It's about time someone said "enough" to this bullshit. Sandman said he is appalled by the violence against the feminists. I don't know if he was sincere or just said that to keep YouTube off his back. In the event he was sincere I want to say I disagree with him and that these women have it coming. Feminism is a cancer and we now see that there are men who will fight back. Perhaps us American men can learn from our Mexican brethern.
Showing posts with label feminists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminists. Show all posts
Friday, March 26, 2021
Wednesday, August 26, 2020
Wednesday, August 12, 2020
Sunday, June 14, 2020
A strong argument for MGTOW
Namee Arrow responds to a feminist shit talker:
Feminism is just a bunch of little angry girls. But honestly, all of you are missing the whole point of the question of MGTOW. Which is that men owe women nothing. There is no manning up. There is no good man. There is no gender-based social contract. Men have nothing to live up to for women. Men don't belong to you. Our lives, our resources are ours. Men need to explore their feelings and find what makes them happy. And women may have a hard time accepting that what makes a man happy is not women. And a lot of men are coming to this realization. Many don't even care about the only real threat women have and that is sex. Once a man can walk from sex he can walk from women. It's that easy. I have walked from sex and have tried to be friends with women. They all want to fuck me. They all want more. When they realize I want to treat them like an intellectual equal and just be buddies they only stick around until they have another man they want to work on. Then they ghost. Women cannot be friends with men who they aren't using as simps or who aren’t giving them attention. When a man won't simp or provide sex women are the ones who can't be bothered. A woman cannot be friends with a man. She can only use men. No woman is my equal. I have an identity without a woman. A woman will never have an identity outside the context of a man. Thus I am free. Thank you feminism for freeing me from any obligation to the welfare of women. Now all I have to do is leave this wretched America for a better life where I am not raped of my labor for the welfare of women. Your best bet men….work as little as you possibly can. Own nothing and avoid taxes. Let America collapse. Let the women slave. Just sit back, eat your popcorn and watch the show. Marriage and wage slavery is for suckers.
The way this dude put it is just perfect.
Feminism is just a bunch of little angry girls. But honestly, all of you are missing the whole point of the question of MGTOW. Which is that men owe women nothing. There is no manning up. There is no good man. There is no gender-based social contract. Men have nothing to live up to for women. Men don't belong to you. Our lives, our resources are ours. Men need to explore their feelings and find what makes them happy. And women may have a hard time accepting that what makes a man happy is not women. And a lot of men are coming to this realization. Many don't even care about the only real threat women have and that is sex. Once a man can walk from sex he can walk from women. It's that easy. I have walked from sex and have tried to be friends with women. They all want to fuck me. They all want more. When they realize I want to treat them like an intellectual equal and just be buddies they only stick around until they have another man they want to work on. Then they ghost. Women cannot be friends with men who they aren't using as simps or who aren’t giving them attention. When a man won't simp or provide sex women are the ones who can't be bothered. A woman cannot be friends with a man. She can only use men. No woman is my equal. I have an identity without a woman. A woman will never have an identity outside the context of a man. Thus I am free. Thank you feminism for freeing me from any obligation to the welfare of women. Now all I have to do is leave this wretched America for a better life where I am not raped of my labor for the welfare of women. Your best bet men….work as little as you possibly can. Own nothing and avoid taxes. Let America collapse. Let the women slave. Just sit back, eat your popcorn and watch the show. Marriage and wage slavery is for suckers.
The way this dude put it is just perfect.
Thursday, January 9, 2020
Trump tells feminists to stick it
WASHINGTON – The Trump administration on Wednesday said it was too late to renew the effort to push through a decades-old proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ensure American women have equal rights to men.
The U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a legal opinion saying the deadline had long passed for additional states to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, which was backed by 35 states in the 1970s, three short of the required number.
The amendment, which was first proposed in the 1920s and gained traction during the rise of the feminist movement, states in part: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.”
Under the Constitution, 38 states and both the House of Representatives and the Senate have to approve a proposed amendment for it to be formally adopted.
The House and Senate both supported the measure in 1972 but set a seven-year deadline, later extended until 1982, for it to be ratified.
Recently, there’s been a new effort to get three additional states to sign on. Nevada did so in 2017 and Illinois followed suit in 2018. Now, Virginia could, under the theory proposed by supporters of the amendment, become the 38th state as it is expected to vote this year.
The Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee voted in November to approve a measure that would retroactively remove the ratification deadline.
The opinion issued on Wednesday could provide legal ammunition for opponents as the debate plays out at the state level and in Congress.
Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel wrote in the opinion that while Congress “had the constitutional authority” to set the deadline, it cannot now reopen the issue.
“Congress may not revive a proposed amendment after the deadline has expired,” he wrote.
“Should the people of the United States wish to adopt the ERA as part of the Constitution, then the appropriate path is for Congress … to propose that amendment once more,” Engel added.
The National Archives and Records Administration, a federal agency that has a role in certifying ratification, said in a statement that it would abide by the Justice Department opinion “unless otherwise directed by a final court order.”
Source
Oh yeah. I'm voting for Trump in 2020. Count on it.
The U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a legal opinion saying the deadline had long passed for additional states to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, which was backed by 35 states in the 1970s, three short of the required number.
The amendment, which was first proposed in the 1920s and gained traction during the rise of the feminist movement, states in part: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.”
Under the Constitution, 38 states and both the House of Representatives and the Senate have to approve a proposed amendment for it to be formally adopted.
The House and Senate both supported the measure in 1972 but set a seven-year deadline, later extended until 1982, for it to be ratified.
Recently, there’s been a new effort to get three additional states to sign on. Nevada did so in 2017 and Illinois followed suit in 2018. Now, Virginia could, under the theory proposed by supporters of the amendment, become the 38th state as it is expected to vote this year.
The Democratic-controlled House Judiciary Committee voted in November to approve a measure that would retroactively remove the ratification deadline.
The opinion issued on Wednesday could provide legal ammunition for opponents as the debate plays out at the state level and in Congress.
Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel wrote in the opinion that while Congress “had the constitutional authority” to set the deadline, it cannot now reopen the issue.
“Congress may not revive a proposed amendment after the deadline has expired,” he wrote.
“Should the people of the United States wish to adopt the ERA as part of the Constitution, then the appropriate path is for Congress … to propose that amendment once more,” Engel added.
The National Archives and Records Administration, a federal agency that has a role in certifying ratification, said in a statement that it would abide by the Justice Department opinion “unless otherwise directed by a final court order.”
Source
Oh yeah. I'm voting for Trump in 2020. Count on it.
Friday, September 21, 2018
Well well well how sweet it is
An eminent sociologist and high profile women’s rights campaigner has stepped down indefinitely from the board of a gender equality group following allegations of sexual harassment.
Michael Kimmel, distinguished professor of sociology at Stony Brook University in New York, has resigned from the board of Promundo, an initiative that promotes gender justice by engaging men and boys.
Kimmel, a vocal advocate for women’s rights and author of books including Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era, also offered to defer the acceptance of a sociology award. He was due to receive the prestigious Jessie Bernard award from the American Sociological Association in recognition of his contribution to women’s equality studies. On Wednesday, ASA’s council voted unanimously to suspend delivery of the award.
In a message to members, ASA also said its working group on harassment, formed last year, will conduct a review of the organisation’s awards policies, nomination and appointment processes, and the process for reporting and responding to ethical violations.
The allegations against Kimmel were first reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education, which cited comments by a former graduate student. The former student, who asked to remain anonymous, said Kimmel had suggested they have sex six weeks into her graduate course, and later in her career. She added that he had complimented her appearance, and remarked that she would have to work hard to prove that she had reached her position as a result of her academic talents, and not because she was sleeping with someone.
Following the report, another former graduate student published a detailed account of their time working with Kimmel on the website Medium. Bethany Coston, now assistant professor of gender, sexuality and women’s studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, accused Kimmel of sexist behaviour, such as giving paid work to male students while women were expected to work for free. Coston also accused Kimmel of homophobic and transphobic attitudes, and of a lack of respect for anyone but cisgender heterosexual men.
Kimmel has worked as a consultant for charities and government bodies, as well as lecturing at hundreds of schools, colleges and universities, according to his website. In 2013 he founded the Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities at Stony Brook.
Promundo said that it was deeply disturbed by the allegations of sexual harassment, adding that it had accepted Kimmel’s temporary resignation from its board of directors.
“We fully appreciate the need to weigh due process along with all the shortcomings of formal sexual harassment complaint procedures and the power inequalities inherent to these processes,” the Promundo said in a statement. “What we can say is that all such allegations must be investigated, those harmed must be protected and supported and accountability and restorative justice must prevail.
Kimmel did not respond to the Guardian’s request for a comment, but said in a statement to the Chronicle of Higher Education: “... I have been informed that there are rumours circulating about my professional conduct that suggest I have behaved unethically. While nothing has been formally alleged to the best of my knowledge, I take such concerns seriously, and want to validate the voices of those who are making such claims. I want to hear those charges, hear those voices, and make amends to those who believe I have injured them.”
source
Michael Kimmel, distinguished professor of sociology at Stony Brook University in New York, has resigned from the board of Promundo, an initiative that promotes gender justice by engaging men and boys.
Kimmel, a vocal advocate for women’s rights and author of books including Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era, also offered to defer the acceptance of a sociology award. He was due to receive the prestigious Jessie Bernard award from the American Sociological Association in recognition of his contribution to women’s equality studies. On Wednesday, ASA’s council voted unanimously to suspend delivery of the award.
In a message to members, ASA also said its working group on harassment, formed last year, will conduct a review of the organisation’s awards policies, nomination and appointment processes, and the process for reporting and responding to ethical violations.
