Guns ‘N’ Fetuses

Just in time for summer, the GOP this time decided to entertain us with a season of, not surfing and sun tans, but of terror and radical political division.

Can’t we have one summer of peace and quiet this decade?

The left, who are just, if not more, divisive than the right (who cares by now) respond with their usual “all is doomed” savage instincts and violence in the streets rhetoric and behavior further proving how tolerant they are.

I’ve written on abortion before, but I’ve never addressed the leftist talking point that compares “gun rights” to “women’s rights”. This is assuming women exist – NOT ‘womb carriers‘.

The argument runs along the lines of, “Guns have more rights (or at least it’s easier to obtain firearms) than women do with their bodies.”

If a man were to swallow the Pacific Ocean without bursting I’d say that’d still be less of a circus feat than this argument whose logic seems to have been aborted long ago.

I’m not necessarily going to discuss my stance on this issue but instead try and appeal to the pro-choice side to ditch this argument which probably isn’t possible by this point in history.

“Gun rights”

There’s no such thing as gun rights. Guns are inanimate objects that do not have the obligatory volition to utilize ANY rights. Much like the pro-choice side equates abortions with the protection of a woman’s right to life, the Second Amendment does just that as well in that it enables self-defense against physical force. It preserves life, arguably, just as much if not more.

“It’s easier for people to obtain guns than it is for women to exercise their rights.”

This portion of the argument states that firearms are about human rights and not inanimate object rights unlike the first part. Nothing, however, could not be more false for women OR men for that matter.

For one thing, you don’t have to have a permit to carry a uterus. You don’t have to alter the handling of your uterus in different states. You don’t have to sometimes get out of your car to put it in the trunk or in a closed container in your backseat depending upon what state you are in. Schools are not uterus free zones. You don’t have to expose your genitalia if you don’t have a permit to conceal carry it. When shipping between states, you are not required to register with a local uterus armory for registration. There aren’t certain types of uteruses that you can’t own. You aren’t required to wait months to get a uterus permit or get a background check to carry one either.

Last time I checked, abortions are widely legal in the United States in close to every state. Women are not being subjected to Taliban-type treatment as much as they’ll continue to blame men for this (even the ones who passed Roe v Wade?). In fact, if I were a woman and given the choice to live in the U.S. in 1842 (with or without abortion) or Yemen in 2022, I’d choose the 19th century any day.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade is a turning point in American history. Who knows if it will comeback but I’m getting more and more confident that this will secure a Democrat win in 2024. Say hello to President Kamala! No thought is given anymore on extreme and controversial rulings, opinions, laws, etc. Whatever.

Have an entertaining summer.

Feminist Throwback: 36 Questions For Men (2016)

I’m digging up an oldie for this post. Let’s have some fun. Here’s the original video. If cringe was a form of pure heroin it would be this. Watch the video while reading my answers for the full effect.

1- How does it feel to be the same sex as Donald Trump?

The same way it feels to be the same sex as Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, and John, Paul, George and Ringo. By the way, did you just assume President Trump’s sex?

2 – Why do you hate rom-coms or do you feel you just need to hate them?

There are men that find romantic comedies funny. I’m one of them. I like 50 First Dates and Meet The Parents. Generally, men tend not to like movies marketed toward women though.

3 – Why do you make women sit around and talk about men in movies when y’all literally sit around and talk about boobs for hours?

I’m not sure if I’ve ever experienced a woman taken hostage in order to talk about “men in movies” so I can’t say I have much to say on that one. Of course, there are women that find men in movies attractive. As for talking about boobs, yeah that did happen in middle school. It’s kind of like how women discuss male incomes except well into their 30s. The last group text I had with my friends that lasted hours involved us texting back and forth lines from Enter The Dragon. Also, are men “forcing” women to talk about boobs?

4 – Why do you automatically assume you won’t like movies or TV that star a female lead?

That’s not true. There’s tons of female-led movies, TV shows and video games that men love. In fact, most have predominantly male audiences. I think what this dump truck of a cholo-looking chick is wondering why men don’t like radical feminist movies like the dumpster fire Charlie’s Angels reboot.

5 – Why are you surprised when women are funny? I’m probably funnier than you.

That is pretty funny.

6 – Why do you think we’re obsessed with you when we hook up? Nine times out of ten, I’m busy. I got shit to do.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s the other way around since women fall for “bad boys” yet at the same time are less likely to be interested in hook-ups. I’m sure she does have shit to do. Her population of cats needs to be fed.

7 – Why can’t I sleep with as many people as I want to without being judged when men do it they’re congratulated.

Okay, so we have an admission of being a slut here. The reason for that maybe, contrary to belief, men like a solid investment in women much like women do in men. So, if you sleep with the entire east coast it signals you don’t want a stable relationship and don’t have the experience of maintaining one. The reason men are congratulated on getting dates and having sex is because they put in a lot of leg work to do that. There’s a lot of confidence in approaching women and it definitely deserves a fist-bump when you actually have a woman approach you for a date.

8 – Why do you consider a woman a tease if she doesn’t sleep with you after three dates but a slut if she sleeps with you on a first date?

I’m sure there are men that think like that but there are a lot of women that give mixed signals. They display erratic behavior such as not responding to texts, inconsistent physical contact, not giving straight answers and being passive aggressive. To be honest, if she sleeps with you on the first date she is a slut and most likely so is the woman that asked this question since she had to ask why that’s abnormal.

9 – Why does no mean yes? No means no.

Well, it depends on context. Bill Burr did a great standup routine where he talked about how someone could be joking around or being flirty about what they’re saying. Most men can tell a firm “no” from a flirtatious and blushing “no.” You know, it’s interesting to hear the “no means no” crap blaring out of the megaphones of the MeToo clowns when you never hear them say, “Yes means yes.” The reason they don’t say that is because apparently when a woman says “yes” she might be saying it because she’s “pressured”. So, “no” means “no” but sometimes “yes” can mean “no.” This entire idea of sex crimes resting on “no” or “yes” being said regardless of context is ridiculous. Laws center around action and not so much words.It refutes their point because if a woman says “yes” you technically can’t use the “pressured” argument. What if she’s pressured into saying “no”?

10 – Why do you say women are too emotional to be leaders and then justify cat-calling and say men just can’t help themselves?

I know of no international movement promoted by men that touts the idea that women are “too emotional” to be leaders in the same way I know of no catcalling plague outside of 1940s cartoons. In fact, here’s a survey that showed a crap ton of male leaders think female leaders would be better. Take it for what it’s worth. Cat-calling is the feminist equivalent of Big Foot. It just doesn’t exist or if it does it doesn’t exist in the damsel-in-distress way they think. No criteria as to what cat-calling is is given here. I don’t think a guy saying in a cute manner, “You’re pretty” on a street corner should be equated to salacious sexual misconduct. The women that complain about this nonexistent conspiracy wouldn’t need to worry about it even if it did exist.

11 – Why do you think just because I’m nice to you I owe you my body?

Well, with the way this Bob Marley blowhard looks and her massive cattle nose ring I highly doubt there’s that many sober men that want her obscured body. That being said, women sometimes give off mixed signals. So for instance, if a woman is rubbing my shoulders and grabbing my hands when talking to me at minimum I’m going to assume that perhaps kissing her won’t be considered a form of entitlement but more or less expectation. If she dodges the kiss in disgust I’d genuinely be surprised.

12 – Why would you ever send an unsolicited dick pic?

Good question. No one should. That being said, what’s the nature of the text? If you’re a having a graphic conversation about hooking up and what you do in bed don’t be surprised when that’s sent. It shouldn’t be unexpected or expected as if women don’t engage in this behavior as well.

