Even Some Men's Rights Activists Are Worried About a Trump Presidency
"I care about this country being led by the most competent person."
At a Trump campaign rally last week in Spokane, Washington, Donald Trump slammed Hillary Clinton for "playing the women's card" to gain campaign support. When citing Clinton's criticisms of him, Trump mimicked the candidate, straightening his shoulders and flattening his voice to convey a cold, prim demeanor. He concluded the performance with the pronouncement: "All of the men, we're petrified to speak to women anymore…You know what? The women get it better than we do, folks. They get it better than we do."
The audience erupted into cheers and applause.
Moments like this one—where Trump's unabashed political incorrectness and machismo are on display—resonate with many of his supporters. But his message in Spokane made headlines in part because the notion that men have it worse off than women echoes a central tenet of the Men's Rights Movement (MRM), a network of activists who believe that in many contexts, men are a disadvantaged class. New York magazine even offered its readers a quiz: "Who Said It, Trump or a Men's Rights Activist?"
It seems like a no-brainer that men's rights activists would admire Trump's rhetoric on gender and thus support his candidacy for president. But several leaders of the movement who spoke to Mother Jones are ambivalent about Trump, at best—one has even donated to Clinton—and say that many others in their community haven't been won over by Trump's bluster. But why do many members of a group that would appear to be his natural constituency not support Trump for president?
"It's nice to hear him say" things that align with the men's rights movement, says Dean Esmay, now a contributor to and formerly the managing editor of A Voice for Men, a blog and men's rights discussion hub, but those talking points aren't enough. "Somebody had the guts to say that men have it tougher than women, it gives you an emotional rush," he continues. "But when you listen, where's the meat behind it? What's he offering? I see nothing." Trump isn't offering much by way of policy substance, Esmay says, both on issues key to MRAs, such as incarceration or the treatment of fathers in family courts, or on others.
"Why do I think he would make a bad president?" asks Esmay. "Because he is a loose cannon. You don't know what he's going to do. We have a student loan debt bubble that's going to burst. We have a middle class that's imploding. And Donald Trump is going to fix it all by saying, 'Believe it, baby?' Give me a break."
Warren Farrell, widely considered the father of the men's right's movement and the author of one of its foundational texts, The Myth of Male Power, says he's a "very strong supporter" of Clinton. He has attended several campaign events for Clinton and has donated the allowed maximum of $2,700 to her primary campaign. Still, Farrell says he thinks Clinton is "the worst candidate in recent history, in my lifetime, on gender issues from the perspective of understanding and having compassion for men." But Farrell, who has a Ph.D. in political science, still supports Clinton in part because, he says, "even though I care about men's issues a lot, I care about this country being led by the most competent person."
"Trump is the quintessential example of the immature man and men at their worst."
"Its very hard for me," he continues, "because Trump does have a clue about what's happening with men's issues. But Trump is the quintessential example of the immature man and men at their worst."
Farrell falls into a more liberal faction of the men's rights community, says Gwyneth Williams, a professor of politics at Webster University who also studies men's movements. But some of Farrell's more conservative colleagues also have serious concerns about Trump.
"I think Trump was right on for saying that men are afraid of upsetting women," says Paul Elam, the CEO and founder of A Voice for Men. But Elam notes that he doesn't buy that Trump would be "some sort of savior for" the men's rights movement, and that there are other Trump positions he finds especially worrisome.
"Trump talks a lot about building a wall and the outlandish proposition that he's going to stop drugs from entering the country—which is impossible," says Elam. He's wary of a candidate who would further criminalize drugs, leading to greater incarceration of men. While Trump hasn't directly promised this, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, one of Trump's surrogates and a potential vice presidential pick, has said he supports the criminalization of marijuana use. That's why both Elam and Esmay say the possibility that in a Trump administration Christie might be elevated to a position of power might push them to vote for Clinton.