The allegations against Kimmel were first reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education, which cited comments by a former graduate student. The former student, who asked to remain anonymous, said Kimmel had suggested they have sex six weeks into her graduate course, and later in her career. She added that he had complimented her appearance, and remarked that she would have to work hard to prove that she had reached her position as a result of her academic talents, and not because she was sleeping with someone.
Following the report, another former graduate student published a detailed account of their time working with Kimmel on the website Medium. Bethany Coston, now assistant professor of gender, sexuality and women’s studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, accused Kimmel of sexist behaviour, such as giving paid work to male students while women were expected to work for free. Coston also accused Kimmel of homophobic and transphobic attitudes, and of a lack of respect for anyone but cisgender heterosexual men.
Kimmel has worked as a consultant for charities and government bodies, as well as lecturing at hundreds of schools, colleges and universities, according to his website. In 2013 he founded the Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities at Stony Brook.
Promundo said that it was deeply disturbed by the allegations of sexual harassment, adding that it had accepted Kimmel’s temporary resignation from its board of directors.
“We fully appreciate the need to weigh due process along with all the shortcomings of formal sexual harassment complaint procedures and the power inequalities inherent to these processes,” the Promundo said in a statement. “What we can say is that all such allegations must be investigated, those harmed must be protected and supported and accountability and restorative justice must prevail.
Kimmel did not respond to the Guardian’s request for a comment, but said in a statement to the Chronicle of Higher Education: “... I have been informed that there are rumours circulating about my professional conduct that suggest I have behaved unethically. While nothing has been formally alleged to the best of my knowledge, I take such concerns seriously, and want to validate the voices of those who are making such claims. I want to hear those charges, hear those voices, and make amends to those who believe I have injured them.”
source
Monday, January 23, 2017
Canadian feminists denied entry to United States to protest Trump
Canadians traveling to Women's March denied US entry after sharing plans
After telling border agents their plans to march, group’s cars were searched and phones examined, and each person was fingerprinted and had their photo taken
Would-be protesters heading to the Women’s March on Washington have said they were denied entry to the United States after telling border agents at a land crossing in Quebec their plans to attend the march.
Montrealer Sasha Dyck was part of a group of eight who had arranged online to travel together to Washington. Divided into two cars, the group – six Canadians and two French nationals – arrived at the border crossing that connects St Bernard de Lacolle in Quebec with Champlain, New York, on Thursday.
The group was upfront about their plans with border agents, Dyck said. “We said we were going to the women’s march on Saturday and they said, ‘Well, you’re going to have to pull over’.”
What followed was a two-hour ordeal. Their cars were searched and their mobile phones examined. Each member of the group was fingerprinted and had their photo taken.
Border agents first told the two French citizens that they had been denied entry to the US and informed them that any future visit to the US would now require a visa.
“Then for the rest of us, they said, ‘You’re headed home today’,” Dyck said. The group was also warned that if they tried to cross the border again during the weekend, they would be arrested. “And that was it, they didn’t give a lot of justification.”
Dyck described it as a sharp contrast to 2009, when the research nurse made the same journey to attend Barack Obama’s inauguration. “I couldn’t even get in for this one, whereas at the other one, the guy at the border literally gave me a high five when I came in and everybody was just like, ‘welcome’. The whole city was partying; nobody was there to protest Obama the first time.”
UK national Joe Kroese said he, a Canadian and two Americans were held at the same border crossing for three hours on Thursday.
The group had travelled from Montreal, where 23-year-old Kroese is studying, and had explained to border agents that they were considering attending the Women’s March but had yet to finalise their plans.
After being questioned, fingerprinted and photographed, Kroese and his Canadian companion were refused entry because they were planning to attend what the border agent called a “potentially violent rally”, he said. The pair was advised not to travel to the United States for a few months, and Kroese was told he would now need a visa to enter the US.
After an attempted crossing late Thursday, Montreal resident Joseph Decunha said he was also turned away. He and the two Americans he was with told the border agent that they were planning to attend the inauguration and the women’s march.
The group was brought in for secondary processing, where the border agent asked about their political views, Decunha told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. “The first thing he asked us point blank is, ‘Are you anti- or pro-Trump?’”
After being fingerprinted and photographed he was told that his two friends could enter the US, but that he could not. “They told me I was being denied entry for administrative reasons. According to the agent, my travelling to the United States for the purpose of protesting didn’t constitute a valid reason to cross,” Decunha said.
He described the experience – particularly the questions he fielded about his political beliefs – as concerning. “It felt like, if we had been pro-Trump, we would have absolutely been allowed entry.”
US Customs and Border Protection said it could not discuss individual cases, citing privacy reasons. “We recognize that there is an important balance to strike between securing our borders while facilitating the high volume of legitimate trade and travel that crosses our borders every day, and we strive to achieve that balance and show the world that the United States is a welcoming nation,” it said in an email to the Guardian.
On a daily basis, more than 1 million individuals are admitted into the United States at its air, land and sea ports, the agency noted. An average of 600 people a day – less than a tenth of 1% of those admitted – are denied entry for a varied list of reasons that include prohibited activities or intent as well as national security concerns.
Source
I'll let the distinguished Nelson Muntz speak for me:
After telling border agents their plans to march, group’s cars were searched and phones examined, and each person was fingerprinted and had their photo taken
Would-be protesters heading to the Women’s March on Washington have said they were denied entry to the United States after telling border agents at a land crossing in Quebec their plans to attend the march.
Montrealer Sasha Dyck was part of a group of eight who had arranged online to travel together to Washington. Divided into two cars, the group – six Canadians and two French nationals – arrived at the border crossing that connects St Bernard de Lacolle in Quebec with Champlain, New York, on Thursday.
The group was upfront about their plans with border agents, Dyck said. “We said we were going to the women’s march on Saturday and they said, ‘Well, you’re going to have to pull over’.”
What followed was a two-hour ordeal. Their cars were searched and their mobile phones examined. Each member of the group was fingerprinted and had their photo taken.
Border agents first told the two French citizens that they had been denied entry to the US and informed them that any future visit to the US would now require a visa.
“Then for the rest of us, they said, ‘You’re headed home today’,” Dyck said. The group was also warned that if they tried to cross the border again during the weekend, they would be arrested. “And that was it, they didn’t give a lot of justification.”
Dyck described it as a sharp contrast to 2009, when the research nurse made the same journey to attend Barack Obama’s inauguration. “I couldn’t even get in for this one, whereas at the other one, the guy at the border literally gave me a high five when I came in and everybody was just like, ‘welcome’. The whole city was partying; nobody was there to protest Obama the first time.”
UK national Joe Kroese said he, a Canadian and two Americans were held at the same border crossing for three hours on Thursday.
The group had travelled from Montreal, where 23-year-old Kroese is studying, and had explained to border agents that they were considering attending the Women’s March but had yet to finalise their plans.
After being questioned, fingerprinted and photographed, Kroese and his Canadian companion were refused entry because they were planning to attend what the border agent called a “potentially violent rally”, he said. The pair was advised not to travel to the United States for a few months, and Kroese was told he would now need a visa to enter the US.
After an attempted crossing late Thursday, Montreal resident Joseph Decunha said he was also turned away. He and the two Americans he was with told the border agent that they were planning to attend the inauguration and the women’s march.
The group was brought in for secondary processing, where the border agent asked about their political views, Decunha told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. “The first thing he asked us point blank is, ‘Are you anti- or pro-Trump?’”
After being fingerprinted and photographed he was told that his two friends could enter the US, but that he could not. “They told me I was being denied entry for administrative reasons. According to the agent, my travelling to the United States for the purpose of protesting didn’t constitute a valid reason to cross,” Decunha said.
He described the experience – particularly the questions he fielded about his political beliefs – as concerning. “It felt like, if we had been pro-Trump, we would have absolutely been allowed entry.”
US Customs and Border Protection said it could not discuss individual cases, citing privacy reasons. “We recognize that there is an important balance to strike between securing our borders while facilitating the high volume of legitimate trade and travel that crosses our borders every day, and we strive to achieve that balance and show the world that the United States is a welcoming nation,” it said in an email to the Guardian.
On a daily basis, more than 1 million individuals are admitted into the United States at its air, land and sea ports, the agency noted. An average of 600 people a day – less than a tenth of 1% of those admitted – are denied entry for a varied list of reasons that include prohibited activities or intent as well as national security concerns.
Source
I'll let the distinguished Nelson Muntz speak for me:
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Women's March has ties to terrorist group
Linda Sarsour, one of the organizers behind Saturday’s Women’s March, being held in Washington, D.C., was recently spotted at a large Muslim convention in Chicago posing for pictures with an accused financier for Hamas, the terrorist group.
Sarsour, the head of the Arab American Association of New York and an Obama White House “Champion of Change,” was speaking at last month’s 15th annual convention of the Muslim American Society and Islamic Circle of North America.
While there, she posed for a picture with Salah Sarsour, a member of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee and former Hamas operative who was jailed in Israel in the 1990s because of his alleged work for the terrorist group.
Salah Sarsour (left) with Linda Sarsour (right) at MAS-ICNA convention. Via Facebook
Salah Sarsour, who is also a board member of American Muslims for Palestine, served as a bodyguard of sorts at the convention for Sumeyye Erdogan Bayraktar, the daughter of Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. (RELATED: Ex-Hamas Financier Spotted At Muslim Convention In Chicago With Turkish President’s Daughter)
While it is unclear if Salah and Linda are related (though they share the same surname, she has suggested in the past on social media that they are not and did not respond to requests for comment), she has other family ties to alleged Hamas operatives. Though she avoids discussing it now, Sarsour has acknowledged in past interviews that she has cousins serving prison time in Israel because of their work for Hamas.
