Norah Vincent, a lesbian writer, goes undercover as Ned, a working class man, to discover the inner workings of male behaviour. Her 18 month experiment, written about in the 2006 book Self-Made Man, ended with mental distress and depression. She discovered that male privilege is a myth, that women have all the power and are cold, distant, and cruel, and that being a man is a whole lot more difficult than anyone in modern politically correct society is allowed to think.
Here is a 19 minute television feature.
Showing posts with label Feminazis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Feminazis. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Monday, August 11, 2014
Women Against Feminism
Supposedly fewer women are identifying as feminists. I don't know, I didn't check the actual study, if there was one. BUT, if that's true it is fantastic. This disease must be eradicated.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
Monday, March 10, 2014
Bullshit Feminism
Why does the mere act of advocating for men and boys earn knee-jerk
accusations of misogyny? Why the bad reaction when anyone dares to say,
"What about the men?" Why is it okay to criticize men but not women?
What are the underlying instincts at play in our perceptions of male and
female? And why will it all be nearly impossible to change?
accusations of misogyny? Why the bad reaction when anyone dares to say,
"What about the men?" Why is it okay to criticize men but not women?
What are the underlying instincts at play in our perceptions of male and
female? And why will it all be nearly impossible to change?
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Interview With Dr. Nicholas Cummings
Nicholas Cummings is the former head of the APA (American Psychological Association) and has done all of this. He led the movement to have homosexuality declassified as a mental illness AND he supports same sex marriage. He can't possibly be "anti-gay" or "homophobic". He's done more for homosexuals than most other people have, especially the bully pulpit that has taken over the media with their megaphones and shout-down sessions. However he is deeply distrubed by the escalating trend away from science toward "political correctness" when studying homosexuality and developing public policy, as well as the intense venomous hostility toward all debate and even recognising that someone can hold an opposing viewpoint and deserve to live.
File this under crap I don't want to think about but I don't get that luxury because it's everywhere and I've learned way more about the topic than I ever wanted to, along with all this:
• Global Warming - now "Climate Change" because if it's getting warmer or cooler it's still YOUR fault and you should feel bad.
• Uri Geller (I STILL have never written anything close to being longer than "Forbidden Knowledge" for The Urban Mystic)
• The Arab Spring
• Feminazism
• Eugenics
Saturday, December 28, 2013
I'm a sexy woman, so stop objectifying me!
Why is it deemed perfectly okay for women to objectify David Beckham,
while men who waggle their eyebrows at pretty young women are considered
pigs?
Watch and subscribe. Brilliant channel.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
The War Against Boys
Christina Hoff Sommers discusses the war against boys, feminism, and
gender equity at this University of Pennsylvania Law School event. I should note I have talked about this issue myself many times.
Runs 33 minutes.
gender equity at this University of Pennsylvania Law School event. I should note I have talked about this issue myself many times.
Runs 33 minutes.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Arizona Law Does Not Harm Women
HuffPo is about as anti-choice as one can get!
Vous may have heard of a new law in Arizona that liberal racists hate (they tend to hate everything from Arizona because they don't actually have to live there), called HB 2036. The title of a Huff the Magic Dragon article reads "Arizona Passes Abortion Law That Says Pregnancy Begins Before A Child Has Been Conceived," and claims that this is "another blow to reproductive rights in the US" (when was the first blow? - that's what she said). It goes on to say:
"Aside from banning all abortions after 20 weeks, defined from the date of the woman's last period instead of conception except in the case of medical emergency, it will force women considering abortion because of fetal abnormalities to have counselling, and for women having an abortion to have an ultrasound.
"It also says the age of a foetus is "is calculated from the first day of the last [woman's] menstrual period.""
I did something HuffPo didn't do, and actually read the text of HB 2036. Here's what it says regarding the beginning of pregnancy:
""Pregnant" or "pregnancy" means a female reproductive condition of having a developing unborn child in the body and that begins with conception.
Abortion does not include birth control devices, oral contraceptives used to inhibit or prevent ovulation, conception or the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterus or the use of any means to i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶b̶a̶b̶i̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶l̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶b̶i̶r̶t̶h̶ save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child, to preserve the life or health of the child after a live birth, to terminate an ectopic pregnancy or to remove a dead fetus" (from the final, ammended version, strikethrough and emphasis included).