13 – Why do you feel it’s okay to harass women and make offensive comments about women but when somebody does it to your sister it’s not okay?

I’m starting to notice a trend here. All of these questions are being asked with concluded premises. They’re all loaded. We’re to assume that these things are true and then confess. That’s not a question. A man might care more about his sister being harassed in the same way you might care more about your friend being insulted more than a stranger.

14 – Why do you feel you need to interrupt me in the middle of making a point when I’m in a meeting?

Going by the way she looks, I didn’t know Urban Outfitters shelf stockers had board meetings. Nonetheless, you might be making a stupid point, hogging the discussion or have been in a stupid Buzzfeed video.

15 – Why do you have to sit with your legs so wide open?

There’s actually a physiological difference in the way male hips are structured that makes them more prone to sitting that way.

16 – I get that you have balls but I don’t stand around with my arms wide open for my boobs.

I don’t have boobs but something tells me there’s a difference between squeezing balls and squeezing boobs.

17 – Why are women considered the weaker sex even though we literally birth you? **Watermelons through like this (makes a small circle with hands)**

The term “weaker sex” is missing context here. Females are the weaker sex when it comes to carrying a 200lb. wounded Navy Seal with 80lbs. worth of gear on in the middle of a heated conflict with ISIS. Women have less muscle mass and bone density than men so there’s some truth to this. Then again, nothing is clarified here. Is she talking about raw strength compared to giving birth? If so, you can’t compare.

18 – Why is it so bad to show your emotions? Because you’re human.

It’s not. This is a feminist misandrist stereotype. Men show their emotions not by watching The Office and crying into bowls of ice cream like women but instead by going out and doing things like physical activities. The default here seems to be that women have the ultimate way of grieving. Mind your own business when it comes to how people grieve, honey. Feminist stereotypes don’t recognize men as being human either so it’s a little hard there especially if you express hateful emotions toward feminism.

19 – Why do you have to prove your masculinity to me?

Masculinity isn’t defined here but I’ll approach it from the evolutionary angle. In order for men to prove themselves worthy of mating they must exhibit traits that females find desirable and vice versa. These generally include ambition, goal setting, income, ruggedness, and other things like strong physical attributes. You never see women chase after men that are the shape of cantaloupes and serve coffee at feminist book clubs. That being said, what men would try and impress a trash bag like her?

20 – Why the fuck isn’t it ladylike to cuss? When did words get gender?

It’s not words. Words are useless without context and behavior. Perhaps, a good example of men not liking this may be if he sits around with his friends and cusses all the time. He might want to find a woman that exhibits less abrasive behavior and speech so he doesn’t feel like he’s always around one of the guys.

21 – Why is it your first instinct to doubt women that have been sexually violated or raped?

Skepticism and demanding evidence is not doubt.

22 – Why do you think a woman is angry because she’s on her period?

Because there’s a good chance of that.

23 – Why do you think that women who wear makeup are false advertising. We could say the same thing about your dick size?

For dick size, it sounds like she’s saying she’s seen a lot of unimpressive dicks in her time. So, it sounds like this is the second woman in the video to admit she’s a slut. As for makeup, women wear makeup to sexually attract men. It helps enhance facial features whereas things like blush and lipstick actually help simulate sex flush. This is not to say they don’t compete with each other for male attention.

24 – Why isn’t it weird that there’s a bunch of old white men sitting in a room making legislation about what I can and cannot do with my body?

So, not only is she a flaming sexist whore but also a racist. She’s inadvertently making a a point that I agree with pertaining to “old” politicians. I think there should not be career politicians. I don’t think there should be a salary. It should be volunteered similar to how the founders conducted themselves. By the way, are these the same white men that passed Roe v. Wade and started welfare programs exclusively for women?

25 – Do you have a Kootchie?

No. But I don’t think a sex organ should prohibit someone from speaking on a subject you kootchie.

26 – Why are you so obsessed with lesbians?

I’m not. Men are more likely to have conversations about power grids than they are lesbians.

27 – How does it feel to get kicked in the balls?

I’ll answer that but I’d first like to say that it’s terrible the feminine ladylike charm of Audrey Hepburn has gone extinct. Getting kicked in the balls feels the same way a feminist does when she sees a woman ironing in a commercial.

28 – Do you ever get tired of trying to feel manly all the time?

No. I just am. I wish more men would try that now considering masculinity is demonized under the false pretense of clever adjectives like “toxic”. The reason that might be is because women crave masculine men. So, if you want to have sex or a relationship get those biceps pumped and that paycheck fat you guys.

29 – Why are you so afraid of gender equality?

I’m not. I’m afraid that we’ll become a society obsessed with race and sex quotas where people get ahead, not by effort, but by superficial features all for equal outcomes rather than equal protections.

30 – Why do we deserve to be paid less than you?

You don’t provided you do the same work. The wage gap isn’t because of sexism but because of a combination of salaries in different careers, time spent in and out of the workforce, educational attainment, as well as factors like marital status and having kids.

31 – In what world does 77 cents equal a dollar?

The same world where women were surveyed and found that most men today don’t make enough money for them to be considered husband-worthy you dumb ass.

32 – Why are you intimidated by a woman that makes more money than you? That’s awesome! More money!

In general, that’s not the case. If a man is intimidated by that it’s because women tend to find men with higher incomes attractive. Here’s a good Joe Rogan excerpt with evolutionary psychologist, Gad Saad. So, if you want to land Gal Gadot you better not have the salary of a Dollar Tree cashier. The “more money!” part is probably coming from someone who thinks printing money multiplies wealth.

33 / 34 – Why are opinionated women seen as bitches when opinionated men are seen as bosses?

There’s a difference between being opinionated and being a raging asshole that blurts out forceful firm opinions at all the wrong times because she has a chip on her shoulder. Women don’t like female bosses as well.

35 – Why are you not speaking up when you hear men behind closed doors that are making jokes offensive toward women?

Because they’re jokes and that doesn’t really happen. Why aren’t you standing up for men when women ask very disrespectful snarky racist and sexist leading questions about them?

36 – Why are you afraid of recognizing your own privilege when you can recognize it and do something about it.

Because it is not moral to live your life in guilt simply based upon how you are born. It is disgusting for a man to utter, “I recognize that I have the original sin known as male and I’m here to repent for it.” What male privilege is that by the way? The privilege of being a minority in educational attainment across all degree levels? The privilege of being the primary victims of crimes? The privilege of being the primary victims of suicide and workplace deaths?

The video currently has 57,000 likes and 653,000 dislikes. Maybe, there is hope for men.

The Left’s Humor

There seems to be a lot of comedians on the left lately. Don’t expect any knock-knock jokes though. Instead, be prepared for both racist and misandrist “jokes”. The two comedians we’ll be analyzing in this post are Democratic presidential candidate, Joe Biden and feminist (feminism is a subsidiary of the Democratic party), Clementine Ford.

Joe Biden, who has been on a standup tour since he first began his career in politics, “humored” the internet in an interview on The Breakfast Club podcast. Biden “joked”, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

That’s really funny but then again it seems as though the Democratic party is funny in general when it comes to this form of racist “humor”.

The score for decades has been that black conservatives and, in some cases, libertarians are nothing more than a combination of Uncle Toms, Auntie Toms, lawn jockeys, tar babies and (depending upon whether or not you’re Don Lemon) negroes. These racial slurs all tend to get flung at blacks who don’t fit into the Democratic prescribed ideological “mold”.

In fact, conservative commentator Larry Elder is so sick of it that he’s embraced the term in a positive context and is making a documentary about black conservatives.