Sarsour has denied having any contact with the terror group. She told The New York Times in 2012 that she would not have been appointed an Obama “Champion of Change” if she had.
The activist has risen to national attention recently. She served as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention, and she is one of four lead organizers for the Women’s March.
The event is expected to attract 500,000 people and will feature several high-profile progressive speakers. But it has been heavily criticized for excluding pro-life women’s groups. Meanwhile, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights group which opposes abortions past 20 weeks, was asked to take part in the event.
Linda Sarsour has close ties to that organization, which was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) terrorism case.
HLF was found to have funneled money to Hamas, which was designated a terrorist group in the 1990s.
Salah Sarsour has ties to that group.
Sarsour was implicated in Hamas activity in the West Bank in the 1990s, according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
ADL cited a Nov. 2001 FBI memo detailing information provided by Sarsour’s brother, Jamil, to Israeli investigators in 1998.
“According to statements given to Israeli investigators by his brother Jamil, Sarsour was personally involved in fundraising for Hamas. According to a November 2001 FBI memorandum, Jamil Sarsour was arrested in 1998 for funding Hamas and told Israeli investigators that Salah Sarsour was involved in funding Hamas through his fundraising for the Holy Land Foundation (HLF),” ADL reported.
The FBI memo stated that the Sarsours passed money in $1,000 and $2,000 increments to a Hamas operative named Adel Awadallah through their Milwaukee furniture store.
Awadallah was a commander in the Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ militant wing.
Salah Sarsour met Awadallah in 1995 while serving an eight month prison sentence in Israel for supporting Hamas.
Sarsour has not been charged with any crimes in the U.S. His brother Jamil was arrested and charged in 2003 with money laundering after returning back to the U.S. from Israel. He served a four year jail sentence for his work for Hamas.
Source
Sarsour, the head of the Arab American Association of New York and an Obama White House “Champion of Change,” was speaking at last month’s 15th annual convention of the Muslim American Society and Islamic Circle of North America.
While there, she posed for a picture with Salah Sarsour, a member of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee and former Hamas operative who was jailed in Israel in the 1990s because of his alleged work for the terrorist group.
Salah Sarsour (left) with Linda Sarsour (right) at MAS-ICNA convention. Via Facebook
Salah Sarsour, who is also a board member of American Muslims for Palestine, served as a bodyguard of sorts at the convention for Sumeyye Erdogan Bayraktar, the daughter of Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. (RELATED: Ex-Hamas Financier Spotted At Muslim Convention In Chicago With Turkish President’s Daughter)
While it is unclear if Salah and Linda are related (though they share the same surname, she has suggested in the past on social media that they are not and did not respond to requests for comment), she has other family ties to alleged Hamas operatives. Though she avoids discussing it now, Sarsour has acknowledged in past interviews that she has cousins serving prison time in Israel because of their work for Hamas.
Sarsour has denied having any contact with the terror group. She told The New York Times in 2012 that she would not have been appointed an Obama “Champion of Change” if she had.
The activist has risen to national attention recently. She served as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention, and she is one of four lead organizers for the Women’s March.
The event is expected to attract 500,000 people and will feature several high-profile progressive speakers. But it has been heavily criticized for excluding pro-life women’s groups. Meanwhile, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights group which opposes abortions past 20 weeks, was asked to take part in the event.
Linda Sarsour has close ties to that organization, which was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) terrorism case.
HLF was found to have funneled money to Hamas, which was designated a terrorist group in the 1990s.
Salah Sarsour has ties to that group.
Sarsour was implicated in Hamas activity in the West Bank in the 1990s, according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
ADL cited a Nov. 2001 FBI memo detailing information provided by Sarsour’s brother, Jamil, to Israeli investigators in 1998.
“According to statements given to Israeli investigators by his brother Jamil, Sarsour was personally involved in fundraising for Hamas. According to a November 2001 FBI memorandum, Jamil Sarsour was arrested in 1998 for funding Hamas and told Israeli investigators that Salah Sarsour was involved in funding Hamas through his fundraising for the Holy Land Foundation (HLF),” ADL reported.
The FBI memo stated that the Sarsours passed money in $1,000 and $2,000 increments to a Hamas operative named Adel Awadallah through their Milwaukee furniture store.
Awadallah was a commander in the Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ militant wing.
Salah Sarsour met Awadallah in 1995 while serving an eight month prison sentence in Israel for supporting Hamas.
Sarsour has not been charged with any crimes in the U.S. His brother Jamil was arrested and charged in 2003 with money laundering after returning back to the U.S. from Israel. He served a four year jail sentence for his work for Hamas.
Source
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.
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.
Monday, May 23, 2016
How Hillary’s “Feminist Army of Anti-Male Journalists” are Now Attacking Bernie Sanders
Feminist Journalists Are Completely Bias and Can’t Be Trusted to Report The News Accurately!
Sometimes, just for kicks, I will browse the Huffington Post’s Women’s Section for great laugh of what these liberal/progressive radicals think about the 2016 presidential election. Although I had some preconceived notions before I clicked on the page, my jaw dropped once I read a few articles about Bernie Sanders. These articles, for the most part, painted Bernie Sanders and his supporters in such a negative light I almost felt sorry for the guy.
Now, just to clear the air I am not a liberal, a progressive or anything remotely matching those two descriptions politically. But reading the feminist section of the Huffington post made me realize how truly manipulative and radical modern-day feminism has become. It is clear these liberal feminist within the Democratic Party had already anointed Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate well before she collected a single signature.
With the help of liberal feminist within national journalism spearheading Hillary’s campaign she had even more so-called “new stories” painting her in a positive light. Sadly, this might work for a large number of uneducated voters who are not familiar with the Clinton’s shady past including their own “anti-woman” actions.
Most, if not all liberal feminist journalist writing at the Huffington post know Hillary’s history of demeaning “rape and sexual assault victims” when she was the first lady in the White House. Additionally, this should also be fully aware of the multiple acts of domestic violence Bill Clinton suffered through during all those years of marriage to the “Queen feminist Nazi”, also known as Hilary. Nevertheless, these anti-male feminist are willing to sweep this under the rug for the simple fact of getting “a woman in the White House.” Qualifications and personal history be damned!
Not only are feminist journalist willing to look the other way in defending Hillary, they are now turning their sights on one of their own. The feminist at the Huffingtion Post are now aiming to devour a fellow progressive feminist in a presidential election, not because he did anything wrong. Basically, they are turning on him simply because Bernie Sanders is male.
The Huffingtion Post Women’s section has painted Bernie Sanders in a very negative light over the past couple of weeks. Both he and his supporters (who are largely young and male) are now labeled as misogynist, “anti-woman” haters for stating the truth about Hillary, her campaign and the political process.
Recently, Jenavieve Hatch with the Huffingtion Post wrote a column explaining how the Bernie Sanders campaign has incited anti-woman and anti-feminist rhetoric. She writes,
the Sanders campaign’s insistence on being “robbed” has incited unnecessary aggression from its base. The messages Lange received show that poorly-channelled anger at the political process can easily spread, causing harm to those who cross its path — women in particular.
Ah, poor Hillary… She’s only woman who can’t stand on her own two feet. Make sure wonder what’s going to happen if she becomes president? Will she run to England or Canada when Russia or China fails to “play fair” with a female President of the United States? What a crock!
To add substance to her argument, Hatch explained when female reporters support Hillary Clinton they are often targets of sexist language, aggressive behavior and even threats regarding their news columns regarding Hillary. Sadly, this aspect occurs to all journalists today, not just feminist writers.
If I posted all the hate mail I receive from feminist on a weekly basis it could be 8 to 10 pages long. Do I cry about it? No! Why? Because it’s part of the business of being a men’s rights journalist. So Ms. Hatch needs to put her big girl panties on and get to work and stop bitching about how our society has evolved under liberal leadership of the last eight years.
But this should be a lesson to Bernie Sanders and his campaign. Although he considers himself a male feminist the moment he or his campaign staff “accurately criticizes” the supreme feminist Nazi known as Hillary Clinton you will be attacked viciously. Not only will you be attacked for honestly criticizing and pointing out the misdeeds of Bill and Hillary Clinton, you will also be attacked as a male.
So welcome Bernie Sanders to the new reality men face in the 21st century… male feminist or not! Good luck with the feminist crazies because it looks like they’re coming after you in a big way.
Source
I'm not surprised by this. I knew sooner or later they were going to play the woman card against Sanders. I told you democrat men this would happen. I hope none of you are stupid enough to support Hillary Clinton. She will turn on you.
Sometimes, just for kicks, I will browse the Huffington Post’s Women’s Section for great laugh of what these liberal/progressive radicals think about the 2016 presidential election. Although I had some preconceived notions before I clicked on the page, my jaw dropped once I read a few articles about Bernie Sanders. These articles, for the most part, painted Bernie Sanders and his supporters in such a negative light I almost felt sorry for the guy.
Now, just to clear the air I am not a liberal, a progressive or anything remotely matching those two descriptions politically. But reading the feminist section of the Huffington post made me realize how truly manipulative and radical modern-day feminism has become. It is clear these liberal feminist within the Democratic Party had already anointed Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate well before she collected a single signature.
With the help of liberal feminist within national journalism spearheading Hillary’s campaign she had even more so-called “new stories” painting her in a positive light. Sadly, this might work for a large number of uneducated voters who are not familiar with the Clinton’s shady past including their own “anti-woman” actions.