Right in the title the HuffPo article is lying, and it's not just lying out of ignorance or neglecting to mention something, it's a blatant lie. The text actually says pregnancy begins at conception, not before.
One thing HuffPo got right is how gestational age is calculated, as the actual text reads: "the age of the unborn child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman." However, there's nothing controversial about that at all. According to the National Institutes of Health: "In human obstetrics, gestational age is often defined as the time
elapsed since 14 days prior to fertilization. This is approximately the
duration since the woman's last menstrual period (LMP) began." The Arizona law is using the national standard system for calculating the age of the unborn child, not making up some draconian anti-women rule. Everyone's calculations are done that way; there is absolutely nothing controversial about that.
What about restricting (not banning) abortions after 20 weeks? Well, according to the CDC only 1.3% of all abortions in America and 0.8% of all abortions in Arizona happen after 20 weeks anyway. HuffPo is arguing over less than one percent of abortions in the state, and many of them (all 105 in 2004) probably had either maternal or fetal health factor in in some way (the later in term an abortion is the greater the risk to the mother, so getting an abortion halfway through the second trimester isn't nearly as safe as earlier on), so there's no saying that this number will be affected in any way at all.
What about the other provisions? What's wrong with giving women considering getting an abortion counseling? It's a huge decision, one not to be taken lightly. One does not simply wake up one morning and says "hey, I'll get an abortion, then I'll get cake and celebrate!" This is something that requires a lot of thought, does carry health risks (there are some studies suggesting an abortion-breast cancer link; I don't know, I haven't read them), and has psychological repercussions (a lot of women have to deal with post-abortion depression, not unlike postpartum depression). This isn't the same thing as buying a hat, this isn't even the same as buying a car, this is something not to be decided upon brashly. By all means, let women considering an abortion talk it out with someone in a calm, adult fashion.
And what of ultrasounds? What's wrong with that? The bigger the decision the more information you should have before you make it. You wouldn't buy a car by going to a dealership and picking one at random? Doesn't "pro-choice" mean just that, pro-CHOICE? Shouldn't the woman considering an abortion be given information from BOTH sides so she can make an informed CHOICE, and not just pro-abortion propaganda? How is it possible to make a choice if one is given a single option? Arizona's new law actually promotes genuine choice, and actually empowers women (is it not said that "knowledge is power"?). But HuffPo wouldn't know that - I doubt they read the actual text of the law - and they certainly don't want their readers to know that because they never linked to the actual law itself! They expect their readers to take their word for it and not do their own research and make up their own minds! HuffPo is about as anti-choice as one can get!
Vous may have heard of a new law in Arizona that liberal racists hate (they tend to hate everything from Arizona because they don't actually have to live there), called HB 2036. The title of a Huff the Magic Dragon article reads "Arizona Passes Abortion Law That Says Pregnancy Begins Before A Child Has Been Conceived," and claims that this is "another blow to reproductive rights in the US" (when was the first blow? - that's what she said). It goes on to say:
"Aside from banning all abortions after 20 weeks, defined from the date of the woman's last period instead of conception except in the case of medical emergency, it will force women considering abortion because of fetal abnormalities to have counselling, and for women having an abortion to have an ultrasound.
"It also says the age of a foetus is "is calculated from the first day of the last [woman's] menstrual period.""
I did something HuffPo didn't do, and actually read the text of HB 2036. Here's what it says regarding the beginning of pregnancy:
""Pregnant" or "pregnancy" means a female reproductive condition of having a developing unborn child in the body and that begins with conception.
Abortion does not include birth control devices, oral contraceptives used to inhibit or prevent ovulation, conception or the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterus or the use of any means to i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶b̶a̶b̶i̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶l̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶b̶i̶r̶t̶h̶ save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child, to preserve the life or health of the child after a live birth, to terminate an ectopic pregnancy or to remove a dead fetus" (from the final, ammended version, strikethrough and emphasis included).