Forgive my surprise when I found that there was a fair amount of controversy surrounding Biden’s remark as if this is the first time such a comment has been directed at blacks. This is absolutely patently racist. To say that somebody should think a certain way based upon their melanin and never deviate from that is the epitome’s son of everything that is wrong right now in the identity politics bloodbath.

For some, the remark itself wasn’t problematic but instead the melanin of the person who said it as there are black liberals who are not okay with the comment simply because Joe Biden is white. Once again, when my side does it it’s okay and when your side does it it’s not okay. I’m glad to know both good and evil here are largely indistinguishable from one another.

Still, I’m not seeing how this is a joke though but here’s an argument as to why this “joke” isn’t “funny”.

Melanin has nothing to do with ideas. Ideas are the result of thinking. Sure, ideas are black and white but not in the sense of skin color but instead in the sense of right and wrong. To say an idea is rational for one group and irrational for another group is epistemologically erroneous. Being that we are human beings living in objective reality what’s true for you certainly is true for me regardless of the slightly different superficialities we may have.

Most importantly ideas are not the invention of “groups”. To say that people should think collectively is not thinking at all but instead conformity. Thinking is a product of the individual and only the individual. He or she can learn from others but others can never think for him or her. Kim Jong-un does not do the thinking for North Koreans no matter how much he tries to tell them he does.

A supposed group identity is a grammatical fiction. We’re all individuals. To refer to individuals as groups is a violation of the Law of Identity (A is A) at minimum. People and their ideas cannot nor should not be defined by their melanin. If you are a purveyor of group-think you are obviously comfortable with the idea of someone else defining who you are. Those who preach “blackness” or “whiteness” preach collectivism.

I don’t think it’s a joke. Both black and white leftists alike have a glorious history of saying things to a similar effect and Biden doesn’t seem to be deviating from their usual intellectual debauchery. Maybe I’d be willing to settle this as being a joke if liberals declare everything else he’s said as a joke. That’s a fair settlement to make. Biden and the Democratic party are jokes in and of themselves.

Sense of humor is subjective as we’ll soon learn.

On to “my favorite” – feminism.

Radical feminist, Clementine Ford, a malicious misandrist brain butcher of the highest degree has made a career built upon ideological misandry – something that Aussie tax dollars are currently paying for (see bottom).

After her, “KILL ALL MEN” Twitter rampage some years ago, now she’s “joking” about the very real deaths of men at the hands of COVID-19.

Like Biden, there’s nothing too new here. Both are mentally deficient in the “humor” department and both deploy depraved double standards whenever need be.

The cartoonish backpedaling Ford did once she surprisingly found out that people didn’t get the “joke” is cringeworthy. She tried to scurry away by pointing out that men hypocritically complain about women not getting “dark humor” yet here they are getting offended by such a comment.

Ford, like all vagina hat-thumping feminists, then deployed a recently constructed logical fallacy known as a Kafka Trap (named after Franz Kafka’s novel, The Trial). Put simply, a Kafka Trap is when denial or disagreement of an accusation is taken as a confession. The more you disagree or find the claim objectionable the more (in their eyes) you’re admitting to your “crime”. So, their claim is essentially unfalsifiable in the most illogical sense possible.

Here’s a good example of this:

According to her, the more men criticize her the more they exhibit male fragility wherein they fear being made to look “weak” and “emasculated” by a woman. Absolutely. That has to be the only reason why men might get slightly angered and outraged at such a “joke”. Once again, the more criticism and insulting she may receive the more she’ll take it as an admission of male fragility.

Like a massive stroke victim, Ford then flew off the rails in a completely different direction and went on a tangent about how this “joke” was criticizing men for not doing their fair share of “unpaid” housework during the pandemic because they’re too busy dying. This is an old feminist argument dating back to the late 60s and early 70s except here Ford awkwardly inserts COVID-19. The article, which she didn’t even originally post, has close to nothing to do with her contextless “joke”.

I’m not sure how men dying quicker even relates to them doing more housework. It’s a non-sequitur. If you want them to die quicker how can they do more housework? Why joke then if you’re trying make a serious point?

Does this mean she wants them to stop working? If they still work a full-time job to make eating possible for the family and do housework they still have (what sounds like) unequal double-duty. If they die, they actually have quadruple-duty because now they have to work, die, resurrect themselves and then take out the trash. Feminism always seems to actively tout inequality. Then again, with this current pandemic’s rapid unemployment housework may soon become non-existent for everybody for all the wrong reasons.

Take a look at this one.

“Pretend an egregious harm has been done to them!”? I thought it was feminists / women(?) who are pretending they’re the victims because they’re surviving the pandemic. It seems as if the horrific impact feminists claim this is having on women is the shoulder pain they get from acting like a spoon is an airplane for their baby.

By the way, black guys are safe from dying in her demented utopia even though they’re primarily dying from it. I thought she was being racist there for a second but now that she rearranged logic and the english language to her liking her double-standards are sound.

This isn’t a lesson in how to be comedic but instead on how to communicate with other human beings. If you want to make a joke, go ahead. If you want to make a dark joke, go ahead but context is important. If I were to tweet, “It’s funny when women die of ovarian cancer” or “Blacks can’t think for themselves” and you were to accuse me of being a sadistic racist and sexist rodent you’d be right in doing so. What I’m saying is blunt. It’s literal.

There’s no context established here for it to be anything other than what it says. Had I tweeted, “To say, “It’s funny when women die of ovarian cancer”, is absolutely abhorrent”  or “Liberals think blacks can’t think  for themselves” then I’d establish clearly what I’m trying to convey. The same is true of humor but then again a comedian can’t just spat random things out and hope they’re intrinsically funny just because of his or her profession. A good example of that is Wanda Sykes.

In the end, Ford sort of apologized but only once she found out her arts grant from the Australian government was threatened.

It’s not really an apology. What’s she’s saying is, “I’m sorry you’re not superior enough to understand me.”

Usually, the PC police (the left) hate jokes about sex and race but when it comes to insulting straight white males and non-leftist blacks, oh boy, all bets are off.

Coronavirus: Living is worse than dying

The Coronavirus seems to be in full swing now or at least the panic inspired by it. As usual, the race baiting pimps and critical theorists are there to make the issue center around their intersectional nonsense. There’s folks flinging around drivel about how the term “Wuhan virus” is racist with the most embarrassing example being from The New York Times.

If race plays a role then of course sex plays a role as well. Of course these “trappings” of life will always follow us around but usually not in the way the SJW whacks whore it around. Recently, it has been observed that the Coronavirus is slightly more likely to be fatal to men than it is to women. (Update: It has now widened considerably). 

Of course, with the mainstream notion of male privilege so dominant these days in the media and in education these mental gymnasts have concluded, not that men have a serious problem on their hands (i.e., potential death), but that women do.

Yes, women are truly the ones most effected by the Coronavirus and not the men who die. The 180 on this is a sight to see. Somehow now working on the frontlines and surviving is bad but ending up in a grave is immaterial. This logic resembles that laid forth by Hillary Clinton in a 1998 speech when she stated, “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat.”

I can’t help but be reminded of the holiday favorite, It’s A Wonderful Life. In the movie, Jimmy Stewart as George Bailey gets to see a hypothetical timeline of what life would be like for his loved ones without his presence. It’s supposed to read like an optimistic view of one’s role in society but if you really think about it it reveals itself to be a grotesque idolization of altruism.

Here it sounds like sexist altruism. The state of others is always more important than yours. It’s even more wicked once you realize that the word “state” in this context means your literal life. By playing victimology poker (i.e., who has it harder will win) you diabolically gloss over the hardships of others.

It’s not a question of even whether or not these stats are correct but more the fallacious logic of atrociously and unbelievably signifying the living by glossing over the dead.