Most, if not all liberal feminist journalist writing at the Huffington post know Hillary’s history of demeaning “rape and sexual assault victims” when she was the first lady in the White House. Additionally, this should also be fully aware of the multiple acts of domestic violence Bill Clinton suffered through during all those years of marriage to the “Queen feminist Nazi”, also known as Hilary. Nevertheless, these anti-male feminist are willing to sweep this under the rug for the simple fact of getting “a woman in the White House.” Qualifications and personal history be damned!
Not only are feminist journalist willing to look the other way in defending Hillary, they are now turning their sights on one of their own. The feminist at the Huffingtion Post are now aiming to devour a fellow progressive feminist in a presidential election, not because he did anything wrong. Basically, they are turning on him simply because Bernie Sanders is male.
The Huffingtion Post Women’s section has painted Bernie Sanders in a very negative light over the past couple of weeks. Both he and his supporters (who are largely young and male) are now labeled as misogynist, “anti-woman” haters for stating the truth about Hillary, her campaign and the political process.
Recently, Jenavieve Hatch with the Huffingtion Post wrote a column explaining how the Bernie Sanders campaign has incited anti-woman and anti-feminist rhetoric. She writes,
the Sanders campaign’s insistence on being “robbed” has incited unnecessary aggression from its base. The messages Lange received show that poorly-channelled anger at the political process can easily spread, causing harm to those who cross its path — women in particular.
Ah, poor Hillary… She’s only woman who can’t stand on her own two feet. Make sure wonder what’s going to happen if she becomes president? Will she run to England or Canada when Russia or China fails to “play fair” with a female President of the United States? What a crock!
To add substance to her argument, Hatch explained when female reporters support Hillary Clinton they are often targets of sexist language, aggressive behavior and even threats regarding their news columns regarding Hillary. Sadly, this aspect occurs to all journalists today, not just feminist writers.
If I posted all the hate mail I receive from feminist on a weekly basis it could be 8 to 10 pages long. Do I cry about it? No! Why? Because it’s part of the business of being a men’s rights journalist. So Ms. Hatch needs to put her big girl panties on and get to work and stop bitching about how our society has evolved under liberal leadership of the last eight years.
But this should be a lesson to Bernie Sanders and his campaign. Although he considers himself a male feminist the moment he or his campaign staff “accurately criticizes” the supreme feminist Nazi known as Hillary Clinton you will be attacked viciously. Not only will you be attacked for honestly criticizing and pointing out the misdeeds of Bill and Hillary Clinton, you will also be attacked as a male.
So welcome Bernie Sanders to the new reality men face in the 21st century… male feminist or not! Good luck with the feminist crazies because it looks like they’re coming after you in a big way.
Source
I'm not surprised by this. I knew sooner or later they were going to play the woman card against Sanders. I told you democrat men this would happen. I hope none of you are stupid enough to support Hillary Clinton. She will turn on you.
Monday, February 15, 2016
AVFM versus Roosh
If you've been following the manosphere as of late there is a feud between Dean Esmay of A Voice For Men versus Roosh from Return Of Kings. The funny thing is that A Voice For Men is joining with feminists to bury Roosh on alleged rape charges. Roosh has denied said charges and stated he only engages in consensual sex. He even said Anonymous got involved persecuting him. I've been waiting for Anonymous to fuck the pooch and they did. Anonymous is now synonymous with organized online bullying and terrorizing people. Anonymous demands redemption from others but will they make right what they did or are they just bullies too? No better than those they condemn. Anonymous is busted. Getting back to Esmay,Roosh is right,Esmay is not much of an MRA. From what I hear Esmay tried game and got shot down that is why he is pissed at Roosh. I wasn't there when Esmay was using game so I can't critique him but I do know that game minus confidence is a guaranteed way to get shot down. I don't know if this is the case but it is the most common mistake men make. Esmay did the same things others did from the British House of Commons to the Governor of Texas Greg Abbott to the feminists that Esmay agrees with. They all persecuted Roosh. Esmay could have critiqued Roosh independently but to join forces with feminists is treasonous to me and Roosh is right in calling out Esmay on it. Esmay is a confessed liberal Democrat. That alone should place him on the list of misandrists because the Democrats are in reality the Femocrats. If you have doubts look at their support for Hillary Clinton. I've had my differences with A Voice For Men especially with Paul Elam who once told me to mend fences yet he is the biggest bridge burner in the manosphere. Esmay made the following statement: And every MRA I know views him Roosh as a crackpot, a loon, a con artist and snake oil salesman, and a self-serving liar and weasel...
Source How presumptuous of you Esmay. I have to say I back Roosh on this one. Roosh has stayed consistent while A Voice For Men goes through editorial changes every three months. Don't only that but A Voice For Men diplomats are a bunch of rude dumbshits who go to other MRA websites and act like they own the place. They did that at Antimisandry. Roosh,on the other hand,has welcomed those of us who are MRA's and he doesn't censor people,unlike A Voice For Men,which has turned into an echo chamber thanks to the current management at A Voice For Men.
Source How presumptuous of you Esmay. I have to say I back Roosh on this one. Roosh has stayed consistent while A Voice For Men goes through editorial changes every three months. Don't only that but A Voice For Men diplomats are a bunch of rude dumbshits who go to other MRA websites and act like they own the place. They did that at Antimisandry. Roosh,on the other hand,has welcomed those of us who are MRA's and he doesn't censor people,unlike A Voice For Men,which has turned into an echo chamber thanks to the current management at A Voice For Men.
Friday, May 1, 2015
The Vladek Filler saga comes to an end
Vladek Filler wins again
May 1, 2015 By Robert Franklin
At last, Vladek Filler is a free man. Oh, he’s been “free,” as in “no longer in jail,” for over two years. But when I say “free,” I mean free of all the consequences of the vendetta waged against him by his ex-wife and a shamefully corrupt Ellsworth, Maine prosecutor’s office that stopped at nothing to railroad an innocent man.
That man, Vladek Filler, has always been factually innocent, but now he’s officially, legally so. A state appeals court quashed his conviction of assault, the only prize former District Attorney Carletta Bossano’s office had to show for its relentless hounding of him.
It all started some eight years ago when, in the midst of their divorce and child custody fight, Vladek’s wife, Ligia Filler, claimed that he had raped her. Despite the fact that he had no police record, that the claim occurred during a child custody battle and that Ligia Filler was obviously emotionally unstable, Assistant District Attorney, Mary Kellett pursued the case against Filler with a zeal borne, not of a desire for justice, but of a desire for blood.
Kellett’s behavior in Filler’s case was not merely morally and ethically wrong, although it was both those things. It apparently was the product of her blind faith in the notion that women never lie about rape. I say that because of the multiple other rape and sexual assault cases prosecuted by Kellett that were either overturned on appeal or that she lost outright. Most prosecutors have a sense of when to charge a case, when to take one to trial and when an accused is probably innocent. Kellett seems to have had no such sense, at least when it came to sexual assault charges.
Otherwise, why did she not offer Vladek the dismissal the facts of his case so clearly warranted? Put simply, all Kellett had was the word of a woman who had every reason to lie and on whose behalf there was literally no evidence. Most prosecutors can see such a case for what it is — a sure loser.
Not only that, but the family court judge that viewed the same evidence Kellett did gave primary custody to Vladek, not his wife. How likely is it that a family court judge would place children with a father if the judge had the slightest inkling that the father might have done what his wife claimed? Without a doubt, that judge saw the truth — an emotionally disabled mother making wild, unsubstantiated charges against her husband for the sole purpose of keeping him out of his children’s lives.
Mary Kellett didn’t care. She knew, as few others did, that she would violate any rule of prosecutorial ethics and criminal procedure in order to put an innocent man in prison. And she almost succeeded. Filler was at first convicted, but the very judge who heard his trial for rape overturned the conviction on — of course — the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct.
But Kellett wasn’t finished. Ligia also claimed that Vladek had tossed water on her during an argument. Now, most prosecutors wouldn’t waste their time on such a trivial matter, particularly since, once again, there was no evidence that Vladek had done any such thing. But again, he was convicted, and again it was due to Kellett’s misconduct. Filler served 21 days in jail.
It is that conviction that the appellate court overturned on April 24th. It too was the product of Kellett’s many ethical violations.
But Filler is not a man to allow injustice to run free in the streets. Not content with complete vindication of all his actions by courts of law, he took on the District Attorney’s Office and Mary Kellett specifically, filing a grievance against her for her blatant wrongdoing.
He won that one too. Mary Kellett now has the distinction of being the only prosecutor in the history of the state to have been suspended from the practice of law due to her ethical violations while in the service of the people of the county.
But even that isn’t the end of the story. In last year’s election, DA Bossano was ousted from office due in no small part to her failure to oversee the corrupt behavior of her subordinate, Kellett.
In short, Vladek Filler’s story is that of a lone man standing up to a system of criminal prosecution that was all too used to running roughshod over men accused of sexual assault. What Mary Kellett did in Filler’s case are the actions of a lawyer to whom it never occurs that there might be adverse consequences to her violations of law. Almost certainly, she’d done similar things countless times before and was astonished when one person stood up and shouted “Halt!”
Mary Kellett is now out of a job and has a black mark on her record as an attorney.
If this had been an NBA championship series, Vladek Filler would have swept the opposition. Eight years later, he has his children and his criminal record is unblemished. He is indeed a free man.
What he doesn’t have, though, is his good name. Oh, the people who know him admire him and he has the love of his children and the avid support of his sister who did yeoman service on his behalf throughout his legal ordeal.
But the same Maine news media that were all too eager to shout from the rooftops allegations made against him, that reported his convictions, that unquestioningly channeled Ligia’s false claims and Kellett’s false statements about the case have suddenly gone quiet. Yes, those who were happy to convict an innocent man in their own court — that of public opinion — don’t care to report the fact that, at long last, he’s not guilty of the offenses charged. So far, not a word of his exoneration has been reported in the local or state news media.