But many men's rights activists are definitely not Clinton fans: Both Elam and Esmay referred to her as a "lizard" while speaking with Mother Jones, and men's rights forums on Reddit and elsewhere are filled with anti-Clinton sentiments. But despite their Clinton scorn, many MRAs say it's obvious Trump is more swagger than substance. "Trump doesn't have the ability to successfully call out Hillary on her sexism. He is to [sic] crass and doesn't grasp the issues," writes one user on the men's rights subreddit. Another sums things up: "Trump VS Clinton. Whoever wins, America (and the world?) loses."
Source
Fuck you Paul Elam,fuck you Warren Farrell,fuck you Dean Esmay. A double fuck you to Farrell for donating to her cause. If they chose to vote for Gary Johnson or wrote in Donald Duck for president while keeping their money in their wallets that would have been acceptable. But to vote for this misandric witch is crossing the line. Bernard Chapin said if you call yourself an MRA and you vote for Hillary you are a traitor. End of story. I don't always agree with Chapin but he is right on this. You know whom a real MRA supports in this election? The Donald that's who.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Thursday, September 22, 2016
OCR wants universities and colleges nationwide to use the unreasonable person standard
OCR to Frostburg State University: Common Sense, ‘Reasonable Person’ Standard Violate Title IX
The agency has declared war on reason itself (the principle, not the magazine).
Robby Soave|Sep. 12, 2016 1:40 pm
Universities should not rely upon outdated standards of justice like "common sense" and "reason" when determining whether sexual harassment has occurred, the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights has announced.
Seriously.
OCR recently sent a letter to Frostburg State University detailing the inadequacies of the university's sexual harassment policies. Frostburg is one of more than a hundred schools being investigated by OCR for violating Title IX, the federal law that requires sex equality in federal funding for education. OCR settles these investigations by advising schools to adopt a variety of policies that violate the due process and free speech rights of students and professors.
The Frostburg letter contains something I haven't seen before: a stark admission from OCR that its interpretation of Title IX holds the "reasonable person" standard in contempt. From page 7 of the letter:
… the Sexual Harassment Policy inappropriately stated that "in assessing whether a particular act constitutes sexual harassment forbidden under this policy, the rules of common sense and reason shall prevail. The standard shall be the perspective of a reasonable person within the campus community." This standard falls short of the preponderance of the evidence standard required to satisfy Title IX.
In holding "common sense, "reason," and "reasonable persons" in contempt, OCR is effectively saying that colleges should base their decisions on the perspective of an unreasonable person. That's what is required to produce the agency's desired result: unreasonable people using something other than common sense.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Hans Bader tells me via email that this declaration is at odds with court precedent.
"Never mind that the Supreme Court's decision in Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993) uses a 'reasonable person' test, and the Eleventh Circuit in Watkins v. Bowden said the test is valid," Bader writes.
I have long criticized OCR's Title IX guidance for eroding individual liberty, but never before has it been so apparent that the agency's ultimate goal is to destroy reason itself.
Source
Who is more unreasonable toward men than feminists themselves? No one. A feminist group or two will judge us. This is stupid. This administration is beyond ridiculous. It's time to contact members of Congress. Congressional Representative:click here and Senators: click here. You can also contact Senator James Lankford and Senator Lamar Alexander. These two Senators are just as angry about this crap like we are so letting them know would help a lot. The more of us they hear from the better so contact them right away.
The agency has declared war on reason itself (the principle, not the magazine).
Robby Soave|Sep. 12, 2016 1:40 pm
Universities should not rely upon outdated standards of justice like "common sense" and "reason" when determining whether sexual harassment has occurred, the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights has announced.
Seriously.
OCR recently sent a letter to Frostburg State University detailing the inadequacies of the university's sexual harassment policies. Frostburg is one of more than a hundred schools being investigated by OCR for violating Title IX, the federal law that requires sex equality in federal funding for education. OCR settles these investigations by advising schools to adopt a variety of policies that violate the due process and free speech rights of students and professors.