Despite all this, it seems like this dynamic is calling the bluff of feminists – a group of hacks who claim the damsel in distress is nothing more than a degrading female stereotype. Now, it’s time for all these women to embrace the empowerment of 50 hour work weeks while being strong  independent single moms. Yet instead of confronting with valor the Rambo-type situations they claim women need to fight out of they instead seem to be crying about themselves and how they need men in their lives. So much for “I don’t need no man!”.

It’s Time to Sterilize Men

An Alabama lawmaker, Rolanda Hollis (D) wants to pass a piece of violence (i.e., a law) that mandates men to get a vasectomy once they reach age 50 and have had a certain amount of kids. I’m guessing a combination of Mao’s population control initiatives and Heinrich Himmler’s medical fetishes were the inspiration for this and not our liberty-infused founding doctrines.

I can’t help but think that this law is meant to be a form of legal revenge against the abortion ban. If so, I’d say if you’re going to implement revenge against the 20-something men and the woman that ultimately approved the law I suggest she champion equity and not apples to oranges.

You see, abortion isn’t sterilization. It doesn’t prevent a woman from reproducing unlike a vasectomy. There’s no comparison. The old adage for revenge is an eye for an eye; not an eye for a decapitation. If “revenge” isn’t her motive and she’s definitely concerned about the “cancer” known as men I’d say she’s a pure form of human sadism.

A Facebook friend of mine posted the article a bit after I already saw it. The stupidity of the meager comment section is what inspired me to bother writing a post on it.

The first comment helps give credence to my speculation about legal revenge. Isn’t this nihilism? Why make the situation even worse than it already is? If you support a woman’s right to an abortion good for you but I don’t see how turning the government into butchers is going to help reinstate that right for women. It sounds like this is the depraved support of equality for the sake of equality. So, as long as we have equally achieved debauchery for both men and women it’s somehow moral it sounds like.

Take a look at the second comment.

Now, apparently a vasectomy can be reversed. I’ll concede that for the sake of argument. Let’s say it’s 100% true regardless of age and regardless of a certain amount of years for it to be undone. It still does not under any circumstances provide a moral case for the government to put a gun against an innocent man’s head and threaten him into a medical procedure of ANY KIND.

What happens when the guy doesn’t cooperate? Does he get jailed? What would that look like? Will Alabama be filled with prison cells that contain bank robbers, child molesters, and men that refused to get a vasectomy? Why do these politicians want to amp up the prison population in this country for NO reason?

Let’s say it’s not jail time. Okay. Is anyone else bothered with the thought of a violent thug of a bureaucrat strapping a man to a table and performing a medical procedure on him? I hate to make a left-wing Nazi analogy here but that’s what this sounds like.

By the way, both of these comments were made by men. To use terms the evolutionary psychologist, Gad Saad would use, they’re definitely naturally-lobotomized cuttlefish.

Women Who “Care” About Men

Sydney Watson, is a Youtuber who criticizes a plethora of SJW cultural facets not limited to anti-male feminism. I like her videos and watch them from time to time. I came about her a couple months ago from a retweet where she gave the sage advice to women to never date male feminists.  I agree. That’s the same advice I’d give women as well.

To make a long story short, Watson over time has made me realize something; that something being that there are young women who are the equivalent of male feminists. Male feminists, to give context, are beta men that cloak themselves in the self-loathing robe of pro-female proselytization all in order to date and have sex with them. They think that by self-flagellating about how oppressed and victimized women are and how privileged they themselves are women will be attracted to them out of their own moral righteousness.

Today, Watson posted the following:

To put Watson’s tweet in context, if you watch her YouTube videos and follow her on Twitter she does do a fair amount of posting about how “undervalued” and “unnoticed” men are. Her most gushy and cringe-worthy day was on International Men’s Day where a significant amount of her tweets suspiciously pushed the limit in idolizing the contributions of men to the human race.

It was here I began to think what if she was doing this to help attract men in order to compensate for her being single? Today, I was proven right. It seems as though a large portion of her prominent “men are in distress” threads are there for a dubious reason. This is why I consider this type of female behavior in line with male feminist panhandling. It’s there to “attract” the opposite sex.

There is a distinction to be made though between these types of women and male feminists. They’re a narrow category in that they don’t lineup with all diagnostic criteria with their male counterpart. Most women who “lament” for men are SINGLE women in their late 20s to 30s (i.e., twilight time as far as dating, marriage, and kids go). The single part is key because it motivates them to rope in suitors with their supposedly “pro-male” rhetoric.

It’s interesting to note how pro-male females extol men as heroes and how male feminists extol women as victims.

Male feminists can be any age usually. Unlike male feminists though, female equivalents usually don’t partake in self-flagellation. They almost never pull out the whip and shame themselves for being born female and then pander for repentance. The closest they may come to doing so is by bashing feminism; this “evil” invention of women.

I’m not sure how we’re supposed to react to Watson’s sentiment here. Are we supposed to feel sad and cry? Are we supposed to comfort her? Are we supposed to laugh? Are we supposed to be amused? Are we supposed to offer up our resumes for a potential date? My first reaction was embarrassment. Whining about how we should feel sorry that her dating life is unlucky? Join the contemporary human race.

I’m trying to seriously figure it out. Am I supposed to think, “Wow. How pathetic have men become?”. If a guy did this, he’d be called an incel.

To be honest, I liked her tweet. I agree that men have become passive and emasculated today. What I disagree with here is her self-centered context. If men are a certain way now, which I think Watson is blowing out of proportion here, they need to fix themselves individually for themselves and not do so in order to make themselves marketable for shallow women.

The thread itself is a carnival of women, presumably, around Watson’s age lamenting with her “strife”. Even the Feminist Next Door (a radical feminist Twitter user) somehow hopped in adding to the comedic gold. Two of the most loathly tweets are from Cassandra Fairbanks and Courtney Holland.

Fairbanks bills herself in her Twitter bio as, “Federal court says I “trolled the web through Twitter.” An “information terrorist” according to Wired. Free Press. Free Speech. Free Assange. Unusual American.”

I’m not sure what I’d call somebody with that bio but I would recommend she adds “manipulative” and “degenerative asshole” to it.

Fairbanks tweeted the following:

Like Watson’s tweet, I’m not sure how we are all supposed to react. She “gave up so hard”? Really? I didn’t feel the earth shake. I didn’t hear any men weep about her loss and I still don’t. But take a look at what the meat of her tweet tells. She manipulated and dated a man that she did not find desirable or respectable for an entire year.

If women like Fairbanks see their moral depravity they’d realize this abusive dishonest behavior is something that results in men being reluctant to enter into relationships with women. I mourn the men and women who were taken advantage of by their desperate partner who only wanted them for sex as a romantic “painkiller” to ease their loneliness. Contrary to popular belief, men like women with standards.

Holland, according to Human Events, is a “Conservative Millennial, Political Activist, and co-founder of MAGA Meetup: Las Vegas“.

Trying to upstage Fairbanks, Holland tweeted the following, almost giving this thread an AA support group-feel for women who only care about men as far as their dating life goes.

Should we give a shit that you’re with her?

It’s seems as though, as far as political parties and social ideologies go, men are stuck with the crappy two-party system. Conservative women, with their high heels and cleavage, want men with high-social status and not an Anime collection. Liberal Women (aka feminist women), decked out in their hairy vagina costumes, want men to castrate themselves in the name of Jane Fonda. Not much of a choice here. Conservative women lie about wanting to help men whereas Liberal women openly express hatred toward men.

Your choices are get shot and killed with or without a silencer.