In its own way, that’s every bit as shameful as Mary Kellett’s illegal, immoral and unethical conduct.
But in the end, Vladek Filler is the last man standing. For eight years, he stood against the enormous power of the state criminal justice system and won. That’s something for every reader of this blog to ponder. Vladek Filler’s grit and determination have been rewarded. Maybe yours can be as well.
And perhaps best of all, there are two kids (no longer little) down in Georgia who have a father they can look up to. They too can learn a thing or two about the power of being right and not backing down. Those kids may not yet realize it, but they’ve got a dad whose example will serve them all their lives.
Source
This is great. I've been following this from the beginning and now I'm glad it has been concluded. This is a solid MRA victory. This is one we should be proud of. We were pushed around and now we are pushing back. We weren't nice about things we were militant and we accomplished a successful pushback. Thank you to all those involved. For all those did the work and activism know that your work has paid off and that not only is Vladek Filler a free man Mary N. Kellett is a disbarred disgraced feminist former attorney who found out the hard way that you don't fuck with MRA's. We gave feminists an asswhopping they won't soon forget.
May 1, 2015 By Robert Franklin
At last, Vladek Filler is a free man. Oh, he’s been “free,” as in “no longer in jail,” for over two years. But when I say “free,” I mean free of all the consequences of the vendetta waged against him by his ex-wife and a shamefully corrupt Ellsworth, Maine prosecutor’s office that stopped at nothing to railroad an innocent man.
That man, Vladek Filler, has always been factually innocent, but now he’s officially, legally so. A state appeals court quashed his conviction of assault, the only prize former District Attorney Carletta Bossano’s office had to show for its relentless hounding of him.
It all started some eight years ago when, in the midst of their divorce and child custody fight, Vladek’s wife, Ligia Filler, claimed that he had raped her. Despite the fact that he had no police record, that the claim occurred during a child custody battle and that Ligia Filler was obviously emotionally unstable, Assistant District Attorney, Mary Kellett pursued the case against Filler with a zeal borne, not of a desire for justice, but of a desire for blood.
Kellett’s behavior in Filler’s case was not merely morally and ethically wrong, although it was both those things. It apparently was the product of her blind faith in the notion that women never lie about rape. I say that because of the multiple other rape and sexual assault cases prosecuted by Kellett that were either overturned on appeal or that she lost outright. Most prosecutors have a sense of when to charge a case, when to take one to trial and when an accused is probably innocent. Kellett seems to have had no such sense, at least when it came to sexual assault charges.
Otherwise, why did she not offer Vladek the dismissal the facts of his case so clearly warranted? Put simply, all Kellett had was the word of a woman who had every reason to lie and on whose behalf there was literally no evidence. Most prosecutors can see such a case for what it is — a sure loser.
Not only that, but the family court judge that viewed the same evidence Kellett did gave primary custody to Vladek, not his wife. How likely is it that a family court judge would place children with a father if the judge had the slightest inkling that the father might have done what his wife claimed? Without a doubt, that judge saw the truth — an emotionally disabled mother making wild, unsubstantiated charges against her husband for the sole purpose of keeping him out of his children’s lives.
Mary Kellett didn’t care. She knew, as few others did, that she would violate any rule of prosecutorial ethics and criminal procedure in order to put an innocent man in prison. And she almost succeeded. Filler was at first convicted, but the very judge who heard his trial for rape overturned the conviction on — of course — the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct.
But Kellett wasn’t finished. Ligia also claimed that Vladek had tossed water on her during an argument. Now, most prosecutors wouldn’t waste their time on such a trivial matter, particularly since, once again, there was no evidence that Vladek had done any such thing. But again, he was convicted, and again it was due to Kellett’s misconduct. Filler served 21 days in jail.
It is that conviction that the appellate court overturned on April 24th. It too was the product of Kellett’s many ethical violations.
But Filler is not a man to allow injustice to run free in the streets. Not content with complete vindication of all his actions by courts of law, he took on the District Attorney’s Office and Mary Kellett specifically, filing a grievance against her for her blatant wrongdoing.
He won that one too. Mary Kellett now has the distinction of being the only prosecutor in the history of the state to have been suspended from the practice of law due to her ethical violations while in the service of the people of the county.
But even that isn’t the end of the story. In last year’s election, DA Bossano was ousted from office due in no small part to her failure to oversee the corrupt behavior of her subordinate, Kellett.
In short, Vladek Filler’s story is that of a lone man standing up to a system of criminal prosecution that was all too used to running roughshod over men accused of sexual assault. What Mary Kellett did in Filler’s case are the actions of a lawyer to whom it never occurs that there might be adverse consequences to her violations of law. Almost certainly, she’d done similar things countless times before and was astonished when one person stood up and shouted “Halt!”
Mary Kellett is now out of a job and has a black mark on her record as an attorney.
If this had been an NBA championship series, Vladek Filler would have swept the opposition. Eight years later, he has his children and his criminal record is unblemished. He is indeed a free man.
What he doesn’t have, though, is his good name. Oh, the people who know him admire him and he has the love of his children and the avid support of his sister who did yeoman service on his behalf throughout his legal ordeal.
But the same Maine news media that were all too eager to shout from the rooftops allegations made against him, that reported his convictions, that unquestioningly channeled Ligia’s false claims and Kellett’s false statements about the case have suddenly gone quiet. Yes, those who were happy to convict an innocent man in their own court — that of public opinion — don’t care to report the fact that, at long last, he’s not guilty of the offenses charged. So far, not a word of his exoneration has been reported in the local or state news media.
In its own way, that’s every bit as shameful as Mary Kellett’s illegal, immoral and unethical conduct.
But in the end, Vladek Filler is the last man standing. For eight years, he stood against the enormous power of the state criminal justice system and won. That’s something for every reader of this blog to ponder. Vladek Filler’s grit and determination have been rewarded. Maybe yours can be as well.
And perhaps best of all, there are two kids (no longer little) down in Georgia who have a father they can look up to. They too can learn a thing or two about the power of being right and not backing down. Those kids may not yet realize it, but they’ve got a dad whose example will serve them all their lives.
Source
This is great. I've been following this from the beginning and now I'm glad it has been concluded. This is a solid MRA victory. This is one we should be proud of. We were pushed around and now we are pushing back. We weren't nice about things we were militant and we accomplished a successful pushback. Thank you to all those involved. For all those did the work and activism know that your work has paid off and that not only is Vladek Filler a free man Mary N. Kellett is a disbarred disgraced feminist former attorney who found out the hard way that you don't fuck with MRA's. We gave feminists an asswhopping they won't soon forget.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Wikipedia fires feminist editors
As was reported on Reaxxion just a few months ago, the #GamerGate controversy was invited onto Wikipedia by none other than Jimmy Wales himself. As the article was being written, however, it became apparent that many of the editors had an ideological bent against ethical journalism practices and were attempting to portray #GamerGate as nothing more than the usual muh-soggy-knee and harassment of females. There were many who believed that the #GamerGate Wikipedia article would forever remain in control of SJW’s, but Jimmy decided to call out the white washing and directly lobby for the removal of the biased editors.
At first, nothing happened and the #GamerGate article remained a bunch of propaganda. However, behind the scenes of Wikipedia a resolution process was quietly underway, with dedicated editors tirelessly working to present the gamers side of the story and resist being silenced. Across Twitter, Reddit, and Tumblr, battles raged in the fight for Wikipedia.
Everything came to a head this past weekend when Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee, also known as ArbCom, decided to topic-ban many editors not only from discussing #GamerGate, but also from any gender related issues on all of Wikipedia. The hammer came down much harder than anticipated and many hardcore feminists who counted on influential Wikipedia editors to shill the party line now found themselves ally-less. The official ruling reads:
Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.
Amazing how what started as a dispute over video games has now extended to cover all of feminism. This is the unintended consequence of politicizing a topic that shouldn’t be politicized. The blowback against Wikipedia’s feminist ideologues is so harsh that I wouldn’t be surprised to see these editors quit altogether (god knows if they have anything else better to do with their time other than to follow their university brainwashing). These users were basically single-purpose editors, and it was obvious that they could not be neutral on sex-related topics.
Pathetically enough, you have the “other side” of anti-GG’s writing at the Guardian and Gawker claiming that the feminists of Wikipedia were unfairly discriminated against, while the pro-GG editors were only throwaway accounts whose bans mean nothing. However, considering that the feminists were only topic-banned and not perma-banned, what is the problem? If these feminist accounts were really interested in being good Wikicitizens, why does it matter if they cannot comment on just one particular topic in a website with thousands of topics? It’s obvious that these feminist editors weren’t interested in anything other than pushing their agenda, otherwise this ban would mean nothing to them.
The true colors of the feminist editors are clearly exposed if you visit Jimmy Wales’ talk page, where already the whining and anger is on full display from those affected by the ban. The butthurt is real:
The Arbitration Committee is probably the biggest factor to Wikipedia’s disrepute, especially towards female and LGBT editors. I said so after Sexology, I said so after Manning naming dispute, I said so after GGTF, and I’m saying it again now after Gamergate. In all four cases, people who were trying to prevent specialised POV pushing from bigots were reprimanded severely and said bigots were given free reign in their topic areas. Far from being a neutral arbiter of disputes, ArbCom, no matter who is on it, seems intent on keeping and worsening the heterosexual cisgender white male systemic point of view.