The Frostburg letter contains something I haven't seen before: a stark admission from OCR that its interpretation of Title IX holds the "reasonable person" standard in contempt. From page 7 of the letter:
… the Sexual Harassment Policy inappropriately stated that "in assessing whether a particular act constitutes sexual harassment forbidden under this policy, the rules of common sense and reason shall prevail. The standard shall be the perspective of a reasonable person within the campus community." This standard falls short of the preponderance of the evidence standard required to satisfy Title IX.
In holding "common sense, "reason," and "reasonable persons" in contempt, OCR is effectively saying that colleges should base their decisions on the perspective of an unreasonable person. That's what is required to produce the agency's desired result: unreasonable people using something other than common sense.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Hans Bader tells me via email that this declaration is at odds with court precedent.
"Never mind that the Supreme Court's decision in Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993) uses a 'reasonable person' test, and the Eleventh Circuit in Watkins v. Bowden said the test is valid," Bader writes.
I have long criticized OCR's Title IX guidance for eroding individual liberty, but never before has it been so apparent that the agency's ultimate goal is to destroy reason itself.
Source
Who is more unreasonable toward men than feminists themselves? No one. A feminist group or two will judge us. This is stupid. This administration is beyond ridiculous. It's time to contact members of Congress. Congressional Representative:click here and Senators: click here. You can also contact Senator James Lankford and Senator Lamar Alexander. These two Senators are just as angry about this crap like we are so letting them know would help a lot. The more of us they hear from the better so contact them right away.
Female greed kills children
Mylan CEO infuriates lawmakers at hearing on EpiPen costs
MARY CLARE JALONICK 11 hours ago .
WASHINGTON (AP) — Mylan CEO Heather Bresch infuriated lawmakers as she tried — and mostly failed — to explain steep cost increases of her company's life-saving EpiPens.
Outraged Republican and Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday grilled Bresch about the emergency allergy shot's sky-high price and the profits for a company with sales in excess of $11 billion. The list price of EpiPens has grown to $608 for a two-pack, an increase of more than 500 percent since 2007.
In almost four hours of questioning, the soft-spoken CEO at times seemed unsure, or declined to answer directly, when asked questions about the company's finances and profits, angering lawmakers.
"You could make this thing go away by being honest and candid but I don't think you are," House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told Bresch as he ended the hearing. Afterward, he told reporters he thought she created more problems with her vague testimony.
The frustration was bipartisan. Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the oversight panel, compared Bresch's answers to a game of "hide the ball."
Defending the company's business practices, Bresch said she wishes Mylan had "better anticipated the magnitude and acceleration" of the rising prices for some families.
"We never intended this," Bresch said, but maintained that her company doesn't make much profit from each emergency allergy shot and signaled the company has no plans to lower prices.
Families who rely on multiple EpiPens to respond when their children have allergic reactions, whether at home, school or sporting events, have lashed out at Mylan in a growing public outcry. Bresch blamed the furor partly on the complexity of drug pricing.
In response to one question, Bresch acknowledged she made $18 million in salary last year.
"Sounds like you're doing pretty well on this," said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla.
Chaffetz, said high executive pay at Mylan "doesn't add up for a lot of people" as the EpiPen price has increased. He said executives for the company made $300 million over five years while the list price for a pair of the allergy shots rose.
"Parents don't have a choice," Chaffetz said. "If your loved one needs this, it better darn well be in your backpack."
Bresch, who displayed an EpiPen, said the company makes only approximately $50 in profit on each shot. But Chaffetz said he finds that "a little hard to believe."
EpiPens are used in emergencies to stop anaphylaxis, the potentially fatal allergic reactions to insect bites and stings and foods like nuts and eggs. People usually keep multiple EpiPens handy at home, school or work, but the syringes, prefilled with the hormone epinephrine, expire after a year.
The company says it has distributed tens of thousands of free shots to schools and raised awareness of deadly allergies. That requires investment, Bresch said.
The Mylan executive has some familiarity with Capitol Hill — she is the daughter of Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. But lawmakers so far haven't given any deference to her, and several other committees have called for investigations into the price increase.