And what’s going on with Watson’s (presumably) personal definition of masculinity here? Guns, dogs, and country music? The gun descriptor is something feminists equate masculinity with. That’d be like a guy equivocating femininity with boobs, big lips, and bubblegum pop.

It is true that women like men with high-social status and I’m glad there’s people out their spreading awareness about the current flux men are in. That being said, is the movement worth it if it’s just to give SINGLE women in their 30s bountiful dating options as far as education and social status go?

I’d like to thank these SINGLE women for revealing their true colors. Liberal women view men as ultra-masculine destructive hulks whereas these women view men as sniveling passive cowards who aren’t up to their refined standards. Both want a reform.

Where have all the good men gone?

Away from you.

If they cared about men they’d be discussing how men can fix their problems. Instead, they’re discussing why men aren’t satisfying their needs.

All this being said, there are honest women that want to help men and realize the adversarial nature of feminism toward them. Janice Fiamengo (The Anti-Feminist), Christina Hoff Sommers (The Factual Feminist), Camille Paglia (feminist), Karen Straughan (Men’s Rights Activist), Cassie Jaye (filmmaker, The Red Pill), and Lauren Chen (The Pseudo Intellectual, formerly Roaming Millennial). What’s with the all titles? Maybe I should get a title. Stephen Jones (Bruce Lee incarnate). There you go.

Charlie’s Angels review

Do you seriously think I’d see this shit?

Big Boys Don’t Cry – GMU’s Fourth Estate Rebuts My Opinion Piece on Men’s Health

George Mason University’s newspaper Fourth Estate doesn’t seem to agree with my opinions. That’s okay. At least they’re publishing them to begin with. I’m confident they’re staffed with predominantly leftists as they usually cover leftist issues with a fair amount of focus on feminist issues.

Since they’re not radically left they seem to have no problem publishing opinions they and their readers might disagree with.

That being said, there was a slight “glitch” in the editing process of my most recent article with a female editor that didn’t seem to care too much for my piece to say the least. I would wonder why but I know why.

My last piece on Marxism got a rebuttal which I responded to on here. Now my newest piece on men’s issues has gotten a rebuttal. Could this be a way of apologizing to their readers for publishing my views?

The rebuttal, “Young Men Are Checking Out – For A Different Reason”, written by an editor who ironically helped edit my piece, sums up as men need to get rid of the masculine trait of suppressing emotions in order to prevent self-destruction. This isn’t the case for me then. I usually cry every time I’m confronted with feminist drivel.

Nothing new. This is the usual stock feminist rhetoric that is used whenever they may even come close to acknowledging that men have negative societal issues. I actually predicted a rebuttal was going to be published. I don’t give myself that much credit since feminists are very predictable people.

In fact, this rebuttal may be a copy and pasted cut monologue from the Gillette toxic masculinity ad script.

“There is a prevailing stigma in our culture that has prevented young men from seeking the help they need during times of mental crisis. Young men in the U.S. and around the world are suffering through a silent crisis plagued by suicide, depression and mental health disorders.”

A recent op-ed discussed a few potential reasons for the increase in male suicide rates, but it  failed to address the larger systematic issue in our culture — the stigma surrounding male mental health issues.

My piece acknowledged a fair amount of actual negative issues impacting men. It didn’t fail by any objective means at doing so. By my own intent and admission it did not acknowledge the feminist claptrap he is about to bring up.

There is a stigma surrounding men’s issues and it’s due to the fact that they are men’s issues. By bringing up such issues people run the risk of destroying the cancerous feminist cultural narrative that men are privileged.

“The stigma around mental health begins at an early age for men. According to a survey from the Journal of Adolescent Health, eighth-grade boys experienced higher mental health stigma than girls and were less likely to use mental health services compared to girls of the same age.”

That’s a problem and it should be addressed but the default for therapeutic health today is female. The Factual Feminist, Christina Hoff Sommers has recounted many times how this seems to be the method of approach when dealing with young boys. Talking about your feelings – something girls find useful – is the standard whereas something like going out and doing things – something boys find useful – is the improper deviation.

Is this female way of grieving yielding better universal results though?

Looking at the recent spike in the rate of female suicides and a nearly 50-year decline in female happiness it seems as if this feminine expression therapy can have male consequences. I’m sensing a bit of fast and loose in this sales pitch.

Men and women are psychologically different therefore they confront and express their emotions differently.

“Contrary to the recent op-ed, fatherless homes are not likely the chief culprit behind this phenomenon.”

Contrary to what he thinks, I made no claim that fatherless homes are the “chief culprit” in men’s mental health issues nor was it the crux of my piece.

According to a study published by the National Institutes of Health on adult males affected by depression, dominant masculine gender norms may be a prevailing factor that prevents men from seeking help. These gender norms, often societally imposed at a young age and continually reinforced on impressionable adolescents, perpetuate the stereotype that “boys don’t cry,” effectively minimizing the validity of mental health concerns from a young age.”

As scary as it may seem, legitimate research groups are falling hook, line, and sinker for the (although not mentioned here explicitly) misandrist toxic masculinity concept. The usual disclaimer to this is that the concept is not attacking masculinity in and of itself but instead “traditional” masculinity (i.e., toxic masculinity) as the APA outlined in their diagnostic criteria released earlier this year.

Contrary to those witch doctors, there is no such thing as “traditional” masculinity anymore than there is “traditional” femininity. Masculinity and femininity are evolved immutable biological traits. They can’t mean “anything” in terms of character and action-based judgement. Toxicity cannot and should not be judged upon gender alone.

To say men should get rid of “traditional” masculinity to become better men is akin to saying birds should get rid of “traditional” flying in order to become better birds.

Nobody should go through ‘gender reform’ as if their gender is an original sin.

How come stereotyping men as stoic and cold suicidal brutes is acceptable yet the second men stereotype women as hyper-emotional tear-ridden train wrecks they immediately get lambasted as being sexist?

“If our most impressionable and most at-risk youth are told by society from a young age that their feelings are not as valid, then what is the result as they get older?”

The result when they get older (age 64 and above) is that they report high levels of happiness.

I wonder why boys and men suppress their feelings and thoughts today? It seems as though every time they take the advice and open up they immediately get told to shut up, stop mansplaining, and are then advised to check their privilege by the imperialist vagina hat forces.

“The stigma and “macho” stereotypes suffocating men do not disappear after grade school. Male college students are more likely to perceive stigma surrounding help-seeking measures such as counseling, therapy and medication. Many schools, such as Mason, offer free, short-term psychological counseling services, but the perceived stigma around male mental health issues may prevent many at our school from accessing these valuable services.”

That’s a warped view of masculinity. What’s suffocating about the macho men that stormed the shores of Normandy fighting for the free world? What’s suffocating about the countless macho police officers and fire fighters that routinely save people from death? What’s suffocating about the macho men that protect their families from burglars?

Of course, shoved to the bottom of the suffocating macho man stoicism package in infinitesimally small fine print is the statement, “Also includes protector, provider, and chivalry.”

What’s truly suffocating here is the equivocation of masculinity to a societal-caused pathology that controls men like marionettes. If anything is to be accurately equivocated with suffocation it would be emasculation. Notice that the word emasculation is never verbally brought up by feminists.

Ask yourself what type of sexual archetype are women more attracted to? The broad-chested testosterone-fueled authoritative high-social status muscular athlete or the Jabba The Hutt-shaped marshmallow Michelin man that cries at pictures of rainbows? It’s an important question to ask considering women have sexually-selected these “toxic” masculine traits.

“Young men may feel forced to face mental illnesses alone. Some men may choose to turn to “self-medication” techniques. Substance abuse is one of those techniques that is used to cope with untreated stressors, such as depression or post-traumatic stress disorder.