– Sceptre
If you were skeptical of just how crazy and idiotic some of these feminists are, re-read the bold in the quote above. First is the statement that no matter who is in on it, ArbCom will have a terrible hetrosexual cisgender white male POV. Of course this is a contradiction in terms, because the solution is to get rid of straight white males, is it not? And it’s not like such a thing should be hard—after all, just get more women to sign up as Wikipedia editors! The entire draw behind Wikipedia is that anyone can edit an article, so there’s nothing stopping women from being altruistic enough to edit millions of articles, for free, right? Right!? And after they finish editing the next Wikipedia article, for free, we can expect women to go out and pay for the next man they have a date with, no doubt.
Second, what the hell is a cisgender white male? I’ve probably read more feminist literature than the average feminist (pop quiz: who is Jean Paul Sartre and why is he important to second wave feminism?), and I still can’t figure out what a cisgender white male is. The term cisgender must imply something negative to be avoided, so why not just call them cisgender and leave it at that? What difference does it make if it’s male or female?
The third and most revealing part of the above quote is just how badly feminist shills have infiltrated a website dedicated to a neutral point of view. Such shills have no place on Wikipedia. Anyone who takes the feminist ideology so seriously they need to label anyone who disagrees with them is plainly brainwashed. It’s sad that such people exist, but the world was cruel to them. Nonetheless, they are not Wikipedia editor material.
The fallout from this decision means that many Wikipedia articles, such as on Cultural Marxism, #GamerGate, and the Frankfurt School, can actually be given a fair treatment for disinterested third-parties to read and decide for themselves. This is a big victory for gamers, free speech, and anyone else who opposes fringe feminism. May today’s culture warriors continue forward emboldened by their efforts, knowing it is not in vain.
Source
I believe this is the best response to the feminists at Wikipedia getting fired. Fuck you,bitches you lose.Way to go Jimmy Wales. Jimmy,if you're reading this you know who else fucked up Wikipedia and hired the feminists thereby dragging your reputation and that of Wikipedia in the ground? Kevin Gorman that's who. You may want to fire his ass too.
At first, nothing happened and the #GamerGate article remained a bunch of propaganda. However, behind the scenes of Wikipedia a resolution process was quietly underway, with dedicated editors tirelessly working to present the gamers side of the story and resist being silenced. Across Twitter, Reddit, and Tumblr, battles raged in the fight for Wikipedia.
Everything came to a head this past weekend when Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee, also known as ArbCom, decided to topic-ban many editors not only from discussing #GamerGate, but also from any gender related issues on all of Wikipedia. The hammer came down much harder than anticipated and many hardcore feminists who counted on influential Wikipedia editors to shill the party line now found themselves ally-less. The official ruling reads:
Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.
Amazing how what started as a dispute over video games has now extended to cover all of feminism. This is the unintended consequence of politicizing a topic that shouldn’t be politicized. The blowback against Wikipedia’s feminist ideologues is so harsh that I wouldn’t be surprised to see these editors quit altogether (god knows if they have anything else better to do with their time other than to follow their university brainwashing). These users were basically single-purpose editors, and it was obvious that they could not be neutral on sex-related topics.
Pathetically enough, you have the “other side” of anti-GG’s writing at the Guardian and Gawker claiming that the feminists of Wikipedia were unfairly discriminated against, while the pro-GG editors were only throwaway accounts whose bans mean nothing. However, considering that the feminists were only topic-banned and not perma-banned, what is the problem? If these feminist accounts were really interested in being good Wikicitizens, why does it matter if they cannot comment on just one particular topic in a website with thousands of topics? It’s obvious that these feminist editors weren’t interested in anything other than pushing their agenda, otherwise this ban would mean nothing to them.
The true colors of the feminist editors are clearly exposed if you visit Jimmy Wales’ talk page, where already the whining and anger is on full display from those affected by the ban. The butthurt is real:
The Arbitration Committee is probably the biggest factor to Wikipedia’s disrepute, especially towards female and LGBT editors. I said so after Sexology, I said so after Manning naming dispute, I said so after GGTF, and I’m saying it again now after Gamergate. In all four cases, people who were trying to prevent specialised POV pushing from bigots were reprimanded severely and said bigots were given free reign in their topic areas. Far from being a neutral arbiter of disputes, ArbCom, no matter who is on it, seems intent on keeping and worsening the heterosexual cisgender white male systemic point of view.
– Sceptre
If you were skeptical of just how crazy and idiotic some of these feminists are, re-read the bold in the quote above. First is the statement that no matter who is in on it, ArbCom will have a terrible hetrosexual cisgender white male POV. Of course this is a contradiction in terms, because the solution is to get rid of straight white males, is it not? And it’s not like such a thing should be hard—after all, just get more women to sign up as Wikipedia editors! The entire draw behind Wikipedia is that anyone can edit an article, so there’s nothing stopping women from being altruistic enough to edit millions of articles, for free, right? Right!? And after they finish editing the next Wikipedia article, for free, we can expect women to go out and pay for the next man they have a date with, no doubt.
Second, what the hell is a cisgender white male? I’ve probably read more feminist literature than the average feminist (pop quiz: who is Jean Paul Sartre and why is he important to second wave feminism?), and I still can’t figure out what a cisgender white male is. The term cisgender must imply something negative to be avoided, so why not just call them cisgender and leave it at that? What difference does it make if it’s male or female?
The third and most revealing part of the above quote is just how badly feminist shills have infiltrated a website dedicated to a neutral point of view. Such shills have no place on Wikipedia. Anyone who takes the feminist ideology so seriously they need to label anyone who disagrees with them is plainly brainwashed. It’s sad that such people exist, but the world was cruel to them. Nonetheless, they are not Wikipedia editor material.
The fallout from this decision means that many Wikipedia articles, such as on Cultural Marxism, #GamerGate, and the Frankfurt School, can actually be given a fair treatment for disinterested third-parties to read and decide for themselves. This is a big victory for gamers, free speech, and anyone else who opposes fringe feminism. May today’s culture warriors continue forward emboldened by their efforts, knowing it is not in vain.
Source
I believe this is the best response to the feminists at Wikipedia getting fired. Fuck you,bitches you lose.Way to go Jimmy Wales. Jimmy,if you're reading this you know who else fucked up Wikipedia and hired the feminists thereby dragging your reputation and that of Wikipedia in the ground? Kevin Gorman that's who. You may want to fire his ass too.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Monday, January 19, 2015
All men are rapists
One Day, All Men Will Be Considered RapistsJANUARY 13, 2015, 5:06 PM 41
One of the things defenders of feminism continue to vehemently deny is that it contains elements of outright man hatred. “It’s just about equality”, they’ll say. Even if there are reams upon reams of evidence of feminist theoreticians from the 1970s until today attacking heterosexual men as such, that’s not representative of what most who identify as feminists, most of whom “only want equality”, believe.
To which I will reply: nice try. One need only look at how public and policy discussions of inter-gender violence don’t even bother to ask about women’s violence towards men. A good example of this is domestic violence, which has been shown time and again in non-feminist surveys and studies to come from both directions, but in public campaigns, it is always only the men who abuse. Another example of this bias is rape.
Rape is a horrific and execrable crime. To the extent that it is possible within the confines of the law and due process, rapists can and should be punished to the maximum. But moral panic about rape, fueled by claims of “rape culture” and anti-male stereotypes has turned the campaign against criminals into one which paints as many men as possible – most of them innocent – as criminals.
The worst example of this thus far is the often touted statistic of “1 in 5″ women are raped on college campuses, with the implicit hint that as many as 1 in 5 men are rapists. This is a statement based on single and highly problematic study, which greatly expanded the definition of sexual assault beyond even what the respondents considered to be such. It has been debunked and picked apart time and again; more responsible and thorough studies by the American Department of Justice put the number far lower. Yet the meme of “1 in 5″ lives on.
Now that number threatens to become worse. A recent study even more distorted than the first is now being reported, with the blazing headlines on feminist sites that fully 1 in 3 (!) men would rape a women if they faced no consequences for doing so. Critics can and will point to the small sample size, the even more distorted method of questioning and the fact that asked about a theoretical and impossible consequence-free world – most men and women would admit to wanting to commit all manner of crimes and horrific acts.
But to the feminist activists, all means are legitimate in the fight against patriarchy, rape culture and heterosexuality. All that matters to them is that 1 in 5 will soon become 1 in 3. Pretty soon, it will be 1 in 2. You know what comes next.
This is not a debate about gender roles. It is not about economics or the esoterica of hateful radicals in an ivory tower. This is a war, an ideological campaign to smear all men as moral monsters. It is not a war against “patriarchy” or some imagined evil rich guy. This is a war on men as such – of all races and social classes. It is a war against your brothers, sons, fathers, friends and relatives. And right now, the bad guys and girls are winning.
Silent disapproval of this campaign is nowhere near enough. Anyone who truly cares about men, anyone who means what they say when they claim they are for all genders, must openly, vocally and repeatedly fight back and help turn the tide before it’s too late.
As for those of you who truly believe that all men are guilty as charged when accused of rape regardless of evidence or circumstances and that they are all truly monsters – may I suggest you practice wearing white sheets, because there is no moral difference between your attitude and that of racists who used to hang innocent Black men from trees on false rape charges. You are a bigot. Kindly own it.
The time for action is now. I know where I stand. The question is: do you?
Source
That last sentence was something I would have wrote and he's right. What you go to do about it? I'll fight on my feet before I'll live on my knees. That's what I'm going to do about it.
One of the things defenders of feminism continue to vehemently deny is that it contains elements of outright man hatred. “It’s just about equality”, they’ll say. Even if there are reams upon reams of evidence of feminist theoreticians from the 1970s until today attacking heterosexual men as such, that’s not representative of what most who identify as feminists, most of whom “only want equality”, believe.