Bresch noted that Mylan has said it will begin selling its generic version for $300 for a pair. That will still bring Mylan tens of millions of dollars in revenue while helping retain market share against current and future brand-name and generic competition.
The company has also offered coupon cards and has doubled the limit for eligibility for its patient assistance program. But critics have said the coupons, discount cards and patient assistance programs aren't real solutions because many customers won't use them or won't qualify for them.
Republican Rep. Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee, a physician, told Bresch that she was "trying to make us feel good" about the generic version and other programs, but that he doesn't feel good about it.
"A mother would cut off her right arm to get that drug. You chose to charge her $600 instead of cutting off her arm," DesJarlais said. "Lower the price so they can afford it."
Last year, more than 3.6 million U.S. prescriptions for two-packs of EpiPens were filled, according to data firm IMS Health. That brought in sales of nearly $1.7 billion for Mylan, though the company says it receives about $1.1 billion after rebates and fees paid to insurers, distributors and other health care businesses.
In the Senate, leaders of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' investigations subcommittee said earlier this month that they have begun an inquiry into the company's pricing and competition practices. The Aging Committee requested briefings on the issue, and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has written several letters to Mylan demanding answers.
Source
I have always been told that women are the nurturing gender. That they value life more than us war hungry men do as they would put it. Not only that but we're told that women would never place a child's life in danger. After all greed is a male thing right? Brought upon us by the patriarchy? Right? Not so. It appears that women are not the angels they told us they were. No,it appears that is not the case. It now appears that they are capable of pissing off not only both houses of Congress at the same time but this one has also pissed off both parties simultaneously as well.
California wants to eliminate the statue of limitations when it comes to rape cases
Supporters urge governor to sign bill ending statute of limitations for prosecuting rape
Flanked by alleged sexual assault victims and their supporters, state Sen. Connie Leyva (D-Chino) urged Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday to end California's statute of limitations for rape.
The Legislature sent Leyva's bill, SB 813, to Brown last week. He has until Sept 30 to sign the bill, which would end the time limit in California for prosecuting rape, child sexual abuse and other felony sex crimes.
"This bill does not abolish the very high burden-of-proof standard," Leyva said at a state Capitol news conference. "[SB] 813 simply ensures that the door does not slam in the face of victims."
Several of those who spoke in support of the bill said they were sexually assaulted. They were joined by attorney Gloria Allred, who said she met with representatives from the governor's office Tuesday morning. Allred is representing more than 30 women who say comedian Bill Cosby sexually assaulted them.
"For almost all of them, wherever the alleged sexual misconduct is said to have taken place, no criminal case will be filed," Allred said. "For most of these accusations it was simply too late for a prosecutor to even consider them." Several of the alleged assaults occurred in California.
Allred said that a number of Cosby's accusers "had no idea" there was a statute of limitations for rape prosecutions.
A woman identified only as Linda said at the news conference that she was sexually assaulted by Cosby in the 1970s and supports changing the law in California.
"I didn't report the assault because I was afraid of what might happen to me if I did go to law enforcement at that time," she said.
Cosby, who has said his relationships with his accusers were consensual, is being tried in Pennsylvania on three felony counts of aggravated indecent assault. The charges were filed just before that state's 12-year statute of limitations would have expired.
In California, the statute of limitations for rape is 10 years unless DNA evidence emerges later. Sex crimes against minors must be prosecuted before the alleged victim turns 40.
Source
Let's take a look at SB 813 and see what it says. On the official website all I read was blah blah blah. So I went to the website of the bitch that authored this monstrosity and this is what I read:
SACRAMENTO – On the first day of the 2016 legislative session, Senator Connie M. Leyva (D-Chino) today introduced important bipartisan legislation to end the statute of limitations for rape and related crimes in California.