The effects of untreated mental illness on a person’s life are extensive and the effects manifest themselves in awful ways. So, what is the result of all this?

Well, as one may expect, the result is somber: a tragic 26 percent increase in male suicide.

Now, the stigma surrounding the mental health of men is likely not a direct cause of any specific suicide, but it does prevent men from receiving help that could address those direct causes.”

These points are fine but the fact they’re being equated with masculinity takes out any trace of sobriety.

“The solution isn’t simple, but it starts with simple actions. Let’s teach our sons that expressing emotions is okay. Provide support and a place of trust for them to express how they are feeling. Let’s support our male friends. Reach out to those who may be suffering silently to show that there are safe avenues of support.

Seeking help is not weak. Helping someone is not weak. Showing compassion is not weak. The stigma around male mental health needs to end and it starts with small actions.”

Who thinks like this anymore? If anything Millennials are the most coddled generation in human history. We are the safe space generation. We are the trigger warning generation (as evidenced by the one put before my initial piece on the subject). We are the products of helicopter parenting. A boy who scrapes his knee today is more likely to hear, “Do you want to go to therapy for several decades?” rather than, “Suck it up puss cakes!”.

All of this Mr. Rogers “seeking help is not weak” rhetoric could be more palatable if it wasn’t centered around a brutish stereotype of men.

It’s comical that the “different reason” as to why men have problems is not due to receding from all levels of college degree attainment, not being mentally well off to seek employment, or physically withering away but instead because of not crying into a bowl of Baskin & Robbins ice cream.

What is a man more realistically to think at the end of the day:

“I hope I’m mentally capable enough to retain my job in order to feed my family.”

Or

“Gee, I hope I don’t cry this week. The guys at the mine might make fun of me.”

If you make a conclusion using the embarrassing “different reason” as the premise you’d be led to believe that men’s issues are the fault of men. This is most likely the reason why the feminist Fourth Estate disagreed with my opinion. It didn’t blame men. In fact, it didn’t necessarily blame anybody.

Don’t fall for the “different reason” and its prescribed therapy. The emasculating Kool-Aid may taste sweet at first but the following coma will tell you it was a cover for something much more destructive.

 

Millennials Hate Romance

Millennials, for one reason or another, have now made it so slightly more than half of their generation is single.

A study conducted by the dating app, Tinder found that the majority of millennials (especially females) expressed victorious feelings of empowerment and independence when asked as to why they have forgone romantic relationships. Currently in vogue, is the view that they are nothing more than the proverbial ball and chain instituted by society to tie them down, make them give up all of their personal enjoyments, and then position them to be beaten into a submissive pulp.

They have taken, according to this study, the view that relationships are meant for the weak and only those who dishonestly try and gain value in themselves by approval from others.

Lexicographers must be in severe pain over all of this since here erroneously haughty philosophically pompous millennials have hijacked the true meanings of the words independence and dependence and have bent them to their subjectivist whims.

Within this, it is my belief, that the destruction of relationships and other social interactions narrow down to primarily one common ideological root. Feminism.

Surprise. Surprise.

The naive researchers inadvertently helped find the decades old misandrist anti-nuclear family feminist underpinnings of millennials’ anti and apathetic romance beliefs. Embarrassingly, they couldn’t connect the dots despite coming from today’s academic institutions that routinely teach this.

Let’s take a look at what no one is paying attention to.

What is independence?

Before I eviscerate feminism for the umpteenth time, we first need to define and concretize what is meant by the terms at hand and what makes them possible.

The opposing millennial feminist definition cannot hold a drop of water for a millisecond when confronted with, not only this philosophically-determined reality, but also when confronted with scientific reality.

Feminist millennials have mistaken the definition of independence for primitive and brutish rogue isolationism.

Independence, in the purest sense of the term, is the ability to make judgments and choices based upon the use of your own mind. It is the opposite of being a conformist. It involves thinking and not the subordination to dogma where others stipulate the unquestionable edicts you are to follow. Independence is essentially the responsibility to think because no one else can do that for you.

As long as you have the option to walk away, produce, disagree, agree, or stand on your own terms you are independent.

The laws of logic, as well as millions of years of evolution, dictate that we are social creatures. We cannot outrun this and must obey this fact. To put it in shorthand; A is A. Relationships are ingrained in who we are as a species. After all, our primary mechanism is the ability to connect and reproduce (i.e., nature’s synonym for intimacy). The feminist concept of running society as a sexually-maladjusted misandrist version of Mad Max – a desolate wasteland of perpetually male-phobic female rogue drifters  – is incredibly contrary to reality and therefore ultimately destructive.

Further disrupting that nonsense, reality also dictates we need communication – the ability to convey ideas – in order to trade materialistically and spiritually with one another. We utilize this in order to capitalize upon knowledge in order to pursue our happiness.

It is only through the utilization of independence, and the absolute use of reason, we are capable of defining values for us to pursue and only through our values are we able to define who we are and what we wish to obtain. Through that pursuit, only then can a relationship be achieved.

Relationships are the result of independence – not the other way around.

Relationships are slavery and slathered with dependency. 

This may be the biggest 1984-spin on the definitions of the words relationship and dependency. Unfortunately, feminist millennials have taken the bait and are now having the switch unknowingly shoved up their asses.

One of the many snake-oil salesman – SORRY! – saleswoman techniques of feminism is to render relationships – only with men of course – as dependency.

A relationship with a man is currently painted as a straw hat-wearing plantation owner dragging a mutilated half-naked woman to his slave quarters.

But, relationships aren’t about forms of grotesque S&M dependency. A relationship is one of the most independent self-beneficial things a human being could ever GAIN.

Since we can only independently form values, we therefore can only value others who have done so for themselves. A relationship is effectively entering a union on your own terms with someone you value as an independent human being. If you pay attention to the concept of relationship you’d realize, by nature, that it involves trading value for value for mutual benefit. The master-slave dependency dynamic isn’t a true relationship since only one side profits.

Feminists lie and tell women they shouldn’t be dependent on a relationship with a man to gain self-esteem when the reverse is the truth. A functioning relationship is only possible if you have self-esteem beforehand.

Even if they honestly adhere to that idea, they will never give credence or acknowledgment to that fact. Instead, they’ll always render them fallaciously as being a means for shallow and scared women to seek male approval. Otherwise, if not lied to, women would most likely pursue them.

In a way though, they are correct in saying that you shouldn’t seek self-validation from others but why is that exclusive to women?  The same can apply to men as well. It’s a universal life lesson.

Intersectional Feminism.

To make matters worse, intersectional feminism (the idea that different social forces like skin color and sex organ play a role in privilege, domination, and enslavement) tells women that men, by virtue of birth, are always dishonestly on the highest rung of the societal pecking order. Any interaction or relationship with a man will always have him at the top constantly looking down upon them. They’re told men are nothing about power whether they want to be or not. Paranoia for the win.

It’s bad enough they think romance is slavery but now whenever a woman has sex with a man it’s only so many steps away from a Sunday afternoon’s patriarchal gang rape and stoning all due to “power imbalances”.

Of course, intersectional feminism evades reality on every single possible fundamental level including even history.

Women have never had more sexual freedom in the west in human history. They can choose every aspect of what they want from intimacy at every level. Just the fact that the phrase, “hookup culture” (the sexual revolution-inspired trend to have exclusively sex-based relationships) exists in the mainstream, usually in an agnostic context, proves that.

Feminists today, when analyzing women, look at them through the eyes of a lobotomized witch doctor. It’s probably not unusual for them to say things like, “Yes. Women by law in the west are forced to be with men”, without even blinking. If you seriously manage to listen all the way through a contemporary feminist’s assessment of western women in 2019, you’d swear we’re living in 1019.