To which I will reply: nice try. One need only look at how public and policy discussions of inter-gender violence don’t even bother to ask about women’s violence towards men. A good example of this is domestic violence, which has been shown time and again in non-feminist surveys and studies to come from both directions, but in public campaigns, it is always only the men who abuse. Another example of this bias is rape.
Rape is a horrific and execrable crime. To the extent that it is possible within the confines of the law and due process, rapists can and should be punished to the maximum. But moral panic about rape, fueled by claims of “rape culture” and anti-male stereotypes has turned the campaign against criminals into one which paints as many men as possible – most of them innocent – as criminals.
The worst example of this thus far is the often touted statistic of “1 in 5″ women are raped on college campuses, with the implicit hint that as many as 1 in 5 men are rapists. This is a statement based on single and highly problematic study, which greatly expanded the definition of sexual assault beyond even what the respondents considered to be such. It has been debunked and picked apart time and again; more responsible and thorough studies by the American Department of Justice put the number far lower. Yet the meme of “1 in 5″ lives on.
Now that number threatens to become worse. A recent study even more distorted than the first is now being reported, with the blazing headlines on feminist sites that fully 1 in 3 (!) men would rape a women if they faced no consequences for doing so. Critics can and will point to the small sample size, the even more distorted method of questioning and the fact that asked about a theoretical and impossible consequence-free world – most men and women would admit to wanting to commit all manner of crimes and horrific acts.
But to the feminist activists, all means are legitimate in the fight against patriarchy, rape culture and heterosexuality. All that matters to them is that 1 in 5 will soon become 1 in 3. Pretty soon, it will be 1 in 2. You know what comes next.
This is not a debate about gender roles. It is not about economics or the esoterica of hateful radicals in an ivory tower. This is a war, an ideological campaign to smear all men as moral monsters. It is not a war against “patriarchy” or some imagined evil rich guy. This is a war on men as such – of all races and social classes. It is a war against your brothers, sons, fathers, friends and relatives. And right now, the bad guys and girls are winning.
Silent disapproval of this campaign is nowhere near enough. Anyone who truly cares about men, anyone who means what they say when they claim they are for all genders, must openly, vocally and repeatedly fight back and help turn the tide before it’s too late.
As for those of you who truly believe that all men are guilty as charged when accused of rape regardless of evidence or circumstances and that they are all truly monsters – may I suggest you practice wearing white sheets, because there is no moral difference between your attitude and that of racists who used to hang innocent Black men from trees on false rape charges. You are a bigot. Kindly own it.
The time for action is now. I know where I stand. The question is: do you?
Source
That last sentence was something I would have wrote and he's right. What you go to do about it? I'll fight on my feet before I'll live on my knees. That's what I'm going to do about it.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Pro-male women?
Beware The Coming Breed of “Pro-Male” Women
By Ashlar Ben David
As Roosh accurately predicted it would a couple years ago, the manosphere is now mainstream. Excited as I am to see and be a part of this change in the direction of the narrative, I find it also prudent to discuss where these changes will lead and how we can remain vigilant—lest our guards drop and we find ourselves in unpleasant circumstances once more.
Now that feminism is starting to be considered “uncool” by many women, more and more of them will begin to openly speak against it. It does not matter if they were feminists last week; if it hurts their status today, then women will throw even their best friends under the bus without batting an eye. Many will quickly and sharply denounce their old friends, even taking the extra step of becoming openly “pro-male” if it becomes a popular stance that celebrities endorse (which it will).
To many men, this will appear to be progress. In some ways, it really will be. But consider that a “pro male” woman, a real one, is just a person who respects other people. She’s probably also a “pro female” woman, and just pro-humanity in general. As such, truly pro-male women probably never identified as feminists to begin with, having seen through the layers of deception and nonsense early on.
So the pro-male women are already the ones who are treating us well, and will continue to do so regardless of what is popular in the cultural narrative and indoctrinated into the masses through expertly hypnotic media outlets. The newly “pro-male” women we will see are simply going to be doing what women always do: outwardly going along with whatever gets them what they want, while inwardly having wildly different feelings and motives.
Remember, women are like water: their behavior conforms to the shape of whatever container you put them in.
If the media says “being feminist is uncool, being pro-male is the new black,” then women will jump on board. Their old beliefs will be discarded in a flash, since they were never real beliefs to begin with. Nor are her new ones, which is why she can make the switch without one iota of discomfort or cognitive dissonance.
The reason I am giving this warning today is that men will soon be in a uniquely vulnerable position and we will want to stay wary of this. Having been denied the opportunity to build real, loving relationships with real, loving women, we have pragmatically settled on simply sleeping with as many attractive and easy women as we can while committing nothing and compromising even less. As such, I believe that men are in a state of deep and painful yearning for true femininity—with all its supportive and healing qualities—and will be fairly easy to trick with a presentation that appears to be what we’ve been looking for.
We have seen before how prominent manosphere personalities have thrown everything out the window to get married, tarnishing their own legacies and making themselves out to be hypocrites all to lock down that “one special girl who showed them how wrong they were.” Now, I am certainly not denying the possibility that they truly did meet a unicorn, a beautiful and feminine supportive and loving woman who wasn’t just a manipulative, back-stabbing slut in a unicorn uniform.
But what all experienced men know is far more likely, is that they got tricked by a woman with better game than them. I suppose we shall see as time goes on, whether those relationships end early or not. Regardless, I don’t want to see a whole slew of learned men suddenly changing their minds and hearts because the cute girl they’re dating supports “men’s rights” or took a class about it.
Of course, the thing to keep in mind above else is this:
Women don’t really “believe in causes”—most of the time anyway. When you spend enough time around them, and around the kinds of people who “protest for causes” and “do activism,” you will tend to find that all such people—regardless of sex—are all heart and no brain, all passion and no reason, and are generally just protesting because they enjoy the feeling of it.
They think it’s fun to make signs and yell about things. And to be fair, it actually can be pretty fun. But the point is that most women are not nearly as attached to their “causes” as they seem, with the exception of the fervor with which they fight for animal rights.
So do not be fooled that the newly “pro-male” woman “gets it” so to speak, or understands the red pill man’s perspective. She does not. She has not one of the thousands of requisite male experiences she would have to have in order to “understand our side of things.”
At worst, she is saying it because she’s an undercover feminist trying to get some dirt on men. At best, she is saying it because she likes you and wants to impress you.
And as the frog sank, he surely thought “I knew it all along”….
Source
I've been talking about this until I'm blue in the face. That is why I never trusted the "pro-male woman". In fact I was banned by a "pro-male woman" so I'm aware of what they are like. There is also this. Roosh is a player so he knows a lot about women. I like to think that maybe definitions is a bridge to the rest of the manosphere,from MRA's to MGTOW's to PUA's. Proof we can work together.
By Ashlar Ben David
As Roosh accurately predicted it would a couple years ago, the manosphere is now mainstream. Excited as I am to see and be a part of this change in the direction of the narrative, I find it also prudent to discuss where these changes will lead and how we can remain vigilant—lest our guards drop and we find ourselves in unpleasant circumstances once more.
Now that feminism is starting to be considered “uncool” by many women, more and more of them will begin to openly speak against it. It does not matter if they were feminists last week; if it hurts their status today, then women will throw even their best friends under the bus without batting an eye. Many will quickly and sharply denounce their old friends, even taking the extra step of becoming openly “pro-male” if it becomes a popular stance that celebrities endorse (which it will).
To many men, this will appear to be progress. In some ways, it really will be. But consider that a “pro male” woman, a real one, is just a person who respects other people. She’s probably also a “pro female” woman, and just pro-humanity in general. As such, truly pro-male women probably never identified as feminists to begin with, having seen through the layers of deception and nonsense early on.
So the pro-male women are already the ones who are treating us well, and will continue to do so regardless of what is popular in the cultural narrative and indoctrinated into the masses through expertly hypnotic media outlets. The newly “pro-male” women we will see are simply going to be doing what women always do: outwardly going along with whatever gets them what they want, while inwardly having wildly different feelings and motives.
Remember, women are like water: their behavior conforms to the shape of whatever container you put them in.
If the media says “being feminist is uncool, being pro-male is the new black,” then women will jump on board. Their old beliefs will be discarded in a flash, since they were never real beliefs to begin with. Nor are her new ones, which is why she can make the switch without one iota of discomfort or cognitive dissonance.
The reason I am giving this warning today is that men will soon be in a uniquely vulnerable position and we will want to stay wary of this. Having been denied the opportunity to build real, loving relationships with real, loving women, we have pragmatically settled on simply sleeping with as many attractive and easy women as we can while committing nothing and compromising even less. As such, I believe that men are in a state of deep and painful yearning for true femininity—with all its supportive and healing qualities—and will be fairly easy to trick with a presentation that appears to be what we’ve been looking for.
We have seen before how prominent manosphere personalities have thrown everything out the window to get married, tarnishing their own legacies and making themselves out to be hypocrites all to lock down that “one special girl who showed them how wrong they were.” Now, I am certainly not denying the possibility that they truly did meet a unicorn, a beautiful and feminine supportive and loving woman who wasn’t just a manipulative, back-stabbing slut in a unicorn uniform.
But what all experienced men know is far more likely, is that they got tricked by a woman with better game than them. I suppose we shall see as time goes on, whether those relationships end early or not. Regardless, I don’t want to see a whole slew of learned men suddenly changing their minds and hearts because the cute girl they’re dating supports “men’s rights” or took a class about it.
Of course, the thing to keep in mind above else is this:
Women don’t really “believe in causes”—most of the time anyway. When you spend enough time around them, and around the kinds of people who “protest for causes” and “do activism,” you will tend to find that all such people—regardless of sex—are all heart and no brain, all passion and no reason, and are generally just protesting because they enjoy the feeling of it.
