly expensive, especially when the other side is a major entertainer with millions in the bank and fellow Hollywood leftists urging her to silence a fearless conservative publication like Truth Revolt. But we will do what needs to be done to protect the First Amendment.
And we need you to help us.
We have to raise $250,000 immediately to fund our legal defense fund. We have to be able to tell Dunham and all the other leftists who try to shut Truth Revolt down to bring it on. We're not backing down, we stand by the truth, and we'll see them in court.
That's why we're asking you to stand with us today as we begin building our legal defense fund by making an emergency donation of $25, $50, $100 or more.
Thank you for standing with the Freedom Center, Truth Revolt and the freedom of speech.
Monday, November 3, 2014
Some things to consider when you go to vote
Today on Fox News castratix herself,Joni Ernst,became upset when Democrat Senator Tom Harkins made a remark about her appearance. This is the same cunt who made the video about castrating pigs and making a big joke about it but if someone says anything about her she falls apart. If this coward doesn't have the uterus to run Iowa than she has no business in the Senate. If this wimpish ovary less excuse for a woman falls apart then she is just wasting our time.
The Democrats have their backs to wall on Obamacare and they are especially vulnerable so now is the time to back the GOP or any party other than the Democrats. The Democrats are staunchly anti-male so voting GOP would be better. Better yet write the Republican candidates in your race and ask them if they support pro-male positions. The GOP may be negotiable especially with the civil libertarian crowd. The Democrats are a dead end on men's issues so don't even bother.
The Democrats have their backs to wall on Obamacare and they are especially vulnerable so now is the time to back the GOP or any party other than the Democrats. The Democrats are staunchly anti-male so voting GOP would be better. Better yet write the Republican candidates in your race and ask them if they support pro-male positions. The GOP may be negotiable especially with the civil libertarian crowd. The Democrats are a dead end on men's issues so don't even bother.
Saturday, November 1, 2014
Flip it
You know how women are pushing their way into the sports area and other areas that are of interest to men. Bringing the pink ribbon bullshit to the NFL,making the players wear pink. Let's flip the script: let's push our way into the soap opera area,the fashion arena and other areas that women like and push our agenda upon them. Let's make soap opera actresses wear blue to raise awareness of prostate cancer,penile cancer and testicular cancer. Only a homicidal misandrist could oppose this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)