Naturally, males always get the shit end of the sexual selection stick. If it isn’t dying out because a female didn’t pick you to reproduce with, it’s the #MeToo movement telling women men have NO idea what sex crimes are and that they can unknowingly commit rape like bumbling unaware soldiers of the Imperialist Japanese Empire. To top it off, don’t explain things to them (mansplaining), don’t hold doors open for them (Benevolent Sexism), and don’t sexually harass them (“Hey, beautiful.”).

Men can’t even turn to porn as a natural sexual outlet because that contributes to rape culture. No wonder why millennial men who want to date are depressed.

Hypocrisy. 

Behind all of this “trailblazing” millennial feminist Instagram meme wisdom, is the crux of their ideology – collectivism. Collectivism is a form of dependence and conformity where you are to sacrifice your life to the tribe and its prescribed leaders.

Feminism tells women that without this ideology they will be nothing more than lost sheep who, at any moment, can be lead into temptation and snatched up by the ever-looming patriarchy. The only path to salvation is to therefore turn themselves over to the divine feminist leaders. Gloria Steinem is my shepherd. There is nothing I shall want.

Does this sound like independence? Is being faithfully dependent upon dogma centered around conformity empowerment?

The holes in this argument are bigger than the cannonball holes in the Star-Spangled Banner. I thought they wanted independence for women.

Collectivist ideologies always resent the individual – the non-conformist. Since values can only be held and pursued individually, of course romantic relationships (only the ones with men) will be demonized. They rock the boat more than an Indonesian tsunami. Romantic relationships are rich in personal independent gain and goal obtainment. It separates the haves from the have-nots. Collectivists are second-handers. They are programmed to be maniacally jealous of those who bask in their own achievements and demonize them to the core of their humanity.

This is, of course, alluding to the decades old stereotype of fat ugly sexually-depraved feminists who roast in jealously at young exuberant well-groomed immaculately feminine divine women that get all the guys.

Adding to all the collectivist ideological benchmarks of feminism, is the fact that the entire ideology revolves around sex. Who breaks up the conformity of that? The opposite sex of course. Not only is it intellectually collectivism but it’s also superficially collectivism. What’s next? Will they all wear uniformed pink caps?

This has nothing to do with independence but everything to do with misandry and a preemptive attack to divide men and women for good. Do feminists ever rail against lesbian relationships? No. Lesbian relationships in the west are always rendered as Medal of Honor-worthy statements of power and independence despite the fact that no one is impressed nor cares.

Millennials.

So where do both ideologically non-feminist male and female – SORRY! – female and male non-feminist millennials fit into this mess? Limbo – a limbo most likely inspired by feminism.

The limbo they’ve been raised in executes firm principled convictions. Take a look at their, now close to, non-existent sex lives. Hookups and faceless one time partners are still prevalent since a lot of surveys find that just because someone is single doesn’t mean they’re not having sex.

What exactly do these range-of-the-moment impulsive and primal encounters reveal? They reveal that they are out to execute the entire family of commitment and its relatives value, integrity, and principle. Can you imagine when this anti-commitment movement fully takes over? No one will even be committed to finishing a sentence let alone maintaining a sexual position.

Suppressed Victorian-era men and women, under the tyrannical anti-sex and masturbation Church of England, had more meaningful sex than millennials. Think about that without suffering a massive stroke.

Despite any coherent analysis of their irrationality, millennials and the naive dating researchers who validate their raw emotions, seriously believe that they feel great about their choices of Franciscan monk celibacy yet reality is giving them the biggest middle finger history has ever seen.

Millennials are riddled with mental illnesses to the point of killing themselves and overdosing on drugs in such high numbers that young people now have the highest risk of fatality since the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic. The happiness for women has ironically been on a steady decline since the early 70s. Are those the signs of a generation that feels great? It all goes to show that millennials would rather feel than think about what they’re saying.

Millennial feminist women.

We live in a society where pompous and arrogant feminist millennial women perpetually tell millennial men they’re not needed and that they should shut up and step aside in order to let women take charge, not because of merit, but because of vagina.

Nice. Have your competitor step aside and shut up so you can go unchallenged and dishonestly win. That’s empowering.

Of course, they don’t mean what they say since now they’re complaining there are no real (i.e., affluent) men to marry. Even if they convince themselves to marry, they have to date down (hypogamy) and spend their life explaining away how a sophisticated female lawyer could marry a grungy male plumber.

Let me get this straight.

They tell men to step aside, shut up, go away, insult them with hashtags like #MenARETrash, say their pets are more important than them, and then say they want to marry them?

You dug your own grave and now you have to lay in it.

Women need men and men need women. There’s a reason why there’s more than one group of the same species.

No matter how much a feminist on Instagram posts egotistically arrogant nonsense like, “She wasn’t looking for a knight. She was looking for a sword”, she’ll be the first woman to call the knights in blue when 10 men, all brandishing ropes and razorblades, barge into her apartment at 3am declaring, “The night is young and we’re here to have a good time!”.

Is sex really hated?

Regardless of Tinder’s findings, dating apps are still a profitable business, Instagram models make careers off of showing the cleavage genetics and/or a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon, has endowed them with, porn websites are legitimate competition for Netflix, and sexting (sending nude photos and sexually-arousing texts) is still a thing.

Millennials, your double-speak is like nails on a chalkboard for logic.

What’s the point of this though? Am I implying that everyone everywhere should be in a relationship and perpetually plan to get married? No. My fundamental problem is that something that can be good for society is becoming obsolete for the all the wrong reasons. If you want to get rid of relationships at least do it without irrational fear mongering, evading nature, poorly constructing intersectional conspiracy theories, and displays of arrogant blowhard feelings of empowerment.

You’d still be wrong for doing so, though.

 

 

 

Heterosexual Men are a Plague on Civilization

I didn’t say that, imply it, nor agree with it, but a feminist writer came out and expressed that in more ways than one in an opinion piece for NBC News titled, “Miley Cyrus’ split with Liam Hemsworth isn’t just celebrity gossip – it’s a blow to the patriarchy”.

I’m not going to counter every point brought up in this nonsensical work of journalism, but just the ones I think are common feminist talking points that keep going uncriticized on a massive scale in the mainstream.

“Over the past week, an assortment of trending stories — from Jeffrey Epstein to the Dayton and El Paso mass shooters, to Miley Cyrus’s separation and Julianne Hough’s declaration that she’s “not straight” — together have laid bare the strictures of an American patriarchy on the edge of a nervous breakdown. As the status quo, heterosexuality is just not working.”

Off the bat, the author’s misandry is immediately exposed when she groups all straight men together as suicidal child-molesting mass murderers. The reason I can confidently type that is because, according to feminism, patriarchy is something that all men benefit from. So, just by being born a man (i.e., original sin) you’ll be a part of the same diabolical sexist system that Epstein and mass murderers are a part of.

Damn. I was having a good life until I found that out. Now I feel bad for things that I didn’t do and have no moral responsibility to fix.

Not surprisingly, the stupidity of her point goes to a new level. The author now states that heterosexuality is a faulty made up conformist trend perpetuated by the patriarchy. All this time, I thought it was an evolutionary mechanism used to fulfill two primary goals – reproduction and survival.

I could put billions of links here of heterosexuality working because there seems to be a lot of examples among 7 billion humans, chickens, ducks, kangaroos, dinosaurs, birds, camels, giraffes, insects, and every other species to exist in the animal kingdom then and now. I don’t think a washed up Disney has-been is going to be able to end – even for a millisecond – hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, however I think she will lead young women into an abyss of confusion and misandry for hundreds of thousands of years to come.