Source
Now let's let that sink in. Especially if you've been accused of sexual misconduct in the past. There are a ton of problems with this bill. Memories fade,witnesses die. Who is going to remember clearly what happened 40 or 50 years ago. This is a "get men" bill and we need to oppose it. The best way to do that would be to contact Governor Jerry Brown and let him know that SB 813 is a bad bill and that he should veto it. The more of us he hears from the better and so goes California so goes the nation. Stopping it here means you can spare your state from monstrous bills like SB 813.
Flanked by alleged sexual assault victims and their supporters, state Sen. Connie Leyva (D-Chino) urged Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday to end California's statute of limitations for rape.
The Legislature sent Leyva's bill, SB 813, to Brown last week. He has until Sept 30 to sign the bill, which would end the time limit in California for prosecuting rape, child sexual abuse and other felony sex crimes.
"This bill does not abolish the very high burden-of-proof standard," Leyva said at a state Capitol news conference. "[SB] 813 simply ensures that the door does not slam in the face of victims."
Several of those who spoke in support of the bill said they were sexually assaulted. They were joined by attorney Gloria Allred, who said she met with representatives from the governor's office Tuesday morning. Allred is representing more than 30 women who say comedian Bill Cosby sexually assaulted them.
"For almost all of them, wherever the alleged sexual misconduct is said to have taken place, no criminal case will be filed," Allred said. "For most of these accusations it was simply too late for a prosecutor to even consider them." Several of the alleged assaults occurred in California.
Allred said that a number of Cosby's accusers "had no idea" there was a statute of limitations for rape prosecutions.
A woman identified only as Linda said at the news conference that she was sexually assaulted by Cosby in the 1970s and supports changing the law in California.
"I didn't report the assault because I was afraid of what might happen to me if I did go to law enforcement at that time," she said.
Cosby, who has said his relationships with his accusers were consensual, is being tried in Pennsylvania on three felony counts of aggravated indecent assault. The charges were filed just before that state's 12-year statute of limitations would have expired.
In California, the statute of limitations for rape is 10 years unless DNA evidence emerges later. Sex crimes against minors must be prosecuted before the alleged victim turns 40.
Source
Let's take a look at SB 813 and see what it says. On the official website all I read was blah blah blah. So I went to the website of the bitch that authored this monstrosity and this is what I read:
SACRAMENTO – On the first day of the 2016 legislative session, Senator Connie M. Leyva (D-Chino) today introduced important bipartisan legislation to end the statute of limitations for rape and related crimes in California.
Source
Now let's let that sink in. Especially if you've been accused of sexual misconduct in the past. There are a ton of problems with this bill. Memories fade,witnesses die. Who is going to remember clearly what happened 40 or 50 years ago. This is a "get men" bill and we need to oppose it. The best way to do that would be to contact Governor Jerry Brown and let him know that SB 813 is a bad bill and that he should veto it. The more of us he hears from the better and so goes California so goes the nation. Stopping it here means you can spare your state from monstrous bills like SB 813.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Tell your college alma mater and/or elected officials about victim centered investigations on college and university campuses
From SAVE Services:
A new trend called "victim-centered investigations" is troubling us at SAVE.
The gist of the new investigatory approach is to start from believing the complainant and to continue the investigation from the complainant's perspective--thus ending the police's role as neutral fact-finder.
Colleges are starting to look into using this technique, and we need stop it.
We are asking you to contact the university or college where you attended school, and ask them to continue implementing fair investigative procedures.
Tell them to preserve the presumption of innocence on their campus.
If you didn't attend college or do not want to contact your alma mater then contact your elected officials. Congressional Representative:click here and Senators: click here. You can also contact Senator James Lankford and Senator Lamar Alexander. Neither of the aforementioned Senators are big fans of what the Obama administration is doing to college and university men so contacting them would be a plus. On Lankford's website click on "send an email on legislation" to send him an email.
A new trend called "victim-centered investigations" is troubling us at SAVE.
The gist of the new investigatory approach is to start from believing the complainant and to continue the investigation from the complainant's perspective--thus ending the police's role as neutral fact-finder.
Colleges are starting to look into using this technique, and we need stop it.