They think it’s fun to make signs and yell about things. And to be fair, it actually can be pretty fun. But the point is that most women are not nearly as attached to their “causes” as they seem, with the exception of the fervor with which they fight for animal rights.
So do not be fooled that the newly “pro-male” woman “gets it” so to speak, or understands the red pill man’s perspective. She does not. She has not one of the thousands of requisite male experiences she would have to have in order to “understand our side of things.”
At worst, she is saying it because she’s an undercover feminist trying to get some dirt on men. At best, she is saying it because she likes you and wants to impress you.
And as the frog sank, he surely thought “I knew it all along”….
Source
I've been talking about this until I'm blue in the face. That is why I never trusted the "pro-male woman". In fact I was banned by a "pro-male woman" so I'm aware of what they are like. There is also this. Roosh is a player so he knows a lot about women. I like to think that maybe definitions is a bridge to the rest of the manosphere,from MRA's to MGTOW's to PUA's. Proof we can work together.
Saturday, November 22, 2014
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.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Feminist go after man and get royally fucked
Feminists go after man and try to get him fired with help from a feminist who is one of his co-workers. They tell his female boss they are going after him. We've seen cases like this before where the man loses his job while feminist score another victory at the expense of men. Well it is my pleasure to tell you that did not occur. In fact the man won this one. Look at the video.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Futrelle's commenters and my response to them
These are some of the comments posted about me on Fooltrelle's website. Since Dave is selective on which comments he'll allow to be published (yes he's rejected my comments many times so I didn't "run away" as one of them put it). Here are their comments and my reactions:
Emama:
I’m sorry you are subjected to this vileness, David. You are a brave man, and what you do is vitally important.
Is it feasible to contact law enforcement when one is targeted with such specific threats of assault? It is criminal, to my mind.
here
And we'll send feminists to prison in retaliation.
Daintydougal:
Sometimes mrm memes* make me angry, sometimes they confuse me, the above linked just made me smile.
A stockphoto of a conventionally attractive woman laughing?
“This is how women view men’s pain”
ADORABLE.
here
You call me a misogynist yet you practice misandry. Hypocrite.
Daintydougal:
CLASSIC.
Reading his…writings, you dave futrelle are now a jellyfish submitting to a mistress.
here
A moment of clarity.
Anarchonist:
I’m drunk as fuck right now, and shouldn’t be commenting at all, but screw that. I’m stuck at this:
He lists Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power as one of his favorite books
He lists Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power as one of his favorite books.
He lists Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power as one of his favorite books.
Just… just imagine the level of failure involved in that. Like, daymn.
I’ve read that book. Anyone who likes it is a shitload of diarrhea wrapped in herpes and syphilis and seasoned with seething hatred of life,
beauty and reason. Bull-fucking-shit. Masculinist Man is a reprehensible person, a rape-apologist and a willful idiot. And also a poopyhead.
Look for more hatefilled comments in our new product, “I can’t believe it’s not an over-the-top cartoon villain!”
David, you’re awesome. That is all.
here
Praising fucktrelle is something a drunk would do.
Daintydougal:
@ grumpycatisagirl
It’s a terribly clever play on the fact that David is spineless. You see because jellyfishes don’t have spines. Also it was ‘mistresses’ which
was even more dramatic. For David ex-priest celibate jellyfish only ever does anything to curry favour with women. Though all us commentators are
apparently lesbian feminists or wannabes(?) so quite why he’s so desperate to impress us I don’t know.
here
This is the only shot at sex he has. The neighborhood children run from him and no amount of money will get a hooker to even go near him. So feminazi pussy is the only shot he has.
Michelle C Young:
I haven’t seen “In the Company of Men,” but I read the synopsis. It appears that a couple of men were hurt by some women, and they decide to get
revenge on “womankind,” by targeting a completely innocent woman, who never did anything to hurt them.
Revenge – you’re doing it wrong. You’re supposed to hurt the one who hurt you in the first place, not innocent bystanders. You hurt the innocent
bystanders, and the ones who hurt you, in the first place, go blissfully on through their lives, completely unaware of anything you’re doing, and
not in the least bit hurt by your actions. Plus, INNOCENT bystanders? That’s not revenge. That’s just plain evil.
Sounds way too skeevy to me.
here
Thelma and Louise did the same thing and feminists love them.
Michelle C Young:
@Lea – If you enjoy watching bad movies, may I recommend “Hydra”? It’s so ridiculously bad.
My favorite scene is when the hydra bites the head off a man, and “blood” splatters across the camera. Then, the shot changes to an overhead shot
of the forest, and you hear the LOUD and tortured screams of the man whose head was just bitten OFF.
Logic! Why, it’s just as logical as an MRA.
here
So you like the idea of killing men. Then get off my case hypocrite.
Buttercup Q Skullpants:
I’ve been a masculist for over 20 years and have been very activist,both on and offline. I’ve debated phonies and feminists and have prevailed
over both
According to who? The Internet Argument Judges? Do they hold up little cards saying “10.0″ every time he comments?
Also, there’s a certain irony in someone with “KARMA” in his handle calling up people in the middle of the night to leave threatening, creepy
messages. Karma has a way of coming back around and rebounding on the original actor, no matter how aggrieved they may feel. People confuse karma
with one-sided, permanent, consequence-free revenge, and that isn’t what the concept is about. Karma is never-ending. The whole point is to try
to get rid of it, not magnify it with threats and violence. It’s another instance of an MRA perverting a term to suit their own purposes without
fully understanding it.
Thanks for all the work you do exposing this vile movement, David. Every playground insult they hurl at you is a badge of honor.
here
I used facts and they couldn't refute what I was saying. That's how I won. That is how we will win.
Emama:
I’m sorry you are subjected to this vileness, David. You are a brave man, and what you do is vitally important.
Is it feasible to contact law enforcement when one is targeted with such specific threats of assault? It is criminal, to my mind.
here
And we'll send feminists to prison in retaliation.
Daintydougal:
Sometimes mrm memes* make me angry, sometimes they confuse me, the above linked just made me smile.
A stockphoto of a conventionally attractive woman laughing?
“This is how women view men’s pain”
ADORABLE.
here
You call me a misogynist yet you practice misandry. Hypocrite.
Daintydougal:
CLASSIC.
Reading his…writings, you dave futrelle are now a jellyfish submitting to a mistress.
here
A moment of clarity.
Anarchonist:
I’m drunk as fuck right now, and shouldn’t be commenting at all, but screw that. I’m stuck at this:
He lists Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power as one of his favorite books
He lists Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power as one of his favorite books.
He lists Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power as one of his favorite books.
Just… just imagine the level of failure involved in that. Like, daymn.
I’ve read that book. Anyone who likes it is a shitload of diarrhea wrapped in herpes and syphilis and seasoned with seething hatred of life,
beauty and reason. Bull-fucking-shit. Masculinist Man is a reprehensible person, a rape-apologist and a willful idiot. And also a poopyhead.
Look for more hatefilled comments in our new product, “I can’t believe it’s not an over-the-top cartoon villain!”
David, you’re awesome. That is all.
here
Praising fucktrelle is something a drunk would do.
Daintydougal:
@ grumpycatisagirl
It’s a terribly clever play on the fact that David is spineless. You see because jellyfishes don’t have spines. Also it was ‘mistresses’ which
was even more dramatic. For David ex-priest celibate jellyfish only ever does anything to curry favour with women. Though all us commentators are
apparently lesbian feminists or wannabes(?) so quite why he’s so desperate to impress us I don’t know.
here
This is the only shot at sex he has. The neighborhood children run from him and no amount of money will get a hooker to even go near him. So feminazi pussy is the only shot he has.
Michelle C Young:
I haven’t seen “In the Company of Men,” but I read the synopsis. It appears that a couple of men were hurt by some women, and they decide to get
revenge on “womankind,” by targeting a completely innocent woman, who never did anything to hurt them.
Revenge – you’re doing it wrong. You’re supposed to hurt the one who hurt you in the first place, not innocent bystanders. You hurt the innocent
bystanders, and the ones who hurt you, in the first place, go blissfully on through their lives, completely unaware of anything you’re doing, and
not in the least bit hurt by your actions. Plus, INNOCENT bystanders? That’s not revenge. That’s just plain evil.
Sounds way too skeevy to me.
here
Thelma and Louise did the same thing and feminists love them.
Michelle C Young:
@Lea – If you enjoy watching bad movies, may I recommend “Hydra”? It’s so ridiculously bad.
My favorite scene is when the hydra bites the head off a man, and “blood” splatters across the camera. Then, the shot changes to an overhead shot
of the forest, and you hear the LOUD and tortured screams of the man whose head was just bitten OFF.
Logic! Why, it’s just as logical as an MRA.
here
So you like the idea of killing men. Then get off my case hypocrite.
Buttercup Q Skullpants:
I’ve been a masculist for over 20 years and have been very activist,both on and offline. I’ve debated phonies and feminists and have prevailed
over both
According to who? The Internet Argument Judges? Do they hold up little cards saying “10.0″ every time he comments?
Also, there’s a certain irony in someone with “KARMA” in his handle calling up people in the middle of the night to leave threatening, creepy
messages. Karma has a way of coming back around and rebounding on the original actor, no matter how aggrieved they may feel. People confuse karma
with one-sided, permanent, consequence-free revenge, and that isn’t what the concept is about. Karma is never-ending. The whole point is to try
to get rid of it, not magnify it with threats and violence. It’s another instance of an MRA perverting a term to suit their own purposes without
fully understanding it.
Thanks for all the work you do exposing this vile movement, David. Every playground insult they hurl at you is a badge of honor.
here
I used facts and they couldn't refute what I was saying. That's how I won. That is how we will win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)