For the most part, there isn’t much evidence of homosexuality existing in nature. Since that’s the case, that doesn’t imply it’s a sin or something to be shunned and banned anymore than driving cars (something also not included in the evolutionary package).

Fellow WordPress blogger, Evolutionary Biologist, Jerry Coyne recently wrote a great post on two supposedly “gay” penguins that recently emerged. Usually, instances of same-sex relationships in nature have nothing to do with what we humans would call being “gay”. If you’re to immediately assume a same-sex relationship of some sort makes you gay than you should feel comfortable in claiming that prison makes you gay.

“As a snapshot of 2019 America, these stories present a startling picture: Men continue to coerce, harass, rape and kill girls and women — and go to extreme lengths to avoid responsibility for their actions. On the other side of the issue, girls and women are challenging heterosexuality, and even absconding from it altogether.”

As a snapshot of 2019 America, these stories present a startling picture: Men continue to save women, that may be feminists who hate them, from drowning in submerged cars. Some even go to extreme lengths to apologize for something that they may have or may not have done. On the other side of the issue, girls and women are living in one of the safest best times in human history for girls and women especially for crimes concerning rape.

“Framed differently, the picture is this: Men need heterosexuality to maintain their societal dominance over women. Women, on the other hand, are increasingly realizing not only that they don’t need heterosexuality, but that it also is often the bedrock of their global oppression.”

Heterosexuality is common because it’s what helps the human race survive and reproduce. This includes helping, ironically, create more gay people. And what happened to free choice? Aren’t there any women that love being in heterosexual relationships?

“Patriarchy is at its most potent when oppression doesn’t feel like oppression, or when it is packaged in terms of biology, religion or basic social needs like security comfort, acceptance and success. Heterosexuality offers women all these things as selling points to their consensual subjection.”

Essentially the argument is this:

When there’s evidence of patriarchy there’s patriarchy. When there isn’t evidence of patriarchy there’s patriarchy.

This point correlates to a feminist theory known as Internalized Misogyny. What this concept plainly states is that it’s easy for women to not be able to think for themselves and be manipulated by men thus making them, in one way or another, inferior. This can include things like not being smart or brave enough to fight against “oppressors”.

I didn’t say it. The author did.

“Historically, women have been conditioned to believe that heterosexuality is natural or innate…”

Go to a zoo and watch bizarre creatures who are merely guided by their percepts, and not free will, engage in heterosexual activities.

“In the “Women’s Health” September cover story, [Julianne] Hough, an actress and “Dancing With the Stars” champion, describes her personal transformation, which included “de-layering all the survival tactics I’ve built up my whole life.” One of these survival tactics, she says, meant “connecting to the woman inside that doesn’t need anything, versus the little girl that looked to [my husband] to protect me.” She voices concern that her husband will respond negatively to this newfound self-sufficiency: “I was like, ‘Is he going to love this version of me?’ But the more I dropped into my most authentic self, the more attracted he was to me. Now we have a more intimate relationship.”

This paragraph expresses a recently in-vogue feminist misandrist perception that involves a butchered definition of the word, “independence”.

In order, to get women away from men they try to paint romantic relationships as sacrificial, dependent, and subordinative. They then go on to claim that whenever a man wants to offer “protection” he really has intentions of enslavement. This is why a lot of young women today refuse to date men or get married as they think it will end up with them having to give up all of their enjoyment of life.

Who said you have to give up anything in the first place?

It’s laughable to hear an obscure Hollywood minion offer up advice on, ironically, what makes a relationship stable. A relationship is not two completely spiritually isolated human beings living together. Intimacy doesn’t arise from civility alone. A relationship is when you trade value for value to mutual benefit – not set up a trade barrier.

“Part of the intimacy entailed telling her husband that she was “not straight” but had chosen to be with him. This is an inspirational statement, because it offers a new model for women to enter into heterosexual relationships with men that redefines the power dynamic.”

That must be nice for him to hear. “Hi, honey I’m not straight so therefore it’s impossible for me to romantically love you. I also think that if I was straight I’d be your slave.”

According to Intersectional Feminism, (the idea that different social forces like privilege, skin color, and sex organ play a role in privilege, domination and enslavement) the man – by birthright – will always be the natural slave master as they are more “privileged” and “powerful” in society.

Of course, all of this nonsense flies out the window if you’re a lesbian.

“She [Cyrus] added that her goal for 2019 was to “live carefree but not careless” — a brilliant distinction that could serve as a mantra for anyone in a marriage, straight or gay. The difference between carefree and careless in a way represents the ideological division in the definition of “freedom.”

Again, “carefree” in the newest feminist definition essentially states that this will only be possible when distancing yourself from men and only men. Straight men.

“To be free is not to have the power to do anything you like,” Simone de Beauvoir writes in “The Ethics of Ambiguity.” Indeed, Friedrich Nietzsche asserted that “freedom is the will to be responsible for ourselves.”

Great. Now the author is quoting the serial killer, Nietzsche. Freedom, in and of itself, doesn’t denote “responsibility”. That’s more proper of a term for independence. Freedom, instead, is the right to consent or revoke consent.

I’ll only give the ideological respect I never had for the author back when she quotes Ted Bundy.

“And this responsibility carries over from the self to society, which is why, according to Toni Morrison, “The function of freedom is to free someone else.” For Audre Lorde this definition of freedom is a social contract: “I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own.”

No it’s not. If you’re chained to others constantly working for them as a collectivist societal duty you’re not free. Moreover, by this atrocious philosophical abomination of a quote, you’re not “free” as long as someone else who shares your sex organ isn’t “free”. You’re not a slave or siamese twin by proxy – you’re an individual.

“Cyrus’s and Hough’s respective declarations does more than raise visibility for the queer community at large — it is a powerful assertion of their bodily autonomy and control over their sexuality.”

What law in the west states that you don’t have control over your sexuality? What credible study shows that, on a mass scale, people in the west don’t support freedom of sexual orientation?

“And this notion — that an adult is responsible for their own sex life (how they have sex, who they have sex with, when, where, and why they have sex) — portrays a sharp contrast in our culture. Where men seem to never to have to take responsibility for their actions, women always must take responsibility for not only their own actions but the actions of men.”

Men never take responsibility for their own actions? Really? Most prisoners in the U.S. are male. And how many do you want to bet are innocent or have committed a “crime” that shouldn’t be a crime?

“While men stew in their mess, women are rising. They are taking back control of their lives and their bodies and they are questioning the foundation of the patriarchy — heterosexuality — that has kept them blindly subordinate for centuries.”

For once, she is right. Men are in a tidal wave of a mess right now. They’re close to becoming a minority in colleges across the nation. They’re killing themselves, overdosing on drugs, getting diagnosed with mental illnesses left and right, and as a result have declined in their average lifespan.

Way to go men. You bastard pushovers.

Women, on the other side, aren’t doing that much better since they’re told to be paranoid of men and then advised to go out into the world with this false Mad Max “chip-on-their-shoulder” sense of bravery in a society where they really don’t need it.

Godspeed for men and women. The future isn’t good and – especially men – don’t care.

Rest in final peace.

Footnote –

As a budding SJW-ologist, I noticed that the author made a slip up. The proper term she should’ve used was, heteronormativity. Heteronormativity is a word that means heterosexuality is the oppressive societally-constructed norm. If you’re not careful, you may come across sounding like you hate heterosexuality in and of itself. Either way, I don’t think the author made too much of a mistake in not using the term because she seems to genuinely hate straight people.

Then again, there isn’t much difference in heteronormativity and hating heterosexuality in the first place.