Right in the title the HuffPo article is lying, and it's not just lying out of ignorance or neglecting to mention something, it's a blatant lie. The text actually says pregnancy begins at conception, not before.
One thing HuffPo got right is how gestational age is calculated, as the actual text reads: "the age of the unborn child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman." However, there's nothing controversial about that at all. According to the National Institutes of Health: "In human obstetrics, gestational age is often defined as the time
elapsed since 14 days prior to fertilization. This is approximately the
duration since the woman's last menstrual period (LMP) began." The Arizona law is using the national standard system for calculating the age of the unborn child, not making up some draconian anti-women rule. Everyone's calculations are done that way; there is absolutely nothing controversial about that.
What about restricting (not banning) abortions after 20 weeks? Well, according to the CDC only 1.3% of all abortions in America and 0.8% of all abortions in Arizona happen after 20 weeks anyway. HuffPo is arguing over less than one percent of abortions in the state, and many of them (all 105 in 2004) probably had either maternal or fetal health factor in in some way (the later in term an abortion is the greater the risk to the mother, so getting an abortion halfway through the second trimester isn't nearly as safe as earlier on), so there's no saying that this number will be affected in any way at all.
What about the other provisions? What's wrong with giving women considering getting an abortion counseling? It's a huge decision, one not to be taken lightly. One does not simply wake up one morning and says "hey, I'll get an abortion, then I'll get cake and celebrate!" This is something that requires a lot of thought, does carry health risks (there are some studies suggesting an abortion-breast cancer link; I don't know, I haven't read them), and has psychological repercussions (a lot of women have to deal with post-abortion depression, not unlike postpartum depression). This isn't the same thing as buying a hat, this isn't even the same as buying a car, this is something not to be decided upon brashly. By all means, let women considering an abortion talk it out with someone in a calm, adult fashion.
And what of ultrasounds? What's wrong with that? The bigger the decision the more information you should have before you make it. You wouldn't buy a car by going to a dealership and picking one at random? Doesn't "pro-choice" mean just that, pro-CHOICE? Shouldn't the woman considering an abortion be given information from BOTH sides so she can make an informed CHOICE, and not just pro-abortion propaganda? How is it possible to make a choice if one is given a single option? Arizona's new law actually promotes genuine choice, and actually empowers women (is it not said that "knowledge is power"?). But HuffPo wouldn't know that - I doubt they read the actual text of the law - and they certainly don't want their readers to know that because they never linked to the actual law itself! They expect their readers to take their word for it and not do their own research and make up their own minds! HuffPo is about as anti-choice as one can get!
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
An Incident at a McDonalds
Okay, there's some harpy shouting "STOP!" throughout the video, but ignore her.
Basically a very rowdy customer (a colossal bitch) berrated a McDonalds' cashier for some minor mistake, hit him, jumped the counter and he ran. He returns with a whup-ass stick (it looks like a crowbar) and does something to her her parents forgot to do. Her bitch friend jumps the counter too and she gets what's coming as well. Absolutely, the man was defending himself and the customers got what they deserved. Cashiers take way too much shit from way too many assaholic customers as is. These two bitches went too far and the cashier went Michael Douglass in Falling Down on their asses. Of course the cashier was charged with felony assault. REGARDLESS of his background (he did kill someone once and paid his debt) his actions were self-defense and completely justified. Guaran-damn-tee if the two customers were MEN this wouldn't even be a news story, but because they were women and we live in a gynocracy the big bad man has to be punished. Boo hoo, call the wambulance. Watch the video below and see the whacks of justice being delivered in the name of every cashier who is abused by customers.
Basically a very rowdy customer (a colossal bitch) berrated a McDonalds' cashier for some minor mistake, hit him, jumped the counter and he ran. He returns with a whup-ass stick (it looks like a crowbar) and does something to her her parents forgot to do. Her bitch friend jumps the counter too and she gets what's coming as well. Absolutely, the man was defending himself and the customers got what they deserved. Cashiers take way too much shit from way too many assaholic customers as is. These two bitches went too far and the cashier went Michael Douglass in Falling Down on their asses. Of course the cashier was charged with felony assault. REGARDLESS of his background (he did kill someone once and paid his debt) his actions were self-defense and completely justified. Guaran-damn-tee if the two customers were MEN this wouldn't even be a news story, but because they were women and we live in a gynocracy the big bad man has to be punished. Boo hoo, call the wambulance. Watch the video below and see the whacks of justice being delivered in the name of every cashier who is abused by customers.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Don't Take This The Wrong Way
The Amazing Atheist calls Rebecca sexist, and I completely agree. He also congratulates her for getting Richard Dawking to actually comment on her insignificant non-problem mere moment of discomfort. Wonderful, insiteful, very funny video.