We are asking you to contact the university or college where you attended school, and ask them to continue implementing fair investigative procedures.
Tell them to preserve the presumption of innocence on their campus.
If you didn't attend college or do not want to contact your alma mater then contact your elected officials. Congressional Representative:click here and Senators: click here. You can also contact Senator James Lankford and Senator Lamar Alexander. Neither of the aforementioned Senators are big fans of what the Obama administration is doing to college and university men so contacting them would be a plus. On Lankford's website click on "send an email on legislation" to send him an email.
Monday, September 19, 2016
Saturday, September 17, 2016
Ivanka Trump is thinned skinned
Feet held to the fire, Ivanka Trump lost her cool in an interview this week.
On Wednesday, Cosmopolitan.com pressed her to address her father's egregious remarks about pregnancies and working women and pushed her to explain why the presidential candidate's recently unveiled child care plan hadn't accounted for paternity leave or leave for same-sex couples.
"I think you have a lot of negativity in these questions," Trump countered. She ended her conversation with interviewer Prachi Gupta a few minutes later.
Earlier this week, Donald Trump reiterated his intention to make child care a tax-deductible expense for men and women who earn up to $250,000 each year and added that expectant mothers would be entitled to six weeks of paid family leave. During that speech, Ivanka stood by his side. But when it came time for her to speak up, it seems she was less prepared.
Given her heavy influence on her father's team and her stated commitment to working mothers, Cosmopolitan.com wanted to know how she squared his newly declared ideals with his previous assertion that an expectant mother is an "inconvenience for a business."
Faced with the 2004 statement, Ivanka fired back. "I think my father has put forth a very comprehensive and really revolutionary plan to deal with a lot of issues," she said. "So I don't know how useful it is to spend too much time with you on this if you're going to make a comment like that."
And when Gupta refused to back down, Trump fumed: "Well, you said he made those comments. I don't know that he said those comments." Gupta cited her source, at which point Trump seemed to claim her words would be manipulated. "[T]here's plenty of time for you to editorialize around this," she retorted.
Cosmopolitan.com published a full transcript of the interview, which includes Trump's attempt to explain why only women "in recovery in the immediate aftermath of childbirth" are accommodated under Donald Trump's policies.
"I'm going to jump off, I have to run," Ivanka Trump said, cutting the interview short. "I apologize."
Source
We're voting for Donald Trump not his daughter. Donald Trump is the visionary our country needs. Ivanka is just a spoiled brat. If we keep up the activism we can make sure men get a break in this society. The alternative is Hillary the castrating witch Clinton. I'll go with Donald Trump.
On Wednesday, Cosmopolitan.com pressed her to address her father's egregious remarks about pregnancies and working women and pushed her to explain why the presidential candidate's recently unveiled child care plan hadn't accounted for paternity leave or leave for same-sex couples.
"I think you have a lot of negativity in these questions," Trump countered. She ended her conversation with interviewer Prachi Gupta a few minutes later.
Earlier this week, Donald Trump reiterated his intention to make child care a tax-deductible expense for men and women who earn up to $250,000 each year and added that expectant mothers would be entitled to six weeks of paid family leave. During that speech, Ivanka stood by his side. But when it came time for her to speak up, it seems she was less prepared.
Given her heavy influence on her father's team and her stated commitment to working mothers, Cosmopolitan.com wanted to know how she squared his newly declared ideals with his previous assertion that an expectant mother is an "inconvenience for a business."
Faced with the 2004 statement, Ivanka fired back. "I think my father has put forth a very comprehensive and really revolutionary plan to deal with a lot of issues," she said. "So I don't know how useful it is to spend too much time with you on this if you're going to make a comment like that."
And when Gupta refused to back down, Trump fumed: "Well, you said he made those comments. I don't know that he said those comments." Gupta cited her source, at which point Trump seemed to claim her words would be manipulated. "[T]here's plenty of time for you to editorialize around this," she retorted.
Cosmopolitan.com published a full transcript of the interview, which includes Trump's attempt to explain why only women "in recovery in the immediate aftermath of childbirth" are accommodated under Donald Trump's policies.
"I'm going to jump off, I have to run," Ivanka Trump said, cutting the interview short. "I apologize."
Source
We're voting for Donald Trump not his daughter. Donald Trump is the visionary our country needs. Ivanka is just a spoiled brat. If we keep up the activism we can make sure men get a break in this society. The alternative is Hillary the castrating witch Clinton. I'll go with Donald Trump.
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Fuck Ivanka Trump
What are most wealthy,white girls if not feminists. We've seen that here. So why should a rich bitch born with a silver dildo up her cunt be any different? The answer is she is the same as the rest. The one I'm going to rant on in this post is Donald Trump's daughter Ivanka Trump. Ivanka is pushing her father to implement her version of maternity leave if he gets elected. Ivanka's scheme is the same as the rest-giving women a break while adding to men's burdens. Who is going to end up paying for this scheme of Ivanka's? Yep,you the taxpayer. Who is going to benefit from this? It won't be the remaining employees (read men) who are not eligible for the "mommy break". Ivanka claims that she is looking out for poor people. Obviously she doesn't care about the single man or single father that has to raise his child(ren) on his own. No break for him because he doesn't have a vagina. On tonights "Kelly File" on Foxnews Ivanka revealed this and more: that she married a successful man. Of course she did. Men who do not meet the standards of narcissistic little girls are invisible to them. Ivanka talks about the middle class or those living paycheck to paycheck but she has never been one. She has no idea what being poor is all about. Perhaps she should be a good little girl,shut the fuck up and stop interrupting men as we try to solve the nation's problems.
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
Support fairness on college and university campuses nationwide support the CEFTA
From SAVE Services:
It is now football season, but we're the 'red zone' we're talking about doesn't have to deal with an end zone.
Instead, the time between when schools start up and Thanksgiving is known as the 'red zone' because that is when the most campus sexual assaults are reported.
Help us combat campus sexual assault by telling Senator Lamar Alexander to pass our new federal bill, which will help get safety and medical authorities involved with campus sexual assault cases ASAP. A copy of our bill, called the Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act, can be found here.
Call Senator Alexander, Chair of the Senate HELP committee: (202) 224-4944.
Or email him through this form.
Tell his office to pass CEFTA this year; let's make it our goal to have the red zone only exist in football.
It is now football season, but we're the 'red zone' we're talking about doesn't have to deal with an end zone.
Instead, the time between when schools start up and Thanksgiving is known as the 'red zone' because that is when the most campus sexual assaults are reported.
Help us combat campus sexual assault by telling Senator Lamar Alexander to pass our new federal bill, which will help get safety and medical authorities involved with campus sexual assault cases ASAP. A copy of our bill, called the Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act, can be found here.
Call Senator Alexander, Chair of the Senate HELP committee: (202) 224-4944.
Or email him through this form.
Tell his office to pass CEFTA this year; let's make it our goal to have the red zone only exist in football.
Thursday, September 1, 2016
Misogynist 2
They say that since I am a misogynist that I am oppressive and not understanding of women. That is not true. Most of the misogynists are women themselves. They hate each other. I am not oppressing these women nor am I misunderstanding them. They don't like each other. I've heard MRA's praise masculinity and feminists preach these supposed virtues of women and it turns out the MRA's were sincere. I look at it this way: it's straight from the horse's mouth. If they don't like each other because of their twisted way of seeing things why should I trust them? Why should any man? Like I said I can look positively at my masculinity. I know we are a good gender. I can say that and mean it. Women OTOH are not quite so sincere. But this is what happens. Your jerk girlfriend is no better than the jerk boyfriend (according to her) she complains about. If the I were to sit down with this supposed "jerk boyfriend" I would find that he is actually a cool guy in a bad situation. Jerk girlfriend OTOH lives up to her name. I not saying this is true 100% of the time and there are true male jerks but for the long run they don't last.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)