Runs 13:50
Runs 13:50
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Richard Dawkins is Right
About one issue in particular. I still disagree with him on practically everything else in the entire universe.
Apparently some broad got propositioned in an elevator at some conference, like that doesn't happen every day everywhere in the world and throughout all of human history and forever into the future (except the elevator part, which wasn't invented until the 19th century, although there were elevator-like transport sysems in place for thousands of years prior). The two most liked comments on that video sum up public, and my own, sentiment pretty well that this is a total load of horseshit and nothing wrong happened at all. As an outspoken atheist she should be flattered that he was (supposedly) just following what Darwin said, because it demonstrates that the cock and balls fairy story of Darwinism is right, or at least can be seen in that light if you choose to believe in that stuff (I don't, but as an outspoken media atheist fundamaterialist spep-dick she has to believe it, so of course she should be happy to see Darwinian principles in action!). After this complete and total non-event Dick-to-the-Dawk-to-the-PhD said this:
The man in the elevator didn't physically touch her, didn't attempt to bar her way out of the elevator, didn't even use foul language at her. He spoke some words to her. Just words. She no doubt replied with words. That was that. Words. Only words, and apparently quite polite words at that....Rebecca's feeling that the man's proposition was 'creepy' was her own interpretation of his behavior, presumably not his. She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum. But he does me no physical damage and I simply grin and bear it until either I or he gets out of the elevator. It would be different if he physically attacked me.
And with that I finally found something to agree with Dawkins on! Never did I think that would ever happen.
Unfortunately, modern society is run by the New World Order and they are making people kowtow to pussies who are professional victims and it's not politically correct to say "shut up and deal with it," when either someone gets injured through their own stupidity or the laws of nature are percieved to be unfair.
Thank you, Mr. Dawkins, for being the voice of reason in this insane world (about this one issue, although I still think your other claims are asinine).
Apparently some broad got propositioned in an elevator at some conference, like that doesn't happen every day everywhere in the world and throughout all of human history and forever into the future (except the elevator part, which wasn't invented until the 19th century, although there were elevator-like transport sysems in place for thousands of years prior). The two most liked comments on that video sum up public, and my own, sentiment pretty well that this is a total load of horseshit and nothing wrong happened at all. As an outspoken atheist she should be flattered that he was (supposedly) just following what Darwin said, because it demonstrates that the cock and balls fairy story of Darwinism is right, or at least can be seen in that light if you choose to believe in that stuff (I don't, but as an outspoken media atheist fundamaterialist spep-dick she has to believe it, so of course she should be happy to see Darwinian principles in action!). After this complete and total non-event Dick-to-the-Dawk-to-the-PhD said this:
The man in the elevator didn't physically touch her, didn't attempt to bar her way out of the elevator, didn't even use foul language at her. He spoke some words to her. Just words. She no doubt replied with words. That was that. Words. Only words, and apparently quite polite words at that....Rebecca's feeling that the man's proposition was 'creepy' was her own interpretation of his behavior, presumably not his. She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum. But he does me no physical damage and I simply grin and bear it until either I or he gets out of the elevator. It would be different if he physically attacked me.
And with that I finally found something to agree with Dawkins on! Never did I think that would ever happen.
Unfortunately, modern society is run by the New World Order and they are making people kowtow to pussies who are professional victims and it's not politically correct to say "shut up and deal with it," when either someone gets injured through their own stupidity or the laws of nature are percieved to be unfair.
Thank you, Mr. Dawkins, for being the voice of reason in this insane world (about this one issue, although I still think your other claims are asinine).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
